Ann: Quarterly Activities/Appendix 5B Cash Flow Report, page-20

The Secretary doesn’t have the power to reinstate consent. The matter was referred to the IPC and it would highly unlikely that would change. The IPC has already stated there will be no public hearings as they have already been held. It is also highly unlikely that would change either.

Under the amendment the Secretary has the power to determine whether the on-site enabling infrastructure, in this case the transmission line, forms part of the single state significant development or whether it does not. If it does not, then another development pathway may be available. That is the limit of the new power under the amendment.

The Court of Appeal said that the mine and the transmission line could be addressed in separate development applications, but the transmission line could not be addressed as development which was permissible without consent, as it usually would be, because of its connection to the mine. That is why consent was voided.

The recent letters between the Department and SVL suggest that both parties are fully aware that whatever pathway is chosen the IPC requires sufficient information to consider approval of the transmission line and any other changes SVL has highlighted in the recent Feasibility/Optimistion study. SVL confirmed their understanding of this fact.

What SVL will do and when they will do it is anyone’s guess at the moment. I am hoping they can walk and chew gum at the same time and the required information is well on the way of being finalised.

But if it was me, I would be keeping the actual timeframe in confidence until the information has been formally provided to the Department and the IPC. It is obvious that the action group will be looking for grounds to legally challenge any redetermination of the consent, if granted.