Yes and no. I think as there is no time limit, they thought we just do nothing. It's not technically breaking the law.
But the act I posted yesterday covers this exact situation.
It covers federal politicians, ato, Medicare, centrelink when no decision is made that needs to be.
Its a federal law, but as the state is intertwined, the federal court will be able to deal with a state matter, that if a state matter only would not be able to do.
Now they will be asked and have to answer exactly why they have sat for 4 years on pep11.
If its environental they will need to provide all those facts.
If it is because they hoped to alter a law, that won't wash, amended laws, as in the case of nsw, are not backdated to before the pep11 application to be valid.
Also there maybe issues with moving the decision from the resources portfolio to the industry portfolio after resources sat for 3 years.
With this action the government will need to provide exactly why and looking at it on the surface something smells off.
The government.
1. Makes a decision on there own. 2. Makes a decision via consent.
3. The judge does. This option is bad as explained, because it will include sensitive Information that the government won't want public.
I bet they make a decision. Even if decided via consent and it's confidential. Asset energy will still have gotten sensitive information.
That's the decision. This is not determining if the decision is approved or declined.
That would be a seperate judicial review on decision, not time.
Atleast bph can move forward in one way or the other.
BPH Price at posting:
2.2¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
