I do understand your point even if it is somewhat Utopian....

I do understand your point even if it is somewhat Utopian. Evidence suggests that JA decisions are never made in the timeframes provided by NOPTA no matter the degree of difficulty. Is this acceptable? No.

I suspect part of the conundrum can be explained by step one. NOPTA prepare a "decision maker" nomination form which allows the Minister to delegate, see as follows:-


It is undoubtedly correct to assume that MK did not delegate the decision on PEP11. But, I expect on some of the vanilla applications, she would delegate and these are the applications that get processed more promptly. I expect that any decision outstanding for more than 50 days is sitting on MKs desk. Each of those is unique and they are not handled on a first in first out basis.

You are also correct in suggesting she hasn't read it yet, or there is some sort of back and forth. MK has been across PEP11 as Shadow Minister, as respondent in the Federal Court case, and now as JA member. She only needed to check one thing when the NOPTA advice arrived, did they recommend to approve or decline. If decline, exhale, sign, done. If approve, then.......

So, Advent is stuck in a loop. Because the next task on the Work Program is drill, and you need tenure to get NOPSEMA, there is very little that can be done until this decision is handed down. That the permit has expired means our application should be treated differently? Holistically, yes, in practice, no. Ultimately, compliance with the work program is the responsibility of the titleholder. LTH know the back story to this. However, the underlying point of NOPTA providing a timeframe for response and the onus on the JA to process in a timely fashion is fair and the the fact this never happens shows the system is currently flawed.