So mucg so I'm tempted, just for the fun of it, to fly to Perth just to see Bowler being questioned at the Judicial Review. But I bet he doesn't have to appear.
But at least his reasons have to appear. Ha! WHat a joke. But again, I bet you even if CAZ's QC can humiliate Bowler by disecting his reasons, he won't. He'll play the respectful role. Doesn't help I reckon to play the man and not just the policies.
And if I was CAZ's QC I'd love to have the case. Even from my generally stupid one eyed ignorant of the law point of view, I can't anticipate anything other than a blood bath! What more could a QC want from a case?
The only worry I have is that the Minister need only have one single solitary unbreachable arguement upon which he can reast his decision. Despite any number of stupiditudes on his part.
I also look forward to hearing why Bowler's department didn't provide him (as I read) with a recommendation. I wonder if, in court, the department can be required to provide one? I doubt it. Still, it would be fascinating to know why they didn't. If it was unusual to not provide a recommendation. SOmetimes departments do not speak up when they know the minister would not welcome an opinion.
As for Bowler's legal training, well its as unknown to me as what is his IQ? Has anyone met the old bastard? Meant with the usual Aussie sense of familiarity, of course!
And why can't ownership of the Exploartion licence be determined by calling for tenders from RIO and CAZ over how much Royalties they're prepared to pay? After all, isn't that the most important component of the public interest in the land? And why not make it a dutch auction, starting from say 15% and counting down in 0.5% increments. First one to raise their hand gets the licence.
CAZ Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Not Held
