from todays smh, page-2

The author of this article presumes that people are stupid.

CAZ will rely on Martin's legal opinion of the construction of the statutes and RIO will rely on their own opinions.

Martin will excuse himself..that is a given. But imagine the backrooms of the Judicial offices when junior decision makers make a decision CONTRARY to the most senior person in WA in an area of statute construction.

This case is about the interpretation of the statutes and specifically about whether the Minister has a discretion under s111A(d) to interpret that "public interest" means that CAZ should not have access to the ground and not that RIO's ability as a miner is in the "public's interest".

The Minister did not address that CAZ claim was not in the public interest. He "incorrectly" addressed RIOs claims and in that respect he made an incorrect decision.

111A is about a discretion to quash a claim and not substitute anothers calims over the other.

The SMH writer has very little understanding of the statute or he has never even read it and even if he did, he does not understand it in the context of the construction of the statute itself.