This does go to the point that the regulator needs a kick up the...

This does go to the point that the regulator needs a kick up the backside for poor processes and communications. The "up to" 4 months minimum time was always a rubbish metric to use on its own. I have seen regulators use combinations of average times, times for 80% (or some other number) of applications, maybe median and mode for applications or maybe of approved applications. They could also use an hourglass presentation to represent the milestones being cleared during the assessment process. These processes should not be black box efforts. There are not many excuses these days for measurement and reporting to be as dumb as a single "up to 4 months minimum" metric.

I see it often quoted that South Australia is a tier one mining jurisdiction. Obviously analysis must indicate that is the case but you would think a tier one jurisdiction would make a better fist of the approval process. both in terms of timing and transparency. Quebec is another jurisdiction that rates itself as tier one but some of the approval processes there run for years (as in more than 5 years), which makes investing in mining ventures unnecessarily risky. Qld has a good system where if they identify a mining project as offering significant merits to the community they will classify it as a coordinated project and their Coordinator General will help the project over the hurdles - same hurdles as everyone else but help from people who know how the regulatory processes work. There is a vanadium project that just listed that is getting the concierge treatment by the Qlders who want to develop a vanadium industry in north Qld. It is patently obvious that the Siviour project is a sector making project for SA and I would argue it is being shabbily treated by the SA regulators.