The following tells me, that I was right, the Government fully intends to let this run its course in the Federal/High Court, and I expect an outcome in 6-12months after March 2023 (so probably September 2023 to March 2024).
"... The only decision that the member for Cook appears to have made in any of his additional portfolios was in relation to the PEP-11 title in the resources portfolio. It's not just a matter of principle. The decision was a real one that has real-world consequences. The consequences are so significant that impacted parties have challenged the decision through the courts, and that case is ongoing. With that in mind, I will be very circumspect in my remarks and confine them to what is already on the public record, lest I add to the current contention before the courts." Source: King, Madeleine MP, House of Representatives on, 30/11/2022, MOTIONS - Member for Cook - Censure.
She is basically saying she doesn't want to say anything about it "lest I add to the current contention before the courts". This tells me they have no intention of conceding. Also... when you really think about it, if the Government does "concede", it still needs some sort of legal process to deal with, and make the first application's status dealt with, the only way I can think this can occur is the court process. Even with the precedent, they had to run it through the courts to make it official anyways (even though they reached an agreement in "mediation").
This whole paragraph basically says they can't just come to some sort of out-of-court "anything" in my opinion, the status of the first application must be processed to completion under a jurisdiction that has sufficient authority: "3 By reason that the proposed consent orders seek public law relief, the consent of the parties is an insufficient foundation, of itself, for the making of the orders. The Court must be satisfied that the proposed orders are within the public law jurisdiction of the Court and that it is appropriate to make the orders having regard to the public character of the relief. The relevant principles were described by French J in Kovalev v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 557; (1999) 100 FCR 323. The principles in Kovalev have been applied by courts of appeal: see, for example, Fleet v District Court of New South Wales [1999] NSWCA 363 at [59]; and Irwin v Military Rehabilitation & Compensation Commission [2009] FCAFC 33; (2009) 174 FCR 574 at [13]-[14]." Source: 03-Dec-2019 11:00 Judgment Justice Colvin Finalised - Granted/Allowed by Consent https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2019/2019fca2032
