@aclemenceBelieve whatever you like @aclemence. I am unlikely to...

@aclemence

Believe whatever you like @aclemence. I am unlikely to change your mind. You probable still believe the "spin" about the egress of water into the MAT.

I get the distinct impression that you still have not read Part 3 Section 9 (4) (b) of the Northern Australia Infastructure Facility Act 2016? To make it easier for your I have provided you with a copy; below. You can do a search if you think I am pulling your leg.

I read what Part 3 Section 9 (4) (b) said in July 2022, after seeing an article, likely based on insider leaking, in the AFR. As you can read below, it says NAIF should not provide financial assistance "in relation to a particular person"

Without a dollar spent on legal advice I pursued my case that Kim Jackson and Scott Farquhar constituted "a particular person" For many months, with representations to many, including ASIC, the Attorney-General and the two ministers responsible for the Northern Australia Infastructure Facility Act 2016, I made my case. It frightens me to think what lawyers would have charged for the work I did. Work, most of which would not have been necessary if ASIC and NAIF legal officers had done their jobs. I won't go on.

Try taking the blinkers off by asking yourself why Jackson and Farquhar, through their Skip Capital, only bought 19.9%, or there about, of Genex Power Ltd's shares in 2022 and why they might not have bought more shares since since 4 March 2024. Again I won't go on.

You are mistaken if you think ASIC is not seeking to avoid this matter, a matter involving the same core item, the $610 million concessional loan from NAIF. The core item is the same but the issues are different. What I am seeing happen within ASIC now, is, as best I can tell, a repeat of 2022.

What happened in the 2022 takeover was, most likely, not because of ASIC, but despite of ASIC.




Part 3—Investment Mandate

9 Investment Mandate

(1) The responsible Ministers must, by legislative instrument, give directions to the Board about the performance of the Facility’s functions.

Note: Section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the direction—see regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 44(2)(b) of that Act.

(2) The directions are the Investment Mandate.

(3) The Board must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the Facility and its subsidiaries comply with the Investment Mandate.

Limit on Investment Mandate

(4) The Investment Mandate must not direct, or have the effect of directing, the Facility to provide financial assistance:

(a) for the development of particular infrastructure; or

(b) in relation to a particular person