Local News, page-20

@bollinger I think you're missing the point. You need to break down the elements of principle (2). It says "its actions were the only option to achieve the objective to protect the public interest."

Its actions - means the actions of the government. So in this case, that's the section 44 order which had the effect of ending all gold mining operations across Thailand.

Only option - this means no other options were at the government's disposal.

Protect the public interest - here they have to prove that the action was in the public interest, and public interest includes the health and wellbeing of the people.

You're arguing that the government can 'arrange' that people were sick, and protecting them from sickness is in the public interest. Look there's evidence and counter evidence, and it's the balance and legitimacy of the evidence that matters to the Tribunal. But let's assume the government can convince the Tribunal that people were sick and there was a causal link between the mining operations the people's sickness. If there is a problem and a causal link, the government will still have to prove that its actions were the only option to solve the problem. That's where the government comes unstuck. How can you prove that the only option is to use a broad plenary power that is absolute and can't be appealed when you have an Environment Act and Mining Act that provides for dealing with that very matter?

This is ignoring the fact that they also have to prove that the action was non-discriminatory for the exemption to apply.