I agree with your first sentence entirely (and it is the rejection reason that is the key here IMO). Refer:
disallowed/politics/federal/unequivocal-full-stop-albanese-pledged-to-rule-out-pep11-coastal-communities-are-still-waiting-20240207-p5f34r.htmlThe whole process that the ALP has embarked on to me is to ensure that legally they need to deal with Morrisons stuff ups and put in place due process to ensure the project is cancelled (on the assumption the rejection reason has some validity although have to say with an election a few months away the ALP have bought themselves some time to anyway given as it stands PEP11 has been rejected and an election will happen before anything else happens here). This they have done, but the question the judge needs to determine is whether the decision made was unduly prejudiced by the ALP's pre-existing views.
It would seems caucus policy is that PEP11 be refused, and that policy is the question here. However, having a policy does not preclude one from refusing a project if that project can be seen to be environmentally damaging nor not in the public interest - it is this evidence that is the key here, not the policy itself. Peter Garret when he was environment minister approved a number of projects that he was morally opposed to (because they passed environmental approvals)
An example - would you allow oil drilling in a world heritage area. You might have govt policy saying never, but on environmental and public interest grounds it would be rejected outright and regardless of government policy. Obviously the situation here is different, so the question really is how stringent are the opposition grounds that are based on environmental and public interest grounds here for PEP11. If the rejection reasons are flimsy then you have a basis that the ALP policy itself and decision maker were prejudiced by that policy.
Too me it remains amazing that a country rich in gas is facing an energy crisis with idiotic proposals over east to have LNG regasification facilities (meaning we are effectively rebuying the gas (via LNG) we have exported and now importing back). Made my views pretty clear in the political thread a while back on this -
Post #:77235924All IMO
(20min delay)