Yesterday saw a very interesting update on the PEP11 court case....

Yesterday saw a very interesting update on the PEP11 court case. The company has to walk a very fine line to balance keeping SH informed and keeping their legal strategy confidential. So the update on paper isn't too revealing but the changes themselves do provide significant insight. My interpretations are as follows:-

Asset/Advent filed the case to force the Joint Authority to make a decision.
The Government had until recently not shown any interest in making a decision.
This legal action caught the Government by surprise, they did not expect this.
The Government were forced to revise their strategy of delaying making a decision, and issued the "preliminary view".
In political speak, they could then argue they were being seen to "be doing something".
However, with the deadline approaching for the Government to lodge it's defence, the Government had to make a move.
They don't actually have a defence, they did not want to file a defence, as doing so would force them to hand over to Advent all the PEP11 documents relating to the process.
These documents will be damning, they will be embarrassing to the Government, and in my opinion show evidence of corruption.
So, with the deadline of 14th October approaching, and given Advent had no need to do anything but await the Government filing, what changed?

My interpretation is that the Government tried to get the case struck out.
I think they approached the court and argued that their preliminary view meant the court case was no longer needed and should be struck out.
Thankfully for us, our lawyers would not have a bar of that, and successfully argued to the Judge that the preliminary view did not constitute a decision so the case should proceed.
The Governments lawyers would then have argued that they will make the decision once Advent replies to the preliminary view.
The Judge has then told the Government, (a) you have not yet made a decision, (b) therefore I will not strike this case out, and (c) if the Government says it intends to make a decision, then show me proof, make the decision, and if you haven't by the time I get back from my Christmas break, then the case proceeds in front of a very angry Judge.

This has created an onus on the Government to follow through, make their decision, which I think they will just after Parliament breaks in late November. With the election looming, the current situation bears strong similarities to the Scomo 2021 scenario. Scomo made his decision on the 16th December 2021 for a May 2022 election. I think we will see this strategy repeated, the ALP will elect to remove PEP11 from the election conversation as they will not want the "Albo breaks promises" narrative being used by the Liberals in the election campaign, nor will they want to be in court still fighting it.

So, the only question left is, what will Husic do?
We now know that NOPTA has recommended both applications for approval, that is undeniable.
Husic now faces the moral and ethical dilemma, does he follow the advice and approve? or does he do what Albo tells him to do, which is illegal, and ethically wrong, and refuse, despite knowing the decision will get overturned in court which will be a career ender for him personally?

JMO. Not Advice. GLTAH.