it was a plan that Regis worked closely with government on,...

it was a plan that Regis worked closely with government on, (including pliberseks own office.) with the result being an approved project.

the issue is this section 10 sits outside that process. you have backups or contingencies during the approval process and its part of consultation.

you dont have a plan for when joe bloggs 2 states over lodges a protest, but also wont say why.

*if* you have had such a career the. you would intimately be aware of how critical a clear and well defined approval process is.

McP has been on the drawing board for so long due to approval and working with key stakeholders to ensure all regulatory and compliance hurdles are overcome. which was achieved in may last year. The tailings dam was a risk that could be managed and posed to cultural significance issues as found by the local indigenous owners, as well as Pliberseks own office. This section 10 makes a mockery of the entire process and ignores that determination on nothing more than whispers in the ministers ear, who wont repeat what said whispers were.

I have my criticisms of Regis, and can argue that they dragged their feet with the approval process. But once that approval is granted, to throw it in the bin based on aforementioned whispers is asinine, and if you do have a history of working in industry you would understand the significance of this decision that has ramifications far beyond Regis, Mining or NSW. Plibersek clearly doesnt.

'just move the dam and start approval process again, then i can hear some new whispers in 5 years and stall i.' The wider mining industry is right to be concerned with this decision, and I'm certain it will play into future investment decisions within Australia