Plibersek needs to answer this., page-26

Yes - my apologies - the "Reply To" function is incredibly buggy.

Its an interesting case study in approvals for future law students and complicated by other RRL specific factors in that many shareholders and the market didn't place much value on the Mcphillamys project - probably due to a range of factors including the lengthy approval timelines and the low grade and escalating costs, although if approved 10 years ago, this would have been in production, and would have been making money at todays gold prices.

The other legal/appeals options may not have been explored by RRL management yet - but I would argue that as a precedent - this sets a very bad precedent and could be fought all the way through federal and state avenues, and not just courts, but other quasi-judicial avenues such as the newly formed Federal NACC and even individual litigation from any affected parties. There will also be the secrecy aspect to the decision that could become increasingly problematic if any court cases or regulatory reviews get underway.

Now obviously this will take a long time and if it eventually gets to say the High Court and the High Court rules that "Sorry - a minister has ultimate discretion and is not bound by any laws and accountable to non-one" then at least the investment community would have that ruling to work their way forward from here, and consign NSW and possibly Australia's jurisdiction risk basis from First World Jurisdiction like Canada or the USA to "May as well go exploring in the DRC/Venezuela etc" - if nothing else thats something worth finding out, for all the entire industry. Its early days yet and the full consequences of the Section 10 have yet to flow down to the local and state governments, both native title claimant groups, other stakeholders like nearby farmers and landowners plus all the state and federal government agencies and departments.

I think the next phase could be an attempt to Section 10 an existing mining lease in an operation that is producing, if that occurs then I imagine that any state government is not going to take that one without considerable legal effort to overturn. So some could make the point that the economics and particular planning and permission pathway is almost irrelevant as this becomes a matter of legal precedent, and if you want to win a legal precedent you probably want to pick the most 'airtight' and clear case on offer at the time, is McPhils in this category and will it be RRL or possibly other parties like Mining Industry peak bodies pursue this?

Just remember that the NT Cattle Farmers are still arguing with Commonwealth lawyers about the final amount of compensation from the Live Export ban done by the Gillard government despite eventually "winning" their case years ago. I only bring this up as an example and something to reflect on about the limits of absolute ministerial discretion - quite the long journey for those farmers involved.