the bowler blunder - a reasoned argument

Here I will reveal for the first time, a blunder in Bolwer's explanation of his decision.

Bowler states his reasons at the following web site:

http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/media/media.nsf/news/4AB296A1F6D75AF44825715D0024BCEA?opendocument

In his explanation he provides 9 undisputed facts, and then declares he has 3 reasons for not granting CAZ the application.
======================================
He said:

Each of the three reasons I will elaborate upon was sufficient on its own for me to be satisfied that the public interest was best served by terminating the Cazaly Resources application.
======================================

My point?

It is that the 3rd reason is not a justification/reason that has meaning.
It is not in itself reasonable grounds for making a decision in accordance
With s.111.

=========================================
He states his 3rd reason thus:

Fairness

The effective administration of Ministerial discretion under the WA Mining Act requires that the outcomes be consistent.

In considering this matter, I was particularly focused on ensuring the answer I came to would be the same were the circumstances of the parties' to be reversed. I have no doubt that this would be the case.

In other words, if the roles of Rhodes Ridges JV and Cazaly Resources were to be reversed, I would have found in favour of Cazaly Resources.

Accordingly I am satisfied that the public interest was best served by terminating the Cazaly Resources application.

Minister's office: 9222 9699

End of quote.
========================================

So what's my point?

It is insufficient for the Minister to say, because I have treated the parties fairly, because I have not favoured either party, because I have considered both parties equally, as if both parties could have swapped their positions, I can therefore make a decision based only on the 9 facts to reach a decision.

It is simply insufficient because s.111 requires Bowler to develop reasonable grounds (arguments). Just being fair is, in itself, not a reason for making a decision. Its a principle which gives rise to the requirement to exercise procedural fairness.

Treating the case fairly is not a reasonable ground for coming to a decision in the public interest.
Therefore, Bowler’s stated reason number 3 does not stand alone “as sufficient on its own for me to be satisfied that the public interest was best served….”.
========================================

But bear in mind that I, millways, have little formal legal education. ANd depend on a spelling chequer every time millways makes a comment.

========================================
Well may we say God Save the Queen.
For nothing will save the Minister assisting!