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!
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- the bowler blunder - a reasoned argument
Here I will reveal for the first time, a blunder in Bolwer's...
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 4 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add CAZ (ASX) to my watchlist
|
|||||
Last
1.5¢ |
Change
0.000(0.00%) |
Mkt cap ! $6.919M |
Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
1.5¢ | 1.6¢ | 1.5¢ | $3.149K | 207.8K |
Buyers (Bids)
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
2 | 40208 | 1.5¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
1.6¢ | 350567 | 2 |
View Market Depth
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
2 | 40208 | 0.015 |
3 | 533705 | 0.014 |
4 | 1149066 | 0.013 |
3 | 618603 | 0.012 |
2 | 1100000 | 0.010 |
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
0.016 | 350567 | 2 |
0.017 | 54000 | 1 |
0.018 | 625000 | 1 |
0.019 | 671540 | 2 |
0.022 | 136363 | 1 |
Last trade - 15.13pm 02/09/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
Featured News
CAZ (ASX) Chart |