After reading Bowler's explanation I conclude that you can ignore the "fairness" reason provided as it contradicts the tone and implicit meaning of the document.
While I'm not a mind reader, reasons (1) and (2) seem to be simply saying, "Rio's bigger, it has more money, it invests more and it's important not to anger this monster".
I think the above is logical; power politics if you will.
The public interest is served by placating the Rio monster, so was Bowler's judgement.
As to the legal and equity related arguments, sure CAZ may be "right" but it does not have the "might", and as the minister has discretionary powers - i.e. room to maneuver - don't be surprised at the outcome.
CAZ Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Not Held
