You can't claim critical discourse by presenting a single side...

You can't claim critical discourse by presenting a single side of the PEP11 debate which is what you have done. Anybody who DYOR will find numerous publicly available articles and "protest groups" who are vehemently anti PEP11. Threads on BPH have been dedicated to this very issue, SOC, Greens, Zali, it is actually more available in the public domain that the argument for PEP11. There was barely a word on the failure of the Greens motion in the Senate to have PEP11 permit cancelled. No regular poster on this company shies away from the opposition. But, if you want to put a balanced position forward, you equally need to alert readers to the fact that the result of the Senate motion effectively gives Keith Pitt a mandate to approve PEP11, that is the effect of votes in Parliament. You would also make reference to the fact that Keith Pitt has legislatively embedded power to make the final call on PEP11 himself irrespective of what the NSW member thinks. You would also mention the speech Angus Taylor made in Parliament in response to a question from Zali Steggall on PEP11. You would mention the 4 different initiatives from the 2020 budget such as 5 basin funding for the specific purpose of unlocking currently un-explored gas prospects. I could go on. I have no problem with presenting factors that are relevant, both positive and negative, but please do not dress your post up as discourse, it's a one sided perspective that could adversely impact people's decision making process. As always, DYOR. JMO.