Mr. John Quinlan:

In point of fact, I do not believe we can. I am speaking from memory on this and I believe we had a lengthy dialogue on that particular case at the previous meeting when we appeared before the committee. We are constrained in what we can say about individual cases, and rightly so. I am speaking from memory on this, as it has not been possible for me to check the full facts, and I am relying on some of my colleagues here, but there is a system in place for people in the area to appeal the licence. I do not recall whether that happened but it was available to people. I am aware of the controversy there was around it at the time. We discussed this at length on the last occasion. The only point I would made in concluding on this is that the procedures adopted by the Department have not been found to be at fault by anybody to date, the licence has not been overturned and it is a sound and valid one. That would say something about the procedures. Decisions, whether one refuses or grants a licence, can be controversial. The important point is that there are procedures in place whereby applicants for a licence who are disappointed, or members of the public who may be disappointed at the decision, have recourse to the procedures that are in place. That was entirely the case in the instance referred to by the Senator. My understanding, and I am speaking purely from memory on this, is that whatever systems were there were exhausted. As far as I know the licence is in place and the procedures have stood up to the scrutiny.