10 In fact, the amended licence was issued on 17 January 2007, which was the day after the actual decision was made. The Water Act 1989 does not have the same detailed provisions about not issuing permits until after the expiration of time for lodging applications for review as does the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for example. Thus the fact that the amended licence was issued before the expiration of the time appointed for lodging an application for review would not preclude such an application for review being lodged within the 28 day period. It is arguable whether clause 65 of schedule 1 prohibits an extension of time in the present circumstances given that the licence has not been issued "on or after the expiration of time appointed for lodging application for review". Indeed, it was issued before. However, I do not finally need to determine this point because I do not consider it is fair or equitable to extend time for other reasons. Nevertheless I consider that the intent of clause 65 of schedule 1 lends weight to these reasons, the intent being that once appeal times have expired and permits or licences have been issued they should not then be open to challenge.
11 When the 28 day appeal period expired, South Gippsland Water acquired a vested right to its licence and that right should not be lightly disturbed. This is a right to an amended licence allowing a new bore free from the possibility of an appeal. South Gippsland Water is a public authority. We are in a time of severe drought when water authorities such as South Gippsland Water are having a difficult time in managing resources and maintaining supply to consumers. Mr Norton would need to show a significant detriment to his interests that would outweigh the public interest in not disturbing the amendment to the licence which has been granted. Mr Norton was unable to do this. Indeed, neither his application for review nor his responses at the hearing reveal how his interests are affected by the decision at all. It is a pre-requisite for review of a decision under section 64 of the Water Act 1989 that a person's interests are affected by the decision.
12 Mr Norton's concerns appear to relate to the way in which the water allocation is being managed under this licence and how groundwater resources are being managed in general. Most of his concerns appear to relate to the application by South Gippsland Water to increase its water allocation. This application has not yet been decided though and is not relevant to the present proceeding.
13 The difficulty that Southern Rural Water has had in understanding the application for review is shared by the Tribunal. This understanding was not illuminated by Mr Norton at the hearing. In my view, it is not the role of the Tribunal to try and work out what an applicant's case is. Rather, it is for the applicant to make this clear and Mr Norton has not done so. I consider that his application is lacking in substance and stands no real chance of success if it were to go to a hearing. In these circumstances, there is little point in extending time to commence the proceeding. As Justice Morris said in Becton Corporation Pty Ltd v Port Phillip CC[3]: