105 I cannot accept a contention, embodied as a first alternative within ground A, that a judicial member of the SAT is required under a s 244 P&D Act 2005 review, to conduct a full review hearing de novo. An initial review hearing de novo, as regards the respondent's initial decision, has already been conducted by the Senior Sessional Member. It is apparent from the overall structure of Pt 14 of the P&D Act 2005, read in conjunction with the SAT Act then all read with the statutory history surrounding s 244 (manifesting its heritage in review concept arising out of the process established under s 66 of the Former Planning Act), that a further full scale de novo hearing, above and beyond one review already conducted by the Senior Sessional Member of SAT, was not contemplated. In that regard, I note, by contrast, very explicit terms in s 27(1) and s 27(3) of the SAT Act, setting down the hallmarks of a de novo review where it is afforded. An absence of like, explicit terminology in s 244 of the P&D Act 2005 is significant, in my view. The absence of such clear words detracts from the ability to construe s 244 to the effect that it would encompass the right to a (second) full scale de novo review. Compare, in that respect, Keating v Western Australia [2007] WASCA 98, (2007) 35 WAR 1 [10], [19] and [21] (Steytler P & McLure JA). A s 244 review is, in my assessment, more confined.