Open letter to Julian Green …

Peter Cover

Julian Green
Commissioner RPDC

re: The RPDC Directions Hearing on Gunns IIS

I refer to your letter dated 16 October 2006 informing me that you did ‘not require’ me to make a presentation at the Directions Hearing on 25 October 2006. I also refer to your statements at that Hearing to the effect that I was denied the right to present information or even to speak at the hearing.

In denying the right of myself (and others) to speak at the Directions Hearing, the RPDC brings into question the credibility and reputation of the Commission and seriously compromises the validity of the Directions Hearing. It appears, your action may in fact, be in breach of Constitutional Law. If this is the case any decisions made at (or as a result of) the Directions Hearing, could be invalid.

In any legal proceedings the denial of the right to present relevant evidence would be enough to invalidate those proceedings and be grounds for calling a mistrial, and would provide definite grounds for an appeal to a higher court.

I strongly urge the RPDC not to allow the excuse of expediency to be used to deny the rights of all of those who have (at the Commission’s Invitation) requested that their evidence be considered at the Directions Hearing.

One in fact wonders when the decision was taken as to who would be asked to speak at the Directions Hearing. The closing date for applications to speak was Friday 13 October. The letter I received was dated the following Monday and the Hearing was convened only seven working days later. Surely it would take more than a couple of hours for Commissioners to meet and consider the applications to give evidence. One could be forgiven for assuming that the applications were never looked at, that decisions had already been made and office staff had been directed to send a form letter to all those who were not on the list. In fact I wonder if any of my previous correspondence has gone further than the office staff.

If this is the case then how many of the seven hundred plus submissions and other correspondence have been fully evaluated (or even looked at) by the commissioners? Again I must warn that the excuse of fast-tracking the proposed pulp mill is not sufficient reason for not considering all the relevant evidence. In fact it smacks of a Commission bending to pressures from Government and Corporate bodies.

Failure to consider all the submissions and the exclusion of any person with relevant input, can only bring the RPDC into disrepute. Such failure to consider all related evidence carries with it the risk of a challenge to the legal standing and the validity of the findings of the RPDC.

I also believe that it is not appropriate for the RPDC to appoint their own consultants to do their work for them, as alluded to at the directions hearing. Any consultant carries the risk of bias and could be a barrier to the RPDC getting all the unannotated information which has been supplied in good faith in the submissions. We all want to deal directly with the RPDC and not third parties and to have the influence to which we feel entitled.

Yours,

PETER COVER

Peter Cover
B. Sc. (Zoo), Grad. Cert. (Fish.), M.App. Sc. (Fish.)
Alanvale Road
Newnham Tas 7248