By their fruits ye shall known them (3)

Mike Bolan

Tasmanians should understand that the immunity from suit contained in the legislation basically means that the proponent has virtually no legal responsibilities to the people and businesses of the state. No matter what they do with their mill, they will not be able to be held accountable at law.

On the 7:30 Report on March 10 there is the following quote about the new pulp mill legislation:

PAUL LENNON, TASMANIAN PREMIER: Any fair understanding of this legislation, any proper independent, unbiased understanding of this legislation, will show that this project will be forced through a robust assessment process by this legislation. What I am trying to do is to keep this project alive.

Now let’s look at some independent comments by two law lecturers from the University of Tasmania.

“We have read and considered the Pulp Mill Assessment Bill 2007. We hold grave concerns regarding the proposed legislation, including the following:

1. The abandonment of proper processes and the privatisation of an essential State responsibility for the proper assessment of the development.

2. The lack of transparency of the process.

3. The limited nature of the proposed assessment.

4. The extraordinary immunity from suit and legal protection given to the project.

5. The abdication of State responsibility for the assessment accepted in the bilateral agreement of 12 December 2005 entered into by the Commonwealth and Tasmania under s 45 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Conclusion

For all the above reasons, the Bill is flawed and should not be passed in anything like its current form.

Michael Stokes and Tom Baxter”

Tasmanians should understand that the immunity from suit contained in the legislation basically means that the proponent has virtually no legal responsibilities to the people and businesses of the state. No matter what they do with their mill, they will not be able to be held accountable at law. Whether this relief extends to their contractors is unclear.

The lack of a regulatory framework coupled with the limited nature of the assessment exposes the population to serious health risks as well as threatening property values in the area.

What the parliament has done is expose the public to harm unnecessarily without giving the public any means to seek redress or protect themselves. They have created a situation where the mill operators don’t have to bother with quaint concerns about public health and safety.