Premier’s pulp fiction

Henry Melville As the Sweco assessment is released …

Labor parliamentarians must be feeling particularly deceived and let down by the actions and, more importantly, the inaction of the man who holds the office of Premier of Tasmania. Paul Lennon … has committed a grave error and a serious political deception. He has misled firstly his Cabinet, and then Labor Caucus, then the Parliament and finally the people of Tasmania.

Latest on the approval, Lennon’s speech: Mercury: HERE
ABC: Here

Party reaction: Click on the logos on the TT masthead!X
Labor parliamentarians must be feeling particularly deceived and let down by the actions and, more importantly, the inaction of the man who holds the office of Premier of Tasmania.

The release of documents under the Freedom of Information Act has revealed the extent to which Premier Paul Lennon is prepared to go in order to get a corporate project approved.

When Gunns Ltd unilaterally withdrew from the assessment process in mid-March, Premier Lennon announced his government’s official approval for the company’s action. Neither he (nor any of his parliamentary colleagues) would be requesting the mill proponent to stay with the agreed RPDC assessment process.

He told Tasmanians the Tamar Pulp Mill project was far too important to the State’s economy to have it delayed and bogged down in the RPDC assessment process.

What has now been revealed is the level to which the Premier was prepared to go to prevent even his fellow Labor parliamentarians from knowing the reasons why Gunns Ltd had withdrawn from the assessment process.

This Premier has committed a grave error and a serious political deception. He has misled firstly his Cabinet, and then Labor Caucus, then the Parliament and finally the people of Tasmania. He was aware that the RPDC was still unsatisfied with the scientific and technical documentation that Gunns had provided under direction from the RPDC pulp mill assessment panel.

Premier Lennon was also aware that his own department Secretary had actively intervened in the assessment process by asking the RPDC not to formally tell the mill proponent that it was still ‘critically non-compliant’ with the RPDC directions.

Now it’s revealed — by the Labor parliamentarians themselves — that at a time when they had expected their leader to tell them truthfully about why Gunns should suddenly withdraw from the universally accepted pulp mill assessment process, he deceived his own party members!

This was a serious deception — the type of corrosive corruption that in other states of Australia would trigger a Crime and Corruption Commission inquiry.

The ramifications of Premier Lennon’s failure to be honest over such an important matter meant that the Labor government members remained of the belief that Gunns Ltd was justified in withdrawing because of unacceptable delays outside its control and NOT because Gunns’ Impact Statement documentation was — as late as March 2007 — still ‘deficient’.

Why does the Premier of Tasmania continue to refuse to truthfully answer the questions put to him in the Parliament?

On 26 June, Ms Putt, Leader of the Tasman Greens asked the Premier:

Premier, since we last assembled here for Question Time you have consistently refused to explain or justify your actions in relation to the vital information that the RPDC had determined that Gunns’ Supplementary Information to their pulp mill Integrated Impact Statement was critically deficient, such that the assessment could not proceed to approval without those deficiencies being rectified.

Is it a fact, firstly, that you never informed Cabinet of Gunns’ inability to make their case to the RPDC — and this is known because your Deputy [Steve Kons] told the Legislative Council’s Estimates Committee that he first became aware of this crucial fact when the Greens raised it in Parliament.

And secondly, that you never informed the Labor Caucus either — confirmed by the statement of [Labor MHA] Heather Butler to ABC radio that she also first learned of the non-compliance of Gunns’ material when the Greens raised it in Parliament.

Why did you mislead the Parliament, Cabinet and Caucus by this serious omission?

Was it to achieve the result of your fast-track assessment process being approved by your colleagues and then by Parliament through failing to mention that Gunns had not reached the bar set by the RPDC, instead leaving everyone with the false impression that the delay factor was the primary issue?

Supplementary Question:

Premier, even if you didn’t realize the full magnitude of Gunns’ non-compliance at the outset, isn’t it true that you received a letter from Simon Cooper at the RPDC, dated 23rd March, which outlined that Gunns had failed to make their case?

Why then did you not inform the Legislative Council who took briefings on the Pulp Mill Assessment Bill on the 27th March and debated the Bill on the 28th and 29th March?

Why didn’t you inform the House of Assembly when we debated the amended bill on the 17th April?

A second question from Ms Putt to the Premier:

Are you aware of the concept of Ministerial responsibility under the Westminster system and do you expect your Cabinet to practice it?

If so, why do you continually refuse to answer specific questions on the rationale behind the actions of the Secretary of your Department [Linda Hornsey] in requesting that the RPDC not send their formal letter to Gunns notifying of the critical non-compliance of their Supplementary IIS information, and why an informal approach by her was preferred?

Why won’t the Premier explain himself? Why does the Premier refuse to give straight forward and convincing reasons for his actions?

These revelations put into sharp perspective the position of Labor MLC, Terry Martin. Mr Martin stood his ground when Premier Lennon directed his Party to approve a new bill to fast-track the mill’s approval process. But the Premier had not given the Parliamentary Labor members an open and truthful case for why he, as Premier, accepted Gunns unilateral withdrawal from the approved pulp mill assessment process.

At the time Mr Martin was subjected to considerable public bullying and intimidation for his position. The Premier expelled Mr Martin from the Labor Caucus.

Does the Premier’s continued refusal in explaining himself now explain why Mr Martin was so courageous in the standing alone against the Premier?