Pulping the truth

Matthew Denholm Australian Thursday, Nov 20
The mill has been dragged into the committee’s ambit because Cooper had been promised a job as magistrate only to see the recommendation rescinded on Hornsey’s advice. Cooper believed the nobbling of his proposed appointment may have been related to his role in relation to the mill. Lennon denied playing any role in the issue, much less instructing Hornsey to sabotage Cooper’s nomination. Unknown to Lennon until questioning began at the hearing on Tuesday, Cooper had given in-camera evidence that flatly contradicted the ex-premier’s version of events leading up to the mill fast-track. Lennon stood by his statements to parliament that he learned of Gunns’ decision to withdraw from the RPDC at 1pm on March 14. Cooper told the committee this was untrue. The planning chief and experienced lawyer, known as a compulsive note-taker, said Lennon telephoned him on March 12 — two days before the pull-out — to tell him Gunns was going to quit the RPDC. Lennon told the committee he had been “concerned” Gunns would pull out, and may have related this concern to Cooper on March 12. However, he insisted he did not tell him the company was going to withdraw. Both men cannot be right. If Lennon is correct, Cooper has misled the committee; if Cooper is right, Lennon has misled parliament and the public. Some opponents of the mill claim suspicions over the process have clouded subsequent approvals given by the state and federal governments. “Quite clearly it requires some kind of royal commission,” says businessman and anti-mill campaigner Geoffrey Cousins. “But further than that I think it should put any approvals of the project in doubt, both from the federal and state governments, because a large part of those approvals goes to the integrity of the company that is going to build the mill. (Federal Environment Minister Peter) Garrett ought not to give any more approvals (for the mill’s federal environmental management plan) until such time as there is some proper inquiry into this matter.” If Lennon did know of Gunns’ intention to quit the RPDC two days beforehand, what indication had he given to the company, if any, that he would respond by creating an alternative assessment process? Both he and Gunns deny any prearranged understanding. Was Gunns really willing to gamble a $2billion project on the chance that Lennon would come to the rescue? Was the need for haste a confection to hide the mill’s failings, which were known at the time by the RPDC, the government and Gunns, but not by the public or the parliament? “These questions need to be answered and answered to the satisfaction of the public, not to the convenience of the parties,” says Richard Herr, of the University of Tasmania and a long-standing independent observer of Tasmanian politics. “The toxicity of this is so severe in terms of what it has done to the state that it really deserves to be resolved. “Especially since the tangled web has entrapped so many public figures and brought into disrepute the justice system as a whole.” Calls for a royal commission — in Tasmania, a commission of inquiry — have been made by both opposition parties, the Liberals and Greens, but dismissed by Labor, now led by David Bartlett, as politicking. Herr says parliament should demand answers as to whether or not it has been misled, by referring the issue to inquiry by committee or by bringing key players, such as Lennon and Gay, before the bar of the House of Assembly to answer questions. “I’d like to see the parliament demand a complete explanation,” he says. “Parliament appears to have acted on information that was either misleading or incompetent. They are the only possibilities.” Read more here
Wednesday:
Damning evidence suggests we were all conned
Lennon knew mill plan