Damien Brown Mercury
Treasurer Michael Aird defended the expenditure, saying it was a “sensible activity”. Mr Aird’s only overseas trip was to China for a racing industry mission in November. That trip cost taxpayers only $3000 because the majority of it was paid for by TOTE Tasmania, the Government-owned company Mr Aird put up for sale this week. But his travel last year totalled more than $59,141 and included a two-day trip to the Council of Australian Governments meeting in Perth at a cost of more than $4100 a day and an expensive lunch meeting with Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan costing $3539.18. “We have the capacity to learn from what is going on overseas, in fact we can share ideas as well,” Mr Aird said. “Some ministers have to travel more than others and it is a legitimate expense. Every member of Parliament should travel, quite frankly.” Figures obtained by the Mercury reveal Tasmanians paid almost $750,000 to send politicians on trips last year.
Hag
Perth again, Airdy? You’ve been a big fan of trips there haven’t you … might be worth some enterprising hack checking out just how many trips over how long and how much that has cost the poor, suffering taxpayer … or good ol’ Big End of Town mates: Airdy’s lovely din dins. Aren’t they a lovely bunch these Friends of the Workers … the ex-Premier who two days before he quits takes an $11,000 trip to NZ ( Here ), the professed Christian Police Minister Lewellyn who derides protestors as terrorists ( Here ), the Deputy Premiers Kons and Green forced to resign, the “socialist” Aird who defends the indefensible …
… such as his recent defence of the Pulp Mill Assessment Act. Hag quotes from Peter Henning’s brilliant recent analysis ( Here ) of the Environment Minister Peter Garrett’s recent mill permits decision:
In the light of Garrett’s decision that compelling case is now more compelling. So it was fascinating to see that in the immediate aftermath of Garrett’s announcement, Tasmania’s Minister for Economic Development, Michael Aird, issued a press release about section 11 of the PMAA, in which he said this:
“Section 11 does not restrict the rights of individuals and organizations to take legal action if they consider they have incurred some sort of loss through the actions or operations of the pulp mill. The effect of Section 11 of the PMAA 2007 is merely to limit the right to appeal any actions, decisions, processes or other matters arising from the assessment process… But this does not prevent civil action for damage to property that might occur during construction or operation if a party believes they have suffered a loss”.
Apart from the political cynicism in the timing of this press release, the Minister’s statement needs to be exposed for its blatant and deliberate disingenuousness. Aird well knows that Section 11 was inserted in the PMAA precisely because the legislation gave no consideration to any assessment of the social, economic and environmental impacts that the mill may have. These were carefully and deliberately excluded.
In this way Section 11 is a clear abrogation of the rights of people to have access to the common law to ensure that possible social, economic and environmental impacts of the mill are not excluded from consideration under statute law.
This is exactly what Section 11 seeks to achieve, an absolute certainty within the legislation that assessment of possible impacts on people already deliberately excluded cannot be included at a later date via appeal through the common law.
But Aird’s (and the Tasmanian government’s) disingenuousness extends further than that. His statement needs to be read within the context of a current legal challenge to Section 11 by a small group of Tamar Valley residents and niche agri-businesses, which has been launched in an attempt to obtain reasons for the exclusions. It speaks volumes that the Tasmanian government is fighting the challenge.
Just consider these further egregious absurdities about Aird’s statement. Tasmanian constitutional lawyer Michael Stokes has written, “a lack of base line readings will make any (legal) challenge (during construction and operation of the mill) difficult except in extreme cases because of the lack of evidence”.
God they make you vomit. They make your blood boil … how can any self-respecting human being ( ‘specially advisers ) work for these over-fed leaches?
