Coroner & Legal
What did Green know? What did Kons know? What did Llewellyn know/ What did Bartlett know?
Paul O’Halloran
As I have said on this site before, parliament was misled into voting for this appalling pulp mill. Some in parliament probably thought that the reason for fast tracking and by-passing the RPDC process was because, as Gunns and Lennon claimed, “it was taking too long”, when it is now clear and was in fact clear to many at the time, that Lennon and Gunns knew the reason was that the pulp mill was “critically non-compliant”. The question is, who else in the government knew this and were complicit in misleading parliament? Did Bryan Green know? Did Kons know? Did Llewellen know? Did Bartlett know?
And what of the miniscule amount of scrutiny that occurred in the Legislative Council, led by Ivan Dean and government ministers when they voted for the fast track approvals process?
How different this whole sorry saga may have been if parliament had the full facts been on the table and had not been misled. This is not how an informed democracy and informed decision making should work and this beautiful special state may end up paying for decades.
They all need to hold their heads in shame, be exposed and be held to account.
Greens: The Bartlett sham …
BARTLETT’S COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY EXPOSED AS SHAM
As Premier Fails to Comply With Committee Summons
Nick McKim MP
Greens Leader
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
www.tas.greens.org.au
The Tasmanian Greens today described Premier David Bartlett’s response to the Interim Report of the Legislative Council Select Committee on Public Sector Appointments as ‘pathetic’, and demanded that he immediately commit to implementing all of the Report’s recommendations.
Greens Leader Nick McKim MP said that Mr Bartlett has failed to comply with a summons from the Committee that was delivered to him on Tuesday 24 March, which demanded that he supply a copy of advice from the Solicitor General regarding a potential breach of the Archives Act 1983.
Mr McKim said that the Report makes it clear that the Premier did not comply with the summons issued by the Committee by stating that “…the Premier has not tabled the advice to which he is recorded as having referred, and…did not supply the advice of the Solicitor General prior to the Committee adopting this Interim Report…” [1]
“So much for a new broom, and so much for Mr Bartlett’s commitment to restore trust in Tasmania’s democracy. His refusal to comply with a legitimate summons issued by the Committee is positively Lennonesque.”
“Tasmanians thought that they had seen the last of Premiers who behave as if they are above the law, but clearly this is not the case.”
“Mr Bartlett’s use of Legal Privilege as an excuse for not providing the Solicitor-General’s advice is simply a cop-out given his preparedness to table such advice on previous occasions when it has suited him.”
“It is clear that Mr Bartlett was ordered to provide documentation to the Committee, and clear that he refused. This raises the question of exactly what Mr Bartlett is trying to keep a secret.”
“For the Premier to say that he is deferring a response to the Report for 90 days shows that his supposed commitment to transparency was rhetorical only, and that governance in Tasmania remains as murky as it was under Paul Lennon’s Premiership.”
“It didn’t take the Labor government three months to decide to ram through Parliament special enabling legislation for the Gunns’ pulp mill, and it should not take so long for the ‘new-broom’ Premier to commit to implementing this Report’s recommendations.”
“The Committee’s Report is sensible, and based on a careful assessment of the facts. There is no good reason for Mr Bartlett not to immediately commit to implementing all of its recommendations.”
——————————————————————————–
[1] Legislative Council Select Committee Interim Report on Public Sector Executive Appointments, April 2009; pg 47.