MIKE BOLAN
Gary, as far as I can see the problem isn’t with the wording of Sec 11 per se.

The problem is interpreting what it really means and how it might be construed by the Courts and government.

You can see this with the widely varied interpretations placed upon it by different observers.

The problem exists because the government has sealed off any inspection of Sec 11 so that it’s real legal meaning is ambiguous and concealed. That hiding of the intent of Sec 11 appeared to be demonstrated by the Court case with Peter Whish et al and has served to compound people’s fears and confirm their suspicions.

The range of ambiguity in interpretation of Sec 11 is from almost no effect right through to ‘carte blanche’ to pollute and communities having no recourse, depending on the interpretation that one applies.

People are rightly concerned about any law in this domain because just about every instance of government and forestry has involved some form of chicanery and double cross of the community.

It’s therefore a legitimate question to ask ‘if the interpretation of this Act is harmless to us, why is the government concealing its true meaning from us?’

Why was the Act, and in particular that Section, written in that manner?

Who would benefit from the various interpretations?

A reasonable person would surely conclude that the only rational reasons for concealment of intent are:

* the Act could be harmful
* the interpretation could lead to serious objections
* the interpretation could damage the government
* the interpretation could upset forestry

It seems VERY unlikely that the government would seal this Act off in the way that it has if it’s interpretation were benign.

Of course that doesn’t mean that it IS harmful, it’s conceivable that your conception is correct.

The core problems here appear to be:

* Many people do not trust the forestry industry
* Many people do not trust the government, particularly as it relates to the forestry industry.

All the government has to do to correct the matter is publish a legal ruling as to the limits on Sec 11. In failing to do this, the government is fanning the flames of fears that people legitimately hold and maintaining the uncertainty about their protection from harm.

The notion of needing to suspend the Judicial Review Act, which encapsulates people’s rights to Natural Justice, is also highly suspicious.

For most people, the idea that Paul Lennon is an authoritative and fair commentator is probably pretty hard to swallow, as is the idea that they should somehow trust what he said.

You may have an interpretation that is different to others, but how do we find out who is actually correct?

Couldn’t it be that the Courts themselves cannot penetrate the meaning of Sec 11 thus sealing ambiguity and uncertainty into every action that occurs as a result of the approval…or at least until such time as a definitive legal ruling is obtained?

Sealing uncertainty into the legal protection for such a potentially risky project is surely an action that would normally be unconscionable and can only serve to amplify people’s fears about the entire project and process.

This comment appears at the end of this article, HERE. Comment HERE