Cartoons
Follow-up questions for these evaders
This is an important contribution. Thanks to Rick for taking the time to wind the long, wriggly rope of this affair onto a single spool.
To be honest to history, the next chapter should examine the role of the Federal Government and Opposition in the approval process. They have been part of the swindle and should also be held to account.
How many times have we heard the mantra from our Federal Members and Senators “we disagree with the State approval process but support the mill, providing it meets all environmental guidelines”?
There should be some follow-up questions for these evaders, based on the issues raised in Rick’s article:
– What aspects of the approval process do you specifically disagree with?
– Should there be a commission of enquiry into these matters about which you are specifically concerned?
– If such an enquiry disclosed collusion between Gunns and then Premier Lennon to develop a secret strategy to by-pass the RPDC, and that Premier Lennon withheld crucial information from the Tasmanian Parliament during the debate on the Pulp Mill assessment act 2007, would you support a move to overturn the PMAA?
Of course, this raises the questions of just how the PMAA could be overturned and the relationship between the Federal and State Parliaments. Better legal minds may be able to provide advice, but it is my view that the issue should be central to the next state and federal election campaigns.
My proposal is not based on a desire for petty mud racking. The process by which the PMAA came into law has undermined the integrity of the Tasmanian Parliament and public confidence in planning process. How can Tasmania progress into a future where the key question in public policy is about setting the balance between consumption and conservation, unless we resolve the PMAA controversy?