Amos bluff and bluster over appeal process

IN his sarcastic and vitriolic attack on Richard Flanagan in Saturday’s Mercury, Julian Amos accuses Flanagan of error, exaggeration and defamation (“Chopping through new chapter of ‘pulp fiction'”, March 12).

Regrettably but perhaps predictably, Dr Amos’s own contribution contains numerous half-truths, misinformation and distortions.

The following excerpt illustrates this:

“The Pulp Mill Assessment Act was introduced into Parliament in 2007 only after the RPDC, after three years of consideration, was unable to provide a timeline to its already extensive deliberations, including public hearings. I was present in February when its taskforce chairman Chris Wright, stated that deliberations would take at least another nine months before any consideration was given to the matter simply to enable him to get over the brief.”

In relation to these matters, the following points should be considered:

The Resource Planning and Development Commission did not have “three years of consideration”. Even in January 2007, when I was appointed chairman of the Pulp Mill Assessment Panel, Gunns Ltd had failed to provide required and crucial details for its Draft Integrated Impact Assessment Statement.

Furthermore, the panel had lost two of its key members at that time due to political interference and Gunns had been guilty of ongoing default and procrastination on many occasions.

During the three year period mentioned, there were no “public hearings” in the sense suggested by Dr Amos. There had been a directions hearing in October 2006 dealing with procedural issues but there had been no public hearing of objections relating to the merits of the mill proposal.

A further directions hearing took place in Launceston in February 2007.1 was chairman of the meeting. The directions hearing was necessary because Gunns was continuing to delay the assessment process. Then CEO John Gay was refusing to provide information ordered in October 2006 unless and until I had a private meeting with him. For obvious reasons I regarded this as completely improper and declined to do so. To resolve the standoff I arranged the Launceston hearing.

I did not state “that deliberations would take at least another nine months before any further consideration was given to the matter simply to enable me to get over the brief”. This is totally untrue and utterly ridiculous. I have never said this.

The proceedings at the directions hearing were recorded and no doubt the RPDC has retained a transcript. It should be possible to verify what was said by reference to the transcript.

Dr Amos is also completely incorrect when he says that “the RPDC was unable to provide a time line”.

In 2005 the original Assessment Panel suggested completion by mid-2007. This left out of account Gunns’ numerous delays in the meantime and the loss of two panel members in late 2006 and early 2007.

At the February 2007 meeting in Launceston I announced a new, albeit optimistic, completion date for “late November 2007”. I also gave details of the steps and processes necessary to achieve this target, including public hearings. Gunns was represented by senior counsel from Victoria. It made no attempt to suggest that the timeline was unreasonable or that it could be shortened.

A full account of the proceedings was reported on Page 3 of the Mercury on February 23, 2007 and on Page 6 of the Examiner the same day.

As a footnote, it may be observed that despite all the bluff and bluster from Gunns and its supporters suggesting that the RPDC was the source of all its frustrations and difficulties, it has taken Gunns four long years to satisfy the Commonwealth upon the issue of Bass Strait effluent discharge.

This was just one of a multitude of environmental and other issues such as social and economic effects which the RPDC could have resolved three years ago had is role not been sabotaged.

Background:

On 5 February 2007 Hon Christopher Wright QC, a retired Tasmanian Supreme Court
Judge and former Solicitor-General, was appointed to chair the Panel dealing with the
Pulp Mill proposal, in place of Mr Green. The process thus appeared to be back on track
in anticipation of the next public hearing, scheduled to be held on 22 February 2007.
On 16 February 2007, Gunns’ supplementary information was lodged with the RPDC. It
comprised a further approximately 2,500 pages. Whilst this material was made publicly
available on the company’s www.gunnspulpmill.com website on 21 February 2007, it
was not made available by the RPDC. As it turned out, the RPDC had serious concerns
about the new material and the draft IIS itself.

The second – and as it turned out, final – directions hearing was held on 22 February
2007. In the course of that directions hearing, Mr. Wright QC stated that the RPDC
would not release the supplementary information until it had been endorsed by the
RPDC. The Chair further said that the RPDC would not give a timeframe for the release
of the supplementary information and flagged the possibility of the need for a complete
re-write of Gunns’ IIS. He also declared that responsibility for delays in providing
From: Probity Issues Connected with the Tasmanian Pulp Mill, Tom Baxter∗and Roland Browne∗∗: HERE

Sweet-reasonable L’Estrange monsters Flanagan ‘cynicism and contempt’, HERE
Richard Flanagan’s original article: Not the cake, Lara, the bread, HERE

WRIGHT CONDEMNS GUNNS’ PULP MILL PROCESS
Another Reason Pulp Mill Project
Must Be Scrapped
Kim Booth MP
Greens Forests spokesperson

The Tasmanian Greens today raised in the House a public statement by the former head of the Resource, Development and Planning Commission’s (RPDC) panel, Christopher Wright QC, to assess Gunns’ Tamar Valley Pulp Mill proposal, in which he states that Gunns Ltd had failed to provide the required and crucial details for its Draft Integrated Impact Assessment Statement.

Greens Forests spokesperson Kim Booth MP said that Mr Wright’s comments regarding Gunns’ failure to provide crucial details is yet another example, amid recent developments, such as the leaked email expressing concerns over the flawed site assessment, that Gunns’ Pulp Mill process is unassessed, unwanted and undemocratic.

“It beggar’s belief that Gunns, Labor and Liberal parties can continue to call this process fair and democratic, in the face of the words of the highly commended Christopher Wright QC, when information to the contrary appears time and time again,” Mr Booth said.

“There was a multitude of environmental and other issues, such as the economic and social impacts, which the RPDC was fully equipped to deal with three years ago, but we see now that Gunns would not have been given the licence it wanted, so they pulled out in favour of a Parliamentary fast track without proper scrutiny.”

“Mr Lennon commended Mr Wright to the biggest degree, and now we see Mr Wright recently confirming that Gunns has been totally remiss in its responsibility to follow process, that there have been no public hearings of objection.”

“It is time the Labor and Liberal parties realised the mistake this is and scrap the project.”

“It has taken Gunns years to even satisfy the Federal Government, to the point that the State-issued permits are nearly expired. Any venture that can take so long to prove its viability has issues, and given these revelations surrounding the dodgy process, it would be irresponsible for the project to continue.”

“Every day that Gunns’ Tamar Valley Pulp Mill continues to hang over the heads of the community, it is an affront to a fair and just democracy,” Mr Booth said.

Text of the Motion:
1. Notes that former Premier Paul Lennon stated the following, in this House on the 14th of March 2007, to describe Christopher Wright QC, former head of the RPDC Panel assessing the Gunns’ Tamar valley pulp mill proposal, as “a very well respected former Supreme Court judge, a person of the highest standing within legal circles in this State and beyond our shores. He is a person for whom I am sure the great majority of Tasmanians, if not all Tasmanians, have the highest respect.”;

2. Further notes the following excerpt statements on the RPDC pulp mill process by Mr Wright published in a local Tasmanian newspaper on the 16th of March this year:

(a) “The Resource Planning and Development Commission did not have “three years of consideration” Even in January 2007… Gunns Ltd had failed to provide required and crucial details for tis Draft Integrated Impact Assessment Statement.”;

(b) “There had been no public hearings of objections relating to the merits of the pulp mill proposal”;

(c) “… it has taken Gunns four long years to satisfy the Commonwealth upon the issue of Bass Strait effluent discharge. This was just one of a multitude of environmental and other issues such as social an economic effects which the RPDC could have resolved three years ago had its role not been sabotaged.”; and

3. Calls on both the Labor and Liberal parties to recognise that due to the abandonment by Gunns Ltd of the RPDC assessment process, there remain critical unassessed areas, and it would be irresponsible to allow the project to proceed on these grounds