Pulp mill permit non-action equates to interference by default

The Tasmanian Greens today said that the statement by the Director of the EPA that his pulp mill project determination has “no legal effect” and is not binding, makes it imperative for the Attorney-General to seek a clear determination from the courts.

Greens Forestry spokesperson Kim Booth MP said that by taking the ‘do nothing’ approach, Labor was potentially interfering by default in the process.

“The EPA Director’s statement makes it clear that his decision is not legally binding, and that instead he will merely act as if the Pulp Mill Permit is still valid until a court tells him otherwise,” Mr. Booth said.

“This does not provide certainty to the community, which has suffered enough over this unacceptable and process-corrupted approved project.”

“Labor also need to realise that no action to obtain legal advice around the status of the permit is by default political interference.”

“The courts are independent. The Attorney General requesting a court determination is the appropriate mechanism to end the uncertainty caused by politicians acting as quasi-planners in the first place.”

“Political interference by encouraging Gunns to abandon due process is what caused the problem in the first place, and to now pretend that due process by seeking a Supreme Court declaration is somehow political interference is both disingenuous and hypocritical.”

Mr. Booth also confirmed that the Greens have officially requested a briefing by the EPA on all documentation and advice that formed the basis of the EPA’s determination.

• EPA give Gunns the tick of approval
By Tim Walker

While many other aspects of the proposed pulp mill remain uncertain, proponent Gunns has been reassured by Alex Schaap, Director of the Environmental Protection Authority, that permits under the Pulp Mill Assessment Act remain valid. Mr. Schaap has released his findings, but says it is not his decision as to whether legal advice, gained from the Solicitor General and used to draw his conclusion, will be released to the public.

Download this mp3 file: HERE

The full findings by the Director of the Environmental Protection Authority, Alex Schaap, have been made public: HERE

Mr. Schaap has found that pulp mill proponent Gunns has met the conditions of permits that were laid down when the State Government passed the Pulp Mill Assessment Act in 2007.

The permits stipulate that the proponent must have ‘substantially commenced’ the project by August 30, four years after the permits were granted.

Mr. Schaap’s decision is not a legally binding assessment of Gunn’s compliance with the Act, rather it is statement of the EPA’s view that the proponent has made a substantial commencement.

In his findings, Mr. Schaap has concluded that “substantial commencement has occurred” on the Bell Bay pulp mill site, and that an amount in excess of $120 Million has been invested in the project. He says he will continue to regulate the site on the basis that a valid permit exists unless a court determines otherwise.

Both Mr. Schaap’s deliberations and the proponent’s submission expounding their ‘substantial commencement’ are available on the EPA’s website.

The legal advice that was provided to Mr. Schaap by the Solicitor General’s office has not been made public by the Attorney General, the correct person to release that advice.

Mr. Tom Baxter from the University of Tasmania School of Accounting and Corporate Governance thinks that the legal advise should be released for the public to see what information the decision was based upon.

“I think it’s now vital that either Mr. Schaap, or the Attorney General if that’s who is legally required, does release the Solicitor General’s advice upon which the EPA has based its decision.”

Mr Baxter says that the ‘project’ is defined in the Act as ‘the development and operation of a pulp mill’.

“I think there remain real legal questions as to whether the interpretive approach he [Alex Schaap] has taken is correct or not.”

“In my view there is no reason why the government should not release the legal advice.”

Earlier this month a court case was launched in the Hobart’s Magistrates Court by opponents of the mill’s construction.

Anti-mill group Pulp the Mill says that they have launched the action to have a determination about whether they have reached substantial commencement on the pulp mill project.

The group argue Gunns no longer had planning permission to build the mill.