Economy
Doubts removal legislation is really democracy removal legislation
Last week the State Government announced that it intended to introduce legislation to remove all doubts regarding the legal validity of the permit for the Tamar Valley Pulp Mill (TVPM) and specifically to prevent the TCT’s Supreme Court case continuing and potentially finding the permits had lapsed.
This is not ‘doubts removal legislation’, it is ‘democracy removal legislation’ and it may backfire because it will only boost the opposition to the project and increase doubt in the minds of investors.
It is a basic element of our democracy that citizens can approach the courts to have a decision of a government or a law of the parliament reviewed, clarified or overturned. For a government to legislate to kill-off the TCT’s on-going court case and prevent us exercising this democratic right is unethical and shameful. It may also deter other Tasmanians from attempting to seek justice through the courts on politically controversial matters.
The TCT’s case is merely asking the court whether the permit was invalid because the proponent had failed to comply with a condition of the permit to substantially commence the project by August 2011 i.e. had they complied with the law?
By proposing this legislation the Government has admitted that the proponent had failed to comply with the law but they intend to ignore that and revalidate the permit. This approach to development permits and conditions renders them meaningless.
Clearly the State Government does not want the Supreme Court to scrutinise the TVPM – to see if the permit conditions had been met – just as it did not what the RPDC to assess the original proposal. The Government makes extravagant claims about the assessment process for the pulp mill but they do not want the project independently scrutinised.
The Government could legislate again. If the pulp mill was to be built and the operator could not meet requirements for waste entering Bass Strait then the Government could legislate to amend the permit and allow higher concentrations of contaminants.
The Government’s legislation aims to extend the life of the permit so the pulp mill does not have to be substantially commenced until August 2017. Putting a time limit on construction of any development, and sticking to it, is a key principle which underpins our planning and development assessment laws. It is especially important with large, dangerous and controversial projects. If you take a very long time before commencing a development the land use around your site may significantly change and the council and Government are justified in reassessing your project. Similarly, technologies and production methods change and generally improve and our understanding of the environment impacts of a project may also change with time, requiring reassessment of the development.
If the TVPM is built in 2017 the permit would be 10 years old and some of the technology and science underpinning it would be 15 years old.
When he released the draft legislation, Bryan Green stated that: “We want to see a pulp mill with the toughest environmental guidelines in the world …”. If he wants us to believe the assessment guidelines are the toughest in the world then he should require the proponent to resubmit the project.
You can keep telling this lie Bryan but Tasmanians will not believe you.
• John Lawrence, Tasfintalk: Mill shortfall The plantation feedstock shortfall for the proposed pulp mill is still not widely understood. Just consider the following, first a quote from Martin Ferguson’s recent Review of the Tasmanian Private Hardwood Plantation Estate and second an extract from the last detailed presentation given by Gunns. This is what Ferguson had to say about the Tasmania’s pulp mill feedstock. Read the full article, Tasfintalk, here
• Bryan Green: Pulp Mill Consultative Group
• Cameron, in Comments, HERE Ivan Dean apparently knows everything, so don’t worry. We’re in very safe hands. [Facepalm.] Reading his emails–I have two of them now–it’s as though the last ten years didn’t happen. The man is in absolute denial. Apparently his sources at the meeting last night reported back to him that it was more peddling of misinformation and so on, and that his accounts (he wasn’t there, of course) have the audience estimates as low as three hundred. So he’s playing that tired old game. There were considerably more than three hundred people there–more than six hundred, according to the Examiner. Anyway, his vote is lost to us and that’s not a surprise. Rosemary Armitage has emailed me to say she won’t support the amendment. Rob Valentine and Mike Gaffney are wavering, so email them if you can. If these two go against it, that will four votes against (counting on Kerry Finch). The three party members of the Upper House are blinded by their silly allegiances, so that leaves five votes; Hall and Harriss The Liberal Independent will likely support it. Don’t know about Ruth Forrest, Adriana Taylor or Jim Wilkinson, but I wouldn’t trust Jim. Interesting times.
• Richard Colbeck: Pulp mill at heart of sham forest peace deal Senator Colbeck said the sham peace deal process started as a private conversation between Gunns and the Greens before it was picked up and crudely shoved onto the community by Labor and the Greens. “When the Greens say the industry came to them they mean Gunns came to them. The rest of the industry is a victim of that approach and were sucked into the vortex,” he said. Senator Colbeck said the damage and agony suffered by the forestry industry was a by-product of the clumsy attempt by Labor and the Greens to turn a corporate deal into public policy. “It is unsurprising to hear Bryan Green today admit in the media Labor has not been approached by any proponents regarding the pulp mill. The Coalition has fielded a number of enquiries,” he said. “It is clear no one is interested in talking to Labor about this important project.” “The pulp mill has become little more than an election campaign tool for Lara Giddings to justify her fake divorce from the Greens and for the Greens to rally their troops.”
• Eric Hutchinson: The real World Heritage embarrassment
• Frank and family, in Comments: I ask myself, why would a Matthew Groom and Vanessa Goodwin (professional criminologist) participate in prolonging this social, environmental and commercial nightmare? Why? What is it? Why can they not (or refuse to) see that the situation is rotten to the core?