The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Garrett’s pulp mill approval and sovereign risk: baloney? > Comments

Garrett’s pulp mill approval and sovereign risk: baloney? : Comments

By Peter Henning, published 30/1/2009

Whichever you look at it politically, the extension of time to Gunns is a win-win outcome, for Gunns and for the Rudd Government.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
People need jobs, or would it be better for all Tasmanians to be on the dole. They might not all be able to afford to have an Olive farm.

It sounds more like your opposition is due to personal greed, you being a capitalist and all.

If you were out of work with no prospect, would you feel the same way I wonder. There is a lot of support in Tasmania for the pulp mill, not all as loud as the people against it, an extremely loud and vocal minority.

Sovereign risk, well not really as you probably well know, it's more political expediency isn't it - if the next Federal election produces someone from the coalition with promises to finish the pulp mill, the ALP would be out in the cold if they kill it off now.

So if it is a big enough decision to be an election issue and the ALP have put it off till after the next election, that would indicate that enough people want it to go ahead.

That's the big problem isn't it - a small and vitriolic minority want it killed off for their own selfish reasons, who care little about the people's lives around them. Typical of the green/enviro lobby who want to inflict their will on everyone else.
Posted by rpg, Sunday, 1 February 2009 8:11:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard

A thought provoking article and one which has hit the nail on the head.

Garrett never had any intention of letting the environment get in the way of anything. His main job as environment minister (as it is of all the various state ministers) appears to be to find ways of circumventing the legislation that was designed at a more enlightened time to prevent just the sort of environmental destruction the Gunns' pulp mill is likely to cause.

Where was Garrett on the issue in the lead up to the last election? For a man who professed concern for the environment in his former life he sure was quick to bow to the party line and place environmental concerns way back on his agenda.

And rpg, you have come up with your usual nonsense in support of anything destructive to the environment and your usual array of insults. What motivates you to continually criticize those who express concern for the environment I wonder? I very much doubt if Peter Henning's motivation for his opposition to the mill has anything at all to to do with personal greed. On the other hand that might precisely be the motivation of the Gunns' people in their efforts to promote it.
Posted by kulu, Monday, 2 February 2009 12:17:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is Sovereign risk? It is the liability imposed by S 64 Judiciary Act 1903 on the Sovereign, no matter whether She is advised by the Tasmanian Government or the Federal Government. The buck stops with the Sovereign. S 64 states: In any suit to which the Commonwealth or a State is a party, the rights of the parties shall as nearly as possible be the same, and judgment given and costs awarded on either side as in a suit between subject and subject.

Before the High Court was neutered in 1979, and totally lost the plot in 2004, by unilaterally declaring itself Sovereign, and leaving Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second off all process issued out of the High Court in open defiance of Parliament, the Federal Supreme Court had consistently held the Sovereign one and indivisible throughout the Commonwealth. That is indivisible both for England and Australia. The last case holding the Sovereign one and indivisible was Bradken Consolidated v BHP. You can read it here. . The removal of judicial independence from the High Court by the High Court of Australia Act 1979 has led to thirty years of fraudulent assertions that the Parliament of every State is Sovereign.

Gunn’s can sue the Queen. They have the money to do so. Estoppel runs against the Crown, and the Crown has given the go ahead. The Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 as amended in 2006, now permits the Federal Court of Australia not to work. The High Court of Australia Act 1979 permits the Federal Supreme Court not to work, but the Supreme Court in Tasmania is equal to the High Court and still works, as one of the only State Supreme Courts that still sits with a jury. By Section 83 Constitution two places can appropriate money from the treasury. One is parliament and the other is a Ch III court. That is the Sovereign risk. By Section 51 Placitum xxxi Constitution, once property has been created, which it was by Malcolm Turnbull’s approval, the Sovereign cannot take it back without paying for it
Posted by Peter the Believer, Monday, 2 February 2009 11:14:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When will onlineopinion stop republishing such poorly researched and biased articles from Tasmanian Times?

Its credibility is severely tested when you look at the media coverage of Peter Garrett’s decision. It was Acting PM Julia Gillard that gave the green light for construction, whereas the Minister warned the developer.

In a copy of a media transcript Peter Garrett states: “whether or not Gunns decide to actually - can start constructing a mill prior to getting final approval is a matter for them to take and it's a risk for them to take if they so choose.”

The approval he is talking about is not the approval for the mill that was given by the previous Government in October 2007, but approval of the Environment Impact Management Plan as required by condition 9 of the 2007 approval: “No commissioning activity is to commence until the final and complete EIMP has been approved”

The acting PM told Channel’s 7 Morning Sunrise Host,

“Well this is a big project Kochie and it’s a project that’s got a number of stages. The construction works are considerable and there’s been environmental assessment of those and they’ve been given the all clear, so Gunns can start the construction.”

This additional modeling has always been part of the conditions (available at )

These conditions also ensure the treated effluent entering Commonwealth Marine Areas, whilst salty, will not be toxic. They set trigger and maximum levels for trace elements. Module L of the EIMP includes these values that are not dependent on the future modelling.

In giving his approval to modules of the management plan, the Minister held back on three modules waiting the future modelling. However in doing so he stated: “I am satisfied with … the other content of Modules L, M, and N” and “I will not require further advice on material in the modules that is not related to or affected by the outcomes of that modelling.”

Thus rather than increasing the sovereign risk to the developer, the Minister has provided “some certainty to the proponent.”
Posted by cinders, Monday, 2 February 2009 3:18:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy