(continued)...full well from documention that he had received from the RDPC that the pulp mill proposal remained “critically deficient”, yet he allowed the Parliament to debate and approve the fast track legislation without their knowledge of this critical information..

2. Tragedy said “I suspect the main reason for the incessant carping by the opponents of the mill, is that they know the majority of Tasmanians support the mill and they are looking to subvert the usual democratic process to get their way”
Probably tragedy,s 2nd most tragic and corrupt statement thus far. There simply is not a scintilla of evidence to support this statement. There is not one poll that shows that the majority of Tasmanians want this pulp mill built in the Tamar valley. Indeed all the evidence consistently and overwhelmingly points to the opposite being the case. Here is proof. http://www.tapvision.info/node/127. No doubt the usual suspects will attempt to discredit these polls, but they will only be shooting the messengers. No doubt, If govt or industry could get one poll up showing support for the mill in the Tamar it would be trumpeted far and wide with great fanfare. They cant, so now they just lie. How tragic!

3. As for Tragedy,s comments “the biases of Rafferty against the mill have been bared to all since his demise - his intentions were to delay and stop the mill at all costs”. Mr Tragedy. I challenge you to submit your real name and repeat these accusations! Dr. Raverty was warned when he chose to continue speaking about Gunns pulp mill proposal and the activities of the Tasmanian government that he would be vilified and libelled in this way. In Tasmania, people who speak out against the establishment are warned, threatened, relegated and ostracised. That’s how things are done in Tasmania. When a person like Raverty or labor MLC Terry Martin speaks out or exposes corrupt practices; practices that are being sanctioned by the locally rich and powerful then they can expect retribution in one form or another. That’s dear lil ol Tassy

So strong is the desire of the Tasmanian government to exclusively represent one corporations wishes over the will of the people that along the road to securing Gunns their pulp mill, our supposedly independent Premier sacrificed RPDC panelists Julian Green, Dr Warwick Raverty and former Supreme Court Judge Christopher Wright and with them the RPDC itself. All 3 men have since been attacked and vilified by either the proponent and/or the premier because they dared to blow the whistle. These men have not even opposed a pulp mill in Tasmania, (infact Raverty is very keen to see one built at hampshire), but simply concerned at the political interference.
The Lennon labor government and the liberal opposition still refuse to blame Gunns for withdrawing from the RPDC assessment, rather choosing to trash-talk and lay the boots into its own statuatory planning and assessment body and the good and decent men whom the Government themselves appointed to it. This is why Tasmanians and indeed most Australians believe that Gunns run Tasmania.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1977339.htm
As Christopher Wright, the distinguished judge and the second RPDC chairman that Premier Paul Lennon tried to improperly influence, said. 'It was plain as the nose on my face,' Wright has said, 'that the Premier was trying to please Gunns.'
Former federal Labor leader Mark Latham who was no conservationist once said ,
“They [Gunns] run the state Labor Government, they run Paul Lennon … he wouldn’t scratch himself unless the guy who heads up Gunns told him to.” Latham would know. He went on to say
“No policy issue or set of relationships better demonstrates the ethical decline and political corruption of the Australian Labor movement than Tasmanian forestry.”

Tragedy, when the premier rewarded Gunns with a parliamentary fast track approvals process, despite clear evidence from within the RPDC telling us Gunns were in fact to blame for all the delays in the assessment process, he betrayed the trust and good faith of the Tasmanian community. The premier and Gunns had promised repeatedly from the outset that it would be the RPDC - the independent umpire - that (TBC)

(cont)....- that would throw out the bad projects.......as it turned out it was Gunns and the Premier who threw out the RPDC!
Tragedy, I think most people realise that the parliament has the power to override decisions made by statuatory planning bodies. But is a given that Tasmanians expect the Premier NOT to. NOT to "kidnap and shoot" the planning process. Not to treat the RPDC or the Parliament as a rubber stamp. NOT to act politically to push through a proposal against the advice of a team of independent experts (experts that the government appointed) who have carried out a very meticulous investigation. Unfortunately to people like tragedy and the unions and industry lobby groups who have a financial interest in the powerful logging industry, interfering with and manipulating democratic institutions and processes, statuatory bodies and public opinion are seen as legitimate means by which achieve the furtherment of their financial interests.
Indeed, the assessment of potentially dangerous complex chemical-inusdtrial plants on the scale that Gunns are proposing for Tasmania,s Tamar Valley is a prime example of why we need a dedicated body that can appoint relevant experts who have the ability to assess and adjudicate on the worthiness of a development proposal that our state will have to live with for next 100 years. Once Pulp Mills are built you cannot just up and move them. THAT is the reason why 15 years ago the Tasmanian parliament proclaimed its limitations in the specialised area of planning approvals and assessment by passing a raft of legislative and institutional arrangements to establish procedures, public input, due process and expertise within a recognised public policy and public administration framework……In other words we legislated to have an RPDC and enshrine it in law with its own act (The Resource Planning and Development Commission Act 1997). Our parliament is our most cherished democratic institution but to turn that politically representative forum into a planning approval and assessment authority, and one that does not represent the opinion of its electors is a slight on the integrity of the parliament, and its purpose.

This coming Thursday night, ABC television's 'DIFFERENCE of OPINION' is considering this very topic.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/differenceofopinion/

Tragedy said "I suspect the main reason for the incessant carping by the opponents of the mill, is that they know the majority of Tasmanians support the mill and they are looking to subvert the usual democratic process to get their way".
Just to ram home my point about how intellectually corrupt the above statement really is, here is a link to a report about another Galaxy poll that came out yesterday showing not only Tasmanians but Australians are opposed to the building of the pulp mill 2 to 1. http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,22404928-921,00.html The Galaxy poll of 1004 voters around Australia was commissioned by pulp mill opponents Investors for the Future of Tasmania. It found 41 per cent did not want the mill, 21 per cent thought it was a good idea and 38 per cent were undecided. Of the 41 per cent who opposed the mill, 64 per cent said the issue would affect their vote. And for those who missed it here is a link to summary of all other Tasmanian polls on the issue which clearly demonstrates how unpopular this project is with Tasmanians. http://www.tapvision.info/node/127
As Dr Raverty said in an interview earlier this year, "
Now, my experience of going to Launceston mainly and to Tamar is that I have yet to speak to anybody in the streets, and that’s mainly people of moderate views and dispositions – not the ‘deep green left’ – who want the mill at Long Reach. So you’ve got a situation where Gunns want it there, the Tasmanian Government wants it there, but by and large the electorate don’t want it there. The electorate, again, were prepared to wait for the RPDC decision but Gunns have unilaterally withdrawn from that process and everybody, almost to a man and a woman, is deeply suspicious of Gunns’ motives in withdrawing and insisting on the mill going into this valley which includes a lot of other ‘conflicting uses’, which include tourism, and vineyards and fisheries and so forth, all of which could be severely damaged by this mill"

(Continued)
As for the notion of "if you dont like it then vote them out at the next election".
Well if holding elections is sum total of a governments idea of democracy then we are in trouble. Having an election but doing whatever you want with no regard for public opinion and proper process then there is only thin veil that seperates us from being a dictatorship. And dictatorial is a perfect way of describing the approach of Tasmanias Lennon labor government towards the people on the pulp mill. As one writer said
"Democracy is not what happens in parliament. Democracy is not the holding of periodic elections. These are merely the mechanisms that
we in the particular time in which we live choose to deploy as our tools for delivering democratic outcomes.....democracy is about maximising the capacity for people to be involved in a realistic way in the making of the decisions which they are thereafter required to live with".
Read these reports and then talk to me about how "democratic" Paul Lennons pulp mill assessment has been!
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1878221.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2006/s1880148.htm
http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetail.asp?ArticleID=2264
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21419227-601,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,22342605-5006550,00.html