(cont) all the independent scientific reviews saying they had not) and that the Government should let them go ahead and build it straight away.
John Gay said that unless the mill was approved within 6 months the project would be axed. He also claimed that the RPDC had not asked them to build it at Hampshire. However, Dr. Raverty said that Julian Green had written to Gunns at least 3 times on the subject. He also said that Mr. Gay was wrong when he said that Gunns had satisfied the guidelines and that Gunns needed to improve things in several areas. Raverty said that the guidelines at Longreach were far higher than Hampshire because of the unsuitability of the location.
On the 25/1/2007, According to an article in the Tasmanian Times, the State Government were preparing legislation to remove the pulp mill assessment from the RPDC with the aim of approving it by a vote in Parliament. This would entail getting two bills through parliament - one to stop the present process and the other to approve the mill. If this happened it would break every promise ever made about the assessment process by the government and Gunns Ltd. Yet this and the fact that the independent scientific peer reviews and Dr. Raverty said that the mill as it stood was unsatisfactory did not seem to bother the State Government.
On the 1/2/2007 The State Government appointed retired Supreme Court Judge Christopher Wright as the new head of the RPDC. Premier Paul Lennon also reserved the right to change the recommendations of the RPDC if appropriate. It began to look very much as though Mr. Lennon would only accept one outcome
On the 5 Feb 2007 Dr.Warwick Raverty said that he would welcome an inquiry into the reasons for his and Julian Greens' resignation.
On the 6/2/2007 The RPDC announced the appointment of Andre Hamman as scientific advisor and Christopher Wright QC as chairman. The process could now continue as soon Gunns Ltd provide the information asked for (a week overdue already) at the Directions hearing
(To be continued)

Talk about carping from samps, zane et al about the abuse of democratic process. What people don't realise (and what samps and zane et al conveniently ignore in their posts), is that under the RPDC process, the final decision on whether the pulp mill went ahead was to be made by the Premier. The RPDC could only make a recommendation.

Under the so-called "fast-track" system, both houses of parliament vote on the decision (that is people elected to make decisions on our behalf). Parliamentarians were provided with reports and studies that were also available to and used by the RPDC. That is 4 years of process was still used in making a decision. (Its called accountability - 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).

When we look closely at the recent voting in Tasmania for the pulp mill by elected politicians in the Upper House, one independent (Ruth Forrest) voted against the mill despite voting in support of the new process. Two others voted for the mill, despite voting against the new process. Isn't it great to see democracy in action and working.

The only ones who believe the democratic rights have been denied, are those who don't like the decisions of their elected representatives. There is an easy solution to this - don't vote for those people at the next election. That is called democracy - its just that some don't accept the majority will of the people. At the upcoming Federal election, Tasmanians will have their opportunity to voice their opinion on the pulp mill. Polls don't matter, votes do.

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.

Tragedy and allied tragics:
Put it this way, your justifications for the chopping and changing of the process for approval of the pulp mill is no more than justification. To me, it reads like pulp fiction.

I have my standards. There are ways to get things done, and that's why the LUPA legislation and RPDC exist. That's the procedure that should have been adhered to, that's where Malcolm Turncoat should have sent Premier Lemon packing back toward, instead of making a federal case of it.

Say what you like about majorities (however you calculate them) and remember that elections and referendums do not determine truth or falsehood, honesty or guilt.

All the argument you can offer will not hide the fact that the prime consideration, the over-riding endpoint for the proponents and the current Tasmanian government, has been to get the pulp mill off and running.

And in my opinion, most of involvement of politicians, regarding the proposal and procedure, has been either spineless and/or tricky, which is to say contemptible and/or contemptible. A shame that elected Australian Democrats aren't on the ground, "Keeping the Bastards Honest". But The Greens have ticker and backbone, even if Liberals and Labor have gone to jelly.

If you were sitting on an airplane, hearing it revving up at the end of the runway, and you discovered that the aircraft maintenance just completed was of the same quality as your "democratic approval process", would you be looking forward to the rest of the journey?

You just don't get it Sir Vivor. For every opinion held one way, there is another strongly held opinion the other. People can argue the merits, the truths, the untruths etc etc etc until the cows come home but at the end of the day a decision has to be made. You can get bogged down on the processes all you like but the beauty of democracy is all people get a vote to pick their elected representatives to make important decisions on their behalf. If you don't like the decisions they make, then don't vote for them. But save us the disingenuous argument that democratic processes were not followed because no-ones right to vote has been denied nor has any elected representative's vote been denied - in fact it has been strengthened with both Houses of the Tasmanian Parliament voting on whether the pulp mill proceeds or not.

It smacks of elitism to casually dismiss other points of view and claim that yours is the only right one. I can argue the science with you Sir Vivor and easily show how the opponents of the mill have been loose with the truth in their claims and no doubt you will counter claim against me. But like I say, it will come down to a vote at an election. And Sir Vivor dear, the main reason both political parties support the pulp mill is that they know the majority of the punters support it as well. By all means try and convince the punters that they shouldn't support the mill with truthful reasoning. But don't bleat that the people's rights have been denied because there is no evidence of that. Believing you don't have enough public consultation isn't an argument against democracy - it is an argument against a decision making process. Think about it - it is simple case.

At the end of the day there are winners and there are losers. It's a pity that the people shouting the loudest about losing democratic rights are the same that don't accept the will of the people come election time.

Tragic says
"At the end of the day there are winners and there are losers. It's a pity that the people shouting the loudest about losing democratic rights are the same that don't accept the will of the people come election time."

Have I missed the point? Am I elitist? Did I say I hate pulp mills and damn the job losses? Did I complain about the results of the last election?

I can't find where I wrote those words.

No, I said that LUPA legislation and RDPC procedures should have been adhered to, and
"Say what you like about majorities (however you calculate them) and remember that elections and referendums do not determine truth or falsehood, honesty or guilt."

Elections and referendums are decision-making tools, and whether they deliver good or bad decisions was not at all my point. The RPDC process is the proper one for the circumstance.

My guess is that if a pilot, queued up on the runway, ready for take-off, found out that just-completed aircraft maintenance was shoddy, he (or she) would not call an election to decide whether to go back and get the job done right.

But, if you were the pilot, tragedy, I'm not so sure.

Tragedy indeed. Where do I start.
1. 4 years of process? - This is highly misleading. In November 2004, Gunns proposed building a pulp mill in Tasmania and undertook to do feasibility studies on two potential sites: the Tamar Valley – in one of Tasmania's prime wine-growing and tourist regions, that 100,000 people call home, and Hampshire - 35 km south of Burnie at the centre of 100,000 hectares of eucalypt forests with almost no residents. In March 2007 Gunns withdrew from the RPDC assessment process. That’s 2 years and 4 months of process – not 4.
In the interim, February 2005 saw Gunns abandoned their study of the unpopulated, Hampshire site. Despite many attempts by the RPDC and official requests, Gunns failed to give any detail to any information at all on the costs estimate differentials between Hampshire and Long Reach.
Then Gunns Ltd only released its 7500 pages Integrated Impact Statement - the vehicle in which the Gunns case was presented” on the 14th of July 2006 - about a year after it was originally promised.
Gunns then failed twice in october 2006 and February 2007 to satisfy the RPDC that they could build such a facility in the Tamar Valley without adversely impacting on the environment and the community. So in March 2007 Gunns withdrew from the RPDC assessment process. It did so because it knew the Premier would rescue them with a watered down approvals process. The Premier is not a subtle man. He held a press conference within 24hrs and announced, albeit predictably that he would deliver and then he invited Gunns's lawyers to assist in drafting legislation. Which included unbelievable provisions like “
· Even criminal conduct such as bribes would not stop the mill.
· No provision for any appeal.
· It will assessed against the guidelines but only requires a recommendation.
· Consultant does not have to say if mill meets guidelines.
· No consideration of other matters like water, transport, etc.
· Total lack of transparency.
When the Parliament got down to debating the bill the Premier who knew.....