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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Tasmanian political rot: the 'Pulp Mill Assessment Act' revisited > Comments

Tasmanian political rot: the 'Pulp Mill Assessment Act' revisited : Comments

By Peter Henning, published 26/8/2009

Tasmanians have been betrayed by their elected 'representatives' in both houses of the Tasmanian Parliament.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Yet another extremely biased spew interlaced with trivia from Peter Henning.

At least while working for the Tasmanian times you don't have to pretend to be a real journalist.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 1:48:34 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
When will onlineopinion stop republishing such poorly researched and biased articles from Tasmanian Times?

Before this one was republished, even the usually uncritical readership of Tasmanian Times had spotted its major flaws.
It claims that the Pulp mill assessment act was “was carefully framed...quite deliberately written to ensure that any common law legal rights were obliterated as far as that could be done”
The act and its controversial section 11 was “supported by all Tasmanian Labor-Liberal MPs, and by a majority of so-called independent MLCs (most of whom are Liberals to the eyeballs)” and “The PMAA is an exemplar par excellence of the state of governance in Tasmania, for it demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that those who hold the reins of power, and those who aspire to replace them”

However in an embarrassing admission one of the anti pulp mill activists on Tasmania Times http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/stannus-go-the-jimbox/
“Some of what we have been given to understand for the last two and a half years has been incorrect. Section 11 of the PMAA 2007 was never about stopping people seeking redress for injury or damage as a result of the construction or operation of the pulp mill. Many claims have been made about the effects of Section 11...

The original PMA Bill which was introduced into Parliament contained a different Section 11(1) where any action etc relating to or arising from the PMA Act was precluded. In order to guarantee the people’s access to common-law rights for actions etc to do with injury or damages, the Bill was amended in the Legislative Council so that these rights were provided for while yet limiting the ability to attack the assessment/approval process with the object of delaying or stopping the project”

So just as the claims on the impact of commercial fishing was exposed last year ago when the ABC was forced to apologise, [http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2448132.htm ] we now have the anti pulp mill activist admitting that they were wrong about section 11 and the PMAA in that it was the result of democratic process and not as claimed in this article.
Posted by cinders, Thursday, 27 August 2009 10:35:49 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
Cinders you are with TCA? Right. Are you a lawyer? No. Well listen up.
The purpose of Section 11 is to provide bulletproof protection to the approval of the pulp mill project as it has been given by parliament in the form of the pulp mill permit. The approval, and the permit, are by section 11 put beyond the purview of the Supreme Court,
the Magistrates Court, and any other body which, but for the section, would have jurisdiction to review or in some other way interfere with the approval or the pulp mill permit.
It is also clear beyond any question that “assessment or approval” means an assessment or approval by government, whether state or
local, or by any body, such as the RPDC, invested with assessment or approval power by the Crown in the right of the State of Tasmania.
The purpose and effect of section 11 is that neither the approval
given by parliament under the PMAA nor the pulp mill permit may be attacked by any body in any way whether by court action or by some other process of judicial or administrative review.
Section 11 is simply to bulletproof the approval by parliament of the pulp mill project and the pulp mill permit.
Democracy Tasmanian style. Where a so called representative parliament puts a protective wall around a poor vulnerable logging corporation to protect it from those evil Tasmanian citizens.
Posted by Dreem, Thursday, 27 August 2009 8:23:24 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
“Cinders, you are with TCA”, is the start of a rant against my previous post. I assume TCA is Timber Communities Australia, a nationwide organisation of community groups that depend on the sustainable timber industry and draws its membership from people in small business, that work and care for our forests, and folk that seek to promote the environment, economic and social benefits of the renewable resource management.

Details of TCA can be found at www.tca.org.au where you can also find detailed analysis of claims (myths) made against the modern value adding pulp mill and the findings of the Independent Complaint Review panel on the flawed 7.30 report mentioned.

TCA people are proud of the fact that a balance was achieved a decade ago in Australia’s forest management that has seen reserve levels, such as 1 million hectares of old growth in Tasmania, exceed targets set by international groups such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the IUCN and WWF target of 10% managed for protection.

But it is not TCA that I quote to discredit the claims against the Pulp mill Assessment Act but anti mill activists and academics published on Tasmanian Times, an electronic platform for the many misleading claims about Tasmania’s forestry and its ECF pulp mill. The link in my post even includes a number of opinions from a Senior lecturer at University of Tasmania Faculty of law.

The pulp mill assessment and approval process has already been subject to a variety of legal challenges that have all failed dismally including in the Federal Court by Lawyers for Forests and one in State Supreme court by three Tamar Valley landowners. One these landowners led yesterday’s protest in front of Parliament House over ‘corruption’ based on claims made in this article.

Such publicity stunts would be more effective, if they name who paid the bribes, who received them and how much was exchanged. Surely the protestors are not frightened to be sued for defamation; without doubt they want their day in court.

Perhaps Dreem could also give them some expert legal advice!
Posted by cinders, Friday, 28 August 2009 9:45:19 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
Dreem on,

The legislation was passed to protect the economy and citizens of the area from the legalistic economic vandals that were continually delaying the approval process.

These vocal "citizens" while claiming to represent the people of the area only represent the lunatic fringe.

This became obvious in the 2004 elections when the labor party took their "green" ideology on board and succeeded in losing most of the seats in a previously labor stronghold.

The labor gov is likely to be very wary of the noisy self righteous claims of the extreme environmentalists such as Peter Henning and their mouthpiece toerag the tasmanian times which has as much journalistic integrity on this issue as the national enquirer.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 28 August 2009 12:34:37 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
The nasty reactions we see here to Peter Henning, who is by no means an extremist of any sort is so typical of the way in which the corrupt Tasmanian woodchip industry deals with dissent. Pete Henning is a lovely bloke, a Tasmar Valley farmer and former school principal and excellent Tasmanian writer. We are proud of Peter here in Tassy. George (cinders) is part of Tasmanias labor party machinery. Thats fine. George is one of those archaic throwbacks who believes that anyone who criticisesthe corrupt Tasmanian woodchip industry is a "green" man form mars and must be destroyed.
Posted by Dreem, Saturday, 29 August 2009 11:14:22 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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