|
1.
|
The minister made the following statements
regarding the matter in his NEWSLETTER
published subsequent to his approval which has reportedly been
widely circulated to his Wentworth constituents via print media:
|
(a)
|
"There will be no additional
logging needed to support the mill. The economics
of the mill are based on adding value to woodchips which
would otherwise be exported to overseas pulp mills (all
of which would have less stringent environmental conditions
than those I have imposed on the Tamar Valley pulp mill.)" |
|
(b)
|
"Wood supply issues are not subject
to assessment under the EPBC Act so long as the wood supply,
as is the case here, is covered by a Regional Forestry Agreement." |
|
|
2.
|
According to Gunns the Pulp Mill proponent, the
rate of woodchip consumption to feed all of its mills will increase
from 3.4 million tonnes per annum (Gunns
Ltd Annual Report 2006-07 - 1.3mb PDF) to 6.8 million tonnes
per annum (Bell
Bay Pulp Mill, Draft Integrated Impact Statement, Vol. 1: 6-249
- 11.7mb PDF) |
|
3.
|
By reason of 2,
the minister's statement at 1(a) above,
is blatantly FALSE. |
|
4.
|
At the minister's department website, the Recommendation
Report at paragraph 64 cites:
to apparently justify the statement at 1(b)
above. |
|
5.
|
However, it seems :
|
(a)
|
the Bleached Kraft Pulp Mill and its
co-located Forest Furnace Power Station, are not
RFA forestry operations that are undertaken in accordance
with an RFA (as per the section 38(1)
of the EPBC Act exemption); |
|
(b)
|
and section 75(2B)
of the EPBC Act deals only with, if the Pulp Mill requires
a Commonwealth approval, NOT the actual approval
process pursuant to Part 9 of the EPBR Act. |
|
|
6.
|
So apparently, the minister IS required to
undertake the mandatory considerations as required by the
Part 9 section 136
of the EPBC Act which includes:
|
•
|
(1)(b) economic and social matters
AND (2)(a) the principles of ecologically sustainable
development (as defined at section 3A
of the EPBC Act) in the context of 2
above, when there is to be a doubling of Gunns consumption
of woodchips in order to feed its existing requirements
and the Pulp Mill requirements. |
However, by reason of the minister's FALSE statement at
1(a) above, the minister has chosen to
willfully or negligently not take into consideration a doubling
of the Gunns consumption of woodchips (and the resulting water
crisis* implications):
|
(a)
|
in his reasoning to approve the Pulp Mill
under Part 9 of the EPBR Act, when he has the fundamental
requirement to provide for the
protection of the environment; |
|
(b)
|
and in his further duty of care as a Minister
of the Crown owed to the Australian people to bring natural
justice to the disgusting and obviously corrupted approval
process undertaken by the Lennon Tasmanian government and
especially to those that have been disenfranchised by this
conduct which the minister himself described as, undermining
the trust of the people of Tasmania. |
|
|
7.
|
By reason of 4,
5 and 6 the minister's
statement at 1(b) also appears false, AND
as such, the minister appears to have improperly assessed or not
assessed at all, the mandatory considerations, pursuant to section
136
of the EPBC Act AND considering that the minister considered
that wood supply issues were irrelevant, why did he find it necessary
to make the false statement at 1(a). |
|
8.
|
FURTHER, the mandatory considerations are dealt with
at Attachment
16 Legal Obligations as listed in the Recommendation
Report of the minister's department. However Attachment
16 makes multiple references to "Attachment B"
back in the Recommendation
Report. THE PROBLEM IS Attachment B appears not to
exist as it cannot be found by the writer or (as yet), by the
minister's department.
|
