Sorry Karl, it’s a nice effort but a little bit off the mark. Having read the bible I can tell you for certain that the Devil is infact clever…..so I am quite sure the slobbering dauphin isnt the dark one.

To split a hair, Karl, it isn’t actually a crime to ask questions about the pulp mill.  It’s just that you can incur a huge de facto fine in Tasmania for insisting on an answer.

The barby-stopper in the recent court decision was the ruling that no one was entitled to reasons because the provision of reasons was one of the processes of appealing a decision under the Judicial Review Act which was barred by the PMAA.  But reasons are also a bedrock requirement of justice.  You may have noticed that real courts always give reasons regardless of whether anyone has lodged an appeal or whether the Judicial Review Act is at issue.

Criminal behaviour (s 11(4)) was the only exception to the PMAA’s otherwise blanket ban of grounds of appeal against the mill approval. Given that there seems to be some prima facie evidence of criminal conduct in respect to the mills approval, i.e the alleged tip-off to Gunns shortly before they pulled out of the RPDC process and the supersonic approval that followed, it is curious that the judge also barred the only avenue for enquiring as to whether illegalities took place.

The wonderful thing about the PMAA and the subsequent court judgment is that they seem to open the floodgates for anti-democratic legislation.  Get your last postings in NOW.

John Hayward

Ahh, “supersonic approval”....John you crack me lol.

Don’t worry Will, your name will be remembered!