To challenge his arrest in a way that will embarrass the corruption of the process and the government, Peter would need to argue something like the doctrine of necessity, that the protest was required by the circumstances.  I am confident that there are no Tasmanian lawyers who would employ any tactic that might discomfit Tas Inc, though there are a few who specialise in leading environmental dissidents to the cleaners.

John Hayward

The people of the Tamar Valley who have been subjected to 5 years of extreme stress because of Gunns threatened stinking Pulp Mill, will really struggle to sympathize with the Forest Contractors now begging for more financial assistance from the State Government.
While we have seen the health and lifestyle of our families under threat, property values in steep decline and ill-feeling engendered between friends and neighbours by this insane proposal, these same redneck contractors have labeled us as whingeing ‘Greenies’ and ‘NIMBYs’,
The claim by major Northern Tasmanian Contractor, Ken Padgett, that he has real concerns for the mental health of forest contractors may be valid, as evidenced by the state of mind of the large number of very aggressive log truck drivers out there intimidating other road users while trashing our road system.

One of your best Bob. Spot on.

Why have sympathy for the contractors about their mental health or their financial position, when they have criticised the residents of the Tamar valley and bullied us. I have been abused and cut off on the road by these contractors, because of my stickers I’m sure. They have sneered at us when we have protested about the ill effects on us all, both mentally and physically, if the stinking pulp mill is built. Also the land valuation reduction in the Tamar Valley is significant, so the fine food and wine businesses that are in the Tamar Valley would also have lost a lot of their value. I know gunns winery ‘Tamar ridge’ is also in the tamar, but they don’t care they would just change it to plantation as they are trying to do to the rest of the state.

I also wish to speak in support of the actions of Peter Cundall and his co-protestors. 

My concerns regarding the pulp mill have always been mainly with the fast tracking process, its debasement of our Parliament and its insidious impact on government in Tasmania.

Apart from those matters raised by Mr. Cundall and Mr. McMahon in recent press reports, we should remind ourselves that there are several other aspects of the fast tracking process that deserve examination by an independent commission.  I wish to raise two more here.

It has been widely discussed by Rick Pilkington and others in this forum, that the Premier of the day, Mr. Lennon, had specific knowledge that the RPDC had prepared a formal letter advising Gunns that their proposal for the development of the mill was “critically non compliant.”  It is not clear what actions Mr. Lennon, or his then advisor Linda Hornsey, took to prevent that letter being delivered.  We know it was not delivered.

However, I remain deeply suspicious that the timing of Gunns’ announcement to the ASX, that they were withdrawing from the RPDC process, was a co-ordinated action supported by Mr. Lennon as Premier.  This raises questions of market manipulation as well as political manipulation.

It also remains unclear whether or not Mr. Lennon withheld information from the Parliament in the course of its deliberations on the fast track Pulp Mill Assessment Act.  Was is clear to all members of Parliament that the RPDC had decided the proposal from Gunns was critically non-compliant?  Did Mr. Lennon, as Premier, have a legal obligation to disclose and clarify this information, given that the RPDC was acting as a Statutory Authority in the pulp mill assessment? 

If it can be shown that critical information was not disclosed, should the PMAA be declared invalid?

It is a travesty that Mr Cundall and others have to appear in court as a result of their peaceful protest action, when none of the murky trails of evidence relating to the corruption of process in the passage of the PMAA have been considered worthy of investigation by our legal guardians. 

Ben Quin

Two wrongs don’t make a right.  I support the law in our country.  Regardless of the legitimacy of the pulp mill process, Peter Candall cannot plead not guilty on the basis that he beleives that the pulp mill process was corrupt.  By doing so, he has now lost the respect of the moderates.

Your “moderates” can go **** themselves, Mark Wybourne. Peter Cundall (not Candall) is and will remain, a hero to the residents of this valley for his brave stance. The so-called
“moderates” are just do-nothing twits, if they think he is wrong. I do not believe (not beleive) they think he IS wrong, however. I know lots of “moderates” who think Peter is spot on.
(PS What really IS a moderate anyway? By your definition,a namby-pamby,limp-wristed,vacillating noodle, it would seem.
Terrible things can happen when good people stand by and do nothing because it might be a bit immoderate. History is full of examples.
Let’s hear it for immoderation!

Have a Dorky Day,
Horse

Mark Wybourne…I think you are very misinformed if you think Peter Cundall would ever lose our respect, especially as he is willing to fight for the rights of you and me and the rest of the Tasmanian population. It never used to be a law that the public could not stand in a publicly owned place without being sued. This is ridiculous to say the least. The law should be encouraged to be out there arresting the CRIMINALS not arresting citizens who, it seems are not allowed to make a point to our corrupt gov’t. I respect Peter and I support him for his right to be heard by our single minded polititions on behalf of all of us.

No.6. I’m a moderate and, no, he hasn’t.
It hinges on whether the Sergeant-at-Arms, apparently acting under instruction from the Speaker, was within his rights to instruct the police to move the totally peaceful protesters on.
Other groups have also protested, often noisily, in the same place with no ‘official’ instruction to shift.
To that end Peter Cundall could be viewed as a ‘political prisoner’.
Next time, Peter and Co., please park a big truck there with its horn jammed on and walk away quickly with the keys.

Mark @ #6 check this out quite closely:

“This morning he (Peter Cundall) pleaded not guilty to the charge of refusing to obey a police order to move away from Parliament House ...”

and:

” ... the former host of the ABC’s Gardening Australia program, has used the publicity surrounding his court appearance to accuse logging company Gunns and the Tasmanian Parliament of corruption.”

See, two different animals.

Actually Ben if the evidence given by Linda Hornsey, Mr Lennons former faithful head of department is to be accepted then it quite clear that Mr Lennon allowed the parliament to vote on the PMAA without the knowledge of the withheld RPDC.

The RPDC had indeed written to Gunns on 2 March 2007 warning them that the supplementary information the company had submitted was “critically deficient…constituting a major non-compliance”. The letter was to be sent to Gunns on 9 March 2007 but the Premier’s department intervened to stop the damning letter.

The existence of the letter was only made public on 13 June 2007; three months after the Parliament debated the new fast-track legislation.

The Premier allowed the parliament to consider and vote on one of the most controversial and potentially important pieces of legislation in the state’s history without the highly admissible letter from the expert planning body which had overseen and assessed the pulp mill project for over 2 years.

Paul Lennon in fact swore that he had no knowledge of the RPDC letter until 23 March 2007. Some have argued that March 23 date was given by the former Premier to protect himself from theses very accusations. March 23 was one day after the lower House passed the PMAA. Of course one week later the upper house passed it also. If the former Premier did not about the letter till March 23 he could argue that he did not mislead the parliament by omission.

However his former head of department Linda Hornsey who had intervened to stop the letter, contradicted this when she appeared before the Legislative Council Select Committee on Public Sector Executive Appointments in 2008.  When asked by MLC Terry Martin “So it would be fair to assume that sometime before 16 March, a week before the Premier claims to have had any knowledge of this critical non-compliance, the Premier would have known about the RPDC draft letter to Gunns and that you had stopped it from being sent?”.  Hornsey replied “It is a fair assumption, that is true”. Ms Hornsey also conceded that she “may have informed Premier Lennon as early as Friday 9 March of her discussions with Mr Cooper relating to the critical non-compliance letter”.

The pulp mill and the pmaa are indeed socially invalid. They should be legally invalid.

Surely law is on Peter’s side. Is it unlawful to stand on the steps of parliament where the inmates in there are supposed to serve the people, not the other way around? Should the Speaker have the right to order the police to arrest people and take away their right to free speech? Does Stalin rule or democracy?

Peter and the other arrestees did not comply with a police order to move en masse - however, it was an order which should never have been issued and that, to my mind, is the crux of the whole thing. The protesters were peaceful and were not blocking access so they were only exercising a basic democratic right. Why weren’t they allowed to exercise that right?

On the 24th January 2007 Sue Neales wrote the following on Tasmanian Times.
“On a more informative level, I have also had it confirmed that the RPDC fully expects any pulp mill decision to be soon taken out of its hands by the State government.

Govt claim/belief is that any final decision by the RPDC pulp mill assessment panel would be legally challengable on the same basis that Dr Raverty had to resign - ie. that the potential “perception of bias” legal challenge to his position on the panel could also be used against the entire panel, on the basis that Dr Raverty helped forumulate the guidelines that the panel has been using. 

Hence the expectation that the Lennon government will soon introduce legislation that proposes to revoke the Project of State Significance status of the Gunns pulp mill (needing support of both Houses).  Followed immediately by a Bill that gives the green light to the pulp mill (eg. The Gunns Long Reach Pulp Mill Approval Bill) once again that needs to pass both the Upper and Lower House.”

This was six weeks before Gunns withdrew. Sue’s sources must have known that the PMAA was being drawn up. If only those sources would come forward

I didn’t realise one has to be an extremist to support ethics over corruption! Ethics are something innate in me, and i have felt strongly about them since long before this debate, when I was deffinitely not a protestor.

Not all contractors are vindictive towards protestors, just as not all protestors are prepared to get arrested. It is a big mistake to bundle us together in “types”. Logging contractors have the right to expect fair treatment from their employer, as does anyone else. They are not getting it from Gunns. Just as the public have the right to be considered in the forestry debate - as we are not, and never have been.

In the latest FFIC report there is a statement saying improving technology will help - but the Edge Report, an economic review, has quite a different view, saying there is no potential for improvement in technology. Which report do your reckon Bartlett paid more attention to, for his latest big $ promise - the favourable one from the industry, or the less favourable, more impartial, one?

Read the logging contractor’s letters in Hansard, read out by Kim Booth when he presented his bill for an exit strategy and re-skilling for contractors, voted down by LabLib. By denying the logging contractors’ rights to a fair deal you become as bad as Bartlett who is denying us our rights.

His intention is to divide the community, we must make it work together for all our sakes.

6; I believe Peter pleaded not guilty as he considers he has a right to protest outside parliament. He has a point you know!

One thing that the Government and Gunns don’t seem to have thought about is this:

If letters from Environmentalists and others have managed to stop the sale of woodchips, will not exactly the same fate await pulp sales if this project ever gets built?

Gunns’ directors and Government ministers must be barking mad if they think this project will ever be profitable.

Good on you Mark #6 - looks like you’ve come to a verdict before the judge!  Looks like you’ve decided Cundall is guilty even before his trial gets started.  Before the argument, before the evidence. 

Without rereading the relevant sections, seems to me that Cundall defended his right to peacefully protest outside the parliament, and stated that he didn’t block anybody from entering.  Did I remember wrongly? 

Yet you have turned this into ‘Cundall believes he can break the law because the pulp mill process was corrupt.

I rather think that Cundall was claiming that he did not break any law.

#6 has decided that once you are arrested and charged the hearing process is only a formality for the ‘guilty bastard’. Really ‘moderates’ should resile whenever action goes beyond writing a letter to the editor. There they sit firmly wedged on the fence worried about everything and unable to work out any ranking for their concerns.

To stop the forests being trashed has required law breaking as did stopping the Tasmanian economy being ruined by the then HEC. The law governing these particular trashings have now changed and more about forestry will change.

To expose a corrupted process when you are faced with a clique in power, in this case a big business and the old parties combined requires more than a letter of protest and its concomitant reply telling you politely where to put it.

I congratulate Cundall for his strength of character.

And it still goes on.
Saturday Examiner of 6th Feb has a small public notice on page 95.
‘Gunns Ltd will be undertaking blasting and drilling activities during February/March on the proposed pulp mill site at the Bell Bay Industrial Zone.
All activities will be conducted in accordance with council and permit regulations. Impacts should be minimal with some noise and dust expected in the immediate area of the activity only.
For further information phone 1800 265 297’

Good Article Bob. In relation to this stench, I just wanted to remind Tasmanian’s about something more simple, about quite possibly the biggest, most public broken promise in Tasmanian Political History.

In the last state election campaign of 2006, all state labour and liberal politicians and candidates demonstrated bi partisan suppport and “held hands”, vowing to support the new Bell Bay Pulp Mill proposal ONLY IF it passed independent RPDC assessment. At this stage, Gunn’s Integratred Impact Statement (IIS) hadnt even been released.
This unprecedented act, speculated to have been organised by the CFEMU (Sue Neales wrote an article on this in the Mecury) was displayed in full page advertisments in the Examiner.

Not long after, history shows what a massive spineless backflip this turned out to be. All bar one (who abstained) were happy to abandon this very public promise a few months later under a new fast tracked proposal, even when it was evident Gunns were not able to meet RPDC standards.

Lest we forget.

Re #6
Whatever your interpretation, the court action commenced by the Lennon/Bartlett Tasmanian Labor Government (and supported by the Liberals in their total silence since) against probably the most well known, admired, respected and loved person in Australia is going to HURT politically.

Imagine the public’s response if he is found guilty and fined or jailed?

In a way, I hope that’s what happens. Just watch the politicians duck for cover.

And wouldn’t it be lovely to hear legal debate on whether all police instructions must be obeyed, regardless of the nature of or reason for, the instruction. 

Perhaps the Court could dismiss the charges?

CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION - RECONSTRUCTION:
“I say, Sergeant, old bean, lot of people standing outside, They’re all quiet, and holding banners, implying things.  Horrible nasty things!  Can’t you do something?  Get rid of them?  Nasty!  Nasty!”

“Yes my Lord Speaker, what would you have me do?”

“Go down and tell thems to go away, give thems cakes, promise to pass on concerns, dear fellow, just make thems go away ... just make thems go away!”

“Yes my Lord Speaker, and if that doesn’t work?”

“Call the police, dammit!  Why, it’s lawlessness, pure and simple, goddammit!  Interference with the highest institutions of state!  Can’t be tolerated for a moment!  What a nerve!  Who do they thinks they are, coming here with their bolshie placards and their riff-raff.  They can march up and down till their little proletarian feet drop off - they’ll never stops our precious, no they’ll never stops our precious!”

[... Sergeant At Arms goes to place a call ...]

“...Sorry for that little disturbance, gentlemen.  Should be just times for another round before luncheon.  Waiter!  Same again thank you, on the tab.  Why Scotty, how lovely of you to drop in.  VB and Scotch?  Waiter!  Waiter!  God! They’re deaf when they want to be… “

WHO WERE THE CRIMINALS, Dear Readers, dear readers?

Ben Quin points out ” none of the murky trails of evidence relating to the corruption of process in the passage of the PMAA have been considered worthy of investigation by our legal guardians.”
Not so surprising , Ben , when you consider the relationship of our last two Police Commissioners to Lennon.
Lennon used his appearance before Harris’ Committee to make a gutless attack on the DPP, who had had the effrontery to charge Johnston rather than bury the matter ( the charges related to Johnston tipping off Cox and Lennon about an investigation of allegations involving Lennon. This has never been denied, and McCreadie admitted, under the “fifth”, that he had told all to Llewellyn within days of Burch making the allegations. If you can’t bury an investigation - and the DPP was interested in this one - the next best thing might be to tip off the suspects ). Stateline reported that after his “evidence” was given Lennon headed to McCreadie’s house where he was joined by Johnston.
No wonder Bartlett was gobsmacked and all at sea when Darren Hine told the truth rather than the party line about what he had told him about reappointing McCreadie - Police Commissioners in Tassie are supposed to stop trouble for the Premier of the day.
This had better be my lost post , I’m not so far up the foodchain that Someone Now Resigned couldn’t still make life uncomfortable for me.

(Comment challenged and reviewed). 

Only once have I been in the company of a lwa graduate when challenged by the Police. Thye withdrew thinking better of it.

For most of us the determination of a lawful direction is an appearance in the lower court.

I have commented before on the ridiculous bail conditions and as a result of their withdrawal was able to enjoy the Heysen Exhibition.

As to the making of accusations versus giving evidence to the now less corrupted Police I am surprised the matter was not declared subjudice under the privileges of Parliament by anon [#25].

What we are not dealing with in this matter is the law, we are dealing with raw power, how it is exercised in our system and how our system responds. This is a matter of politics and as such free debate is allowed. Just as free are nay so named to take action in law if they feel their name has been unfairly impuned.

The difficulty is the number of cases would clog the courts or if one example is taken out then the risk is al matters come before the law instead of the Parlaiment’s Priveleges Committee.

The Courts take less kindly to political stalling than the Members of the Salamanca Club.

That is why no action is being taken, why Jack got off with a slap on the wrist and Richard is back in retirement.

Will Will take to fixing the process with more vigour than Barty. Only with a Green stiffener balancing the matter.

All that was raised by myself in my ‘swindle’ article which has now been on the public record for at least 6 months waqs drawn from information already on the public record. It is infact the accumulated body of information on the public record, as put there witnesses including, former supreme court judges, by respected journalists, politicians, political parties, RPDC experts, insiders & whistleblowers, Upper house committees and so on that is so damning of Gunns and the state governments conduct in relation to the pulp mill. It is this large body of information that accuses. As Phil says, people, including the Tasmanian media should feel free to reproduce and repeat that information without being threatened or intimidated.

The underlying issue here, which is the nature and operation of Tasmanian law, was illustrated in a legal experience of my own.

Addressing a denial of a statutory requirement for the provision of natural justice in an administrative decision on a forestry matter, the Tasmanian judge ruled that the applicant (myself) had provided no evidence that he would have availed himself of the opportunity to make a submission if it had been provided.

This Alice in Wonderland doctrine was complemented by the absolute refusal of the applicant’s lawyer to raise an embarrassingly contradictory ruling by another judge on the same principle in the same legislative provision.

Declaiming on mainland Australian law seems, for a Tassie lawyer, something close to onanism.

John Hayward

Maddie (#13) declares her view that there was no justification for any police order that Mr Cundall and others should disperse. I offer (in partial ignorance) the following comments.

A police constable told me that the order was issued under the Police Offences Act. Can anyone verify this?

The most pertinent section of this Act seems to be s.15B - Dispersal of persons.

Here’s the wording:

15B. Dispersal of persons

    (1) A police officer may direct a person in a public place to leave that place and not return for a specified period of not less than 4 hours if the police officer believes on reasonable grounds that the person –

  (a) has committed or is likely to commit an offence; or

  (b) is obstructing or is likely to obstruct the movement of pedestrians or vehicles; or

  (c) is endangering or likely to endanger the safety of any other person; or

  (d) has committed or is likely to commit a breach of the peace.

    (2) A person must comply with a direction under subsection (1).

Penalty:

  Fine not exceeding 2 penalty units (currently $240)

I believe that Peter and the others took special care to cause no obstruction to anyone and that at no point did so. With this special care there was little or no likelihood of their causing an obstruction, so in my opinion s15B fails in this case.

But there is something else to consider, namely the right of an owner or a person in charge of premises to direct any person to vacate it, with or without fair cause.

This applies to supermarkets for example, which I always considered were public places. A public place may be defined as “a place to which the public ordinarily has access” - a description that also applies to Parliament House.

This description similarly applies to the frontage and front paths of our homes where, as in the supermarket and Parliament examples, there may be considered to stand an invisible sign that says “The public may enter for any lawful purpose.”

Regardless of this invisible sign, the home-owner may still tell anyone on his path or his home’s front porch to leave. Property owners would not want it any other way.

Upon being made aware of this instruction, I believe that the visitor must promptly vacate the premises by the most expedient route. That also, is what every home-owner would want.

Now if we regard Parliament’s Speaker as the person in charge of Parliament House we might have to acknowledge his right to have any person removed - regardless of whether there’s fairness and legitimacy behind his requirement or not.

By this measure (and if there’s any validity to my understanding of it as expressed above) Mr Cundall’s case may fail.

I doubt if the magistrates will be much interested in the cause behind Mr Cundall’s protest, entirely legitimate as many of us know that cause to be.

The nation’s courts are courts of law, and the letter of the law is paramount therein.

Justice, if it occurs at all, is too often merely incidental.

For reader convenience I’ve reprinted Maddie’s perceptive post (with which I’m in agreement) hereunder ...

“Peter and the other arrestees did not comply with a police order to move en masse - however, it was an order which should never have been issued and that, to my mind, is the crux of the whole thing. The protesters were peaceful and were not blocking access so they were only exercising a basic democratic right. Why weren’t they allowed to exercise that right?”

(Posted by Maddie on 05/02/10 at 03:30 PM)

Re #29
“But there is something else to consider, namely the right of an owner or a person in charge of a premises to direct any person to vacate it, with or
without fair cause.”

Then I guess that will fail as well, as no-one singularly within the Parliament “owns or is in charge of the premises” (even though some believe they do).

Parliament House is owned by all Tasmanians, including those who were arrested. They had every right to be there.

The Crown owns the Parlaiment House and is a natural person under law following the precepts, pratcies, statutes and laws descending. That is Tasmania is a jurisdiction with a Constitutional Monarchy.

Their is a complex of representation which causes the responsibility for representing the owner to The Speaker and The President.

If the government had any sense it will make arrangments throught the process that we all know [TAS Inc] to ensure that a stern warning is given to the members of the community perhaps backed by a requirement to not do it again for a couple of 2 years. In other words a warning.

This upholds the dignity of the Parlaiment and the role of the Police whilst not encouraging such democratic activities to proliferate outside the Parliament.

It is not a matter of whether the protestors are correct, as we have seen from the corrupted process around the Pulpmill Approval Act recorded again on the pages of TT, their is enough evidence to conclude that is was.

It is whose power is emminent, the system of laws or a representative group from the community. of course the Police may have erred in law and so the Courts may find. The decision of the court is a matter open to appeal.