Image for What I told Greg Hall. His reply

The letter below from Mr Greg Hall came about as a result of a chance meeting in public outside the Deloraine Deli in Deloraine.

In conversation I raised the subject of Process, The Parliament and his position as an Independent Upper House Member who had voted to enable the passing of Legislation regarding the Pulp Mill.

I suggested that the people of Tasmania would learn to despise those who had passed this Legislation when they had absolutely no expertise or knowledge of pulp mills or their operation.

He replied that he had made the effort to visit overseas pulp mills and they did not smell. I asked if this was his only expertise in this matter and suggested that a stench was now rapidly becoming apparent to all. 

I asked what right did Parliament have to pass enabling legislation to benefit a Listed Company then engaged in a process through the proper channels of the RPDC.

I suggested that the motives of many of those involved in both the Upper and Lower House of the Tasmanian Parliament were expedited by the abrogation of due process, collusion and political corruption.

I suggested that the initial approval process instigated by the then Lennon Labor Government using the RPDC for purposes of assessment was legitimate, as those involved were experts. The political act of removing the approval for reasons of expedition and not expertise to the Parliament so as to favour the purposes and aims of one Private Company was in fact corrupt.

Those working within the RPDC over Gunns Pulp Mill assessments were experts in their chosen field and well able to comprehend the technicalities of the task.

The elected Members of Parliament, by acceding to Gunns request, acted as political hacks rubber-stamping what should have been a comprehensive technical approval.

As an Independent Member of the Upper House charged with making such a decision I suggested that Mr Hall would be called to account by the people of Tasmania should the Pulp Mill ever rear its stinking head, for the RPDC panel had described the Mill as “critically non compliant”.

I suggested that Gunns Ltd had a long history of making payments to political parties which assisted them in using the Tasmanian political system to their benefit, and I cited specifically the passing of the Pulp Mill Assessment Act and the drafting of Section 11 using Gunns lawyers to draft this all embracing document which removes the rights of appeal by Tasmanians, all within the People’s Parliament.

To give Mr Hall his due he was both polite and amenable to my request for a letter in defence of his position and it is this letter that I post for public comment by the readers of Tas Times, for he placed no restriction on its use or publication.

John Hawkins