Hi Jennifer,
For a second time since the late 1980’s a pulp mill in Tasmania has been delayed by green campaigning. This week we will see if another pulp mill – a value adding, downstream processing, job-creating factory – will also be thrown on the political scrap heap.
If the pulp mill assessment Bill is not approved by Tasmania’s Upper House, it is likely the project will be ‘dead in the water’. If this occurs, will Tasmania’s economy suffer again from the ‘Green Disease’ as described in a 1999 Institute of Public Affairs article by senior Press Gallery journalist David Barnett describing the politics leading to the scrapping of the Wesley Vale Mill.
Since the Wesley Vale Mill’s debacle, a lot has happened in Tasmanian forestry. The Commonwealth and State Governments have negotiated a Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) on the sustainable management of our forests and the Commonwealth published Environmental Guidelines for a Bleached Kraft Pulp mill. Technology has also moved on and improved and the bleaching of the pulp is no longer done by elemental chlorine which previously raised concerns about pollution. Today ECF and TCF are the standard.
In 2002, the 5 year review of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement confirmed that we have a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system, ecological sustainable forest management and opportunities exist for industry development.
In 2003, the Tasmanian Government tasked the ‘Resource Planning and Development Commission’ (RPDC) to update the Commonwealth emission guidelines for pulp mills, this saw new guidelines approved in October 2004.
In December 2004, Gunns proposed a Pulp mill that was declared a Project of State Significance (POSS).
In terms of the small Tasmanian economy it certainly is significant, potentially adding $6.7 billion (+2.5%) to the economy, including an additional $894 million in extra tax revenue between 2008-2030, 3,400 more jobs in the state than if the mill were not constructed and once operational, an average 1,617 more Tasmanian jobs.
However, the assessment process has come to a crisis point following two directions hearings held by the RPDC. These hearings were held after almost two years. There was one year to develop guidelines for an “Integrated Impact Statement”, and another year for the developer to write such an impact statement, time for the public to provide written comment and for the RPDC consultants to undertake independent peer review.
At the first directions hearings the Greens challenged a panel member, Dr Raverty, because he was an employee of a joint venture with CSIRO. They challenged the CSIRO’s TAPM (the air pollution model) and other CSIRO activities including the fact sheet by ENSIS.
This legal challenge resulted in Dr Raverty resigning, leading to the Panel Chairman also resigning, a new panel being appointed and a second directions hearing being held.
At the conclusion of that 2nd preliminary hearing in February no definite date had been given for future optional hearings, and no detailed time line given, only a time span, may be November, maybe next year!
Gunns Limited, the developer, withdrew from the RPDC stating that the assessment process was too long, and was too opened to enable due and proper project management in terms of accessing capital and ordering equipment. They considered that each additional month of delay was costing $10 million.
In order to salvage the project the Tasmanian Government has introduced a Bill that will see the assessment process finalized by an expert consultant, with a definite time table of assessment. The consultant’s report will be submitted to Parliament by 31 August 2006. Then both Houses of Parliament must consider the report and approve/ reject the project.
The Bill requires the project to be assessed against the emission guidelines approved in 2004.
A casual glance at Tasmanian media will confirm that this situation has created literally hundreds of news stories in Tasmania with private conversations being reported, speculation of conspiracy, cherry picking reports and documents, and so called independent experts offering their opinions.
The Lower House approved the Bill with 21 of the 25 members supporting it. Today it is debated in the State’s Upper House, the Legislative Council.
Cheers, Cinders
————————-
Cinders also provided me with a link to a letter from Rodney Stagg, Retired bushman and log truck owner, sent to the RPDC on 30th August, click here: http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/69061/11_Rodney_Stagg.pdf
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Neither Cinders or the IPA will love me for my post but as a former APPM employee etc etc I see Rodney’s letter and their whole Gunn’s Pulp Mill campaign as one big sob. Let’s have a look at have a good look Gunn’s got to be in charge of the resource for a moment and lets ask how Tasmania lost it’s edge in home grown pulp and paper R&D in the years since I left the place.
Woodchip exports not Greens got in the way folks. Cheap chips everywhere, too many federal handouts and easy banks for big boys hey
Substitute “Green initiative” for “post-Marxist, post-Soviet planned economy revival” and you will understand this completely.
“value adding, downstream processing, job-creating ”
Sounds like the war cry of Rudds “new” free market Labor;
“..at the last election – we, the Labor Party – got it wrong.
So I want to make this very clear.
Labor stands for jobs.
And Labor supports the forestry industry…”
http://www.alp.org.au/media/0307/spefor190.php
The Government not Gunns are the responsible resource managers of our forests in Tasmania. Government policy was all part of the election process, including the last Federal Election when the ALP got it wrong by adopting the green’s plan supported by the ACF and Wilderness Society.
The ALP has admitted this mistake, that cost them dearly (some speculate two seats, or even government). For 2007 Federal election the National Conference will endorse a new policy that will reject the Latham plan.
Current Federal Liberal and Tasmanian ALP policy is the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/190505.html that sustainably manages forest to ensure the survival of the Tasmanian forest industry that directly employs more than 10,000 people and contributes about $1.3 billion to the Tasmanian economy each year.
The TCFA also establishes a Permanent Forest Estate policy of 95% of 1997 extent, a policy which applies to both public and private land.
All these policies and agreements means that whether its export woodchip or domestic pulp making, our forests will not be subject to accelerated harvesting, and will not be totally converted to plantations. There will be no impact on the 97.5% of wilderness reserved or the one million hectares of old growth forest set aside for preservation.
Cinders,
Thanks for the post and recent comment.
So what happened today in the Tassie parliament?
A long day in Parliament saw one of the most powerful upper houses force the Government into a day of negotiation. For those in the public gallery (allocated seating on a first in basis, it was a day of inaction, start at 11.00am, adjourn at 11.05 am, then restart 2.30 adjourn 2.35. Finally the 2nd reading debate is due to start at 7.00pm, with committee examination of each clause following.
The action was all behind the scenes as the Legislative council consists of 5 Government members and 10 independents. One Government (ALP) member was subject to media speculation that he would cross the floor and ‘rat’ on his party and working class electorate. Of the independents at least 2 and perhaps up to five were proposing amendments that had the potential to scuttle the bill.
Some amendments were merely clarifying and others expanding and improving whilst others were potentially ‘fatal’.
However tonight will see the bill debated in a fully open and transparent process, and should allow the Upper House to assist executive government to set up an assessment process that will satisfy the majority of Tasmanians by providing for the pulp mill to be assessed in a reasonable time frame, by experts against strict environmental criteria.
The process and debate is likely to continue tomorrow, and if the Bill is amended then it will return to the House of Assembly for more debate.
The two highlights of the day was lunch at the Parliamentary Bistro and a detailed brief on the customs and traditions of the Legislative Council by the “Parliamentary Officer: Bills and Papers” as we waited for the Council to resume.
Good post Cinders. The one thing I appreciate most about our democracy is its transparency. Lennon & Co almost stuffed it.
A lot of people, particularly those living in the Tamar Valley don’t want the thing at any price (Gunn’s pulp mill proposal) and that’s because of the likely impacts to their environment, air and water, health, transport and so on.
I say from experience, big projects such as this do at least seriously distort the state’s economy. Many other aspects continue to bother me including the political interference in the assessment process. Cinders may appreciate that I ask questions independently.
Having said all that, it’s probably just too big and too many eggs in one basket. Half of it should go elsewhere like Hampshire under another banner with out significant discharges etc to worry about (traditional home grown regional loyalty!).
Since appointed experts started dropping out of the assessment I decided to pull in horns too thinking any modifications were was a lost cause. One obvious new issue is extended drought and bushfire impacts on resources. Not a word from government on that one hey
We battle on wondering where wisdom lies.
Gavin, I have ignored your ignorant ramblings long enough. Kindly explain how a switch from exporting woodchips with minimal value adding to processing locally to pulp will have air, water, health and transport issues? And then please explain the exact character and scale of these issues. You can’t just list this crap and swan off to some other little item that tickles your dilettantish fancy without substantiation.
The stuff is already on the roads enroute to the port so the air, health and transport issues are already being dealt with while it is my understanding that zero effluent discharge systems have been in operation in mills elsewhere for almost two generations.
And then kindly explain how future drought will have resource availability implications for the mill when there will still be a significant portion of total harvest that continues to be exported as woodchip.
Does this, or does this not, continue to provide a supply buffer for the mill?
Ian: I can explain and probably well enough for many but I never respond to the term “ignorant”. Thanks for your interest.
Not sure where Jennifer has been lately, but there are so many errors and omissions in this blog entry that it deserves only derision. Please Jennifer, you could actually read all the news. The assertion that the Act (and consultant’s brief) will lead to the mill being assessed against RPDC guidelines is laughable in light of Warren Jones admissions, Legislative Council debate, and a plain English reading of the bill. Actually it’s deceitful, very post-modern! Try reading Terry Martin’s speech and find any Labor politician’s speech of recent years with so much integrity.
Yeah, right, cop out.
Cinders,
From reading your posts I know that you do a lot of background research, which makes it disappointing to see you fall into the exact same trap of cherry picking and rhetoric that you deride in others. This includes the very selective link you provided to Jen from the RPDC submissions, and the less than accurate description of the reasons why Julian Green left the RPDC (and why his replacement Christopher Wright nearly followed suit).
For the record I am neither pro or anti-mill. It makes good sense to me for Tasmania to have a mill for the exact same “value adding, downstream processing, job-creating” reasons that you mention. However, I am getting heartily sick of the distortions that are being thrown about by extremists on BOTH sides of the debate, which muddies the water for everyone else trying to reach a reasonable position. I am very highly concerned about due process, and my stance on this would be the same irrespective of whether we were talking about planning approvals for a pulp mill, a subdivision or a multi-storey carpark.
Interference from the Greens is largely irrelevant given the appalling mess that the Tasmanian Government has made of this assessment process. This has been to the detriment of Tasmania, the project, and the proponent itself – as John Gay has openly commented. You might be able to blame the Greens for taking a free kick at point-blank range, but it’s the Government that handed it to them on a platter.
Yes, Raverty resigned from the RPDC panel as result of concerns raised by the Greens, but Raverty himself stated that he was left in an untenable position due to inappropriate activities on behalf of the Govt’s Pulp Mill Taskforce. Julian Green resigned due to the actions of the same taskforce, not due to any actions of the (political) Greens, while Justice Wright nearly followed suit due to what he called inappropriate lobbying by the Premier himself. Again, there wasn’t a Green to be seen when that meeting took place, and Paul Lennon’s blatant misrepresentations of Christopher Wright’s comments have been embarrassing and disgraceful.
The proponent is hardly blameless in all of this either. A significant reason for the delays was that the proponent hadn’t supplied correct or complete information as required for the assessment to take place, and this was long before the resignations and other issues erupted. Gunns Ltd itself failed to provide any definite timeline for the provision of complete or corrected information that would have enabled the process to be closed. In effect, the company withdrew from the RPDC assessment complaining about an open-ended process that the company was itself keeping open ended!!
Once again, it doesn’t matter if it’s a pulp mill or a carpark – it has to go through a due and proper assessment processes. The RPDC could probably have closed the process very quickly with a “no” in the face of inadequate information, but then where would we be? Equally, should an assessment be based solely on the benefits of the mill? If you simply take that on the salesman’s recommendation, Cinders, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Good faith in this process has been badly undermined given the way that invited public participation has been thrown back in the community’s face. The proponent and its supporters keep saying that there’s already been lots of public consultation, but what is that worth when it’s all being thrown out the window with the RPDC process? “Yes, we had it, but it doesn’t mean anything.”
This has done nothing to ease the continuing public division over issues related to forestry, or even public perceptions of the democratic process. The loss of this project would have serious consequences for industrial development within Tasmania, but so too will inappropriate fast-tracking and devaluing of established processes.
If the Government wants the mill to go ahead at any cost then fine, but don’t keep telling everyone it will meet the most rigourous and greenest assessment process in the world when clearly it won’t. This was the whole sticking point in the RPDC process that they’ve now had to bypass, and those so-tough-they’d-rust guidelines have now clearly rusted. As for the extra $870 the Government claims it will put into every Tasmanian’s pocket every year – I won’t hold my breath.
On the subject of honesty in our politicians, referring to Terry Martin as planning to “rat on his party and working class electorate” is extremely judgmental and seriously misrepresents what Martin had to say in his speech. Martin himself called for an end to the type of personal abuse that has been levelled at Raverty and Wright so that the legislation could be assessed on it merits. And before you claim that the ‘rat’ comment was in relation to media reporting of his plans, most of the media speculation and public comment has actually reported Martin’s conflict of conscience in a very positive light. Once again, who’s picking the cherries?
Martin clearly stated his support for the mill, but not for the perceived corruption of due process. He also clearly made a very difficult personal decision based on his interpretation of the facts, which – WHETHER YOU OR I AGREE WITH IT OR NOT – should be a principal lauded in all our politicians, of whatever colour or hue. Why bother having individual representatives if the process is only considered democratic when they vote the same way?
As a side note to Ian Mott, who commented that he understood that “zero effluent discharge systems have been in operation in mills elsewhere for almost two generations”: that may be the case, but the proponent of this mill has chosen not to opt for such technology, and part of the debate has been over the air and water emissions that will result. Whether these emissions will be at acceptable levels or not needs to be part of the assessment process, but the point is that they will occur.
Anyway, my 2c worth – or would be if we still had them.
A follow up from my accurate and factual first post, the Legislative Council passed the 2nd reading of the Assessment Bill 9 votes to 5, with one ALP member deciding to vote against caucus and ALP convention.
The vote was all about a bill that required an expert consultant to undertake an assessment of the project, against the guidelines. (Clause 4)
The guidelines are defined as ”the Recommended Environmental Emission Limit Guidelines for any new Bleached Eucalypt Kraft Pulp Mill in Tasmania prepared by the Resource Planning and Development Commission on behalf of the Government dated August 2004”
As was correctly pointed out in the Legislative Council by a member who quoted from an Ensis (a joint venture of CSIRO) fact sheet and the same fact sheet linked in the earlier post these guidelines for odour “are the most stringent in the world.”
Unsubstantiated claims of errors or omissions by Jennifer should be treated with derision.
Thanks Cherax: Once again I have to say this whole thing should be left in the hands of engineers, not pollies, loggers or even legal advisers. A pulp mill of this scale and its effluents will always be a technical issue.
Cinders: It was the size of the effluent tubes that first got my attention. I have seen a lot of effluent during my time in industry. Much of it was in Tasmania.
I am accused of cherry picking in that I chose one submission from 780 submission received by the RPDC. It just happened to be the one of 780 that attached the IPA article featuring the ‘Green disease’ that chronicled the devastation caused on Tasmania’s economy by the last rejection of a pulp mill.
I am accused of not being fair to Terry Martin and his decision to cross the floor, my observations on the media speculation were made hours before his speech and almost a full day before he actually crossed the floor. It may be of interest for those seeking to understand how the media works, that immediately Mr Martin crossed the floor, the TV cameras were packed away and the majority of reporters left. The term ‘ratting’ has always been associated with the ALP, and always to describe a members action (principled or not) of voting against the Party. (see the ABC on the ALP first 100 years at http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s291834.htm )
I think I am also accused of being unfair to the RPDC and its delays. I initially said “These hearings were held after almost two years. There was one year to develop guidelines for an “Integrated Impact Statement”, and another year for the developer to write such an impact statement, time for the public to provide written comment and for the RPDC consultants to undertake independent peer review.”
My research shows the following time lines:
24 November 2004 a project for a bleached kraft pulp mill in northern Tasmania is declared to be a project of State significance.
16 December 2004, RPDC posted preliminary draft guidelines for the Integrated Impact Statement (IIS) on its web site. RPDC state comment to be invited early in New Year (2005).
24 February 2005, Gunns announce Bell Bay preferred site and announce it will prepare IIS on that basis.
9 April 2005 Draft Guidelines for the IIS released for Public Comment. Note RPDC guidelines included project scope of a pulp mill in Northern Tasmanian (either Hampshire or Long Reach)
9 May 2005 Close of public comment on IIS guidelines Gunns formally submit revised project scope based solely on Long Reach (Bell Bay)
5 November 2005 Invitation for Public to comment on revised project scope (eg Bell Bay site) and revised guidelines for IIS
29 November 2005 Public comment on IIS guidelines close
28 December 2005 Final Scope Guidelines for IIS released to enable Gunns to respond.
One Year one month and 4 days after the Project was fast tracked!!
14 Jul 06 RPDC releases Gunns DRAFT IIS for public comment, it is 7,100 pages long
25 September 06 public comments closes, 780 submissions received, 6 peer reviewed reports requested by the RPDC also received.
25 October 2006 Directions Hearing held. Greens legal representatives ask that Dr Raverty be disqualified due to an apprehension of bias “The basis of the claim of apprehended bias is effectively the apprehension that a member of the public would have that Dr Raverty has pre-judged what we say are certain critical issues in relation to this matter, including the applicability and appropriateness of using the TAPM guidelines in relation to the assessment of air quality issues, and also arising from his involvement with the CSIRO.” More information on Draft IIS requested.
2-5 January 2007 the resignations of Mr Julian Green, as Chairman and panel member of the Commission’s Pulp Mill Assessment Panel, and panel member Dr Warwick Raverty of Ensis (CSIRO) see Greens media release at http://tas.greens.org.au/News/view_MR.php?ActionID=2066
Many would argue that an efficient planning process would have draft IIS guidelines available to a developer, from the above time line the RPDC did, but took more that a year to turn draft to final. This was the crucial delay to the “front end” making the back end untenable to the developer. What happens in other states in relation to guidelines for Environmental, social or economic assessment?
Cinders,
It is my recollection that delays in the RPDC process were largely the result of Gunns’ prevarication and increasing intransigence.
The assessment process we are left with, will be conducted IN-CAMERA, with the final decision left to those Legislative Councillors, who on Thursday evening were pleased to declare themselves delivering DOUBLE-THE-DEMOCRACY!
pragmatic
Regarding who had the goal of finding any means to hold the project up and at the same time cast blame away from themselves you may wish to ponder the follow quote from a letter to the editor by Dr Raverty published in the Mercury newspaper 10th January.
In his letter, Dr Raverty stated that the real reasons for his resignation as listed in his previous letter to the RPDC. He went on to quote the relevant paragraphs of his resignation letter including:
“I have decided to withdraw as a member…not because I agree with the Greens’ submission. I do so only because of the …importance of protecting the panel’s assessment process and avoiding my membership of the panel becoming an issue which causes delays or disruptions…”
The Greens legal team lodged their claim against Dr Raverty back at the first Directions hearing (25th Oct 06) which then put the RPDC process on
hold for the rest of the year.
And of course the media some how choose not to give this much coverage, (bit like never let the facts get in the way of a good story)
The thrust of Doctor Raverty’s letter-to-the- Editor [Mercury 10Jan07] was not to excoriate the GREENS, but to respond to an article by Sue Neales [Mercury 05Jan07], which quotes Steve Kons MHA as saying:
“Dr. Raverty resigned today. He took the advice of the Solicitor General that there was a perception of bias, a conflict of interest…”
In an article by Michael Stedman [Examiner 08Jan07], Kons is quoted:
“After further investigation I have found that I made a mistake in suggesting Dr. Raverty had provided advice to Gunns, and for this I apologise.”
Having dealt with that, Dr. Raverty goes on to expose the activities of the Pulp Mill Taskforce in contracting with CSIRO-ENSIS to produce a FAQ sheet for it’s website: against the express advice to them from Julian Green, to not have any contact with CSIRO.
Dr. Raverty claims to have had no input into the document.
Meanwhile,
http://tinyurl.com/7s9fn
Cinders writes: “The vote was all about a bill that required an expert consultant to undertake an assessment of the project, against the guidelines. (Clause 4)
The guidelines are defined as ”the Recommended Environmental Emission Limit Guidelines for any new Bleached Eucalypt Kraft Pulp Mill in Tasmania prepared by the Resource Planning and Development Commission on behalf of the Government dated August 2004”As was correctly pointed out in the Legislative Council by a member who quoted from an Ensis (a joint venture of CSIRO) fact sheet and the same fact sheet linked in the earlier post these guidelines for odour “are the most stringent in the world.””
WRONG yet again Cinders. The guidelines are a reference point only. See ‘By their fruits shall you know them’ at: http://www.tasmaniantimes.com
The public should, by now, be getting heartily sick of references to guidelines (note: not ‘regulations’) somewhere else in the world. The sad fact is that current world forestry practice is resulting in an escalated loss of native forests across the entire globe. Nothing to be comparing Australian practice against.
““WASHINGTON, March 30, 2007 — Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of Federal District Court in San Francisco, California on Friday overturned the Bush administration’s revised rules for management of the country’s 155 national forests, saying that the federal Forest Service violated the basic laws ensuring that forest ecosystems have environmental safeguards…..”
‘Federal Judge Strikes Down Forest Management Rules’,By FELICITY BARRINGER. Published: March 31, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/31/washington/31logging.html?_r=1&oref=s
pragmatic
The fact remains that Dr Raverty stated in his letter to the editor “I have decided to withdraw as a member…not because I agree with the Greens’ submission. I do so only because of the …importance of protecting the panel’s assessment process and avoiding my membership of the panel becoming an issue which causes delays or disruptions…”
Also you may find it interesting that the alleged fact sheet you refer to was in the public domain some 12 months prior to it appearing on the pulp mill task force web site, again the media approach being, let’s not worry about finding the truth or letting the facts getting in the way of a good story, lets just report what we think may have happened, makes good easy headlines that way..
Cinders, I note that you have cherry picked a few peripheral points to respond to from my original comments, and you have conveniently ignored the issue of political interference by the Pulp Mill Taskforce and the Premier, the issue of integrity in politics, and the overarching issue of corruption of due process.
Even more telling is your explanation of the use of the term ‘rat’. Yes, it is a Labour Party term, but you clearly used it because it supported your position and cast an unfavourable light on a politician who didn’t. It is particularly notable that you broadened its use to not only describe someone disagreeing with their party, but also to claim he was ratting on his “working class electorate”. This is a very judgemental implication beyond the party usage alone, and a very bold statement to assume that everyone in that working class electorate feels betrayed by his actions (I don’t, and I’m definitely not the only one).
I see from today’s Mercury newspaper that personal vilification of anyone publicly speaking their mind in opposition to the fast-tracked assessment process has reached a new low. I trust the actions and words of principled people who have seen fit to resign their jobs and affiliations over this significant issue (RPDC members, your Labour ‘rat’, and so on) rather than those feathering their political and business nests without such personal cost. A pulp mill proposal is welcomed, but not one that stinks as much as this.
To avoid any misconstruction of events, I include here the full text of Dr. Raverty’s letter to the MERCURY of 10 January 2007.
HOT TOPIC PULP MILL
Resignation to protect process
“I WISH to correct a number of serious factual errors in the article (The Mercury January 5) by your Chief Reporter, Ms Sue Neales. As a loyal and dedicated public servant, I am required to inform your readers that this letter reflects my own personal opinion and does not in any way reflect the opinion of my employer, CSIRO, or the Ensis joint venture to which I am presently seconded.
Firstly, Ms Neales quotes Minister Steve Kons as stating, “Dr Raverty resigned today; he took the advice of the Solicitor-General that there was a perception of bias, a conflict of interest.” Ms Neales also elaborates that Minister Kons “confirmed” that my alleged conflict of interest arose from advice that I had allegedly given Gunns Limited on “a separate issue”.
If the Minister’s statements are correctly reported, then I challenge him to repeat them on the floor of the Tasmanian Parliament at its next sitting, because even he must know the consequences of misleading the Parliament under our Westminster system.
The real reasons for my resignation from the RPDC’s advisory Panel on the Gunn’s Pulp Mill proposal are as set out in my letter of December 21, 2006 to Julian Green. I would have been happy to provide a copy of this letter to Ms Neales had she asked for it. In the interests of saving space, I quote only the relevant section, but I am more than happy to provide you and your readers with a full copy: “I have decided to withdraw as a member of the Panel with immediate effect. I take this step not because I agree with the Greens’ submission.
I do so only because of the paramount importance of protecting the panel’s assessment process and avoiding my membership of the panel becoming an issue which causes delays or disruptions to the work of the panel.”
The delay to which I referred was the distinct possibility that the application made by the Greens’ at the Directions Hearing on October 25 might have to be heard by the Tasmanian Supreme Court and possibly by the Australian High Court on appeal — before a decision on it’s validity could be made. This process may well have delayed the panel’s review by as much as 2 years.
I can state categorically, contrary to Ms Neales’ report, that I have not given any advice to Gunns Limited in 25 years of involvement with the pulp and paper industry and furthermore that I did not take the advice of the Tasmanian Solicitor-General, a man whom I have never met and with whom I have had absolutely no communication. I took the advice of Julian Green, a man of absolute integrity for whom I have the deepest respect and admiration.
Rather than accepting the political “spin” reportedly offered by Minister Kons, might I respectfully suggest that what Ms Neales should be spending her time doing is seeking an interview with Premier Lennon and asking him the following questions:
1. What assurances regarding the activities of the Tasmanian Pulp Mill Task Force did he give to Julian Green in February 2005?
2. Were those assurances worth the hot air on which they were conveyed?
3. What was the text of Julian Green’s letter of resignation to Ms Carol Hughes, manager of the RPDC?
I suggest that the honest and open answers to these questions will provide valuable insights to your readers, not only into the direct connection between my resignation and that of Julian Green, but also into how the work and independence of the RPDC on an important proposal of not only state, but also national significance, has been polluted and damaged by totally inappropriate political influence.
My admiration for Julian Green, undoubtedly one of the truly greatest Australians I have met, prevents me from saying more. Nevertheless, had I been privy in December to the public utterances reportedly made by Premier Lennon and Minister Kons in the last week I would have resigned then on principle — the principle that no ethical, unbiased scientist should assist a government that is, in his or her view, duplicitous and Machiavellian in its dealings with the electorate that it serves. It is my firm view that until the majority of Australian voters voice their concerns whenever they witness unethical political activity, Australia will continue to languish under the deplorable lack of true political leadership and vision that it currently “enjoys”.
Warwick Raverty ”
End of quote.
Given such information as this:
http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=20377
and this:
“Tasmania is, after all, very beautiful—
should we care if, like Marilyn Monroe, it
is also dumb and self-destructive, prepared
foolishly to place its destiny in the hands
of ruthless, powerful men and women who
hold their own interests to be absolute?”
I’m sure Cinders would welcome a judicial review that has the powers of a Royal Commission.
Wrong link to Premier Leanon Press Release:
http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=20373
Whilst my original comments have been well and truly archived my critics live on.
Perhaps they would enjoy a cherry picked comment from Justice Underwood made on the 5 April. Just as pRagmatic and Cherax were making their criticisms. I will leave to the reader whether these two were masquerading as fair minded and informed observers.
“As I say, no case is made for me to disqualify myself upon the basis that the outcome might affect the value of the Gunns Ltd shares held by my superannuation fund. However, unfortunately, there is another factor to consider. Over the last twelve months or so there has been heated public controversy over the application by Gunns Ltd to build a pulp mill in Tasmania. There is no need to detail that controversy. It has been, and is, daily fare for the media and protest groups. In the events that have occurred, the controversy has recently escalated to include allegations by a former member of this Court that the Premier of the State did not accurately report the contents of a conversation between the two of them and that he exerted some kind of pressure on the former judge. There are other allegations. They include that there is some kind of conspiracy between the Government of the day and Gunns Ltd with respect to the proposed pulp mill development, and that there should be a Royal Commission into claims of unlawful conduct. As to whether there is any substance in any of these allegations, I express no opinion of course.
12 However, the atmosphere is such that if I continue to hear and determine this application, I perceive a grave risk that the biased observer might masquerade as the fair-minded and informed observer and seek to engage the media to embroil the Supreme Court of Tasmania in the current controversy. Although Gunns Ltd do not wish to take part in this litigation, and although there is no likelihood that the outcome will affect the value of the company’s shares, I shall direct that it be heard by another judge. I do so to protect the integrity and independence of the Court which, in the current climate of continual heated claim and counterclaim, may be put at risk by the words and conduct of the mischievous or misguided if I proceed to determine the application myself.”
For those who want to see the full version the Tasmanian Supreme Court Website has a copy of this recent judgment.
I am saddened that as a young person living in Tasmania all I seem to be seeing is a total disregard for the beautiful state that we live in. Why is it that our government feels so strongly the need to send us into environmental ruin? A state that already through our strong tourism creates and is still creating jobs for Tasmanians. But why do tourists visit us? Because of our beautiful beaches, our clear lakes, our scenic mountain areas and our stunning forests. It is all to often I hear travellers commenting on how ugly and destructive our logging industry is becoming and how amazed they are that as the natural state we are letting destructive greedy companies like gunns, and money hungry politicians slowly sell us out. A pulp mill is just another nail is Tasmania’s coffin it’s just sad that so many Tasmanians can’t see it.
Here’s something for the uninformed:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Timber_Communities_Australia
So who is ‘cinders’ really? Another net hack too gutless to use his real name, even though he’s obviously a bit of a ‘playa’ in the forestry debate. At least his handle reflects the huge areas of burnt devastation left after ‘sustainable’ forestry has moved through a coupe.
As a reply to a general assortment of pro-Gunns posts here:
Cinders thinks the 2004 ALP Tas forestry policy ‘lost them the election’, but elsewhere on this site it’s claimed nobody in Australia cares about Tasmanian forestry. Hmmm.
Ian Mott at least has the courage to put his name to his writings. He then uses standard tactics employed by pro-mill types generally- a straightforward criticism is made of the mill, and a lengthy essay of university quality is demanded to cast doubt on the questions’ credibility.
Here’s some help: air: Gunns’ pulled out of the RPDC process in a manner timed to ensure Tamar air shed data could not be recorded by installed electronic meters (an installation that cost taxpayers $1.7 million). They rely only on tendentious ‘modelling’ to ensure the quality of Tamar air, which is subject to inversion layers and is already heavily polluted. Water: Tassie’s highland lakes are currently extremely low due to drought, restricting supply of hydro power. The mill will use large amounts of fresh water from Trevallyn dam and while this is unlikely to impact drinking water supply, the question of who will get the water in the even of a conflict is an issue- Gunns ALWAYS get ridiculously generous, no-risk terms from their political cronies- all bought off with large donations. The pollution of the water in the area is also likely: Gunns own arithmetic was found to be grossly erroneous, and did not look at CUMULATIVE effects of dioxin output. When the arithmetical errors were pointed out, Lennon went into his default ‘attack the credentials of the analyst’ routine. Health: we have only Gunns’ ‘computer modelling’ of stack output (though according to their media pictures of the mill nothing will ever come out of the stack), because they escaped actual scientific analysis of the air shed. The AMA already advises us that 8 people die each year from bad Tamar air, mostly due to wood heaters. Pulp mill expert (and self-proclaimed ‘enthusiast’)Warwick Raverty told a meeting in Launceston that the Tamar was possibly the worst place in Tasmania for a mill due to dispersion issues. Transport: hundreds more log trucks trough Launceston each day. Log truck safety standards (roll-over standards) have been deliberately kept lax by the State Government and lag behind national standards. Stand on the road and you will see no shortage of drivers chatting on their mobiles. Aside from the good highway (repairs will of course be subsidised by all Tasmanian road users), most local roads are extremely narrow and winding, hardly suitable for B-doubles. Gunns’ own submissions admit more road deaths are likely as a result of the mill. Bear in mind also the high average age of Tasmanian drivers.
As for your ‘value-adding’, the added value, which is remarkably small and only a multiple of 4 compared to raw chip, is achieved at the expense of Tamar Valley residents’ health and amenity. Gunns’ continues to turn giant trees, an increasingly rare commodity in the world, into toilet paper and egg cartons- instead of real value add products like furniture and premium building products. yes, there are a small part of Gunn’s empire, which has stretched to use its crony-built competitive advantage to buy up the whole Tasmanian forest sector- but overall the emphasis is on dumb products. The economic assumptions behind Gunn’s mill, according to its own submission, show they have simply extrapolated the last few months of world demand (before the report was finalised) rather than extrapolating demand over a longer period- to make the pulp price appear higher than likely.
All this sort of tendentious ‘data’, evasion of real, independent analysis, and marketing of the mill by front groups, lobbyists, union front men (who care not about ‘jobs’ but about ‘CFMEU jobs’), and fierce advocacy of the rights of unskilled bogans to maintain a destructive industry ad infinitum.
Thousands of people in Australia- most recently hundreds of Telstra call centre workers in Launceston- have learnt that then ‘job for life’ has gone. You have to re-train, offer the job market skills that build the society and economy sustainably. Nobody is exempt from this and why the Tasmanian forestry industry thinks it should be given a free ride around the restructuring that has affected hundreds of thousands of other Australians since the early 80s- and built our great country into a very competitive international position- is beyond me.
And Jennifer- I have followed your career and noticed you seem to have carved out a nice little earner as an apologist for destructive industries that can only survive on massive subsidies- why don’t you do something for the country and future generations and get out of the 1950s? There is a huge sector of agribusiness in Tasmania that could be selling its wares to cashed-up mainlanders at huge prices- but due to government distraction by concentrated capital they are ignored. This myriad of businesses could be providing a proper, broad and sustained economic growth in Tasmania- a state that has missed out on far too much of Australia’s prosperity becasue of the cronyism and parochialism that has closed the state off to the wider prosperity.
But on the other hand, you could just keep to your cosy little rut.
pulp mill no way!
:S you make me angry!