Whereas there is insufficient information available to properly understand whether the benefits of a Pulp Mill on our region outweigh the detriments, e.g. pollution, smell, log-truck traffic, adverse business impacts and property value changes; and whereas the council is properly supposed to represent the ratepayers’ interests yet has held no public meetings on this matter, we ask the following connected questions:
i. On what basis did the Launceston Council and Councillors give this proposal support on behalf of our city?
ii. For the purposes of ratepayer evaluation of Council performance, will council provide a full list of the voting patterns of Councillors on this matter.
iii. Can the council give a guarantee that Councillors that have voted to support the proposal have no conflicts (e.g. personal or family Gunns shareholdings).
iv. Do Councillors believe that the ratepayers and residents of Launceston should rightfully expect balanced and thorough consideration by the Council of proposals with such broad potential social, business and environmental impacts?
Question presented on May 2, 2005; by Mr. M. Bolan of Lilydale, on behalf of a growing group of seriously concerned Launceston ratepayers and businesspeople.
David Mohr
May 3, 2005 at 03:00
What was their response, Mike?
Jonathan Kilpatrick
May 3, 2005 at 11:56
Excellent questions. I wouldn’t hold your breath for an answer though. This is after all a very pro-development council.
editor
May 4, 2005 at 04:03
Question presented on May 2, 2005; by Mr. M. Bolan of Lilydale, on behalf of a growing group of seriously concerned Launceston ratepayers and businesspeople.
What was their response, Mike?
Posted by David Mohr on 05/03 at 09:00AM.
“Answers”
… After Mr Bolan asked the questions, Ald Graeme Beams asked the mayor whether she was employing or had ever employed Mr Bolan …
The story is today at:
http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,15172025%255E3462,00.html
Frank
Rick pilkington
May 4, 2005 at 08:30
Please excues my ignorance but are councillors required to declare there financial interests in situations such as this.
How does this actually work?
I would have thought they do, though nothing would suprise me in this town.
Was this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
Have Ald Beams and all other alderman on the LCC indeed declared whether they have any financial interest in GUNNS LTD.
This information needs to be out in the open.
David Mohr
May 4, 2005 at 09:17
You are quite right, Rick.
Councillors should declare their interests before voting on such an important issue.
It happens in other parts of Tassie though. Recently the mayor of Kingborough council voted for a logging operation which his family’s contracting company would have been involved with.
As far as the pulp mill is concerned the tide of public opinion is turning and the proponents of the mill and their supporters (including the northern media) are not liking it and are critical of anyone who even wishes to keep an open mind on the mill such as Janie Dickenson.
Did anyone notice that the Examiner didn’t print the exact nature of the questions presented by Mike Bolan. Perhaps the Mercury could investigate how many Gunns shareholders are on the Launceston City Council and other northern councils for that matter