IT APPEARS from the recent fuss about the changes that Gunns made to their pulp mill proposal, that the nature of the process to approve the mill may not be clear.
We have looked carefully at the situation, including getting legal advice and have reached the following conclusions that might help concerned citizens.
1. Without any detail, costings, scale, resource or economic studies nor with any reference to potential valid public concerns, the State government, through the Premier and the Governor, has declared Gunns pulp mill idea a ‘Project of State Significance’ (PSS). This designation under the State Policies and Projects Act (SPPA) invalidates all other Acts and places all determination of the proposal’s impacts under the purview of the RPDC (and the Premier) and supercedes all other review, approval or appeal processes. The SPPA allows anything that is ‘convenient’ to the project to be done.
2. The State government has already allocated many millions of taxpayer dollars to various pulp mill support projects, like promotion, thereby relieving Gunns of those expenses by transferring them to us. No monies are allocated to supporting the public, business or anyone with a different view of the desirability of a pulp mill at Bell Bay or how to best capitalise on Tasmania’s natural environment.
3. The Resource Planning & Development Commission (RPDC) is only required to ‘consider’ public comments on the proposal. They don’t have to act on them. The RPDC’s outputs (whatever they turn out to be) will be presented to the Premier who can choose to accept or ignore any or all of their comments. It is our interpretation that since the project scope is defined by Gunns, that Gunns can change that scope at any time during this part of the process and possibly later. This means open slather for Gunns to define anything they like as part of the project with little prospect of protection for the public. You can find out more about the RPD Commissioners at www.rpdc.tas.gov.au
4. Relevant local governments in the area have already approved of the proposal, again before any detail has been developed and before local area impacts have been assessed or understood, which effectively closes the door on any local fiscal support for the public. For example the Launceston Council freely offered support to Gunns without commensurate support for ratepayers.
5. The federal government has offered additional monies for the pulp mill idea and declared the concept ‘a project of national significance’. So every level of government has supported the concept but not opened any doors to support or fund concerned taxpayers.
6. In Australia the proponent of a project, in this case Gunns, identifies all of the impacts of the project on the public. Such a massive conflict of interest is not considered a problem. The RPDC will allocate time (about 28 days) for the public to comment on the material produced by Gunns and will ‘consider’ any comments. It’s at this stage that the public would really need funding to prepare a sensible case in response to the Gunns materials. Of course the material may be subject to claims of confidentiality by Gunns and therefore not be comprehensive.
7. After the process the RPDC will report to the Premier and to the federal Environment Minister who will agree on the final decision. Since the process has been called an ‘approvals’ process, and the project is supported by every level of government, taxpayers can imagine the outcome.
The RPDC is called an ‘independent’ body by the State government, regardless of its dependence on State support. The RPDC is the ‘independent’ evaluator who will depend on information from Gunns to make their recommendation to a Premier who has already indicated support for the project. Government departments may make submissions as well, although many might say it would be a brave department that presented material contrary to the Premier’s evident wishes. So the process provides no guarantee of fairness in the consideration of public views on the proposal.
No right to be heard
So there we have it, Australian democracy at work.
Since our governments have not provided any fundamental rights to Australians, save those written into specific bodies of legislation, we don’t have the right to be heard, considered or supported, or to access our own tax dollars to support our own cause. Any support or encouragement that we do get from government is a bonus, they don’t have to do anything except figure out how to spend their salaries and our money.
If you’re relying on the government’s processes in the matter of the proposed pulp mill, don’t get your hopes up. It’s the processes themselves and the total lack of taxpayer rights and fair representation that needs to change if we’re to have a democratic system.
Everyone needs to stand up for these ideas by directing their efforts to correct the deficiencies in the process and in our lack of rights.
Value for Taxes is a Tasmanian citizens’ Think Tank and lobby group.
What The Wilderness Society: reckons
MEDIA RELEASE 26th JUNE 2005
PULP MILL ASSESSMENT PROCESS COMPROMISED BY PULP MILL TASK FORCE ACTIVITIES
Documents obtained through freedom of information reveal the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC) is concerned that its integrity may be compromised by the current activities of the Tasmanian Government’s Pulp Mill Task Force.
Using strong language in correspondence with the secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPAC), Executive Commissioner of the RPDC Julian Green stated:
“If the (Pulp Mill) Task Force activities are not reined in two outcomes are likely. Firstly, the Commission (RPDC) will be compromised in the eyes of the public and interest groups and therefore the assessment process seen to be contaminated. Secondly, the accreditation of the process may be in question.” (emphasis added)
The activity that most clearly needs to be reined in is the exclusive promotion by the Task Force of the Longreach site near Bell Bay. The second option at Hampshire, ignored by the Task Force, has far fewer environmental problems and a plantation resource ready for use by the time a pulp mill would be completed.
“This completely biased behavior by the Government, and through its Pulp Mill Task Force, is clearly corrupting the integrity of the process. We share Commissioner Green’s concerns” said Vica Bayley, Tasmanian Forest Campaigner for The Wilderness Society.
This behaviour is occurring despite the commitment given by the Premier’s office that promoting one site was not the role of the task force. This fact is highlighted in a reply from DPAC to the RPDC:
“It was considered that the Task Force should not in any way represent itself as an agent of the RPDC or promote a particular site on which the pulp mill development should take place” (emphasis added).
This information comes hot on the heels of Gunns Ltd releasing a revised project scope for the pulp mill, significantly expanding its impact on environmental and social issues. This expanded scope was released on the day public comment on the guidelines for the mill closed, denying those who submitted comments full and accurate details of the proposal.
“This will test the RPDC in the eyes of the community. The whole approvals process should start from the beginning again, including its designation under the Commonwealth EPBC Act” said Mr Bayley.
The mill, if built as currently proposed, will have a disastrous outcome for remaining native forests in the north of Tasmania and contribute to existing pollution problems in the Tamar Valley and Launceston environs.
Vica Bayley
Vica Bayley
June 27, 2005 at 03:18
Letter to the Editor.
Public outrage at the way Gunns Ltd introduced significant changes to their pulp mill proposal is hardly surprising. Submitting their Revised Project Scope in a forum provided to the public for comment on the Draft Guidelines for the Integrated Impact Statement, the guidelines by which the mill will be assessed, seems a round about way of operating. Add to this the fact it was submitted on the day submissions closed and the public have a right to feel angry.
The changes are substantial and would impact on the content of many, if not all, of the submissions received by the RPDC.
The role of the Pulp Mill Task Force in this debacle is likewise questionable. Where has the multi million-dollar, pulp mill public information unit been? The Revised Project Scope was submitted on the 9th May, yet it is over a month later that the public learn of the expanded pulp mill proposal through the vigilance and activism of local community campaigners.
The Pulp Mill project is going from bad to worse. Tasmanians were initially promised a full investigation of two sites for the construction of a totally chlorine-free (TCF), plantation-based mill. Slowly the goalposts have moved. The purpose built, plantation-based site at Hampshire is ruled out. The Tamar Valley is locked in. TCF is ruled out. Pollutants are inevitable. Native forests are targeted. The status quo in Tasmania’s forests is guaranteed and the destruction will continue.
As owners of the forests, neighbours of the mill, members of society and guardians of Tasmania for our children, the Tasmanian public deserve a fair and respected contribution in the approvals process of this pulp mill. Clearly this project already has the support of the state government no matter what form it takes and how much damage it does. Observers of the logging debate know that the support of the government doesn’t automatically translate to the support of the community. It remains to be seen if the government will listen to the concerns of the broader community in the lead up to the coming election.
Vica Bayley
Tasmanian Forest Campaigner
The Wilderness Society
Cameron Hindrum
June 27, 2005 at 05:44
Unfortunately, The Examiner is at it again…
While I was somewhat discombobulated, to say the least, over the departure of previous editor Rod Scott to grace the furniture of the Premier’s office as Chief of Staff and do more important stuff like hold Paul’s hand while he dipped into the public purse to pay off a former governor, and seemingly act almost on his own in hanging one of Lennon’s ministers embarrassingly out to dry, I thought at least that his departure might have put an end to the vile pro-Labor pro-Forestry Industry propaganda Scott had taken to publishing in in the Examiner under the convenient banner of editorial opinion. And for a while, it seems, I was almost right.
But alas, my heart sank yesterday, when I opened the Sunday Examiner (which I often purchase to fill in the few minutes while waiting for the kettle to boil). Scott’s replacement, Dean Southwell, is certainly more moderate than his immediate predecessor; he makes some attempt to be measured, balanced, fair, objective, indeed all those things that (had earlier) evaporated.
To be fair to Southwell, his column addressing recent developments in the Pulp Mill debate is reasonable. He focuses particularly on the furore surrounding the secretive and somewhat badly-timed changes to the Project Scope that Gunns submitted to the RPDC on May 9th. He argues that the revised project scope does not contain anything that departs dramatically from the original submission, except for a vast increase in land size required which will do nothing to alleviate the fears of local Tamar Valley residents who are at the forefront of public opposition to the Mill project, especially it’s siting at the Gunns-preferred location at Longreach.
Southwell makes one very simplistic, almost naive statement, however, and it was this that had my blood momentarily run cold at the thought of a return to the bad old days of Rod Scott. Southwell claims that the state government “can’t and shouldn’t” respond to public criticisms on Gunns’ behalf. Forgive me if I somehow have this wrong, but the state government have been and are doing exactly that since this project was first suggested. The most clear and direct evidence of this is the establishment of the Pulp Mill Task Force, funded generously by our own taxes, the purpose of which is surely nothing if not to massage public opinion in favour of a project that is set to polarise the Tasmanian community like nothing we’ve seen since the Franklin Dam debate.
As secondary evidence, if any is needed, we have the announcement of the Pulp Mill as a Project of State Significance. Surely this sends a loud and undeniably frank message to the people of this state: the state govnernment endorses the pulp mill, would indeed prefer the planning and development approval process fast-tracked if possible, and are now staking their credibility on the project going ahead in the manner that Gunns would like, with any dissenting opinion swept aside and ignored.
Of course the pulp mill will create employment, provide considerable economic benefits to the state, establish a secure future for the timber industry, and so on and so on, I understand all that. My opposition to the mill is not necessarily based on these grounds, although I am convinced that it will contribute to an already serious air pollution problem over the Tamar Valley and Launceston and that the finished pulp mill — if and when it is so — will frankly be dead-set ugly.
There are more serious issues at work, about which one must be ever vigilant. We have a situation where the planning and approval process of a major development is in danger of being seriously compromised, as recent correspondence between the RPDC and the Pulp Mill Task Force makes clear. There are considerable flow-on effects from this; among them are issues of public trust and confidence in the veracity of the process, a lack of essential transparency in the process itself, and the wider issue of perceived governmental and corporate arrogance, which is quick to embed itself in the public conciousness and difficult to bring undone.
The fight to bring the Pulp Mill to fruition, if indeed it ever arrives there, will be a fascinating one, and one which we must all closely observe. The power of the people has already spoken in this state, and the results were of priceless benefit to the environment; we must embrace ourselves to commit to such action again, if the need arises.
Cameron Hindrum,
Launceston.
David Mohr
June 27, 2005 at 16:33
The aspect of Dean Southwell’s article I took exception to was his statement, “The advantage for the mill opponents is they can raise as many questions as they like without explaining anything”.
Excuse me? Not explaining anything? If Dean had bothered to turn up to the public meeting organised by TRAC on Friday April 8th at the Sir Raymond Ferrall Lecture theatre he would have heard many explanations of the damaging effects of this proposed mill.
Over 500 people were informed of studies regarding air movements in the Tamar Valley, the extremely long flushing times in the middle of Bass Strait, the reduced flows of the Pipers River in recent years and the link between increased amounts of particulates in the air and respiratory illnesses.
The TRAC website http://www.tamar-trac.com is full of information for those seeking balance in this debate. When are the proponents of the mill going to have a public meeting?
Media Watch (27/6) exposed another worrying aspect of the pulp mill debate. The ABC has gagged Peter Cundall and refused to air an interview he recorded for ABC Radio in Tasmania where Peter is critical of the proposed mill.
According to Media Watch Peter was quite rightly outraged by the decision of ABC mangement not to broadcast this interview and has demanded an explanation. Just another reminder of how difficult it is in Tasmania at the moment to express an opinion which conflicts with the Gunns/government vision for this state.
Brenda Rosser
June 27, 2005 at 16:35
The Resource Planning and Development Commission already has a long history of contempt for the safety and well-being of Tasmanians.
In 2001 the Waratah-Wynyard Planning Scheme was the subject of local appeals for the implementation of ‘sustainable development’ provisions with respect to the protection of drinking water from pesticide spray drift.
Here’s what the Council and the RPDC said:
“… Council said at the time that “The rural areas are principally ‘resource development or industry’ areas where residential amenity cannot be guaranteed…. While protection of residential amenity in rural areas is a consideration, it cannot be an overriding consideration..†In other words, Council believed that the protection of rainwater from pesticide drift was nothing more than the provision of a ‘rural amenity’.
This view was then backed up by the Tasmanian Resource Planning and Development Commission who responded by supporting Council’s position and asserting that there will be no “overt protection†provided to rural residents.”
Reference: (www.members.iinet.com.au/~rkildar1 (sub downloaded from the ‘forestry’ link)
What hope have we got from the toxic spin offs from a pulp mill?
Dave Groves
June 28, 2005 at 00:10
Even Blind Freddy can see what is going on in Tasmania.
This proposed pulp mill and the whole sorry tale that surrounds it is a disgrace.
Our leaders (?) have steamrolled the transparent (?) process while elsewhere documents are sneaked here and there while the rat pack scurry back to their holes to hide when it all hits the fan.
It seems the many millions of taxpayer dollars squandered on show bags, party balloons and advertorials for the proponent and the closeness of all supposedly “arms length†stakeholders have shown Tasmanians that this is a truly one sided campaign to push the proponent over the line no matter what the consequences for the community and the environment.
I’m sure they all thought this would be business as usual as it is seen to be done in Tasmania, but the whole community is now involved and I can see some serious sidestepping, back peddling and blame shifting coming from the various entities concerned.
So for now, take a seat, sit back and enjoy the show.
Rickpilkington
June 28, 2005 at 18:56
The protected species, that good doctor with no job description and 157,000 samoleons (plus perks) per annum to go, Mr. Scott was once heard to say, “There is no such thing as an objective journalist. The best we can be is fairâ€.
Clearly Mr.Scott either neglected to pass on this grand and noble advice to the new editor Mr Southwell, or somewhere between Southwell’s appointment and January of this year Deano just plain forgot.
For yonks the Examiner has been accused of priveleging certain political and industry voices and uncritically presenting their views, whilst marginalising through comment or by lack thereof, the views of their critics.
The Examiner has always denied that any such patterns exist in its daily presentation of information.
Of course there weren’t to many denials from Mr. Southwell and his team when in March of this year the ABC’s Media Watch exposed the great bulk of The Examiner’s (January 2005) Pulp Mill coverage as a blatant biased campaign of Government and industry advertising.
As Journalist and Media Watch presenter Liz Jackson suggested: ““Maybe Tasmanians are happy to have their newspaper articles written by the government and industry, but we think notâ€.
Cameron, Mr. Southwell was exhibiting all the symptoms well before this latest outbreak.
And dont forget the more than capable Caples.
I am a huge fan of his work and look forward to presenting a closer Examination of it on another occasion.