BEFORE reality TV, George Orwell coined the phrase ‘Big Brother’ in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, first published in 1948.

Nineteen Eighty-Four is interpreted as a warning against authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism by Big Brother is achieved through Newspeak, the official language of Ingsoc. Ingsoc is the government portrayed in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Newspeak was devised by Ingsoc for two reasons, first, ‘to provide a medium of expression for the world-view’ and second, to provide mental habits proper for the devotees of Ingsoc and to make all other modes of thought impossible.

We are now seeing a plethora of Big Brother-style governance in Australia and throughout the world; Big Brother governance achieved through the manipulation of language, repression of civil rights and the rise of corporate dominance.

The way in which Gunns Limited and the Tasmanian Government are pushing the current pulp mill proposal has echoes of Big Brother … particularly in the way language is being used.

The hard-sell raises serious questions for a democratic society — and the legitimacy and integrity of public participation in politics, and for civil liberties.

On December 16 last year, the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC) announced it had received an application from Gunns Ltd to build a bleached Kraft pulp mill. There wasn’t a lot of media surrounding this announcement because other events squashed it out of the spotlight. Just two days before, on December 14, Gunns launched a writ ‘Gunns versus Marr and Others’; now popularly know as the Gunns20 (www.gunns20.org).

It has been argued that Gunns’ lawsuit against environmental advocates was designed as a “pre-emptive strike” to head off opposition to its pulp mill proposal. Whether that is the case or not, what is certain is that it had serious implications for public participation and freedom of speech.

Gunns proudly trumpets on its website, www.gunnspulpmill.com/ that the project is “the world’s greenest pulp mill”.

People are told that “a new pulp mill in Tasmania will be clever, clean and safe.” This might make you think it’s a good idea too. And why not? You’ve talked to your friends, listened to the public debate and heard what the experts are saying, then independently formed an opinion. Across the range of sustainability objectives — economic, social and environmental — there is a triplicate positive response.

And as all good salespeople know, three consecutive ‘yes’s’ is almost a guaranteed sale. You’re encouraged by the promotional advertising, perhaps to the point where you feel a little civic pride; phrases like ‘world’s best’ and ‘world’s greenest’ abound, and they are so easy on the palate.

Through the use of terms like “clever, best, cleanest, and greenest” new meaning is created.

Benefits for Tasmania

Gunns’ proposed pulp mill would initially consume over 3 million tonnes of wood including Tasmania’s irreplaceable native forests. It would consume almost 24 billion litres of water every year, twice the amount currently used by all users (industry and domestic) in Launceston and the Tamar Valley; even though closed loop technology (where water is pumped in once only) exists and is in use around the world. It would then pump 30 billion litres of liquid effluent into the Bass Strait, containing a range of chemicals including the persistent organic pollutants dioxin and furan. These chemicals could be completely eliminated from the effluent if the mill was totally chlorine-free; which would also make it much safer for workers’ health.

The area of the Bass Strait where the marine outfall will be located is a marine biodiversity hot spot where the ocean is relatively stagnant, with an average mixing time of 160 days; this could lead to the build-up of toxins in marine life. The pulp mill will also emit up to 300kg of particulate air pollution per day into the Tamar Valley, which already suffers from extremely bad air pollution problems due to an inversion layer in winter.

Considering all this and more, I think George Orwell himself would have been hard pressed to invent a better sales pitch for Gunns proposed pulp mill than ‘the world’s greenest pulp mill’. Gunns obviously has a good public relations team.

And they aren’t the only ones. Earlier this year State Premier Paul Lennon established the Pulp Mill Task Force through the Department of Economic Development, with a budget of over $2 million. The Task Force has been promoting Gunns’ proposal, outlining all the potential benefits for Tasmania, while giving no attention to the potentially negative impacts the pulp mill will have.

One tool the Task Force has used in its promotional campaign is the pulp mill bus, which has been touring rural areas of the state fostering support. Contained within the pulp mill bus and available through the pulp mill web site, http://www.pulpmill.tas.gov.au/ , is information explaining why the pulp mill is going to ‘keep our economy in the green’: all the great, positive aspects of Gunns pulp mill proposal.

The Government ‘fact sheets’ explain how Gunns pulp mill will be ‘clever, clean and safe’. This is propaganda.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is responsible for investigating the use of misleading advertising. I rang the ACCC — and in regard to the currently proposed pulp mill in Tasmania and the use of language such as “greenest” and “world’s best”, when quite clearly Gunns’ proposed pulp mill is not the ‘greenest’ and will not be world’s best practice or technology, the ACCC stated that while ‘businesses must not make false or misleading representations’ it was probably a case of ‘Puffery’. Puffery is a term used to describe wildly exaggerated, fanciful or vague claims. For
instance a corner store claiming it has the ‘best pies in the world’ is an example of puffery because they clearly do not and could not prove they do.

The RPDC however is the body responsible to assess whether or not the Gunns’ proposed pulp mill in the Tamar Valley will actually be a positive development for Tasmania. The RPDC has a duty to ensure that the public can be involved in the process and is well informed.

In the case of Gunns’ pulp mill proposal, their consideration has been jeopardised by the Premier and the Department of Economic Development, through the Pulp Mill Task Force. The public relations campaign of the Task Force has attempted to create a misleadingly positive perception of Gunns’ pulp mill, before an independent assessment has been given a chance to reach a verdict on the proposal, giving the impression the State Government has already given the proposal a ‘green light’.

The operations of the Task Force have led to the Executive Commissioner of the RPDC, Julian Green, taking the exceptional step of writing to the Government bluntly requesting that the activities of the Task Force be reined in. According to Green, “if the taskforce activities are not reined in, the commission will be compromised in the eyes of the public and therefore the assessment process will be seen to be contaminated.”

Confuse the public

Gunns has also managed to confuse the public over a number of integral issues regarding what their pulp mill development actually is. Late last year, John Gay, CEO of Gunns, said the pulp mill would be plantation based, totally chlorine free and world’s best practice; only to later retract this statement to say that the pulp mill will not be totally chlorine free, will consume native forests (at least initially) and therefore will not be ‘world’s best practice’.

It was recently discovered by Les Rochester, founder of the community group Tamar Residents Action Committee (TRAC, www.tamar-trac.com), that on the day public submissions to Integrated Impact Study Guidelines closed, Gunns had put in their own submission. In their submission Gunns revised the pulp mill proposal. This revision included tripling the amount of land required for the pulp mill site, no longer assessing the alternative site at Hampshire, and no longer considering the option of going totally chlorine free. After some deliberation the RPDC agreed to re-open the public consultation phase and has requested more details from Gunns.

In Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four Newspeak was the language created by the totalitarian government, it was a dilution of the English language, a way a creating new meaning and removing undesirable meanings.

Nineteen Eighty-Four is seen as a warning. Today, corporations give substance to Orwell’s warning, particularly in relation to the manner in which they use language.

Gunns Limited’s response to this article was sought. They responded by stating “Gunns Limited has serious concerns with statements and assertions contained within.” They declined to provide further detail.

All responses to this article are welcome.

Paul I J Oosting “is a writer and poet who has been published in Undergrowth.org, Vibewire, Noise and River of Verse. He currently works as a researcher and campaigner for a non-government environmental organization and has completed a Bachelor of Science and a Postgraduate Diploma in Environmental Planning”. These are his personal views.