Ralphs Bay: Voter backlash awaits

In the likely event the Lennon Cabinet meets today to decide whether to endorse or reject Tasmania’s first canal housing plan, its members might first acknowledge that the South Arm peninsula community was offered a choice when the Walker Corporation ‘vision’ bubbled up in March 2004.

Tasmanians should not accept the disingenuous line that the only two options are assessment in the Resource Planning and Development Commission as a Project of State Significance or, equally worrying, in the hands of the Clarence City Council.

The Premier and the Environment Minister both assured us that public feeling would be weighed in any decision on whether to allow this proposal through to the formal planning process. A sizeable community cross-section has made its feelings very plain.

Cabinet has the right, the legal and policy power, to say to Walker Corporation;”We do not support this development because a significant proportion of the community does not support it. And, because Tasmania is a democracy.”

Ministers can also refer to the precautionary principles of the State Coastal Policy and the environmental and economic values of Ralphs Bay referred to in the State of the Derwent, and State of the Environment Reports.

In the end of course, it will come down to crude politics and a collective analysis of how many Tasmanians might change their vote if Cabinet gives this the planning tick, and thus, clear endorsement. We submit — after a year and a half at the community coalface — that they are indeed a significant number.

The Lennon Government is slip-sliding in the polls; the Royal Hobart Hospital is in crisis; residents of the Tamar Valley are becoming increasingly worried about the proposed pulp mill.

Why take on another round of argument with its constituents in Franklin? Is it worth risking the possible loss of a seat? Does the ALP think this won’t also bite over the river, in Denison? It doesn’t make sense to fan the flames of political spotfires.

The Save Ralphs Bay Inc charter since our formation has been to prevent noxious canal estates in Tasmania. It remains so.

If an already cranky community is sentenced to spending at least two more years of their own time and money defending the Bay which our taxpayer-funded reports laud, we will have no choice but to take our message to coastal communities statewide via every means we can muster.

If Lennon Labor wants to fight up to the next election and then test its hypotheses on voter impact, we will be obliged to accept the challenge.

There will be Tasmanian champagne in the SRB Inc esky, just in case Cabinet chooses the wisest available course.

Cassy O’Connor
www.SaveRalphsBay.org