Environment
Ralphs Bay: Peter Tucker muddies the debate
Cassy O’Connor
Federally, both Harry Quick and Duncan Kerr have been shining lights for a disenfranchised community. Whichever way their party rules, or fear of punishment, require State Labor members to vote on the Walker plan, MPs such as Paula Wriedt, David Bartlett, Graeme Sturges and Heather Butler must surely be appalled … It’s tempting to toss the enigmatic Steve Kons into this mix, but I can’t be sure.
I pretty much gave up on Lisa Singh at 10.21 am on Thursday 6 July, when she undertook the dubious honour of asking Premier Lennon a Dorothy Dixer on the new Walker pitch to buy and develop a high-conservation value public bay.
What’s so terrific about a planning process that sets a billion dollar corporation — with the Premier’s backing — against a cash-strapped community; over-rides relevant State statutes and policies; then ultimately leaves the decision in the hands of one man? Meanwhile, we, ‘the people’ and legal owners of the Crown Land sandflats of Ralphs Bay, have no right of appeal once the recommendation and judgement have been made. As ‘proper process’ goes, it’s a sham.
AS Alderman Kay McFarlane has pointed out on www.oldtt.pixelkey.biz, among the many credentials listed in his commentary, Canal project lesson (The Mercury and TT, 27 July) Peter Tucker failed to mention he is also the current President of the Australian Institute of Planners (Tas).
This helps to put his comments supporting the Walker plan’s assessment as a Project of State Signficance (PoSS), into a clearer perspective.
Mr Tucker is way out in his analysis of community feeling on Ralphs Bay. The dynamic is more complex. If he were to attend one of our public events, Mr Tucker would see a mixed and varied crowd — once staunch Labor voters, the small ‘l’ Liberals, the professionals and concerned parents and grandparents who are so affronted by the unabashed cynicism of this terrible resurrection. There is also, across Labor, Liberal and Green parties, common concern for a more meaningful set of values than that which relates only to profit and the processes designed to increase it.
Within the ALP, I suspect it is only the far right — the redneck rump if you like — that prays Lang Walker will win.
Federally, both Harry Quick and Duncan Kerr have been shining lights for a disenfranchised community. Whichever way their party rules, or fear of punishment, require State Labor members to vote on the Walker plan, MPs such as Paula Wriedt, David Bartlett, Graeme Sturges and Heather Butler must surely be appalled … It’s tempting to toss the enigmatic Steve Kons into this mix, but I can’t be sure.
Give up on Lisa
I pretty much gave up on Lisa Singh at 10.21 am on Thursday 6 July, when she undertook the dubious honour of asking Premier Lennon a Dorothy Dixer on the new Walker pitch to buy and develop a high-conservation value public bay.
Lin Thorp and Allison Ritchie have bravely and openly condemned the Walker plan. We hope — despite Paul Lennon’s bully-boy edict — their vote on the PoSS reflects these genuine concerns. The remaining quiet worriers in ALP ranks might be telling themselves, the planning system will knock it off. But, WHAT IF IT DOESN’T?!
The PoSS process has become a dim shadow of democratic practice. The Minister responsible for the State Policies and Projects Act — the Premier — sets out the framework, so it remains to be seen just how rigorous in its scope any assessment might be. Given the Premier’s overt enthusiasm for Lang’s plan and the government’s track record of broken promises, it’s hard to take seriously his assurances he will follow the RPDC’s final recommendation.
What’s so terrific about a planning process that sets a billion dollar corporation — with the Premier’s backing — against a cash-strapped community; over-rides relevant State statutes and policies; then ultimately leaves the decision in the hands of one man? Meanwhile, we, ‘the people’ and legal owners of the Crown Land sandflats of Ralphs Bay, have no right of appeal once the recommendation and judgement have been made. As ‘proper process’ goes, it’s a sham.
We do, however, have the ballot box. It is worth pointing out — again — that Paula Wriedt snuck back into Parliament by the narrowest margin chiefly on SRB Inc campaigner and Greens’ candidate, Jane MacDonald’s preferences.
We have spoken to people who voted Labor on the day — largely in support of protection from ‘Work Choices’ — and regret it now. Of course, our take on voter sentiment is a qualitative, rather than quantitative assessment … as is Mr Tucker’s. Yet, we submit, he fails to appreciate the breadth and depth of the passions stirred.
And while we thank Mr Tucker for his advice, the rules of engagement we’ve applied to date have worked well enough to build alliances across the public and political spectrum. We tell it like it is. There is no mysterious Stage Two in our filing cabinet, as there is in Walker’s. Ultimately, SRB Inc. (and Associates) … is just a collective of sincere, thoughtful, skilled and determined individuals who share a deep sense of stewardship towards Tasmania’s coastline.
Future health of the Derwent
At the core of our arguments is a simple fact — and we will say it over and over again whether Mr Tucker likes the language used or not. Tasmania’s unspoiled coastline will be fundamentally and permanently compromised if the Walker plan goes ahead. We argue the precautionary principle should be applied in some clearly obnoxious instances BEFORE the planning system is engaged … at taxpayers’ expense. The very fact that, for more than twenty years, there has been a conservation zone in the footprint of the proposed development ought to be sufficient to halt this beast in its tracks.
The future health of the River Derwent is also being overlooked in the rush to the RPDC. It’s all there already — like a mantra we say it — the State of the Derwent and Environment Reports, the RPDC Background Report into the Bruny Bioregion, the precautionary principles in the current State Coastal Policy (no obstacle to this PoSS according to the A.G.), the Derwent Estuary Program (DEP) monitoring and, under the joint Commonwealth State Action Plan on Derwent heavy metals.
This is not about being pro or anti-development. It is about having the vision to prevent inappropriate, harmful developments from staining our priceless natural assets and Tasmania’s lucrative clean, green brand. Canal estates are toxic to estuarine environments. Experience interstate also tells us the inevitable maintenance and clean up costs can plunder the public purse indefinitely. There is nothing to recommend canal developments to any intelligent political or planning authority.
And, people are listening to what we have to say about the canal threat. SRB Inc. delivered more than 3000 personal messages from concerned voters to the Lennon Government during Walker’s first strike. They were just the ones we collected. More were sent in by individuals and the telephones were burning in ministerial offices in the lead up to Walker Corp.’s pull out last September. Judy Jackson, Paula Wriedt and Lara Giddings took most of the heat for the government from angry constituents. They knew it was an election issue alright.
As a result of sustained interest from local and interstate media, the level of awareness of coastal issues in Tasmania has demonstrably increased. Is Mr Tucker reading the Mercury’s letters’ pages and online comment, or listening to talkback? Wethinks the level of concern is acute and growing. If the Walker proposal ever begins to manifest on the sandflats of Ralphs Bay, be assured it will spark a whole new wave of activism – and not just in Franklin – right up to the 2010 poll. It won’t be pretty.
It can all so easily be avoided, for all the right reasons.
Finally, Mr Tucker, don’t under-estimate the intelligence and flexibility of SRB Inc., nor the number of well-connected friends we have …
And, please don’t under-estimate the extent of the community we represent.
Cassy O’Connor
Communications coordinator
SRB Inc.
www.saveralphsbay.org
cass@saveralphsbay.org