Turnoff Thetelly
Tasmanians should remind federal politicians that they must act now to stringently examine the pulp mill proposal in relation to federal environmental legislation and if they fail to do so, and fail to keep promises that were made at the last federal election about a “chlorine-free pulp mill”, we will cast our vote accordingly in the election next year.
BOTH state Labor and federal Liberal politicians have ignored public opposition to the pulp mill proposal and have spent public money to back the mill — this should be an issue in the next federal election.
Peter Cover and Joy Elizabeth (see The pulp mill process) (and below) and other Tasmanians who feel largely ignored by both levels of government, and shut out of the RPDC process, may wish to take their issues to the new federal Labor Leader, Kevin Rudd, especially as Peter Garrett is going to form part of the new front bench and there is a federal election next year.
We have all witnessed state government total support for the mill, both Labor and Liberal, and unwillingness on the part of politicians to face up to the deficiencies of the proposal, but the federal government push has been given inadequate publicity. I’ve included links to 6 of many articles that should raise concerns about the level of federal government support for the mill proposal:
PM Howard: “ … but I would indicate that if that feasibility study turns out to be positive then the Federal Government would consider contributing some $5 million to the project costs of the development of an environmentally friendly, chlorine-free pulp mill.”
NB: “chlorine-free pulp mill”.
http://www.pm.gov.au/News/interviews/Interview955.html
Sen. Campbell: “A proposal by Gunns Ltd to develop a new pulp mill in Tasmania will be fully assessed under the Australian Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, said today.”
Where is the outcome of the assessment?
http://www.deh.gov.au/minister/env/2005/mr25jan05.html
“Meanwhile, the Federal Government says the timber company Gunns has not formally raised with it changes to its pulp mill plans.
Greens Senator Bob Brown raised the matter in Federal Parliament today, questioning the Minister for Forests Ian Macdonald, over whether the changes would affect the mill’s status as a project of national significance.
Senator Macdonald indicated that status would stand, despite the Government not being informed of the changes.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200506/1397436.htm?tasmania
“The Federal Government has approved the release of the remaining funds it promised Tasmanian timber company Gunns as support for developing its northern pulp mill.
The Government pledged $5 million at the 2004 election to help Gunns with its plans to build an environmental best-practice mill at Bell Bay .
The remaining $2.6 million will reimburse the company for the money it has spent on its feasibility study and preliminary engineering works.”
NB: “environmental best-practice mill” — what happened to “chlorine-free”?
http://au.biz.yahoo.com/061204/31/101iy.html
“The Federal Government is under fire for paying $2.5 million to Tasmanian timber giant Gunns for its proposed pulp mill, after the funds promised before the 2004 election were tied to a plan with higher environmental standards.
Gunns dumped its plan for a totally chlorine free plant after the election.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1562218.htm
“Council has also noted with ‘extreme concern’ the blunder that saw dioxin emissions from the mill underestimated by 45 times and the effect the effluent could have on marine life.
“These are all the measures that will need to be monitored by an independent body,” Frank Dixon said. “We are not interested in a self regulatory regime. There should be penalties that start at fines and go through to mill closure if there is a serious risk to health and quality of life.”
Council also supports calls for Gunns to consider abandoning the elemental chlorine free process in favour of a total chlorine free mill to ensure the project is world’s best practice.”
http://www.loc-gov-focus.aus.net/editions/2006/november/pulpmill.shtml
Does Launceston City Council seriously think that a government would close a mill that had cost millions, even if “serious risk to health and quality of life” should be proved — and what of the years in court that would be required and the cost of proving such risk, plus the usual state government payment to shut wrong-doers up that has become common practice in the Lennon government?
