Mike Bolan How would you feel about anti-terror guidelines?
A ‘world scale’ pulp mill introduces resource depletion, infrastructure damage, health and environmental risks, business uncertainties and various hazards into a range of exposures in Northern Tasmania, all of which merit close attention and substantial care in their management and control. The net effect is a combination of potential threats that, inadequately controlled, could severely impact agriculture, tourism, fine foods and wine, recreation, fishing and rural communities. The economic effects of such impacts could easily exceed $25 billion over the mill’s life, with some impacts continuing for decades beyond and are thus well within the ambit of concern for businesses, communities and individual Tasmanians. What Tasmanians and businesses need is certainty about the control and prevention of effluents and other hazards from adversely affecting their lives and incomes.
Instead of openly discussing possible hazards and working with concerned industries and communities to establish whether, and where, a mill might work in Tasmania, the government has chosen a ‘fait accompli’ method incorporating a ‘trust the developer’ stance that is almost absurdly naïve and risky. Its processes place much of the decision making about impacts and their relevance into the hands of the project proponent, thus biasing the ‘approval’ process heavily in their favour. To take it further, we hear that the developer will also be responsible for monitoring their own performance, presumably reporting themselves to the regulator for corrective action. Another serious concern for many are the constant references to ‘guidelines’ when prudence dictates that regulations and laws would be more appropriate.
WITH any big industrial proposal it is normally considered essential to identify and manage the various risks so that existing industries, businesses and populations are not needlessly disadvantaged. A risk can be usefully understood as a potential negative impact that may arise from some current or future event. We cannot forsee the future, but we can try to assure that potential risks are controlled or eliminated. In circumstances where a risk could cause major problems, it is prudent to go to significant lengths to control them.
A ‘world scale’ pulp mill introduces resource depletion, infrastructure damage, health and environmental risks, business uncertainties and various hazards into a range of exposures in Northern Tasmania, all of which merit close attention and substantial care in their management and control. The net effect is a combination of potential threats that, inadequately controlled, could severely impact agriculture, tourism, fine foods and wine, recreation, fishing and rural communities. The economic effects of such impacts could easily exceed $25 billion over the mill’s life, with some impacts continuing for decades beyond and are thus well within the ambit of concern for businesses, communities and individual Tasmanians. What Tasmanians and businesses need is certainty about the control and prevention of effluents and other hazards from adversely affecting their lives and incomes.
Instead of openly discussing possible hazards and working with concerned industries and communities to establish whether, and where, a mill might work in Tasmania, the government has chosen a ‘fait accompli’ method incorporating a ‘trust the developer’ stance that is almost absurdly naïve and risky. Its processes place much of the decision making about impacts and their relevance into the hands of the project proponent, thus biasing the ‘approval’ process heavily in their favour. To take it further, we hear that the developer will also be responsible for monitoring their own performance, presumably reporting themselves to the regulator for corrective action. Another serious concern for many are the constant references to ‘guidelines’ when prudence dictates that regulations and laws would be more appropriate.
Tax subsidies were paid to the proponent, a tax funded promotional bus was used and a government taskforce was established to assist in the promotion. At the same time, the public was refused access to any financial support to mount objections or to test the validity of the proponent’s claims, or to produce scientific evidence of their concerns, further distorting the process in favour of the proponent and fuelling further community suspicion of government intentions and relationships.
Almost as soon as the project was announced and before the full risks were understood, local councils, the state opposition and the federal government and opposition stated total support for the project, denying communities access to unbiased representation except through self-funded submissions to a quasi-legal body that is not accountable to the public in any way. This created more distortion against the public and their interests.
Don’t mention Martin Bryant strategy
The overwhelming impression is of a government trying to mute objections from the community and trying to assure that the project is approved, regardless of the merits of differing views or the risks to other industries and communities. This view is reinforced by the ritual exclusion of the ‘world scale’ impacts of ‘world scale’ logging on farming, rural communities and water catchments.
The fact that the RPDC’s process is so rigidified and that decisions cannot be appealed despite their potential to have profound consequences on the lives and investments of so many Tasmanians, indicates a process that creates needless risk, particularly given the limited expertise, size and budget of the RPDC itself.
The structure of the RPDC clearly limits its ability to respond to public concerns, and the Commission is, in many ways, limited by information provided by the project proponent … “What information the proponent provides in response to the broad requirement of the guidelines is a matter for the proponent” is a telling quote. Far from being ‘independent’, it is clear that the Commission is highly dependent upon the proponent for information and impact definition. The RPDC includes a representative from the pulp and paper industry but no representative for the community despite the fact that it is the community who must suffer all of the impacts and pay for the entire process.
Given the global history of social and ecological disasters associated with pulp mills, the scope and nature of the risks are truly frightening for many industries and groups. The government response of ‘don’t worry… be happy’ fails entirely to deal with peoples’ genuine concerns. Their ‘don’t mention Martin Bryant’ strategy doesn’t help either when they refuse to look at the more serious consequences of ‘world scale’ logging and plantation land and water use on a small island with many existing businesses reliant on tourists interested in nature and farms and communities reliant on water supplies.
Overall, the scale and location of the proposal, the risks to other industries, the government’s inane ‘happy talk’, the closed doors of taxpayer representation and the absolute lack of government support to help the community to articulate and advance their concerns, all conspire to create an impression of democratic collapse and a domination of political party agendas by one industry regardless of the expense to other industries and communities. Does the federal government imagine that this process would be appropriate for other large projects, like nuclear power stations, for example?
The American revolution was started because Americans had taxation but no representation. That is not a circumstance likely to be tolerated for long in Australia. It is a condition that should not be tolerated in any open economy that relies on business confidence and stability for investment. Overall the threats presented by this process strike at the heart of the federal/state system in John Howard’s Australia.
Tuesday, Jan 9: Pulp mill in wrong place
Earlier: Trouble at the mill (Part 1)
And: Age, Saturday: Trouble at Gunns mill
And: Putt fires up pulp mill row
And, That share price:
Latest Stock Market detail: Here
