Mike Bolan
Stabbing the heart of our democracy
Most protective measures require the mill operator to incur higher costs, hence it would be imprudent to leave any aspect of community and industry protection up to the operator, who will constantly strive to cut costs. Instead the community should be responsible for specifying the level of protection that they need, not the developer nor the 4 person RPDC. The community is supposed to be represented by a government that is paying itself from our taxes. Who will be accountable if things go wrong for whole industries? Or if Australia’s reputation for healthy fish is threatened by pollution scares? Or if pollutants are released into the air and there are deleterious human health impacts? Or if rural communities disappear due to taxpayer subsidised conversion of farms to plantation? Or if Tasmania’s brand reputation is impaired, damaging thousands of businesses?
In the first two parts, ( Part 1 ), ( Part 2 ) I explored how the structure of the process and the means of decision making, coupled with politicians own reluctance to listen to and stand up for existing industries and taxpayers, conspired to create a climate of suspicion and risk. Basically the government has outsourced its community representative role to the RPDC and the project proponent, even to the extent of government departments making a written submission to the RPDC.
In part III, I explore some of the hazards presented by a mill and some of the potential risks created by mill operations. Note that it is the actual operation of the mill on the day and under the prevailing conditions that affect pollutants and the likelihood of emergencies developing at any given time. Distant reports written about the theory and practice of ECF mills in general do not define the risks on the day and it is this reality that advises a precautionary approach in the regulation of mill operations and outputs.
In general the impacts of the mill stem from hazards (pollutants, toxic chemicals and truck movements), and resource use or modification with impacts on:
• Industries and people who use any shared resources and infrastructures;
• other industries that rely on resources used by mill operators; and,
• tax revenues when subsidies are provided, including subsidised timber.
The hazards are extreme enough to require a strong regulation regime, coupled with frequent independent monitoring and rigorous enforcement. This is particularly important to control potential ocean pollution of the fishing grounds of Tasmania, Victoria, SA and WA (e.g. SA tuna use the Bass Strait) ( Flushing Bass Strait ) and to assure that the air over the Tamar is clean and odour free to protect industries in the valley and keep property prices up. Given the confidence of the government that the mill will not pollute, such a regime should present no difficulty so it will be interesting to see how they handle this matter. If experience is any indicator, watch for the government to try to pass this responsibility to someone else.
Log truck hazards are more problematical. We’ve already seen that Tasmania’s log truck fleet is often overloaded and their stability affected. Log truck owners are also under serious pressure to cut costs, even below safe operating levels. If the chip/pulp markets keep dropping and more large countries flood markets with timber products, then price pressures could drop further and cost cutting pressures could be passed to logging contractors who are always exposed. We’ve already heard of the government now wishing to pass the regulation of trucks to the owners. Rail transportation might solve some of the problems but the upgrade costs are likely to be prohibitive. Chemical storage and transportation requires good disaster planning, special transport arrangements and appropriate protection from terrorist attack, earthquakes etc. Emergency service capabilities in the areas affected would need to be substantially upgraded, doubtless at taxpayers’ expense.
Given the ‘world scale’ of the mill, shared resources present a serious problem for other resource users, particularly as water is becoming scarcer. Logging activity can change catchment and aquifer holding capacities as well as create erosion and siltation problems downstream (e.g. Tamar river). Plantation establishment and growth also consume substantial extra amounts of water with many thirsty trees competing for water. Given that irrigation water is selling for between $1,000 and $2,000 a megalitre in the Goulburn area, the sheer quantity of water needed by the 180,000 ha of plantation estate to feed the mill will likely be worth many times more as water than as trees, chips or pulp. If the water is allocated to the mill, then farmers, irrigators, communities and individuals may find themselves short of this vital resource if the dry continues. How will that problem be solved? Doctors have also expressed serious concerns about the leaching of atrazine and other toxic chemical cocktails from plantations into rural water supplies. Once again a regime of regulation, independent monitoring and rigorous enforcement is indicated.
Farming and tourism industries, as well as rural communities, could suffer severe effects from intensified forestry activity. Logging and plantations can disrupt scenic views and safe access to forests and recreation areas deterring tourists from rural areas. The conversion of farms to plantations, currently conducted under federal MIS schemes that stimulate the transfer of land from individual Australians to large tax subsidised corporations, can seriously stunt rural community cash flows. Plantations take 12 – 20 years to mature creating an economic drought for their maturation period, and most of the money will in any case not pass through rural communities. The conversion of just 10% of our rural farms to plantations could cost us over $300 million per year in lost farm and processing income — about equal to the ‘benefits’ brought by the mill.
Most protective measures require the mill operator to incur higher costs, hence it would be imprudent to leave any aspect of community and industry protection up to the operator, who will constantly strive to cut costs. Instead the community should be responsible for specifying the level of protection that they need, not the developer nor the 4 person RPDC. The community is supposed to be represented by a government that is paying itself from our taxes. Who will be accountable if things go wrong for whole industries? Or if Australia’s reputation for healthy fish is threatened by pollution scares? Or if pollutants are released into the air and there are deleterious human health impacts? Or if rural communities disappear due to taxpayer subsidised conversion of farms to plantation? Or if Tasmania’s brand reputation is impaired, damaging thousands of businesses?
If the RPDC is to be responsible for all this then they are severely under-resourced for the task. Furthermore the role, structure and process defined for the RPDC restricts their capacities in important ways that increase risks for communities, businesses and investors, such as their information reliance on the project proponent.
The real question is how appropriate is it for a State government to outsource its role of public protection and representation to a 4 man committee and the proponent of a major project? Some might ask why we need a government at all if such huge and far reaching problems can be so easily addressed by a small committee.
The actions of the State government, and the opposition, strike at important principles in Australian society, such as the right of citizens to be heard by their own politicians, and their right to all be treated as equal under the law, and their right not to be discriminated against because of their location. It raises important questions that strike to the heart of the way that government works in Australia … can the government voluntarily relinquish its role? If not, what are the elements of that role that cannot be relinquished? And if the government can relinquish its role can taxpayers relinquish their taxpaying role?
