Norma Jamieson MLC
Mr. President, what a debacle we politicians are having to hastily debate and resolve. The message being sent to the industrial world is surely that if you can give the Premier a good story that involves mega millions of dollars, then guidelines and processes can be juggled to suit your individual needs.
… I endorse people’s rights to have an opinion and an opposing view; it is called ‘democracy’. I am also very conscious of the need to support industries, particularly by Tasmanian for Tasmanian, for example, the pulp mill. However, if we do not maintain our integrity in business and governance, then all is lost to political and economic expedience and distrust.
I’M most appreciative of the extensive briefings that were sincerely offered to Members yesterday.
Likewise, the hundreds of contacts made by electors of every hue, through emails, handwritten letters, phone calls and personal representation.
The vast majority of these contacts were well aware that that the legislation we are debating is not about the pulpmill per se, but about a fast-tracked change of direction which calls into question the integrity of political process, and those who allowed this farcical situation to proceed.
Mr. President, what a debacle we politicians are having to hastily debate and resolve. The message being sent to the industrial world is surely that if you can give the Premier a good story that involves mega millions of dollars, then guidelines and processes can be juggled to suit your individual needs.
In March 2005 the Premier introduced amendments to the State Policies and Projects Act 1993, to account for deficiencies pertaining to the efficient implementation of Gunn’s pulp mill proposal. I note this, Mr. President, to remind us of how we can so easily amend legislation for the benefit of projects. The RPDC was given the extra capacity to complete its assessments and recommendations without having to resort to other planning permits and we Members confirmed our commitment to the Projects of State Significance concept.
We all agreed that these amendments offered greater flexibility for the RPDC and proponents of large multi million dollar projects. In his response to the debate, on 24 march 2005, the then Leader, now Treasurer Aird, made the following comment, and I quote from Hansard,” The role of Government is to set the scene, to get the guidelines, to get the RPDC into a position that it can, under this process, judge what is reasonable and fair. The contest of a perspective about a pulpmill will be tested there. To a large degree, parliament is removed from that process.”, end quote.
The Member for Derwent then suggested that if we had any problems with, for example, emission standards and effluent, that we should not argue but head off to the RPDC and that the Govt. is here to support the process. The Member then said , and I quote,” But I do support their right to have their independence away from interference from the political process and we all ought to sign up to that.”
So, Mr. President, I ask, what has happened to change the integrity of this legimate parliamentary process? What happened to the bureaucratic response that would ensure proper regulatory regimes and compliance, through a properly constituted Commission that offers an integrated holistic, assessment of projects of state significance, in conjunction with the Commonwealth and State bilateral agreement . Why did Premier Lennon, as minister in charge of this project of state significance, not exercise his prerogative in directing the RPDC to work within a mutually agreed time- frame when the project was first mooted, and a time- frame to also encourage Gunns to have the required information available, expeditiously? This option was available to the Premier under section 20 of the project of state significance act.
I understand the need to stop procrastinating, and that Gunns have financial obligations to shareholders and lenders, but surely that is part of the risk companies and individuals take, when proposing and embarking on such huge ventures. But, Mr. President, does that give Gunns the right to pout and pullout of a process that the company and parliament had deemed to be of state significance, just because the very complex assessments were being rigorously reviewed? The company had, and has to take that risk, again a part of their own risk management, which now makes me query their absolute commitment to the proposal at Longreach. The management had to know that pulling out of the RPDC process at that late stage would inevitably cause bureaucratic and political delays.
There are many diverse views surrounding the establishment, or otherwise, of the proposed pulp mill. However, Mr. President, these views have now been greatly complicated by the introduction of this special legislation to account for a different assessment process of the guidelines under which the proposed mill would be established. The original proposal was for a eucalypt kraft pulp mill, which is a different process and needs different guidelines from the now proposed eucalypt, pine and native forest mill, as I understand it. This raises another question, for me, on the availability of pine resources and the sustainability of other companies if Gunns required more resources of logs.
I note that in the Bill’s interpretations of “project”, the development and operation of the mill is given “carte blanch”, for all it’s needs. The ministerial appointment of a consultant, in section 4 of the Bill, to undertake an assessment of the project, is a huge responsibility for one person. The clause also does not require the Consultant to accept or adhere to the Guidelines, but simply to report to the Minister as to whether or not the project should proceed.
The process is squarely within State Government’s jurisdiction with assessments and permits, thus losing much credibility through the lack of independent review. A most undemocratic move, Mr President. In Section 6 :10 we are told that the minister may table in each House any other report deemed relevant by 31/8/2007. I find that statement completely unacceptable, particularly as we politicians are meant to be responsible for passing this legislation but may well not be fully informed or have the expertise and have only 3 days within which to accept or reject the proposed pulpmill.
It is also quite unacceptable that other experts are not given a chance to review the less rigorous guidelines. The Limitation of Rights Appeal, section 11, appeared to be dictatorial, undemocratic, contradictory and clearly designed to appease Gunns. However, our briefings this morning have given me a clearer understanding of the intention of the legislation. But, Mr. President, intention can be interpreted by different lawyers in so many ways.
Sadly, there are now many people questioning the ethics and integrity of parliamentary processes, and, by implication politicians. Mr. President, I feel I cannot support the tack being taken by the Premier, as far as this legislation is concerned. My critics may well say, “Well, that’s in the past, and we will hastily rectify the mismanagement of the past through this new assessment process’.
I endorse people’s rights to have an opinion and an opposing view; it is called ‘democracy’. I am also very conscious of the need to support industries, particularly by Tasmanian for Tasmanian, for example, the pulp mill. However, if we do not maintain our integrity in business and governance, then all is lost to political and economic expedience and distrust.
