Dave Groves

Five clear concise questions requiring five clear concise answers were sent to our Federal Members, Senators and Legislative Councilors on 24/06/07.

Dear community member.

I will keep this brief, but would appreciate your reply via email to save paper and unnecessary expense.

In your privileged roles, you all have influence over this proposal, hence this email.

I have limited this to five simple questions that should take little of your time to respond to.

I would like direct and succinct answers to my questions.

Please remember this is a long term proposal, perhaps 30 or 50 years, so be honest and accurate.

Thank you.

Dave Groves

Can you/do you or the proponent:

1) Guarantee that this proposed pulp mill will not smell?

2) List a position description of the 292 jobs with reference to Tasmanian employment?

3) Guarantee that this proposed pulp mill will not pollute our air and water?

4) Agree to be held liable (If you sustain unquestioning support for this proposal) for any adverse affects to environment and community from this proposal should it proceed to operation (including forest operations)?

5) Guarantee that this proposed pulp mill will not harm or threaten existing businesses in Tasmania, particularly the Tamar Valley.

The replies that directly answered my questions came from Don Wing and Ivan Dean.

Stephen Parry replied pro forma style stating Federal and State responsibilities.

Both Don and Ivan answered directly or indirectly “NO” to all five questions.

No one else bothered to reply.

So what is to be made of these few questions?

I don’t think you need me to tell you.

The replies

Dear Mr Groves

Thank you for your email.

I can answer for myself, but I cannot answer for the proponents.

I am advised that the mill would not smell as it has a triple burner system that no other mill in the world currently has. There are no guarantees in this world.
I cannot do this – I suspect the proponent can.
There are no guarantees as I said but if the evidence doesn’t support the mill being clean it will not be supported.
I cannot agree to be held liable – however, civilly, if damage can be attributed to a cause an action could most likely be taken.
I can give no guarantee but if it meets all guidelines businesses are unlikely to be harmed.

I have endeavoured to answer your questions, but it is difficult for me to answer these questions as I am still in the process of gathering evidence, getting confirmation of some issues and I am yet to undertake a site inspection of similar mills.

The proponents may well be able to answer your questions in a more positive manner and I would suggest you seek their assistance.

Yours sincerely

Ivan Dean MLC

Dear Mr Groves,

In response to your email letter dated 25 June last I advise that in no way can I possibly answer for the proponent.

As to you other questions I advise:

1) No

2) No, and I am surprised that you had any expectation that I may have been able to do so.

3) No

4) No, not applicable because I am not in the habit of sustaining unquestioning support for any proposal.

5) No

Yours sincerely,

DON WING