The numbers game (2)

An Observer

However Mr McLean and Mr Gay have estimated numbers at over double and nearly triple the police estimates. Now I believe people should consider my next statement very carefully. Now if Mr Gay and Mr Mclean can demonstrate such contempt for accuracy and detail in respect to rally numbers does this not add to the already widely held suspicion in the Tasmanian community that Tasmanians cannot trust the Pro-GPM axis camp to put their massive industrial project in amongst 100,000 Tamar valley residents and expect people to believe that it will be safe?

The Overview
The pro-mill rally pics are taken as a series of photos sweeping from the left edge to right edge of the crowd. They give you a good overall picture of the crowd. The speakers podium is located in the background between the crane and the shadecloth. Note the depth of the crowd in comparison the anti-mill rally.

In the anti-mill rally pics the podium can be referenced by the green coloured banner in the distance (which says ‘our future, our choice – no pulp mill) . Note the depth of the crowd in these pics which was estimated by police at around 11,000.

PRO-MILL RALLY

And

ANTI-MILL RALLY

THIS week a mate of mine (who leans towards the pro-mill position), my wife and I took an unpaid day off work because we felt that it was important to attend the pro-Gunns Pulp Mill rally in Launceston. We made a 70km round trip to attend.

My wife and I both attended the last anti-Gunns Pulp Mill (GPM) rally in June where 11,000 people marched. We wanted to hear what this rally had to say about the proposed GPM. The three of us sat there on the cold concrete steps at royal park and looked out over the crowd and agreed there were between 2000 and 3000 people maximum there.

Some of our observations were as follows.

• Significantly there was only discussion of jobs and economic benefits of the GPM. There was no discussion or information that focussed on any other issues surrounding the pulp mill — ie effluent, air quality, water, transport or public and environmental health. This is in stark contrast to the anti-mill rallies where these issues have been explored and discussed in some depth.

• There were much fewer people at this rally.

• The crowd was also noted to be overwhelming male — and of the male contingent at least half and probably more were dressed in fluorescent vests indicating they were attending via the workplace.

• Another observation was that despite the dog-whistle politicking in the rally lead up and subsequent attempts at the rally by speakers to whip the crowd into a frenzy by grossly overstating the existence of threats and intimidation coming from anti-mill people (a very old tactic used by the ‘development at any-cost lobby’ in Tasmania), the mood at the pro-GPM rally was comparatively lacking in atmosphere and suprisingly passive. This was very noticeable in comparison to the anti-mill rallies we’ve been to. I could not help wondering whether this passive-dependant demeanour was symptomatic of a group of people that has been able to rely on the relatively powerful, financially well resourced and well connected government and industry representation they have in their corner (to deliver them the pulp mill they want).

• Even the banners held by participants were generally pre-fab with large typed print and homogenous in content and construction, as compared to those at the anti-mill rallies. Indeed there were almost no individually made banners at the pro-mill rally.

• Family groups and the elderly constituted a much smaller proportion of the pro-GPM rally. We took photos of both the anti-mill rally in June and this pro-GPM rally. Because of the well documented campaign by the Pro -GPM government and industry using a very narrow, negative and almost homogenous stereotype of anti-Gunns mill people it has to be noted from a comparison of these photos that the pro-GPM rally attendees actually appear much more homogenous in its appearance, especially when one notes the predominantly male make-up of the rally.

Attention should also be drawn to the blatantly exaggerated and dishonest claims made by CFMEU/Labor man Mr Scott McLean and Gunns’ Mr John Gay (The Mercury www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,22098724-3462,00.html) of 10-11000.

Perhaps this should ring more alarm bells for the people of Tasmania.

After the anti-mill rally in June there was consensus amongst police, media and rally participants that a crowd of between 10-12000 had attended the rally. There was not much exaggeration either way. To speculate 1-2000 either way may be acceptable.

However Mr McLean and Mr Gay have estimated numbers at over double and nearly triple the police estimates. Now I believe people should consider my next statement very carefully. Now if Mr Gay and Mr Mclean can demonstrate such contempt for accuracy and detail in respect to rally numbers does this not add to the already widely held suspicion in the Tasmanian community that Tasmanians cannot trust the Pro-GPM axis camp to put their massive industrial project in amongst 100,000 Tamar valley residents and expect people to believe that it will be safe?

Are we just seeing a continuation of a Gunns pulp mill campaign that has been characterised by deceit, exaggeration, errors and secrecy. Remember how Gunns in its IIS underestimated dioxin levels by 45 times? And then Andrew Wadsley, Associate Professor in petroleum engineering at Perth’s Curtin University, tells us the toxicology reports prepared for Gunns underestimated the levels of dangerous dioxins in mill effluent by up to 1390 times. Indeed throughout the entire process Gunns submissions have been highly criticised by independent experts including the RPDC for their ommissions, errors, non-compliance and lack of timeliness.

In summing up, if conclusions can be drawn from a comparison of the pro and anti Gunns pulp mill rallies then it would appear that despite government and industry claims that the anti-mill rally was “single issue driven’, the exclusve focus by the pro-mill rally on jobs and economy suggests that the latter (the pro-mill rally) best fits this ‘single-issue’ tag.

From the available sources of information that inform us about the rally demographics which include press releases and news reports, anecdotal evidence from observers, media interviews and conversations with rally participants prior to, during and after the rallies as well as the photographic and video evidence, it would seem reasonable to draw the conclusion that the anti-mill rallies were not only larger and more voluntary but a broader cross-section of the local community were presented.

Rally numbers clearly demonstrate (especially if you couple this with available poll results) that despite claims by the pro-mill axis camp that anti-mill people are the ‘minority group’, it is in fact pro-mill supporters that best fit this tag. One must consider that organisers of the pro-mill rally chose to have their rally in the middle of the week so as to maximise numbers. Employees directly employed by or associated with the forest industry, including public servants and others were also directed to attend the rally on full pay whilst others attending also had significant financial interests in the mill. Whereas attendees of the anti-mill rally attended their rallies voluntarily and ‘without’ pressure or direction from an employer. Anti-mill rallies were on weekends, outside of work hours and without financial inducement.

So, as is reflected by the results of the pro and anti mill rallies, if large numbers of Tasmanians who are acting on a more voluntary basis (not financially induced or interested); from a broader cross section of the local community; and who appear to have been exposed to (additional information from sources independent of industry and government) and concerned with a broader range of the issues around the mill, are being ignored by the state government, what does this say about the state of democracy in Tasmania?