Environment
Uphold your pledge
Vica Bayley
All sitting members of the Labor and Liberal parties have signed their name to a pass mark that the pulp mill has failed to meet. The pulp mill has failed to meet the stipulated guidelines and as such, when it comes to a vote, these politicians should reject the pulp mill.
THE Wilderness Society has written to all members of both major parties in the State Parliament asking them to uphold the pledge they signed in regards to the proposed pulp mill. This coincided with the opening of State Liberal Party Conference, where the pulp mill was on the agenda and serious questions needed to be asked of the Prime Minister and Liberal members about political ethics and honesty.
In the weeks leading up to the last state election, all candidates from the Labor and Liberal parties signed on to a pledge that committed them to ‘support the construction of a pulp mill…provided it meets the environmental standards set down by the Tasmanian Government’s Environmental Emission Limit Guidelines for any new bleached Kraft pulp mill in Tasmania.’(emphasis added).
The release of the SWECO PIC report commissioned by the State Government is unequivocal in its finding that the pulp mill fails to meet the guidelines referred to in the pledge. In addition, the RPDC Final Scope Guidelines, the regulations developed for a sensitive, populated location like the Tamar Valley, were not even referred to in the SWECO PIC report.
All sitting members of the Labor and Liberal parties have signed their name to a pass mark that the pulp mill has failed to meet. The pulp mill has failed to meet the stipulated guidelines and as such, when it comes to a vote, these politicians should reject the pulp mill.
In the letter, The Wilderness Society urged parliamentarians to shift their attitude towards the concept of voting against the pulp mill and Mr Bayley wrote; “rejecting the pulp mill should not be viewed as saying no to Gunns or no to a pulp mill. Indeed, voting against the pulp mill should be viewed as saying yes to the commitments made to the Tasmanian community.”
The public are skeptical of the fast-track assessment and outraged at the Lennon Government’s actions in continuing the publicly funded PR campaign plugging the pulp mill. Premier Lennon claims that a parliamentary vote on the pulp mill is the democratic way to go. But with a pulp mill that doesn’t stack up and elected representatives prepared to ignore their own signed pledge, democracy is dead and public faith in political ethics is lost.
The Letter
The Honourable Paul Lennon,
Premier,
Minister for Economic Development and Resources,
Parliament House,
Hobart 7000. 13th July 2007Dear Premier Lennon,
Pulp mill pledge and request for meeting
I write to draw your attention to a pledge that you signed in the lead up to the 2006 state election. A joint media release from the CFMEU and subsequent media reports (attached) indicate that you placed your signature on a pledge that included the following principles;
• Support the construction of a pulp mill at Bell Bay provided it meets the environmental standards set by the new Tasmanian Government’s Environmental Emission Limit guidelines for any new bleached Kraft pulp mill in Tasmania.
• Have confidence in the Resource Planning and Development Commission, to fully assess and satisfy itself that the Integrated Impact Assessment will ensure that the mill will meet the guidelines it has set to examine social, economic and environmental impacts. (emphasis added)
Since signing this pledge the assessment has been controversially withdrawn from the RPDC and a fast-track assessment passed parliament with your support. An “assessment” report by SWECO PIC was commissioned by the government, however its scope is nowhere near as comprehensive as that of the RPDC. Indeed, the SWECO PIC report does not even take into consideration the Final Scope Guidelines drawn up by the RPDC. These guidelines were a mechanism by which the RPDC would conduct a more thorough assessment of the pulp mill, taking into account issues such as the unique meteorological attributes of the Tamar valley.
You are no doubt aware that the SWECO PIC report concluded that the pulp mill fails to meet the guidelines referred to in the pledge you signed. This report is unequivocal in its finding. That is, based on the information provided by Gunns; the pulp mill does not meet the guidelines.
You would also be aware that prior to the withdrawal of the pulp mill project from the accepted assessment process, the RPDC had found and the proponent had been informed that the information provided in the Integrated Impact Assessment and Supplementary Information was still critically deficient and inadequate.
The above two principles to which you placed your signature clearly indicate a concrete position. Based on this position, we and many Tasmanians who went to the election with the knowledge of your position, call on you to reject the proposed pulp mill when it comes before parliament.
I urge you to consider the fact that rejecting the pulp mill should not be viewed as saying no to Gunns or no to a pulp mill. Indeed, voting against the pulp mill should be viewed as saying yes to the commitments made to the Tasmanian community. It should be seen simply as upholding the pledge to which you placed your signature and following through on the countless public undertakings made by representatives of your party to support the mill only if it met certain conditions.
Please consider the implications of reneging on your signed pledge in regards to the opinion of the Tasmanian community. Public confidence in the pulp mill and the fast-track assessment process is at rock bottom and a backflip on a signed, concrete position on a controversial issue will reinforce public distrust of the political system.
With this in mind, I request an opportunity to discuss with you the issues of the pulp mill and the ongoing logging of high conservation value forests and domestic water catchments at your earliest convenience.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Vica Bayley,
Senior Forest Campaigner,
The Wilderness Society.