The mill, the house: Mr Lennon talks to JJJ’s Steve Cannane

Can you see that people have a, can you see people have a problem, a perception problem here at a time when Gunns are trying to get government approval for the largest private infrastructure development in Tasmania’s history, that you’re getting a home renovated by Gunns? Do you see a perception problem there?

02.12.56
But what you’re talking about now happened almost three years ago.

Doesn’t mean we can’t ask questions about it.

02.13.00
No of course. I’m not stopping you from asking questions about it, just as you’re doing now. But I mean, the, when people haven’t got any substance about the issue at hand, which is the … of course they turn to the personal attack.

Transcript of the intervew:

02.02.12
STEVE CANNANE: Ah premier, you refer to the pulp mill proposal as world class do you think the development application process to assess the pulp mill has also been world class?

02.02.21
PAUL LENNON:: Well if you look at the process we’ve been through in Tasmania, it’s taken well over three years to get to the point where a decision could be made. I think the important thing to understand here is that a lot of scientists have been involved in looking at whether or not a pulp mill is suitable for our environment in Tasmania and in the end science has won the day. I think that’s what most people want to be reassured about was that, scientists rather than politicians were going to make the decision. I mean I wanted this decision to be free from involvement of politicians, unfortunately that hasn’t been possible. But I reckon most people um who are sort of wondering whether they support or oppose the mill, got a lot of reassurance from the fact that the chief scientist for Australia, Jim Peacock, at the end of the day said, look, this thing should be neutral for the environment so therefore as long as it meets these recommendations that I’ve made, it can go ahead.

He said that on, to criteria but you allowed the resource planning and development commission to start independently evaluating Gunns proposal but then you closed it down, closed down that process when the developer didn’t like how it was going. Do you think people would seriously think that that’s a world’s best practice model when you’re closing down an inquiry, you don’t allow public hearings to go ahead.

02.03.34
Well look there was a lot of public hearings in the assessment of the pulp mill, in two areas. First of all, when we set the guidelines up, remember that we went through a process that took about 18 months to see what sort of rules we should set for pulp mills to be constructed in Tasmania, therefore in Australia because we were the first to do it and when we did that, we looked at Scandinavia and we looked at Germany. These are the places in the world that you go to if you want to look at what sort of rules there should be. That was a very public process, we invited a lot of public submission, then you’re right, we had the RPDC looking at the project. Now, that project was going on too long from the point of view of the developer. I mean I didn’t like that idea but I mean I had a choice to make as a premier of a state. Do I let a big project just die or do I try and find some other way of having it assessed. Now, I chose to go to the parliament to see whether or not there was support to having another process put in place. The parliament said they would support another process and at the end of the day, seventy five percent of the politicians in Tasmania supported the pulp mill, now we’ve got the chief scientist of Australia supporting it as well and all of the science says that this type of industry properly regulated, can be neutral on the environment.

Okay but the developer was saying they wouldn’t build the mill unless it was approved by June. They also said they wouldn’t continue the mill with any new conditions. They’ve, both of those situations, they’ve gone back on their original statements. Did they call your bluff?

02.05.04
Well, people look people may say they’ve called our bluff but I mean that’s not, it hasn’t been a game of bluff and bluster as far as I’m concerned I mean…

But they’re, they’ve been making threats haven’t they, to close it down?

02.05.12
Well look, they’ve been doing what developers do – they’ve been trying to put the pressure on, sure, I accept that. I mean I think everyone can see that for what it’s been.

So did you cave into that pressure?

02.05.20
Well look, a lot of people have been trying to put pressure on. There’s been a whole lot of people trying to put pressure on because there’s a federal election around the corner, you know to say well this project shouldn’t be approved because it’ll affect a marginal seat somewhere in Australia. I mean I wouldn’t have thought too many people in Australia want projects like this – that are going to employ a lot of people to be determined by some marginal seat somewhere in Australia. It really has no effect at all or impact on um you know, environmental issues about our project. So look, there’s been a lot of pressure going around about this project from all sides of the debate. At the end of the day, rightly or wrongly, what I’ve tried to do is to make the right decision that I thought for the long term future of Tasmania. We haven’t had a big project like this for fifty years. For too long Tasmania’s had young people being forced to leave our state to get a job somewhere else, because there hasn’t been enough work here so… I mean I’ve got to think about that as well.

I was talking to Christine Milne today and she said the Greens had been calling for a royal commission into the relationship between the government, Gunns, the CFMEU and the forestry Tasmania. What’s your response to that?

02.06.23
Well Christine Milne calls for a royal commission about every month, I mean that’s my response. I mean that’s the best they can do. Here we are, we’ve got the chief scientist for Australia, has given this project the tick off. I mean that’s what the greens are…

On two criteria and he hasn’t completely given it the green light either because he said Gunns have got to meet a few criteria yet.

02.06.40
Yeah absolutely and we want to make sure they do that too. I mean the Tasmanian decision is even tougher than the chief scientists. I mean our decision provides a legislative base of support for our own independent environment regulator to close the mill down, if it doesn’t meet our requirements which are the toughest in the world. Remember that this, this project has been found now by all the scientists that have looked at it, to be world leading. It’ll set new benchmarks for pulp mills around the world. So and of course I’m sure you understand this, that if we don’t build a pulp mill here, the trees will still be harvested and they’ll be exported and turned into pulp and paper in Japan.

But what Christine Milne seems to be getting at is that the relationship between Gunns and the state government, is too close.

02.07.23
Well look the Greens believe that somehow or other you can have the government operating without any relationship with business – that’s simply not possible. If you’ve got a developer um who wants to spend a large amount of money investing in a state whether it be in Tasmania or New South Wales or anywhere, of course they’re going to want to talk to the government but I mean that must’ve gone on of course when Vizy built the pulp mill in New South Wales or…

But they weren’t getting special treatment there, were they? I mean that, they don’t close down the planning process like you’ve closed down the planning process. Are you concerned that you’ve set the precedent now for other developers when there’s a planning process to come in place that they’ll say we don’t like this, we’re going to pull out now. Gunns did it with the pulp mill, we’re going to pull out too.

02.08.05
Well Steve, look what’s happened in the planning processes right? Look what happened in Tasmania. In Tasmania the parliament made the decision right? What happened in Canberra? Malcolm Turnbull made the decision off the side of his desk. I mean have a bit of a look at the two processes and decide which one was best for democracy in our case. Independent members of the legislative council had to, ultimately had the final say.

There was no conscience vote, you know. You didn’t let them have a conscience vote on it, even though one of your backbenchers, one of your MPs wanted a conscience vote on the issue, so it wasn’t that independent.

02.08.38
Well the Legislative Council has got a majority of independent members. There are fifteen members in the council. There are only four Labor members, so you see and the vote up there was substantial so yes you’re right in our House of Assembly like in the national parliament, people vote along party lines, that’s right. But our Legislative Council is not like the senate. Our upper house in Tasmania, um is in independent. It’s not a party house like New South Wales or Victoria. Here it’s got a majority of independent members, so they supported the mill as well and look some of the people who supported the process in the Legislative Council, didn’t vote for the mill at the end of the day in the Legislative Council and yet some who voted against the process, supported the mill so I mean that demonstrates the robustness. At the end of the day if we live in a democracy, sooner or later we’ve got to accept the decision of the elected officials. If you don’t like your elected officials, you throw them out at the next election.

Ok, back to the issues that Christine Milne brought up. Former Liberal leader Bob Cheek claims that back in 2002, John Gay from Gunns, dangled in front of him ten grand and another check for twenty grand if he supported the existing forest policy. Have you ever been offered money by Gunns in similar circumstances?

02.09.46
Have I?

Yeah.

02.09.47
No, no, no. But the…

Never?

02.09.50
No I haven’t but you know they’ve made donations to (…) before and they’ve made donations to the Labor Party before.

How much did they donate to the Labor Party?

02.09.57
Well they didn’t donate any money to the Labor Party at the last state election but I don’t know the exact amounts they donated at previous ones.

So they’d never offered you favours or discounted services?

02.10.06
Who, Gunns? Look Gunns don’t offer me things like that. I wouldn’t accept those sort of things. I mean I’ve been in public life for… since I’ve just – early twenties.

So you were outraged when you heard that claim by Bob Cheek?

02.10.20
I didn’t know of that claim. I don’t know where…

It was in his biography and has been published by the press since.

02.10.24
Well look, I don’t follow everything Bob Cheek says and does.

Okay, you had your home renovated by Gunns construction company. Why did you choose that?

02.10.32
Well they’re a good building company. Look they’re just one of the contractors that worked on my house. There’s been a number that worked on my house.

The company in question, the Gunns company in question, are according to their website, a civil construction company that do large construction projects like goldmines, bridges and schools – that seems like an unusual choice for a home renovation.

02.10.52
No that’s just some of the things they do. I mean they did some work on my house. I paid substantial amounts of money for that. I’ve had other contractors work on my house. I mean just because I’m the Premier of Tasmania, doesn’t mean I’m allowed to do the things that families normally do, does it? Like you know if you want to do some renovations, you have to get a builder to do it. Now, I went through all the planning processes through the local council that you’re required to do. Um you know, I’ve done some of the work out there myself. I’ve had the Hinmans did some work…

Did you get a quote from Hinmans?

02.11.24
Yes I did that. I’ve been through all those things before.

If you got a quote, why did John Gay from Gunns say you weren’t happy with the price? Was it different from the quote?

02.11.30
Well, well because the cost blew out. I mean the anticipated cost that I expected to pay, for the work that they did, ended up being a lot more.

Besides the work that Gunns did on your house, did you get other quotes for that same work?

02.11.44
Um well they didn’t do all the work at the end of the day…

But for the work that they did, did you get other quotes for that work?

02.11.49
Well at the end of the day, some of the work was done by them, some of the work was done by other contractors. I mean…

Did you get other quotes for that work that Gunns did?

02.11.57
Pardon?

Did you get other quotes…

02.11.58
I looked, I looked at using other builders, yes. I did look at using others.

And what, they couldn’t compare with the Gunns price?

02.12.13
Well look at the end of the day, I didn’t get Gunns to do some of the work that they quoted me for, I got other people to do it. I mean, the renovations at my house are ongoing. They continue on. I’ve spent substantial amounts of money on it. And you know, old heritage homes cost a lot of money to look after.

Did you get mates’ rates from Gunns?

02.12.20
No. Well that’s why I had the argument about it. You know, at the end of the day they, they gave me a quote for work I ended up paying a lot more than what I initially thought it was going to be and I’m still doing work, work on the place and it’ll be a long time before I’m finished renovating the house but it’s something I enjoy doing. I’m just…

Can you see that people have a, can you see people have a problem, a perception problem here at a time when Gunns are trying to get government approval for the largest private infrastructure development in Tasmania’s history, that you’re getting a home renovated by Gunns? Do you see a perception problem there?

02.12.56
But what you’re talking about now happened almost three years ago.

Doesn’t mean we can’t ask questions about it.

02.13.00
No of course. I’m not stopping you from asking questions about it, just as you’re doing now. But I mean, the, when people haven’t got any substance about the issue at hand, which is the … of course they turn to the personal attack.

Why’s that a personal attack?

02.13.13
I’ve been involved in public life now for thirty years so I mean…

So you don’t think that deserves public scrutiny?

02.13.19
Well there’s been plenty of public scrutiny about it, mate.

But you’re saying it’s a private attack, it’s a personal attack. It’s not a personal attack. Isn’t it in a situation where um you’ve got this massive development proposal in front of you and you’re getting a house renovated by Gunns, why is that a personal attack if someone asks questions about that?

02.13.34
No but at the end – look – at the end of the day, the Tasmanian parliament made the decision about the project. I didn’t make the decision about the project so…

When you were initially being asked questions, why didn’t you make those quotes public? Why didn’t you put the on public record, table them on parliament, release it?

02.13.49
Look, I was asked questions about the home renovations during the last state election in Tasmania. I was asked how much I’d paid to Gunns. I gave the answer then.

Yeah you said how much you paid but you didn’t show anyone the quote.

02.14.01
Well, look, you know, I answered all the questions. I think, I think there’s a limit to how much someone’s private life ought to be thrown in the public, mate. I’m a private ???. My family deserve some privacy. You know, people want to throw around allegations willy nilly without any um evidence at all. No evidence exists. I’ve done nothing wrong, and you know, so at the end of the day people seek to, sort then during the election campaign in Tasmania to attack me personally. The results for the election are there for everyone to see. It was rejected by the Tasmanian public. My vote went up in the last state election so, you know, I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve been, as I’ve said, involved in public life for a long time. I expect questions like this to be asked from time to time. I always answer them willingly.

Okay um Richard Flanagan says the culture of bullying and intimidation exists under your government. What would you say to that?

02.14.56
Well Richard’s wrong. You know, Richard’s entitled to his own opinions, but he’s wrong.

Have you ever said no to John Gay about anything?

02.15.06
Well we certainly, hasn’t achieved everything that he wants from the Tasmanian government or from the Tasmanian parliament. I mean, what we’ve required of this company, is for them to meet new international benchmarks for the pulp mill.

But you gave him what he wanted on the pulp mill development process. Have you ever said no to him on anything?

02.15.31
I’m not sure that we did give them what they wanted on the pulp mill process, did we? I mean at the end of the day it’s taken much longer to get the approvals on what they had hoped…

But as far as ending the RPDC process, as far as changing the legislation, as far as I know I’ve heard a Gunns lawyer helped draft the legislation, to help, help you guys get that through parliament.

02.15.51
The process that ended up being followed, to see whether or not a pulp mill could be built on Tasmania, was a process determined by the Tasmanian parliament and as I’ve said to you, the legislative council of Tasmania is not controlled by the government. We don’t have the numbers there, so we have to convince independent members of the worthiness of our legislation. It’s not like parliaments in the rest of the Australia. We’re not like the Howard government, we don’t control both houses of parliament here. So we are answerable to people who aren’t members of the government in the parliament. So ultimately of course we’re answerable to the wider Tasmanian community and an election, so…

Did you read Richard Flanagan’s piece in The Monthly?

02.16.26
Yeah I’ve read that article.

Okay, in it, it quotes a senior Labor politician saying in front of Richard’s Flanagan and his daughter and excuse the language, ‘the fucking little cunt is finished’ and he was saying that about a consultant Jerry Castles who wrote a critical piece of your government. Do you endorse that kind of behaviour?

02.16.41
Well I don’t know if the, if the quote’s accurate. If it is, of course I don’t endorse that sort of behaviour but I don’t know if it’s accurate or not.

So when you read that article by Richard Flanagan and you saw that, did you make any enquiries about it?

02.16.50
Well look, I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t, look – Richard’s a had a lot of things to say recently. I don’t know whether, whether the quote’s accurate or not. I’ve no way of knowing whether that reference is right.

Does it worry you?

02.17.07
Well look, I wouldn’t endorse that sort of behaviour from any politician. I don’t know about you but I don’t think it’s the sort of thing that’s acceptable.

But it doesn’t sound like you tracked down who it was and found out why they did it.

02.17.19
Well you know, but if Richard wanted to follow the matter up, he would’ve come to see me about it too, wouldn’t he? He’s never approached me…

He’s allowed in his front door, is he?

02.17.26
Well of course he is. Of course Richard can. He’s welcome here any time he likes.

Didn’t you say his novels aren’t welcome in the new Tasmania? That’s hardly an invitation around for tea and biscuits.

02.17.35
No that’s his, I mean that was – all this goes back to some untimely comments that Richard made about Jim Bacon shortly after his death. I mean I didn’t think, I mean do you think it’d been right? He could’ve picked a better time I think to say what he said about Jim Bacon. I don’t think it was right of him to attack him personally, in the way that he did, straight after he died. I mean that’s all I was saying at the time. Richard’s never been able to get over it. Hopefully one day he will. He’s got a lot to offer Tasmania, he’s a very talented author.

Did you think it was appropriate for the pulp mill task force, with Tasmanian government money, to be letterboxing people in the Tamar Valley region, saying this pulp mill you know, won’t have any adverse effects on the environment, while there was an independent process going.

02.18.20
Well the pulp mill task force was engaged in providing information to the community about a range of issues about it during…

It was one sided information though wasn’t it?

02.18.28
Well during the um, the time when it was going through the planning of people process. Some people took offence to that. I acknowledged that.

But it was one sided information, wasn’t it?

02.18.37
Well what it was trying to do was provide factual information.

Facts or opinions?

02.18.41
Well factual information, I mean…

How can you have facts when before the enquiries happened?

02.18.45
Now steady down a bit, you’re getting a bit aggressive. Look, obviously there was a lot of interest as you know on a very big project like this about the impact it was going to have on our community and what we tried to do, in a genuine attempt to provide information to people, was have it presented to them. But as the process went on and on and on, it became more of a political issue to be debated within the community, then some members of the community took offence at the fact that the government was presenting information. Now…

Isn’t it wrong though for the government to be doing that when there’s an independent group looking at whether there’ll be any adverse effects on the environment and you’re already out there with public money, stuffing stuff into letterboxes saying there won’t be adverse effects on the environment. You’re prejudging that inquiry’s judgement.

02.19.28
Well we’ve never said there’d be no impact on the environment. I mean what we’ve said and now the scientists have endorsed is that…

Well the scientists have not talked about air pollution though.

02.19.37
Yes they have. I mean that was all being dealt with by Sweco Pic. Of course it has.

In a very fast tracked process, compared to the one you set up.

02.19.43
No, no, no it’s not fast tracked at all.

It took a lot less time than the original one you set up and promised would be fulfilled.

02.19.50
Mate, we’re almost four years into this process. Mate, this is the only place in the world where the developer would’ve hung in this long. You know I mean anywhere else in the world um this proposal would’ve been long gone. But you know, where do you think the paper comes from? Where do you think it comes from? It comes from bleach craft pulp, being made all over the world. I mean what we wanted to reassure ourselves about here was that we would be forcing world’s best technology upon the developer and that they would have to set new benchmarks in environmental management and that’s what the scientists have said from Jim Peacock, to chief scientist for Australia, as you say, who only had a role to play in part of the process but then we had the international scientist from Sweco. And a Scandinavian expert, their scientists also found that this was world leading in the areas of air and smell, which are the key issues of concern to the Tamar Valley and then we had a group of scientists from from Washington state in America, assess the technology being used in the Gunns proposal against fifty three of the biggest and most modern mills in the world and they found this to be number one in the world in air and smell quality. So, this mill will not only employ a lot of people, it will have to set new benchmarks on environmental management.

Okay final question, will you rule out going on the board of Gunns when you leave politics?

02.21.16
Yeah, I can’t imagine myself um ever being a member of the Gunns board or indeed being invited to be a member of the Gunns board. You know, I’ve been in public life since I was twenty one. I intend to be around for a bit longer yet.

Great, thanks a lot for talking to us.

02.21.31
No worries, Steve.

On Tasmanian Times: Here