Forum: Secrecy and Lies

David Obendorf

An emerging issue that was raised by Mr Quin in his opening address to the forum was his concerns over the 20-year wood supply agreement between Forestry Tasmania and Gunns Ltd over access and pricing for wood from public forest to feed both the company’s pulp mill and its ongoing woodchip export markets. This matter became the basis for further comment by the economist, Dr Wells and in questions from the audience. The secrecy behind this agreement and the lack of transparency on public assets such as forest and water were raised, with a call for complete openness in the way representative government sell off essential public resources.

A GATHERING of several hundred people attended the forum organised by Environment Tasmania Inc. on Tuesday evening. The audience heard from two federal politicians – Senators Helen Polley (Labor) and Bob Brown (Greens) and independent candidate for Lyons, Mr Ben Quin. The Liberal Party was invited to send a representative but no one attended.

A second expert panel contained UTAS economist, Dr Graeme Wells; Curtin University petroleum engineer Professor Andrew Wadsley; The Wilderness Society director, Mr Geoff Law and retired CSIRO oceanographer, Dr Stuart Godfrey. The evening was chaired by Mr Peter Hay.

Much of the political discourse covered the established positions of the Greens – who oppose the current mill on the grounds of its size, its location, the environmental impact to threatened species, marine environment, forests and the socio-economic impact to the Tamar valley, particularly for tourism, fisheries and wineries – and the Australian Labor Party, who back the mill as a wealth generator and a balanced development in an already industrialised site. The independent candidate, Mr Quin declared his opposition to the mill on several grounds including a strong personal view that the majority of the electorate of Lyons is against the current Gunns pulp mill. Mr Quin also referred to the collapse in public confidence in the assessment process ‘that to this day has not been restored’.

An emerging issue that was raised by Mr Quin in his opening address to the forum was his concerns over the 20-year wood supply agreement between Forestry Tasmania and Gunns Ltd over access and pricing for wood from public forest to feed both the company’s pulp mill and its ongoing woodchip export markets.

This matter became the basis for further comment by the economist, Dr Wells and in questions from the audience. The secrecy behind this agreement and the lack of transparency on public assets such as forest and water were raised, with a call for complete openness in the way representative government sell off essential public resources.

The value of Tasmania’s forests as carbon sinks (currently assessed by federal Labor ‘at a minimum of $30 per tonne’) as opposed the sale price Forestry Tasmania was willing to sell public forest to Gunns Ltd (quoted at $12.50 per tonne) was raised by Bob Brown in a question to Helen Polley.

When is came to the albeit brief presentations from the two credentialed scientists (Dr Godfrey & Professor Wadsley) the audience was given just a taste of the extraordinary effort these individuals undertook in reviewing the 7,500-plus pages of Gunns Integrated Impact Statement and ancillary amended reports issued by the company. Professor Wadsley indicated the great value in reviewing the public documents Gunns were required to provide for the Commonwealth assessment process and the discovered deficiencies in the science undertaken. If there was one overarching atmospheric that arouse from the presentations of the expert panellists it was the sense that science supporting this mill development had been seriously corrupted with misinformation, deception and falsehoods.

One small but quite visible paradox that I, as a member of the audience, found somewhat incongruous was that despite Senator Polley joining in general acclamation with the audience on many of the points raised by speakers opposed to the pulp mill, as a representative of her party, the Australian Labor Party she offered no personal words to support those hand actions. I was left confused as to her true feelings as a person and not just as a politician representing her party. Was the audience to accept her hand clapping action as an expression of her personal position or accept her on-message Labor Party words? To her credit she did state that she acknowledged that there were breaches in the application of the forest practices codes in the logging and clear fell forest operations in Tasmania.

The action of Mr Ben Quin to resign as endorsed Liberal candidate for Lyons and stand as an independent was attested by his presentation and his responses to questions.

Generally I came away with the distinct feeling that there is still much energy in the pulp mill controversy and, to the credit all speakers, the forum allowed the audience to see the differences quite starkly. The resolve of the opponents is strong and unswerving, equally forceful is the sense of crash-through determination of those who back the proponent.

Several speakers suggested that there was quite a way go on this divisive issue that has destroyed public confidence in representative governance in Tasmania, the federal election on 24 November being another opportunity for ordinary people to take part.