West Tamar Residents Call To Arms

Bob McMahon Tasmanians Against the Pulp Mill MR

“The State Government has created anarchy. The way for them to rectify the mess they have made is to repeal the PMAA, which, in the words of Kerry Finch MLC is a “dog’s breakfast”, and institute a full and proper cost/benefit assessment within the RPDC of the proposed pulp mill as a Project of State Significance”, concluded McMahon.

And, questions to West Tamar Councill

MEDIA RELEASE Tuesday October 21st 2008
Tasmanians Against the Pulpmill (TAP)

WEST TAMAR RESIDENTS CALL TO ARMS

Timetable
• On Tuesday October 21, at the West Tamar Council Chambers at Riverside, the West Tamar Council decides what to do about a request by Gunns for an easement for its controversial pipeline across publicly owned land.

• Ratepayers will be attending question time at 1.30pm. The Council will make its decision after question time.

• There will be a workshop in the morning at which Gunns’ representatives will address councillors. TAP representatives will also present the views of the community.

• Beginning at 10.30 am and lasting until the Council decision is made some time after 2.00 pm, Tamar residents will rally outside the Chambers to make their views abundantly clear to their elected representatives.

• At 11.30, TAP spokesperson Bob McMahon will outline the details of the campaign that will be unleashed against the State Government to force a reinstatement of proper planning procedures, certainty and due process destroyed by the State Government when it colluded with Gunns to withdraw the proposed pulp mill from the Resource Planning and Development Commission and to fast track its approval through Parliament with the Pulp Mill Assessment Act.

“It is the firm opinion of the West Tamar community that the West Tamar Council should not sign anything. This is purely a stunt being pulled by Gunns to get some good news to report at their upcoming AGM on October 30”, said Bob McMahon, TAP spokesperson.

“The WTC should refuse to sign Gunns agreement consistent with its unanimous vote of ‘No Confidence’ in the Pulp Mill Assessment Act last year. We recommend the Council do nothing, just like the majority of landholders on the East Tamar whom Gunns have attempted to coerce and hoodwink into signing over their land in perpetuity.

“There’s no rush because there is no pulp mill,” continued McMahon. “It would be best if Council referred the matter to a Council Committee and engaged in full community consultation.

“There is conflicting legal advice on the PMAA which must be sorted out. Section 11 of that Act is under court challenge. The Council must not be rushed.

“Should Council not heed this sensible advice the community has some very nasty surprises up its sleeve.
“Regardless of what Council decides we will immediately launch a statewide campaign to force the State Government to reinstate proper planning procedures which they caused to collapse.

“Today the residents of the West Tamar, via their community representative organization, Tasmanians Against the Pulpmill, launch a statewide campaign of non-compliance with State and Local Government planning requirements. If it’s good enough for Gunns and the State Government to ignore planning laws it’s good enough for the people.

Questions to West Tamar Council

GENERAL INTRODUCTION. In direct response to a large and unanimous public meeting on the pulp mill held at Beaconsfield community hall in August of 2007 the WTC passed a vote of no confidence in the pulp mill assessment as well as 8 other motions to reflect the serious concerns that electors communicated to council in that Public meeting. In doing so the WTC effectively entered into an historic, powerful and very public social contract with WTC electors.

1. What has changed the Council’s publicly stated position from one that is against the proposed pulp mill, to one where the Council seeks to change planning laws to allow a company access in perpetuity to “Public Utility” areas for a pipeline to the proposed pulp mill?

2. Why is the Council considering this submission when the Supreme Court of Australia is currently hearing a claim challenging the constitutionality of the Pulp Mill Assessment Act? Gunns Limited is not the “Proponent” of the pulp mill project as described by the PMAA. Until Gunns Limited, or another company, gains all the work permits and officially announces that it will proceed with the project, there is currently no “proponent”. Why then does Council need to proceed at this point in time?

3. The insidious Section 11 of the Pulp Mill Assessment Act (PMAA) put together by Gunns’ lawyers and the State Labor Government, eliminates access to the courts and redress for any damage to property or health caused by the proposed pulp mill and pipeline project. Has the Council conducted a due diligence risk assessment of the pipe line project and its responsibility to residents, and is the Council in a position to pay for the assessment and to settle any potential claims for damages in the future?

4. In response to a public question the Mayor Septembers Council meeting said – “There will be public consultation before a vote is taken”. OR “there will be ample time for the public to consult with Councillors and during Public question time” Why is Council now choosing to vote to provide access to “Public Utility” land in perpetuity and why is it considering re-zoning of this land, to allow access, without public consultation OR without time for residents to consult with Councillors and the Council?

5. With regard to the Council Workshops held before the Council meetings, why were elected Councillors excluded from workshop meetings with Gunns Limited? Why are elected Councillors excluded from any issues that the being dealt with by Council?

6. Except for superficial differences – the WTC submission relating to the Pulp Mill permit is identical to those of the Launceston City and George Town Councils. Who was the author of these submissions? Did Gunns Limited provide the text for these documents?

7. With regard to the proposal to re-zoning of some of the land required for the proposed pulp mill project and pipe line. To change the seven land titles involved from “Public Utility” to “Utility” zoning requires the consent of WTC residents. Why is the Council failing to seek that consent and to provide background information to all residents? Is the land so under utilised? Or does it not matter that an above ground one metre diameter steel pipeline may be installed across this public land if the re-zoning occurs?