There are clear signs that the pulp-mill saga is drawing to an end. All issues involved with the mill proposal – social, economic, technological, environmental etc – have been thoroughly canvassed and passionately debated, exposing deep divisions within the wider community. Whatever the outcome, the social and political fallout from such a contentious business proposition (particularly the proposed location in a settled, prosperous river valley) is likely to be felt for decades.
The purpose of this article is not to contribute further to the ongoing debate about the merits or otherwise of a pulp mill, but to comment further on the political machinations involved and the apparent failure of our parliamentary ‘democracy’ to govern in the interests of all of the people, without fear or favour.
Viewed dispassionately, the corporate entity involved (Gunns Ltd) has attracted most of the attention and ire of the people everywhere opposed to the mill. This has resulted in a once iconic Tasmanian “brand” effectively being trashed, and professional business reputations tarnished (perhaps irremediably).
Arguably, the degree of public anger directed at Gunns in this case is disproportionate to their role, particularly when viewed in the following context: former Premier Lennon stated categorically that he initiated the mill proposal; and in a loose business sense, “seconded” Gunns to finance, construct and operate the mill. Together they could be seen as acting as a ‘consortium’ as other businesses would in the case of large-scale, high-cost industrial developments of this type. There is no doubt Lennon acted as the “lead partner” in the consortium, investing a huge amount of political capital in the process of promoting the mill, establishing its legislative framework and aggressively knocking down any barriers placed in the way of a quick, formal approval of the project.
In these circumstances, Gunns was afforded what in bike-riding terms is called a “trail” – being swept along in the Premier’s wake. With the “lead partner” shunting aside opposition of any sort, Gunns could afford to cut corners, committing numerous sins of omission and commission in its 900 page IIS assuming apparently that with the unequivocal support of the Premier, the Labor and Liberal parties, as well as peak business bodies and a powerful ‘old boy’ network, the project was a “done deal”. Why waste scarce funds unnecessarily? Completing a Benefits only study (as if there would be no costs involved in such a massive project!) clearly reflects a “done deal” mentality, as well as a lack of experience in large-scale industrial developments of the type proposed.
So years on, why isn’t the mill up and running? What arrested the earlier headlong charge towards approval and construction? The Global Financial Crisis certainly played a part; but the main factor was “people power” : individuals and groups of concerned citizens standing against what seemed an irresistible force, asking questions and demanding answers (and assurances) which in most cases, could not be given. And so presently, the project is stalled awaiting the results of some key environmental issues (finally being researched), and financing.
We have always assumed that in our form of parliamentary democracy, our elected representatives will seek to protect the best interests of all the people; and on contentious issues, will listen to, and do the will of the people. It is not unfair to observe that in all the processes involving the pulp mill (approvals, permits, etc) it took individuals and groups of citizens to ask the hard questions: to initiate independent research and to question “findings” and “facts” incorporated in the IIS.
Surely this should have been the task of our elected representatives – but can anybody name one politician (of the two major parties in the Lower House) who questioned whether a giant pulp-mill operating in a settled, fragile river valley might have adverse effects on other businesses, or the health of citizens in the valley; or on the environment? That they responded with one voice, singing its praises at the time of release of the IIS – before reading, or having the time to do any meaningful analysis of its contents – was at best, a dereliction of their duty to the wider electorate; and at worst, demonstrates complicity in serving the particular interests of powerful, extra-parliamentary lobby groups.
So what does this say about our parliamentary democracy? In my opinion, the pulp-mill is merely symptomatic of a troubling deep-seated malaise affecting parliamentary processes, where there is a clear propensity among those we elect to represent us, to in fact put other interests before those of the electorate: their own, their Party, or powerful “special interest” groups. In this environment, “shonky dealings” (to quote Terry Martin, MLC ( I will therefore be voting against this Bill ) can be conducted with relative impunity. And as the estimable Dr Tony McCall recently observed in a newspaper article, patronage, nepotism and corporatism are all contemporary features of the Tasmanian political scene. What an indictment of all those involved!
We should all be deeply troubled by the fact that our processes and practices of parliamentary democracy have fallen so far into disrepair and disuse – and this reality should be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Again, it will be up to the citizens of this State, you and I, to try and do something about it because one thing is certain: change and reform won’t be initiated by the major political parties: they have neither the will, the motivation nor the intellectual capacity apparently, to see the need to change, let alone lead and manage a reform process. Against this background, my thesis is: if you are looking for the real culprits in this whole unfortunate pulp-mill saga, look no further than your elected Labor (and Liberal) parliamentarians; and those so –called independent MLCs who allowed themselves to be stampeded into voting in favour of the mill without ever understanding what they were doing!
I suspect both the major parties are content to see Gunns as the focus of most of the negative sentiment relating to the pulp mill. With an election looming, this may be the time for opposition to be ramped up, but concentrated on: those who initiated the proposal; those who spent tax-payer funds on promoting (and supporting) it; those who finagled its passage through Parliament and garnered the necessary approvals and permits. And those actively now seeking to attract finance for the project – Government Ministers predominantly.
We are now left with the trappings of a democratic system of government, but not the reality.
Whither goest democracy in this state? That is a subject for another day.
