This article was written in response to Michael Kent’s nomination to stand for Mayor of the Glamorgan Spring Bay municipality (centred around Triabunna) in the October local council elections, and is a counterpoint to Paul Tapp’s glowing endorsement of Mr Kent on TT earlier ( here ).
It is important to consider that whoever is elected mayor will hold considerable sway over local planning matters, such as any development proposed for the Triabunna Mill Site as well as other new tourism or industrial infrastructure proposals within the municipality. In addition, the Mayor is well placed to champion particular local development proposals by talking them up and helping to sway public opinion.
So it is surely important for the residents of the municipality to know exactly where their mayoral candidates stand on the current stark development choices confronting the East Coast.
As the only deep-water port facility on Tasmania’s east coast, the pressure to re-establish a timber processing facility at the Mill site has already been covered by a number of submissions to the Triabunna Mill inquiry.
If the Inquiry has been instigated to propose developments that will support the forest industry, then it represents the next duck for the Liberals to line up after their recent scrapping of the forest peace deal.
As we all know, the alternative vision is tourism in the form of Graeme Wood’s grand “Spring Bay Mill” concept, offering botanical gardens and a culinary school, combined with artistic and cultural events on a scale akin to Cornwall’s Eden Project.
The Inquiry seems poised to commit the region either to tourism or to forestry, since it seems highly unlikely it can lend itself to both especially with Mr Wood already ruling out the possibility of shared port facilities.
In his submission to the Inquiry, Graeme Wood describes his hope that the Spring Bay Mill “will provide the perfect springboard/catalyst the region needs to move into a new and sustainable socio-economic paradigm”.
Whilst it is too early to know that Mr Wood’s dream will be a certain winner, the socio-economic alternative offered by the forest industry is dismally predictable: Many more millions in public subsidy will have to follow the hundreds of millions already used to prop up an industry that appears locked in an irrevocable death spiral.
An ongoing cause of community division and social unrest
Unless done with extreme sensitivity and determination to preserve natural values, the logging of high conservation value forests will remain an ongoing cause of community division and social unrest.
Yet the state Liberals have publicly committed to rebuilding the forest industry, seemingly with little regard to the socio-economic consequences of that decision. When you take the historic entrenchment of certain local politicians with the timber industry into account, then the cronyism of the latest round of taxpayer handouts and the tribalism so much on display to give political support to forestry is unsurprising.
This is not good governance of course, and elected politicians should represent the aspirations of the broader community above those of minority commercial interests.
The current actions of the state Liberal government to ramp up the timber industry, led by Resources Minister Paul Harriss, appears destined to be self-defeating however.
The most likely outcome of taking a confrontational approach towards growing the industry would seem to be further contraction over the long-term. Whilst it might suit the Liberals’ political agenda to claim they needed to turn back a “green tide”, the timber industry has mainly been sunk by an economic surge tide that originated overseas which shows little sign of abating.
So unless Minister Harriss can wield the power of King Canute in international markets his actions are futile, and without the goodwill of environmentalists to assist him with a social licence, he can only be relying on blind faith that market conditions will radically change.
Turning back now to Mr Kent’s mayoral bid, readers might remember that he launched a scathing attack on the incumbent mayor, Bertrand Cadart, for remarks made in an article on the destruction of the Triabunna Mill in the July edition of The Monthly.
Perhaps significantly the article also revealed that Cadart shares the same vision for the East Coast as Graeme Wood, and stated that “Re-opening the mill would be the worst thing that could happen to the coast, because we have to turn the corner”.
There are striking coincidences of timing surrounding Mr Kent’s mayoral bid. The most obvious is the Triabunna Mill Inquiry, but the more intriguing coincidence in my opinion was the Liberals’ tabling of the new Mayoral Candidate Eligibility Bill which passed through both houses of parliament only last month.
This removed the requirement to have been a councillor for at least 12 months before being eligible to nominate for Mayor, and arrived just in the nick of time to allow Mr Kent to pursue his mayoral ambition.
Whilst this bill was announced to the media under the fanfare of “Providing Greater Democracy and Choice to Tasmanians” ( here ), is it possible that the state Liberal government had a particular benefactor of their legislation in mind?
Michael Kent might be just the person they would like to choose as Mayor to facilitate …
In the opinion of the author, legislation rarely happens without a specific impetus. For example, if the Liberals have been intending to announce significant forest industry developments in the Triabunna area on the back of their Inquiry, then Michael Kent might be just the person they would like to choose as Mayor to facilitate an easy passage through local planning matters and to act as a local spokesperson.
So what is known about Michael Kent that might make him the Liberals’ favoured choice of Mayor for Triabunna? Numerous articles on the web portray a man who is well-connected to upper-echelons of state politics, with strong anti-green and pro-business ideologies. A good starting point is Chris Harries’ article, written back in 2006 and published on TT here.
Other salient aspects of Mr Kent’s background are as follows:-
• Mr Kent was Chairman of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (TCCI) until 2008, coinciding with the early years of Gunns’ Pulp Mill ambitions. In his capacity as TCCI chairman, Mr Kent spoke at a pro-pulp mill rally in Launceston’s Royal Park, on July 19th 2007. Fellow speakers at this event were Will Hodgman, Terry Edwards and Paul Lennon.
• According to Sourcewatch ( here ), Crikey ( here ) and Senator Milne ( here ), Mr Kent was a lead participant of Tasmanians for a Better Future, which orchestrated a well-funded media campaign advocating majority government during the 2006 state election. Other collaborators in this front group for business interests mostly lurked in the shadows and have never been named. However, former Liberal premier and Gunns board member for 16 years, Robin Gray, was outed by Liberal member Sue Napier as having been involved ( here ).
In the author’s opinion it is morally reprehensible to attempt to influence the outcome of an election for commercial gain, and laws should exist to protect our democracy from such attacks.
• Mr Kent was Chairman of former GBE TOTE Tasmania, before it was sold to Tatts in 2012. At that time a previous TOTE boss, Terry Clarke, called for a Royal Commission to investigate how the agency had been run during the prior 4 years and why it was sold ( see here ). Mr Kent also faced a grilling in the Supreme Court of Victoria over these matters ( see here ).
• Paul Lennon is reputed to be a personal friend of Mr Kent, and it certainly appeared that way when the author happened to observe them having lunch together shortly after Paul Lennon had resigned as state Premier.
I challenge him to be up-front and honest in providing relevant information to his constituents
So in light of Mr Kent’s background, if he wishes to be democratically elected to the position of Mayor, then I challenge him to be up-front and honest in providing relevant information to his constituents.
Perhaps he might do so, whilst also disclosing any sources of funding for his campaign, by posting his profile on the Funding and Disclosure website here.
This website allows a 200 word personal statement to be included outlining how the candidate would contribute to their community if elected. I think it would be informative if Mr Kent could provide answers to the following questions via such a forum, or by posting comments on this Tas Times article:-
• How do you justify your involvement with Tasmanians for a Better Future, and why in your opinion was it not an immoral attack upon democracy to support commercial interests in funding an election advertising campaign?
• To your knowledge, was it an entirely happy but unlikely coincidence of timing for you that the Mayoral Candidate Eligibility Bill was tabled just in the nick of time to allow you to stand for Mayor?
• What kinds of significant planning developments would you specifically like to see happen in the Glamorgan Spring Bay municipality?
• Do you wholly endorse Mr Wood’s idea for a tourism venture on the Triabunna mill site, or would you prefer to see this site revert to servicing the needs of Tasmania’s forest industry?
*Kev Rothery is an IT Specialist who takes a keen interest in local affairs. He believes in the importance of public participation, and the right of the public to be fully informed.
• Paul Tapp, in Comments: Mike and I chat at the pub mostly, say gidday and go, have a bit of a laugh at politics and that’s about it for any interaction, but the subject of Atlantic salmon, the haste with which this hush-hush council rezoned a parcel of rural land to industrial, to allow Tassal to operate, was done without consultation with the public at all.
• Edward Murrow, in Comments: As a journalist Paul, shouldn’t you be concerned with facts or truth more than electioneering? Council didn’t rezone the land for the Tassal proposal (a council cannot rezone land, only the Tasmanian Planning Commission can). The use and development was approvable under the existing Rural Zone within the existing planning scheme. The project had the same level of public consultation any discretionary planning application to any council does (as required by law, under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993), which is 14 days on public exhibition in which time anyone can make representation/objection. Ultimately, council’s decision could have also been appealed at the Planning Tribunal if anyone thought it was improper or an inappropriate development.
• Guy Barnett: Triabunna Inquiry Interim Report With the growing uncertainty around the future of the former mill site in Triabunna, the Committee has agreed to table an interim report which addresses the issue of future uses of the state-owned Triabunna wharf, access to it and the need for an export facility in the south of the State. The report will be tabled in Parliament on Tuesday next week, in line with Parliamentary Standing Orders.
• Kim Booth: Triabunna mill site uncertainty created by Libs
• Peter, in Comments: …and after all those government loans: Seafish Tasmania charged with breach of environmental laws By Stephen Smiley – ABC, Wed 09 Sep 6:23pm: Fish waste processor Seafish Tasmania has been charged with breaching state environmental laws. It is understood the charges relate to the alleged disposal of fish waste at the company’s Triabunna plant. Seafish was subject to a lengthy investigation by Tasmania’s Environment Protection Authority (EPA) in 2012 and 2013. The investigation was prompted after dozens of residents at Triabunna, Louisville Point and Orford complained about a strong fish smell. At the time, the Glamorgan-Spring Bay Mayor Bertrand Cadart said: “For a person who has been raised in the country of parfum and perfume, I can assure you that it’s not exactly [a] Christian Dior smell.” In December 2012 the EPA said steps taken by Seafish to deal with the problem had had little effect. A year later residents were still complaining about odour problems. etc
