Two letters …
Peter Cover
I would now like to call your attention to a flagrant waste of Tasmanian state money on pro pulp mill propaganda. The Pulp Mill Task Force has recently been wasting state money in letterboxing expensive propaganda (glossy folders which include pages of so-called ‘fact sheets’ plus a DVD) to people in Northern Tasmania. Most of the recipients have received this information once before and have already made up their minds about the issue.
Joy Elizabeth
To save time, the RPDC has avoided detailed discussions with all but six of the seven hundred plus writers of the original submissions on Gunns’ IIS (Intergated Impact Statement) Although they may have speed-read some submissions and noted some points.
Letter 1
4 December 2006
Open letter to
The Hon Paul Lennon
Premier of Tasmania
Please thank your Executive Officer for her acknowledgement of my previous letter.
I would now like to call your attention to a flagrant waste of Tasmanian state money on pro pulp mill propaganda. The Pulp Mill Task Force has recently been wasting state money in letterboxing expensive propaganda (glossy folders which include pages of so-called ‘fact sheets’ plus a DVD) to people in Northern Tasmania. Most of the recipients have received this information once before and have already made up their minds about the issue.
I am sure that taxpayers in Tasmania would rather see their dollars put towards solving the current crises in health and child protection, or used for housing or education.
If you feel that information about the proposed pulp mill must be disseminated to the public again, then I suggest that in the interests of balance, the alternative must have equal time and should also be entitled to taxpayer funding. I understand that an application by TAP (Tasmanians Against the Pulp Mill) for a mere $145,000 to put their point of view, has not seen the same preferential treatment as the Pulp Mill Task Force, which is promoting the interests of a wealthy and self-interested company, ie Gunns Ltd.
If the merits of a pulp mill are to be assessed on a purely scientific basis, then access to all the facts and evidence is imperative if the Tasmanian Government is to avoid accusations of bias, or corruption. Your Government and its bureaucracies must ensure that all parties will be heard.
If I and others are denied a hearing by the RPDC, denied any or equal, propaganda funding, denied the right to be heard, then, please think! What are we likely to do?
As patriotic Tasmanians and Australian citizens we will demand our rights and expose corrupt bureaucracies.
An RPDC that fails its charter by not hearing all relevant evidence fundamentally compromises its process and findings. Again, I remind you of your responsibility to direct the RPDC Commissioner, Julian Green to read my correspondence to him and to at least have the courtesy to give me a reply.
Yours faithfully,
Peter Cover
B. Sc. (Zoo), Grad. Cert. (Fish.), M.App. Sc. (Fish.)
Newnham Tas 7248
Letter 2
I congratulate Tasmania’s RPDC (Resource Planning Development Comission) on quietly streamlining its assessment process re the pulp mill proposed for Launceston’s Tamar Valley.
Only the most efficient organisations can close applications for a crucial hearing on a Friday, and have letters of rejection in the hands of applicants the following Tuesday. And, it takes great skill to compress that hearing into just five hours eight days later.
To save time, the RPDC has avoided detailed discussions with all but six of the seven hundred plus writers of the original submissions on Gunns’ IIS (Intergated Impact Statement) Although they may have speed-read some submissions and noted some points.
In concluding this stage of the process the RPDC has not wasted time requiring Gunns to completely re-write the IIS. Instead they requested Gunns’ supply supplementary information by December 15 (Examiner 4/12/06).
Nor did it waste paper or funds in advertising, or directly informing the public of its decision.
In asking Gunns to provide supplementary information in mid December, the RPDC sensibly avoids further excessive public discussion. After all, people are very busy over Christmas, and, cross-referencing the new material with the existing incomprehensible IIS will be virtually impossible.
This ensures the projected program for the proposed pulp mill is kept on track.
OK, some people will be critical of this process. But I say it is thoroughly in keeping with the Tasmanian government’s policy of setting up independent bodies to support those businesses that need a helping hand.
Joy Elizabeth
Newnham Tas 7248
