Cephissus Dry

As Churchill noted, all battles are won through a combination of strategy and tactics. Long-running arguments against the Mill have concentrated on native forest destruction, climate change, water usage and land management. Although these are all important issues, they have not, to date, had the anywhere near the same impact as Dr. Raverty’s simple revelations on air quality! In his criticism of John Gay’s ludicrous statements, Raverty identified 5 critical areas where the Mill proposal failed to meet requirements with one single area being the most important — air quality and its health impacts. This is the single strategic “mums and dads” issue in this debate. In one foul swoop, Raverty’s statement on air quality has (single handed) almost derailed the entire proposal.
…
The public discourse on air quality and health in the Mill debate has always been gagged. This is simply because the Government and proponent have always been more than aware of its strategic importance. There have only ever been two avenues for any form of critical analysis of these issues — The Sunday Tasmanian articles by Simon Bevilacqua in November 2006 and a number of more technical articles published on TasmanianTimes throughout 2006. It is a sad reflection on the mainstream media that such critical public information was either wilfully ignored or manipulated. In the few instances where Launceston air quality was reported in the mainstream media, such reports largely constituted the regurgitation of Government media releases. One cannot expect journalists to be experts in the area of particulate chemistry, but the total lack of critical analysis on this issue has proven costly to the public.
…
This says a great deal about the infamous incident in Parliament on 18 October when Kim Booth (Bass Greens) moved a motion for an investigation into the industrial sources of air pollution in Launceston. The fact that the Government and Liberal Party joined ranks to immediately crush the motion speaks volumes for the desire of both parties to keep the public in the dark. Raverty’s statements now tell us that those members who voted against this motion (all Labor and Liberal) and those candidates who signed the pre-election Pulp Mill pledge (all Liberal and Labor) have knowingly supported the commercial interests of Gunns Ltd over the health and welfare of their constituents. This spine-chilling revelation is clearly the basis of Raverty’s comments regarding the “unethical, duplicitious and Machiavellian” behaviour of the Tasmanian Government “in its dealings with the Tasmanian electorate”. Dr. Raverty’s comments have told us a great deal about the truth behind the Launceston air quality issue, but they have said much more about the diabolical status of Tasmanian democracy.

PERHAPS the most pertinent issue arising from the recent Pulp Mill debacle is the fact that the nation’s leading Pulp Mill emissions scientist has blown the lid off the conspiracy of silence and subterfuge that has surrounded air quality issues in the Tamar Valley and Launceston.

Since the Pulp Mill first surfaced on the public agenda in December 2004, only now has the viability of the proposal really been significantly threatened — simply because a recognised and respected expert has highlighted the single most damning strategic issue — air quality!

Whilst much of the mainstream media have towed the line on the issue of air quality over the past years, it is now obvious that Raverty’s comments vindicate the claims published on TasmanianTimes (eg, Where there’s smoke there’s industry and Lifting the smokescreen ) throughout 2006.

Although there has been much-a-do about the resignation of Julian Green from the RPDC, in terms of the viability of the project, it has been the lesser reported role of Dr. Warwick Raverty and his damning comments on air quality and Government deceit which now present a serious threat. However, apart from their scathing content, Dr. Raverty’s comments say somewhat more about the entire sorry saga of the Pulp Mill story:-

A battle without strategy
As Churchill noted, all battles are won through a combination of strategy and tactics. Long-running arguments against the Mill have concentrated on native forest destruction, climate change, water usage and land management. Although these are all important issues, they have not, to date, had the anywhere near the same impact as Dr. Raverty’s simple revelations on air quality! In his criticism of John Gay’s ludicrous statements, Raverty identified 5 critical areas where the Mill proposal failed to meet requirements with one single area being the most important — air quality and its health impacts. This is the single strategic “mums and dads” issue in this debate. In one foul swoop, Raverty’s statement on air quality has (single handed) almost derailed the entire proposal.

In undertaking a strategic analysis of the Pulp Mill proposal it rapidly becomes obvious that there are only a few truly pertinent issues — those which have an immediate, obvious, measurable and adverse impact on the well-being of the population of the entire Tamar Valley (including Launceston). Indeed the only aspect of this debate that may have an immediate and direct influence on health and mortality is — air quality! Given the technical and scientific issues surrounding this topic, and the monopoly that Government agencies and businesses hold on data collection, it is no wonder that poorly resourced community and political groups face a David and Goliath battle in tackling key strategic issues.

The conspiracy of silence
The public discourse on air quality and health in the Mill debate has always been gagged. This is simply because the Government and proponent have always been more than aware of its strategic importance. There have only ever been two avenues for any form of critical analysis of these issues — The Sunday Tasmanian articles by Simon Bevilacqua in November 2006 (eg CSIRO shreds pulp mill plan )and a number of more technical articles published on TasmanianTimes throughout 2006. It is a sad reflection on the mainstream media that such critical public information was either wilfully ignored or manipulated. In the few instances where Launceston air quality was reported in the mainstream media, such reports largely constituted the regurgitation of Government media releases. One cannot expect journalists to be experts in the area of particulate chemistry, but the total lack of critical analysis on this issue has proven costly to the public.

It has been observed from a number of quarters that the designated career paths for young Tasmanian journalists is now heavily influenced by the attraction of the big dollars of the Government Media Unit. The ranks of this ever-growing unit are burgeoning with ex-Examiner and Mercury Journalists who can earn twice the income of a newspaper journo by becoming a Ministerial Media Advisor. This career path has become a silent mechanism by which the Government can buy compliance. It is a damning statement of affairs that the people of Tasmania must rely on the integrity of a few brave people such as Simon Bevilacqua rather than the word of their elected representatives, or the Fourth Estate.

It is worth noting that Simon Bevilacqua was heavily chastised by a number of people following the publications of his articles in November 2006. A number of politicians, including the Mayor of Launceston, and commentators accused him of gross inaccuracy and sensationalism. Journalists from the Examiner accused him of “unprofessionalism” — hard to believe this came from the Examiner! But now that a world-leading pulp mill emission scientist (Raverty) has vindicated the contents of Bevilacqua’s articles, the distracters have been deafening in their silence (including the absence of an apology).

Duplicity and deception
Probably the most worrying aspect of Raverty’s whistleblowing is the disturbing correlation that our elected representatives, government bureaucrats and the proponents must have known about the abysmal status of Launceston’s air quality and the impacts of the Mill on the health of residents. Raverty has had access to the same data that is available to the Government and the proponent — why was he able to see immediately the strategic flaw in the proposal (air quality). The Tasmanian Government has been well aware of the flaws in its air quality data collection as has been noted in NEPM reports — particularly the Governments constant procrastination in moving to more meaningful measurements (< PM10). In addition to this DPIWE would have received industrial emission data for Bell Bay as part of the annual reporting requirements for the NPI, along with actual (measured data). This information was “omitted” from the Gunns IIS on the ground of “commercial-in-confidence”. We now know that air quality issues were so concerning that Julian Green made at least three attempts to convince Gunns to think twice about their proposed location. This says a great deal about the infamous incident in Parliament on 18 October when Kim Booth (Bass Greens) moved a motion for an investigation into the industrial sources of air pollution in Launceston. The fact that the Government and Liberal Party joined ranks to immediately crush the motion speaks volumes for the desire of both parties to keep the public in the dark. Raverty’s statements now tell us that those members who voted against this motion (all Labor and Liberal) and those candidates who signed the pre-election Pulp Mill pledge (all Liberal and Labor) have knowingly supported the commercial interests of Gunns Ltd over the health and welfare of their constituents. This spine-chilling revelation is clearly the basis of Raverty’s comments regarding the “unethical, duplicitious and Machiavellian” behaviour of the Tasmanian Government “in its dealings with the Tasmanian electorate”. Dr. Raverty’s comments have told us a great deal about the truth behind the Launceston air quality issue, but they have said much more about the diabolical status of Tasmanian democracy. Prior to the March 2006 State Election some may recall that it was the catch-cry of Labor and Liberal candidates in Bass that they “would support the outcome of the independent RPDC process”. Now that the RPDC process has collapsed in turmoil with the leading scientific member providing a scathing appraisal of the Pulp Mill’s suitability to the Tamar Valley, what does this mean about the validity of the candidates' pledge? How can these candidates (some now elected members) face the public and still claim support for the Mill or any future approval decision? More of the same
In some jurisdictions the devastating content of Raverty’s whistleblowing would be sufficient to kill such a proposal and perhaps to bring down Ministers and Governments. One may think that Raverty’s comments have accentuated the possibility of success for any future class actions if a group of citizens chose to litigate against the proponent on the grounds of poor air quality and health. But this is Tasmania! Undoubtedly the Tasmanian Government will continue to stumble blindly ahead, aided by a myriad of media distractions to entertain the masses. Indeed it now appears likely, reading between the lines of the Premier’s comments on Saturday, that the RPDC’s investigation may face closure and that Mr. Gay’s demands will be met. It is certainly now clear who is playing the fiddle and who is dancing.

Now is the time to keep an eye out for the new Tasmanian AFL Team, a new sports stadium, a new tough-on-drugs/hooning/speeding/everything campaign, a commuter tunnel under Bass Strait, Hobart’s bid for the 2088 Olympics, not one but two new RHHs and a new LGH to-boot, a water pipeline from Strahan to Sydney, and a Hobart-Perth ferry service.

Yes Rod, we know the drill now.