John Reeves
I’ve analysed Premier Paul Lennon’s Ministerial Statement to the House of Assembly on March 15. My questions and observations are in italics …
Mr Speaker, yesterday Gunns Limited announced their formal withdrawal from the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC) pulp mill assessment process.
Mr Speaker, I want to tell the Parliament today that I am not prepared to allow this project to lapse without it being assessed against our tough environmental guidelines.
There’s too much at stake.
We can’t give up on the potential for 2000 long-term permanent jobs and an extra $6.7 billion being added to the Tasmanian economy.
As I outlined in my media statement yesterday, the Board of Gunns Limited have considered the indefinite time line for RPDC assessment to be commercially unacceptable.
Isnt it up the RPDC not Gunns to determine the assessment timeline and as they have stated, ALL the environmental reports have not been fully completed?
The $2 billion project has already cost Gunns in excess of $30 million over a four-year period.
At 1.15pm yesterday, I received a phone call from Gunns Executive Chairman Mr John Gay informing me of the Board’s decision.
This was followed at 1.30pm by formal written notification from Gunns of their decision. Correspondence that I will table today. The letter states that a six-month delay imposes an additional cost on the project of approximately $60 million dollars — a startling $10 million dollars every month.
Doesnt this contradict the stated 30 milion spent on the project so far over 4 years, where does the 10 million a month come from?
Mr Speaker, yesterday’s announcement by Gunns is a potentially devastating blow for Tasmania.
It’s a blow for all Tasmanians who want to know whether or not we can have a pulp mill built in this state that meets our tough requirements.
The pulp mill offers us the opportunity to end the lunacy of shipping woodchips, and with them our jobs, to other parts of the world for processing into pulp and paper instead of keeping them here to value add.
Isnt is planned that the Pulpmill would be dependent on woodchips, primarly form old growth forests as is presently happening, even though plantations timbers can be used. If the new mill is not woodchip dependent them where would they get the pulp from?
The Gunns pulp mill project was always going to have to meet two very high standards:
1. The environmental requirements; and
2. The financial issues associated with a project of this size.
Then why try and avoid the approval process then?
Gunns have advised that they have no objection to a rigorous assessment process against our tough requirements.
Then why did the Gunns board decide to withdraw from the process?
And additionally, the Company is confident that it has designed a mill that meets the tough emission guidelines we have established and one that would meet the requirements of any other country.
Isnt there a difference between the guidlines Gunns have established and the requirements of their country which is more open to RDPC, the Environment protection act and public scrutiny?
But it is the financial risks brought about by the current uncertainty over the assessment process that has made the project in the company’s words: “commercially unacceptable”.
Isnt it more of a risk to invest $2 Billion in a project that has not been legally approved?
And now without strong and decisive action, Tasmania stands to lose the project.
Would not this free up the funds for alternative projects that could provide better returns?
I am firmly committed to creating a strong future for the people of Tasmania.
That’s my motivation.
I don’t want to live in a Tasmania where young people looking for their first job have to look offshore again.
Would they ALL choose to work at a pulp mill?
We’ve been through that.
I know that I speak for all Tasmanians when I say that as a community we want to know whether this mill can meet our environmental guidelines.
Then why did Gunns withdraw from the process? How does this comment reflect on Dr Raverty’s resignation and statement that the current planned site is simply not suitable at all?
Will it be safe?
Can it be built here?
Can we realise this opportunity?
We know that the project, if it meets our tough requirements, will bring enormous benefits to Tasmania.
Benefits through economic growth, investment and jobs.
The pulp mill will be the biggest private sector investment in the entire history of Tasmania.
Maybe this is why it has become so contentious, putting ALL ones eggs in one basket only increases the risks of getting them broken?
Its potential loss to the State is a matter that my government takes very seriously.
And my government has acted swiftly so that we don’t lose the possibility of the development for Tasmania.
Mr Speaker, I can inform the House that last night I called a special meeting of Cabinet.
I met with my Cabinet colleagues to discuss a way forward. And then I met with all members of the Parliamentary Labor Party.
Mr Speaker, my government supports a world-class pulp mill here in Tasmania but not at any cost.
We agreed that we couldn’t allow our environmental standards, our guidelines, or our democratic processes to be compromised.
by the RDPC?
We also agreed that we couldn’t allow the strength of our economy or our community to be compromised.
And we couldn’t sit by and let the opportunities presented for Tasmania by the pulp mill slip through our fingers.
Isnt this getting a little desperate, all that has happened is that Gunns has withdrawn from the approval process and the directors of that process, the RPDC have cited governemnt interference?
Mr Speaker, we can not and will not sit on our hands.
Mr Speaker, my Government has unanimously agreed to act decisively — and to act now — to make sure that we can complete the assessment process of the proposed pulp mill in a timely manner.
Mr Speaker, I won’t risk Tasmania going back to the insecurity and instability of the past.
Let’s not forget that just under a decade ago Tasmania was a very different place than it is today.
We were crippled with state debt.
We were the pauper state — living in poverty, with no confidence and no hope, with our begging bowl outstretched, we lived with an uncertain future.
Are there figures to back this up? Maybe as a smaller state with an imbalanced dependence on resource industries it was to be expected, maybe diversifying industries within sustainable guidlines would help, as would genuine self sufficency; Tasmanians supplying Tasmania?
Unemployment was high and many people had given up hope of ever finding work.
Worst of all, our families were being separated.
Is this relevant to the proposed project?
Our young people were forced to leave their homes, to leave our state, in search of work and opportunity.
Will a single pulp mill solve this? Maybe people will always look to the mainland for further opportunities
And our population was in rapid decline.
Huh?
Business was closing all over the state.
Huh? Isnt tourism the real growth industry?
I know that you have heard it before — but it is all so important that we do not become complacent about our recent history.
When employment is strong, our memories are short.
But we must never forget what the jobs crisis of the mid 1990s looked like.
All over Australia was the same … a result of the recession we had to have in the ealry 90s
During 1996 and 1997, over a 15-month period, nearly six and a half thousand people lost their full-time jobs.
That’s almost the entire population of George Town and Low Head combined — out of work.
I remember the feelings of despair and desperation that surrounded those times.
And Mr Speaker I won’t take our state back there.
Almost 500 people lost their jobs every month.
15 people lost their job every day.
Our economy had no growth, no investment, no employment and no strength. Unemployment was nearly 11 per cent — it stands at just under 6% (Jan 07).
Apparently it is still quite high, and has more to do with skill levels than job opportunities
· People in jobs were 197,300 (96/97) — now there are 223,300 (Jan 07) in full time employment in Jan reached its highest level in 17 years.
· Population was at 474,500 (Sept 96) — now it stands at 488,900 (June 06) with 19 consecutive quarters of growth.
· Consumer spending was at $8.63 billion (97/98) — now it’s at $11.24 billion (05/06).
· Business investment has doubled.
· Retail trade was $3.3 billion (97/98) — now $4.7 billion (Dec 06).
· Bankruptcies have halved.
· Value of exports has doubled in the past decade — to $3.44 billion (Jan 07).
· Gross State Product 3.1% growth (05/06) outperforming national at 2.8% — third year in the past five that we have exceeded the national rate.
· We had General Government Net Debt of $1.6 billion (June 98) meaning $150 million in interest payments every year — now we’ve cleared that debt ahead of schedule and improved our credit ratings to AA+ (Standard and Poors) and Aaa (Moody’s Investor Services).
Mr Speaker, my government’s strong leadership, responsible economic management and financial discipline have transformed the Tasmanian economy.
Huh? Isnt this based on woodchipping and tourism … isn’t the migration mainly mainlanders looking for better land/housing costs and a quieter greener lifestyle?
My government made and continues to make the tough decisions required to maintain our economic momentum.
We can’t forget what it was like 8 years ago.
We can’t go back there.
We’ve come so far — but there is more to do.
We have to have a robust economy to face the challenges of the future.
Then how does investing 2 billion on one project solve that when that kind of funding could be invested in several sustainable projects?
In pursuing economic credibility and strength for Tasmania, we have a responsibility to pursue projects that will bring economic benefits to the state.
Doesn’t that mean multiple projects, not just one, and doesn’t self sufficiency create more jobs than import/export dependency?
Make no mistake.
The pulp mill will bring economic growth and security to Tasmania, particularly to our regions.
Could other projects bring the same benefits?
It will be the largest-ever private sector investment in Tasmania at a cost of almost $2 billion, and the largest-ever investment in the Nation’s forest industry.
Aahhh so it is dependent on woodchips after all? Is that plantations or old growth?
It will deliver a $6.7 billion increase in Tasmania’s economic output over the next two and a half decades.
Mmmm? Who made those projections and if it costs 2 billion how can those project returns be realistic over 2 decades?
Mr Speaker, by 2030 Northern Tasmania alone will be $460 million better off because of the pulp mill.
The pulp mill will generate almost $900 million in extra Commonwealth and State taxes.
ahhhah yes, more Tax revenue
Each household is likely to have $870 extra each year to spend because of the pulp mill.
Mmm. Now how does that work ? its just a pulp mill after all …
That’s $870 more every year to every household in Tasmania to help out families — to make life easier for Tasmanian families.
Sounds like one week’s wage to most families or 1 month’s dole cheques …
Every month, every household in Tasmania will have more than $70 to make ends meet, every month of every year.
That’s the measure of the influence this project can have on the quality of life and living standards for all Tasmanian families.
How can this possibly be anything but spin? Those figures just cannot be proven.
That’s the real benefit that the pulp mill will bring to our State.
Mr Speaker, to give another example of the economic impact that the pulp mill will have — it will generate an extra $100 million in accommodation and hospitality spending during the construction period alone.
For the workers who already live here and need jobs? Who writes these figures?
In short, the pulp mill will bring financial benefits to the whole Tasmanian economy, to all regions of our state, and to every Tasmanian family.
The pulp mill will provide 3400 direct and indirect jobs throughout Tasmania during its building phase, including 2500 on site during the peak of construction.
More than 1600 jobs throughout Tasmania when the mill is fully operating.
Cutting old growth forests? isnt that as many jobs as FT now employs?
Economic forecasters have told us that employment will increase over time and is expected to peak over the life of the project at 2000 extra jobs throughout Tasmania.
That’s 2000 families with security to plan for the future.
That’s 2000 families who will not have to worry about how they are going to pay the bills or afford to send their children to school or wonder where their next meal is coming from.
Dont state schools still have free access or are these new breed of pulp workers going to be so well off from all these jobs that they send their kids to private schools?
And that’s 2000 Tasmanians who won’t have to leave the state to find work — like happened in the mid 1990s when our economy fell into rapid decline.
Mr Speaker, I am confident that the pulp mill will also be the catalyst for further investment in Tasmania.
Make no mistake, private investors are watching to see if a major project like the pulp mill can get off the ground here in Tasmania.
It will tell the world that we’re open for business.
It will send a message that you can do business in Tasmania but only if you meet our high standards.
Then why did Gunns withdraw from the approval process?
And Mr Speaker, the Pulp Mill will end the stupidity of sending our woodchips overseas for processing only to buy them back as pulp or paper.
Wouldn’t self sufficiency do the same job? a smaller mill for Tasmania only, if the mill did not supply exports only; self sufficiency in paper; then wouldnt it be smaller and more environmentally friendly?
And Mr Speaker, every time we ship our woodchips offshore for processing we ship our jobs with them — jobs that belong to the Tasmanian people and Tasmanian families.
So, Mr speaker the evidence is there for us to see — the pulp mill will bring enormous economic benefits to Tasmania. Benefits that will give a better quality of life and higher living standards to Tasmanian families.
The benefits are also within our reach.
The opportunity is there for us.
But we can not afford to let it slip.
But I will not allow us to push ahead at any cost.
Isn’t that what is happening?
We need to know whether the pulp mill will meet our tough requirements first and foremost.
Mr Speaker, the beginning of the process to assess the pulp mill’s suitability for Tasmania dates back more than three years to the 19 November 2003.
That was the date the Government wrote to the RPDC to ask that world standard guidelines be developed for any new bleached kraft pulp mill in Tasmania.
Then why has Gunns withdrawn from the process?
On 7 June 2004 the guidelines were publicly released, followed by public comment and were approved and released on 25 October 2004.
A few days later on 29 October 2004 Gunns wrote to the Government to say that they had approved a feasibility study into the commercial viability of constructing and operating a pulp mill in Tasmania.
On 16 November that same year I wrote to Gunns acknowledging that if approved, the project would make a significant and positive contribution to the continued development of Tasmania.
On 22 November 2004 the pulp mill project was declared a project of State significance.
Then, on the 26 November 2004 I issued a ministerial direction to the RPDC to undertake an integrated assessment of the proposed mill.
The RPDC invited comment from government between November and December of 2004 and then from the general public during the course of 2005 about the project.
Mr Speaker, the tough requirements we have established against which the project is to be assessed have been a long time in the making.
They have involved international experts.
Some of whom have resigned citing government interference
They’re robust and they’re based on world’s best practice.
Then why has Gunns withdrawn from the approval process?
And they have involved a lot of public input.
Mr Speaker, I am advised that 119 days of public consultation has already been undertaken notwithstanding that only 28 days of public exhibition and no period of public consultation is required by law.
Mr Speaker, I and all of my colleagues would prefer it if this project could complete its assessment through the RPDC.
Then why have Gunns withdrawn from the approval process?
But we know that is no longer possible.
Because Gunns withdrew. If the process has gone on for 3 years how do a few more months make much difference?
We know it is also time to act.
We know that it is time for the Government to be decisive, to give the community leadership.
Does the community have a say in this?
And we know that we must act responsibly to get the answers that the community wants about the pulp mill.
To get the answers in a timely way that builds on the work completed to date.
Mr Speaker, time is of the essence.
Tasmania is not alone waiting in line to build a pulp mill.
We’re in competition with other sites around the world.
Andritz — the Austrian based international company has been contracted by Gunns to build the proposed mill.
Contracted before approval has been fully approved? And why not an Australian company, keeping the funds in Australia?
They have recently built two new mills in South America — one in Brazil and the other in Uruguay.
They are both of a similar type and scale to the proposed pulp mill for Tasmania.
When I met with them recently, they made it clear to me that the Tasmanian project is in the global queue for the necessary plant and equipment.
That means that if equipment such as the turbines is not ordered soon, there is significant risk of further lengthy delays.
Then way has Gunns withdrawn form the approval process? Doesn’t that last staement indicate they want to go ahead on the Bell Bay site anyway without approval?
But even with all this pressure, I am still not prepared to turn my back on our tough environmental requirements.
What does Lennon think of Dr Raverty’s statements regarding the unsuitability of the site?
Andritz has also told me that they can guarantee that a mill built by them can meet our tough environmental guidelines.
That’s reassuring news from such an influential company in the industry.
And Mr Speaker, Jaakko Poyry — a world leading independent expert in this area, who has been commissioned as a consultant by Gunns and the Andritz Group has also written to me providing assurance that the proposed pulp mill will meet our tough environmental standards.
Mr Speaker, we have laid down tough environmental standards for good reason.
So that our community can feel secure that any development in Tasmania will be safe and appropriate.
So that our families can know that their children and their children’s children can have clean air and drinking water.
That’s why the guidelines insist that the mill uses the latest Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) bleaching technology and that air and effluent guidelines will be as tough as any in the world.
We need to be certain that not one extra tree will be cut down to feed a pulp mill and that the 45 per cent of Tasmania remains protected forever in national parks and reserves for future generations.
What about the rest of it, will it ALL be pulped?
That’s why Mr Speaker, my government is presenting a new way forward to the people of Tasmania.
Sounds like the same old industrial development at all costs mentality.
A way forward that manages both the environmental and the financial imperatives of the project.
Mr Speaker, last night the Cabinet and then the whole Parliamentary Labor Party met to consider the options.
We have all agreed that we will not let this project be lost to Tasmania without it being fully assessed against our tough requirements.
Then why did Gunns withdraw?
Mr Speaker, on my recommendation, my colleagues have asked me to prepare for Cabinet’s consideration and decision next Monday special legislation for a separate approvals process from the RPDC.
Ahh, special legislation? is that the real reason?
But importantly an approvals process that requires the project to be assessed against the environmental emission limit guidelines we have in place.
And Mr Speaker, importantly, an approvals process that has a definite timeline.
Work has already begun on the preparation of legislation for Cabinet’s consideration.
Mr Speaker, the Government has also decided to recall the House of Assembly next week to deal with the legislation.
I expect to table it on Tuesday and have it debated in the House of Assembly on Thursday of next week.
Mr Speaker, I stress again that neither I, nor any of my colleagues are prepared to accept a pulp mill in Tasmania unless it can pass the test imposed by our tough environmental guidelines.
Doesnt the RDPC administer those guidelines and does Dr Raverty’s comments still indicate the proposed site is unsuitable?
Mr Speaker, we don’t need to compromise our environment for economic growth.
This and future Tasmanian generations need both economic and environmental sustainability.
Our children deserve the best of both worlds.
Mr Speaker, following the Gunns Limited Board decision yesterday it is now up to the Tasmanian Parliament to make the decision on whether the proposed pulp mill will be part of our future and if so, on what conditions.
But Mr Speaker, make no mistake, if the pulp mill can meet our tough guidelines it will drive a strong economy and a strong future for Tasmania.
A strong future that will play a vital role in securing the quality of life and standard of living for this and future generations.
Then why did Gunns withdraw from the approval process?
John Reeves is a Writer, Poet, Musician, multimedia practitioner and recently a woodworker with over 25 years experience in most these of practices. He has a strong interest in social justice issues, absurdist humour and the prospect of genuine alternatives in our society. He is married with a 15 year old son and another on the way.
Read for yourself: http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/speeches/project.html
