A chronicle of perfidy, bias and lack of representation

Mike Bolan

AUSTRALIAN Labor, state and federal, endorsed Gunns Tamar pulp mill project before it was assessed, which effectively removed the possibility of a fair hearing from taxpayers’ paid representatives. Labor also accepted a ‘benefits’ only view of the project that ignored the costs to the public

Paul Lennon’s government
 authorised the project proponent, who has a conflict of interest, solely to determine the impacts of their project on communities and businesses
 interfered in the RPDC process and caused 2 of its members to resign
 used taxpayer monies to fund the proponent but denied any help to taxpayers

Paul Lennon was then reported as pressuring the RPDC chairman to abandon public hearings while his government refused to refer the matter for investigation

Paul Lennon’s government
 then abandoned their commitment to an independent RPDC review of a pulp mill thereby leaving community and business concerns from consideration
 again changed Tasmania’s laws to advantage the project proponent
 then selected an overseas pulp mill supplier (with a conflict of interest) to assess the project
 then provided the assessment report to Gunns before it was seen by the parliament
 then created mill ‘permits’ that had to be accepted in full (project rejection was precluded by ALP endorsement of the project)
 falsely claimed to householders that the Sweco Pic reports studied socio-economic impacts and wrongly described cash benefits to households
 reneged on their guarantee that the mill must meet the Guidelines (failed 13)
 then raised the prospect of taxpayers paying for a water and waste pipeline for Gunns and resuming land held by private landowners ($200 m)
 lied about, and interfered with, the appointment of a magistrate because he was opposed to the deviations from planning norms in the matter of the mill.

Federal Labor
 accepted Lennon’s process with its exclusion of communities & businesses
 ignored community concerns and communications about the hidden socio economic impacts of the mill
 committed around $400 million taxpayers funds for capital works for the mill
 ignored community protests about the scale of annual subsidies required for the project (over $300 million of taxpayers money & resources each year)

All this in an environment of declining health care and education justified by cost savings while the project proponent is subsidised to the extent of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year.