Hi Jennifer,
For a second time since the late 1980’s a pulp mill in Tasmania has been delayed by green campaigning. This week we will see if another pulp mill – a value adding, downstream processing, job-creating factory – will also be thrown on the political scrap heap.
If the pulp mill assessment Bill is not approved by Tasmania’s Upper House, it is likely the project will be ‘dead in the water’. If this occurs, will Tasmania’s economy suffer again from the ‘Green Disease’ as described in a 1999 Institute of Public Affairs article by senior Press Gallery journalist David Barnett describing the politics leading to the scrapping of the Wesley Vale Mill.
Since the Wesley Vale Mill’s debacle, a lot has happened in Tasmanian forestry. The Commonwealth and State Governments have negotiated a Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) on the sustainable management of our forests and the Commonwealth published Environmental Guidelines for a Bleached Kraft Pulp mill. Technology has also moved on and improved and the bleaching of the pulp is no longer done by elemental chlorine which previously raised concerns about pollution. Today ECF and TCF are the standard.
In 2002, the 5 year review of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement confirmed that we have a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system, ecological sustainable forest management and opportunities exist for industry development.
In 2003, the Tasmanian Government tasked the ‘Resource Planning and Development Commission’ (RPDC) to update the Commonwealth emission guidelines for pulp mills, this saw new guidelines approved in October 2004.
In December 2004, Gunns proposed a Pulp mill that was declared a Project of State Significance (POSS).
In terms of the small Tasmanian economy it certainly is significant, potentially adding $6.7 billion (+2.5%) to the economy, including an additional $894 million in extra tax revenue between 2008-2030, 3,400 more jobs in the state than if the mill were not constructed and once operational, an average 1,617 more Tasmanian jobs.
However, the assessment process has come to a crisis point following two directions hearings held by the RPDC. These hearings were held after almost two years. There was one year to develop guidelines for an “Integrated Impact Statement”, and another year for the developer to write such an impact statement, time for the public to provide written comment and for the RPDC consultants to undertake independent peer review.
At the first directions hearings the Greens challenged a panel member, Dr Raverty, because he was an employee of a joint venture with CSIRO. They challenged the CSIRO’s TAPM (the air pollution model) and other CSIRO activities including the fact sheet by ENSIS.
This legal challenge resulted in Dr Raverty resigning, leading to the Panel Chairman also resigning, a new panel being appointed and a second directions hearing being held.
At the conclusion of that 2nd preliminary hearing in February no definite date had been given for future optional hearings, and no detailed time line given, only a time span, may be November, maybe next year!
Gunns Limited, the developer, withdrew from the RPDC stating that the assessment process was too long, and was too opened to enable due and proper project management in terms of accessing capital and ordering equipment. They considered that each additional month of delay was costing $10 million.
In order to salvage the project the Tasmanian Government has introduced a Bill that will see the assessment process finalized by an expert consultant, with a definite time table of assessment. The consultant’s report will be submitted to Parliament by 31 August 2006. Then both Houses of Parliament must consider the report and approve/ reject the project.
The Bill requires the project to be assessed against the emission guidelines approved in 2004.
A casual glance at Tasmanian media will confirm that this situation has created literally hundreds of news stories in Tasmania with private conversations being reported, speculation of conspiracy, cherry picking reports and documents, and so called independent experts offering their opinions.
The Lower House approved the Bill with 21 of the 25 members supporting it. Today it is debated in the State’s Upper House, the Legislative Council.
Cheers, Cinders
-------------------------
Cinders also provided me with a link to a letter from Rodney Stagg, Retired bushman and log truck owner, sent to the RPDC on 30th August, click here: http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/69061/11_Rodney_Stagg.pdf
pulp mill no way!
:S you make me angry!
So who is 'cinders' really? Another net hack too gutless to use his real name, even though he's obviously a bit of a 'playa' in the forestry debate. At least his handle reflects the huge areas of burnt devastation left after 'sustainable' forestry has moved through a coupe.
As a reply to a general assortment of pro-Gunns posts here:
Cinders thinks the 2004 ALP Tas forestry policy 'lost them the election', but elsewhere on this site it's claimed nobody in Australia cares about Tasmanian forestry. Hmmm.
Ian Mott at least has the courage to put his name to his writings. He then uses standard tactics employed by pro-mill types generally- a straightforward criticism is made of the mill, and a lengthy essay of university quality is demanded to cast doubt on the questions' credibility.
Here's some help: air: Gunns' pulled out of the RPDC process in a manner timed to ensure Tamar air shed data could not be recorded by installed electronic meters (an installation that cost taxpayers $1.7 million). They rely only on tendentious 'modelling' to ensure the quality of Tamar air, which is subject to inversion layers and is already heavily polluted. Water: Tassie's highland lakes are currently extremely low due to drought, restricting supply of hydro power. The mill will use large amounts of fresh water from Trevallyn dam and while this is unlikely to impact drinking water supply, the question of who will get the water in the even of a conflict is an issue- Gunns ALWAYS get ridiculously generous, no-risk terms from their political cronies- all bought off with large donations. The pollution of the water in the area is also likely: Gunns own arithmetic was found to be grossly erroneous, and did not look at CUMULATIVE effects of dioxin output. When the arithmetical errors were pointed out, Lennon went into his default 'attack the credentials of the analyst' routine. Health: we have only Gunns' 'computer modelling' of stack output (though according to their media pictures of the mill nothing will ever come out of the stack), because they escaped actual scientific analysis of the air shed. The AMA already advises us that 8 people die each year from bad Tamar air, mostly due to wood heaters. Pulp mill expert (and self-proclaimed 'enthusiast')Warwick Raverty told a meeting in Launceston that the Tamar was possibly the worst place in Tasmania for a mill due to dispersion issues. Transport: hundreds more log trucks trough Launceston each day. Log truck safety standards (roll-over standards) have been deliberately kept lax by the State Government and lag behind national standards. Stand on the road and you will see no shortage of drivers chatting on their mobiles. Aside from the good highway (repairs will of course be subsidised by all Tasmanian road users), most local roads are extremely narrow and winding, hardly suitable for B-doubles. Gunns' own submissions admit more road deaths are likely as a result of the mill. Bear in mind also the high average age of Tasmanian drivers.
As for your 'value-adding', the added value, which is remarkably small and only a multiple of 4 compared to raw chip, is achieved at the expense of Tamar Valley residents' health and amenity. Gunns' continues to turn giant trees, an increasingly rare commodity in the world, into toilet paper and egg cartons- instead of real value add products like furniture and premium building products. yes, there are a small part of Gunn's empire, which has stretched to use its crony-built competitive advantage to buy up the whole Tasmanian forest sector- but overall the emphasis is on dumb products. The economic assumptions behind Gunn's mill, according to its own submission, show they have simply extrapolated the last few months of world demand (before the report was finalised) rather than extrapolating demand over a longer period- to make the pulp price appear higher than likely.
All this sort of tendentious 'data', evasion of real, independent analysis, and marketing of the mill by front groups, lobbyists, union front men (who care not about 'jobs' but about 'CFMEU jobs'), and fierce advocacy of the rights of unskilled bogans to maintain a destructive industry ad infinitum.
Thousands of people in Australia- most recently hundreds of Telstra call centre workers in Launceston- have learnt that then 'job for life' has gone. You have to re-train, offer the job market skills that build the society and economy sustainably. Nobody is exempt from this and why the Tasmanian forestry industry thinks it should be given a free ride around the restructuring that has affected hundreds of thousands of other Australians since the early 80s- and built our great country into a very competitive international position- is beyond me.
And Jennifer- I have followed your career and noticed you seem to have carved out a nice little earner as an apologist for destructive industries that can only survive on massive subsidies- why don't you do something for the country and future generations and get out of the 1950s? There is a huge sector of agribusiness in Tasmania that could be selling its wares to cashed-up mainlanders at huge prices- but due to government distraction by concentrated capital they are ignored. This myriad of businesses could be providing a proper, broad and sustained economic growth in Tasmania- a state that has missed out on far too much of Australia's prosperity becasue of the cronyism and parochialism that has closed the state off to the wider prosperity.
But on the other hand, you could just keep to your cosy little rut.
Here's something for the uninformed:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Timber_Communities_Australia
I am saddened that as a young person living in Tasmania all I seem to be seeing is a total disregard for the beautiful state that we live in. Why is it that our government feels so strongly the need to send us into environmental ruin? A state that already through our strong tourism creates and is still creating jobs for Tasmanians. But why do tourists visit us? Because of our beautiful beaches, our clear lakes, our scenic mountain areas and our stunning forests. It is all to often I hear travellers commenting on how ugly and destructive our logging industry is becoming and how amazed they are that as the natural state we are letting destructive greedy companies like gunns, and money hungry politicians slowly sell us out. A pulp mill is just another nail is Tasmania’s coffin it's just sad that so many Tasmanians can't see it.
Whilst my original comments have been well and truly archived my critics live on.
Perhaps they would enjoy a cherry picked comment from Justice Underwood made on the 5 April. Just as pRagmatic and Cherax were making their criticisms. I will leave to the reader whether these two were masquerading as fair minded and informed observers.
"As I say, no case is made for me to disqualify myself upon the basis that the outcome might affect the value of the Gunns Ltd shares held by my superannuation fund. However, unfortunately, there is another factor to consider. Over the last twelve months or so there has been heated public controversy over the application by Gunns Ltd to build a pulp mill in Tasmania. There is no need to detail that controversy. It has been, and is, daily fare for the media and protest groups. In the events that have occurred, the controversy has recently escalated to include allegations by a former member of this Court that the Premier of the State did not accurately report the contents of a conversation between the two of them and that he exerted some kind of pressure on the former judge. There are other allegations. They include that there is some kind of conspiracy between the Government of the day and Gunns Ltd with respect to the proposed pulp mill development, and that there should be a Royal Commission into claims of unlawful conduct. As to whether there is any substance in any of these allegations, I express no opinion of course.
12 However, the atmosphere is such that if I continue to hear and determine this application, I perceive a grave risk that the biased observer might masquerade as the fair-minded and informed observer and seek to engage the media to embroil the Supreme Court of Tasmania in the current controversy. Although Gunns Ltd do not wish to take part in this litigation, and although there is no likelihood that the outcome will affect the value of the company's shares, I shall direct that it be heard by another judge. I do so to protect the integrity and independence of the Court which, in the current climate of continual heated claim and counterclaim, may be put at risk by the words and conduct of the mischievous or misguided if I proceed to determine the application myself."
For those who want to see the full version the Tasmanian Supreme Court Website has a copy of this recent judgment.
Wrong link to Premier Leanon Press Release:
http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=20373
Given such information as this:
http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=20377
and this:
"Tasmania is, after all, very beautiful—
should we care if, like Marilyn Monroe, it
is also dumb and self-destructive, prepared
foolishly to place its destiny in the hands
of ruthless, powerful men and women who
hold their own interests to be absolute?"
I'm sure Cinders would welcome a judicial review that has the powers of a Royal Commission.
To avoid any misconstruction of events, I include here the full text of Dr. Raverty's letter to the MERCURY of 10 January 2007.
HOT TOPIC PULP MILL
Resignation to protect process
"I WISH to correct a number of serious factual errors in the article (The Mercury January 5) by your Chief Reporter, Ms Sue Neales. As a loyal and dedicated public servant, I am required to inform your readers that this letter reflects my own personal opinion and does not in any way reflect the opinion of my employer, CSIRO, or the Ensis joint venture to which I am presently seconded.
Firstly, Ms Neales quotes Minister Steve Kons as stating, ``Dr Raverty resigned today; he took the advice of the Solicitor-General that there was a perception of bias, a conflict of interest.'' Ms Neales also elaborates that Minister Kons ``confirmed'' that my alleged conflict of interest arose from advice that I had allegedly given Gunns Limited on ``a separate issue''.
If the Minister's statements are correctly reported, then I challenge him to repeat them on the floor of the Tasmanian Parliament at its next sitting, because even he must know the consequences of misleading the Parliament under our Westminster system.
The real reasons for my resignation from the RPDC's advisory Panel on the Gunn's Pulp Mill proposal are as set out in my letter of December 21, 2006 to Julian Green. I would have been happy to provide a copy of this letter to Ms Neales had she asked for it. In the interests of saving space, I quote only the relevant section, but I am more than happy to provide you and your readers with a full copy: ``I have decided to withdraw as a member of the Panel with immediate effect. I take this step not because I agree with the Greens' submission.
I do so only because of the paramount importance of protecting the panel's assessment process and avoiding my membership of the panel becoming an issue which causes delays or disruptions to the work of the panel.''
The delay to which I referred was the distinct possibility that the application made by the Greens' at the Directions Hearing on October 25 might have to be heard by the Tasmanian Supreme Court and possibly by the Australian High Court on appeal -- before a decision on it's validity could be made. This process may well have delayed the panel's review by as much as 2 years.
I can state categorically, contrary to Ms Neales' report, that I have not given any advice to Gunns Limited in 25 years of involvement with the pulp and paper industry and furthermore that I did not take the advice of the Tasmanian Solicitor-General, a man whom I have never met and with whom I have had absolutely no communication. I took the advice of Julian Green, a man of absolute integrity for whom I have the deepest respect and admiration.
Rather than accepting the political ``spin'' reportedly offered by Minister Kons, might I respectfully suggest that what Ms Neales should be spending her time doing is seeking an interview with Premier Lennon and asking him the following questions:
1. What assurances regarding the activities of the Tasmanian Pulp Mill Task Force did he give to Julian Green in February 2005?
2. Were those assurances worth the hot air on which they were conveyed?
3. What was the text of Julian Green's letter of resignation to Ms Carol Hughes, manager of the RPDC?
I suggest that the honest and open answers to these questions will provide valuable insights to your readers, not only into the direct connection between my resignation and that of Julian Green, but also into how the work and independence of the RPDC on an important proposal of not only state, but also national significance, has been polluted and damaged by totally inappropriate political influence.
My admiration for Julian Green, undoubtedly one of the truly greatest Australians I have met, prevents me from saying more. Nevertheless, had I been privy in December to the public utterances reportedly made by Premier Lennon and Minister Kons in the last week I would have resigned then on principle -- the principle that no ethical, unbiased scientist should assist a government that is, in his or her view, duplicitous and Machiavellian in its dealings with the electorate that it serves. It is my firm view that until the majority of Australian voters voice their concerns whenever they witness unethical political activity, Australia will continue to languish under the deplorable lack of true political leadership and vision that it currently ``enjoys''.
Warwick Raverty "
End of quote.
Cinders, I note that you have cherry picked a few peripheral points to respond to from my original comments, and you have conveniently ignored the issue of political interference by the Pulp Mill Taskforce and the Premier, the issue of integrity in politics, and the overarching issue of corruption of due process.
Even more telling is your explanation of the use of the term 'rat'. Yes, it is a Labour Party term, but you clearly used it because it supported your position and cast an unfavourable light on a politician who didn't. It is particularly notable that you broadened its use to not only describe someone disagreeing with their party, but also to claim he was ratting on his "working class electorate". This is a very judgemental implication beyond the party usage alone, and a very bold statement to assume that everyone in that working class electorate feels betrayed by his actions (I don't, and I'm definitely not the only one).
I see from today's Mercury newspaper that personal vilification of anyone publicly speaking their mind in opposition to the fast-tracked assessment process has reached a new low. I trust the actions and words of principled people who have seen fit to resign their jobs and affiliations over this significant issue (RPDC members, your Labour 'rat', and so on) rather than those feathering their political and business nests without such personal cost. A pulp mill proposal is welcomed, but not one that stinks as much as this.