pulp mill
12 Jan 2009
Don't Look Now: Garrett And The Gunns Mill
Peter Henning has a fair idea what he would have witnessed had he been a fly on the wall in Peter Garrett's office during pulp mill negotiations
Look away! Look away! Look away!"Look away", the embodiment of political cynicism, is the bleak and stark reality of political practice in Tasmania now, and nowhere is this more apparent than when there is clear and obvious conflict between the public interest and corporate-private sector interests, and nowhere is this more clear than in the on-going and on-going Gunns' Tamar Valley pulp mill saga.
"Look away", in its most usual modern meaning, signifies to know and understand but to pretend not to for whatever reasons, or to carefully and deliberately avoid seeing a nasty or uncomfortable reality, to affect obliviousness to what is happening, to ignore it, to put it beyond the realm of consciousness.
It's a bit like saying, as Naomi Klein writes in the The Shock Doctrine "we did not know what nobody could deny". But to "look away" carries a range and depth of moral ambiguities, of degrees of seriousness in human frailty, well exemplified by reference to perhaps the most well-known use of the phrase in Daniel Emmett's famous 1859 song Dixie. Emmett meant to convey a yearning for home from a distant place, a looking away from the here and now to a place well-known and loved, but that meaning was politicised and demeaned almost as soon as his song was written.
"If I had known to what use they were going to put my song I will be damned if I'd have written it", was Emmett's response to its use by the Confederate forces in the American Civil War as a rallying call, to promote the retention of slavery as intrinsic to the political, economic and social system of the southern states.
The point is that when a political system "looks away", when that becomes the shared preference, the shared group agreement, the rationalised majority opinion and the articulated propaganda for action, injustice has become institutionalised.
That is what has happened in the Tasmanian polity, throughout the parliamentary Labor and Liberal parties and among like-minded independent politicians.
This has now been given (yet further) damning illumination by Environment Minister Peter Garrett's decision last week to approve construction of the pulp mill and give Gunns until March 2011 to meet environmental conditions. Public consensus for some months now — at least since Garrett provided Gunns with an extension from the earlier deadline of 30 September 2008 to complete the 12 outstanding planning modules (of 16) required for federal approval of the Tasmanian pulp mill project — has been that Garrett would either grant another extension or approve the project.
Garrett did both, while successfully creating the impression that he was concerned about the impact of effluent from the mill on the marine environment. He did this by approving nine of the remaining modules, which Gunns gushed as the green light to begin construction any time soon, but gave Gunns a two-year extension to complete hydro-dynamic modelling for the disposal of waste in Commonwealth waters in Bass Strait.
Garrett's decision was a surprise to the mainstream media (with the exception of The Australian's Matthew Denholm), which led most commentary to construe it as a major setback for the company.
To the contrary. Garrett has provided Gunns with cover for over two more years for its continued posturing about seeking finance, which is very convenient for them. They have, in effect, been given an extended timetable to tackle obstacles that still exist. Apart from providing valuable extra time to pursue joint-venture partners if and when more favourable economic circumstances emerge, or to sell the whole project to foreign interests, they have been gifted an indefinite period to avoid adding the $100 million (their stated amount) already spent to their balance sheet.
The company also has more time to find a solution to the problems associated with building a pipeline from Trevallyn dam to the Bell Bay site, and to build arguments for extra tax-payer subsidies, both of which have already begun, as is clear from media reports in the last few days.
Another clear benefit of the extra time is to await extensions of MIS plantation schemes, in the process of being ramped up by the Rudd Government, and to see where the Tasmanian Government's dip into the federal infrastructure fund helps logging-transport arrangements to Bell Bay, and perhaps most significantly, the upgrading of the Bell Bay port itself.
Strange how all these synergies have come together at the beginning of 2009. Wouldn't you just love to be a fly on the wall while all the toing-and-froing between Gunns CEO John Gay's office and Garrett's office took place in all those weeks and months leading up to the orchestrated public pronouncements and media releases on 5 January? How intriguing it would have been to hear Gunns propose ways and means of avoiding having to shut the mill down if effluent discharges into Bass Strait exceeded the stipulated pollutant limits. Peter Garrett applauded their initiative in such matters on ABC radio last week.
But let's face it folks. Most of the social, environmental and any other impacts are not within Garrett's scope of reference, as he has been at pains to make clear whenever he is interviewed. All of that is covered by the "fast-tracked" Tasmanian Pulp Mill Assessment Act — Pulp Mill Permit (PMAA-PMP).
The Tasmanian Parliament, in their manifest wisdom, needed to approve the PMAA "as fast-tracked as possible" (now there's a great weasel phrase — aftap instead of asap!) in 2007 to avoid company expenses, running at one million dollars a day at the time.
And weren't the law-makers keen? Duty called in a way it had never done before, as far as I know. Politicians spent days on end without sleep to meet Gunn's deadlines and Gunns demanded nothing less than ensuring the Tasmanian Parliament understood the importance of its timelines. All other business was of no comparable significance. Is there any other occasion, even during wartime, when this kind of parliamentary action has been deemed necessary, since Federation in 1901? If so, it would make an interesting comparison.
Whichever way you look at it, this is Tasmanian democracy in action, at its best, at its purest - because we were provided with a clear view, stripped to the essentials, of how the current Tasmanian Parliament sees itself, its role, its institutional authority, and its responsibility to the people. Collectively, and unambiguously they see themselves (with some admirable and courageous exceptions) as the representatives of corporate power, not of their constituents.
When one MLC was asked whether she had sought independent legal advice about the meaning of section 11 of the PMAA — which states that "a person is not entitled to appeal to a body or other person, court or tribunal ... in respect of any action, decision, process, matter or thing arising out of or relating to any assessment or approval of the project under this Act" — she said that she "didn't have time". If any confirmation was needed that the whole Parliament (bar the reviled Greens, and the more reviled Terry Martin, and a few independent MLCs) gave no thought at all to the interests of people who could be adversely affected by the mill, then "didn't have time" sums it up perfectly.
Then, like a magic potion, "fast-tracking" evaporated, never to be seen again. Fast tracking of the pulp mill was fast tracked into oblivion. The hare turned into a tortoise.
So it really should be no surprise to the people of the Tamar Valley to have a further extension to their life of uncertainty until sometime into 2011. That said, it would be unwise to place any bets on that as a final deadline. Deadlines in relation to Gunns are like Premier David Bartlett's "line in the sand" and all his other statements about withdrawing support for the pulp mill — empty, meaningless and false.
However, there is one interesting issue that has been raised by Garrett's decision, and that relates to the apparent contradictions in the conditions he has applied to impacts on the marine environment in Commonwealth waters and the conditions applied by the Tasmanian PMAA-PMP in relation to the adjacent marine environment in Tasmanian waters.
In explaining his decision last week, Garrett implicitly (but presumably unintentionally?) rejected the whole basis of the Tasmanian approval process for the pulp mill. He said he would not grant approval until detailed studies on the potential marine impacts had been completed. "That includes having a thorough understanding of the potential impacts of the mill's effluent discharge on Commonwealth marine waters and absolute confidence in the proposed management and response strategies that are proposed to put in place to protect the environment," he said.
That is certainly a real contrast with what happened in Tasmania's Parliament, is it not? None of the Tasmanian politicians who voted in support of the PMAA-PMP sought a "thorough understanding of the potential impacts of the mill's effluent discharge on" Tasmanian waters, whether in the Tamar estuary or Bass Strait.
They looked away completely. They refused to consider any and all independent scientific advice about the potential dangers to the marine environment. The most striking example of this was their deliberate refusal to consider the highly relevant advice of Chilean scientist Dr Eduardo Jaramillo, who had direct experience in complicated studies about the impacts of pulp mill effluent on marine environments in Chile. He was ignored by Tasmanian Labor and Liberal politicians.
To make matters even worse, they gave approval to a much less stringent set of conditions included in the Tasmanian legislation than those required by Malcolm Turnbull under the federal Act, which was subsequently inherited by Peter Garrett. The only difference between Tasmanian waters and Commonwealth waters in Bass Strait is an arbitrary distance from the coast.
The obvious question which arises from this is why did Tasmanian politicians accept less stringent conditions (including the need for detailed hydro-dynamic modelling) than those which were required to be met under national legislation in an area where state and national jurisdictions overlapped?
The answer is that they were negligent. Were they deliberately negligent? They were not negligent by oversight, or through lack of access to information. Their negligence is more serious.
Dixie was the perfect tune for the Confederate armies. A perfectly tragic metaphor of denial, obliterating the humane, denying the fundamental elements of social justice, and transforming indefensible motives for war into a defense of something else, of a particular type of political "freedom", of political "sovereignty", a "way of life" and a "law of the land".
As I said at the outset, "look away" embodies degrees of seriousness. But in a so-called democratic political system it cannot be justified or tolerated, because it denies the precautionary requirements essential to good governance. The Tasmanian PMAA-PMP does not meet those standards, and was never intended to.
It is an unjust law in all its fundamental premises and must be repealed.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
I don’t need to comment on the pros and cons of the pulp mill or Gunns operations other than to say I regard what is going on there as an outrage and an affront.
When one considers the conduct of the court case in which Gunns sought to have people protesting their operations sent to Mars or somewhere at their own expense one would have to ask if these people from Gunns are capable of running anything.
I just want to ask this Peter. Imagine you are a banker and you actually do have the money to invest. And imagine that you don’t have a particular view on the conservation issues though your bank is sensitive to public opinion. This mob comes along asking for a loan of a lot of money and they don’t have all the necessary approvals and considering the to-ing and fro-ing it is not clear that they will get the necessary approval. You are particularly aware of the considerable delays and seeming difficulty they have had in providing all the information required. Would you lend them the money?
I suppose it is highly naive to imagine that some game is being played here where were Garrett to override the previous government’s approvals he would be subject possibly to some kind of action by Gunns, one of the most obvious areas of contention is fixed on as a way of further delaying the project in the belief that eventually they will go away. Whilst in such circumstances Gunns would try to pour very smelly stuff on Garrett since Gunns has such low credibility it would not stick. Probably too naive!
Harry Morton Gunns’problem is that with the global financial downturn, the prospects of finding a partner to the enterprise is slight. ANZ Bank bailed out earlier which was lucky for their shareholders who, even without Gunns have seen the value of their shares almost halved. Gunns will also have a problem flogging the enterprise off to an overseas buyer as two usual suspects, sorry, sources the US and Japan are in the R word
The arrogance of Tasmanian politicians has been shown often, during debates on the pulp mill. The most striking example however, was when Member for Bass, Kim Booth read a bill in the temporary sitting of parliament, held in Launceston, late last year.
Both sides of the house sat through the reading, while Kim Booth struggled to be heard over a PA system that had been turned down. This caused frustration for the 250 strong gallery and complaints were dealt with by police, ejecting the complainents.
Following the reading, no discussion was held, just a unanimous show of hands, against the bill, from both Liberal and Labor members. Such blatant arrogance was treated with contempt, by the public, who protested from the gallery by standing and turning their backs on the house.
This triggered an assault, by 12 police officers, on the public and grandmothers, teachers, doctors and people in wheelchairs were ejected forcibly from the parliament and into the street.
If this action against the electorate is anything to go by, democracy is dead in Tasmania.
With both major parties for the mill and against public opinion it is clear that Tasmanian politicians do not need to worry about the electorate. Under the preference system, which operates throughout Australia, electors have to vote for either side or, in actual fact, both major parties whether they want to or not. This pulp mill will get the green light either way and democracy will be denied. Is it any wonder Tasmanians are forced into public protest.
Frustrations are set to rise once again since the names of 13 protesters were given to Gunns, by police, following a blockade of the Triabunu wood chip mill, allowing Gunns to sue for damages.
Strange, it does not work in reverse as police kept secret the names of the forest workers who beat up protesters and set fire to their cars in a forest blockade recently. Those thugs were not even charged.
David Leigh.
douglas jones
I am surprised this article should be written, surely it is by now a given that Governments are corrupt favouring those who may be useful, or keep them in power, disregarding anyone else.
No true, not at election time. But then our general ignorance and complacency allows us to accept the offered weasel words.
Too cynical?
Take just the latest but hardly last of the big scandals. No Tasmania as a parochial state with a pollution problem no different from any other is hardly a major indeed just an accepted normal.
Danny Schechter has written “Plunder’, out of print but reviewed by Z net in their book review section September 2008. You may argue he is not a trained economist, merely a writer of books, lecturer, film producer, running his own web page and more, but not an economist.
Naturally when a scam has the misused backing of some esoteric mathematics devised by Nobel prize winning economists about offloading risk, and made possible by the speed of internet transactions it is said, one should have an economist, an independent economist to unravel what went on.
Graham Turner, the founder of GFC Economics, an independent economic consultancy providing forecasting to many banks and who has worked in finance for many years, does this in “The Credit Crunch”. He finds that much of what went on was aided by government for one reason or another mostly to get out of the previous several busts, and that lobbying of a sympathetic Government believing in the correctness of the market as solution to all without government interference. If one looked carefully there were reports of what was to come, warnings from internet writers like Anne Perttifor and folk directly involved Edward M Gramlich and a number of others including other economists.
Much that went on was legal because lobbying had had much of the protective legislation following the 1929 crash removed. Although the FBI is reportedly examining a number of companies so maybe there is a little regulation left or rather since regulation exists anyway that should be regulation preventing a scam being perpetrated. That is regulation disfavourable to capital.
There is another evil in the system, that is the extent to which the purchases outside the housing market was based on debt, personal debt additional to the debt built up by leveraged take overs buy outs and asset stripping. This allowed better GDP figures for part of the period 1980 to 2008.
Laissez Faire had been tried before in the 1920’s and failed then but government and business hand in glove perpetrated the same again.
So one little pulp maker or financial operator in tiny Tasmania rates little on a world scale, little even on the pollution scale with polluting industries reportedly saying that the economic downturn, note downturn not dishonest scam, should be cause to delay the implementation of a Carbon tax. Pearce has outlined the extent of the lobby during the term of the last government.
So finding dishonesty at all levels is so common none dare call such dishonest.
Yes, the hollow men, we are the hollow men, here we go round the prickly pear… this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper.
Mann may be so brazen to think that he will take the world with him into oblivion, but the world may have other ideas yet…
Oli
In my article I commented that Garrett’s decision was a surprise to the mainstream media, with the exception of the Oz’s Matt Denholm. Other exceptions were the SMH’s Andrey Darby and Ben Cubby.
Desgriffin, hope you’re right. There have been plenty of pro-mill spruikers suggesting India and China paper companies as partners. Bear in mind that under the Tas legislation Gunns can sell the whole thing. The current Tas govt push for Rudd infrastructure money to upgrade the Bell Bay port is for one reason only - at a time when much needed health infrastructure is being put on the backburner.
On the local scene, Jodie Campbell, the ALP federal member for Bass (Bell Bay is in Bass) is being attacked for not being unequivocal in her support of the project, but nor will she oppose it. Federal ALP incumbents in adjacent seats have bared their fangs against her in recent days. It’s an open secret that the State ALP are sharpening their knives as well. Also, remember that the whole bunch of Tas federal ALP and Lib MPs, both MHRs and senators, blocked Christine Milne’s FOI request re independent scientific advice to Garrett about the impact of mill effluent in Bass Strait. The ALP won’t stop the mill.
Douglas jones, I know the picture. The pulp mill is a big deal in little Tas, like they are in little Ecuador or little Chile. These are human stories, about people’s futures. If you would like to read something which places Gunns pulp mill in a broader frame of MIS plantations, carbon trading schemes, woodchipping and pulping, water resources, food resources and agribusiness and Australia’s current policy directions on these matters have a look at Mike Bolan’s piece, Carbon or food, here: - http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/carbon-or-food/ .
I’ll tell you one thing. The people of the Tamar Valley are fighting not just for themselves, but for others as well.
Peter Henning
douglas jones
I do not mean to belittle the Tasmanian effort, it is real, important and of concern not just to Tasmania.
My point was and is that Governments have shown themselves to be more corrupt than usual given the basis of the understanding that they govern for all and if they have to compromise such is visible and arguable, at least in terms of the next vote by the members of the democracy.
Recent actions by Governments, and banks and financiers, gamblers all has been hidden disguised in the spin and partisan to the idea of the market ensuring a fair system operates. her one assumes that if one is smarter or more well endowed then such entitles you to extra from the big cake business says exists partly or indeed perhaps almost solely due to their efforts. Her one should note the amount governments/community contribute to business/industry partly listed by Monbiot recently on Znet.
Until this larger problem which in my view subsumes and negates effort action on lines contrary to business short term interest is bound to be frustrating and in large measure ineffective.
Solving this requires a democratic public wishing to be informed and a media which is willing, in a way they are currently not, to fulfill there obligation of informing the public. This means since they are business enterprises with share holders for whom their first duty of the board is to deliver a dividend, some means of enabling such when there is a risk of a drop in advertising revenue. One notes that like business society grants the media certain privileges.
In this sense correcting government is more important than correcting the pollution we make, still denied see Barnaby Joyce touting for business today. Any effort I might be inclined to make can be negated by government short term action favoring short term business needs on whom presumably the politicians depend for financial contribution to election as well as favorable media treatment.
We need correction of the latest scam.financial this time and justice for the Iraq war as a minimum each hidden by government and media alike. Some honest reporting of the Palestinian/Israel dispute would be nice as well.
No this is not an excuse for doing nothing just for making a list of priority. Is that not one of the tenets of the new market religion to gain efficiency?