To the surprise of noone, Turnbull has approved the pulp mill (UPDATED: with additional conditions relating to discharges into the air and water).
A lot of the support for the mill has argued that this kind of large industrial development is what the local area, and Tasmania, needs for economic growth. As the Wilderness Society has noted, that relies on fairly dubious assumptions.
More generally, though, I’ve recently been reading Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations, a fascinating book about the history of economic thought. One point made is that studies have suggested that regions, or countries, with diversified economies actually do better than “company towns” where one industry is dominant. But the “one big project” model of economic revival still seems to have a lot of adherents.
UPDATE: Response from Christine Milne at Greensblog, including a spirited video effort. Milne, of course, first came to public attention opposing the Wesley Vale pulp mill in the late 1980s.
Bob – I think you’ll find there is a smelter and power station in close proximity to where the proposed pulp mill site is.
I’m rather conflicted about the Mill. Given that it’s Gunns and Lennon, it’s bound to be a disgrace. However, Tassie certainly needs development and much of its forestry practices aren’t quite as bad as the Wilderness Society would have you believe. Frankly I wouldn’t trust much that TWS says, they aren’t often very credible (noting that in this case neither is Gunns).
The site itself is fine, it’s already an eyesore, no loss there, the emissions are apparently world’s best and eventually it will all be plantation fed. The only issues I’m really concerned about are air quality and additional old growth harvesting in the meantime. Oh and the corruption in getting it built.
The real solution, that is never discussed, is to stop using so much paper. However, if paper is going to be consumed, then it’s better being processed in Tassie than in Indonesia.
Robert,
Small correction – it has been approved subject to conditions. Gunns previously said that if further conditions were imposed they would cancel – meaning that if Gunns are to be taken at their word (?) they will not now proceed, meaning this “approval” was really a disapproval. We will see.
In reality, though, trying to blame this on the federal government is a really long bow to draw. The was the Tasmanian government has abused, changed and derailed the process is where you should be pointing your bile if you are opposed to it.
Turnbull only has certain, limited, grounds to review the project – and where he can make a difference he seems to have tried. Lennon and the rest of the Tasmanian government were the ones that held all the cards.
One point made is that studies have suggested that regions, or countries, with diversified economies actually do better than â??company townsâ?? where one industry is dominant.”
Tell me about it.
I come from a town where one fine Friday arvo over a 1000 workers got little slips of paper telling them they had one more week of work.
The population of the town plummetted.
Wilful, I agree with your comments on TWS and their preparedness to, um, present their case to its limits, the economic modelling used to argue the case for the mill smells pretty dodgy.
My personal take (and this has been discussed on LP before) that the biggest issue is what feeding this mill is going to do to Tassie’s forests. Dioxins and air contaminants can be dealt with through the application of sufficient output treatment of the mill’s waste. No amount of technology is going to make it churn out more paper for a given amount of timber fed in.
Andrew Reynolds is onto something important. The last big pulp mill dispute in Tasmania – the Wesley Vale pulp mill dispute of 1989 – resulted in the joint venturers pulling out of the project even though the Federal Labor government wanted the mill to proceed and was prepared to approve it provided strict environmental guidelines were met. Noranda, the Canadian partner in the joint venture, was unwilling to proceed with the mill on that basis even though the technology was available to meet the guidelines and run the mill at a profit, because to do so in Australia would mean that the Canadian and Nigerian governments would want to impose similar conditions on Noranda projects in those countries.
Andrew is also correct to draw attention to the abuses of process and evasion of proper assessment procedures which has occurred in Tasmania and which is symptomatic of the incestuous relationships between corporate and political interests in that state. This was also evident in the Wesley Vale case when the Tasmanian Liberal government of Robin Grey effectively let the joint venturers write their own approval conditions for the State government to rubber-stamp.
A contrast is with the establishment of a pulp mill in southern NSW by Visy. Visy CEO Dick Pratt went to the trouble of consulting the Australian Conservation Foundation and the locals about prospective objections to the mill, and ensured it was designed and sited so as to address these issues. What this comparison suggests is that the real debate is not about whether or not pulp mills are an inherently unsustainable form of development. It is about the potential for deliberative democratic governance and community participation to help achieve sustainable development, and the unfortunate reality that undemocratic (and often economically irrational) partnerships between corporate and state interests frequently preclude it.
What’s more important to the Liberals; Bass or Wentworth?
Paul – you really believe that the Greens would ever give support to a Pulp Mill in Tasmania on any grounds?
Razor, the Greens certainly would support a pulp mill in Tasmania, if it were supportable on environmental grounds. The grounds are set out here as linked from Christine’s post on http://greensblog.org/2007/10/04/worlds-best-practice-pulp-mill-my-foot/.
One point made is that studies have suggested that regions, or countries, with diversified economies actually do better than â??company townsâ?? where one industry is dominant
I’m sure that’s true, but isn’t it also true that the Pulp Mill in Tasmania will make a contribution to a diversified economy? The broadly ‘environmental interests’ which would have seen the pulp mill project knocked back could also conceivably see any number of other developments – shopping precincts, housing, etc – knocked back. In order for a diversified economy to develop, then you’ll first need to have a liberal and tolerant community attitude to business.
Those who support the mill will not necessarily help the Coalition, while those who oppose it will be more motivated against the Coalition. To answer Sam’s question: neither.
It is, however, a grenade buried deep beneath the ALP. Will Environment Minister Garrett reverse his predecessor’s decision? How will Gunn’s support for Tasmanian Labor translate federally? If Lennon gets shirtfronted by the Feds, how will he particpate in other federal-state reform issues? If I were writing for the GG I’d say this is a clever strategic decision by Turnbull, but this time next year neither the federal nor Tasmanian Libs will be able to exploit these divisions.
from a 2002 article written by NSW state political reporter Paola Totaro-
Andrews is running a NSW “Laura Norda” election stunt – except that Andrews and the Feds. have the power re-racialise our immigration policy…state pollies can only “lock ‘em up & throw away the key”.
also, sorry about the first sentence in my last post – v. clumsy.
Adam, FDB, i’ve often wondered if ‘giving’ Cronulla a rugby league premiership would make them feel better about themselves down in the shire – they’ve never won nuffin…..and it really shows.
Andrew E,
To be honest I doubt that any future Federal Minister for the Environment would be able to reverse this decision any more than Turnbull could have made a different call now. From my understanding the relevant Act is quite proscriptive in the powers he has and any attempt by him to stop it would have been as tawdry an exercise as the one Lennon and Co. went through to approve it in the first place.
As I said before, Turnbull should not be your target here – either way.
.
Sam, Neither Bass nor Wentworth enter into it. However much of a bogeyman you think the current government is they
couldshould not really do more, either way, than they have.Turnbull isn’t my target. I think he and his are shot ducks. The question here is how Labor as a poitical party deals with its own inner turmoil in government.
turnbull has been the only howard minister not to make a idiot of himself this week
leaving the decision to the senior scientist and supporting that decision has been the best option for turnbull, garrett was going to do the same thing
it’s up to gunns now ,if they are serious they will build it
ALP support the decision and won’t change it.
The Filthy Liberal rides again!
Really Razor, confirmation at last that not only has the Parliamentary Liberal Party lost the plot but now its cheersquad as well.
steve – I understand that “Filthy Liberal” is how endorsed ALP candidates (in particular for the seat of O’Connor) refer to the one previously know as KRuddy.
Cousins to fight on
ho ho ho razor, you mean 20 year olds?
And ‘KRuddy’ sounds like Christian Kerr (ie pathetic).
Um, Jo, was that comment supposed to go in the election speculation thread?
Robert, ‘Andrews Again’ thread by the look of it.
Lat night Geoffrey Cousins really put the frighteners on. Shifted the goalposts. Changed the game. Made the earth move under their feet. He is going to the banks to stop the big money flowing to the project. Now that’s the way to play.
Grace, I saw that. Cousins’ talks a good game, but there are plenty of banks in the world. Even if he was able to put the frighteners on Australia’s domestic banks (a big if) there’s a lot of foreign banks too…
I doubt any domestic retail bank would want to touch it regardless of whether Cousins influences them, they are already keen to be seen a good arms length from Gunns.
Mac bank or a foreign bank I doubt would care particularly.
ANZ position
I wonder if Turnbull is the victim of some Macchiavellian plot by John Howard. In a matginal seat that hates the idea of a pulp mill, and likely to challenge Howard at the earliest possible moment, because unlike Costello he does have the bottle/ticker for it. So Howard sets him up as Environment Minister, knowing the pulp mill decision was going to come up before the election.
I wonder.
Given that the project is getting bi-partisan support, it’s unlikely that finance won’t be on tap for it. I would have thought that they’re going to have to mount a bigger-than-the-Franklin-Dam-sized campaign if they’re going to frighten the domestic banks (let alone foreign capital) off something that has basically been endorsed by the relevant State government and the incoming Federal Government. If Cousins can’t get a result from a directed campaign against a Liberal member whose seat appears to be in play, then what hope has he got against a consortium of organisations whose collective public reputation is already well and truly in the hole? They won’t care.
BBB
Turnbull really is playing grubby politics on the pulp mill. The terms of reference were far too narrow for the scientific report – they didn’t include carbon emissions (which will be huge) or the old growth forests that will be fed into it. First rule in politics – only ask a question you will like the answer to. I think the whole thing was a set play.
Turnbull said he would release the report to everyone – then he only gives it to Gunns.
Where is Turnbull’s report on the submissions he called for and received? So much for transparency and democracy. No public hearings, no real consulation.
And Garrett, the Shadow Minister for Environment who doesn’t cast a shadow (to quote Geoffrey Cousins) just goes along for the ride. He really has sold his soul to the ALP party machine.
It will be interesting to watch the issue play out during the election re Wentworth. Malcolm’s arse is grass and Geoffrey Cousins is the lawn mower man. Lennon slapped Turnbull around a bit on Lateline last night in his cunning thuggish manner.
I think we should have a referendum on whether the mill should proceed so that the 90% of Australian’s who oppose it can have a say.
“Malcolm’s arse is grass and Geoffrey Cousins is the lawnmower man…”
hoho, quote of the week Peterc
Garrett’s support for the “process” made me sick. Is he the greatest tosser ever??
The Liberal candidate in the neighbouring seat of Lyons, Ben Quin, has quit the party because of the decision and may stand as an independent. Story here.
Two things – have a look at Gunns top ten shareholders. Bank bank & bank again. Australian banks. & the Royal bank of Canada. My favourite is the shareholdings of…Westpac – you know, that bank running those warm fuzzy ads at the moment about our future, with cute penguins & kiddies…if ever there was a case of false advertising…. so let’s not fall for the crap about Australian capital not being involved in this.
Secondly, plantation timber may be the stuff to be pulped BUT the problem is that much of that plantation timber will be grown on ground that comes about by the indiscriminate clearing of primary growth forests, some of which is pulped, little of which is retrieved as useable logs for sawmilling , and much of which is burnt to provide ash seed beds for mono-species plantations. Vast swathes of the north east of the state have had cool temperate forests cleared & now support shining gum plantations for example. With all of its attendant problems of herbicide use, the impact upon water tables& resources, depopulation as rural communities become redundant. Silent forested landscapes.
And all for the right to provide Gunns with access to forest resources for a pulp mill that John Gay reckons has a life of ten years.