Three Tamar Valley business owners and Environment Tasmania have recently launched a Supreme Court challenge to the Tasmanian Government’s approval of Gunns’ pulp mill.
Using the infamous Section 11 of the Pulp Mill Assessment Act, the government has refused repeated requests to provide reasons for its assessment and decision to approve the mill.
An analysis of the strategic planning environment for the planned pulp mill was presented to TAP members in early May 2008. Presenter was Mike Bolan.
Its purpose was to inform planning and decisions about where to focus efforts.
Some slides from that presentation are shown below to give a whole of system perspective . It follows on from a workshop that identified the needs of community members of TAP who live in the affected area of the Tamar Valley and northern Tasmania.
Mr Gerard Brown
ANZ Group Headquarters
100 Queen St Melbourne Vic 3000
gerard.brown@anz.com
Dear Sir
We wish to draw attention to the impacts on threatened species from Gunns Ltd’s proposed Long Reach pulp mill in northern Tasmania and the role of ANZ as prospective principal banker.
We and the general public understand that the ANZ has serious obligations under the Equator Principles to examine the environmental aspects of the pulp mill project and the pipeline route.
Our state politicians have passed an anti-democratic law (Section 11, Pulp Mill Assessment Act) which says you are not entitled to appeal for compensation for damages caused by Gunns pulp mill to your business, property values or health.
Peter Henning writes about the “Limitation to rights of appeal” (Section 11) and how people are excluded from access to the court.
....“If the law is unjust, then access to the law is not access to justice.” (Julian Burnside 2006)
The Pulp Mill Assessment Act 2007 is an unjust law. It is a law which promotes dispossession. It is a law which fosters a new form of political terra nullius in Tasmania. Section 11 of the Act is abhorrent in its meaning and intent. Those who voted for it do not deserve to be, and cannot claim to be, representatives of the people.
The Pulp Mill Assessment Act 2007 should be repealed....
By Peter Henning
.....If Rudd is sincere in his belief that in modern Australia the real battle of ideas is between free-market fundamentalism and the notion that individual wealth should be balanced by social responsibility, the pulp mill is a vital test....
Peter Henning
... Another indication is that Tasmanians in the 2007 federal election voted overwhelmingly for politicians who have no concern about any of the impacts of the pulp mill on them or future generations. They voted for politicians who have ignored all independent expertise and advice, from economists to scientists, from doctors to former members of the sidelined state RPDC, and of course they voted for politicians who have ignored hundreds of public submissions.
Introductory address by Chair, Bob McMahon at the public meeting held in the Tailrace Centre, Launceston 29/4/08 and attended by 640 people.
DEMOCRACY is the worst form of government.
“Democracy is the worst form of government……” Winston Churchill said that. He then went on to say “..except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
20-28 March 2008 EMRS poll
1000 Tasmanian adults were interviewed by telephone. Of these, 500 were from the South, 280 from the North and North East and 220 from the North West and West Coast regions. (Please note that the original data for question 1 was incorrectly transcribed. The correct data showing the results for question 1 are shown below. Our apologies for any confusion - an embarrassed Admin) 
Question 1: of five areas (listed below) which is the most important for the government to spend money?
Results:
Question 2: of the 5 listed which is the least important for the Government to spend money? Results:
Findings
Only 11 respondents (1%) found the “infrastructure specifically for the Pulp mill” to be the most important area for the government to spend money. 69% found “health infrastructure and services” to be the most important. “Infrastructure specifically for the Pulp mill” was seen as the least important area for the government to spend money by over three quarters of respondents (79%).
Commentary
What is revealed in these poll results is a huge gap between what the people polled see as funding priorities and what the Premier of Tasmania and the State Government are doing and plan to do with public monies. The Premier and the State Government have allocated public money to expedite and promote the Gunns pulp mill and are "examining" building a $60 million pipeline from the Trevallyn Dam to Long Reach to supply water to the pulp mill. The State and Federal Governments are spending $70 million on improvements to the East Tamar Highway.
At a time when essential services such as health, education, public housing are being run down the Government is essentially misappropriating public money to build Gunns their pulp mill.
These poll results show how unpopular this policy is with the Tasmanian people. TAP spokesman Bob McMahon said the "the Labor Party must change direction and to survive it must cut the leader loose. You can have either a pulp mill or a health system. You can't have both."
Source www.tapvision.info
For the history of poll results about the pulp mill see opinion polls.
7 April 2008 EMRS poll
A survey of 1000 householders was conducted by EMRS between the 20th and 28th March 2008. Of these, 500 were from the South, 280 from the North and North East and 220 from the North West and West Coast regions.
Question: are you in favour of or against the ANZ bank funding the pulp mill? Responses:
On a two answer preferred basis; in favour = 39%, against = 61%.
Source www.tapvision.info
TAP media spokesman Bob McMahon said "the poll result means that Tasmanians have not only refused Mr Gay and mr Lennon a 'social permit' to build their mill but also the ANZ bank". "With such high lvels of community ill will towards this project, the ANZ must reasonably expect that many of these Australian might move their accounts from ANZ if the Bank funds the mill" he said. "It is therefore important that the people continue to tell the ANZ not to fund Gunns' pulp mill", he continued. Email ANZ CEO Mike Smith at gerard.brown@anz.com or pamela.tann@anz.com or phone ANZ head office on 03 9273 5168 or 03 9273 6141.
Here is an attempt to put a few figures to the cost to taxpayers of building the pulp mill. This does not include the fact that Gunns will have to service this new loan and profits head offshore to shareholders. Nor does it take into account that there will be a 15% oversupply of pulp coming on line from 47 new mills worldwide, and Gunns may have to go back to the various governments for further direct subsidies to keep afloat. The individual figures are all open to tweaking, but it does illustrate the size of the problem that we are (not) being asked to fund.
THE FUTURE
A Better Australia and TAP conducted two workshops with approximately 120 members to plan strategies to stop the pulp mill.
Sorted outputs from TAP/ A Better Australia presentations on 21 Jan 2008
What concerns does audience have for the future?
Social issues
Unrealisable expectation
Failing systems
Results of poor policy
Quality of environment
Information systems
Threats
Political and governance issues
Survival
What people would like to have in a better future?
Ecology
Human affairs
Energy
Governance
Resources
Global
Notes from TAP meeting, 2008-02-22
What do you stand to lose if this mill goes ahead?
Who do you trust?
Who can stop the mill?
Banks / financiers
Gunns
Government – State
Government – Federal ** preferred strategy **
Others Raised
Carbon Trade Watch www.carbontradewatch.org is monitoring the corruption of the climate change debate by the carbon offset industry particularly by tree planting. The Carbon Neutral Myth highlights several ways in which the carbon offset approach to climate change is fundamentally flawed. See carbon_neutral_myth.pdf to read the full story. Summary From the late Middle Ages, Western Europe became slowly but surely engulfed by the tide of mercantilism that superceded the feudal economy. This system, which to us is second nature, was revolutionary at the time. It was, in its own way, the first wave of economic globalisation to wash over Europe. Mercantilism, simply put, is a system of economic relations in which goods purchased in one place are sold at a much higher price somewhere they are scarce. The Catholic Church, at the time suffering from a shortage of funds, decided to use the burgeoning market ethic to its own material advantage. Catholic doctrine maintains that to avoid time in Purgatory after you die, you need to expiate your sins via some sort of punishment or task that is an external manifestation of your repentance. The idea was that the clergy were doing more of such actions than their meager sins demanded, so they effectively had a surplus of good deeds. Under the logic of the emerging market, these could be sold as indulgences to sinners who had money, but not necessarily the time or inclination to repent for themselves. Chaucer’s The Pardoner's Tale immortalised the sale of such indulgences by pardoners, which was essentially how the church took a market-based approach to sinning as a means of income generation. The Brazilian theologian Dr. Odair Pedroso Mateus pointed out in 2001 that indulgences are “not about grace and gratefulness but about exchanging goods, about buying and selling, about capitalism”. Many centuries later, there are new indulgences on the market in the form of carbon offsets. The modern-day Pardoners are companies like Climate Care, the Carbon Neutral Company, Offset My Life and many others. These selfstyled ‘eco-capitalists’ are building up what they claim are ‘good climate deeds’ through projects which supposedly reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions. These wholesale emissions reductions can then be profitably sold back at retail prices to modern-day sinners who have money, but not necessarily the time or inclination to take responsibility for their emissions, and can afford to buy the surplus ‘good deeds’ from the offset companies. Most offset schemes take the following approach. A simple calculator on a website shows the quantity of emissions produced by a certain product or activity. The customer can then choose from a variety of projects that promise to ‘neutralise’ an equivalent amount of emissions by energy-saving, or through carbon absorption in trees. The consumer pays according to the claimed project costs and the amount of emissions to be ‘neutralised’. Most carbon offset companies cater to both individuals and corporations. Corporations can pay to ‘neutralise’ emissions generated by the production of consumer items or services, which can then be marketed on the basis of their climate-friendly credentials. This process has been dubbed ‘carbon branding’. The carbon offset market is booming. In the first three quarters of 2006, about EUR 89 million were sold to companies and individuals all over the world, up 300 per cent from 2005. It is predicted that the voluntary offsets market will be worth EUR 450 million in three years time. Even offset industry insiders are concerned about the lack of regulation and scrutiny of the new market.
As part of the Federal conditions, Gunns have had to do road surveys for 3 months for roadkill to get their permit. We saw very little sign of this happening so we have conducted our own survey with the valuable help of many volunteers over a number of months. We are asking the federal department to compare ours with Gunns to make sure the work has been done. We are awaiting further information.
TAP formed in January 2004 and was known originally as TRAC. TAP is not an environment group and is not politically-aligned. We have fought for 14 years to stop Gunns and the State and Federal Governments from building a 1.1million tonnes PA pulp mill in a valley that is home to 100,000 people on the island of Tasmania.
In 2006 TRAC became TAP Into A Better Tasmania. TAP is the oldest of the groups opposed to Gunns pulp mill. TAP is also the first community group in Tasmania to oppose industrial tree plantations.
TAP has prevailed over almost insurmountable odds to prevent dangerous, corrupt and irresponsible people from degrading the Tamar Valley of Tasmania. TAP uses imaginative and bold actions to defend Tasmania from Gunns, their successors and their political cronies. TAP provides a stimulating informaton forum in the Tamar Valley.
TAP Facebook