Letter to Jodie Campbell
Jodie Campbell MP
Member for Bass
28 November 2007
Dealing with the threats presented by the pulp mill
Dear Ms Campbell,
Congratulations on being returned to government. There is little doubt that Kevin Rudd’s team has the best interests of the country at heart and we are looking forward to supporting that agenda wherever we can.
Our organisation, A Better Australia, has been representing a number of community-based groups in understanding the impacts and costs of the pulp mill proposal that have been left from consideration by the proponent, the state government and the previous federal government.
With any major proposal we believe that all of the implications need to be understood in advance so that effective plans can be made by all parties.
Overall, the mill proposal threatens:
- Major economic threats from unstudied opportunity costs (e.g. loss of farms)
- Water availability as hundreds of thousands of hectares of tree plantation drain water catchments
- Food production industries as food farms are replaced with MIS trees
- Rural communities whose cash flow is drying up as trees take over
- Adverse climate change impacts (e.g. cutting and burning forests)
- Small businesses in tourism, farming, fishing, recreation and fine foods that rely on clean and green
- Health and education as hundreds of millions of dollars of public money are used to subsidise the pulpwood industry
Virtually none of these major impacts were studied in order to reach an approval decision which places numerous groups and industries at serious risk.
The level of subsidies enjoyed by the pulpwood industry in Tasmania is of growing concern to people. These subsidies, which are in the form of cash payments or cost relief, are worth over $200 million each year and are now to be topped up with mill based infrastructure costs of over $150 million dollars. All of this at a time when our hospitals, schools, social services and other basic services are starved for lack of funds. This bias is threatening people’s lives and health.
The socio-economic issues alone should have stopped the proposal dead in its tracks except for the gross corruptions of process and representation that have characterised the entire episode. The State method of leaving out all costs, impacts and risks and only portraying the positives is an absurd methodology that most people wouldn’t even apply to the purchase of a car, let alone a massive industry. It exposes Tasmanians to far too many needless risks.
Most of the people we work with do not support a mill at Hampshire because it does not address the gamut of socio-economic concerns, only those issues related to those living in the mill vicinity. Furthermore, any such proposal would violate due process again.
Please note we are not opposing a mill, we are instead calling for a full study of the costs and impacts on the public, which information has always been missed from all formal studies and reviews. It is only when you have a complete set of information that you can plan for whatever impacts and costs this mill might bring. We believe that such information should be developed independently of the project proponent to assure that it is complete and credible. If this is not done then the Rudd government will be exposed to whatever fallout comes from Howard/Lennon’s incomplete assessment of the proposal.
We have written to Kevin Rudd on these matters and have copied the full text of that letter to you for your information.
We would be remiss not to draw these matters to your attention because they could have a profound impact on your electorate and leave you exposed if you do not understand them.
I trust that you find the materials useful and informative.
We can answer queries and supply further information should you require it.
Sincerely,
A Better Australia