The pulp mill is the issue which defined Tasmania’s difference in the national swing away from Howard’s neoliberalism. The pulp mill fits fairly and squarely within Rudd’s definition of free-market fundamentalism. There has been no cost-benefit analysis done by Gunns or the Lennon Government, no baseline testing in relation to impacts on primary industry, farming or fishing, no analysis of impacts on tourism, no study done on the likely or possible effects of pollution in the atmosphere or the marine environment, no analysis of any issues surrounding wood supply, no analysis of the impact of the nature and scale of clear-felling in water catchments, in all of its dimensions, no analysis of impacts on native habitat, and no analysis of impacts on people’s health and well-being.
Quite simply, on the basis of the whole approval process, which deliberately excluded examination of any social, environmental or economic costs within the state, and any examination of wood supply issues, the pulp mill is a classic example of the kind of neoliberalism Rudd condemns. The failure of Gunns and the Lennon government to accept the legitimacy of a cost-benefit analysis in all its dimensions is a perfect exemplar of neo-liberal political action, which in Rudd’s words, “rejects the legitimacy of altruistic values that go beyond direct self-interest”.
In the whole pulp mill saga, the only interests examined other than Gunns’ direct interests were those that fell within the limited terms of reference of national environment law, which applied only to Commonwealth waters and migratory species. No other interests have been explored except those of Gunns, no other benefits have been postulated except those of Gunns. All independent analyses, done by a range of economic and scientific professionals, which have examined the mill’s impact within the framework of costs and benefits, have reached cautionary or contradictory conclusions to those of Gunns and the Lennon government.
Advertisement
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.
It is a vital test because it goes to the heart of Rudd’s moral authority. He has been universally applauded for his rapid ratification of the Kyoto treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The decision blows like a breeze of fresh air through the Australian political landscape, shaking off some of the shackles of shame, and returning the nation at last to the multilateral international fold and giving us at last an independent voice in international affairs.
Inaction on the pulp mill will contradict ratification of Kyoto. Rudd has the option of allowing the mill to proceed, on the basis of the Labor’s position throughout the election campaign, or of being true to his convictions, for which he says he so much admires Bonhoeffer, social democrat, internationalist and Christian activist, for whom “whatever the personal cost, there was no moral alternative than to fight the Nazi state”.
Well, Rudd’s not fighting fascism, but by his own admission he is fighting neoliberalism, and he is fighting for those whose voice has not been listened to by the two main parties, and he is fighting for social justice, and he has made clear, to repeat again, that action on the environment is a “fundamental ethical challenge”, which has to be fought at global, national and local levels.
There are already plenty of people fighting against the pulp mill at national and local levels. The voters at Gravelly Beach on the West Tamar are testimony to that, 44 per cent casting a Green senate vote and 49 per cent an anti-pulp mill vote for the House of Representatives. In the same booth both major parties first preference votes didn’t reach 30 per cent.
If Rudd fails to act on the pulp mill issue, it will signal the first crack in his moral authority, for it will contradict all his rhetoric of the need to fight neo-liberal free-market fundamentalism and restore social responsibility to political policy and action, and it will contradict his avowed commitment to activism in relation to climate change and the health of the planet. If he fails to act on the pulp mill he will immediately be seen as hypocritical and deceptive in relation to his values and principles.
Advertisement
As John Howard has found out, once you lose moral authority it is gone forever. It can’t be replaced. And hypocrisy and deception are the poisons which destroy moral authority.
Let us hope that Kevin Rudd is the statesman Australians would like him to be, someone who can be admired for stepping beyond the confines of the mould Howard created, and someone who can lead a government to serve “in the national interest, and nobody’s sectional interest”, as he said three days before the election. The people of Bennelong have dared to hope that he will, as have the majority of Australians.
But the people of Tasmania are not yet convinced, because Rudd’s campaign position of support for the mill placed a cautionary hand on their willingness to believe he really would act against free-market juggernauts. So Tasmanians withheld their support from Rudd, but also junked Howard’s direction. It was the Greens who ensured Labor candidates would sweep the state, but it was the independent Ben Quin who will most likely top the poll for courage and integrity.
Let’s face it. Our hope and our admiration rests with politicians who stand by their convictions. It’s why Petro Georgiou, Bruce Broadbent, Barnaby Joyce, Judi Moylan and Terry Martin are assured of continued support from their communities. They have moral authority and people vote for them.
Polls suggest that a majority of electors voted for Kevin Rudd. He can only keep that alive by maintaining his moral authority, and for that reason the pulp mill is a real test of the integrity of his leadership.