No democracy in the Tamar Valley

Even in the last few weeks when Gunns’ share price has plummeted, and there has been speculation that Labor-Liberal politicians are starting to view the project as an electoral liability, there is no hint of concern for the people of the Tamar Valley. For example, Treasurer Michael Aird was reported as saying, in response to Gunns’ decision not to seek an extension to the sovereign risk agreement, that “the government has done everything possible to ensure the mill goes ahead, but the decision to proceed is up to Gunns and its financiers”.

Just take a moment to focus on Aird’s statement. It mirrors Lennon’s comments to the letter. Gunns has the legislative framework to do what it wants in the Tamar Valley, as Aird emphasises. The timing, the decision about joint-venture, about selling the whole thing, about the pipelines, about the use of water, and all other matters are all done and dusted issues that Gunns has complete authority to negotiate, without government intervention.

Whatever happens in the Tamar Valley is now beyond the interest of the two main political parties, for purely political reasons. If Gunns is successful, well and good. Both Labor and Liberal will claim credit for the support they provided, legislatively and financially. If Gunns is not successful, both parties will express regret at all the effort, praise Gunns for their wisdom and vision, and move to provide Gunns and their shareholders with alternative opportunities for “value adding”.

Aird would have known when he made his statement (just prior to November 22, 2008) that Forestry Tasmania would extend the wood supply agreement (WSA) for the mill when it expired at the end of November 2008. It is probably pointless to explore the timing of Forestry Tasmania’s directive to David Bartlett that the WSA would be extended. Bob Gordon has indicated he can’t remember when he spoke to Bartlett about it.

The academic question, of course, is whether Gordon told Bartlett what decisions had been made on behalf of his government before the “line in the sand” comments, or afterwards. It doesn’t much matter now because Bartlett has failed to honour every commitment he made about what his government’s position would be at the end of November 2008, as reported in the media (and they could not have all got it wrong).

The simple fact is that Bartlett’s “line in the sand” commitments meant nothing. They were always just weasel words.

The renewed wood supply agreement has given Gunns a time extension to get the pipelines problems resolved, to sort out the federal permits with Peter Garrett, who no doubt will grant extensions for compliance whenever required beyond the current deadlines in January 2008, and to organise who will build and own the mill.

Bartlett has so far proved unwilling to legislatively resolve the pipelines problem on Gunns’ behalf, seeing such action as a threat to his political future, but no doubt there is a lot of detailed discussion occurring behind closed doors about how to sort out the West Tamar Council, East Tamar landowners and whoever else is an obstacle to Gunns’ control of the land needed for the pipelines.

As Deputy Premier Lara Giddings indicated on ABC news in Tasmania on November 23, 2008, “the pulp mill is unlikely to be built in the current economic circumstances”. She was not indicating uncertainty about the prospects of a Tamar Valley mill, just its timing. The legislation has no time frame. All time frames in relation to permits, water, timber and everything else have already been shifted in Gunns’ interests, and will continue to be, at both state and federal level. There is no reason to doubt that.

The real questions for people in the Tamar Valley should be about trying to foresee how the corporate, political, union alliance to get the pulp mill going will occur in the next few months. The most obvious possibility is a federally funded “infrastructure” proposal, a public-private partnership (PPP), so enamoured by the Labor-corporate linkages Australia-wide, using taxpayers money to prop up corporate power for partisan and personal political advantage.

One plank in this possible scenario has already been put firmly in place during the first week in December. The Senate passed legislation for the further extension of MIS plantations on agricultural land under the guise of climate change policy, and the final design of the scheme will be determined before the end of this year. Do not be surprised if this is soon followed by Peter Garrett’s “approval” of key permits for the pulp mill at the height of the holiday period.

It is extraordinarily paradoxical, even laughably so, that an extension of MIS plantations onto agricultural land is being contemplated at this time. The opportunity costs of these failing schemes are enormous already, running above $6 billion since they were established under the Howard government in the late-1990s. The public money foregone is lost to areas where infrastructure is in dire need. Not only that, but clear-felling in important water catchments is occurring on an increasing scale, degrading water supplies and water availability for other users incrementally.