PARLIAMENT OF TASMANIA

Excerpt from Hansard

Thursday 30th August 2007.

Peter Gutwein - Pulp Mill Motion Speech

Mr GUTWEIN (Bass) - Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to start by saying that whilst I am a member of parliament I am first of all a husband and the father of two small children. It is important that I make that qualification because, unfortunately, many people engaged in the debate about the proposed pulp mill appear to have forgotten, if not completely disregarded, that all of us in this place are people with families as well. I also have interests in tourism - only 50 kms from the proposed site of the mill - and therefore have a real interest in any effect that the mill may have on tourism. Furthermore, I am also a resident of the Tamar Valley. I am not somebody who just lives in Launceston. I am somebody who has recently purchased a small farm, on which I intend to live with my family, on the banks of the Tamar River some 18 kms up the eastern side of the Tamar Valley.

As members of parliament we are tasked with using our judgment to make decisions. In the three years that this pulp mill has been publicly debated, I have been urged to withdraw my support for it. I have been threatened, like many members of parliament, with political retribution, with loss of my seat, with a voters' block. In fact I had representatives of TAP, Tasmanians Against the Pulpmill, in my offices recently, threatening that they would, in their words, be coming after anyone who voted for this mill and would end their political careers.

Let me make this point to all people who may be listening to this debate or reading Hansard in the future. In my political career I will make decisions which I believe are in the best interests of Tasmania. I will make decisions that may not always be popular, but I will make decisions that I believe are correct, proper and in the best interests of the people I represent. Threats will not deter me from doing what I believe is right. I take my role in the Parliament very seriously - as do my colleagues. As a result we do not have the luxury of making decisions that are based on someone's dislike for the proponent or the arrogance of the Government, or because someone has experienced an old mill that had a smell, or because someone falsely believes that old-growth timber makes the best woodchip. We have to make decisions that are based on the best facts of which we can inform ourselves because the decisions that we make are made for all Tasmanians.

That is why this morning I want to join with my Leader in condemning Malcolm Turnbull's weak-kneed decision to extend the time frame for his decision on this project. The Prime Minister should intervene. He should overturn what I believe is an example of gross political cowardice. The minister's decision is weak-kneed and opportunistic.

Recently my colleague from Bass, Sue Napier, and I returned from visiting three pulp mills overseas. I went because I wanted to satisfy myself and to be in a position to inform my other colleagues as to whether this proposed mill would, as its opponents have been claiming, harm our environment, harm our health or harm our economy.

As one of only a handful of Tasmanians who have actually been inside a world-scale pulp mill, I am now firmly of the opinion that, subject to the strict regulations that will occur as has been demonstrated in the permit briefings, a clean, safe mill can be built here as proposed. As I have mentioned, opponents of this mill have threatened to end my parliamentary career, abused me, and implied that I do not care for my family. Interestingly enough, none of that abuse has come from the proponent, and I do not believe that those people who oppose this development have received any abuse from the majority of members of this Parliament in any way, shape or form like that, but that sort of abuse has been flying around.

Despite these threats, despite these vile and repugnant false accusations, because I do care for the future of Tasmania I will be supporting this project. I want to put on the record very clearly that I do not believe there will be any adverse impacts on our health, our environment or our tourism or fishing industries; however, I know that many people are concerned. This is understandable given the Government's very poor handling of the process and the very clever and skilful way that opponents to this process have sought to undermine it.

I believe it is important that I place on the record my views on some of the issues that have dominated debate. I want to start with one of the key issues that seems to have concerned people, the issue of smell, and I want to talk about what we found overseas. The mills that we visited did not have what could in any way be described as an odour problem, even though all of them were only utilising technology that is not as advanced as what is proposed for here.

The Finnish mill that we went to first actually had a smell in its air-conditioned offices because of a fault in a manhole cover that was near the intake of the air-conditioning system. However, when we went down to the factory floor or stood on top of the recovery boiler there was no smell at all. We even stopped 500 metres down the road, directly down-wind from the Finnish mill, which shares a site with a paper mill and a turpentine oil refinery. It is only three kilometres from the tourism town of Rauma but it shares a site with a paper mill and a turpentine oil refinery, and at 500 metres from the mill you could barely smell anything at all. There was no industrial smell at all. The other two mills that we went to were newer than the Finnish mill, and they had, in my opinion, absolutely no odour issues at all.

We made this point at a recent meeting that we had with the Launceston Chamber of Commerce and I was surprised, and I would have to say disappointed, that one of the chamber representatives, not representing the chamber's official position, continually referred to the pulp mill as stinking and dirty. Even though we explained that we had visited mills of exactly the same type as was proposed for here in Tasmania, albeit with lesser technology, only days earlier, they simply would not believe us. It is this type of biased, uninformed, blind opposition that unfortunately has characterised this debate.

Furthermore, people need to be aware that the technology of the proposed mill will contain an extra level of odour abatement technology, making it the most advanced in the world, which should ensure that any odour at all is absolutely minimised, even during the critical commissioning phase and the annual shutdowns. We will have the world's best mill in this regard, and yet people continually refer to these pulp mills as dirty, filthy and stinking. It is outrageous.

Mr GUTWEIN - When we were in Finland we were talking to people about tourism, and Finland markets itself as clean and green and with a high technology work force. If you go to their Finnish web site they talk about clean and green and the high technology society they have. They utilise the three key messages in regard to their tourism product of safety, green open spaces and pure air. Finland has more than 25 pulp and paper mills situated in an area roughly two-and-a-half times the size of Tasmania. Finland is five times larger than Tasmania but the mills are in an area two-and-a-half times the size because the top end of Finland is tundra; it is basically frozen. When we were talking to the Finnish people about this we found out that they produce more than 16 million tonnes of pulp a year - 16 times what is proposed for here.

Mr GUTWEIN - What we found is that tourism and the pulp and paper industry are able to coexist harmoniously. We met with the deputy director of Finnish tourism who provided us with an overview of what was occurring in Finland regarding their tourism and tourism product. We stopped him part-way through his presentation and said, 'What we really want to ask you about is the impact of pulp mills on your tourism product'. He said, 'I have been in this role for 18 years. My role primarily has been as the point person for Finnish tourism, dealing with visiting journalists and travel writers, and never in 18 years has anybody ever raised the issue of the possible negative impact of the pulp and paper industry on our tourism product'. If they can operate as clean and green and they have more than 25 of these mills, surely it is not beyond the bounds of possibility for Tasmania to be able to do the same.

When we were in Chile we were told that the mills themselves had become tourist attractions. In fact, the Nueva Aldea mill informed us that 20 000 people last summer had visited that mill. In fact, it was a complaint of the local community that they were not seeing a lot of these tourists because the mill had decided to put on buses to ensure that they could get the people to the mill because they did not have a car park large enough to accommodate all the cars. They were actually bussing them in and the local people were saying, 'Then they bus them out and we don't get a bite at them'. Obviously that is something that needs to be managed, but 20 000 people went to look at that mill.

There is no doubt that the mill proposed for here has generated significant interest within Tasmania, both good and bad. There is also no doubt that there will be thousands of Tasmanians who, should this mill be built, will want to visit it to satisfy their own curiosity. It is important that Tamar Valley businesses are able to get leverage from this to ensure that they get a slice of the action. Tourism Tasmania needs to consider an intrastate tourism plan to ensure that the maximum economic benefit is gained for operators as a result, because there is no doubt that should this mill be built there will be enormous interest and people will flock there to look at it.

Mr GUTWEIN - In regard to a couple of other matters -

Mr GUTWEIN - In regard to Tamar real estate, recently I had representatives from Tasmanians Against the Pulpmill in my office asserting that people were fleeing the Tamar region in droves. This is not my experience. I have been looking for four months. In fact my wife is on the early alert warning system on realestate.com for properties up and down the Tamar. I made the point that such was not the case, that people were not looking to flee the Tamar region. Via e-mail to me a day later I was accused of being a liar at worst or, at best, misinformed. They said they had been informed by a Launceston real estate firm that there were more than 195 properties for sale in the areas where we were looking, which were Windermere, Dilston, Swan Bay and Hillwood. They pointed us to realestate.com. I went and did the search. My wife said that simply could not be true; there would only be a handful, maybe 25 or 30 properties. We found 31 properties listed, not the 195 that were being sensationally claimed by a Launceston real estate firm in an attempt to make their point against this mill. Unfortunately TAP and their supporters are using what appear to be their professional offices to undermine the project and at the same time undermine the real estate market in the Tamar region. I intend to seek advice from the Real Estate Institute as I am certain that clients of this particular firm would be very concerned at the false allegations that are being made regarding their properties.

I want to touch on an issue that has had a fair airing throughout this debate from the opponents of this project - the black-neck swans of Valdivia. A vocal opponent of this mill was quoted last week as saying that his motivation for opposing the pulp mill was that a South American mill in Valdivia had destroyed wetlands and killed black-neck swans in early 2005, which resulted in the mill being closed down and fined. The mill at that time, early in 2005, was closed down and fined. I have no argument with that except that in May 2005 the Supreme Court of Chile, the highest appellant court they have, voted five judges to nil, based on the evidence presented before it, that the mill was not at fault. But has that come to light through the TAP web site? Have any of the opponents of the project raised that? In fact, I went to the web site of Tasmanians Against the Pulpmill and found comment about this particular issue from an unnamed Chilian scientist. The one key missing point in the brief that he provided was that the Supreme Court of Chile found that it was not the mill. But have they bothered to set the record straight or present a balanced view? No, they have not.

What is interesting in the first place is the reason the mill was discharging into the Cruces River. The mill wanted to discharge to a sea outfall. However, green groups had wound up the local fishermen so tightly that shots were fired at the scientists who were attempting to take the baseline studies, which meant that the mill was forced by the Government to adopt a tertiary treatment process. What we want and need in this debate is some honesty.

I want to touch on another issue, something that I know people have been frightened by in my electorate. These are some of the claims that have been made regarding plantations and the damage that people suggest is occurring to our farmland and countryside. One of the claims is that plantation forestry to support the mill will completely devastate our farming communities into the future. It is important that I put on the record some fact for people who take the time to read this debate. The facts are that as of 31 December 2006 this State had mapped some 107 005 hectares of prime agricultural land - that is classes 1 to 3. Of this figure of 107 005 hectares of prime agricultural land, only 5290 hectares, or 4.9 per cent, had plantation on it. On class 4 land, of which there were almost 600 000 hectares mapped, there were only 35 095 hectares of plantation, or just a little bit under 6 per cent. The remainder of the private plantations in the State - around 115 000 hectares, which is the vast majority - were on land classes 5 to 7, which is the poorest quality agricultural land we have. Furthermore, while I am talking about plantations this point needs to be made to the people who have been involved in that chain e-mail that seems to be circulating to most members of parliament and even parliamentary staff. No old-growth timber will be harvested for use in this mill. No ancient forests will be harvested.

I want to touch briefly on water. A lot has been said about the amount of water this mill will use. Currently the Trevallyn Power Station generates on average around 52 megawatts of power a year. It can generate a maximum of 80 megawatts. The amount of water the pulp mill will use, if it had been used by the power station and had been allowed to flow through the generators at Trevallyn, would have generated only 0.86 of one megawatt.

Mr Green - Do not forget that all of the water that comes through Poatina used to flow south into the Derwent but now flows into the Tamar.

Mr GUTWEIN - The member for Braddon is correct in what he says because it goes on to say that the environmental flows down the Gorge will not be affected. They are legislatively protected, as are domestic water supplies. The claims that have been made about this mill's use of water and the detrimental effect that it will have further upstream are simply false.

Effluent and the levels of dioxin that will be present in the wastewater that is pumped to sea need to be put into a context that people can understand. Most recently it has been expressed like this: firstly, that the likely concentration of dioxins are unmeasurable by current technology. If the level of dioxin was to be described on the basis of the equivalent concentration of salt in a body of water, you would describe it as the same concentration of salt after one salt grain has been put in the volume of water occupying 27 Olympic-sized swimming pools, and will be 10 times lower than the drinking-water standards in the United States. We heard yesterday from the Minister for the Environment that 99.8 per cent of what is discharged will simply be water.

I want to speak briefly about transport issues as well. The transport challenge facing the State, regardless of whether the mill is built, must be dealt with. There have been immediate issues such as the flyover that George Town Council were very keen to see - something which we supported. That flyover required at the mill entrance has been dealt with; however, there is still much to be done. The issue of transporting timber from the north-west and the south of the State still needs to be finalised. The Government must engage with the proponent and Pacific National and ensure that this matter is dealt with quickly. The mill will take a few years to build and therefore time is available; however, the onus is very clearly on the Minister for Infrastructure, Mr Cox, to ensure a positive outcome.

Regarding road infrastructure in the north, especially in the West Tamar, Dorset and Launceston municipalities. The minister must meet the commitment he gave in this place last week to meet with the councils concerned and to develop a strategic plan and resource that plan to ensure that it meets with all stakeholders' satisfaction.

I want to place on the record a few more comments regarding the overseas trip that we had. Firstly, I went because I had concerns, I will be quite upfront about that. Was Peter Cundall correct when he called pulp mills dirty, filthy and stinking? No, he was not. The mills that we witnessed were, in my opinion, the cleanest industrial facilities that I have ever seen. The new mills could quite rightly be described as having been clinically clean. I have touched on the issues of odours already, and if I could put the smell that I talked about in the Finnish mill into some form of context, it was no worse - or no better, depending on which way you look at it - than that which you would smell in most commercial cooking facilities.

We met with tourism operators, pharmacists, families who lived close to the mills, as well as receiving briefings from government and tourism and forestry industry representatives. A report of the trip is publicly available and I would refer anyone interested to my web site to read it. Mr Deputy Speaker, how long do I have left?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Four minutes.

Mr GUTWEIN - As I just mentioned, a report of the trip is publicly available and I refer people to my web site to have a look at it.

I do want to comment on the report that Ruth Forrest, member of the Legislative Council, released as a result of meetings she held separate to the group. I want to set the record straight on a couple of matters that Ms Forrest has allowed to be misreported. Firstly, Ms Forrest did not extend an invitation to all members of the group. I was asked and I understood others were to be as well, however I now know that she certainly did not, for reasons known only to herself, invite all members to attend.

I decided not to take part when I was informed by Ms Forrest that the meetings were to be videotaped for use in an anti-pulp mill documentary that the organisers, the Surfriders, were putting together. What was really surprising is that the newspaper articles written about her side trip varied quite considerably from the verbal briefing that she provided to me and other members of parliament the day after returning from her visits. Only Ms Forrest knows why this is the case.

What I do know from her report is that Ms Forrest met with handpicked opponents of pulp mills. I suspect she naively allowed herself to be filmed allowing pulp mill opponents to create leverage over her, and as a result hopelessly compromised herself and the electorate she purports to represent.

In finishing, let me be clear about my support for this mill, and let me be clear about the respect I hold for Michael Ferguson, the Bass Liberal MHR. Malcolm Turnbull has, for reasons known only to himself, set Michael Ferguson up as last man standing in this debate. It would be easy for Michael to fold, to announce that he is against this project, but he has stood firm. He, like me and other members on this side of the House, have been dealt the same hand. An incompetent Premier doing whatever he can to make it almost impossible to support the project, and now a Federal Environment minister who cares more for his own seat and the impacts of his decision there, as opposed to the impact his decision will have on ordinary Tasmanians.

Michael Ferguson knows, as I do, that this proposal will not harm people's health. It will not harm the environment. It will not harm our tourism or fishing industries. And like us, in the face of fierce opposition, he is standing up for what he believes is right.

That is a world-class, world-scale pulp mill on the Tamar, downstream-processing our forest product. I support the Leader of the Opposition's position in supporting the motion before the House.