COMMENTARY
BY
Paul
I J Oosting
©Paul I J Oosting 2005
Big
Brother’s Pulp Mill
Authors
Note:
This article was originally written for the University of Tasmania
magazine Togatus. I wrote the article because of my concern over
the state of society here in Tasmania. Because of the complexities
surrounding the issues covered I sought advice to ensure that
the article was not defamatory. I also contacted Gunns Limited
and their lawyers requesting their response.
The editor of Togatus said the article was “just what I
was hoping we might get” and later “I can’t
see any reason why we shouldn’t print it”. However
the day it was to go to the publisher the article was pulled.
The editor’s explanation was “I showed it to the (Tasmanian
University Union) President, some people in the Union got a bit
paranoid. I think they just freaked out seeing Gunns letterhead.”
Providing further evidence that Gunns ‘big brother’
style tactics on freedom of speech are being very effective.
The World’s Best, Greenest and Safest, Pulp Mill. Proudly
brought to you by Gunns and the Department of Economic Development
George Orwell would be so proud.
Before
reality TV, Orwell coined the phrase ‘big brother’
in his novel ‘1984’, first published in 1948. In the
1984, a satire on Western Society and government, Big Brother
represents dominance and authoritarianism. We are now seeing a
plethora of examples of Big Brother style control (governance)
here in Tasmania, and throughout the world, through the control
of language, civil rights and corporate dominance.
The
pressure of ‘Big Brother’ watching is nothing new
for the environment movement. Recently I was at the headquarters
of a major environmental NGO in Sydney. They had just undergone
a bug sweep of the building, even though most modern listening
devices automatically switch off when they sense detection equipment.
In my experience of environmental and community organisations
it is seen as sensible to assume, without getting into the realms
of paranoia, that what you are doing is open for all to see.
But
the most obvious example of this Big Brother totalitarianism is
the situation surrounding Gunns and the state government with
the current pulp mill proposal.
On
the 16th of December 2004 the Resource Planning and Development
Commission (RPDC) announced it had received an application from
Gunns Ltd, a Tasmanian based corporation and the largest woodchip
exporter in Australia, to build a bleached kraft pulp mill. There
wasn’t a lot of media surrounding this announcement because
other events squashed it out of the spotlight. Two days before,
on the 14th of December, Gunns launched a writ ‘Gunns versus
Marr and Others’; now popularly know as the Gunns20. Many
have argued that Gunns’ lawsuit against environmental advocates
was designed as a “pre-emptive strike” to head off
opposition to its pulp mill proposal. Whether that is the case
or not, what is certain is that it has serious implications for
public participation and freedom of speech.
Gunns
tells us “a new pulp mill in Tasmania will be clever, clean
and safe.” You might think it’s a good idea. And why
not? You’ve talked to your friends, listened to the public
debate and heard, via the media, what the experts are saying,
then independently formed an opinion. Across the range of sustainability
objectives, economic, social and environmental, there is a triplicate
positive response. As all good salespeople know, three consecutive
‘yes’s’ is a sale.
You’re
encouraged by the news, perhaps to the point where you feel a
little civic pride; phrases like ‘world’s best’
and ‘world’s greenest’ abound, and they are
so easy to palate. New meaning has been created.
Considering
that the pulp mill would be based on outdated technology, would
use irreplaceable native forests, consume almost twice the amount
of water currently used by all users (industry and domestic) in
the Tamar Valley, and pump 30 billion litres of liquid effluent
into the Bass Strait; considering all that, and more, I think
George Orwell himself would have been hard pressed to invent a
better sales pitch for the proposal than ‘the world’s
greenest pulp mill’. Gunns obviously have a good public
relations team.
And
they aren’t the only ones. Earlier this year the Premier
Paul Lennon established the Pulp Mill Task Force through the Department
of Economic Development, with a budget of over $2 million. What
we have seen, or not, as the case may be, are things like the
pulp mill bus. Contained within the pulp mill bus and available
through the pulp mill web site (http://www.pulpmill.tas.gov.au/)
is information explaining why the pulp mill is going to ‘keep
our economy in the green’: all the great, positive aspects
of Gunns pulp mill proposal. In previous governments this has
been referred to as propaganda. The Resource Planning and Development
Commission (RPDC) should be given the opportunity to assess whether
or not the pulp mill will actually be good for the Tasmanian economy,
people and environment.
The RPDC has the duty to ensure that the public can be involved
in the process and are well informed. In the case of Gunns’
pulp mill proposal, their position has been completely jeopardised
by the Premier and the Department of Economic Development, through
the Pulp Mill Task Force. The operations of the Task Force lead
the Executive Commissioner of the RPDC Julian Green taking the
exceptional step of writing to the Government bluntly requesting
that the activities of the Task Force be reined in. He goes on
to say “if the taskforce activities are not reined in, the
commission will be compromised in the eyes of the public and therefore
the assessment process will be seen to be contaminated.”
Gunns have also managed to confuse the public over a number of
integral issues regarding what their pulp mill development actually
is. Late last year, John Gay, CEO of Gunns, said the pulp mill
would be plantation based, totally chlorine free and world’s
best practice; only to later, somewhat quietly, retract and state:
the pulp mill will not be totally chlorine free, will consume
native forests (at least initially) and therefore will not be
‘world’s best practice’.
George
Orwell’s novel 1984 is seen by many as a warning showing
us where we will end up if we allow things to carry on as they
are. He was concerned about the control exerted by governments
during World War II. Now corporations are more clearly exerting
this power.
Gunns
Limited response to this article was sought. They responded by
stating “Gunns Limited has serious concerns with statements
and assertions contained within.” They declined to provide
further detail. All responses to this article are welcome.
Paul
I J Oosting
©Paul I J Oosting 2005
Paul
I J Oosting 24 is a writer and poet. He has had work published
in River of Verse 2004 and Noise 2003. As well as writing Paul
is a full time eco volunteer working in Tasmania.
This
material is copyright © Retort Magazine/Individual Artists/Authors
2005 - no reproduction of this material is permitted with express
written permission from Retort Magazine and/or the Author/Artist.
