I also take this opportunity to thank the Government for the briefings yesterday and this morning and from that a lot of issues were clarified and I may refer to some in my speech, Mr President.
I just make it clear right from the word go, Mr President, that I will be supporting the bill but there are some issues that I have concerns with.

We do need jobs and economic growth in Tasmania but we must be absolutely sure that any development is benign to the environment, other industries and our fellow citizens and that is a quote, Mr President, from a letter of Dr Thomas Moore from Lauderdale, and I think most members probably would have referred to that quote in the first instance.

Firstly, let me begin by saying that this project has been around now for a long time, in fact it first commenced I think on 19 November 2003, so it has now been there for something like three years and four months. I would have thought that that was sufficiently long for people to have a fair knowledge of what is going on in relation to this matter - perhaps not this bill because that has only recently come onto the agenda but certainly, Mr President, that they would have had a fair knowledge of the situation of the pulp mill.

It is interesting in fact that we still have a lot of people or groups and organisations out there saying that they have not had a sufficiently long period of consultation for the public to be able to put their positions forward. They are concerned that a new process does not allow them to come forward and I think that is a justified issue in the circumstances because they are shut out of this process now, whereas with the RPDC process, they still had that opportunity for some input.

Mr President, I have been feeling the heat, not only in this room and the other room we were in last night, but I guess I am feeling a lot of other heat too because this pulp mill is fair in the middle of my electorate. There is no way that I have been able to skirt the issue. It is an issue that has been with me now for three years and four months and wherever I have been I have had to accept comment on it and indeed I invited comment on it from the public during my travels in that period of time. I think perhaps the northern members might have found this a little more difficult in some respects than our southern colleagues. While it does impact on the whole of Tasmania, very clearly it has a greater impact on us in the north of the State.
I, like other members, Mr President, have been inundated with correspondence and one only has to look under my chair at the moment to see that whole stack of envelopes that I have not had time to open at this stage. I have certainly opened some and they are supportive.

Mrs Smith - What did you do all day?

Mr DEAN - I have had all day, you are absolutely right, but I had other things to attend to, taking the phone calls, the e-mails and texts and all of those other things. I have opened some and I have opened enough to know that they, I would suggest, are all pro-pulp mill. The greater majority of those people come from the north-west coast. It is interesting too because we all know that people who support something normally do not come forward. Unfortunately, in the main, they sit back, and it is those people who are against a situation or a position who are more likely to come out. I think we have seen that with some of the rallies that have taken place over the past 12 months to two years. It is good to see these people coming out now and supporting a process for this mill to at least move forward. This morning, Mr President, I had something like 225 e-mails to look at, plus all the text messages, the telephone calls and the hard copy of other documents. It really has been a plethora of information that we have had to absorb in relation to this matter.

I am aware of the concerns surrounding the pulp mill and at the same time I am aware of the benefits it will bring to my constituents. I am in favour of a timely decision on this issue, a decision the RPDC could not guarantee, unfortunately. That is the reason that we are here today discussing the bill that is now before this House. That is a shame because I think we were all banking on the RPDC, and I will refer to that a little more in a moment.
I want to refer to a comment made by a very esteemed and professional gentleman, well known to members of the northern part of the State and perhaps some of the southern members as well. He was asked a question in relation to the pulp mill, and this was in the paper I think on Monday and other members might have seen it. It was Mr Jack Edwards. To the question in relation to the pulp mill his response was:

'But someone has to make a decision and do it.

Eric Reece made decisions - they named the Reece Dam after him.
Somebody has to be boss. A good boss can make decisions that are against people who work for him but he still has their respect.'

It didn't work with the member for Elwick but obviously it works for some others.
Mr President, I think I made it fairly clear yesterday during the briefings that I will have difficulty in accepting a watering down of the environmental standards, and I will address this -

Ms Thorp - I think we are all of the same mind on that one.

Mr DEAN - I would suggest that is uppermost in the minds of everybody. I can understand why, particularly for those like me living in the Tamar Valley and my electorate of Windermere .

Tasmania's credibility as a clean, green State should not be put at risk or compromised in any way whatsoever, but I do not want to see this project collapse due to a failure in the process. I do not think any of us - I certainly did not, anyway - foresaw Gunns withdrawing the application from the RPDC. It did not enter my mind. I did not think that would occur and I did not realise the ramifications for the company of the process being drawn out.

The project should be judged and measured on its merits. Whilst I have concerns about the Pulp Mill Assessment Bill and there are some issues I am not happy with, it is the only chance of this project happening now. In saying this, I believe that the Pitt & Sherry advertisement, which other members would have seen in the Examiner of 12 March 2007, sums it up very well, and I will quote sections of it:
'Firstly that development and economic growth without sensitivity to the consequences of pollution and unsustainable consumption of our natural resources is suicidal in a finite world, and' -

I think that everybody present knows very well that Pitt & Sherry are consulting engineers, environmental scientists and building surveyors; a very reputable company and organisation. I quote further:

'Secondly - and equally importantly - that the world class quality of our environmental and social assets are unaffordable without an internationally competitive economic base.

An integrated impact assessment process, run to date through the RPDC, provides the mechanism to deliver an independent, technically rigorous and reliable assessment of the worth of this project - or any similar project - to the State. It offers, and positively encourages, comprehensive opportunities for participation by anyone and everyone - be they a proponent, opponent or undecided. It recognises that projects can and should be strengthened as a result of community input - for the benefit of all stakeholders - and often especially for the proponent.
Yesterday's withdrawal by Gunns Limited from the RPDC process highlights the project risks associated with the open ended nature of the RPDC approach and the consequences for the State if delays beyond June prompt the cancellation of a project that promises so much and is demonstrably sustainable. We have convinced ourselves that these risks have escalated to the point where they are no longer acceptable - to an organisation like Pitt & Sherry which has the long term sustainable interests of the State at heart.'

I continue to quote from this document, Mr President, as I believe it very important:
'No commercial organisation can sustain unlimited approval process time. Clearly the $10 million per month holding costs associated with the project delays beyond June 30 weighed heavily on the proponent's decision to withdraw - every organisation has an appetite for its exposure to commercial risk and its accountability to shareholders.

Notwithstanding this - it would be a huge setback for the State if this project was cancelled for timing reasons - despite its economic, social and environmental merit.
We believe that, given the failure of the RPDC process, there needs to be an alternative assessment arrangement developed and put in place immediately to enable the project to proceed, subject to it meeting the existing RPDC guidelines.'

That is an issue I will be talking about further; other members have raised it. The guidelines set for the consultants should be the same as those that were going to impact on the RPDC. I quote again:

'It seems to us that legislation, contingent upon the project meeting the RPDC approval guidelines, is the only practical alternative route - either at State or Federal level - and that this avenue needs to be established immediately in order to provide this safety net. Whilst this is less than ideal it needs to be recognised that the RPDC process has failed and cannot now be resurrected with any confidence.

Our message to the community is this: do not let this significant project slip by - it's an opportunity that is too good to miss - reengage with energy and good faith - and offer the proponent who has invested $30 million so far - with the respect it deserves for the effort applied to date.'

Reflecting on that, it really does sum it up well, in my opinion, and gives a good understanding of the position as seen by a very senior engineering company in this State - a very reputable and credible organisation in this State.

As I said, I have some issues with some sections of the Pulp Mill Assessment Bill that I would like to address. I would also like to touch on some of the concerns as expressed to me through the media and by some groups in recent days as well. A number of issues have been raised: jobs for Tasmanians, roads and road safety, a fear that the Federal Government will step in and history will repeat itself, the AMA statement on emissions - and I will direct my attention to that later; Launceston's airshed concern is a part of that - and the importance of choosing the right consultancy company.

In recent days the position concerning the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants has been raised in the Mercury . This was touched on during the second reading speech presented by the Leader. This is a convention that Dr Raverty says will stop the Gunns mill. I cannot subscribe to that view. There is little doubt that this treaty affords protection to the world from persistent organic pollutants but I would like to draw to the attention of members the signatories on that Stockholm Convention. Registration was on 17 May 2004 and two of the signatories to this document are Brazil and Uruguay. Both these countries have pulp mills, as I understand it, on which the Gunns pulp mill is designed. I understand that they are similar. They have signed this document. They are able to meet the guidelines in this document or the Stockholm Convention so I would suggest that perhaps a mill here designed in a similar way would likewise meet those requirements.

There are some parts of the bill that I will be touching on and obviously during the Committee stage I will be looking at them in far more detail but I will just flag them at this stage. I have concern for section 11 of course, limitations of the right to appeal, and there are some amendments that have been completed in relation to this section. People are disturbed by the finality of the limitations statement and that has come out very clearly but I must say now I strongly believe that section 11 is essential to this bill because if it were not there, Mr Deputy President, I could see appeal after appeal after appeal being taken specifically for the purposes of delaying any project that would be likely to occur in the building, in this instance, of the pulp mill. So there has to be a safety net there, in my opinion, but I believe it has gone too far, as I said. Consequently, an amendment has been drawn up and will be discussed at a later stage.
I also draw the Council's attention to the time limit as set out in section 7(2) and I referred to this yesterday. That is another matter that I will be looking further into at another time. Is three sitting days an adequate amount of time for proper reflection and analysis of the assessment? Will the public feel confident with this time period? Will I be able to do what will be expected of me in that time? The public are not confident with it. The public have made comment on that. I have made comment on it and I certainly have difficulties with it.

With allegations of fast-tracking and rubber-stamping by some sections of the media and public, should we not be sending a message of how seriously we take this bill? How can we do that if we are expected to look through - and we were told yesterday - substantial documentation in three days? This could come into the House on Tuesday and the following Tuesday we could be debating the issue. To me that is not acceptable.

I referred to fast-tracking and rubber-stamping. If we look at the cartoon in the Mercury on Tuesday 27 March 2007, which was yesterday -

Mr Harriss - You should be reading the Examiner .

Mr DEAN - Well, I normally do read the Examiner - I read both of them. Very clearly the building is part of the House, Mr Deputy President, and Hansard of course cannot pick this up - it is very clearly part of the Parliament as it has three flags on top of it so it has to be. We have a father and a son, I think, walking along and the son says, 'Is that the pulp mill, Dad?' and the father responds, 'No, son, that's where they make rubber stamps'. I make my point that we need to ensure that we get the confidence of the public and we cannot do that with some of the short periods of time that we have to do some of these things.

Even though I am supporting this bill, Mr Deputy President, I want to make it clear - and I have said this before - that I was a strong supporter of the RPDC process. I support the position espoused by the member for Elwick, and the strong position and the good name that the RPDC have in this State. I know it to be open and transparent with a concern for following due process and established legal procedure, and I might say that I was even more comforted by the appointment of Mr Wright to the board for the assessment of this project. I have known Mr Wright for a long time. I have given evidence before him in another part of my life. In fact, I prosecuted with Mr Wright whilst he was on the opposite side of the table to me when I was a police prosecutor.

Ms Thorp - I thought you were going to say you were in the dock.

Mr PRESIDENT - Who won?

Mr DEAN - I do not really recall but with Mr Wright I suspect I probably did not win too many. I know very well that he is a very honourable and sincere man.

I must say that I did have concerns with the fact that they were unable to give a specific time frame for the completion of their assessment. I think November was mentioned but then I think that it was fairly obvious that that would be unlikely to occur.

A set time frame was needed for stakeholders, not just Gunns. In saying this I am aware the delays were not always the fault of the RPDC. A time frame as set by this bill, the one that we are debating today, puts an end to the uncertainty felt amongst my constituents and all Tasmanians, I would suggest. It was frustrating many of us. There was no financial impact on any of us but it was certainly frustrating us because we could see no end to it.

There is an assumption by the media, some groups and a number of the public out there that Gunns are getting preferential treatment. I do not believe that to be the case. I have heard these statements many times before and just about every time we have a large development come along those accusations are made by a number of people. The fact is that you have to do business. I might say, with another hat on, that I am only too well aware of this. This bill will alleviate uncertainty in my electorate and at least it provides an assessment of the project and I think that is very important.

Many Tasmanians have been waiting to hear whether the mill will go through and provide them with promised and much needed employment and security for their and their children's future. I was recently talking to a strong critic of the mill. The gentleman is quite a well-known person and I should not mention him by name; he has been against many other large developments in this State. It was interesting that he then turned around - and my wife was with me at the time - and said that his children could not get work in this State and that all three of them had to leave the State and go to the mainland. I was not all that surprised by the statement. It is interesting that you have these people, unfortunately, who oppose everything, oppose large developments, and then are concerned that their children cannot obtain employment in this State.

Mr Hall - Is that your wife Jill?

Mr DEAN - It was Jill.

Mr Wilkinson - Does she write under a pseudonym, pen name?

Ms Thorp - His senior adviser.

Mr DEAN - My senior adviser.

We have had a number of recent bad stories about employment in this State and a number of companies are having difficulties. ACL Bearing Co. - we know all about them at Launceston, having to shed 90 positions over a period of time; Auspine at Scottsdale where there have been difficulties, leaving a lot of people with uncertain futures. If this mill goes ahead, very clearly there will be jobs for many Tasmanians. I guess the question here is: will there be a guarantee that the vast majority of jobs will go to Tasmanians? We can only hope that is the case.

We know that in this State there is a dearth of skilled people, but we know that that is already being assessed by TAFE Tasmania and the Australian Technical College and that the Government is sincere in training people in Tasmania for the purposes of taking on many of these skilled jobs. Our first step towards their futures lies with our decision in relation to this bill and I would suggest that will be tomorrow now.

One of the areas of concern to constituents in my area - and it is referred to through the bill and other members have touched on some of these, Mr President, so I would hope you would allow me to do the same - is roads. They are a very important part of this whole process with the mill. We need to ensure that roads are maintained. Local government is saying - and I specifically refer to the George Town, Dorset, Launceston and West Tamar councils, and I would suspect a number of other councils as well - that they rate roads and road safety as a top priority next to the atmospheric environment. They want assurances from Gunns and the State Government that roads will not only be upgraded to meet the expected increase in traffic but also that maintenance will be ongoing. They also say that maintenance should not be at a cost to local government but at a cost to Gunns and/or to the State or Federal governments.

I have already stated my support for and faith in the RPDC, but how many stakeholders are aware of what a positive outcome from the RPDC would have set in motion. I do not think a lot are aware of that. A positive outcome would not have seen the bill necessarily presented to both Houses. It could in fact have been presented to the minister for signing off and then to the Government for it to become a reality. It did not have to come back into the Parliament and there are people out there who are not aware of that. The Pulp Mill Assessment Bill - and this has been referred to before so I do not think it hurts to repeat it - requires that the consultant's findings will have to pass through both Houses and be open to the same debate and scrutiny that any other bill of this significance would warrant.

Mr Parkinson - So it is even more democratic than the other process was.

Mr DEAN - It is far more democratic than the other process, in my view, because the final decision is made here in this Chamber. That is why I am saying that the three days is not long enough because of the huge decision that will confront us if this bill gets up.

Mr Wilkinson - How can you say it is more democratic when it is stopping other public input into it? That is the other side of the coin.

Mr DEAN - I am aware of six occasions now when the public has had an opportunity for input into this process. I think I have a document here and I will go into it in a moment.

Mr Parkinson - There have been 119 days of public consultation.

Mr DEAN - That is right.

Mr Wilkinson - Correct, and the consultant doesn't have to have a look at if he doesn't want to.

Mr DEAN - So when is enough enough? How much consultation can you have?

Mr Wilkinson - The truth is the consultant doesn't have to have a look at it if he doesn't want to. That is the truth.

Mr DEAN - If approved, it provides for the construction of a pulp mill. If not, then history has repeated itself. Wesley Vale fell apart and I do not need to go into that. The bill does not provide Gunns with any appeal rights either, the way I see it, so the position is final, without any appeal right to Gunns. So if the consultant recommends to us that it ought not be supportive then that would be the end of it and the bill makes reference to and comments on that.
I feel strongly that this is an extremely positive requirement of the Pulp Mill Assessment Bill. It is a very good process in my opinion, and it should satisfy a lot of the critics out there when they fully understand it.

Mr Parkinson - It will satisfy any fair-minded person who takes the time to consider what is happening.

Mr DEAN - I believe it will do and, as I have said, it takes the ultimate decision, Mr President, out of one person's hand and hands it back to the democratic process - back to the people, back to us and that is where it should be. It should be back here with us in Parliament.
One of the critical issues in this debate has been the environmental impact of the mill and whether environmental standards are being watered down under the new guidelines or are likely to be. I am not inclined to accept a watering down of any guidelines.
Two issues were raised during a briefing session yesterday. The smokestack I can accept because of advances in technology and with evidence that it will not adversely impact on the environment because of that change. However, the emission levels of nitrogen oxide is a different situation and the member for Rosevears did mention this as well.

Mrs Jamieson - We would have to close. Nitrous oxide - laughing gas.

Mr DEAN - Is it?

Mrs Jamieson - Yes.

Mr DEAN - So we will have a lot of laughing people around, will we?

Mrs Jamieson - Yes.

Mr DEAN - Laughing sick people or just laughing people?

Mrs Jamieson - Whatever - just laughing.

Mr DEAN - We were told yesterday they cannot meet the guidelines set in this area. What is the likely impact on our environment because of this? We really were not given an answer to that yesterday and I would ask the Leader -

Ms Thorp - Through you, Mr President - I understand that these were examples given to us in briefings as to how the guidelines might be altered to effect world's best practice rather than something that is intended to happen.

Mr Parkinson - I think the answer to the question that you are about to ask me is that we have to wait on the assessment process.

Mr DEAN - Yes, we probably do and it will be covered in that and very clearly. That is an area that we will be looking at closely in this House, I would suggest, if it gets to that stage and it comes back to us. So you are right - I do not disagree with that comment.
But the comment I wanted to make there, and I think it came out yesterday also, was that some of these guidelines were set for this mill and its location in the Tamar Valley and therefore we must be very careful to ensure that we can meet the guidelines.

On page 45 of the bill, in Schedule 1, there is an area which refers to site suitability. There is some comment there and I do not want to go into that other than to simply refer to it.
The Minister, Paula Wriedt, has addressed some of these concerns, saying that the claims are based on a misinterpretation of a section of the bill which provides for the assessment to acknowledge changes in technology since the emission guidelines were first developed in 2004. But it is a concern that she was unable to explain and/or understand some components of that bill.

That, to me, was alarming to say the least.

It is clear that any progress in environmental issues since 2004 for pulp mills must be considered by the consultant and form part of the assessment process. I am very pleased to see that there, Mr President, because three years is a long time when we start looking at the environment and there has been a lot of advances made over a three-year period. If the environmental guidelines are met we will have not only a mill that meets world's best practice but also one that will set world's best practice standards probably for a long time into the future.

Emissions have also been a hot topic in the media during the last week and a hot topic in Launceston for a long time. I am concerned about a recent statement from the AMA, particularly that they would not support the proposed Tamar Valley pulp mill due to the serious health implications of emissions and gaps in the integrated impact statement. Given that there is no clear, concise information available at this stage that would identify what the emissions would be or show the health ramifications, I feel that the AMA are looking at the worst-case scenario. One cannot blame them for doing that and I guess I commend them for doing so.
One of the issues raised by the AMA, Mr President, was the rotten egg gas smell and its impact on health.

Mr Parkinson - Was that in the bottle that Raverty brought into Parliament yesterday?

Mr DEAN - I think it might have been, but I did not smell it so if some other member smelt it they could probably answer.

Mr Parkinson - He claimed it was very smelly but he didn't tell us what was in it.

Mr DEAN - He would not, would he?

Mrs Smith - You should have been brave and had a smell.

Mr Wilkinson - I thought he left it in Greg Hall's office.

Mr Parkinson - It's around to be analysed.

Mr DEAN - The mill will be using a system of triple burners to filter their emissions and this may change some of the AMA's concerns. I am not sure whether they fully appreciate and understand exactly what is happening in that regard.

I want to refer, Mr President, to a report by Dr Roger Drew, who is, I think, known by a lot of people. An expert witness statement was completed by Dr Roger Drew who was operating and working for Gunns Limited as a toxicology consultant. He is well qualified, as confirmed by his CV. He says that there is unlikely to be an effect on health from the mill.

I will quote from his report that was completed for the RPDC, Mr President. This is a comment in relation to himself:
'I was first certified in 1996 and, to the best of my knowledge' -
Members laughing .

Mr DEAN - I am quoting from the document, people, so I will repeat, Mr President:
'I was first certified in 1996 and to the best of my knowledge I am one of only three such certified toxicologists in Australia.'

Mr Wilkinson - I think the smells are getting to him.
Members laughing .

Mr DEAN - I could read the rest of that paragraph but I do not believe I should. He is a certified toxicologist with the American Board of Toxicology.
I will quote from his document again, Mr President.
'Human health assessment of emissions to air
4.1 Findings
The overall conclusions from the health risk assessment of predicted emissions to air from the proposed pulp mill are:
" Mill emissions are very unlikely to cause direct health effects, either alone or as a mixture.
" The low levels of dioxin released from the proposed mill are very unlikely to cause health effects.
" It is very unlikely odour events will be experienced by people living near the proposed mill, or that they will be annoyed by odour.
" Mill emissions have negligible incremental impact on existing health issues within Launceston.'

Another quote, Mr President, from the bottom of another rather lengthy paragraph is:
'It is notable that GHD and PAE reached the same conclusions regarding the impact of mill emissions on local and regional air quality.'

There is a further quote from the document which I believe is pertinent to this and very clearly it goes to some of the issues raised by the AMA yesterday:

'To this end the assessment has shown negligible effects from the mill emissions on their own. In addition, for the criteria pollutants (for which there was information from the exiting industries) the assessment showed the mill had negligible additional impact.'

In fact we are told, by a number of experts, that the triple burning process that will be a part of this mill almost guarantees there will be no odours emitted. As I understand from the guidelines, on three days a year the mill is able to emit a rotten egg gas odour or an odour. However, in the words used by one of Gunns' experts, 'We will meet that by a mile'. No other mill in the world has this triple-burner system. They are conscious of the need to ensure that the environment is looked after.

Yesterday we heard about the mill in Tumut, New South Wales, which had problems when it was first established because of a single burning system which failed. As we heard yesterday, that has been rectified and that mill now, as I understand it, does not emit odours. I am not sure whether it is any odours at all, but I am advised that the odours have been somewhat controlled.
History does not have to repeat itself. Yes, we have a history of projects of major significance being derailed in this State which has made many people pessimistic; I do not think there is any doubt that developers wanting to develop in this State have some concerns. They know that it is going to be tough and if they are going to develop, they will have to meet very tough guidelines and Gunns are well and truly aware of that.

However, when a project fails, not on the basis a scientific findings, not on the basis of infrastructure or local planning, but on a breakdown in a process, it is an opportunity lost. After a time, developers start to question Tasmania's position on development and it does nothing to attract big business. We have already heard comment from members in relation to Wesley Vale and Gordon below Franklin. We will never really know if those projects might have been given a green light if allowed to go to the assessment stage, which we know did not occur. Let us not add the Tamar Valley pulp mill to the list of opportunities lost, simply due to a failed process. The mill proposal, in my opinion, is deserving of a proper and fair assessment.

However I would like to stress, Mr President, that the process of identifying a consultant or consultants must be transparent and open and it must be a process that can satisfy the public that the right consultants have been identified for this position. We know that the confidence of some members of the public is currently at a low ebb and therefore we need to do something about restoring that. I do have faith in the board members that have been identified to select the consultants - that is, Linda Hornsey, John Ramsay and Warren Jones. I believe they will make the right decision. I would hope that their brief to make the selection is an open and transparent brief and without government interference or persuasion. The process will only be as good as those consultants as identified for the job.

Other members have raised concerns about the events of the last two to three weeks and I am not going to go into that as I do not think it serves any purpose in the debate on this bill. I will be surprised if in the future some novelist does not write a bestseller from the information coming out in the last few weeks, but I am not sure whether that would be a fiction or a non-fiction novel; it would probably involve a little bit of both. I think it would probably be an interesting read and that will probably occur in time. We need to not allow that to interfere with our judgment in relation to this bill; we need to let that go. That is a matter to be sorted out in another area and at another time. It should not impact on us and the decision that we have to make here. Let us see the process played out to the finish.

I want to refer to local government's position on the pulp mill. We know that the Launceston City Council, the George Town Council, Dorset Council and West Tamar Council have had meetings in relation to this pulp mill. We know that all of those councils strongly support this project but they have set some very strong guidelines that they say should be met if the mill proceeds. I hope that all of those submissions are in fact taken into account by the consultant. There is an article in the Examiner of Wednesday 28 March, today's paper, headed 'Bell Bay pulp mill wins East Coast support'. The council there, Break O'Day Council, caused a survey to be done of their area, and I will not go into detail, but suffice it to say that the greater majority of people supported the building of a pulp mill and the figures are in that release. A majority of 52 per cent supported it and a further 3 per cent indicated conditional support, 41 per cent were not in favour and 5 per cent were unsure.

The east coast is an area where I would not have been surprised if it had been the other way round. However the greater majority of people there support the building of this pulp mill.
I just want to touch on the last State election where there was no doubt the pulp mill was an issue and very clearly the majority of people in their returning of a Labor government and in the position that they demonstrated to the Green movement indicated their support for the pulp mill. That is what I gauged from that election.

I want to touch on water, and I am not going to go into any detail on that matter because the member for Rowallan referred to it. That is a huge issue in the north of the State and a number of people have referred to it and are using it as a reason to stop this pulp mill from proceeding. The Launceston area has not had water restrictions for many years and has not had water restrictions since water meters were put in place, albeit water restrictions are currently being talked about. Just to add to what the member for Rowallan said, it is 1 per cent of the water that is coming into Trevallyn Dam that will be used for the mill. In terms of the quantity and volume of water coming into that area, the mill use is quite minuscule.

Ms Thorp - This is not about mill approval.

Mr DEAN - No, I know it is not, but it has been mentioned. If you look at the definition of 'project', it refers to water and a number of other things. I am just hoping that the President allows me to mention that. That is all I wanted to refer to.

Mr PRESIDENT - I do because it relates to the bill and the processing and environmental matters that affect it.

Mr DEAN - I now want to refer to the environment in Launceston - the atmospheric conditions. We heard a lot about this yesterday. We heard a lot about the inversion layer in Launceston and the exceedences that Launceston has suffered over a period of time. I want to refer to a graph of air exceedences in Launceston from 1997 through to 2006. In 1997, Launceston had 50 exceedences under the Environmental Pollution Act; in 2006, they had six. If one looks at the graph from 1997 to 2006, it just falls away and it is continuing to fall away. A lot of that is due, no doubt, to the wood heater buyback.

Mr Wilkinson - I thought it was the mayor.

Mr DEAN - Thank you for your compliment.
The air in and around Launceston has been cleaned up significantly and the State Government, local governments, industry and businesses are continuing to work on it, so it is believed that those exceedences can be reduced probably down to one or two. I do not think it would ever be possible to make it a lot better than that because air exceedences are dependent on things such as bushfires and the like, and one does not have any control over that. In actual fact, some of these exceedences were due to the bushfires in Victoria when the smoke was blown in over the area of Launceston, so there was little or nothing that could be done about that from our point of view. It is interesting that the only other place in this State that has a monitoring device to monitor air quality is Hobart; Hobart has one monitoring station. I can indicate that Hobart has exceedences over a period, albeit last year they had none. They have had a number of exceedences. In 2000 it was six; in 2001 it was two; there were three in 2003; and none this current year. Exceedences do occur in other places. Devonport are about to get a monitoring station, George Town is about to get another one - these issues were raised yesterday - which is being put in by industry. Gunns have also put in one on the West Tamar, and I understand that the monitoring there has indicated that there have been negligible findings of environmental issues impacting, which is heartening and pleasing.

It is accepted, Mr President, that particulates are a concern and a cause of ill health and I do not challenge the AMA's position on that. I do not have that expertise. It is accepted that it does and it is accepted that any mill that is developed must satisfy those very strict guidelines. We must look after our atmosphere.

Mr President, there is not a lot more that I want to say - it has been covered by other members to a large degree - but there are just a couple of closing comments I want to make. I go on the record in supporting the bill. I think it is important for us to support the bill to see it through to the next stage at least. It needs to be assessed.

If the bill is defeated, and with it the future of a pulp mill for northern Tasmania, I just want to let all those who have opposed it remember that the fine paper that you will continue to use for your brochures and photos, for your mail-outs, your invitations and for your other needs have come from a pulp mill, a pulp mill with a much higher impact on the environment than would come from the Gunns mill here in Tasmania. That paper, Mr President, may well have been produced from woodchips sourced here in Tasmania.

Mrs Smith - Don't you use Reflex paper?

Mr DEAN - What has that got to do with it?

Mrs Smith - Well, you're wrong then.

Ms Forrest - It's Tasmanian paper.

Mrs Smith - I'm pleased to see you buy local. I'd better go back to my seat.

Mr PRESIDENT - Yes, and then we can hear the honourable member's interjections.
Members laughing .

Mr DEAN - Mr President, we debate this bill today in an emotionally charged atmosphere: amongst opinions from many experts and from those who might want us to believe they are experts on pulp mills and many other things; amongst misinformation; amongst claims and counterclaims and in some cases threats; amongst piles of papers and reports. Our task has not been made any easier by the interference and alleged interference in the process that we all know about.

The member for Rowallan indicated that there are a number of people out there who make veiled threats of either voting for you or not voting for you, but it is unfortunate that some of the other threats go further than that. It is really quite disappointing that you have people out there who are quite prepared to exert pressure to have people and members of parliament to take a certain course of action.

Mr Wilkinson - It doesn't cause you to shiver in your boots, though, does it?

Mr DEAN - No, it does not, but I can understand why people at times have concerns and particularly why they raise issues in regard to families. I suspect I am fairly hardened to that sort of thing when one looks at my career and my background. It is a fairly common thing to have threats made against me and against my life but to other people who are not used to that then it must have some impact on them. That is disappointing, Mr President, and that has happened.
We need to remind Tasmanians that today is not about approving the construction of a pulp mill in the Tamar Valley but rather it is about approving or disapproving a process for an assessment of a pulp mill in the Tamar Valley. The approval for the building of a pulp mill in the Tamar Valley may come at a later time, but this is about approving a process for the assessment of that pulp mill.