Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Mr President, it is an interesting issue but we are dealing with a lot of issues in this House and I really do not see this matter as really any different to a lot of other issues that we deal with. There is a lot more information in it quite obviously but it is a matter that I think we are able to work with and are able to make a decision on at the end of the day and we will no doubt do that.

Mr President, telephone calls still continue to come in and at lunchtime I picked up the phone, which was probably a foolish thing to do, and I had a rather elderly gentleman on the phone accusing me of withdrawing this matter from the RPDC. I had great difficulty in getting through to him that I did not withdraw it from the RPDC. That did not do much good and he finished up with once again accusing me then of telling him that he had little intelligence and goodness knows what else, so I saw fit to hang up on him. Those sorts of things are happening, unfortunately.

Mr Parkinson - We've all copped it.

Mr DEAN - I guess you have. The next thing that this gentleman told me was that I did not know what I was talking about - he has obviously heard me on the radio or read in the paper where I made one or two comments about the effluent. He said that I had my facts wrong as there is no salt in the effluent, the effluent is very light and the effluent will come to the surface of Bass Strait and it will all blow up onto the beaches. I, once again, told him that I thought his facts were wrong but once again he challenged my intelligence and ability to understand what was going on. It is just interesting to hear some of the comments that people are making and some of the information that they have, Mr President.

Some would remember a reasonably large protest - the member for Rosevears I think said it was about 11 000, some people said there were 8 000 and somebody else said there were 15 000 - but I am not quite sure how many were there. I made a statement then to the Press that it was unfortunate that there was a lot of misinformation out there in relation to this pulp mill. I think most people would remember that from that time on I received quite a lot of press from a lot of people not very happy with the comment that I had made and that is that they had been misinformed. I still stand by that and very clearly, Mr President, I think we all know very well that there is a huge amount of misinformation out there in relation to the pulp mill.

A lady who rang me from Scottsdale the other day wanted to talk about it. She said, 'I am opposed to the pulp mill' and I said, 'That's all right, it's not a problem'. I said, 'What are your reasons for being opposed to the pulp mill?' and her first comment to me was, 'This pulp mill will be the equivalent of 250 000 more wood heaters burning in Launceston'. I was quite staggered and I said to her in the nicest words that I could find that it was absolute nonsense. I then went into the detail about it and gave her some more information and I said there was documentary evidence out there that she was not right and she then asked that I forward her that documentation which I agreed to do. At the end of that conversation there were some other things she raised about dioxins and the effluent and I gave her my view on it. I told her not take my word for it and gave her a number of people to ring, and said, 'Do these things for yourself and I think you will be convinced that what you believe is not right'. That lady rang me back and said, 'I don't think I can oppose the pulp mill any longer'. That is out there. That is happening. There is a huge amount of misinformation and it is sad. This matter needs to be dealt with by fact, not emotion.

Mr President, this is a second attempt to construct a pulp mill in Tasmania, to downstream process the pulp wood that is now a vital component of the forest industry in this State. This is one of the most important decisions and one that we need to be very careful about. For me it is much worse because it is right in the middle of my electorate and it also has an impact in some respects on Launceston as well. So I think I have probably felt a little more pressure and a little more heat than a lot of others.

I could not keep count of the telephone calls. I have not been able to go outside my home or my office in the last 12 months without having to talk about the pulp mill and having people challenge me with some good comments but also some bad comments. I have received many threats. That is concerning. Having been a police officer for 35 years, I have been able to push them aside and not take too much notice of them, but it is concerning when you get people out there radical enough to ring you, or to write to you that certain things are likely to occur if you do not vote a certain way. I do believe that those people need to take a good look at themselves and consider other people as well as themselves. But it has happened and I am hoping that when this matter is concluded - and whether it will be or not I do not know - those sorts of things will not occur.

I do not know what people are meaning by this, but I am now getting letters sent to me addressed to the Honourable Ivan Green. I do not know if there is a message in it, but this is one of four letters I received this morning addressed to Ivan Green. I suppose I am supposed to open them.

Mr Finch - It could have been Ivan Obscene.

Mr DEAN - I suppose it could have been. I just want to mention one or two things that the member for Rosevears referred to, Mr President. He made a comment along the lines that we are not scientists or pulp mill experts. In the last 12 months or so I have heard from thousands of experts. There are thousands of experts out there who have made a position in relation to the pulp mill. But I think we are in a much better position, and the member for Rowallan mentioned this, than most of those people to make a decision on this matter because we have received a lot of information, we have received a lot of briefings, some of us have been away and looked at other mills and we have gained a tremendous amount of knowledge on pulp mills in the past two years or so. Having said that, in this Chamber we make judgments on many occasions on issues where we are not experts or scientists or indeed have the requisite degree or knowledge base to make a judgment. We are doing that all the time. An example of that is the Legal Profession Bill. I guess there were not too many other than yourself, Mr President, and Mr Wilkinson and Mr Parkinson perhaps to speak at length and in detail on the Legal Profession Bill.

Mr Parkinson - 700 pages.

Mr DEAN - That is right. We had to make a decision on that.

Mr Parkinson - Seventy more than the pages we are up to in this proposal.

Mr DEAN - A huge bill. And we mentioned that when it came into this Chamber. But we had to make a decision on it. We did not have the background to go through that document, but we got the information, we had briefings in relation to it. So it is not unusual for us to make decisions on issues where we did not have the necessary background knowledge or expertise. We get the advice we need, we participate in briefings, we read a lot, we put ourselves in a position to make a reasoned judgment on the matter being considered and we make that decision in good faith. That is what we do and that is how I handle these issues.

The member for Rosevears also mentioned the word 'bullied'. I think he mentioned that -

Mr Finch - In relation to -

Mr DEAN - You being bullied by, I think you meant the Government? You mentioned the word bullied.

Mr Finch - No, not at all.

Mr DEAN - If he did not mention that word, I heard it mentioned somewhere. Many of us have been bullied by many people other than the Government. I do not feel that I have been bullied by the Government or anybody else. The member for Rosevears mentioned a point in relation to the monitoring of the mill and he could not be satisfied that the mill would be appropriately monitored. I felt that was an unfair comment to make and an attack really on the credibility of the regulator, Mr Warren Jones, in the circumstances.

Mr Warren Jones is a very credible person, a very strong person, a transparent person, and I think we all witnessed that during the briefings we had from Mr Jones. I am left in no doubt that he has the ability and the strength to carry out his statutory functions in monitoring and regulating this mill if it is built.

I have no concerns about that. He indicated to us that he would take the appropriate action if there is a need to do it. He also indicated that under the act under which he operates he has the authority to shut down a pulp mill. This mill will be closely watched if it is built. There will be thousands of people out there monitoring this mill. There will be information coming in left, right and centre in relation to this mill. So I do not think that Mr Jones would have any opportunity to avoid it if it is believed that some permit condition is being breached or something is happening that is not right within the mill.

I think Mr Jones will be forced to take an action very quickly. There will be many people monitoring the process, not just Mr Jones and his team but many people outside of that. The member for Rosevears made a statement in relation to timber and what he believed Gunns were likely to do. He said that Gunns were likely - or maybe he was even stronger than that - to be sending the good chip wood from the plantations out of the State as chip wood and they would be using native timber in their pulp mill here.

Mr Parkinson - Economic nonsense.

Mr DEAN - When I interjected from the side, and I think the member for Huon might have done as well, and asked the member for Rosevears for a source he avoided it. He made no comment whatsoever. In that situation, to make a statement like that and to avoid an interjection from the side, which I thought was quite proper in the circumstances, I would have thought it would have been reasonable to have given an answer but no, the member did not do that. I immediately become suspicious when that sort of thing happens, absolutely, and I think anybody would around this Chamber.

Mr Finch - Where do you think I got the information?

Mr DEAN - Do you want me to have a guess?

Mr Finch - Yes, go on.

Mr Harriss - Get him to disclose the source. Don't get sucked into that sort of stuff.

Mr Finch - Sorry, the Leader.

Mr Harriss - He hasn't got a source.

Mr PRESIDENT - Order. There cannot be debate across the Chamber. The honourable member has the call.

Mr DEAN - Mr President, why did the Rosevears member not go to Gunns and ask them? Why did he not confirm it? Why did he not say to Gunns, 'What are you going to do with the timber? What are you pulping and what is going to be sent out of the State? What are you exporting?'

Mr Harriss - You will still need to find out the source and he hasn't got a clue.

Mr DEAN - Why did he not do that - a quick phone call? I have no doubt he met with a number of Gunns people because he has been present probably since he got that information. Mr President, that is a load of absolute rubbish. Gunns have no intention of doing that and that came from Gunns themselves. I got the information, as I think other members in this Chamber would have done as well.

Mr Harriss - The economics don't even stack up. You don't have to be Einstein to work that out.

Mr DEAN - You do not have to be an Einstein to work it out but why would you say it?

Mr Finch - Well, to give you something to say because you are obviously not referring to your own speech.

Mr DEAN - It certainly gave me something to start with, that is for sure. It does concern me when those sorts of statements are made. There is a very easy and quick way of checking it to see whether or not in fact it is right. I think a lot of people do not make those inquiries or those checks because they do not really want to know the truth.

Tourism has been mentioned by a number of other members here. The Nueva Aldea mill in Chile in its first year of operation had 20 000 visitors and in fact they were so overwhelmed by visitors there that they have put on bus transport in and around that mill to accommodate the tourists visiting the mill. I raised the issue, by way of interjection, when the member was speaking and I think I was frowned on somewhat; it was indicated to me that they would never be an attraction. That is an indication that they are an attraction -

Mrs Smith - As an ex-policeman would you have an issue with the security of people coming into a pulp mill, considering the worldwide situation at the moment? Would you see that as a significant issue for some of these terrorist types?

Mr DEAN - I take your point and it is a good point. They would certainly need to be careful and they would need to police it and control it.

Mrs Smith - So economically you wouldn't bother -

Mr DEAN - I do not know, I think you would. In fact I have heard Gunns say in relation to the proposed mill at Long Reach that if it is built they will have some opportunities there for tourists. I do not think I am wrong in saying that.

Ms Forrest - Was it tourists or was it more like school groups and things like that - educational?

Mr DEAN - It is people wanting to go through a pulp mill - tourists, visitors, interested people, whatever you want to classify them as - but there would be people coming here to look and go through a pulp mill. Look at Comalco. Comalco has a fairly good tourist position there with visitors coming and going through the operations at Comalco. They are called Rio Tinto now, are they not?

Ms Forrest - They have an open day.

Mr DEAN - No, they have more than open days. You can book in for a tourist jaunt through Comalco at certain other times as well and they do that on a fairly regular basis.

Mr Aird - It's not quite Cadburys but it's fun.

Ms Forrest - They're going to let you have a sunbake by the settlement ponds, do you reckon, by those water treatment plants?

Mr Aird - You can't get a block of chocolate.

[4.15 p.m.]
Mr DEAN - The other point that the member for Rosevears raised, and I am very pleased that the member for Huon interjected fairly strongly, was in relation to our travel overseas when he made the comment that it was not a good look. I was very disappointed that that statement should be made. I was disappointed because the inference was very clearly that it was an attack, once again, on our character and my character and my credibility. That to me is hurtful. I was a police officer for some 35 years and I never had my credibility attacked by any magistrate or judge in my whole career as a police officer, and I appeared before them on many occasions. It does worry and disappoint me that people should think like that; it is very disappointing.

There was some discussion about the permits having been shown to Gunns. I do not see anything wrong with that at all, Mr President. There is an organisation, in my view, that is subject to the very stringent conditions that are going to be in place for the control of this mill. I saw nothing wrong with those people being shown the permits and being able to comment on them before the Parliament. Within councils and development applications it is not uncommon to go through conditions with developers and applicants before matters come into councils. It is not uncommon and I do not see any difficulty with that.

Mr Parkinson - It is so long since we have established a big industry in Tasmania that people have forgotten the process.

Mr DEAN - Yes, you are right. They are just a couple of comments I wanted to make from speeches that members have made.

Tasmania is a very important part of hardwood forestry in Australia and always has been. One thing that Tasmania does well is grow and process hardwood sawlogs, veneer logs and hardwood fibre. Forest industries are Australia's second-largest manufacturing industry with an annual turnover of more than $18.1 billion. The industry contributes around 1 per cent to Australia's gross domestic product and 7 per cent of manufacturing output. Those figures are taken from ABARE, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics, and are available to anybody.

Mr President, you would well recall the other attempt to construct a pulp mill in the late 1980s. I am advised, in fact, that you might be the only member here today who was present then. Is that right?

Mr PRESIDENT - That may be correct.

Mr DEAN - There certainly would not be too many. You would have a reasonable knowledge in relation to that mill then.

Mr PRESIDENT - I did not realise it was going to be quite as bad as it was when you look at the graphs these days. They have improved in coming down.

Mr DEAN - The Wesley Vale pulp mill proposal was approved by the Tasmanian Parliament which also had to approve the environmental guidelines at that time by a similar process to this - that is, a motion of both Houses of Parliament, so not dissimilar at all.

To set the background for this important decision we are to make, it is important to recount the role this House has played in the forestry debates and forest industry advances over the last 20 years or so. To put this debate into perspective, let us compare this proposal with Wesley Vale. Wesley Vale was to be built by North Broken Hill, who had purchased APPM and AFH - Australian Pulp and Paper Mills and Associated Forest Holdings - which was a wholly owned subsidiary. It was approximately half the size of this project. To finance the project North Broken Hill had a 50 per cent equity partner and that partner was Noranda, a Canadian-based timber product manufacturing company with experience in pulp production. Environmental guidelines were not in place like now so the Department of Environment prepared guidelines which had to be approved and were approved by the Tasmanian Parliament.

The public debate was the same in most respects then as it is now. Concern by organised groups as to the site, resource supply, log truck traffic, impact on fisheries in Bass Strait in particular and, importantly, outfall and environmental concerns. So the same issues were there then as are here now; not much different at all.

But some aspects are different, Madam Deputy President. This time the guidelines, particularly environmental guidelines, have been carefully and thoroughly prepared in advance, guided by one of Tasmania's best-ever public officers in Julian Green and completed in 2004. Julian Green and his team have set guidelines based on the best technology available to the pulp industry around the world. They have selected the highest standards currently possible to achieve in existence in industry, a huge improvement on Wesley Vale. Wesley Vale was proposed by a multinational company with a foreign company as a partner. This time there is a local company, now one of Australia's biggest forestry companies, with a Tasmanian managing director and largely Tasmanian board, proposing to build the pulp mill.

Gunns have substantial investment in sawmilling and forest management of both native forests and plantations, in pulpwood harvesting and its associated woodchip production and as it so happens, also in horticulture in this area surrounding this mill site. I might add also that they own the largest winery in Tasmania which was established in about 1994 within proximity of the proposed pulp mill site.

As a matter of fact, the company's general manager John Gay as a very young man was employed by Kilndried Hardwoods to run their sawmill at Oatlands, so he goes back to those very early days at Oatlands and later at Bridgewater. John Gay never asked the mill workers to do anything that he would not do himself; he was always one who would get his hands dirty as well. It was very important that he did that and he demonstrated that during his working life.

The siting of this mill is at Long Reach, right next to two existing woodchip mills in an area set aside for industrial use. It is next to a port of heavy industry including Comalco and Temco fairly close by, and as the crow flies, I would suggest probably about 1.5 kilometres away or thereabouts. Again, it is an improvement on Wesley Vale regarding siting. I might just add that Wesley Vale failed when Noranda walked away after spending more than $20 million and foreign investment review board approval was delayed by the Federal Government who were requiring more studies.

Ms Forrest - One of the people involved in that told me that it was an economic decision at the end of the day, it was not political. Someone inside told me. We could all have a bit of a debate about that too, but we won't.

Mr DEAN - That is your statement, not mine.

We have an awesome responsibility to make the right decision in the interests of Tasmania and Tasmanians, the interests of Australia and its balance of trade, the interests of the people of northern Tasmania, particularly the people of Launceston and the Tamar Valley, the interests of those involved in Tasmania's industries, particularly the tourism industry, the construction industry, the viticulture industry, the fishing industry, the forest industry and their employees, both direct and indirect. In fulfilling these responsibilities, the total scope of this proposal must be considered.

I want to deal shortly with many aspects of this proposal that I have considered and studied in depth. Let us first take a quick look at its impact on Australia's trade. Regarding the balance in forest products, ABARE figures for 2005-06 show total imports at $4.197 billion and total exports at $2.108 billion. For a country this size with our resources, it is quite disgraceful in my view to have a 2:1 ratio of imports to exports.

We can analyse that a little further. For pulp and paper products the total imports were $2.807 billion and total exports were $838.9 million - a huge difference there as well. For chemical wood pulp which Gunns' mill will produce, we imported approximately 320 000 tonnes worth $205 million in value. That is a product that Gunns will produce in this mill if it gets through the processes in this House and the House of Assembly.

Gunns will produce 800 000 tonnes of this product initially and 1 million tonnes, thereabouts, worth $649 million at full production. That is a significant reversal in balance of trade in this industry sector and that is an important issue that we should not forget.

The proposed pulp mill at Penola in South Australia will not produce high-quality chemical wood pulp if it is ever built, and I doubt that it will be - the more valuable product, top-grade white pulp. It will not produce a top-quality product; it cannot do that. The Penola mill will only produce medium-grade pulp for lower-grade products, commanding a lower price. Its establishment, however, would also improve Australia's unfavourable balance of trade, so it would certainly help in that regard.

The Gunns mill will employ 292 employees - I think these figures are still reasonably accurate - in full operation and another 1 300 or thereabouts indirectly. The Penola mill would employ 120 employees in full operation.

Press reports have purported to imply, Madam Deputy President, that this mill could be built using less water and use mechanical pulping, as will be the case in South Australia. This mill will product different products and cannot be compared as such. I have an analogy, and I know it is probably not all that good, but I am going to mention it. It is like comparing bakers, one who bakes bread and the other who bakes cakes. The process and ingredients are different and so is the value of the product. So when we had a Mercury journalist make a comparison of these two mills, the way in which it was done in my view was quite ridiculous.

Mr Parkinson - I think it was the only paper in the country that made that comparison.

Mr DEAN - It is an indication, in my opinion, of that person's - or the editor's or whoever is responsible for it - knowledge in relation to pulp mills and the pulp mill that is likely or could be built at Long Reach.

What happens with that sort of thing is that people read it. I was away at the time, but as soon as I got back I was inundated with letters and e-mails from members of the public wanting to know why I would not support a similar mill here in Tasmania like the one they want to build in South Australia. The Mercury said it could be done, it could be built; it is possible. That is what happens, and of course some of those I answered and some I probably did not.

Mr Parkinson - That technology is very old, actually. It is a bit like the technology they use at Norske Skog at Boyer, the grinding mechanism.

Mr DEAN - Yes, it is just not acceptable and as I said, it just produces a very low grade of pulp. It is a different type of product it produces and is not, I am told, a highly sought after product either, so I do not know where the sales are for it, but there are some sales.

Mr Parkinson - The so-called closed loop for the effluent is all the effluent hanging around somehow in settling tanks.

Mr DEAN - That is right; it stays on shore. It hangs around; it is there, leaching away.

I come back to Australia's trade performances for a short period. Australia's forest production is dominated by high value products. Paper pulp and paper products are 45 per cent of this value. Wood panels and laminates total 32 per cent; sawn and dressed timber, 19 per cent; and woodchips, 4 per cent. Yet, notwithstanding the 45 per cent value of production being pulp paper and paper products, as a country we still import $2.102 billion worth in this product range. That is more than our total forest product exports, and you might ask why. The answer to that question is that Australian people are huge consumers per capita of these products. We consume enormous amount of those products. We import $266.9 million of newsprint, primarily for daily newspapers, over and above our locally produced newsprint. Just imagine how many trees are consumed daily for newspapers, only to be discarded the next day as waste, put in the recycling bins, I would hope. We import $151.6 million of household sanitary products. We produce a lot, but not enough now. That is a lot of toilet paper and most of that is flushed away. We import $1.4319 billion worth of printing and writing paper, so that is a huge issue for us. People want the best quality paper. They want white paper and they want high product. They are not content to use a secondary product. That is trade from the quality pulp that this mill will produce. This mill will produce all of that.

Australian consumers use a huge amount of quality paper for stationery and photocopying. That is a huge quantity of trees for every household's annual consumption of paper products. The consumer demands pure white high-grade paper. That is what they are asking for and not the product a Penola mill would produce.

I ask the question, do we need this pulp mill, when we consider our country's needs, when we look at our average household consumption, when we need to value-add it to our pulpwood harvest? That question is more easily answered with a better understanding of Tasmania's forest history so I need to go into a little bit of history of forestry in Tasmania.

We cannot consider this issue without some reflection on Tasmania's position and role in the production of forest products. Specifically, Tasmania has always been a major contributor of hardwood pulp. To illustrate this, let me quote from an article from the Examiner of 21 October 1947, which the President would have remembered, Madam Deputy President, because he would have been at primary school at the time and maybe you were not there.

Mrs Smith - No, I certainly wasn't.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - Let me quote this. It is interesting as a little bit of history of where we have come as a State in relation to timber and pulp:

'The first mechanical sawmill in Tasmania is reputed to have been erected by Mr. Peter Degraves, at the Cascades, near Hobart, in the early thirties of the last century, and was run by water power. Other mills followed, notably those of Messrs. Watson, Crowther, Graves, Hay, Chapman, Andrewartha, Judd, Drysdale, Gray and Geeves, but for a period sawmilling activities were confined to the south-eastern portion of the island, and production centred primarily upon the cutting of large structural timbers.'

Another couple of quotes from the same document:

'Whereas previously the emphasis had been upon structural timbers, particularly in the Blue Gum and Stringybark forests of the south, now a market was developing for the increasing quantities of finish lines suited to the milder class of timbers now being utilised. Species such as Stringybark ..., Swamp Gum ...

During the war, too, the forests and timber industry of Tasmania played a vital part. The technique and skill built up since the earliest days have stood Australia in good stead in her hour of need.

Timber was needed urgently and in increasing quantities to support a major military campaign.

Newsprint and printing papers of every description were in short supply and with the already established paper mills at Boyer in the Derwent Valley, and Burnie on the North-West Coast, drawing for their base supplies upon the State's extensive forest areas, Tasmania was able to assist the newspaper and printing industry with supplies of paper shipped to every part of the Commonwealth.'

Let us just give it a bit of background; it goes back a long way. With hardwood pulp Tasmania has always played a leading role, and let me refer to Technology in Australia 1788-1988, Australian Academy of Technological Science and Engineering, another quote:

'The first reported pulping of eucalypts was in Portugal in 1906, when some experimental sulphite pulp was made from young Tasmanian blue gum plantations'.

Tasmanian trees were used back in 1906 when they were shipped to Portugal. Currently you have Tasmanian eucalypt being grown in Chile for pulp production in Chile and you have New South Wales and Victorian eucalypt being grown in Brazil for pulp in that country. Our eucalyptus is seen as some of the best timber in the world for the production of pulp. I quote further:

'In Australia early moves towards eucalyptus pulping were taken by State governments anxious to exploit their natural resources. Tasmania engaged an expert from USA in 1914 to report on the pulping suitability of local woods and in 1917 Victoria sent samples to Norway for evaluation ...

Commercial interest was stimulated by the work of Boas and Benjamin and in 1925 Amalgamated Zinc (De Bavay's)Ltd. and an associated industrialist, Gerald Mussen, arranged for wood from north-west Tasmania to be tested in Holland for the manufacture of newsprint containing a high percentage of eucalypt sulphite pulp.'

I will quote from this:

'In 1932 the Melbourne Herald joined in discussions on a possible newsprint project with Tasmania paper, APM and Papermakers Pty Ltd., a company set up by Mussen in 1926 to develop a newsprint and printing venture at Burnie, Tas. As no joint newsprint project was forthcoming the Herald, which had by then acquired its own timber concession, decided to proceed alone and sent wood to British Colombia, where commercial trials were run successfully in 1934. The Sydney Morning Herald group - originally Mussen's strongest backer - then joined with the Melbourne Herald to establish in 1938 Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd, ANM ...

APPM's Burnie paper mill started in 1938, using imported pulp. By early 1939 its pulp mill was also in operation and the bleached eucalypt soda pulp it produced was then used as the major component of its printing and writing papers, along with 10-20 per cent imported bleached softwood pulp to improve strength and runnability.'

That is a bit of the background. So Tasmanian has played a leading role in hardwood pulping history. A lot of people may not be aware of it but we have had a huge part in pulp wood over many years. Later I want to compare the effects on New Norfolk of having a pulp mill in the town, on a river with a foggy weather pattern. The Treasurer would be well aware of the conditions that apply at New Norfolk. I certainly do, having lived there for a couple of years as well. The siting of this mill at Bell Bay has been one of the key issues in the debate. Its proximity to Launceston has raised many issues that I need to address.

Let me quote from the George Town Council's special council meeting agenda document, 26 July 2007, overview and comments on the pulp mill:

'The proposed pulp mill is located in the "Bell Bay Major Industrial" zone and is classified as "Heavy Industry". Heavy industry is defined as:

means any industry other than a Light, General, Noxious, Hazardous, Extractive, Rural or Service Industry being of a large scale, which by reason of process, equipment or nature of product, may affect prejudicially the amenity of the locality by the emission of ash, dust, grit, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, steam, vapour, noise, vibration, waste or any such thing, and includes all such industries that are determined to be Schedule Premises under the Environmental Protection Act 1973 as amended and which are not defined above.'

They go on to say:

'The site of the proposed pulp mill is ideal as the zoning is specifically intended for industrial developments of this nature with the area having all required infrastructure easily accessible. The purpose of the Bell Bay Major Industrial zone is as follows:' -

and it goes on to a number of points and I do not think I need to go through those.

There have been many critics of the site. Hampshire in the north-west has been suggested by many and notable of these of course has been Dr Warwick Raverty, formerly an expert panel member of the RPDC. I want to quote from a paper where comment is made on this:

'Site selection framework

Most submissions expressed a view that Bell Bay is not an appropriate location for a pulp mill. Some submissions expressed a preference for Hampshire as a location for the pulp mill.

The Bell Bay site was chosen through a site selection process that considered environmental, social, economic and strategic planning factors.

The two sites considered were the Bell Bay and Hampshire locations, both of which are adjacent to existing woodchip facilities owned by Gunns. The co-location of the mill with existing woodchip facilities was considered important to reduce cost, and minimise double-handling and transport impacts.

The outcome of the site selection assessment was that the Bell Bay location was preferred on economic, planning and social considerations, and was equally preferred with the Hampshire site on environmental considerations. In particular, the availability of wharf facilities at Bell Bay, and the increase in log truck traffic which would be necessary to utilise the Hampshire site, weighed in favour of the Bell Bay location.

The pulp mill site is within the George Town Planning Scheme 1991 and is zoned IN3 (Bell Bay Major Industrial). The pulp mill site is in an area with other heavy industries, including the Port of Launceston, the Bell Bay Power Station, the TEMCO metallurgical plant, ECKA GRANULES aluminium powder plant, Rio Tinto aluminium smelter and the SVP vinyl products plant' -

and I think that is now closed.

There is also a sewerage plant there and there is other industry so it is truly an industrial site. Bell Bay is a major industrial zone. It is classified as heavy industry. It is a port and its location is more central to the resource supply than Hampshire. Gunns have told us their resource will be from plantation timber and in the main from the north-east area.

The Launceston City Council provided a submission to the RPDC following the release of the draft integrated impact statement on 25 February 2006. The Launceston council advised the RPDC that a number of major issues with the mill posed significant impact on Launceston. Five major issues were raised in that submission and they were transport infrastructure, traffic access and noise, air quality, health and other environmental issues, water supply and water loss and compliance.

There were seven other issues that council commented on and I will mention some of those shortly. Let me first comment on concern on the major issues raised in the council submissions - transport, infrastructure, traffic access and noise. The Launceston City Council noted that the GHD traffic report stated that if rail transport of logs to the mill was not agreed to between Gunns and the rail network operator then truck movements would increase as follows, and this is what came from the Launceston City Council's submission: the West Tamar Highway, 85 to 226 trucks per day; East Tamar Highway, 304 to 527 trucks per day. We know those figures are not accurate and the briefing we got from DIER during the week identified a more accurate assessment of the trucks that will be on the road should a pulp mill be built.

In the ITS Global report it is stated that a number of vehicles on regional roads is likely to increase by around 6 per cent with no use of rail, Madam Deputy President. Gunns has proposed improvement to a road junction critical to the delivery of material to the project and the Government has indicated consideration is being given to the improvement of transport and infrastructure to meet the project, including the upgrading of the rail system. It is urged in fact that they do that and other members have referred to that as well. In actual fact, if rail can be used in such a way as has been indicated that there will be a move toward, that is from the south to the north and from the north-west to the north, then we could well see no additional trucks on the road and it is possible there could be a decrease on some of those roads if rail is used.

The GHD report and ITS Global appear to be in some conflict on the likely increase in traffic. The impact on the Tasman Highway and roads in the north and north-east must be assessed and the State Government needs to indemnify councils against additional road costs to councils. This concern was expressed by the West Tamar Council when it wrote to the Minister for Infrastructure as follows:

'At its meeting on 17th July my council considered the transport impact of the proposed northern Tasmania Pulp Mill following the release of the ITS Global report on the Review of the Social and Economic Benefits of the Gunns Limited Pulp Mill Project. The evidence detailed in the ITS Global report to assess the transport impact of the proposed pulp mill understates the real impact on traffic on the state roads as it only includes the laden log trucks travelling to the pulp mill, and not the returning unladen trucks, the chemical trucks or the boiler fuel trucks. The traffic impact is therefore predicted to be generally at least twice that used by ITS Global in its evaluation ... That report's management response on transport impacts indicated that the most critical need is for the State Government to ensure the efficient and timely provision of transport infrastructure.'

Other members, Madam Deputy President, have mentioned road traffic and road infrastructure and very clearly there has to be a lot done in that area. Then we had a similar comment being made by the George Town Chamber of Commerce. I need to make a quick quote from that because it is fairly important. This is from the George Town Chamber of Commerce:

'The road system in the surrounding area to the Mill site is in significant need of very serious maintenance. The current volume of heavy trucks are slowly destroying the road surface.'

Mr PARKINSON - Madam Deputy President, I draw your attention to the number of members in the Chamber.

Madam DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Yes, we do just have a quorum if a certain member is in her seat on the Floor of the House, otherwise I will have to ring the bells.

Ms Ritchie - Glad to be of service.

Madam DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Thank you. Member for Windermere , you may continue.

Mr DEAN - Thank you, Madam Deputy President, I was beginning to wonder what I had done wrong again.

I will continue on. The $60 million promised by the Federal Government is unlikely to make the road safe enough for the future. State Government funding of a similar level to the Federal Government will be required to have any chance of bringing the standard of roads up to par. Failure to do this will regretfully result in an increase in accidents and mortality rates. Hopefully Gunns will use rail for any and all increases in the volume of base stock for the woodchipping process. It would be impractical to expect that all timber would travel by rail, but it is our wish that as much as possible does.

Gunns have proposed to use rail transport to reduce road transport traffic but as a Launceston City Council submission points out, this option is highly dependent on successful negotiations between government agencies and the rail operators. The council is concerned that successful negotiations will not eventuate and therefore reliance on the road system will increase. I am just hoping that does not occur and I think there is probably a move towards rail.

A significant increase in trucks into and through Launceston and roads managed by the Launceston City Council is a concern because of the impact it will have on infrastructure, traffic movements and noise within the city and municipal area. The City Council contends that major road routes throughout the cities are the responsibility of State governments in other parts of Australia. The State Government needs to recognise that traffic, particularly haulage traffic, is regional and statewide in nature and should accept responsibility for management of these arterial roads. In particular I refer to Bathurst and Wellington streets and I have often raised those streets in this Chamber. The interconnections and interregional links between State roads need to be managed by the State Government. State governments receive payments equivalent to the previous fuel franchise levies, fuel tax imposed in the past by States, motor vehicle tax and stamp duty on vehicle sales. These are motorist-paid taxes and they should be spent on road infrastructure.

Bathurst and Wellington streets in fact are the only major arterial local government roads to be impacted on should the mill proceed. The State Government's road management responsibility issue was a key outcome for the 1999-2003 State and local government agreement. If I am to give support to this question before the Chair it will be conditional upon - and I think we have some of these conditions but I want to read them out again - the Government undertaking to provide a commitment to infrastructure funding to those local councils most affected by the transport of material to the mill, including Launceston, West Tamar, George Town and Dorset councils, for example.

The minister must establish a road infrastructure task force and include representatives from councils in the region. Both Tasmanian and Australian government funding must be accessed to fund infrastructure improvements. I know some of that is happening and I know there are improvements occurring to some of those roads.

Mr Parkinson - I wouldn't relate that request to your vote, by the way - just a word of advice.

Mr DEAN - Yes, right.

One of the five major issues of concern in the Launceston City Council submission is related to how the drawing of fresh water by the pulp mill from the Trevallyn Dam will affect environmental flows. I have applied myself to a range of issues with regard to this water-usage question. I might say that one of the areas where I have had a huge amount of contact was in relation to water and what people perceived could occur if the mill is up and running and water is taken from Lake Trevallyn. Gunns' response to the submission document states the following about water extraction from Lake Trevallyn, and I quote:

'The Bell Bay pulp mill will require a design volume of 26 GL per year of raw water, and this will be extracted from Lake Trevallyn and conveyed to the pulp mill via a water supply pipeline.

This 26 GL represents approximately 1% of the average yearly flow into the Tamar estuary.

In a dry month, such as at the end of a summer season, the pulp mill requirement would represent an estimated 3 to 4% of the flow into the Tamar estuary.'

That is not a lot, even in a very dry period.

'Environmental flows in Cataract Gorge will be maintained at all times, and will not be compromised by the pulp mill's water extraction from Lake Trevallyn. Similarly, drinking water supply requirements for Esk Water will take precedence over supply to the pulp mill.'

The Launceston City Council submission noted that environmental flows to Cataract Gorge will not be affected so that there is no adverse affect on the environment and/or water quality. Council also had an interest in and around the Hunters Cut as well.

On 7 August I wrote to the chairman of the Hydro Tasmania Board, Dr David Crean. He was a great man, though it is not to say that the current Treasurer is not doing a great job -

Mr Harriss - He's intimidated by Dr Crean.

Mr DEAN - I was going to quote from that letter, but the member for Rowallan in fact quoted a big part of it. I think he must have got the same response and must have written a letter to mine. It just confirms what he said a while ago about the use of the water and the percentage of water. It also identifies very clearly that Gunns will be paying more for the water they take from that dam than the farmers will be paying, so they are not getting it at a reduced price. I tried to make a point when the member for Rosevears was speaking. Gunns are taking raw water and there is a difference between raw water and drinking water in those circumstances. Raw water is untreated water. It is water as it flows into the lake from the rivers without any treatment at all. Gunns are taking it at that stage.

Ms Thorp - Non-potable.

Mr DEAN - Yes, so people need to understand that as well.

There is one other thing that I wanted to mention here, probably for the information of our President, and maybe he is listening in. Hydro have indicated that there will no impact on the gorge flow at all in any circumstances as a result of the water that Gunns will be taking from Lake Trevallyn. They make clear - there will be no impact on the gorge water flow.

Discussions with Esk Water Authority have determined that the authority had no issues with the pulp mill, provided pipelines have sufficient separation and that supply points for raw water are secure. In fact Esk Water confirmed that domestic consumption of water has decreased significantly, albeit the number of households has increased. They are interesting statistics because I think that most people would believe, or want to believe, that water consumption has increased domestically. That is not right. It is the Launceston area I am speaking of; I am not speaking of the south of the State or any other parts of the State. However, in that part of the State, whilst the numbers of people and houses have increased, water consumption has decreased. It is at an all-time low. Esk Water have said it would take 20-odd years probably to get back up to where it was about 15 years ago. There are a couple of reasons for it among issues that they referred to. One is responsible water pricing, which they say is one of the reasons it has occurred. The other one is metering of households in the Launceston area. There was a very noticeable decrease in water usage once meters came on line. People realised that they would have to pay for the water they use. It simply makes people more responsible and think more about water usage. What I am saying, Treasurer, is to urge Hobart to put meters in before the State Government does what it needs to do.

Mr Aird - No, you need to talk to John Freeman. See if you can persuade him.

Mr DEAN - I just added 'before the State Government does what it needs to do'.

Mr Aird - We don't know what that is yet.

Mr DEAN - The TFGA have looked very closely at this proposal on behalf of its members. The TFGA are fortunate to have on staff Ian White, who is a very capable person, very well informed on pulp mill construction and familiar with many of the issues involved. According to all reports, the TFGA are supportive of this project, conditional upon undertakings that all water rights in the Esk catchment are protected. As these are mostly before storage in Trevallyn Dam, before it gets to Trevallyn Dam, the Government should undertake that water rights to rural producers be indemnified. Now, that has happened, as I understand it. The member for Rowallan mentioned this last evening. I think the TFGA are now in receipt of a letter, signed by the Premier, which protects the rights of the farmers in these areas. So I understand that is taken care of and that is a good result. It is a particularly good result when we hark back to the briefing we were given by Dr David Leaman. He said very clearly to us that it was not likely to happen. He made it clear to us that farmers would lose their water rights if Gunns were able to take water from Lake Trevallyn in support of their water usage. He made that very clear to us, but that is not what the State Government are saying. They have a signed agreement and a signed position with the TFGA.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - I think the comment was made at the time that there would be civil war in Tasmania.

Mr DEAN - That is right. People make these statements without really understanding what is happening out there. They do it for reasons best known to themselves, perhaps because they could be in a position of not wanting to support the pulp mill.

[5.00 p.m.]
The State Government must continue to monitor and control environmental flows through the Cataract Gorge and ensure that Hydro Tasmania does not reduce its minimum environmental flow, and I have already mentioned that. Provided these guarantees are forthcoming, and bearing in mind that Gunns will install at its cost the entire pipeline and infrastructure to extract and deliver the water from Trevallyn to the mill, the water supply arrangements are acceptable. Some of you people might have read the same letter that I did in either yesterday's or today's paper where somebody was suggesting that local governments will be confronting a lot of those costs. That is not right at all. It is a cost that will be borne by the proponents in relation to this issue.

The issue of transport and transport infrastructure and water supplies raised in the Launceston City Council submissions can be assessed by members of parliament as laypersons and without great scientific expertise. I do not think we need to know too much to be able to sort those issues out.

Before I address air quality, health issues and compliance, the other key issues raised which require more scientific analysis, I need to comment on why we are in this decision-making position for this project to proceed. Other members have touched on this and I am going to touch on it briefly.

Madam Deputy President, I am prepared today to make a decision, albeit with some qualifications, but really it should not have come to this in the circumstances. Guidelines for a future pulp mill were prepared by the Julian Green-led RPDC in 2004. Gunns commenced a process to seek approval about three or four years ago and the Government appears to have shown support for the proposal in principle from the very early days, and why wouldn't they? In my opinion that was a very responsible position for them to adopt. Of course they would be interested in development and the economy of this State.

Why, then, has the approval process been derailed? Put quite simply, it was because of politics and political interference in a process meant to be an independent approval process. The Government's handling has not been good but it is not just the Government, in my view. The first RPDC member being targeted politically was Dr Warwick Raverty, a scientific member of the panel.

Mr Aird - That is true.

Mr DEAN - Yes it is. The Greens, through their political party and the Green movement, targeted Dr Raverty with accusations of unproven bias. I say unproven because the Leader of the Greens, Peg Putt, has publicly admitted that, so it is not in doubt. Let me illustrate by quoting from the ABC -

Mr Parkinson - They were very smart; they used the term 'apprehended bias'.

Mr DEAN - Is that right?

Mr Parkinson - They said that there was an apprehension of bias. Of course, the media picked it up as extreme bias.

Mr DEAN - Yes, it was an unfortunate situation.

I want to quote from the ABC's Four Corners program of 30 July 2007. This is from reporter Liz Jackson:

'"But there was bad news at the hearing of the RPDC's expert panel as well, especially for Dr Raverty. It came from the barrister for the Greens."

Dr Warwick Raverty, former expert panel member, RPDC:

"He wanted to formally submit that I should disqualify myself from the panel on the grounds of apprehended bias. And of course I was absolutely gob smacked."

Liz Jackson to Peg Putt:

"Did you really believe he was biased?"

Peg Putt, MHA, Leader, Tasmanian Greens:

"We didn't know whether he was biased or not but what we did know was that the Pulp Mill Task Force had material on their web site originating from the company that he worked for that was very strongly supportive of the pulp mill."

Liz Jackson:

"The material placed on the task force web site was enough to force Dr Raverty's resignation and to compromise the head of the RPDC Julian Green, as well.

Julian Green was cross. He had warned the Premier two years before about the Government's Pulp Mill Task Force. And now, there was more. Julian Green resigned."

Dr Warwick Raverty, former expert panel member, RPDC:

"He'd found out that the Pulp Mill Task Force had been dropping pamphlets into the letterboxes of residents living around the mill assuring them that they would have or experience no adverse benefit from the mill and he was absolutely furious because he said, that's sub judice, it's for the RPDC to decide whether there's any adverse effect."'

Mr Parkinson - What a nonsense comment to make, sub judice in relation to a tribunal. What an absolute nonsense.

Mr DEAN - There you go, thank you.

So both the Greens and the Government were derailing an independent process for totally opposing reasons. With Dr Raverty's resignation from unsubstantiated bias the Government-driven Pulp Mill Task Force and their activities became the vehicle that drove Julian Green to resign. Madam Deputy President, for Julian Green to resign, he must have believed that his role as Chairman of the RPDC and its eventual decision would be compromised. Julian Green would not resign over minor matters. He has handled many politically sensitive issues over the last two decades. He has been one of Tasmania's finest, most capable and most principled public servants, an acute legal mind and dedicated to process, portraying all the principles of natural justice. His resignation meant that the task of approval or otherwise could not be met within a predictable time frame.

The replacement of Julian Green, when eventually appointed, was retired judge Chris Wright, again a man of very high standing, very principled and who was clearly never going to compromise a process he believed he should follow. I think most of us here would know Chris Wright professionally and probably well. In fact, I had a professional relationship with Mr Wright as a police prosecutor and I gave evidence before his courts on many occasions, so I knew Mr Wright very well - a very ethical and strong man.

The Government and its own creation of the Pulp Mill Task Force were using tactics without an understanding, in my view, or acceptance of the appropriate role that the RPDC should take, and I might say that when Mr Wright came onto the board I really felt confident about the RPDC. Knowing him, his background, and his ethical standards, I knew that the RPDC was going to proceed in the right way and -

Mr Parkinson - We were all confident about that, but the trouble is he couldn't talk to anybody.

Mr DEAN - A tragedy, in my view.

Now because of very inappropriate handling of such a large project by the Government and a number of other people the Parliament must deal with this matter. Both the Premier and the Leader of the Greens must take some responsibility for a more appropriate process not being followed, a process many of the public are quite uncomfortable with. It is interesting now that when you go out and talk to people out there, many of them are simply opposed to the process. They are not really opposed to a pulp mill but they are opposed to the process but because they are opposed to the process they now cannot support the pulp mill, and that really is, to me, an upsetting situation because of what has occurred as a result of that.

We must address and understand the scientific issues such as air quality, health, environmental issues and water disposal. Regarding air quality and odour, there will be emissions into the air from the stack of this pulp mill and if there are health risks to the residents of the Tamar region and the City of Launceston that is one of my great concerns and one of the key issues in this approval process. The Launceston City Council in its submission to the RPDC emphasised that air pollution is a significant public health risk for Launceston; that came from the Launceston submission of September 2006.

The council has a program of reducing air particle pollution particularly from smoke from wood heaters and wood fires and this program has achieved substantial reduction in health risks over the last decade. Particles of most concern are PM parts per million, 2.5 minimum. I might say, and as the member for Murchison said during her contribution, the Launceston City Council has now moved a motion - it was moved on Monday - to look at removing wood heaters from the Launceston area by the year 2012 because it is conceded very clearly that that is the real source - the main source - of pollution in that area.

The key issue for Launceston is the capacity of the airshed over the city to accommodate another emission source. The people of Launceston would not accept, and rightly so, another source of air pollution which might negate or offset the improvements made to Launceston's air quality by the current program.

As I have referred to previously, since year 1997 when Launceston had 50-plus exceedences, they are now down to six last year in 2006 and this year, so far, they have had four exceedences. So the graph comes down very sharply and coincides with the wood heater buy-back program. Very clearly there is evidence there that that is the main cause of particulate pollution in Launceston.

Gunns have established a monitoring facility at Rowella which has monitored at close intervals now for more than one year and modelling of the design criteria of this mill against existing readings has been done. The impact on health effects of particulate matter - PM10 - has indicated a level of salt particles which are not harmful and if you subtract this salt component, the PM10 will seem to be well below, in fact approximately half the concentration, provided for in the guidelines. A lot of people do not understand that, that these monitoring stations also identify the salt in the air as a part of the particulate that are entering the area.

The debate appears not to argue that the guidelines set by the RPDC in 2004 are inadequate nor have they been an issue throughout this debate. So let us consider if air quality over Launceston in the Tamar region is a potential health problem or if some of the critics' comments are more emotion or fear than scientific fact. I know other members have referred to this but I need to repeat it, and I do not apologise for that.

I want to provide two opinions, firstly, in a response by Pacific Air and Environment Pty Ltd - they are a specialist environmental consultant company - and this was quoted by the member for Rowallan last night, so I will open it up - and I will not go right through it all:

'Put simply, the proposed mill does not have the potential to adversely affect levels of PM10 either in Launceston or elsewhere in the Tamar Valley. Health-related environmental goals will not be compromised. The mill is designed to achieve very high levels of emissions control, consistent with modern industrial standards, and the sophisticated dispersion modelling performed for the project has indicated that impacts in Launceston will be negligible. I will elaborate on these points below.

As an experienced air quality meteorologist, this is a finding I am happy to stand by in any public or legal forum. In my view it is unfortunate that a great deal of misinformation about the air quality impacts of the mill has been widely circulated. Whilst I am not an advocate for the mill,' -

He is not an advocate for the mill -

'as an independent expert I am nevertheless an advocate for good science and feel that the very negative comments about air quality are based on a distorted view of the facts.'.

There is other information in that document if people want to refer to it - I am not going through it but it is made perfectly clear by PAE who have the expertise and background to make those sort of comments.

Secondly, I want to refer to the Four Corners program shown while I was away inspecting modern mills in Europe, Chile and Brazil. Dr Peter Manins - and again this was quoted by the member for Rowallan as well - who has expressed concerns regarding fugitive emissions causing odour, made this comment on that program on the mill's impact on Launceston, and I am going to repeat it. He is senior research scientist, marine and atmospheric research, CSIRO:

'I've seen a fair bit of press that's frankly just scaremongering. The best modelling data that we've seen and can do is that there won't be an issue in Launceston at all due to the pulp mill. Launceston ... should have far more concern over the local domestic wood heaters and motor cars and smoking. They are far more important issues for the public in Launceston than this pulp mill, 36 kilometres away.


The pulp mill might add one or two micrograms per cubic metre, compared with wood smoke of 50 to 200 micrograms per cubic metre. What is one or two compared with 50 to 200?'

Also I want to mention at this stage and members at the briefing would recall the comment by Dr Raverty who we know is not supportive of a pulp mill in the Tamar Valley. I need to be fair to Dr Raverty because, as I understand, he has indicated that he believes that Hampshire was a better position for a pulp mill. He made a similar comment to Dr Manins on Friday, when we spoke to Dr Raverty, that there were no concerns with pulp mill fallout in Launceston - a similar thing, no problems at all, no concern in relation to that, but they needed to be concerned about wood heaters. So there is another person who has spoken out against a pulp mill in the Tamar Valley and to me that is fairly strong evidence to support that there will not be any pollution of Launceston through a pulp mill or if there is it will be so minor it is not going to impact.

There are two areas listed by SWECO PIC as non-compliant with the guidelines which are relevant here. First there are levels of nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide, NOX. Emissions will occasionally be higher than the guidelines, however the proposed emission rates are considered to represent accepted international best practice for a project of this nature and scale and ambient nitrogen oxide values are predicted to be well within the guidelines' design criteria. This issue will be controlled by permit conditions and needs to be monitored.

Secondly, the height of the stack. The stack height will be lower than 2.5 times the height of the recovery boiler. This guideline is a qualified guideline based on an American 1985 standard. This mill design is a great improvement on 1985 technology and features a three-burner process for emission gases, and we have heard a lot about that in the last few days and over the last months in fact.

The height of the stack is consistent with that used in projects of this nature and scale. SWECO PIC notes that dispersion modelling shows insignificant improvements to the ambient air concentration from further increasing the height of the stack. Both Dr Warwick Raverty and Dr Peter Manins have expressed concern regarding odour - in particular, odour from fugitive emissions. We inspected mills and made observations regarding the odour issue and I will tell you a little more about fugitive emissions in a moment. It must be said that their comments were true for the technology of many years ago, however it is not correct for modern mills which have systems designed to capture fugitive emissions.

You might recall when I asked, I think it was Kari Tuominen, about fugitive gases he looked at me somewhat perplexed and said there are none. He shrugged his shoulders and said there are none from a modern mill. So fugitive gases are not there that were being experienced in mills 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Dr Raverty at our briefings, I think it was the briefing we had a month or so ago, made comment about the gases in pulp mills. He said it was not the gases that will leak through the stacks that are of concern, it is the fugitive gases and they are 97 per cent of the problem. Now if those problems had been resolved, like the designers of this mill say they have - and I might add that we experienced it when we went away - then really there are no gas issues for modern-day pulp mills.

I might just add that Poyry, a very reputable company which Kari is part of, I think has some 6 000 to 7 000 employees. They are an international company and their credibility is on the line with this mill as well. They are not likely to be a company, I would think, that would be going out and making rash, unfounded statements.

There are two types of odour emissions generated by the pulp mill, which will be captured and destroyed by the gas recovery system in the mill design: concentrated and non-condensable gases, mainly from the cooking and the evaporation plants; and dilute non-condensable gases, mainly from fibre-line evaporation plant, sumps and various tanks. This mill will be the first mill in the world to employ a three-tiered system for odorous gas destruction. It is state of the art. As we heard yesterday morning, this mill, if it is built, will establish world's best practice. It will be the mill that other developers will look at if they move down the track of building a pulp mill.

All modelling of air gas emissions has been based on all emissions from the mill including fugitive emissions. My advice is that in a typical AMT - that is, accepted model technology - concentrated non-condensable gas system - two tier - the statistical availability amounts to about two to three failures of 15 minutes per year. That is in a two tier. The introduction of a third tier, as in the Bell Bay pulp mill, reduces this, I am advised, to about 30 seconds per year.

With the permit conditions proposed, with the reality that you cannot manufacture a quality kraft chemical pulp mill without a process like this mill will use, and with regard to the need for value-adding to our pulpwood resource, it is difficult to condemn this project on the air-quality and odour-emissions standards that this mill is designed to meet.

One of the most contentious issues of this debate surrounds the discharge of liquid effluent into Bass Strait and what impact that may have in receiving waters. We have been advised that the mill will use 26 gigalitres of water per day in full production, resulting in the need, following use, to dispose of into Bass Strait some 64 000 tonnes of liquid effluent per day. One of the major concerns relates to the dioxin discharges from the proposed mill in this effluent. I suppose I could just about finish there because the member for Huon covered this pretty well in his contribution. As he said, the amount of dioxin going into Bass Strait is negligible. It is almost immeasurable over I am not quite sure what period of time.

Mr Harriss - Unmeasurable.

Mr DEAN - What did I say?

Mr Harriss - Immeasurable.

Mr DEAN - It is unmeasurable, undetectable; it is a minuscule amount, if any. Again, Kari Tuominen from Poyry kept saying that - 'if any'. He did not concede that there was any dioxin that would go out with that effluent. He kept saying 'if any'. He claimed that it amounts to one grain of salt in 23 Olympic-size swimming pools of water. Claim and counterclaim of dioxin impacts has been an alarming feature during the public debate. Three issues relating to non-compliance of guidelines were identified by SWECO PIC, but firstly I want to refer to the response by the proponent to these claims. On the outlet and effluent I wanted to refer to the briefing we had from Dr Godfrey. Dr Godfrey spoke to us and showed us a slide of a beach in Oregon, and you could see there was pollution on this beach. I took it that all of that was effluent from a pulp mill because a pulp mill there had a pipeline about 2 to 3 kilometres out into the ocean. He was telling us that a certain amount of that was coming to the surface and washing onto the beach. It was not until the member for Murchison raised it with him, and I think the member for Huon mentioned this as well, that we found out there was also a sewage discharge close to that beach. He then indicated that, yes, that was perhaps some of the problem with pollution of that beach.

When you go to the handout of Dr Stuart Godfrey you see that same photograph we were shown. Then you turn over to the back and read the caption. He has already conceded that he cannot say that the pollution was all from a pulp mill and there was probably some from the sewage. This is what the caption says:

'This photo is of a recent pulp mill effluent plume at the Nye beach outfall in the State of Oregon. The pulp mill which discharges to this outfall is the Toledo Mill (Koch Industries) previously owned by Georgia Pacific West. The triangle is the Mill's allowed mixing zone as defined by previous hydrodynamic modelling. The effluent diffuser is approximately 1.2 kilometres offshore. It is clear from the photo that the visible effluent plume not only reaches the shoreline but in fact extends significantly further along the coast. This highly visible plume is primarily wind driven effluent suspended solids, and Surfrider USA has publicly stated their view that this plume is responsible for widespread health issues amongst recreational users on the coastline, as well as objectionable deposits and reduced "aesthetic" values at local beaches.'

So there it identifies that that pollution is from a pulp mill. It does not go on to say that some of it could also come from sewage that is being released into the ocean near that beach.

Mr Harriss - Are you aware that the Department of Environmental Quality for Oregon actually conducted an inquiry into that allegation and found that there is no effect to human health at all?

Mr DEAN - No, I was not aware of that, and I thank the member by way of interjection for raising that matter. So what does that do to you? I start to look closely at the rest of the evidence or information provided by that person and I then start to look at it with some suspicion. I challenged some of that because that is very clearly a position that should not have been put to us, in my opinion.

[5.30 p.m.]
I just want to make some other references. I do not think that I need to read my next quote in relation to the hydrodynamic studies; I think that the member for Huon covered that well so I think that I can leave that. But I must admit, Mr President, I feel convinced that this issue has not been handled well by either Gunns, the proponents, or the Government, who have failed to provide analyses of any potential impacts on either the fishing industry or the marine environment, so I have some concerns there.

Firstly, Gunns: they have undertaken limited modelling or investigation of dispersal patterns from the discharge point into the receding river. The fishing industry has been able to express concern regarding the extent to which the fishery may be impacted upon. Let me quote an open letter to the Premier in this regard from the Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council, the peak industry body. There is quite a lot in this document, Mr President. I will try to go through it as quickly as I can, and I quote:


'Before listing our concerns in detail I would like to provide you with some information on the value of the seafood industry to Tasmania. The below figures were obtained from DPIW and the peak industry bodies.'

I am not going to quote those figures, but there are a number of figures there relating to fish exports from this State and there is a huge value to the State. They then go on to say:

'Specifically we would like to know what protections does your Government propose to put in place to ensure that the Tasmanian seafood industry is not adversely impacted by the operations of the proposed Bell Bay Pulp Mill? Our primary concern is to protect the marine environment from any adverse impacts of the pulp mill and to ensure that our very valuable Tasmanian industry has protection under law if there are any such impacts. In order to address our concerns we seek your response to the following issues:'

They then go through a number of issues, Mr President, and I will just read out a couple of those more important issues, and I quote:

'(d) What residue standards have been used to determine the maximum acceptable amount of pollutants in fish and other seafood?

(e) How have you established pollutant concentration trigger levels, what are those levels and what actions will be taken if they are exceeded in order to prevent excess pollutants entering Bass Strait?

(g) What independent and credible monitoring regime will you have for effluent from the mill and how will you ensure that there are regular reports that are available to the public. What will the frequency of the reporting be? How often will samples be taken and how will you ensure that there is sufficient resolution to pick up identified contaminants before they become a problem?'

The last point I make there, Mr President, is:

'(i) Can you provide detail on the overall regulatory regime designed to protect the Bass Strait marine environment and the fishing industry from harm in the event of any problems caused by the mills operations?'

I think it came out fairly clearly during our briefings that the fishing industry does have concerns and they want their issues considered. They want to be assured that there will be no damage and that no harm will be caused to their industry as a result of effluent release into Bass Strait. These quotes, I might add, are only some of the issues as raised by the TFIC.

Mr President, during budget Estimates on Monday 18 June I questioned Minister Llewellyn about his department's knowledge of what fishery was present in the vicinity of the receding waters and, in particular, if a scallop bed existed in the area. Members of my committee would recall that very well because I tended, as sometimes happens, to get a little agitated.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - You did let it go on a bit.

Mr DEAN - Unbelievably, in the circumstances, no investigation had been done or commissioned by the Government to know what marine species were present in those waters. Quite frankly, I was dumbfounded. I just could not believe that here we were within a matter of about two months of making a huge decision in this State and the State had not carried out any real research in relation to fish in that area. They should have known because Mr John Hammond, who would be well known I think by most of the members in this Chamber -

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - Well known in Tasmania.

Mr DEAN - in Tasmania, certainly - and who is a professional fisherman and a very nice person, very nice person, was very strong in his position that there was a young, forming scallop bed right underneath and around where this effluent was coming out. He made that statement on a number of occasions at protest rallies. He made a strong issue of it and he got people on side by making those statements.

Mr Parkinson - Thousands of tons, I thought he said.

Mr DEAN - That is right, he said it was a huge bed. It is amazing to think that the State had not taken that up and carried out some research to determine whether or not he was being upfront or whether he was mistaken.

Mr Parkinson - No, that is not quite right - we knew but we just needed to prove it.

Mr DEAN - I see, right. In fairness to the minister, if you go back to the Hansard you will see that he said:

'We don't believe there are any there'.

I think he did make that comment but he could not take it any further than that.

In any event, he took it up and in the briefings last week a document detailing a survey conducted during mid-July was made available to me and I have made that document available to other members.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - I would suggest that your prompting during the Estimates process really put the metal on the Government to go out and do that research.

Mr DEAN - I suspect very much that they considered it fairly seriously, in the circumstances.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - Which is certainly right and proper.

Mr DEAN - I thought it was because they knew -

Mr Parkinson - In fairness to Fisheries, they do monitor these things very closely and they have a really good accurate idea of where the fisheries beds are in all species all around the State, so it was just a matter of verifying the recorded knowledge.

Mr DEAN - I understand that but in this instance I think they, or members within that department, would have known that the fisheries question and the impact of effluent on the fish was a strong part of the Wesley Vale development decision. So they knew that it was a fairly big issue in that development and that it had been raised by John Hammond and others, as I said. Most of the area in the immediate and wider region of the proposed diffuser impact zones was a habitat largely unsuitable for scallops.

I refer here to the region out to 5.7 kilometres north of the proposed diffuser. It appears the bottom was either large, hard, rocky outcrops up to 5 metres high, or low-profile hard bottom, flat rocks covered with small hard rocks. It is now obvious their claims of productive scallop beds in the region are not correct. Why, when this receding waters location has been known for some three years, was the fishing impact not addressed earlier? I accept the Leader has given an explanation for that with some of the research that has gone on.

Once again, this lack of good management of a key and predictable issue has provided a Federal minister with the opportunity to take the lead in this receding waters issue and leaves the fishing industry with unresolved issues.

The Federal Environment minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has proposed 24 conditions under Federal legislation. The Bass Strait waters fall within his responsibilities and, because the RPDC process has not been followed, the final levels of control will be determined by the Federal minister's conditions.

Ms Thorp - If he's not too worried about his electorate.

Mr DEAN - Well, you are probably right. Once the Government decided to propose that Parliament should approve this project then it should have been managed in a manner that Parliament could display some confidence in, and that is not really the case.

The impact on the fishing industry is a State Government responsibility. They must give the industry the assurances they rightly deserve. The Government must assess the sensitivities of key fish species within the Bass Strait marine ecosystem to the effluent from the mill.

I will touch on the impact on tourism, Mr President. While we are considering industry impacts the tourism industry deserves the same respect. During budget Estimates I was prompted by the member for Apsley, who first started questioning the Minister for Tourism in relation to the pulp mill and the impact on tourism.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - The value of tourism to the Tamar Valley region.

Mr DEAN - That is right. The member for Apsley commenced that and then I became involved myself.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - And somehow the Greens took it over the next day and they claimed it as theirs.

Mr DEAN - That is right, and doesn't that happen so often? If you had listened to the Greens yesterday debating a bill in relation to changes to the Local Government Act, some way or another the Legislative Council came into it and you need to get Hansard where they agreed that they still have a position there of wanting to dismiss the Legislative Council. I listened to it with interest.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - I'm sure that wouldn't be right.

Mr DEAN - There was a comment made there about their non-support of the Legislative Council. You will need to get Hansard as there is a comment there on it.

Ms Ritchie - Don't their candidates who stand for the Legislative Council say they are happy to abolish themselves? Isn't that why they are standing?

Mr DEAN - Right. Anyway, I questioned the Minister for Tourism, Ms Wriedt, and Hansard Thursday 21 June has a record of that exchange. It was significant that at that time the minister had not involved Tourism Tasmania in any analyses of the impact on tourism. They had not at that time met with tourist operators to consider any concerns and appeared to simply leave it to the review of a social and economic benefits by ITS Global. I would have expected Tourism Tasmania to have considered a number of initiatives focused on any potential adverse impacts either during the construction or operational phases, for example, focused on specific marketing campaigns and noise management if it causes concern.

Members might recall that within a few days of that exchange the minister did go to Launceston and met at Grindelwald with a number of people involved in the wineries and people from the tourist industry. It was a good meeting. A lot was taken back from that meeting and there was a follow-up meeting as well. So things have now happened and I guess it is no good looking back and continuing to criticise. It has moved forward and there have been benefits to tourism as a result of that and to the people in particular who have raised concerns about their businesses should a pulp mill be developed in that area, Mr President.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - By interjection, Mr President - let us insist that that dialogue keeps on going. The key part is that it does not just stop when a decision is made here, that it continues on.

Mr DEAN - You are absolutely right.

The ITS Global review comments that although aspects of the mill's existence may not be assessed by experts as a health concern, businesses dependent on marketing lifestyle and clean and green food and beverage experiences, for example, are concerned that emissions or odour, if present, could reduce the attractiveness of the region as a tourism and recreational destination. Their concerns relate to potential impacts on their business from perceived tainting of food or wine from emission odours or effluence. Fear of negative impact, Mr President, whether substantial or not, needs to be managed and mitigated with appropriate agency responses and market research and development.

A niche tourism opportunity may be developed for the visitors interested in the workings of a large complex like the pulp mill and I have referred to the Nueva Aldea mill.

My real concern is that the attitude of the government minister in the past might prevail and no such marketing initiatives will occur, but I would hope that that is not the case. However, I was impressed with Felicia Mariani's briefing to us during our sessions, Mr President, where I thought that she performed extremely well in her position in tourism in this State, and it is interesting that she should say that tourism in that area had increased in the last quarter - that was up until May of this year, because they were a quarter behind at the time with their figures.

[5.45 p.m.]
A lot of that must be related to the very wise decision, Mr Leader, of the Government giving the $15 million to support AFL football in this State. I congratulate them once again.

Mrs Smith - Why are we not surprised? And he wants $2 million to finish his pool.

Mr Harriss - Don't try to do an economic analysis of the mill if you base it on that sort of stuff.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - Mr President, when I mentioned that I knew I should not have, so I withdraw that.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - Well, why did you?

Mr DEAN - I just want to finish tourism on this point, Mr President. Tourism in the Tamar Valley region needs active management with specific marketing campaigns and programs. That is in fact happening, so I think we are moving in the right direction in relation to promoting tourism.

I just want to briefly comment on the tour of Europe, Chile and Brazil. Other members have referred to it, Mr President. As all members are aware, we went away on a 10-day trip to three countries: Finland, Brazil and Chile. We looked at pulp mills. I am extremely pleased that I did so. I learnt a lot about pulp mills that I really did not understand previously. You hear about them; you listen to people; you look at pictures and you go through a lot of other information, but unless you actually go there and look at one operating and talk to the people there you cannot get a full appreciation of where mills are and how they stand and what they do. So I am very pleased that I saw fit to do that. For those members of the public who saw it as a junket, travelling in an aircraft for 14 or 15 hours and then on domestic flights for the next two or three hours and waiting in airports and running from one place to another - and some people have been too tired to even eat their meals - to me is nothing like a junket. It annoys me when people make that sort of statement.

Mrs Jamieson - DVT.

Mr DEAN - And when you arrive back to find yourself with DVT on top of that and struggling for the next two weeks - I have just recovered from it now - it just adds to the pain and suffering.

Mr Parkinson - You should have worn those nice little socks.

Mr DEAN - I had been given the socks to wear, but I thought I was pretty fit and capable and I thought, why should I wear them? That was a part of the travelling mix. As the doctor said, excessive travelling, a short time away and travelling without too much rest.

The first mill that we went to was the Botnia mill in Rauma. The other members have covered it. When we got there, there was a strong stench there, Mr President, in certain parts of that mill and it was explained to us that a manhole cover had been misplaced or gone off or been damaged, whatever it was; that was the cause of that odour and that it would be fixed during normal maintenance in a few weeks' time.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - If you recall, it was sitting right beside the air-conditioning unit, and that is why that particular room that we were sitting in -

Mr DEAN - Yes, that is right. But in the rest of the mill that we went into there was really no odour at all other than an industrial odour that you get in any industrial site. The people in all of these mills, Mr President, could not do enough for us. There was never any attempt to keep us out of any areas. They opened everything up. We were able to photograph everything. They made us welcome. We did exactly that, or some members did. It was so impressive the way in which they handled all of that. I am not going any further with that because the other members have covered that but when we were leaving that mill we decided that we should speak to some people in the locality. We stopped 1.2 kilometres from the mill fence and we spoke to a family who lived there. We had an interpreter with us who was upfront with us and said there were no real problems at all, that yes, there would be a smell once or twice but no more than that a year. We tried to pin him down to time and he said that if they are doing some maintenance that is when they get a smell and he would contact the mill and determine what it was, but only once or twice a year.

He said they enjoy living there and they continue to live there. I asked him about the value of real estate in that area but it is very difficult to get that through and I really could not get an answer on that, but he lived there with his family and he said there were no real difficulties. We decided to walk around the city of Rauma 3 kilometres away, a city of some 35 000 people. We spoke to a number of people we were able to speak to because a lot do speak English or a form of English, and we spoke in particular to a chemist there. The chemist was able to say that they would get a smell in Rauma just every now and again. Once again I think he put the figure at once or twice a year or thereabouts that they might get a smell.

Mr PRESIDENT - So he knew the difference between the year and month and week?

Mr DEAN - No, no, Mr President it was yearly. We asked him questions about sicknesses in the city and statistical data in relation to asthma and all of those things. He said that there was a lot of data available and there were no differences in any medical problems in that city to anywhere else in Finland. Those figures and data were available under their health department equivalent. He said that there was no evidence at all of increased asthma in that city or any other place.

It was interesting. We spoke to a number of people around the city and their attitudes were pretty much the same. We talked about tourism and the member for Rowallan has already given evidence that tourism does not seem to be affected at all. It is a good tourist town because it is the old city of Rauma, which is an old weatherboard-designed city, and it has a lot of tourists. They said that there was no evidence at all of any impact on tourism. I should say that that site also has a paper factory, a paper mill, right next to it and it also has a turpentine factory there next door to it, which is a derivative of the wood and pulp. That was all in that little complex. Forty kilometres up the road there was a nuclear power plant.

In Veracel in Brazil, the mill was absolutely pristine. You could eat off the floors. We did eat in the restaurants in all of these mills -

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - But not off the floor though.

Mr DEAN - We did not eat off the floor, no. They were very clean indeed. When we arrived at Veracel we stopped some distance down the road and we looked at this big plant up ahead, and they are huge, and I commented to the guide that it could not be the mill because there was no steam, I could not see anything that made it look like a mill. He said that it was the mill. It was 20-something degrees I think from memory.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - It was pretty warm.

Mr DEAN - It was quite warm and very clearly the steam was dissipating very quickly as it left the mill. It was a different situation when we got to the mill in Chile. For some distance away we could see lots of steam coming from that mill. In that instance it was about 6 to 7 degrees. It was quite cold and that was why we could see the steam because of the colder temperature. But the mill at Veracel, interestingly there the plantation timber is all around the mill. The average distance they cart the timber is about 45 kilometres and they have to transport the pulp about 60-odd kilometres to a wharf area, so all the timbers are within a 45 kilometre area of the mill. Of course their transport problems are not like what we would experience here or that some of the other mills experience. It was a pristine environment and it was in a breakdown mode when we got there, too, Mr President.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - Unstable.

Mr DEAN - Unstable - and people who know about pulp mills will tell you that if they are going to smell, if there is going to be an aroma it is going to be when they are in that unstable condition. In this instance there was no aroma - an industrial smell, yes, but certainly no aroma, and we were there when it cranked up into full production again, Mr President. We experienced that and again there were still no odours at all. We walked around the top of the mill and all over the mill, photographed it and all the rest of it, and we were very impressed with the mill.

Now to Nueva Aldea, the Arauco mill in Chile. I explained what happened when we got there. That mill was also a very impressive mill and operating for only a very short period of time. These mills are very similar to Gunns'. They have very modern technology but they do not have a three-burner tier system in them that Gunns would have. It would be updated on those mills again but they were very similar to the Gunns mill proposal. The mill in Chile has two fibre lines where it is both hardwood and softwood at the one time with two fibre lines operating and, as I said previously, that uses Tasmanian eucalypt as its timber.

Mr President, I want to mention a position the member for Murchison took up whilst she was there. I had some issues with that and I have spoken to the member in relation to this because there was a situation that was quite critical at the time. I do not mind saying this because some members were being asked to go and others were not. I had not been asked to go along on that private part of the trip that the member for Murchison had gone on and I wondered why that was, that some would be asked and some would not.

Mr Parkinson - The Surfriders.

Mr DEAN - This is the one that was organised by the Surfriders who are an environmental group.

Mr Parkinson - They have been running an anti-pulp mill discussion line on MySpace on the Net.

Mr DEAN - That is right and I was aware of that.

Mr Parkinson - You should read some of the nonsense that they have been trotting out there - some incredible stuff.

Mr DEAN - That is right, I was aware of all of that and I must admit that had I been asked -

Ms Forrest - I was aware of that, too, for the record - through you, Mr President. I was aware of their environmental arm and their activities as I said in my speech and I also made it quite clear that the trip I arranged was on my behalf, for me. I did mention to a couple of members that I was doing it and a couple showed some interest early on and decided not to. There is nothing sinister about it. It was not that anyone was not invited. It was a thing I organised because I thought it was important for me to inform myself in all ways possible.

Mr PRESIDENT - I take that as a point of explanation from the honourable member.

Ms Forrest - Thank you, Mr President. I am sorry, I should have said point of explanation.

Mr DEAN - One of the people there that I understand the member met with, and I had some knowledge, was meeting with a mayor of local government, as I understand it, who is on the record as being very anti-pulp mill as well as a part of that excursion or that private part that had taken place.

Ms Forrest - He was opposing the pipeline going out to sea and not the pulp mill per se.

Mr DEAN - But we did have a briefing from the member for Murchison when she returned from that and I think it was when we met back in Santiago. I want to refer to a press release that was made by the member when she came back here because it was never mentioned to me during the briefing about having spoken with a doctor but when I get back here I find out that in fact a local doctor said many children presented with nausea and headaches on days of high odour. It was indicated in this press release by the member for Murchison that there had been contact with doctors and I just wonder why we were not told of that.

Ms Forrest - It wasn't a press release. It was a media article.

Mr DEAN - A media article, sorry.

Ms Forrest - A press release would have been more accurate.

Mr DEAN - The other comment made here was that the other delegates were invited but did not attend because of -

Ms Forrest - I did not make a press release, Mr President. I took it up with the reporter on that occasion and he admitted he got it wrong. He listened and when he went back through what I had said to him about the trip he acknowledged that he got that wrong, and I have explained that to the honourable member for Windermere .

Mr DEAN - I just need to raise this to clear up the position. We had been invited to go along and the member would not go. The next comment I want to refer to is that she said it was disappointing that her colleagues did not join the side trip. She said, 'I just hope they are willing to believe what I tell them'.

Ms Forrest - Again, that is not correct.

Mr PRESIDENT - Order. The honourable member for Murchison can make a point of personal explanation if she wishes to. It is her entitlement to do that.

Mr DEAN - I want to make the last statement again, Mr President - and this is what upsets me, I suppose. She said it was disappointing that her colleagues did not join the side trip. 'I just hope they are willing to believe what I tell them', she said. I was not asked. That did not read well as far as I was concerned, and when I did read it I felt quite upset and annoyed. I just wonder why?

Mrs Smith - You've been concerned, upset and annoyed a lot over the last four months, haven't you?

Mr DEAN - In fairness to the member, the member for Murchison did indicate to me that she had been misquoted. I kept looking at the papers every day after this to see if there was going to be a retraction or an amendment, but I have not seen one. So if there was one, I missed it and I apologise to the member.

Ms FORREST - Point of explanation, Mr President.

Mr PRESIDENT - Would the honourable member please resume his seat while the point of personal explanation is being made.

Ms FORREST - I have explained this in full to the honourable member for Windermere on a previous occasion, Mr President, but just for the record, I was contacted by Michael Steadman, the reporter. He interviewed me while I was driving my car. I know that my Bluetooth hands-free kit is not particularly brilliant at reception at times, so he may have misheard some of the things I said. That is the nature of the beast. I believe that other members spoke to the media on their return from the trip as well and put their own views forward. I explained to Michael Steadman that I had arranged this trip with the assistance of the Surfrider Foundation, so I was well aware of having an environmental arm. As an international organisation they had the contacts and capacity to organise this trip for me. I tried other avenues to get other meetings arranged but none of them came through.

I explained also to Michael Steadman that the rest of the delegation had tried to organise some meetings with other community groups, tourism operators or whoever was available through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. That worked out in Finland; they organised some briefings and opportunities for us to discuss issues with forestry groups in Finland. In Brazil, a similar attempt was made to meet with the local mayor - and I cannot remember who else we were planning to speak to - but unfortunately the date got mixed up on that occasion, so that was unable to be facilitated.

The situation in Chile was that the DFAT arrangements were going to have logistics and financial implications and so the decision was made by other members of the delegation not to proceed with that. My trip was only finalised about two days before I went. I informed Michael Steadman of all of this, including that the DFAT arrangements did not follow through. I did my trip as planned and he said, 'Yes, I did misunderstand you. I quoted you wrongly. What do you want? Do you want a retraction?' But retractions always look bad; a correction might be better. He said he would speak to his editor and let me know, but I have not heard back from him since.

Mr DEAN - Just harking back, I would have thought that if the member had been misrepresented in the article she would have corrected it -

Mr PRESIDENT - Order. The honourable member was not listening when the honourable member for Murchison explained that very accurately.

Mr DEAN - I was.

Mr PRESIDENT - I suggest that if the honourable member for Windermere reads this Hansard he will know exactly how the honourable member for Murchison has just explained that point.

Mr DEAN - Also, as a part of this whole thing, I understand that television crews had been set up and met with the member as well, so obviously there was quite a lot of planning to it.

Ms Forrest - They did allow me to get a transcript of the meetings that I had interpreted later on.

Mr DEAN - Mr President, I move -

That the debate be adjourned.

Debate adjourned.

Resumed from page 92
Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Mr President, I want to revisit and clarify a comment I made earlier - and this is where my hearing becomes a bit of a problem at times - in fact the Leader did refer to it. I want to point out that in no way was I saying my vote depended on infrastructure funding. I want to make that perfectly and absolutely clear. I want the Government to consider funding road infrastructure impacted on by a pulp mill. That is my very clear position. I needed to clarify that point, Mr President, and I have raised that previously on many occasions in that form.

To commence, I might say - and other members might have heard about it - I understand the Federal minister, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, has recently made a statement along the lines that he has adjourned his decision for a further six weeks.

Mr Aird - I hope it is in accordance with the act that he is working on.

Mr DEAN - Yes, I believe that to be the position.

Mr Aird - It would be interesting to see if he's ultra vires as well.

Mr DEAN - Mr President, I will go back and revisit where I was at at the time we suspended for dinner. I was still in Chile and at the Nueva Aldea mill. I want to refer to a couple of things there. While we were there it was made known that a winery in that area commented that an order of, I think, about 80 000 bottles of wine was not continued with because the buyer, as I understand it, feared that there could be some difficulty because of a pulp mill that was close to that winery. I think there is information and detail on this. But the interesting point there is that, at the time that practice took place, the mill had not even been commenced. While we were over there - the member for Murchison would remember this - somebody mentioned that this winery was seeking a certificate of clearance from the pulp mill there.

Ms Forrest - I did address this in my presentation, but feel free to continue.

Mr DEAN - Yes. So, as a result of that, I undertook to write to the CEO of the mill to get clarification on that and to find out whether or not there had been an approach to the mill and why if their mill was good and working properly wouldn't they provide a certificate in the circumstances? The answer I received from Mr Gunther Henriksen, who is CEO of the organisation, was, 'We have not received any request for a certificate from any wine producer in the area.' I did circulate that to members and shortly after that I received a notice from the member for Murchison saying that that information had not come from the winery itself, but from somebody else and it appeared that it might not have been accurate.

Ms Forrest - Yes, I made that quite clear in my speech.

Mr DEAN - I just wanted to say that because it was really, I guess, suggesting in a way that this mill was trying to cover up something. I just wanted to make that clear.

Just to explain my position in relation to the surf riders group. There was also information provided - and the member might have referred to this - that they were concerned with what was happening there and they wanted to keep it quiet because they feared some corporate involvement or interference. But, interestingly, as I said, the TV cameras were all, as I understand it, in place at the time. But I just wanted to raise that issue, Mr President.

Mr PRESIDENT - TV cameras were in place at what time?

Mr DEAN - For the trip that was taken.

Ms Forrest - There was a documentary being made, Mr President.

Mr DEAN - Earlier in my contribution, Mr President, I referred to some similarities in weather patterns between New Norfolk on the Derwent River and the City of Launceston and the residential areas along the Tamar. These comments are from long-term residents of New Norfolk and I think it is fitting that I mention some of the comments because the Boyer Mill has been there for a very long time. As I said, it is in a similar position to that of a mill in the Tamar Valley. It is in the Derwent Valley on the river and a very short distance from New Norfolk, which is a very foggy place - not unlike the Tamar Valley.

These people have given me the right to use their names. A gentleman by the name of Verdun Collins, a long-time resident of New Norfolk who will be 82 shortly, said and I quote:

'I started working at Boyer as a 14 year old with Hansen and Yuncken for one pound a week. I then went to work for the mill and worked there for most of my working life until I retired about 20 years ago. We built our home close to the mill, and have never regretted doing that. I've fished and eaten fish out of the river all my life and I've never had any sickness in all that time. In fact, if it had not been for a motor bike accident I would never have been in hospital in my life.

They definitely should build this mill at Bell Bay, from my observations and experience, they shouldn't worry. They should do it for the benefit of Tasmania.

Early on at Boyer there was a bit of noise from the mill - now all I hear is the siren for fire drill on Tuesdays. There is no smell now.

The companies who have run the mill have always been generous to this town.'

Another gentleman, by the name of Graeme Nossiter, who has lived in New Norfolk most of his life, said:

'With regard to the proposed pulp mill in the Tamar Valley, I don't really think I'm qualified to say yes or no, but having worked at the Boyer paper mill for almost 34 years and I can tell you what my beliefs are as regards that.

ANM built the Boyer mill in about 1938 and I think began making paper about 1940. The equipment they used over the years up to October 1987, when I retired from there, would have to be considered very basic, (designed pre-war no doubt) and inefficient compared to anything built and installed today. This of course gradually improved as newer models of paper machines etc. were installed as the mill grew in size and output.

In the beginning, I have no doubt that the Boyer Mill polluted the air, and more so the river to a marked degree, and that continued for a very long time, but we as a population became more aware of pollution in industry, much work was done to reduce emissions of all kinds into both the air and the river.

Boyer spent vast amounts of money to achieve this, and I have to say with a great degree of success, and when I left there, they were doing daily checks of the water quality in the river.

I haven't had a chance to visit the mill since I left, so can't really make a comment as to how clean or not the process is now, but pressed for an opinion, I would feel safe in saying it would be even better now, if only for the significant pressures both the public and the government have brought to bear in that time.

One point I would like to make here is that New Norfolk, like Launceston, is in a very enclosed valley, on a large river, many miles inland, and is much closer to the Boyer mill than you will be to the Tamar one, and is subject to frequent fogs, but to my knowledge, despite this plant operating continuously, for perhaps 67 years, I do not know of, nor have I ever heard one person claim, that the population of New Norfolk and surrounding areas has ever suffered anything detrimental to their health as a result of the mill operations.'

Another gentleman, Noel Browning, moved to New Norfolk in 1957 as a local builder. He said:

'We have lived almost right opposite the mill on the river for many years.

In early years it was pretty noisy, but these days we don't hear it much. The outfall and smell from the mill in the early days wasn't good - another settling pond was established about 15 years ago - a significant improvement - which the company spent a considerable sum of money on. Now the main noise we hear is from rail trucks being shunted in the yard.

The Boyer mill has always been the main source of local employment for New Norfolk.

I don't oppose the mill for environmental reasons but I, as a builder, am concerned that the trend of good building timber getting more difficult to get will continue with the need to feed so much wood into this mill.

I am in two minds about it.'

Judy Bloomfield, who would be known, I think, to a number of members here in this Chamber, is a long-time resident of New Norfolk and has been a councillor for 16 years on the New Norfolk Council. Her comment is:

'This family has had three generations working at Boyer. None have had health problems. They included a husband, father-in-law, daughter, two sons-in-law, one who has graduated from ANU for a career in forestry.

The Boyer Mill, to the best of my knowledge, has not been a contributor to any health problems. It has provided employment and security for many families in the town, and the mill owners have been generous in contributing to the community, for example the provision of Boyer oval as the master recreation facility. As far as I'm concerned the government was elected to make decisions for Tasmanians - they should show the lead and approve it.'

Mr President, these comments exemplify the opinions formed by residents who have lived with a pulp and paper mill in their town. It is clear that a consistent thread is that health concerns are not an issue and the benefits are appreciated. I just want to refer to a couple of comments by people in and around the Launceston-George Town-Tamar Valley area. I will just read a couple of paragraphs out of these statements or letters that I have received and I might add, like many others, I have received literally thousands of them. On Monday morning I came to work; I think there were 2 000 e-mails in my system and in one instance one person had seen fit to provide me with 60; 60 personal e-mails from the one person. As I said other members, I think, would have gone through this as well.

I just want to read some quotes from a couple of letters I have. This is a quote from a person living in the Ravenswood area:

'It has not been proven that severe damage will not be done to the marine life around the outfall and beyond. Medical experts consider Launceston and surrounding areas will suffer increased deaths from respiratory diseases from particulate pollution. Atmospheric testing to ascertain possible pollution to Launceston and its environs have not been completed.'

As I said at the beginning, that has been a fairly common thread with a lot of the e-mails and letters I have had, Mr President. People are concerned about the environment, the atmosphere and that there could well be further pollution from a pulp mill.

I have another letter here and it rather supports the member for Elwick in his comment:

'You are not part of a planning department. Please vote no.'

A short and succinct report. He must have listened to you or heard you.

Mr Martin - A pretty smart person.

Mr DEAN - Another letter and just a couple of quotes from it:

'1. The compelling evidence of Dr. Andrew Wadsley and Dr. Stuart Godfrey as against Gunns Ltd. inadequate and deficient modelling of sea and effluent movement.

2. The evidence about the nature of dioxins - they are not diluted by water, builds up and is highly toxic.

3. Gunns dioxin output into the sea would be equal to all the pulp mills in Canada.'

So they obviously must think that the Gunns pulp mill is going to send out a lot of dioxins and compared it with all the mills in Canada. Another comment in that same letter, and this has been an issue many people have referred to also, Mr President, is that there are no actual trigger points for shutdown. We now know that there are and it can happen but is a concern to the public and, as I said, I do not think that we have been good on selling the message out there. Some of these issues are fairly basic and I think that probably Gunns or the Government or whoever could have gotten that message through probably better to members of the public. That was not the first person to raise both of these issues with me.

Mr Martin - The Government spent a lot of money trying to do it.

Ms Forrest - And Gunns have too.

Mr DEAN - I am not quite sure. I think, as has been previously mentioned, that perhaps some public sessions where some of the experts could have been made available might have been a way to have gone about it where they could have explained the position and been available to answer questions. I think that might have helped. I do not think that did happen; to my knowledge it did not. There were letters of a very similar nature to that, Mr President, and of course there were some supporting it but they were in the minority.

I make the comment that their reaction is a normal concerned reaction when the effects to them are unknown, and that is also what a lot said to me, Mr President. 'We just do not know. We do not have all the facts that we want or should have and therefore we are erring on the side of caution when we do not support the mill'. So that was also a common thread that came out.

I just want to refer to the economic benefits of this proposal. From the outset I should note that an economic assessment released last week known as the Tasmanian Roundtable Economic Project, which was quite contrary to the ITS Global report, has been the subject of considerable scrutiny. The offset loss of employment in forestry, tourism and fishing and the value of benefits to Tasmania financially featured in that assessment but they have been easily discounted during our briefings and I do not believe can be relied upon.

I go to a quote in relation to the adverse effects - and I am quoting from the review of the economic benefits of the Gunns Limited pulp mill project. I can provide members with the full details of the quoted document if they want them in a moment.

'Two broad contentions are that the Project would have serious, adverse effects on forestry and tourism. The argument on forestry is that the Project will increase forest harvesting in Tasmania. It may, but even if it does, the harvesting will still occur within the areas set aside for commercial forestry under the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA). The argument is a restatement of longstanding opposition to the RFA, rather than a case against the economic impact of the Project.'

The second paragraph reads:

'The concern about tourism is that establishment of the Project may undermine Tasmanian tourism which, in part, rests on branding Tasmania as "clean and green". The reality is that the Project is being built in a pre-established industrial area which includes the Rio Tinto Aluminium Smelter, Bell Bay Power Station and TEMCO. The Project will not reduce the overall environmental amenity in Tasmania on which tourism rests. To the extent debate about the impact of the Project may have damaged perceptions of that amenity, it can be relatively easily corrected by tourism marketing.'

The source of that was the ITS Global report, pages 19 and 15.

The ITS Global report is an overall summary of benefits noted. Again I just want to refer to that quickly:

'The net economic benefits of the Project to the State economy are assessed as positive and high. From the commencement of the Project's operations until 2030, the Project will add 2.5 per cent to Gross State Product (GSP) each year above a no-Project scenario, generate on average an additional 1600 jobs, increase household consumption by 2.6 per cent above the Base Case and increase annual tax revenue for the State by $48 million by 2030 above the Base Case. This translates to an NPV GSP increase of $6.7 billion, $3.1 billion of further investment and $3.3 billion in increased consumption over the same period, and a net NPV of $440 million in additional government revenue. Overall, the results suggest that the welfare gain to Tasmanian households is in excess of $3.3 billion.

Most of the economic gain from the Project will be delivered to the Bell Bay region.'

I have one other quote from that same document:

'An intangible economic benefit will be demonstration of significant investment in new industry in Tasmania, and diversification of the economy.'

That should never be forgotten, the other things it will boost within Tasmania. I think it is fairly obvious that there will be lots of other developments and businesses that come here as a result of that.

As a member representing the area where the mill will be located and also representing George Town and parts of Launceston, the specific benefits to those areas are of particular interest. I want to go to one further quote from ITS Global:

'In the construction phase, the net benefit to Tasmania, the region and the local community is highly positive.

The Project will be constructed over a two-year period. The gain in Gross Regional Product is estimated to be more than $400 million in the Northern Region over the two years ...

There is expected to be a demand for additional employment in the region of more than 2,000 people, entailing the accommodation of a temporary workforce in the general vicinity of the Project of around 800.'

So there are lots of benefits to that area. Just mentioning that, the accommodation at George Town is an issue that has been raised by the George Town Council, where there are a number of issues and concerns that they have raised. What they are saying is that the town will need to be properly resourced to accommodate and look after the people who could well be living in that area. It could mean things such as extra police who are likely to be needed in that area. There could be other infrastructure and resources necessary as well. Medical services is another issue they have raised, as to whether or not there ought to be additional medical staff at the George Town Hospital, for instance. They have made their positions fairly well known, and I think the Government would be in possession of a document they have submitted in relation to it.

The first question to resolve is: does Tasmania need a pulp mill? If yes, the second question is: is this pulp mill the right one? I have assessed that, given the reasons I discussed earlier regarding, first, the impact on Australia's trade balance; second, the quality of pulp being produced; third, the economic value to Tasmania; fourth, the security to the forest industry and those families directly and indirectly dependent on it; fifth, the obvious merits of downstream processing of a resource which Tasmania is good at providing - that is, quality hardwood fibre; sixth, the perception to private investors that private investment capital can be spent in Tasmania and is welcomed; seventh, the economic benefits of construction in the region and that Tasmanian does need a pulp mill capable of producing the best quality kraft pulp.

I want to summarise by quoting from the ITS Global report, the section on intangible benefits:

'The numbers demonstrate the gains to Tasmania of the Pulp Mill. There are also intangible benefits. One way to assess them is to reflect on the consequences of failure to proceed. Failure to build on Tasmania's comparative advantage in this major area would be taken as disposition in Tasmania not to keep pace or even narrow the gap between economic growth and growth in employment in Tasmania compared to the rest of Australia. It would discourage other large investors ...

The general case has been made that the Mill is an "either/or" project for Tasmania - either develop an important economic resource or build on Tasmania's "clean and green" image. There is no economic or social basis for the "either/or" contention. Tasmania can do both.'

I emphasise that failure to proceed would discourage other large investment. I think that is fairly clear. This statement is best illustrated by the response in private capital investment following the failure of the Wesley Vale pulp mill and the payout of compensation to Huon Forest Products. The Treasurer might well remember this. Obviously he was not the Treasurer at the time but we have a cheque there for $3 400 000. That cheque is still around.

Mr Aird - The former member for Monmouth used to float that around all the time.

Mr DEAN - A cheque made payable to Huon Forest Products.

Mr Aird - What did he say? The cheque is in the mail. He had someone doing the search for him.

Mr Harriss - The ALP has been trying to gather up the ground ever since that dumb mistake.

Mr Aird - I will tell you what, we have done very well down there since.

Mr DEAN - Let us not repeat this again. The honourable Treasurer would agree that Tasmania slipped in economic growth compared with the rest of Australia back then. There were some difficulties. A graph was shown during a briefing which indicated how we remained very static for some period, and then we gradually came back up again. I do not think there is any need to show that graph.

With a number of qualifications, on balance, as a responsible decision maker, I cannot condemn this project. The transport issue is one that I have referred to. I think that the road infrastructure task force has already been formed and work is being done in that area.

Future monitoring of environmental conditions must be the responsibility of a monitoring authority separate to the Department of Environment with particular emphasis on air emission monitoring both on the Tamar and in the Launceston city precinct. Tourism development in the local Tamar area needs active management, with a specific marketing campaign program. The fishing industry deserves to know the sensitivities of key species within the Bass Strait marine ecosystem to the effluent from the mill.

I emphasise that failure to proceed with the project will reinforce perceptions that Tasmania is economically Australia's laggard State, as it did when the Wesley Vale mill project fell over. I do not need to show the cheque again. It has been shown and everybody is aware of it.

Having said that, it is in the middle of my electorate of Windermere. I have had a lot of people discussing the issue with me, lots of meetings, and lots of late nights, like everyone else. I think it will be good when this matter is concluded. I believe that the right pulp mill, like this one will be, will be good for Tasmania. One has to look ahead a long way, not just to tomorrow or next year. Having said that I will be supporting the motion before us, Mr President.