Dear Mayor and Aldermen,
We believe Alderman Tony Peck’s motion to support the pulp mill exceeds his power and is outside councils powers under sections 20, 21 and 36 of the Local Government Act.
This motion is beyond the ‘Functions and Powers’ of a council.
Under section 36 of the Act it is not even possible for a council to operate outside its municipal area without setting-up an authority first.
For Peck to move a motion in support of a business venture in another municipality just because he likes it is ridiculous.
Would council vote to support a used car yard at George Town for instance?
It is extremely misleading of Alderman Peck to claim the pulp mill has ‘received all State and Federal approvals’ when those approvals are the subject of two pending court cases.
Given the company concerned is currently involved or implicated in four separate court cases, it is dubious for Peck to seek support for this proposal at all.
The ‘assessment’ was contentious and many believe corrupt. Is Launceston City Council attempting to prejudice those pending court cases? Will Alderman Peck move a motion in support of ‘corruption’ next?
In his background to the motion Alderman Peck makes the unsubstantiated claim that the pulp mill will somehow return forest sector jobs to the levels they were when no pulp mill existed in this area.
This is not even a rational argument. Alderman Peck says he can’t see any other industry replacing the jobs lost from this industry. Another barely rational argument that says more about Aldermen Peck’s lack of vision for the future of our area than his understanding of the global commodity market.
Predicting pulp futures is far outside the scope of local government. Launceston City Council has no right to further divide the community with this meaningless show of support for a botched precess.
The TAP Team.
John, Catherine, Rose & Nick, Jessica, Alex and Estelle Day. Rowella.
Lisa Boyter, Robigana
Dr Anna Bower, Legana
Penelope Anne Laskey
Mr Graeme Ralph & Mrs Valerie Ralph
Frank Strie and Family
Alice Graham Mount Stuart
Cathran Bowyer Trevallyn
Chris and Angela Long
Ed MItchell Howrah
Ian and Julia Hopewell
Eric Ollier & Muriel Rollins
Susan, Gary, Heath, Cameron and Megan Keleher
Ms Peta Newman
Warren Hastings, Summerhill (L.C.C. Ratepayer), &
Fairlie Ferguson, West Launceston (L.C.C. Ratepayer)
T.M. & G.M. Morris, Youngtown
Chris Hullock, Newnham
General Manager Dobrzynski has taken the Local Government Act as his authority to justify his joining the Launceston City Council to Gunns’ ‘successful integration’ committee. This despite a council resolution of two years’ standing not to approve the Long Reach proposed pulp mill and his predecessor’s comment that the L.C.C. was under no obligation to co-operate with Gunns in this matter.
By any standard the proposed pulp mill is a politically sensitive affair and alderman Ball was correct in his desire to have the General Manager’s decision brought to council debate.
If the General Manager has equal power to set council policy with that of the elected aldermen, why is his position not also subject to election?
Alderman Oeck’s enthusiasm is for solely economic reasons: ‘If the pulp mill development is successful and proceeds, Launceston will be the major economic beneficiary from the construction and operational aspects. The economy of the state is in dire need of a boost and the mill will certainly create jobs and economic growth. The enormous flow-on from this development will boost the community and provide much needed work for many types of industries and businesses large and small.’ (Quotes from The Ex, 9th Dec.) You’ll notice the lack of any contrary economic opinion, and the total lack of the health and traffic concerns that caused the previous disapproval.
Support the pulp mill: Peck
BY ALISON ANDREWS CHIEF REPORTER
09 Dec, 2011 08:31 AM
LAUNCESTON alderman Tony Peck wants the council to declare its support for Gunns’ proposed $3 billion Bell Bay pulp mill.
Alderman Peck will call on aldermen to agree to council support for the controversial mill.
Alderman Peck said yesterday that he had decided to bring the notice of motion to the last council meeting for the year for debate to try to redress a successful motion regarding the pulp mill put by Alderman Jeremy Ball some time ago.
``That meant that the council couldn’t support the mill and has it laid on the table ever since,’’ Alderman Peck said.
``But this is a new council now after the elections and a new ball game so that things can be brought back to the meeting to be debated.’‘
Alderman Peck said that he believed the council should have a motion that was supportive of the pulp mill on the table.
``If the pulp mill development is successful and proceeds, Launceston will be the major economic beneficiary from the construction and operational aspects,’’ he said.
``The economy of the state is in dire need of a boost and the mill will certainly create jobs and economic growth.
``The enormous flow on from this development will boost the community and provide much needed work for many types of industries and businesses large and small.’‘
Alderman Peck’s notice of motion would probably not have had the support to be passed from the previous council.
But the new aldermen elected in November have given him the confidence that the numbers might be there now to get his motion through.
John Day, Rowella:
Dear Mr. Peck,
I can not believe that you can in all consciousness support anything to do with the STILL proposed Gunns Pulp Mill project. You must be aware that:
In summary detail only.
• A Voters Poll of the Launceston Council established the council’s formal position, to one of NO support for the project until a comprehensive risk assessment had been undertaken of the complete project. How can you as an Alderman go against this democratically established position?
• Gunns Limited and the forest industry are responsible for continued logging not only in OUR water catchment area but in the greater region as well, directly causing 48% of the major silt problem in the River Tamar.
• The company has in the past and continues to be an abysmal corporate citizen and role model to other businesses, to the community and particularly to young people.
• Over the last seven years the company has been an active participant in- putting aside the RPDC’s findings of “ critically deficient” “insufficient, conflicting and incorrect information: regarding its draft ILS proposal – using its company lawyers to draft the PMAA legislation and promoting that actually in OUR Parliament – making hundreds of public statements with regards to the STILL proposed project that continue to be unfounded– holding closed doors meetings with Councils and key government departments – and causing by its actions and statements a pall of adverse sentiment, divisiveness and polarisation in the industry and wider community for seven years.
• For seven years directly disrupting the business opportunities of many Tamar Valley business, causing great personal uncertainly to the lives, plans and the immediate future of so many families in the Rowella, Sidmouth, Kayena, Deviot and Hillwood areas.
• For participating in the Fast Track process that EXCLUDED public concerns, truncated any sensible level of RISK ASSESSMENT of the project, was part of Premiers and Ministers continually breaking promises, was part of the media continuing to report only part and only one side of anything to do with the STILL proposed project.
• For participating in a process and outcome where the state EPA has no monitoring capacity to protect the community during the construction, development and production periods.
• Gunns Limited board of directors has still have not the capacity to approve the project as a whole – seven years on – there are a number of serious legal cases against the company pending – the financial stability and viability of the company has been questioned.
And you want to support the company?
Why not support a truly independent Risk Assessment project.
As an Alderman you should be worried for the community you represent – an extra 600+ trucks per day plus chemical, “green waste” and empty return trucks – a 50 KM radius of potential odour and adverse medical effects – loss of tourism – far fewer people relocating to the area – small business being hurt by adverse outcomes – our green and clean image and business ethos being trashed- more silt from forestry – continued loss of biodiversity – and worst of all continued lack of good governance, corporate citizenship and community cohesiveness.
Please withdraw your motion and instigate a motion for a risk assessment – now.
Professor Jenny Davis will be giving a Public Presentation to the Community on Friday 16th December from 3:00 - 5:00pm, in the Reception Room here at Town Hall. Professor Davis’ presentation will be on her Adaptive Management Approach to improving environmental outcomes for the Upper Tamar River. The public are invited to attend. An advertisement inviting members of the public to attend the presentation will be placed in the Examiner on Friday 9th (tomorrow), Saturday 10th, and again on Tuesday 13th December. It will also be advertised on Council’s website.
A separate roundtable meeting and presentation by Professor Davis’ is being held on the same day, for State and Federal Bass MPs and relevant stakeholders.
First published: 2011-12-11 07:15 AM
Examiner, Monday: Council rejects Peck’s pulp mill motion
12 Dec, 2011 03:31 PM
Launceston alderman Tony Peck has failed in his bid to have the city council support Gunns $3 billion Bell Bay pulp mill.
Alderman Peck brought the notice of motion at today’s council meeting.
The vote was lost six-all after Mayor Albert van Zetten voted against the motion.
Those who voted for the motion were: Tony Peck, Rob Soward, Hugh McKenzie, Robin McKendrick, Jim Cox and Annette Waddle.
Those who voted against the motion were: Ted Sands, Rosemary Armitage, Danny Gibson, Jeremy Ball, Ian Norton and Albert van Zetten.
Twenty two members of the public gallery spoke on the issue before the motion was voted upon.
All but four of those spoke against the pulp mill.
FULL REPORT IN THE EXAMINER TOMORROW
Clive Stott, Cleanair TasDear Mayor and Aldermen,
Alderman Pecks Motion of Support for a Pulp Mill.
I feel such a motion should be ruled out of order.
The matter relates to something that is not even in the Launceston Municipality.
How can LCC allow this motion and yet prevent people from out of your municipality from having a say?
Let me remind aldermen that LCC passed motions recently to prevent people from smoking at bus stops and in other public places. I believe a by-law was created in relation to smoking. We have State laws enacted that LCC uphold presumably tot prevent people smoking in, or near, hospitals, libraries, etc.
These laws were passed because LCC knows and agrees that fine particle matter is known to be extremely harmful and in many cases is obnoxious and shortens lives.
LCC participates in the wood heater buy-back program. Thousands of dollars have been spent to try and reduce our valley of harmful PM2.5 particulates and toxins.
How can LCC now pass a motion of support for the big brother of all cigarettes and wood heaters; a pulp mill?
Wood heater sales are on the increase because of the current financial situation. People have to be warm, especially vulnerable people, i.e. the young, the elderly and those suffering from heart or lung conditions.
Even now we will not meet PM2.5 NEPM standards when they are soon to be introduced. There will be air quality exceedences in the Tamar Valley even without a pulp mill. Many thousands of people would be affected by the additional fallout from the mill at certain times. This is a risk we cannot take.
I feel Gunns do not have a monopoly on our air. When PM2.5 particulate matter enters our lungs it stops there and harmful attached toxins cross over into our blood stream.
Even now Tasmania does not fare very well with some of the highest rates of cancer, asthma, diabetes, COPD, etc. in Australia.
The EPA has recently confirmed we have PM2.5’s coming in from the mainland. This was not factored into the rushed and very limited base-line air quality studies undertaken for a pulp mill.
I believe the pulp mill studies were designed around PM10 emissions. For most part of the life of this proposed mill, new PM2.5 air quality standards will be in force and air quality exceedences must occur in the Tamar Valley.
Why would LCC want to be part of and support this?
I have been admitted to the LGH with chronic airflow limitation as a result of forest practices even while a pulp mill was being proposed. I have worked in a pulp mill and never want to be near one again.
I know of others who have suffered respiratory problems in our community as I say even before a pulp mill is built.
We, I believe, including LCC should not support a pulp mill in the Tamar Valley; a valley that is known to experience temperature inversions that are capable of trapping and concentrating harmful toxins.
Clive M. Stott
LCC BURIES PULP MILL
As Cargo Cult Resurrection Bid Fails
Kim Booth MP
Greens Primary Industries Spokesperson
The Tasmanian Greens today congratulated Launceston City Council for its stand against the toxic proposal for the Gunns Ltd pulp mill.
Greens Member for Bass Kim Booth MP said the desperate bid to resurrect support for the Gunns Pulp Mill was defeated with the support of both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Launceston City Council yesterday.
“The Motion by Alderman Peck was the last desperate hope for any resurrection for the Gunns’ pulp mill and now the corpse of this stinking project has been officially declared dead by vote of Council,” said Mr Booth
“The Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors who stood up for their constituents and rejected Alderman Peck’s absurd resurrection proposal, deserve the highest praise.”
“To say no to the corrupt approval is the only appropriate response to the cargo cult mentality of those seeking to impose Gunns’ toxic mill on the City of Launceston.”
“The rejection of the Gunns pulp mill by Launceston City Council is a clear warning to anyone foolish enough to consider buying into the mill that the community will simply not allow the project to proceed.”
“The health and safety of residents of the Tamar Valley is not for sale and again I applaud those Councillors for standing up for their City.”
“These councillors reflect the overwhelming public opinion which rejects the Gunns pulp mill because they know that the so-called approval process was a corrupted one that provides no surety for the safety of our health, the environment or jobs,” said Mr Booth.