Recent media reports indicate
that the proposed pulp mill in Tasmania may not go ahead – August 2012. This
piece was written when media reports were more positive, and talked about a
possible Ministerial approval with ‘strict conditions.’ The piece is still
relevant, as the conditional approval remains a strategy promoted by Federal,
State and Local Governments to achieve their ambitions irrespective of the
failings and inherent problems in the proposals being approved. The
Association’s experience shows this to be far for reassuring in spite of the
gloss governments place on these
outcomes – see also
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/town-planning-concerns.html
Our Association has had over
thirty years of experience with local authorities approving developments of all
shapes and sizes in spite of the number and rigour of objections, by using
conditions to overcome contentious issues and obvious problems.
This process allows these
bodies to argue that all matters have been addressed and to give assurances to
all and sundry that every action has been and will be taken to ensure that not
one of the predicted problems (whatever these might be) will or can arise –
that all concerns can be calmed.
This process includes
strategies where appointed experts are given the role to supervise processes
and approve subsequent matters in more detail as these developments progress
after they have been approved. The pattern is now very familiar to us and
continues in spite of our explicit complaints about this tactic that clouds
concerns and smothers objections.
Our experience has shown just
how easy it is with the passage of time for conditions to fade away, be ignored
or simply to be forgotten. Even worse than this neglect, we have seen how easy
it is for conditions to be renegotiated once any failure with compliance has
been exposed. This alarming and apparently legal process is able to take place
in private discussions, between the approving body and the developers,
completely away from the public scrutiny that the original development
application had to be subjected to. It is a serious and concerning loophole.
Given this repeated
experience, one can only be alarmed and worried with such a major development
as the proposed pulp mill in Tasmania obtaining approval ‘with conditions’ – no
matter how many there might be. Indeed, it seems that more conditions only
create the possibility of more loopholes. If this mill does get built and
problems arise with achieving ‘world class’ or ‘world first’ outcomes now
apparently defined in approval conditions determined by ‘science,’ it will be
very easy to have ‘new science’ define ‘new’ outcomes by proving, perhaps, that
some conditions are ‘scientifically’ impossible or undesirable, or that the
‘old science’ was wrong. ‘Science’ is merely a word that can promote both the
good and the bad, and ensures very little. It is not infallible or fixed in
time. Indeed, it prizes itself on constantly reviewing and testing its
hypotheses, with failure being seen to be more significant than any
confirmation.
Then there is the ‘real’
world. Our experience has shown just how reluctant approving bodies are to
enforce promised, predetermined outcomes. The cry is that a court may not see
it in the same way, so discussions begin. Just try imaging how any government
could close down a multi-billion dollar development once it starts pouring out
its substances of any qualities or in any quantities. We can be told anything
now just to get the mill up and running, but will those who have approved it
still be there to ensure that all of the conditions will be met –
‘unconditionally,’ in full accord with all of the ‘conditions’?
We have seen that
‘conditions,’ like ‘science,’ are relative, and can be used to play a confusing
role where their own inherent ambivalence and uncertainty can be ‘spun’ to suit
ambitions in a phoney ‘win-win’ outcome. It all becomes more than bewildering
when the two, with all of their vagaries, come together as ‘scientific
conditions’ that aim to place a veil of certainty and predictability over what
we have repeatedly seen to be something that is fully flexible and negotiable,
capable of achieving any possibility with complete indifference to the implied
rigour and commitment.
It is interesting to hear
Gunn’s spokesperson speak about ‘trying to’ achieve a mill that can meet all
conditions. The real challenge is to understand what any failure to achieve
this might mean, especially with billions at stake. ‘Conditional, scientific’
approvals are not what they appear to be. Our Association has seen how they can
so easily be manipulated to shut people up and out.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.