Printable edition: First Edition [pdf 2140kb] Revised Edition [pdf 780kb]

IS THIS THE PULP MILL JOHN WEST WOULD REJECT?

The proposed development by the Gunns Corporation of the Longreach (Bell Bay) Kraft Pulp Mill has been given “Project of State Significance” status by our State Government- and rightly so. At an estimated cost of $1,500,000,000 with a potential to inject a further $6,000,000,000 into the Tasmanian economy, this project has the potential to affect each Tasmanian in some way. It has also proven to be a very divisive issue. People vigorously disagree about the environmental impact, the economics, and the political integrity of both the project and process. We believe there is a need to consider this from one more perspective and wish to explore how we might form a Christian perspective.

.

THE NEED FOR A “CHRISTIAN” RESPONSE

It is a misconception of the scope of Christianity’s concern to restrict it to the realms of “religious” matters only. The average reader of the New Testament will be surprised to discover how rarely Jesus Christ spoke about ‘religious’ matters and how, instead, He frequently spoke about God and His concern for every area of our lives- individually and corporately. Christ’s teachings encompassed: taxation, inheritances, health care, politics, social responsibility, entrepreneurialism, materialism, justice, the after-life, sexuality, agricultural practices, family relationships, and how to live in peace. To be a follower of Christ is to invite Him into every ‘compartment’ of our lives and to make His will known to all people (since this was His last command to His followers).

It is therefore wrong for the Christian to limit his Christianity to matters merely religious, since the One he professes to follow did not restrict His teaching to just “religion”. Indeed, the Christian is probably more obligated than most to prayerfully and thoughtfully formulate a Christ-honouring response to the issues we all face.

Thus, it is certainly appropriate to attempt a Christian response regarding the proposed Bell Bay (Longreach) bleached Kraft Pulp Mill.

 

DEVELOPING A “CHRISTIAN” RESPONSE

The careful reader will note that I have refrained from the audacity of claiming that this is “The” Christian response to this issue. Christians understand that we can each contribute to the Christian response using the perspective that comes with the gifts God has given us, the experience we have enjoyed, the learning we have earned, and the perspective our relationships afford us. It is my hope that this brief response will contribute to the thinking of others in this regard. A ‘Christian’ response encompasses the various perspectives that comprise the richness of the historic Christian thought. This includes Biblical, Theological, Ethical, Pastoral and Academic considerations.

I am reluctant to use the term “Christian” to describe anything other than a spiritually regenerated person. I much prefer the adjective “Biblical” as I think it far more aptly describes what we generally mean by “Christian”. Yet, I use the term “Christian”, understanding that the Bible is the highest authority on earth for the Christian and that each of the above mentioned perspectives which help to shape this response are derived from that starting point. This response has endeavoured to develop certain recommendations which recognises the scope of (its limitations), the historical warrant for, the objectiveof, and the Biblical considerations of what a “Christian” response should be. It will also include other considerations that Christians share with the broader community.

THE SCOPE OF A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE

The evaluation process for the proposed Pulp Mill has proven to be a very controversial matter. Eminently qualified members of the RPDC (Resource Planning and Development Commission) were hampered for various reasons in their attempts to assess this proposal. Gunns Ltd have boldly declared that their proposed Pulp Mill will be “the world’s greenest pulp mill” based on their favourable scientific reports contained within their IIS.

It is not within the scope of this Christian response to examine the scientific and environmental claims of this project, except where these claims have an ethical or moral tone.

While considering the science involved, a Christian response is not merely a different interpretation of the scientific data. The scientific analysis may be a component of the Christian’s evaluation of a proposal of this magnitude. But this proposed development impinges not just on the natural environment, but the social, moral, political and religious environments as well. It was on this understanding of how a Christian commitment can affect all the arenas of life that great Christian statesmen like William Wilberforce (a Parliamentarian who reformed labour laws, introduced animal welfare legislation and co-founded the RSPCA), David Livingstone (who mapped central Africa), Martin Luther-King Jnr (who campaigned for equal rights for the Blacks of America), passionately sought to reform their societies.

THE HISTORICAL WARRANT

(THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN RESPONSES IN LAUNCESTON)

Our local newspaper, The Examiner, was founded by early Christian settlers who wanted a means to promote Christian values to the district. The principal founder was Rev. John West (1809-1873, pictured left) along with other Congregationalists James Aikenhead and Jonathon Waddell. West was an ordained Congregationalist minister who came to Launceston to pioneer a Congregational Church and discovered that God had a greater purpose for him. He used this newspaper to withstand and ‘examine’ what he considered to be issues that were incongruous with the teaching of Jesus Christ. Among his campaigns - his opposition to the attempt by the then Anglican Bishop of Tasmania to decree that the Church of England would be the “State Church” of Tasmania, but most prominently - his campaign against Tasmania being a Penal Colony. He is credited with leading the movement against British Convict Transportation to Van Diemen’s Land. His efforts culminated in the formation of the 'Australasian League for the Prevention of Transportation' in late 1851. His Christian commitment led him to also help found the Launceston City Mission to care for the poor of the city and even the Launceston Mechanics Institute.

Through his writings in the newspaper, West contributed much to the debate on political, educational, religious and cultural issues of the day. For example, in 1854 a series of sixteen articles on federation (which has since been described as the first scientific treatment of this topic in Australia) was published in The Sydney Morning Herald.

The same year John Fairfax, the owner and another Congregationalist, invited him to become the Editor of The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax had first met West in the early 1850s during the anti-transportation campaign and was impressed by his leadership in this campaign as well as his stance on many political and religious issues.
The Launceston Historical Society

Because of the Rev. John West’s significant contribution to the foundations of this Valley-City and his concern that local issues be addressed by Christians, we ask, “Is this the Pulp Mill John West would reject?”

A quick tour of the Launceston Museum and Art Gallery will impress the observer with just how involved the pioneer Christian Ministers of Launceston were in contributing a Christian response to the many issues (social, political, moral, commercial, educational) our Valley has faced since European settlement here. There is therefore some historical warrant for Christians to respond with a considered, thoughtful, caring response to any issue that affects the welfare of our valley-city. 

 

THE OBJECTIVE OF A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE

Authentic Christianity is not merely a matter of behaving religiously or even morally. It is the spiritual regeneration of the soul by the Spirit of Jesus Christ that converts a person. Those Christians who had a hand in shaping European culture saw that Christianity could not be imposed upon a society by legislation but that legislation of a civil government could hinder or promote the liberty of individuals to express their Christianity. This is the origin of the expression separation of Church and State.

For I do not allow men to make laws respecting religion and the worship of God…though I approve of civil government, which provides that the true religion which is contained in the law of God, be not violated, and polluted by public blasphemies, with impunity.
John Calvin, The Institutes of Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapt. 20

Christians worship, love and obey a God who cares for all people- not just Christians. As Christians, we should reflect this same attitude of concern for all people. Our objective in formulating a response to any issue confronting us is the welfare and betterment of us all, not just our own religious community. It is with the deepest conviction that Christians believe God’s Word gives guidelines, principles, boundaries that will not only benefit them, but all of society as well. It is with this in mind that we humbly remind our society that the very basis of Common Law is the Bible, and in particular, the Ten Commandments (Do not murder, lie, steal, etc.). We believe that society at large is made the better for keeping the Moral Law of God, as expressed in the Ten Commandments, as the standard for all laws.

The Pulp Mill proposal may not essentially be a “moral” issue, but it does encompass within its proposal and assessment process certain moral aspects.

Critics of this notion may well cry that we cannot legislate morality. I would like to quickly rebut the absurdity of this protest. Laws do indeed curb and fashion morality. What would happen to our society if we scrapped our laws against murder or theft? Chances are there would be an outbreak of murders and theft! These laws are an imposition of morality. Others might argue against allowing Christians to express a moral position on matters of civil importance by saying that legislation never changes anyone. To this we respond that even though we currently have good laws, like - Do not murder, there is still murder in our society. Laws must form the right standard for a society’s acceptable behaviour. Good laws, therefore, are necessarily idealistic because they define standards and acceptable limits of toleration. They are idealistic because we know that not everyone will always keep them.

The objective of a Christian response to any issue affecting our society is therefore the welfare and betterment of our society. This involves withstanding certain proposals and promoting others.

.

BIBLICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Then God blessed them (Adam & Eve), and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Genesis 1:28

The depth of a Christian response to an issue should involve a consideration of both sides of the issue’s debate. Based on God’s original commission to mankind, to subdue all the earth, Christians are pro-development. We are all the beneficiaries of past developments. It is in and because of development that man finds the dignity of work and creativity. God never intended mankind to be subject to nature, but rather that nature would be subject mankind. As Christians we can enjoy nature without worshiping it. We recognise that even the Garden of Eden where Adam was placed was not be left “natural”, for God commanded Adam to “dress” it. This involved removing vegetation, replacing vegetation, and adjusting vegetation. We hold no romantic infatuation with “nature” simply because it is “natural”.

Yet this commission is not a licence to abuse the earth for selfish purposes. God required that the earth be worked and rested from mankind’s activities. When God addressed Israel in the Old Testament, He linked their moral condition to the earth’s environmental conditions.

If you do [wrong], the LORD’s anger will burn against you. He will shut up the sky and hold back the rain, and your harvests will fail…
Deuteronomy 11:17a New Living Translation

It is incompatible with Christianity to destroy the earth we are commanded and commissioned by God to steward. And this should be the essence of any development: that it is a stewarding (good and right management) of the earth and its (potential) resources. We recognise then that opposing proponents from the various conservation groups and commercial stakeholders, each can justify their position as the “Christian” position. But to my knowledge, neither group has formally approached the Church of Tamar Valley to share its perspective and provide what might rightfully be regarded as a considered Christian position.

The criteria for determining the Biblical teaching and principles on a matter includes-

• Does the Old Testament specifically teach on the matter?
• Does the New Testament specifically teach on the matter?
• Can we surmise from the teachings of Christ any principle upon which we might apply to the issue before us?
• Are there didactic principles within the contents of Scripture that might be applied to the issue before us?

It is on the basis of these four points for developing a Christian response - Biblically - that I begin to formulate a response to this issue. I begin by briefly examining the Old Testament (that part of the Bible written before Jesus Christ) and then the New Testament (written since the time of Jesus Christ). This is because the Old Testament was written largely to one nation (Israel) in which the modern reader must sift its contents through the ‘grid’ of the New Testament to find those principles applicable for today. Where the New Testament is silent on a matter an Old Testament edict is not binding today.

Does the Old Testament specifically teach on the matter?

The opening commission to mankind was to dress, till and keep the earth and in particular, God’s Garden: The Garden of Eden. God expected man to ‘work’ that Garden. As time went on, God instructed that trees be logged for timber for boat building and houses. In establishing the land of Israel, God commanded that forests be cleared for cities to be built. But they were commanded not to needlessly destroy trees and in particular fruit trees (Deuteronomy 20:19-20).

…don’t start cutting down the trees, swinging your axes against them. Those trees are your future food; don’t cut them down. Are trees soldiers who come against you with weapons?
Deuteronomy 20:19b THE MESSAGE

The Old Testament thus encouraged development (log forests, clear land, build houses) which impacted on the environment, but it condemned the needless destruction of the environment especially where there is only temporary gain for a society (destroying fruit trees for “siege works” rather than for food is condemned, Deut. 20:20).

Does the New Testament specifically teach on the matter?

Jesus Christ commended entrepreneurialism in His parable of the talents in Matthew 25. He also drew on agricultural enterprise (planting trees/crops, dressing them and harvesting them) as a positive exercise. He clearly taught that “nature” was created for mankind and not the other way around and at one point cursed a fig tree for being unfruitful and told a parable of chopping down an unproductive fruit tree. Therefore, the New Testament encourages development and harvesting of natural resources. The Christian approach to stewardship of natural resources stands in stark contrast to Wiccan Pantheism which regards nature as sacred.

Can we surmise from the teachings of Christ any principle upon which we might apply to the issue before us?

Christ warned against regarding material wealth as the measure of wealth. “What does it profit a man”, Christ asked, “if he gains the whole world but forfeits his own soul?” (Matthew 16:26). Therefore, just because a development will produce some (and perhaps even great) economic gain, it is not necessarily a desirable development. For example, Christians object to Poker Machines being made so accessible, despite their obvious economic benefits to their owners, because the social cost far outweighs the economic benefits.

There is no doubt that the proposed pulp mill would provide a gross economic benefit for Tasmania. This is extremely welcomed. One set of estimates is that it will indeed inject over $6B into the Tasmanian economy over the following 30 years (resulting in an increase of around 2% of the State’s GDP). We are however not being told of the potential costs to the economy. The RPDC did not, nor is the current assessment process considering, the potential revenue loss to other businesses because of this project (“Cost Benefit Analysis”). This may have huge social implications, particularly for residents of the Tamar Valley. A former partner with accounting firm Deloitte Touche Tohumatsu, Naomi Edwards, wrote in her submission to the RPDC-

“If only 10% of the holiday visitors to Launceston and Georgetown each year are lost because of the pulp mill, the submission estimates a direct economic loss to Tasmania of $735 million over twenty years…the 10% figure used in this assessment may be conservative.”
“Too Much risk for the reward- an analysis of the pulp mill returns to the people of Tasmania. Submission To The RPDC”, by Naomi Edwards, September 2006, page 2

Are there principles within the contents of Scripture that might be applied to the issue before us?

1.  A realistic rather than a romantic view of the Environment

The Bible warns against honouring the created (our environment) above the Creator (God). As Christians we therefore do not hold idolatrous or romantic notions about the “perfection” of old growth forests or nature generally. “Creation” is not the object of our worship.

.

2.  The Environment was created for mankind, not mankind for the Environment

The Scriptures describe nature as a gift from God to mankind to be used for his benefit. We are to ‘exploit’ creation for the welfare of mankind. Man was originally told to dress, till and keep the Garden, and to subdue the earth.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Genesis 1:28

.

3.  Man was originally commissioned to use and sustain his Environment

The commission to subdue the earth is not about exploiting it for selfish purposes, but rather about “keeping” it.

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
Genesis 2:15

We are stewards of God’s earth, not owners of it (Psalm 24:1). We are called to manage it and therefore sustain it.

.

4.  Entrepreneurial development is both commended and encouraged

The Bible encourages the pursuit of profit through enterprise and effort (Prov. 10:4). It commends those who plan and prepare their business diligently (Prov. 21:5).

The plans of the diligent lead to profit…
Proverbs 21:5a

“Profit” is not necessarily considered evil unless it is the result of oppression (particularly family members or the poor).

Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you.  You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit.
Leviticus 25:36-37

The Bible condemns “profiteering” where goods are withheld from the market to seemingly over-inflated prices to take unfair advantage of the public (Prov. 11:26).

 

A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO DEVELOPMENT

Development done well brings a host of benefits to a society. It provides taxation revenue for various levels of government, jobs, infrastructure, international trade relationships potential, tourism, and a host of flow-on affects to the surrounding communities. Our Valley and State needs and should vigorously encourage good development.

But what constitutes “good” development? John Dingemanse, a Christian entrepreneur, says the answer is “sustainability”. He describes sustainability as a three legged tripod – each being essential to the long-term success of any development. These are-

Economic sustainability – viable economic dividends over the full life cycle costing taking into consideration total economic impact for a region

Environmental sustainability  – enhancing rather than detracting from the natural environment

Social sustainability –        bringing long-term benefits to the local community and the broader community both immediately and for future generations.

The $150M project at Musselroe Bay, North East Tasmania, is one tenth of the cost of the Proposed Gunns development but will provide almost the same fulltime equivalent (FTE) employment to that of the Pulp Mill. John Dingemanse says, “We have had full support from the Tasmanian Aboriginal community, the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, the Greens Party, the green movement as well as local interest groups and individuals.”

There is therefore the possibility that “Christian” development is not only theoretical, but practicable as well. We cannot share what seems to be the position of the Greens Political Party that any development impacting on the environment is bad and wrong. But neither can we accept that every development is right and good simply because it provides immediate economic benefit since- economics is only one of the several key factors in determining sustainability.

.

THE PULP MILL PROPOSAL’S INCONSISTENCIES?

In my initial paper, several differences were highlighted between what was originally mooted and then what was formally proposed. These concerns along with the response from Gunns are now overviewed here.

• A non-chlorine mill? (This was though apparently later clarified by Gunns of this being reported in various media outlets as a Total Chlorine Free (TCF) Mill to an Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) Mill. But the belief that this Mill was to be chlorine-free seems to have been fused into the perception of most Tasmanians.

Senator John Watson seemed to reflect the idea that what was originally proposed was to be chlorine-free (TCF), when he said-

It was reported in the Mercury today that a future pulp mill in Tasmania, proposed by Australia’s largest forest company, Gunns, would possibly be on the state’s agenda as a result of a meeting between Mr John Gay and Deputy Premier Lennon. This would be a fantastic prospect for my home state, especially as Gunns chairman, Mr John Gay, is committed to the non-chlorine process.
Senate Hansard, 18th July 2003, (7.16 p.m.)

According to an ABC Tasmanian Country Hour report on Friday June 25th 2005, where Rosemary Grant and Sally Dakis report on an interview with Mr John Gay, the CEO of Gunns-

Pulp mill feasibility study - Rosemary Grant/Sally Dakis – “Tasmania's forestry giant, Gunns Limited has just announced they’ve commissioned a feasibility study fortheconstructionof a pulp mill in Tasmania. Consultants have been employed to investigate the development of a total chlorine free kraft pulp mill, whichwould be a first for Australia. Finland-based consultants will determine if such a mill could be profitable, the best location, and the technology required for best environmental practice. Gunns Limited executive chairman, John Gay, says technological advances have made a non chlorine kraft pulp mill feasible and he expects Greens support for pulp mill that's environmentally sound.”
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/tas/stories/s1140510.htm

Perhaps the initial indications that the proposal from Gunns had been significantly changed from its original form was when Gunns submitted their Integrated Impact Statement (IIS). This revealed their plan to now use an elemental-chlorine free process. In discussions that I have had with Gunns, they have assured me that this change was necessary because this process is far less toxic and produces a higher quality product. Mr Les Baker, the Pulp Mill Project General Manager, has said it is the sincere belief of Gunns that the ECF process now proposed will be much more environmentally friendly. This is elaborated further in my first interview with Mr Baker.

• Processing plantation timbers only? (Not timber from native forests.)

This concern has similarly been addressed by Gunns when I raised it with Les Baker. He pointed out two important factors regarding this concern. Firstly, while Gunns stated that the Mill will be mostly plantation timbers only, it was never implying that it will immediately be. Secondly, he pointed out that even the native forests to be logged will be native regrowth (as distinct from old-growth) forests. Mr Baker explains this further in my first interview with him.

• Employing thousands of Tasmanians?

Mr Baker understood this concern but stated that they were never responsible for the claim of thousands being employed because of the Mill. He was quick to point out however, that while the Mill would directly employ 290 people, it would indirectly result in the employment of around 1600 local people.

• Using locally supplied water?

This was one of the most significant differences between what was originally proposed and what was formally proposed. Les Baker explained the reasons for the change, citing that sourcing their water locally would do more environmental damage. This is elaborated on in my first interview with Mr Baker.

• Environmentally world’s best practice?

Mr Baker stood by this claim. I raised with him the concerns of some environmentalists that Gunns could not meet the emission guidelines. He responded by saying that Gunns had contracted some of the best environmental engineers locally and internationally to ensure that this Mill would indeed be environmentally world’s best practice. He was confident that the assessment processes will thoroughly verify this. But this is despite a report from Beca AMEC (environmental assessment consultants). engaged by the RPDC during their assessment process, that because of the size of the mill its chimney stack will fail to meet Australian Standards (which would require it to be at least 215 metres high not 140). Also Dr Stuart Godfrey, a retired marine scientist with over 30 years experience in CSIRO, has shown that sediments, contaminated or otherwise, can be easily carried from the proposed discharge site in Bass Strait up to 50 km into the Tamar Estuary, as far as Rosevears by strong currents caused by intermixing of salt and fresh water at different temperatures on each change of tide. This is not mentioned anywhere in Gunns IIS.

.

• Submitted to a rigorous process of evaluation by the RPDC?

This became untenable for two reasons, according to Mr Baker. The first reason was the blow-out in costs (Gunns are paying for the assessment and the costs to Gunns are estimated at $1M a month as the assessment process continues. Without a deadline for the final assessment, the RPDC process had the potential to be financially ruinous for Gunns). Secondly, Mr Baker said, because the RPDC had a change in two panel members, there was a breach in a consistent assessment process which would have meant even further delays.

The new assessment process, Mr Baker argues, is actually now more rigorous than the previous one. Two groups will be assessing the project proposal: Sweco Pic (www.swecopic.com) who will be assessing the environmental claims, and ITS Global who will be assessing the net social and economic benefits. After the Assessors have completed their assessments, it will then be considered by the State Parliament and have to be passed by the Legislative Council. Mr Baker anticipates that these assessments will be completed by early August and passed by the Parliament by the end of August. “I consider this new process”, Mr Baker told a group of my colleagues recently, “to be far more democratic and fair.” (23rd May, 2007)

.

• Minimal visual impact?

The original graphic artwork supplied by Gunns portrayed the Pulp Mill as almost inconspicuous and blending into its surrounding environment.

Many people had raised concerns with me that this was no longer going to be the “look” of the Pulp Mill site. In an Australian Medical Association report, they state that the 140 metre high chimney stack is nearly 100 metres too short to ensure that the PM2.5 particulates are not going to cause respiratory problems.

The AMA noted that the particulate pollution (PM10) has been underestimated at the Tea Tree Bend testing site by 500%. The air dispersion model largely doesn’t meet the US EPA criteria, they state. It goes on to say that the air pollution modeling in the Gunns IIS used only one monitoring station instead of 10 as recommended by health organizations such as the AMA Tasmania.

 

Mr Baker categorically assured me that the Mill will look exactly like the proposed artwork with the exception of some minor cosmetic adjustments, such as the top of the chimney having a red band at the top.

.

ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENT, VIABILITY?

In raising several concerns about the financing and economic viability of the Proposed Pulp Mill, Mr Baker was quick to point out that the pulp and paper market was not only growing, but expected to grow for decades to come- almost entirely from the burgeoning Chinese demand for pulp. This is explored further in Mr Baker’s response to my questions in my first interview with him.

In questioning the long-term economic sustainability of this project, and the possible economic threat from both Victoria and South Australia, who are constructing pulp mills costing between $750-800M, Mr Baker pointed out that these Mills are seeking to produce a completely different product and were of no consequence to Gunns’ proposal.

.

SHARED COMMUNITY CONCERNS

• I have sought to raise some of the most serious concerns that the community have regarding this proposed Pulp Mill and have addressed what we regard as information inconsistencies. I am thankful to Mr Baker for taking the time to address our concerns and meet with my colleagues and myself. While other groups have found it difficult to have Gunns respond to their concerns, we have not. In talking with the leaders of some of these groups, I have found them to be very reasonable people with genuine concerns and a love for our Valley.

• In my discussions with Gunns I have raised the issue of various community groups feeling ignored and their concerns being too easily dismissed. This extends as far as Mr Baker not giving media interviews. I have expressed to him that this strategy has not helped the Company’s cause or the way it is perceived. Mr Baker said that the Company did not have any staff dedicated to media or public relations. “We are just ordinary hard working people who come to work everyday to keep our company going and to build our business”, he told a group of Launceston pastors recently.

• The Bible encourages “testing” and “evaluating” and “examining” so that integrity is validated. This has been the primary focus of this exercise. I would encourage Christians to listen with respect to both sides of this proposal. The Bible says-

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Proverbs 18:17

Integrity (consistent honesty - publicly and privately) is one of the most necessary and important Christian values. This leads us to expect transparency in any public process. We respect the prerogative of the State Government to govern as it is empowered to do so through the democratic and parliamentary processes that we enjoy. It is now argued by Mr Baker that this new process will be more democratic since its fate now rests with the Legislative Council (an elected body) rather than the RPDC (an appointed body).

• We recognise the rights of governments to govern decisively. Christians are particularly aware that the Bible says that governments are appointed by God (Romans 13:1-4). But we also presume that this encompasses the type of government in which those who govern exercise their privileged duty. In our case, our government type is a liberal democracy where citizens exercise freedom of speech and the right to vote for those who will govern them. This type of government is grounded in the Christian belief that all people are created equal (regardless of race or gender) because we were all originally created in the image of God. It is therefore our prerogative as Christians to participate in our current liberal democracy by protest or appeal to our members of Government with our concerns.

• Polarisation within the community about this project is of great concern. One of the most curious accusations I have received since the release of the earlier edition of this paper is that I have created community divisions by producing this Response. A variation of this criticism is that I have now divided the Christian community through raising these concerns. This is despite the presentation of this document as A (not The) Christian response and an invitation for other Christian perspectives. In speaking with Christian political leaders, Federal and State, about some of these concerns, some have found it disturbing that my Response has somehow brought their integrity into question. I count most of these people as my friends and know them to be people of the utmost integrity. Friends can disagree however and still be friends. Perhaps if the respect my concerns have been granted by the Proponent and some Political leaders had also been extended to other points of view, this community polarisation might have been minimised (?).

.

DEVELOPING A CHRISTIAN MIND

The amount of misinformation in this consideration over the proposed pulp mill is alarming and should concern Christians. Proverbs says, The first one to speak seems right until someone else gives a different view (Prov. 18:17). Christianity invites investigation. It welcomes people to test its claims and encourages this approach with any truth claim so that we won’t be gullible-

To be perfectly frank, I’m getting exasperated with your infantile thinking. How long before you grow up and use your head…Only mature and well-exercised intelligence can save you from falling into gullibility.
1Corinthians 14:20a, c  THE MESSAGE BIBLE

Most Christians, including this one, are not scientifically literate. When we hear of “effluent”, “toxic”, “organo-chlorines”, “carbon-dioxide” we regard them as environmentally destructive substances. For example, when a development is opposed by conservation groups because it will emit effluent, it is automatically assumed by many members of the community that this equates to environmental vandalism. It may. But without more information and further independent investigation, such oversimplifications are just not reasonable.

This unreasonableness is compounded when Christians are also Biblically illiterate. Christians too readily accept the subtle redefining of Biblical words (like “sacred”, “awesome”, “nature”) when used by secular environmentalists. This has led to the near deification of forests even by some Christians.

In presenting what I consider to be the Biblical position for achieving a balance between sustainable development and caring for our environment, I am inviting readers to weigh up the position I have presented. That is, think about it. But I want to conclude by encouraging Christians to weigh up, consider, and think about any other position as well. This paper has essentially challenged the conduct of the Gunns Corporation. I have endeavoured to support my concerns with reasonable evidence and then faithfully report Gunns’ response to these concerns by speaking directly with the Pulp Mill Project’s General Manager, Mr Les Baker. In fairness, I would like to include his original response on behalf of Gunns Ltd…

.

OFFICIAL RESPONSE FROM GUNNS

The first edition of this Forming A Christian Response To The Proposed Pulp Mill has been presented to Gunns. At the instigation of Mr Rene Hidding, a State Parliamentarian (who read this Response shortly after it was published on our website), a meeting between myself and Mr Les Baker, the General Manager of the Gunns Pulp Mill Project was held, Wednesday May 2nd 2007.

Mr Baker has been in the Timber and Forestry Industry for over 30 years. His knowledge of the industry was impressive. He clearly demonstrated a thorough knowledge of what the Pulp Mill entailed. He was also dismayed with the main thrust of this Response and urgently wanted to “correct” my “factual errors”. I welcomed the opportunity to speak directly with the man charged by Gunns to make this Pulp Mill a reality.

A.C. – Did Gunns originally propose a TCF (Totally Chlorine Free) Mill?

L.B. – Yes we did. But after much research we found that the TCF process was actually more environmentally damaging than an ECF (Elemental Chlorine Free) Mill and the pulp is difficult to sell because of quality issues. Most TCF Mills in other parts of the world (which number less than six) are now converting or have been converted to ECF for environmental and quality reasons. TCF Mills produce more heavy metals, use more wood, and require more chemicals.

A.C. – Did Gunns originally propose a Mill that would be supplied by plantation timbers only?

L.B. – No. We have consistently said that the Mill will be a plantation timber only Mill, but our IIS clearly states that this will take around 8 years before sufficient supplies are available. Initially plantation timber will consist of 25% – 30% of the timber supply and the balance will be from natural forest with no use of old-growth.

A.C. – Did Gunns originally propose that it would use local water supplies, then announce that it would source its water from the Trevallyn Dam?

L.B. – Yes we did, but we found that there were environmental issues associated with endangered species at the Pipers river site. The site chosen would also have flooded a vineyard and its yield of water would have been marginal, so overall it was not a good site. Even though we will initially have an extra expense in piping water from Trevallyn, we are only taking 1.4% of the outflow water from the Hydro at Trevallyn which would generate less than 1 MW of power. Using the water at the pulp mill allows for the generation of over 190 mw of power (from bio-fuel) of which half can be sold into the national grid.

A.C. – Did Gunns propose that this would be a closed loop Mill?

L.B. – No. We have never proposed that this would be a closed loop Mill because such technology for Kraft mills does not exist.

A.C.– The original photomontage of the proposed Mill makes it seem rather inconspicuous against its landscape. Has Gunns proposed to dramatically increase the height of its chimneys to around 40 stories high?

L.B. – No. Nothing has changed of any significance from the original photomontage. There will be no more chimneys than what appears in the artwork and they will not be any higher than what is shown.

A.C. – People are questioning the economics of this Mill. Can you justify to the Tasmanian people the level of gearing and government support for this project?

L.B. – It is true that the Federal Government has given $5M towards this process so far, but both the state and Federal governments stand to recoup around $800M over the life of the Mill in revenue for social distribution in the community. Therefore it’s a good investment for the Federal Government. The project’s financing is 100% guaranteed through the ANZ Bank- we are not dependent upon any Government funds. As far as the viability of the Mill in a world rapidly changing its technology it’s important to understand that the world will still need paper for at least the next 30 years. The world market for market traded Kraft pulp is 25,000,000 tonnes per annum. This Mill will supply 1,000,000 tonnes of that demand. The other pulp mills proposed for South Australia and Victoria are not Kraft pulp mills and produce a completely different product. The demand for the pulp we will produce will dramatically increase over the next few years from China alone. They are installing one new paper machine each month at a cost of $US400,000 each. Each of these paper mills employ around 300 people each.

A.C. – How do you respond to my assertions that there has been an apparent lack of truthfulness in this proposal process so far?

L.B. – Much of the confusion has arisen from a lack of understanding about the approvals and consultation process. The process involves investigation of a mill and its social, economic and environmental impacts and modifying the project over its development to optimise outcomes. It wasn’t until we had done the research and finalised our proposal in our IIS that we could emphatically state exactly what we wanted to build although there is very little difference from what was originally envisaged. I challenge anyone to find any dishonesty within the 9,500 pages of our Integrated Impact Statement.

.

MEETING OF LAUNCESTON’S SENIOR PASTORS AND GUNNS MANAGEMENT

At my invitation, Les Baker agreed to meet with the senior pastors of Launceston over a breakfast meeting on May 23rd. Some doubt had been cast over whether the concerns raised in my initial Response really were representative of the sentiments of this professional group. A group of about 25 pastors gathered to listen to Mr Baker address our concerns. He reiterated most of what he had said to me at our first meeting and responded to some other questions asked by pastors.

Perhaps the most significant questions pertained to the Mill’s location and the new assessment process. Mr Baker was asked why the Long Reach site was adopted over the Hampshire site (back of Burnie). He stated that the costs associated with building the Mill at Hampshire would have been too restrictive. It would also need much more infra-structure to be built, he said. Added to this he told us that the length of the effluent pipe needed from this site (over 40 kilometres long) was unreasonable. He said that the Bell Bay site made sense for them because it was close to their existing resources, in an already industrial zone, had existing infra-structure, and was in close proximity to good port facilities.

Several pastors expressed disappointment that the RPDC process had not been successful. Mr Baker assured them that the new independent assessor was in no way connected with Gunns (he had never heard of Sweco Pic) and therefore we should be assured that this assessor’s findings will be totally independent. Mr Baker also said that the original Scoping (sic) Guidelines of the RPDC would still be the criteria of this assessment.

This meeting Mr Baker concluded with one pastor expressing his frustration that since both major political parties were totally supporting this project there seemed to be a sense of fait accompli about this and any community group which had concerns about this had no real avenue of redress. This frustration was heightened, this pastor added, when he brought to our attention a letter from State politician castigating the church of Launceston about getting involved in this debate since the time for public submissions ended several years ago. He said, “We smell a ‘rat’ - and the ‘rat’ is that this project is going ahead come what may!” Mr Baker said he was unaware of the particular letter and went on to reassure us that he was not urging our silence but actually welcomed further dialogue with the Church community of Launceston directly with him over any concerns we had.

.

CONCERNS ADDRESSED TO A CHRISTIAN RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED PULP MILL

We recognise the diverse benefits that comes from sustainable development within our State and we welcome it. These developments which appropriately exploit our natural resources and value-add to them within our State are also to be strongly encouraged. Our original concerns have each been addressed by Gunns. I have included their responses within this supplementary document.

From a Christian perspective certain inconsistencies, which have created the perception of a lack of truthfulness regarding the Proposal, have been challenged. This aspect of the original document has been criticised. How do you measure perceptions!? How can you base a large portion of your argument on people’s perceptions!? In answer to the first question, I would consider that the prevalence of the perception due to the Proponent’s initial announcements has been validated by my interview with Mr Baker. That is, he has confirmed that the perception of what the Pulp Mill was to be was indeed due to the earlier statements by Gunns. It wasn’t until the feasibility study was done that they could officially state what type of  Mill it would be.

I have been criticised for giving merit to supposed public ‘perceptions’ that the State Government has done something “underhanded” in the way they have handled the assessment process. There may well be nothing “underhanded” in the way the State Government has handled this. However, when Mr Terry Martin (MLC) crossed the floor over the way this was being handled by his Party (and was dismissed from the Parliamentary Labor Party for doing so), he described what the State Government was doing as “dangerous” and “an attack on democracy”. The Australian Newspaper (March 29th 2007) reported Mr Martin siding with those who considered what the State Government were doing to be, “quick and dirty”. When the head of the RPDC (a Chief Justice) claimed that this has been handled “illegally”, a perception was being created for the public. Such public perceptions result from the accumulation of several such events.

.

WOULD JOHN WEST REJECT THIS MILL?

I wish to thank Les Baker from Gunns Ltd for his time and availability in answering our questions and addressing some of our concerns. Our discussions with him have been very cordial and courteous. Would John West reject this Pulp Mill? I hope at least he would encourage the engagement of the Christian community in this debate and welcome the concerns that we have raised in the pursuit of guarding the welfare of our Valley-City and then respectfully consider the various contributions to this debate. And I think at least his recommendation would be what Christ also urged: pray that God’s will be done.

Dr. Andrew Corbett, 29th May 2007

FURTHER REFERENCES

Gunns Ltd	http://www.gunnspulpmill.com.au/
Pulp Mill Task Force	http://www.pulpmill.tas.gov.au/
Resource Planning Development Commission	http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/
Bank Track Private Finance – Public Interest	http://www.banktrack.org/?show=dodgy&id=74
Source Watch- Centre For Media & Democracy	http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title= Evaluation_ of_the_Social_Impact_Assessment_of_the_ Gunns_Ltd_Bell_Bay_Pulp_Mill
Tamar Pulp Mill Information Site	http://www.tamarpulpmill.info/