Tasmania Tamar Valley Pulp Mill

The Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 261–282 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00586.
RESEARCH AND EVALUATION
Tasmania’s Tamar Valley Pulp Mill: A Comparison of

Planning Processes Using a Good Environmental
Governance Framework
Fred Gale
University of Tasmania
In November 2004, the Tasmanian government requested the state’s planning body, the
Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC), to undertake an evaluation of a
proposal to establish a pulp mill at Long Reach near Bell Bay on Tasmania’s Tamar Estuary.
In early 2007, Gunns Limited, the project’s proponent, pulled out of the RPDC process and the
government established an alternative, ‘fast-track’ process under the Pulp Mill Assessment
Act (PMAA). This article evaluates the RPDC and the PMAA assessment processes using
a ‘good environmental governance’ framework composed of eight criteria – transparency,
accountability, openness, balance, deliberation, efficiency, science and risk. The comparison
reveals that although the RPDC process fell short of the ideal, it was markedly superior to
the PMAA process that replaced it. The case highlights how political economic power can
be used to the detriment of public planning and the communities and environment that rely
on it.
Key words: Pulp Mill Assessment Act, good environmental governance, decision-making
Liberal democracy is not delivering good envi- ment, in practice the policies they formulate are
ronmental results. From climate change to wa- tailored to deliver benefits to core constituen-
tershed destruction, from habitat loss to fish- cies. Thus, once in government, party leaders
eries depletion, outcomes at the local, national of whatever hue support rapid economic devel-
and global levels leave a great deal to be de- opment to deliver jobs, profits and taxes. The
sired. The upshot is that needed policies are broader environmental and community costs
watered down and then delayed by power- associated with the projects and programs de-
ful, negatively affected ‘old economy’ interests signed to achieve these outcomes are down-
appealing to ‘environmental realism’. Nature, played or, at times, completely ignored.
paying no heed to such self-regarding actions This driving need of mainstream political
and the spin used to justify them, continues to parties to support economic development de-
react in complex and chaotic ways to the cumu- spite potentially high environmental and com-
lative effects of unsustainable production. The munity costs is nowhere more clearly illustrated
results are well known: a thinning of the ozone than in the recent conflict in Tasmania over a
layer, a warming the earth, deforestation, soil proposal to site a pulp mill at Long Reach, near
erosion, desertification and species extinction. Bell Bay, on the banks of the Tamar Estuary.
The difficulty is that the institutions that have Endorsed by the Australian Labor Party (ALP)
evolved to make liberal democracy work ex- and the Liberal Party of Australia at both state
ert insufficient control over powerful actors – and Commonwealth levels, the pulp mill pro-
business and governments – between elections. posal has been assessed locally under two dif-
While mainstream political parties are adept ferent processes. The initial assessment, under-
at using the rhetoric of sustainable develop- taken by the state’s planning body, the Resource

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
C 2008 National Council of the Institute of Public Administration Australia
262 Tasmania’s Tamar Valley Pulp Mill September 2008
Planning and Development Commission quested the premier to declare its proposed pulp
(RPDC), was aborted when the proponent, mill a ‘Project of State Significance’, Tasma-
Gunns Limited, pulled out in March 2007. In nian planning-speak for it to be assessed by the
response, the state government rushed the Pulp RPDC.
Mill Assessment Act (PMAA) through parlia-
ment to deliver an alternative, ‘fast-track’ as-
sessment, an arrangement fully endorsed by the Long Reach or Hampshire?
state Liberal Party. Notwithstanding bipartisan
support from Tasmania’s political economic Gunns’ first task was to determine where to site
elites, opinion polls have consistently indicated the mill and two locations in Northern Tasma-
that neither the pulp mill nor the process used nia were considered: Long Reach near Bell Bay
to approve it have the support of the majority on the Tamar Estuary; and Hampshire, south
of Tasmanians. of Burnie. In February 2005, the company an-
This article assesses the Tamar Valley pulp nounced Long Reach on the Tamar Estuary
mill case from a ‘good environmental gover- as its preferred site, justifying its selection al-
nance’ perspective. The article is divided into most exclusively on economic grounds related
four sections. Following this introduction, an to cost savings from: (i) proximity to planta-
account of Gunns’ decision to pull out of the tion feedstock; (ii) an established deep seaport;
RPDC process is presented along with the gov- and (iii) ready supplies of electricity and gas.
ernment’s decision to fast-track an assessment The reduced requirement for road transporta-
through the PMAA. In section three, a com- tion was cited as an important social and envi-
parison of the RPDC and PMAA processes is ronmental benefit. Detailed comparative cost
conducted using a good environmental gover- estimates of both sites do not appear to have
nance framework composed of eight elements – been publicly released, but the consultant who
transparency, openness, balance, accountabil- undertook the feasibility study reported savings
ity, deliberation, efficiency, science and risk. of $24 million per annum for the Long Reach
The comparison reveals that the PMAA pro- site in transportation costs alone (Sunday Ex-
cess was seriously deficient across six of the aminer 2005).2
eight criteria. In the final concluding section, In June 2005, Gunns submitted a detailed
the significance of the Tamar Valley pulp mill proposal to the RPDC. To this point, most
case for project planning in liberal democracies Tasmanians, including the ALP government,
is assessed, with calls for more and better in- appeared satisfied with the process. Premier
termediary institutions endorsed to secure not Lennon was quoted as saying he had full con-
only ‘rule by the people’ but also better out- fidence in the RPDC: ‘They’ve demonstrated
comes for the environment and the communi- that they’re capable of doing this appropriately,
ties that depend on them. bad projects get thrown out by the RPDC’
(ABC News 2005b). Despite popular satis-
faction, however, Gunns’ executive chairman,
The Tamar Valley Pulp Mill Case John Gay, warned Tasmanians the same month
that the investment was not guaranteed and the
The story commenced in mid-2003 with ru- company could build the mill elsewhere (ABC
mours that Gunns Limited, a major Tasmanian News 2005a). His comment was repeated in the
forest products company, wanted to build a pulp run up to the March 2006 Tasmanian state elec-
mill in the state to add value to its woodchip ex- tion, when Gunns stated it might have to move
ports (ABC News 2007c). Following a request the project to China if a hung parliament were
from Labor Premier Paul Lennon, the state’s voted in (ABC News 2006b).3
planning body (RPDC), drew up a set of ‘best The pulp mill was not yet a major polit-
practice’ guidelines.1 The guidelines, released ical issue. Les Rochester, the spokesperson
for public consultation in June 2004, were ap- for the Tamar Residents Action Committee
proved in October. Shortly thereafter Gunns re- (TRAC), which had formed shortly after Gunns

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
Gale 263
announced it was considering building a mill, Commissioner Julian Green requested supple-
stood for election in the seat of Bass and mentary information from Gunns on many of
received just over 1100 votes, well short of these matters.
a quota under Tasmania’s Hare-Clark propor- Gunns appeared nettled by these new re-
tional representation system. Overall, there was quests for information and continued to de-
only a small swing away from the ALP in mand a speedy conclusion to the RPDC as-
the 2006 state election and no change in the sessment process. This demand could not be
parties’ standing in parliament. Labor retained met, however, due to allegations of govern-
its lower house majority, winning 14 of the ment interference that surfaced in late 2006.
25 seats in the Legislative Assembly, with the This interference was alleged to originate from
Liberals and Greens trailing with seven and the government’s own Pulp Mill Task Force
four seats respectively.4 (PMTF), a promotional body set up by the gov-
ernment to spruik the mill’s benefits. From its
Things Fall Apart website to its newsletters to its bus tours, the
PMTF advertised the economic advantages of
It was shortly after the March 2006 election pulp mills in general and the Tamar Valley pro-
that the pulp mill assessment process began posal in particular. The activities of the task
to unravel from the perspective of Gunns and force were a serious concern to Green, who
the ALP government. For Gunns, costs associ- continuously sought the premier’s assistance to
ated with the RPDC assessment process were rein it in, apparently with little effect (Neales
becoming a concern. In July, the company’s 2007h).
pulp mill project manager announced that it Green was determined that there should be
had spent $11 million preparing its Integrated no factual basis for an allegation of actual or
Impact Statement (IIS), and expected to pay ‘apprehended bias’ against any of his commis-
out over $40 million before final approval. sioners that might warrant their removal. How-
The company was under some financial pres- ever, in late October, the Tasmanian Greens
sure in international markets, reportedly los- made just such an allegation against Warwick
ing market share to mainland competitors as Raverty, the Commonwealth Scientific and In-
Japanese buyers began to express a preference dustrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) pulp
for plantation woodchips over woodchips from mill expert on the panel, on the basis that he
native forests (ABC News 2006a).5 Gunns’ was an employee of Ensis, a company that had
share price trended down from $3.30 at the end ‘already formed a clear view with respect to
of March to a low of $2.56 at the end of Septem- the Pulp Mill Project in general terms, and in
ber before staging a modest recovery.6 respect of some of the crucial issues’ (Sealy
Gunns’ IIS was also coming under sustained 2006). Once the allegation was made, it was
scrutiny. Reports commissioned by the RPDC critical that no prima facie evidence exist to
as well as stakeholder submissions from groups substantiate it, but the PMTF had employed
such as the Tasmanian Council of Social Ser- CSIRO information concerning pulp mills on
vice, the Royal Automobile Club of Tasma- its website, and even signed a contract with
nia, the Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council, Ensis, a CSIRO affiliate, to conduct a study
Investors for the Future of Tasmania and the of bleached pine toxicity. While the RPDC re-
Dorset Council raised a range of concerns about ceived legal advice that there was no truth to
the mill’s economic, environmental and social the allegation, fighting it through the courts
impacts. Specific issues identified related to would take time – according to Raverty up-
the mill’s net economic costs and benefits; the wards of two years.7 Raverty felt obliged to
adequacy of wood supplies and transportation tender his resignation and Green felt he had
networks; the composition and volume of air; no option but to accept it and tendered his
land and water emissions; workforce arrange- own shortly afterwards, prompting the first
ments; and odour. In advance of the RPDC’s RPDC crisis in early January 2007 (ABC News
October Directions Hearing, then Executive 2007e).

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
Wright Action ing that the proposal was in ‘critical non-

compliance’ with its requirements. Hornsey re-
With the resignations of Raverty and Green, quested the letter not be sent, and is reported
the RPDC assessment process was in disar- to have informed Gunns of its contents on 8
ray. The premier needed to act decisively to March (Neales 2007d). Shortly afterwards, on
restore public confidence. This he did by ap- 14 March, Gunns announced to the Australian
pointing an eminent, retired Supreme Court Stock Exchange that it was withdrawing from
Judge, Christopher Wright, to chair the pulp the RPDC process (Denholm 2007b).
mill assessment panel. In making the appoint-
ment, the premier stated that: ‘Mr Wright is
ideally suited to oversee the pulp mill assess- Quitting the RPDC
ment process and is held in high esteem not
only in legal circles but right across the Tasma- Why did Gunns pull out of the RPDC pro-
nian community’ (Price 2007). The premier’s cess? Officially the company cited ‘the lack
high opinion of Wright lasted barely a month, of certainty over when a final decision will be
however. By late February, he appeared frus- delivered’ which had ‘placed the company in
trated by the former judge’s unwillingness to an untenable position and imposed a signifi-
tailor the RPDC assessment process to Gunns’ cant impact on the financial risk of the project’
firmly stated deadline of 30 June. Gunns, too, (Gunns 2007). While this argument has face
was increasingly alarmed, not only because the validity, the justification needs to be quali-
new panel chair appeared to blame the company fied in three major respects. Firstly, the mar-
at a Directions Hearing in Launceston on 22 ket pressure Gunns was under put a premium
February for past delays, but also because of the on an early start date for mill construction and
RPDC’s evident dissatisfaction with the com- it had already entered into contract arrange-
pany’s IIS and Supplementary Information.8 ments with several companies for the design
This was the context in which, following the and construction of the mill post-September
Launceston Directions Hearing on 22 February 2007. These contracts, plus lost earnings, en-
2007, the premier met with Gunns’ executive abled the company to claim that the cost of
chairman John Gay to discuss options and, fol- delay post-September would be more than a
lowing that meeting, with Wright in a bid to million dollars per day (Neales 2007j).9
speed up the RPDC process. The second qualification is that Gunns ap-
While the premier appears to have viewed the pears itself to have contributed significantly
meeting as an exploration of options, Wright to the delays it complained about. This was
considered it an inappropriate attempt to pres- certainly Wright’s view, who noted at his first
sure him to hasten and weaken the RPDC pro- Directions Hearing in Launceston in February
cess to meet Gunns’ preferred timeline (Herr 2007 that ‘. . . it has become quite apparent that
2007). On 2 March Wright tendered his verbal due to accumulated delays, all or most of which
resignation to Linda Hornsey, Secretary of the appear to have resulted from Gunns’ failure or
Department of Premier and Cabinet, and later inability to comply with their own prognostica-
drafted a letter of resignation. Wright claims tions or the panel’s requirements, that time line
the letter was not sent because Hornsey con- [completion by 28 May 2007] can no longer
tacted the premier who issued assurances that apply’(Wright 2007:3).10
he did not intend to legislate a fast-track process The third qualification is that by early March
(Stedman 2007c). But things were going from Gunns’ share price was dropping sharply fol-
bad to worse. On 9 March, the acting executive lowing a poor mid-term report to the Aus-
commissioner of the RPDC, Simon Cooper, tralian Stock Exchange (Ellison 2007). In late
who had taken over in that capacity following February, the company’s shares were trading at
Green’s resignation, sent a letter to Hornsey around $3.10 but fell to around $2.62 in early
outlining deficiencies in the supplementary in- March.11 Analysts, it appeared, reacted to the
formation submitted by Gunns and conclud- company’s reduced financial performance as

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
Gale 265
well as to increased concerns about whether the municipalities supported the mill including,
pulp mill could be approved under the RPDC controversially, Launceston, many of whose
process. The remarkable recovery in the com- ratepayers were alarmed about the mill’s po-
pany’s share price following the announcement tential impact on the region.
that it was pulling out of the RPDC process pro- In direct opposition stood the anti-mill coali-
vides some support for this supposition. Gunns’ tion led by the Tasmanian Greens and The
shares spiked after 14 March and traded above Wilderness Society (TWS) with backing from
$3.40 over the next couple of months. a diverse group of Tamar residents linked to
While cost pressures were certainly a key fac- two newly formed organisations: Tasmanians
tor in explaining Gunns’ decision to pull out of Against the Pulp Mill (TAP)12 and Investors
the RPDC process, there is another, additional for the Future of Tasmania (IFT). At the out-
and very plausible explanation. The company set, the fact that the anti-mill coalition was led
was increasingly worried about its capacity to by Tasmania’s major environmental groups en-
satisfy the RPDC’s commissioners. Not only abled the pro-mill campaign to brand opposi-
has it been claimed that the RPDC was try- tion to the mill as being promoted by ‘greenies’.
ing to get the company to shift the proposed This appellation has proved very effective in
mill to Hampshire (Neales 2007j), but this to- Tasmania, evoking strong negative emotions
gether with endless bickering between Gunns from many businesspeople and workers alike.
and the RPDC over the supply of information However, once IFT entered into the debate, a
suggested that the final recommendations of simple ‘us’ versus ‘greenies’ dichotomy was
the planning body would be heavily qualified, more difficult to sustain. IFT was composed of
costly to implement, and commercially unac- businesspeople, albeit those linked to a ‘new
ceptable. economy’ model of development, especially
those working in ‘tourism, food, wine and
Tri-Polar Pulp Mill Politics farming’ (Denholm 2007a). This fragmenta-
tion along old/new economy lines constituted a
Despite being rewarded by the financial com- new development in Tasmanian politics. Many
munity for abandoning the RPDC process, IFT members were unwilling to reveal their
Gunns’ action was greeted with consternation identities initially for fear of reprisals; one no-
by many Tasmanians. Most appeared content table exception, however, was Graeme Wood,
to allow the RPDC process to take its course founder of Wotif.com. IFT played an important
and to have been willing to accept the verdict role in the anti-pulp mill campaign, running a
from the ‘independent umpire’. Following the series of hard-hitting ads in both state newspa-
demise of the RPDC’s inquiry, three positions pers partially offsetting the massive advertising
on the mill emerged. The first, pro-mill posi- and marketing campaigns launched by the gov-
tion was strongly endorsed by Tasmania’s po- ernment, Gunns and the CFMEU.13
litical economic elite, heavily dependent as it is While the media focused on the stand-off be-
on the forest sector for political party funding tween pro- and anti-mill forces, a third, more
and votes. Key players in the pro-mill coali- inchoate group emerged in early 2007 around
tion included both mainstream political parties, the issue of due process and ethics in govern-
the Forest Industries Association of Tasma- ment. This group included academics at the
nia (FIAT), the Construction Forestry Mining University of Tasmania, members of the Plan-
Energy Union (CFMEU), and Timber Com- ning Institute of Australia, members of the
munities Australia (TCA). These actors were clergy and some politicians. While very much
backed by a broader coalition of business inter- more a loose affiliation of individuals than a
ests represented by the Tasmanian Chamber of formalised group, those involved articulated
Commerce and Industry (TCCI 2007). The ma- a concern over ethics, due process, delibera-
jority of TCCI members heavily endorsed the tion and good governance. Diverse actions were
pulp mill despite trenchant opposition from a taken including the publication of a letter in the
sizeable minority. In addition, several northern Hobart Mercury by 14 University of Tasmania

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
academics critical of the government’s assess- Mill Assessment Bill. While amendments were
ment process (Duncan 2007c);14 a press release made to section 11 to ensure that legal action
by the Planning Institute of Australia Tasma- was permissible in the event of criminal ac-
nia Division expressing ‘considerable concern’ tivity, the Bill survived largely intact through
over the decision to remove the pulp mill from the committee process. Commentators present
the RPDC assessment process (PIA 2007); and highlighted a number of unusual procedures.
a report prepared by Dr Andrew Corbett, a cler- Upper House members were placed under ex-
gyman of the Legana Christian Church (As- traordinary pressure by the government to pass
sembly of God), entitled ‘Christian Response the legislation, assisted by a Gunns’ lobbyist,
to the Bell Bay Pulp Mill’ which highlighted Tony Fletcher, a former Legislative Assembly
the basic Christian values of integrity, honesty parliamentarian with more than 14 years’ ex-
and due diligence that he thought were lack- perience. According to one parliamentary ob-
ing in the current process (Neales 2007e; Cor- server, ‘With his familiarity in, and open ac-
bett 2007).15 These concerns over the process cess to, the corridors of power, Mr Fletcher
used to approve the pulp mill were further ar- also assumed a role normally taken by the state
ticulated by several parliamentarians including government, negotiating individually with in-
two ALP members, Lisa Singh and Terry Mar- dependent MLCs to drop or tone-down trou-
tin, in speeches to the Tasmanian Legislative blesome amendments that either did not suit
Council concerning the Pulp Mill Assessment the government – and presumably Gunns – or
Bill 2007. might have slowed the tight approval timetable’
(Neales 2007g).17
Pulp Mill Assessment Act 2007 Despite the objections of a minority of
MLCs18 the final vote on the Pulp Mill As-
Gunns pulled out of the RPDC process on sessment Bill 2007 was nine in favour and five
14 March 2007 and nine days later Tasma- against.19 The Bill, with minor amendments
nia’s House of Assembly passed the Pulp Mill that the government had already agreed, was
Assessment Bill 2007. The Bill was viewed then sent back to the Lower House, where it
by many as a hastily drafted and draconian was passed a couple of weeks later. The new
piece of legislation widely rumoured to be assessment process was now enacted in leg-
Gunns’ ‘dream bill’. Certainly, the president islation under the Pulp Mill Assessment Act
of Tasmanian’s Upper House, Franklin Leg- 2007 (hereafter PMAA or the Act) and the
islative Council member Don Wing, regarded government moved immediately to implement
the involvement of Gunns’ lawyers in drawing it. The process set out in the Act provided for
up the Bill as ‘unique’ (Duncan 2007b). The the government to hire a consultant to assess
Bill, described by long-time Tasmanian politi- the degree to which the proposed mill met the
cal commentator Richard Herr as ‘fatally com- RPDC emissions guidelines.20 While commen-
promised’ because it contained provisions that tators viewed Beca AMEC, a company that had
prevented legal action under criminal law (in- been advising the RPDC, as best placed to carry
cluding corruption), quickly passed Tasmania’s out the consultancy, in fact it decided not to
Lower House with the support of all 14 ALP enter a bid. Its Australian representative, John
and all seven Liberal members, with only the Wall, is quoted as saying ‘the company could
four Greens voting against. All eyes then turned only provide technical advice and not a recom-
to the 15-seat Legislative Council and the ca- mendation whether the mill should or shouldn’t
pacity of its members to function as a house of proceed’ (Stedman 2007b). Instead, following
review.16 a competitive tender, the government chose
Despite some fireworks associated with the a little-known Scandinavian company, Sweco
long-anticipated crossing-of-the-floor by dis- Pic, to carry out the task. It also commissioned
affected Labor MLC Terry Martin, commenta- ITS Global to conduct a study on the pulp mill’s
tors were mostly disappointed with the Upper economic and social benefits and both reports
House’s performance with respect to the Pulp were released to the public on 5 July 2007.

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
Gale 267
Sweco Pic’s report assessed a convenient 100 that, however, it is important to subject the two
emissions aspects of the project, concluding major approval processes used in Tasmania,
that 92 of them met the RPDC guidelines. Of the RPDC and PMAA, to a thorough evalu-
the eight outstanding, two were viewed as in- ation from a good environmental governance
significant and the report recommended that perspective.
the remaining six be dealt with through the per-
mitting and licensing system for the pulp mill.
In the conclusion to its executive summary, the Good Environmental Governance
report recommended that ‘the project can pro-
ceed to further consideration by the Tasmanian The concept of ‘governance’ is ubiquitous to-
Parliament’ on the assumption that ‘the matters day in the world of business, international re-
recommended in this report will be addressed in lations, public administration and political sci-
any permit conditions prepared for the Parlia- ence. Sometimes the word is used as little more
ment by the Minister of Planning . . . ’ (Sweco than a synonym for ‘government’ as a form
Pic 2007). The ITS Global report endorsed the of hierarchical, authoritative command. Used
project’s economic and social benefits, noting in this way it adds little to our understanding
that ‘the numbers demonstrate the gains to Tas- of social phenomena. However, many analysts
mania of the Pulp Mill’, that failure to pro- view governance as referring to the broader
ceed would ‘discourage other large investors’, task of ‘steering and coordinating the affairs of
and that ‘the either/or dichotomy [between in- interdependent social actors based on institu-
dustrial production and tourism] promoted by tionalised rule systems’ (Benz quoted in Treib,
anti-pulp mill forces is false’ because ‘there is Bähr and Falkner 2005:5; see also Tollefson,
no economic or social basis for the ‘either/or’ Gale and Haley 2008). When preceded by the
contention’ (ITS Global 2007). adjective ‘good’, the concept takes on an evalu-
The Tasmanian government immediately ac- ative dimension, most famously by multilateral
cepted the two consultants’ reports and re- financial institutions such as the International
turned to parliament where the mill was finally Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to
approved in late August with overwhelming determine which developing countries qualify
support in both houses. At this point, how- for debt relief and aid. The World Bank defines
ever, further delays occurred as federal Envi- good governance as:
ronment Minister Malcolm Turnbull, under en- . . . the traditions and institutions by which au-
vironmental pressure in his own electorate of thority in a country is exercised for the common
Wentworth and with a federal election looming, good. This includes (i) the process by which those
decided first to extend and deepen the Com- in authority are selected, monitored and replaced,
monwealth review process by having the Chief (ii) the capacity of the government to effectively
Scientist, Jim Peacock, conduct a review of the manage its resources and implement sound poli-
cies, and (iii) the respect of citizens and the state
mill’s proposal. Peacock spent September 2007
for the institutions that govern economic and so-
conducting the review and it was only in early
cial interactions among them (World Bank 2007).
October, therefore, that the Gunns’ pulp mill
was finally approved by both levels of gov- The World Bank’s ‘thin’ conception of ‘good
ernment, with the Commonwealth government governance’ has been criticised by many as
imposing a total of 48 conditions on its op- a Trojan horse for liberal democracy (Kirby
eration (Hobart Mercury 2007a). The ensuing 2004). From the World Bank’s perspective,
Commonwealth election led to extensive pub- Tasmania is already an example of ‘good gov-
licity concerning the pulp mill across Australia, ernance’ because the citizens vote in com-
with efforts made to unseat high profile incum- petitive, ‘free’ and ‘fair’ elections; there is
bents including Turnbull and Peter Garrett, the capacity to effectively manage resources
then shadow environmental minister. The po- and implement policies; and, notwithstand-
litical fall out from the pulp mill approval is ing present dissatisfaction, its citizens broadly
considered further in the conclusion. Before respect the institutions of government even

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
though they clearly disagree with specific out- here as a set of transparent, accountable, open,
comes. While it would be churlish to deny that balanced, deliberative, efficient, science-based
good governance as defined by the World Bank and risk-based processes for steering and coor-
is desperately needed in many Third World dinating the affairs of interdependent social ac-
countries, a thicker conception of the con- tors in the making of environmental decisions.
cept is required in a developed country context To illustrate more precisely the analytic util-
where an informed, literate and engaged citi- ity of this concept, a comparison of the RPDC
zenry demonstrate the capacity and the desire assessment process for Gunns’ proposed pulp
to participate in decision-making processes. mill with the PMAA process that replaced it is
Such a thick conception of good governance conducted in the remainder of this section.
has been developed by a number of scholars
including those at the Institute on Governance Transparent Decision-Making
(IOG), a Canadian non-governmental organi-
sation. IOG considers good governance to be: Transparency has been defined as ‘the provi-
sion of accessible and timely information to
. . . about more than getting the job done. Espe- stakeholders and the opening up of organisa-
cially in non-profits, government agencies and tional procedures, structures, and processes to
the like, where values typically play an important
their assessments’ (Lloyd, Oatham and Ham-
role in determining both organisational purpose
and style of operation, process is as important as
mer 2007). All things being equal, a better deci-
product. Good governance becomes more than sion will emerge when the ‘facts’ are to hand.21
only a means to organisational effectiveness and It is now well documented that the first major
becomes an end in itself (IOG 2007). conflict of the 21st century was launched on
the basis of misinformation about weapons of
In elaborating on the importance of the good mass destruction perpetrated by anti-Baathist
governance process, the IOG identifies the agents and readily disseminated by the United
following key features: participation; trans- States (US) and British governments intent on
parency; responsiveness; consensus orienta- achieving their own strategic objectives. Lead-
tion; effectiveness and efficiency; accountabil- ers in both countries deliberately distorted and
ity and strategic vision. The IOG list shares ‘sexed up’ available intelligence data to create
similarities with lists compiled by other an- a far stronger case for war than actually existed
alysts. For example, the Global Accountabil- (Pillar 2006).22 Information, in short, is a strate-
ity Framework uses transparency, participation, gic resource, and proponents and opponents of
evaluation and complaint mechanisms as the a policy or project have strong incentives to
key criteria in pursuit of its mission of mak- use it as such. The RPDC assessment fostered
ing global governance more accountable (One transparency by acting as an independent fil-
World Trust 2007); and Lockwood et al. (forth- ter, tester and publiciser of high-quality infor-
coming) identify legitimacy, transparency, ac- mation. Operating at arms’ length from pres-
countability, inclusiveness, fairness, integra- sure groups and the Tasmanian government,
tion, capability and adaptability. and with its own budget to fund consultancies,
While there is no definitive conception of the RPDC was able to review the claims and
good environmental governance as yet, it can be counter claims of proponents and opponents
elaborated by building on the IOG, One World alike. In contrast, under the PMAA, the gov-
Trust, Lockwood et al. and wider governance ernment took back control over the flow of
approaches (Rhodes 1996, 1997, 2007; Tollef- information through the consultancy process.
son 1998; Pierre 2000; Kooiman 2002; Kjaer The government established the terms of ref-
2004; Cashore, Auld and Newsom 2004; Treib, erence for these consultancies, recruited and
Bähr and Falkner 2005; Tollefson, Gale and Ha- paid Sweco Pic and ITS Global, and scrutinised
ley 2008) but tailored specifically for environ- drafts of their reports prior to final release. Op-
mental decision-making. Based on this litera- portunities to test the claims and counter claims
ture, good environmental governance is defined of these experts were eliminated, replaced by

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
Gale 269
a $300,000 advertising campaign to market compare with the PMAA process? Before an-
the mill to an increasingly sceptical public swering this question, we need to determine
(Duncan 2007a). who should be accountable to whom. Should
it be Gunns, the government, the Greens, the
Accountable Decision-Making RPDC, or all those involved? The view taken
here is that it should be all of the actors in-
A straightforward, if traditional, definition of volved, since all have responsibilities with re-
accountability is ‘the obligation to answer for spect to those affected by their decisions. How-
a responsibility conferred’ (Barrados 2003).23 ever, based on the fact that accountability is a
This definition highlights the ‘vertical’ dimen- power relationship and that those with more
sion of accountability upwards and downwards power have concomitantly more responsibil-
based on a principle of delegation. Thus, if care ity and accountability, the focus here is on
of the elderly is devolved to the private sector the two most powerful actors: Gunns Limited
via forms of contracting out, nursing homes and the ALP government. Under the origi-
become ‘accountable’ to the health department nal process, the government delegated respon-
for the care provided, which must conform sibility to the RPDC to assess Gunns’ pro-
to the provisions of their licences. If nursing posal and the RPDC was able to hold Gunns
homes are negligent then penalties can be in- to account for its proposal through a variety
voked by the department; if the department is of formal mechanisms including the require-
negligent (and, say, tries to cover up cases of ment to submit an Integrated Impact State-
abuse), then under the Westminster model, the ment, respond to public submissions, produce
minister of health is deemed accountable and supplementary information, and address com-
should resign, taking ‘ministerial responsibil- ments made in directions hearings.25 Horizon-
ity’ for the policy implementation failure. tal accountability to other actors, especially
While useful, the conventional definition of those most affected including environmental-
accountability needs to be supplemented by one ists, tourism operators, wine producers, fish-
that emphasises responsibility to actors other ers and concerned communities in the Tamar
than those with formal delegated authority. Valley, was achieved in part via the use of
In this ‘horizontal’ conception of accountabil- public submissions and public hearings, where
ity, decision-makers are responsible to a much civil society actors had an opportunity to state
wider range of actors based on the ‘all affected’ their case and critically evaluate the evidence
principle, with more powerful actors being con- presented.
comitantly more accountable.24 Keohane, who In contrast, under the PMAA process, Gunns
considers this a form of ‘external accountabil- became accountable directly to the government.
ity’, defines it as occurring when ‘organisa- Since both the government and Gunns were en-
tions are held accountable not to those who thusiastic supporters of the pulp mill, this verti-
delegated power to them, but to those who are cal accountability relationship actually placed
affected by their actions’ (Keohane 2006:79). very few burdens on Gunns. Indeed, at times
Importantly, Keohane observes that account- the accountability relation appeared to reverse
ability is itself a power relation, and one that itself, with the government holding itself ac-
actors are unlikely to impose on themselves in countable to Gunns for its actions.26 But it was
the absence of external pressure. Building on the elimination of horizontal accountability that
this insight, Koenig-Archibugi (2004) identi- was PMAA’s most pernicious feature. Sweco
fies four ‘accountability gaps’ with respect to Pic and ITS Global reported directly to the Tas-
multinational corporations related to collusion, manian government and were not required to
regulatory competition, state weakness and po- consult or take account of other affected in-
litical subversion. terests. This, coupled with the elimination of
Using these two concepts of vertical and written submissions and public hearings, ef-
horizontal accountability, how does the RPDC fectively eliminated horizontal accountability
assessment process for the Gunns pulp mill under the PMAA process.

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
Open and Balanced Decision-Making matter and effluent and by putting a forest con-
sultancy company, Sweco Pic, in charge of de-
While it is popular to regard public policy as the ciding whether the mill met the original rather
exclusive domain of ministers and bureaucrats, than the revised RPDC guidelines.28
studies of the policy process emphasise the im-
portance of policy networks: interlinked associ- Deliberative Decision-Making
ations of public, corporate and civil society ac-
tors that reach consensus on goals, institutions Deliberation is an important feature of good
and instruments (Rhodes 1996, 1997). The policy-making, particularly in complex and
good governance literature stresses that these chaotic contexts where the nature of causal
networks be open and balanced if fair and bal- relations is unclear and where there is evi-
anced public policy is to result (Van Waarden dent social capacity via widespread literacy
1992; Tollefson, Gale and Haley 2008). and informed understanding (see Dryzek 2000;
Openness refers to the degree to which a Warren 2002). Deliberation requires the es-
policy network can accept and accommodate tablishment of forums where the claims and
new interests; balance refers to a relative equal- counter claims of protagonists can be consid-
ity of power in decision-making. Public pol- ered, assessed and adjudicated. Appropriately
icy networks can vary along the dimensions structured, deliberation can result in ‘social
of openness and balance. At one extreme are learning’ – a process whereby the preferences
closed, corporatist policy networks where spe- of participants are transformed as they listen
cific interests, frequently business and labour, to and understand the concerns, rationales and
exclude all other interests. At the other extreme ideas of others (Niemeyer 2005).29 The RPDC
are relatively open policy networks that adapt constituted itself as a deliberative forum for the
themselves to changing social circumstances. assessment of the claims and counter claims
Closed policy networks operate in the interests of the forest lobby and environmentalists. With
of network members, securing policy decisions the resignation of Raverty and Green, however,
that reflect their interests, not necessarily those the RPDC became embroiled in the polarised
of the wider public.27 Yet, even when policy politics it was responsible for mediating. In
networks are opened up to include previously appointing Wright, however, the government
excluded interests, decisions will still reflect placed the RPDC back on track to complete its
the interests of dominant actors unless rules are work.
agreed to balance the parties’ relative power. Serious deliberation of a project proposal –
The RPDC offset and balanced to some ex- particularly one as massive and complex as
tent the power of Tasmania’s closed forest pol- Gunns’ proposed pulp mill – must be expected
icy network. It did this by giving voice to other to take time. It is not a decision that can or
interests, notably those raising issues about the should be rushed. Wright, on behalf of the
mill’s potential negative environmental, com- RPDC commissioners, made this clear to the
munity, fisheries, health, tourism and viticul- premier in late February when he came under
ture impacts. Via the RPDC process, these pressure to meet Gunns’ stated deadline of 30
excluded interests had a forum to make their June. By then, however, Gunns had had enough.
views known via public submissions and hear- From its perspective, the deliberative process
ings. The power of the forest lobby was also needed to end sooner rather than later and, with
offset by the RPDC’s ability to hire consultants Wright refusing to curtail the deliberative pro-
to review the quality of the original and sup- cess to meet the company’s commercially man-
plementary information provided. In contrast, dated deadline, Gunns felt it had no option but
the PMAA process re-established the ascen- to pull out of the RPDC process.
dancy of the forest lobby in the public policy The PMAA established a non-deliberative
decision-making process. It did so by narrow- process, at least as far as public input was
ing the range of matters to be assessed largely concerned. Sweco Pic and ITS Global were
to the pulp mill’s emissions of particulate made exclusively responsible for advising the

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
Gale 271
government on whether the mill’s specifica- before November 2007 and possibly not until
tions contained in Gunns IIS and Supplemen- early 2008.30
tary Information met the RPDC’s guidelines Let us assume that it was the later date (ie,
and on whether the project would have net eco- March 2008) when the RPDC’s final decision
nomic and social benefits. Because both were was made (had the process been allowed to con-
private consultancies, we know nothing of the tinue). Further, let us assume that the RPDC
debates that occurred within Sweco Pic and ITS process commenced at the earliest date possi-
Global about the data before them, or between ble, November 2004, with the establishment of
either of these companies and government over the Pulp Mill Assessment Panel. In that case,
drafts of their reports. Clearly, whatever delib- the total time to decision would have been three
eration occurred under the PMAA took place years and five months. Clearly, this is a long
between a small group of technical elite with time, but is it ‘too long’? Comparisons can be
a narrow mandate and a foreshortened time- invidious, but also illustrative. Thus, for ex-
line. ample, the United Kingdom (UK) government
notes that it took seven years from date of appli-
Efficient Decision-Making cation to approval for Heathrow Airport’s Ter-
minal 5; six years and five months to approve
Decision-making takes time and, all things be- the North Yorkshire electricity grid upgrade;
ing equal, the shorter the time the more efficient and more than three years to approve a con-
the decision-making process. However, various tainer port upgrade at Dibden Bay, Southamp-
factors mitigate against decisions being taken ton. In this context, therefore, three years and
quickly. Key factors of importance in public en- five months does not look particularly long, but
vironmental decision-making are: (a) the num- of course there are several examples of shorter
ber of parties involved; (b) the amount of infor- approval processes in the UK, including Coven-
mation to be assessed; and (c) the seriousness try Airport and Felixstowe Harbour, which both
of the risk of getting it wrong. In the current took just over a year (UK Government 2007).31
case, it is evident that numerous parties were Can the potential lengthiness of the RPDC
involved, there was a huge volume of informa- process be justified in terms of the project’s
tion, and the risks of making the wrong deci- complexity and importance and in terms of
sion were potentially life-threatening. Hence, public interest in the outcome? As all commen-
it is perfectly understandable that a decision tators have noted, the proposed Long Reach
could not be made instantly by the proponent pulp mill was the single largest proposed in-
without any consultation whatsoever, which it vestment ever in Tasmania, with major rami-
might do if it were merely a ‘private’ organ- fications for the state’s economy, ecology and
isational matter. Hence, an efficient decision society. Numerous interests were mobilised to
in the current context is one that takes time support and oppose the proposal, including not
but does not extend indefinitely into the fu- only members of the forestry and environment
ture. Gunns argued that the RPDC process lobbies, but other actors such as those engaged
ultimately failed because it extended the in agriculture, fisheries, tourism and the med-
decision-making timeline beyond the com- ical profession. Given the high level of public
pany’s ‘commercially acceptable’ horizon. In interest, it would seem reasonable to expect the
its pure form, this is a difficult argument to assessment process to be somewhat lengthy. It
sustain because it could justify taking a massive is also notable that the total time to completion
investment decision within a very short time pe- of the review would have been significantly
riod if that was what a company deemed ‘com- foreshortened had the government’s Pulp Mill
mercially acceptable’. On the other hand, it is Task Force not interfered with the RPDC’s op-
also true that Wright, the RPDC Panel Chair, erations and had the proponent, Gunns Limited,
was unable to provide Gunns with a definitive had submitted the required supplementary in-
answer as to when a decision might be expected, formation in a more timely manner. If these
although he did intimate that it would not be two factors were not in play, there is every

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
possibility that the RPDC could have produced assess the toxicological effects. The questions
a decision by June 2007, meeting Gunns’ time- raised in these consultant reports resulted in
line and reducing the total time to completion the RPDC requesting extensive supplementary
to less than three years. information from Gunns Limited.
The science-rich nature of the RPDC’s pro-
Science-Based Decision-Making cess contrasted rather starkly with the PMAA’s,
which replaced the public debate over the sci-
Science plays a major role in good environ- entific merits of the mill with two government-
mental governance, primarily because we rely appointed consultants with very narrow terms
on a wide range of sciences to understand the of reference. Sweco Pic was asked to arbitrate
effects of human–nature interactions. Unfortu- on whether the emissions from the pulp mill
nately for decision-makers, scientists can dis- met the RPDC Guidelines – questions related to
agree on the nature of cause–effect relation- transportation, wood supply, tourism and agri-
ships, as well as about the relative priority to culture were removed from consideration. ITS
be given to economic, social and environmen- Global’s mandate was even more skewed: it
tal factors. Such disagreement is ubiquitous in was asked to assess the project’s social and
situations where there are multiple variables in- economic benefits while ignoring the costs.
teracting in complex and chaotic ways. Thus, Both consultancies were based on documen-
while science is key, it is rarely definitive: sci- tation previously collected, which the RPDC
ence requires translation in a policy context already viewed as seriously deficient.
to make it meaningful (see Haller and Gerrie
2007).32 Risk-Based Decision-Making
How scientific was the RPDC process? We
can note that scientists contracted by Gunns All projects carry risks related to flawed mod-
played an important role in the preparation of els of causality, poor data and inexperience in
the company’s IIS; that Beca AMEC was con- implementation. A project of the magnitude of
tracted by the RPDC to review the technical the Gunns proposed pulp mill and its location
dimensions of the IIS; and that various groups in the Tamar Valley is, prima facie, replete
and individuals enlisted science in their sub- with risks. These include economic risks as-
missions to the RPDC process, in some cases sociated with changing market conditions and
challenging the methodology, models and data the potential loss of ‘new investment’ in viti-
of other scientists. In short, the RPDC pro- culture, organic agriculture, information tech-
cess was awash with scientific arguments over nology, tourism and fisheries; environmental
such matters as the composition of the proposed risks associated with air emissions and effluent
mill’s effluent and its potential for bioaccumu- from the pulp mill, which could bioaccumulate
lation in fish, the structure and operation of in fish and pollute the waters down Tasmania’s
the Launceston airshed, the volume and impact East Coast; health risks from particulate pol-
of particulate emissions of different sizes on lution of the Launceston airshed; and social
human health, the projected increase in road risks associated with boom and bust commod-
traffic and the adequacy of the road system, ity cycles, and the possibility that the mill will
and the net economic impact of the project. require subsidies to protect the jobs created. In
To make sense of the diversity of scientific such a context, good governance requires that
arguments, RPDC employed a large number of the claims made by proponents be subjected to a
consultancies to advise it. These included Beca robust assessment of the projects costs, benefits
AMEC to undertake a peer review of Gunns’ and risks. Under the RPDC, this was partially
proposal; CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Re- but not completely done. Under the PMAA,
search to review the air quality aspects; Far- risk analysis was replaced with assumptions of
ley Consulting Group to assess the social and ‘fact’.
community impacts; URS Forestry to assess To illustrate the inherent risks involved in
the wood flow assumptions; and UniQuest to a project of such magnitude, it is instructive

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
Gale 273
to examine the projected benefits of the mill as evitably occur33 – between the pulp mill and a
calculated by Allen Consulting using Monash possible decline in tourism, fisheries, viticul-
University’s Centre of Policy Studies MMRF– ture and agricultural investment; on the eco-
Green model. In the consultant’s report to nomic costs of pollution of the water, earth
Gunns, a sophisticated analysis of the mill’s fu- and air; and of the health costs in increased
ture economic benefits is provided, estimated to lung disease in Launceston as a consequence of
be $6.7 billion over a 23-year projection period increased particulate emissions in the region’s
to 2030, averaging around $290 million per an- airshed; and fatalities from increased logging
num (Allen Consulting Group 2006). These are trucks – are justified. It is perfectly possible
impressively big numbers and if realised would that, following such a cost–benefit analysis, the
constitute an important economic rationale for project will still demonstrate a net benefit, at
the mill’s construction. But all economic mod- which point the public can have far greater con-
els are built on assumptions about the future fidence in its proceeding.
and there are always substantial risks that those
assumptions are wrong. Hence, when present- Summary
ing the results of economic models, it is normal
practice for economists to undertake sensitiv- Table 1 compares the RPDC and PMAA pro-
ity analysis – a point made in Edwards’ de- cesses across all eight criteria of good environ-
tailed review of Allen Consulting’s Report in mental governance.
her submission to the RPDC (Edwards 2006). As can be seen, the RPDC process falls well
Several assumptions made in the Allen Report short of the ideal, which would be high across
to generate the ‘one big number’ of $6.7 billion all eight criteria. However, it scores well in
needed to be subjected to a sensitivity analysis, comparison to the PMAA, which scores high
including the key parameter used to discount only on the criterion of efficiency, and low
the value of future earnings, the net present on a large number of other criteria including
value, or NPV. The purpose of a sensitivity transparency, horizontal accountability, open-
analysis is to indicate the range of project ben- ness, balance, deliberation and risk.
efits that might eventuate if the model’s basic
assumptions deviate from those predicted.
There were other risks associated with the Conclusion
MMRF–Green model that might have been
scrutinised. One is that the model uses a ‘de- In a recent book entitled Why Politics Mat-
viation from base-case’ scenario, explicitly as- ters, Stoker reflects on why so many people
suming that the pulp mill investment imposes appear to loathe politics (2007:xi). In his anal-
no costs on others in the Tamar Valley or ysis, Stoker argues that the major reason is that
elsewhere. Given existing ‘new economy’ op- people misunderstand the nature of democracy
position to the development in the region as and expect too much from it. Politics, he says,
represented by Investors for the Future of Tas- ‘is designed to disappoint’, because ‘its out-
mania, this was clearly a heroic assumption that comes are often messy, ambiguous and never
required an explicit defence. This points to a final’, involving ‘the hardest of human skills:
major deficiency of the MMRF–Green model: listening carefully to the opinions of others
it is not a full cost-benefit model that includes and their expressions of their interests’ (Stoker
the costs of the economic, social and environ- 2007:10). But while Stoker comes dangerously
mental externalities the project will impose on close to blaming the victim in viewing the cur-
other actors. While extremely capable at pre- rent citizenry as ‘incompetent amateurs’ when
dicting the potential benefits from an invest- it comes to politics, his prescriptions for solving
ment as expenditures flow through the state and the malaise that plagues modern democracy is
wider economy, models such as MMRF-Green spot on. He argues in favour of expanding ‘the
need to be complemented by a cost-benefit opportunities for citizens to have a say about
analyses to determine if the trade offs that in- the issues that they care about’, adding that

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
‘representative politics needs to be understood
Medium
as a more active exchange between citizen and
High
Risk
Low
representative and restructured to give more
scope for local and global decision-making’.
Indeed, he warns that ‘making the democratic
Medium
Medium
Science form of governance that now dominates the
High
world work better is the only way we can
avoid something worse taking its place . . . ’
(2007:15).
The Tasmanian case study illustrates how
Efficient
serious the obstacles are to realising Stoker’s

High
High
‘new governance’ objectives. Despite an ad-

Low
versarial approach, technocratic belief system

and a certain elitism, the RPDC’s approach to
assessing the pulp mill met the minimum re-
Deliberative
quirements of good environmental governance.

Medium
It provided a basic level of transparency, ac-

High
countability, openness, balance, deliberation,

Low
science and risk. Its capacity to function ef-

ficiently was hampered as much by external
factors – government interference via the Pulp
Medium
Balance
Mill Task Force and Gunns inability to meet

High
Low
its own deadlines – as by its internal decision-

making arrangements. Yet, when this relatively
modest approach to institutionalising good en-
vironmental governance appeared unlikely to
Openness
Medium
deliver the ‘right’ decision, Tasmania’s political

Table 1. Good Environmental Governance: RPDC and PMAA Compared
High
economic elite had no compunction in jettison-

Low
ing it in favour of a fast-track alternative under

the PMAA. When a state’s planning laws can be
so easily gutted when they fail to deliver what
Horizontal
powerful groups want, communities, environ-

Medium
mentalists and proponents of good governance

Accountability
High
Low
confront a stark choice between democratic for-

malism and authoritarian practice.
Vertical
Endnotes
High
High
High
1. The guidelines were developed with signif-

icant input from Dr Warwick Raverty, a CSIRO
Transparency
pulp mill specialist, who later played a key role

in the drama (see below).
Medium
High
Low
2. The consultant was Robert Eastment of the

Hobart-based consultancy, IndustryEdge.
3. The warning was repeated again in early

Process
PMAA
RPDC
2007, when it was reported that the company

Ideal
was in preliminary talks with the Mayor of

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
Gale 275
Glenelg Shire, Victoria. It is hard to gauge how contact CSIRO. Look here is my diary entry for
seriously the company regarded these state- that day ‘Meeting with Lennon . . . . . . . advised
ments or whether they were merely a form of Premier concerns re Raverty. Told Lennon TF
‘sabre-rattling’ designed to strengthen the hand not to contact CSIRO or Ensis under any circs.
of politicians with respect to an increasingly Premier said, ‘consider it fixed, Julian’. Good
sceptical Tasmanian public. The cost implica- meeting! . . . ‘A month later that idiot Bob Gor-
tions of building a mill elsewhere, however, don signs a contract with Ensis to do a review
could be expected to be significant. of bleached pine effluent toxicity. I am really
totally pissed off with Lennon. I will have to
4. For a detailed account of the 2006 Tasma- resign from the panel myself, Bill told me that.
nian election, see Bennett (2006). And I’m damn well considering resigning from
the RPDC’ (Booth 2007).
5. The report was from the Commonwealth
Bank’s financial analysis arm, CommSec. In 8. Warwick Raverty, the CSIRO pulp mill ex-
the same news item, Robert Eastment is quoted pert, immediately began to speak out after his
as observing that the CommSec report was only resignation. Among other comments, he is re-
one among many and other analysts were not ported to have stated that the mill was being
nearly as negative. proposed for the ‘worst site possible in Tasma-
nia’ (Neales 2007j).
6. Data comes from the FinAnalysis database.
The monthly closing values for Gunns’ shares 9. Importantly, however, the majority of this
for 2006 are given as: 30/11/2006 (2.91), amount ($800,000) derived from ‘lost earnings’
31/10/2006 (2.90), 29/09/2006 (2.56), and was not actual expenditure. Current expen-
31/08/2006 (2.76), 31/07/2006 (2.60), ditures related to the delay appear to have been
30/06/2006 (2.81), 31/05/2006 (2.98), about $200,000 per day or $6 million a month.
28/04/2006 (3.18), 31/03/2006 (3.30),
28/02/2006 (2.90), 31/01/2006 (2.86). Fin- 10. Wright noted further that: ‘This [delay]
Analysis, AspectHuntley, URL: <www. was obvious well before the October Direc-
aspecthuntley.com.au>. Consulted May 2008. tions Hearing last year and I think should come
as no surprise to interested parties, least of
7. Raverty’s notes on the affair, quoted at all the proponent. A subsequent time line has
length in the Tasmanian Parliament, state: now been prepared which details the remaining
‘On 20 December 2006, Julian Green said to steps which need to be followed before this as-
me, ‘[Solicitor-General] Bill Bale says if you sessment process can be completed. An approx-
choose to stay and fight this allegation of ‘ap- imate, and I think very optimistic, completion
prehended bias’ in the Supreme Court, the date has now been forecast for late November
Commission will have to seek my [Bill’s] ad- of this year’ (Wright 2007:3).
vice on whether they should pay your costs. He
would have to advise the RPDC that because 11. Data comes from FinAnalysis. URL: <ww
of the decision in the High Court in the case w.aspecthuntley.com.au>. Consulted May
of Ebner, supporting Raverty would be far too 2008.
risky. It would cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars and you would almost certainly lose. In 12. Although the details are obscure, TAP
addition, the case would delay the mill review emerged in June 2006 following internal dis-
by up to two years. I would have to advise the agreements within the Tamar Residents Ac-
Commission that the only practical course is tion Committee (TRAC) over that organisa-
for it to withdraw Raverty’s delegation.’ In- tion’s strategy and tactics. TAP is now a ma-
deed, Green’s justification for his own resigna- jor vehicle for local community dissent con-
tion was that: ‘He [Premier Lennon] promised cerning the pulp mill. See URL: <http://
me on 2 February that the Task Force would not tapvision.info/node/82> for further details.

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
13. Gunns ran a series of half-page adver- 17. Of the MLCs opposing the Bill, the most
tisements in both the Mercury and Examiner damaging to the government was ALP party
throughout the first half of 2007 based on the member Terry Martin. In a major speech to the
theme of explaining the ‘facts’ about the pulp House, Martin stated that although he was in
mill. The government committed $300,000 to a favour of a pulp mill in Tasmania, he could not
publicity campaign designed to ‘sell’ the two support the process set out in the Bill. Martin
consultants’ reports conducted under the Pulp took special aim at his leader, Paul Lennon, and
Mill Assessment Act 2007 by Sweco Pic and the ‘cargo-cult’ mentality he and members of
ITS Global. This was in addition to funding for the forest lobby were promoting, and rejected
the Pulp Mill Task Force, which ran its own their central argument that a failure to pass the
pro-pulp mill publicity campaign over a two- Bill would return Tasmania to the dark eco-
year period from early 2005 to late 2006. Other nomic days of the past. He noted that Tasma-
‘new economy’ action against Gunns pulp mill nians had been told in the 1970s that ‘the skies
included a mainland sommelier and restaurant would fall in if we did not build a dam; in the
boycott of wines from Gunns’-owned wineries 1980s the sky was going to fall in if we did not
(Port 2007). build a pulp mill at Wesley Vale. In the 1990s
the sky was going to fall in if we did not sell
14. The author of this article was a signatory the Hydro. Well, none of these things happened
of the letter. and the sky did not fall in – the doomsayers sim-
ply were wrong’ (Martin 2007). In outlining his
15. Following the publishing of the report on objections, Martin endorsed the views of many
the Legana Assembly of God’s website, Cor- in the community, especially those who argued
bett was immediately contacted by Rene Hid- that the approval process was as important as
ding, Liberal Member of the House of As- the outcome and that Tasmanians had as much
sembly for Lyons, who set up a meeting be- right to expect that the state’s planning arrange-
tween Corbett and Les Baker, the pulp mill ments were respected as Gunns did of having
project manager. This meeting led to a revised a decision made within a commercially viable
version of the article. Subsequently, Corbett timeline. Martin ended his speech with the fol-
had detailed conversations with Greg Stanford, lowing quote from Martin Luther King: ‘On
Gunns’ Infrastructure Manager and a ‘commit- some positions, cowards ask the question, is it
ted Christian and member of St Aidan’s Angli- safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic
can Church’. A report of the meeting follows and vanity asks the question, is it popular? But
on the website in the form of a series of ques- conscience asks the question, is it right? And
tions posed by Corbett and answers given by there comes a time when one must take a posi-
Stanford. tion that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular,
but he must do it because conscience tells him
16. Under Tasmania’s bicameral system, the it is right’ (Martin 2007).
Bill was then referred to the Upper House,
the Legislative Council. Unlike many other 18. In addition to Terry Martin (Elwick),
elected upper houses, Tasmania’s is not dom- Norma Jamieson (Mersey), Sue Smith
inated by political parties and contains a ma- (Montgomery), Jim Wilkinson (Nelson) and
jority of ‘independent’ members. In a political Kerry Finch (Rosevears) voted against the
oddity, Tasmania’s Upper House sits perma- PMAA.
nently and is never formally dissolved. Instead,
elections are held annually for three or four 19. The president of the Legislative Council
seats according to a permanent electoral cy- votes only in the event of a tie.
cle. In May 2007, for example, elections were
held for the three seats of Montgomery, Nel- 20. These were the original generic guide-
son and Pembroke, with all three returning lines proposed by the RPDC in Novem-
incumbents. ber 2004, not the final-scope guidelines

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
Gale 277
that the Commission had developed specifi- 24. For an extended discussion of the etymol-
cally for the Long Reach site in December ogy and analysis of the concept of account-
2005. ability, see Bovens (2006). Bovens (2006:21)
actually identifies three forms of accountabil-
21. Sometimes, however, a lack of knowl- ity: vertical based ‘on the delegation of princi-
edge stands in the way. This occurred when ples to agents’; horizontal, which is ‘moral in
chlorofluorocarbons were first invented in the nature’ and ‘not based on legal requirements’;
1930s. Viewed at the time as inert, with excel- and diagonal, which is ‘accountability in the
lent refrigerant properties, neither the scientific shadow of hierarchy’.
theory of their interaction with the ozone layer
nor any evidence of such an effect existed. But 25. As a broad generalisation, the Tasmanian
even when good quality information exists, it Resource Management and Planning System
may be deliberately kept secret. Tobacco com- (RMPS) established in 1994 conforms to best
panies have limited damage to their ‘industry’ practice in that it permits widespread public in-
by blocking the release of studies that demon- volvement in the planning process without lim-
strate a causal relationship between smoking iting involvement, with the singular exception
and lung cancer and by deliberately conducting of the forest management planning. Hall (2002,
and promoting studies that cast doubt on any n.p.) makes this point when he notes: ‘From the
such link. perspective of public participation, the key el-
ement of this [RMPS] process is the fact that a
22. Pillar observes: ‘In the upside-down rela- person does not need to demonstrate any pro-
tionship between intelligence and policy that prietary or material interest in a particular de-
prevailed in the case of Iraq, the administration velopment in order to be able to appeal against
selected pieces of raw intelligence to use in it. LUPAA [Land Use Planning and Approvals
its public case for war, leaving the intelligence Act 1993] thus provides the whole community
community to register varying degrees of pri- with open standing to formally challenge devel-
vate protest when such use started to go beyond opments, not just on legal technicalities, but on
what analysts deemed credible or reasonable. merit according to broad ecologically sustain-
The best-known example was the assertion by able development criteria. It allows people who
President George W. Bush in his 2003 State of do not have wealth and property to have a say in
the Union address that Iraq was purchasing ura- how others (who have it) can use their land and
nium ore in Africa. US intelligence analysts had natural resources. It is democracy in action but
questioned the credibility of the report making it turns the notion of private land ownership on
this claim, had kept it out of their own un- its head and the RMPS has not gone without its
classified products, and had advised the White share of criticism, particularly from the busi-
House not to use it publicly. But the administra- ness sector.’ The RPDC is a central component
tion put the claim into the speech anyway, re- of Tasmania’s RMPS and is constituted as an
ferring to it as information from British sources ‘independent’ body and its commissioners are
in order to make the point without explic- expected to impartially assess projects based on
itly vouching for the intelligence’ (Pillar 2006, technical expertise and reason. However, the
n.p.). ‘independence’ of the RPDC is qualitatively
different from that of some other independent
23. Barrados notes in her speech that Canada’s bodies, notably central banks. The latter are ex-
Auditor-General’s Office has backed away plicitly set up to isolate decision-making from
from this narrow conception of accountabil- public scrutiny and public input.
ity, now defining it as ‘a relationship based on
obligations to demonstrate, review, and take re- 26. This was particularly the case when the
sponsibility for performance, both the results premier made an emergency trip to Launce-
achieved in light of agreed expectations and ston on 12 January to discuss Gunns’ threat
the means used’. to pull out of the RPDC process on foot of

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
the resignations of Raverty and Green (Neales tate it. They do this by encouraging an ad-
2007i). versarial approach to public policy-making,
whether via parliament, planning commissions,
27. In Australia, there are few policy networks reviews, or even the media (which views pub-
more closed than the Tasmanian forestry sector. lic policy as a contest). Discursive deliberation
Despite his tendency to excoriate everything may make a difference, even in the Tasmanian
and everyone, Mark Latham in his account of context, but would require a social institution
how this network operated in the run-up to the structured along collaborative and participa-
2004 federal election appears to capture much tory lines, such as that operationalised by the
of its essence. According to Latham, ‘The prob- Forest Stewardship Council. For a detailed his-
lem with the Forestry Division [of the CFMEU] tory of how the FSC promoted deliberation and
is that it has formed a dependency relation- social learning in the British Columbian con-
ship with the companies. Their officials can’t text, see Tollefson, Gale and Haley 2008.
fart unless the bosses say it’s okay’ (Latham
2005:352). 30. See endnote 10.
28. The PMAA process was fully backed by 31. Notably the British White Paper recom-
the forest lobby despite early endorsements of mends expanding the opportunities for public
the RPDC process. The CFMEU, for example, involvement in the planning of major infras-
published a full page advertisement in the Ho- tructure projects.
bart Mercury under the headline ‘The Tasma-
nian people have already voted for the pulp 32. In an extended discussion, Haller and
mill’. Ironically, it was the CFMEU, locked Gerrie (2007) cover many of these issues. In-
in battle over the Federal government’s Work- triguingly, they argue against the adoption of
Choices legislation that it regarded as egre- environmental assessment procedures because
giously unfair, that defended the narrowest con- the underlying, two-stage model of science
ception of the Tasmanian government’s pol- on which it is based – scientists discover the
icy mandate. The advertisement reprinted a facts and politicians make decisions – is seri-
speech by John Sutton, who argued that be- ously flawed. Building on a distinction between
cause Tasmanians had voted in Paul Lennon ‘curiosity-driven science’, which is open ended,
in early 2006, they had also voted for the and ‘mandated science’, which is forced to ren-
pulp mill. By a similar logic, since Australians der a decision based on what it known at a par-
had voted for John Howard in the 2004 elec- ticular point in time, the authors argue that ‘a
tion, they were similarly committed to Work- better model for the involvement of scientists
Choices, a position Sutton and the rest of the in public policy debates is that of being par-
union movement would never endorse. In addi- ticipants in particular interest groups (“hired
tion to the CFMEU, advertisements were pub- guns”), rather than as supposedly unbiased con-
lished in favour of the PMAA by the Forest sultants to decisionmakers’ (2007:139).
Industries Association of Tasmania and Timber
Communities Australia. The Tasmanian Cham- 33. This point is made clearly by Bruce Lay-
ber of Commerce and Industry (TCCI) sent a man of Western Australia’s Department of
delegation to Canberra to plead the case to Min- Treasury and Finance. In his conclusion, Lay-
ister Turnbull in an effort to secure the mill’s man states: ‘The key challenge ahead for gov-
approval before the government went into care- ernments is to require that project proponents,
taker mode (Tasmanian Business 2007). and consultants that they employ, provide the
data required to fully analyse the costs and
29. While there are grounds for scepticism benefits of the request for assistant (sic) in
about the feasibility of social learning in the question. This will be difficult as the current
Tasmanian forestry context, current institutions method of splashing large numbers regarding
are structured to prevent rather than facili- production, consumption and employment into

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
Gale 279
submissions and the media is to the benefit of Barrados, M. 2003. ‘Notes for an Address by
project proponents seeking the subsidy. How- Maria Barrados, Assistant Auditor General of
ever, unlike at least some requests for project Canada, 25 August, Toronto, Ontario.’ Speech
assistance, the benefits of undertaking this ac- to the National Conference of the Institute of
tion should well and truly exceed its costs’ Public Affairs of Canada, Office of the Au-
ditor General, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Au-
(Layman, n.d.).
gust. URL: <http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/
other.nsf/html/200308sp01_e.html>. Consulted
References January 2008.
Bennett, S. 2006. ‘Understanding State Elections:
ABC News. 2005a. ‘Gunns to Look Further Afield
South Australia and Tasmania.’ Department of
for Pulp Mill Sites.’ 13 July. URL: <www.abc.
Parliamentary Service Research Brief 17, 2005–
net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1412970.htm>.
2006. URL: <http://wopared.parl.net/Library/
Consulted January 2008.
pubs/rb/2005-06/06rb17.pdf>. Consulted May
ABC News. 2005b. ‘Lennon Upbeat about Planning
2008.
Process for Gunns.’ 20 June. URL: <www.abc.
net.au/news/newsitems/200506/s1396124.htm>. Booth, K. 2007. Speech by Mr Booth, Tuesday 17
Consulted January 2008. April 2007 on the Pulp Mill Assessment Bill 2007
ABC News. 2006a. ‘Mixed Predictions for Pulp (No. 9). In Committee.
Mill.’ 30 May. URL: <http://www.abc.net.au/ Bovens, M. 2006. ‘Analysing and Assessing Public
news/australia/tas/summer/200605/s1650889. Accountability: A Conceptual Framework.’
htm>. Consulted January 2008. European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) No.
ABC News. 2006b. ‘Hung Parliament May Force C-06–01 (January). URL: <http://www.connex-
Gunns Pulp Mill Site Overseas.’ 20 February. network.org/eurogov/pdf/egp-connex-C-06-01.
URL: <www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/ pdf>. Consulted January 2008.
s1574066.htm>. Consulted January 2008. Cashore, B., G. Auld and D. Newsom. 2004. Gov-
ABC News. 2007a. ‘Majority Back Pulp Mill erning Through Markets. New Haven, CT: Yale
Inquiry: Poll.’ 13 November. URL: <http://www. University Press.
abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/13/2088917. Corbett, A. 2007. Is this the Pulp Mill John
htm>. Consulted January 2007. West would Reject? URL: <http://www.
ABC News. 2007b. ‘Claims of Threats against Mill findingtruthmatters.org/articles/pulp%2Dmill/>.
Supporters.’ 20 July. URL: <http://www.abc. Consulted January 2008.
net.au/news/stories/2007/07/20/1983278.htm>. Crowley, K. 1999. ‘Lake Pedder’s Loss and Failed
Consulted July 2007. Restoration: Ecological Politics meets Liberal
ABC News. 2007c. ‘Pulp Background.’ Stateline Re- Democracy in Tasmania.’ Australian Journal of
port by Airlie Ward. 6 July. URL: <http://www. Political Science 34(3):409–424.
abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2006/s1972116. Darby, A. 2008. ‘Tasmanian Premier Lennon
htm>. Consulted May 2008. Announces Resignation.’ The Melbourne Age
ABC News. 2007d. ‘Thousands March against 26 May. URL: <http://www.theage.com.au/
Northern Tas Pulp Mill.’ 16 June. URL: news/national/tasmanian-premier-lennon-
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/16/ resigns/2008/05/26/1211653882094.html>.
1953239.htm>. Consulted July 2007. Consulted June 2008.
ABC News. 2007e. ‘Concerns Resignations May Denholm, M. 2007a. ‘Legal Strike at Turnbull
Slow Pulp Mill Assessment.’ 4 January. URL: over Mill.’ The Australian 12 June. URL:
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/01/ <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/
04/1821677.htm>. Consulted January 2008. 02086721890042-5006788,00.html>. Consulted
Allen Consulting Group. 2006. The Bell Bay Pulp June 2008.
Mill: Economic Impact Assessment Report. Re- Denholm, M. 2007b. ‘Gunns Backlash Swings
port to Gunns Limited, May. Council Votes.’ The Australian 11 November.
ANZ [Australia and New Zealand Banking URL: <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
Group Ltd]. 2008. ‘ANZ and Gunns Lim- story/02519722682743-5006788,00.html>.
ited’s proposed Bell Bay Pulp Mill.’ May. Consulted June 2008.
URL: <http://www.anz.com/aus/About-ANZ/ Doyle, T. and A. Kellow. 1995. Environmental
CorporateResponsibility/pdf/ANZGunns.pdf>. Politics and Policy Making in Australia. South
Consulted June 2008. Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia.

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
Dryzek, J. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Be- Hay, P. 1994. ‘The Politics of Tasmania’s World Her-
yond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: itage Area: Contesting the Democratic Subject.’
Oxford University Press. Environmental Politics 3(1):1–21.
Duncan, P. 2007a. ‘Pulp Mill Jitters.’ Ho- Hay, P. and R. Eckersley. 1993. ‘Tasmania’s Labor-
bart Mercury 19 July. URL: <http://www. Green Accord 1989–1991: Lessons from Lil-
news.com.au/mercury/story/02288422094402- liput.’ Environmental Politics 2(1):88–93.
3462,00.html>. Consulted January 2008. Herr, R. 2007. ‘Reviewing the House of Review.’
Duncan, P. 2007b. ‘Mill “Leverage” Riddle.’ Launceston Examiner 14 April.
Hobart Mercury 3 April. URL: <http://www. Hobart Mercury. 2007a. ‘Gunns Shares Surge
news.com.au/mercury/story/02288421494064- after Pulp Mill Approved.’ 4 October. URL:
3462,00.html>. Consulted January 2008. <http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/02288
Duncan, P. 2007c. ‘Academics Lash Lennon 422529897-5005940,00.html>. Consulted
“Ethics”.’ Hobart Mercury 24 March. URL: January 2008.
<http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/02288 Hobart Mercury. 2007b. ‘Thousands Attend
421436899-3462,00.html>. Consulted January Pro-Mill Rally.’ 19 July. URL: <http://www.
2008. news.com.au/mercury/story/02288422098724-
Edwards, N. 2006. ‘Too Much Risk for the Reward 3462,00.html?from=public_rss>. Consulted
– An Analysis of the Pulp Mill Returns to January 2008.
the People of Tasmania.’ Submission 114 to IOG [Institute on Governance]. 2007. Governance
the RPDC, September. URL: <http://www. Basics: What is Good Governance? Ottawa,
rpdc.tas.gov.au/poss/pulp/assessmentprocess/ Ontario: IOG. URL: <http://www.iog.ca/about_
stage3draftIISpublicexhibition/public_ us.asp?pageID=22>. Consulted July 2007.
submissions_on_gunns_draft_iis?70768_result_ ITS Global. 2007. ‘Review of the Social and
page=3>. Consulted January 2008. Economic Benefits of the Gunns Limited
Ellison, T. 2007. Launceston Examiner 28 February. Pulp Mill Project: Final Report.’ 26 June.
Flanagan, R. 2007. ‘Now is the Time for Turning.’ Hobart, Tasmania: Department of Justice. URL:
Tasmanian Times. URL: <http://tasmaniantimes. <http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/
com/index.php?/weblog/article/now-is-the- assessments/2007/3385/pubs/att-b10.pdf>.
time-for-turning/>. Consulted December Consulted January 2008.
2007. Keohane, R. 2006. ‘Accountability in World Poli-
Green, J. 2006. Letter from Julian Green, Executive tics.’ Scandinavian Political Studies 29(2):75–87.
Chairman, RPDC to John Gay, executive chair- Keppler, F. and T. Röckman. 2007. ‘Methane,
man, Gunns Limited, dated 2 October 2006. Plants and Climate Change.’ Scientific American
Gunns Limited. 2007. Gunns Advertisement. Ho- 296(2):52–57.
bart Mercury 15 March. Kirby, M. 2004. Human Rights and Good Gov-
Hall, S. 2002. ‘The Role of the Community in ernance: Conjoined Twins or Incompatible
Environmental Regulation.’ Paper presented to Strangers. Chancellor’s Human Rights Lecture,
the Future Directions for Environmental Regula- University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3
tion Conference, Environment Institute of Aus- November. URL: <http://www.unimelb.edu.au/
tralia, 31 May. URL: <http://www.edo.org.au/ speeches/transcripts/59kirby20041103.doc>.
edotas/submissions/eia.html>. Consulted June Consulted January 2008.
2008. Kjaer, M. 2004. Governance: Key Concepts. Cam-
Haller, S. and J. Gerrie. 2007. ‘The Role of Science bridge, UK: Polity Press.
in Public Policy: Higher Reason or Reason for Koenig-Archibugi, M. 2004. ‘Transnational Corpo-
Hire.’ Journal of Agricultural and Environmental rations and Public Accountability.’ Government
Ethics 20(2):139–165. and Opposition 39(2):234–259.
Harrison, D. 2007. ‘Turnbull Approves Tasmanian Kooiman, J. 2002. Governing as Governance. Lon-
Pulp Mill.’ The Age 4 October. URL: <http:// don: Sage.
www.theage.com.au/news/national/green-light- Latham, M. 2005. The Latham Diaries. Melbourne:
for-pulp-mill/2007/10/04/1191091238327.html>. Melbourne University Press.
Consulted December 2007. Launceston City Council. 2007. Council Min-
Haward, M. and P. Larmour, eds. 1993. The Tasma- utes, Monday, 2 July. URL: <http://pdf.
nian Parliamentary Accord: Public Policy 1989– quickviewonline.com/3909/3909_00096610011
1992. Canberra, ACT: Federalism Research 83676162_section_53.pdf. Consulted December
Centre, ANU. 2007.

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
Gale 281
Layman, B. n.d. ‘CGE Modelling as a Tool Neales, S. 2007h. ‘RPDC Chief Told to “Get
for Evaluating Proposals for Project Assis- Lost”.’ Hobart Mercury 2 February. URL:
tance: A View from the Trenches.’ Depart- <http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/
ment of Finance and Treasury, Government of 02288421157345-921,00.html>. Consulted
Western Australia. URL: <http://www.monash. January 2007.
edu.au/policy/regional/laypap.pdf>. Consulted Neales, S. 2007i. ‘Lennon in Gunns Plea.’ Ho-
January 2008. bart Mercury 12 January. URL: <http://www.
Lesbirel, S. 2005. ‘Transactions Costs and Institu- news.com.au/mercury/story/02288421046922-
tional Change.’ In Managing Conflict in Facility 921,00.html>. Consulted January 2008.
Siting: An International Comparison, eds S. Les- Neales, S. 2007j. ‘Pulp Mill “In Wrong Place”.’
birel and D. Shaw. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, Hobart Mercury 9 January. URL: <http://www.
1–12. news.com.au/mercury/story/02288421031083-
Lidskog, R. 2005. ‘Siting Conflicts – Democratic 5007221,00.html>. Consulted January
Perspectives and Political Implications.’ Journal 2008.
of Risk Research 8(3):187–206. Niemeyer, S. 2005. ‘Preference Transformation
Lloyd, R., J. Oatham and M. Hammer. 2007. 2007 through Deliberation: Protecting World Her-
Global Accountability Project Report. London: itage.’ In Alternatives for Environmental Valua-
One World Trust. tion, eds M. Getzner, C. Spash and S. Stagl. Lon-
Lockwood, M., J. Davidson, A. Curtis, E. Stratford don: Routledge, 263–289.
and R. Griffith, ‘Governance Principles for Natu- One World Trust. 2007. Global Account-
ral Resource Management.’ Society and Natural ability Framework. URL: <http://www.
Resources, forthcoming. oneworldtrust.org/?display=gapframework>.
Martin, T. 2007. Speech to Tasmania’s Legisla- Consulted January 2008.
tive Council, Hansard, Parliament of Tasma- PIA [Planning Institute of Australia]. 2007.
nia, 28 March. URL: <http://www.hansard. ‘Media Release: Pulp Mill Assessment.’ Ho-
parliament.tas.gov.au/isysquery/irl160b/3/doc>. bart, Tasmania: PIA. URL: <http://www.
Neales, S. 2007a. ‘Dean Would Do it Over planning.org.au/tas/publications/policy_sub.
Again.’ Hobart Mercury 1 November. URL: php>. Consulted January 2008.
<http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/ Pierre, J., ed. 2000. Debating Governance. Oxford:
02288422684840-3462,00.html>. Consulted Oxford University Press.
December 2007. Pillar, P. 2006. ‘Intelligence, Policy, and
Neales, S. 2007b. ‘All Systems Go for Pulp Mill.’ the War in Iraq.’ Foreign Affairs March/
Hobart Mercury 5 October. URL: <http:// April. URL: <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/
www.news.com.au/mercury/story/02288422529 20060301faessay85202/%20paul-r-pillar/
010-921,00.html>. Consulted December 2007. intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html>.
Neales, S. 2007c. ‘Lennon Mill Deception.’ Consulted May 2008.
Hobart Mercury 15 June. URL: <http://www. Port, J. 2007. ‘Pulp Friction.’ The Melbourne
news.com.au/mercury/story/02288421908767- Age 24 July. URL: <http://www.theage.com.
3462,00.html>. Consulted May 2008. au/news/epicure/pulp-friction/2007/07/23/
Neales, S. 2007d. Hobart Mercury 1 June. 1185042985514.html>. Consulted May 2008.
Neales, S. 2007e. ‘Pastor Lobbies Against Price, N. 2007. Launceston Examiner 1 February.
Pulp Mill.’ Hobart Mercury 15 May. URL: Rhodes, R. 1996. ‘The New Governance: Governing
<http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/ Without Government.’ Political Studies 44:652–
02288421734633-3462,00.html>. Consulted 667.
January 2008. Rhodes, R. 1997. Understanding Governance.
Neales, S. 2007f. ‘Mill Solution an Election Buckingham: Open University Press.
Winner.’ Hobart Mercury 14 April: URL: Rhodes, R. 2007. Understanding Governance:
<http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/ Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Ac-
02288421554882-5006550,00.html>. Consulted countability. London: Open University Press.
May 2008. Sealy, L. 2006. ‘Outline of Submissions of Counsel
Neales, S. 2007g. ‘House Drama Packs ’em Assisting the Commission.’ Hobart, Tasmania,
In.’ Hobart Mercury 31 March. URL: RPDC, 8 November. URL: <http://www.rpdc.
<http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/ tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/70717/
02288421478995-5006550,00.html>. Consulted Submissions_-_Apprehended_Bias_-_Leigh_
January 2008. Sealy.pdf>. Consulted January 2007.

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation
Stedman, M. 2007a. ‘It’s Not Over Yet.’ Hobart Tollefson, C., ed. 1998. The Wealth of Forests: Mar-
Mercury 18 November. URL: <http://www. kets, Regulation and Sustainable Forestry. Van-
news.com.au/mercury/story/02288422774338- couver: UBC Press.
921,00.html>. Consulted January 2008. Treib, O., H. Bähr and G. Falkner. 2005. ‘Modes of
Stedman, M. 2007b. ‘Mill Front Runners Drop Out.’ Governance: A Note Towards Conceptual Clar-
Launceston Examiner 7 April. ification.’ European Governance Papers (EU-
Stedman, M. 2007c. ‘Former Judge Says Lennon ROGOV) N-05–02 (November). URL: <http://
Lied.’ The Australian 23 March. www.connex-network.org/eurogov/pdf/egp-new
Stoker, G. 2007. Why Politics Matters: Making De gov-N-05-02.pdf>. Consulted January 2008.
mocracy Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. UK Government. 2007. Planning for a Sustainable
Sunday Examiner. 2005. ‘Special Report: Pulp Mill: Future. White Paper presented to Parliament
The Opportunities.’ 30 January. by The Secretary of State for Communities
Sweco Pic. 2007. ‘Assessment of the Gunns Limited and Local Government, The Secretary of
Bell Bay Pulp Mill against the Environmental State for Environment, Food and Rural Af-
Emission Limit Guidelines.’ 25 June. Hobart, fairs, The Secretary of State for Trade and
Tasmania: Department of Justice. URL: <http:// Industry and The Secretary of State for Trans-
www.justice.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/ port. May. London: UK Government. URL:
0003/82281/Final_SWECO_Report.pdf>. <http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/669/
Consulted January 2008. PlanningforaSustainableFutureWhitePaper_id1
TAP [Tasmanians Against the Pulp Mill]. 2008. 510669.pdf>. Consulted July 2007.
‘Polls Measuring Support for the Proposed Pulp Van Waarden, F. 1992. ‘Dimensions and Types of
Mill (August 2007)’. URL: <http://tapvision. Policy Networks.’ European Journal of Political
info/taxonomy/term/53>. Consulted June 2008. Research 21(1–2):29–52.
Tasmanian Business. 2007. ‘Pulp Mill Urgency Warren, M. 2002. ‘Deliberative Democracy.’ In
Stressed.’ 28(8):1–2. Democratic Theory Today, eds A. Carter and G.
TCCI [Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Stokes. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 173–202.
Industry]. 2007. ‘TCCI Briefs the Legisla- World Bank. 2007. ‘About Governance.’ Wash-
tive Council on the Case for a Modern Pulp ington, DC: World Bank Group. URL: <http://
Mill: Statement by Chief Executive, Damon web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/
Thomas.’ Media Release 24 August. URL: EXTWBIGOVANTCOR/0,,contentMDK:20672
<http://www.tcci.com.au/business_representa 500m̃enuPK:1740553p̃agePK:64168445p̃iPK:
tion/Press-Rele/070824%20Pulp%20Mill% 64168309t̃heSitePK:1740530,00.html>. Con-
20to%20LegCo2.pdf>. Consulted May sulted July 2007.
2008. Wright, C. 2007. Transcript of the RPDC Directions
Tollefson, C., F. Gale and D. Haley. 2008. Setting the Hearing, Launceston, 22 February. URL: <http://
Standard: Governance, Certification and the For- www.rpdc.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/
est Stewardship Council. Vancouver, BC: UBC 0007/75499/FEB22PUB_Version_2.pdf>’
Press. Consulted January 2008.

C 2008 The Author
Journal compilation

Tasmania Tamar Valley Pulp Mill

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tasmania Tamar Valley Pulp Mill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 261–282 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00586.

RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

Tasmania’s Tamar Valley Pulp Mill: A Comparison of

Wright Action ing that the proposal was in ‘critical non-

‘representative politics needs to be understood

serious the obstacles are to realising Stoker’s

‘new governance’ objectives. Despite an ad-

versarial approach, technocratic belief system

quirements of good environmental governance.

It provided a basic level of transparency, ac-

countability, openness, balance, deliberation,

science and risk. Its capacity to function ef-

Mill Task Force and Gunns inability to meet

its own deadlines – as by its internal decision-

deliver the ‘right’ decision, Tasmania’s political

economic elite had no compunction in jettison-

ing it in favour of a fast-track alternative under

powerful groups want, communities, environ-

mentalists and proponents of good governance

confront a stark choice between democratic for-

1. The guidelines were developed with signif-

pulp mill specialist, who later played a key role

2. The consultant was Robert Eastment of the

3. The warning was repeated again in early

2007, when it was reported that the company

was in preliminary talks with the Mayor of

You might also like