PARLIAMENT OF TASMANIA

Excerpt from Hansard (Uncorrected Proofs)

Thursday 22 March 2007.

PULP MILL ASSESSMENT

Mr GUTWEIN (Bass) - Mr Speaker, I rise to make a short but to-the-point contribution in regard to where I stand on this particular legislation. Before I do that though, I must place on Hansard my disappointment at the way in which some members in this House have behaved tonight and some of the comments that have been made by members in this House. To imply that all members of both the Government and the Opposition are corrupt, and to make statements in regard to political auctions occurring for campaign donations, is absolutely outrageous. I am appalled by it. The Greens' position on this particular project is that they will do whatever it takes to smear those members in this House who take the opportunity to support this bill being assessed and that they will do whatever they possibly can to see this pulp mill not even proceed to the assessment phase.

Mr McKim, the member for Franklin, made his position perfectly clear and I can only presume it to be the position of all of the Greens in this place, when he said that he would be proud to do everything that he possibly can to stop this project from going ahead. This place is the highest level of democracy in this State, or any State, in regard to the way that the Parliament operates. For him to come into this place with such an opinion formed before debate had even finished, I find both surprising and disappointing.

As to the suggestions regarding members of this place being corrupt, they were distasteful, repugnant and will not be forgotten, I can assure you, Mr Speaker. I want to place on the record that we are not approving a pulp mill today. We are approving a new approvals process, an approvals process that ultimately will be more democratic than the RPDC process. Once this process is completed, and should the expert consultants recommend that this project be approved, then the 40 elected members of parliament in this State will make a decision on whether or not this project goes ahead. To me that is quite simple. But some members in this place do not appear to be able to get their mind around it.

In my contribution tonight, I do not want to spend time talking about the economic benefits. They have been well canvassed by members. I do not intend to cover all of the arguments articulated by the Leader of the Opposition, other than to say that I agree with his contribution. I would refer anyone reading my contribution who is interested in the broader position of the Liberal Party on this matter to take the time to have a look at the contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition.

I believe in fairness and in the principle of a fair go. I believe that the majority of my constituents do as well. That is why I will be supporting this legislation because regardless of the ham-fisted mismanagement of this project to date, regardless of the way that the Government has struggled to bring this project to fruition, I believe that the proponent should have the opportunity for their proposal to be assessed.

The RPDC could not assess this project because the proponent could not justify remaining within that process. Gunns are not a bank. At the end of the day they have to make financial decisions. They have to answer to their shareholders and ultimately what we were doing was pricing them out of this process.

Mr Speaker, so that my constituents fully understand where I am on this particular project, I believe that this project should be assessed, it needs to be assessed and I support its being assessed. Regardless of the views of some in this place, Gunns deserves to have this project assessed.

Whether this proposal is approved or not is another matter completely. I believe in the fairness and the principle of fair go and Gunns deserves the opportunity to have their project assessed. So, Mr Speaker, I will be supporting the bill this evening.