Default Small Screen

save the Blue Tier

pulp mill objections

Pulp mill letter writing tool box

Why writing a letter to your elected member and the media will make a difference

Surprisingly few people write to their elected members. Members do read and respond to letters, and a flood of letters on a topic can make a difference. On occasion, a single thoughtful factually persuasive letter can change a member's mind or least give him a better understanding of the thinking of the constituents. Personal letters are much more effective than emails. Choose one or two points of concern from dot points below that you could rewrite in your own words for your letter.

Some pointers for writing an effective letter
  First, the do's:

Keep the structure of your letter clear and simple eg

Now some don'ts:

Pick your target

Because of the upcoming national election and that federal law (EPBC Act) requires federal approval of the mill, letters to federal and shadow ministers should be at the top of your list.

Mail for Federal Members in Canberra should be addressed to:

PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra, ACT 2600

The Hon John Howard, Liberal Prime Minister
The Hon Peter Costello Liberal Treasurer
The Hon Malcolm Turnbull Liberal Minister for Environment and Water Resources
The Hon Peter McGauran Liberal Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry
Mr Kevin Rudd, ALP Leader of the Opposition
Mr Wayne Swan, ALP Shadow Treasurer
Mr Peter Garrett, ALP Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment & Heritage; Arts
Senator Kerry O'Brien ALP Primary Industries, Fisheries & Forestry

Theme - a 'world scale' mill = 'world scale' damage!

▶ A 'world scale' pulp mill means 'world scale' logging and pollution which means' world scale' damage to the tourism industry, Bass Strait and fisheries, agriculture, recreational pursuits and our water catchments. Does the Prime Minister wish to create 'world scale' damage?

▶ The economic case presented by Gunns takes no account of the very high costs of the mill to Tasmania eg. losses in agriculture, tourism, fisheries, fine foods, wineries, etc. Until the economics of the situation are independently studied, no approval should be given.

▶ The conversion of more farms to plantations will deplete our water supplies and suppress agricultural cash flows in rural communities. The conversion of good farmland to tree plantations at taxpayers' expense is a federal responsibility and should be stopped. If we lose 10% more of our farms (Gunns wants at least another 50,000 ha of farmland for plantations) then we lose 10% of our farm income and 10% of our downstream processing income worth over $300 million per year. Don't let it happen.

▶ Fishing grounds in Bass Strait are sensitive to pulp mill pollution. Fish markets are rightly concerned about a proposal that does not offer rigorous protection for the fishing industry. The Tasmanian industry is worth around $450 million per year (DPIW and industry figures), much of it easily lost if we get a reputation for pollution. There should be no mill without rigorous protection, independent monitoring and effective enforcement.

▶ Noxious and offensive odours are the usual the result of pulp mill activities. Even the RPDC process had no effective standards to prevent odours.

▶ Particulates, particularly micro fine particles, are already high in the Launceston air shed. A community survey in Launceston 2006 found that 81% consider air pollution a very important issue. A pulp mill will make this situation significantly worse. Don't approve a mill without assurances that no further micro particulates will be tolerated.

▶ Tourism is worth nearly a billion dollars a year to Tasmania and employs around 30,000 people. Massive forest clearance, multiple log trucks and bad smells could repel tourists from visiting the North. That could cost our economy 10% or more of tourism income. It's not worth the risk.

▶ Fine food and wines. 80,000 bottles of wine were returned to Chile when they opened a pulp mill. Consumers don't want to drink wine that might be tainted with pulp mill effluent. Don't take the risk with our industries.

▶ Recreation activities in our forests will be impaired by the proposed rates of logging by Gunns. Most of our tourists come for natural scenery and natural recreation opportunities. Don't risk these industries.

▶ The Federal Government has based federal approval on the outcome of the RPDC process and without that process, the Howard Government under the terms of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 must refuse to grant a licence to operate.

Finish with a question eg:

Theme - not enough water!

This is how the water situation looks given all the available information.

Water consumption in Tasmania's north and east from 1975 to 2020. (Data collated from Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry and Water reports, pulp mill proponent's Integrated Impact Statement to the Resource Planning. Developed by SAS for TAP.)

The diagram below, courtesy of tapvision, shows how the water hungry plantations, the highest percentage coverage of any State, has created a demand that Tasmania cannot now supply. The cross over point on the water supply & demand curve has already been passed as indicated by existing water shortages across the State.

supply and demand graph

▶ The increasing demand for water in Tasmania already exceeds available supply from rivers, groundwater, dams and lakes. Rivers and lakes are drying up. Low river flows eg. South Esk, allow blue green algae blooms to develop and become a serious health risk. People and local industries need protection from mill impacts and activities.

▶ Our water supplies risk being over-allocated for decades to come by uncontrolled expansion of plantations. We seek guarantees from the RPDC process that our water will not be over-allocated.

▶ Rainfall is expected to decline 10% in the north and east Tasmania over the next 3 decades.

▶ Thirsty fast growing tree plantations require large amounts of water for decades. Supplying nearly seven million tonnes of pulpwood per year to feed the proposed pulp mill and chip export markets will require about 1,100 Gl/yr (based on data from DPIW, Gunns IIS, TasLUCaS hydrological model). Committing to that amount of water at a time when demand already exceeds supply, would be disastrous.

▶ Although domestic consumption in the central north is only 16 GL/yr, local councils are worried and are considering a requirement for home-owners to install water tanks to save water. Councils appear unaware of the enormous effect that plantations have on their water supply catchments.

▶ Water used by plantations cannot be directly measured. It is lost before reaching streams and rivers and is unavailable to downstream users - agriculture, industry and towns.

▶ Plantation and mill operators should be charged a commercial rate for water used. Rain falling on plantations is a common resource but owners pay nothing for the water that they use which gives them another unfair advantage in any competition with other users of that same resource eg urban residents and agricultural irrigators.

▶ Forestry MIS schemes have a high impact upon the sustainability of overall water supplies and those who rely upon it. The pulp mill proposal is unsustainable without the promise of MIS subsidies and preferential and free access to water.

▶ The mill will lock in both a 'world scale' rate of logging and 'world scale' water use with consequent risk of decades of poor river flows in Northern and Eastern Tasmania.

▶ The value of Tasmania's water resource will rise eg. for irrigated crops, but the water consumed by plantations threatens the livelihood of thousands and the economy of the State. Over 15 years, the potential value of 1100 Gl/yr of irrigation water used to grow crops, is about $8 billion but only $2 billion if used for growing trees and sold as pulpwood. One ML of irrigation water adds $500 to the value of crops at the farm gate (DPIW).

Contact Members of Parliament

Personal letters carry a lot of weight with politicians. Pen a few words about your concerns over the proposed pulp mill and ask for a guarantee of compensation for the risks to you or your business.

Write to your Federal members

Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Write State Upper and Lower House members

Parliament House
Hobart, TAS 7000

Phone calls to local, state and federal members are effective too. Demand help from your politicians.

What the parties are saying

Tasmanian Greens

Senator Christine Milne

Liberal Party

Labor Party

Senate, Canberra

Greens

Liberal Party

Labor Party

House of Representatives, Canberra

Labor Party

Liberal Party

House of Assembly, Hobart

Greens

Liberal

Labor

Legislative Council, Hobart

Back to top

80226-[an error occurred while processing this directive]