Consultation Not Spin.

I will start with a quote from the Mercury On Sept 12, the article was put up on their website at 12:01 on the 12th, fully 19 hours before the public meeting which was to be held at Copping Hall. The article
has the punning and refreshingly realistic title A Waste of a Protest

"Proponents of the Copping waste dump say protesters have "zero" chance of stopping the controversial project going ahead. This is despite Southern Waste Solutions agreeing to a month of consultation
with residents."

On the same day I saw a brief interview with the Mayor of Sorell, Carmel Torenius, where she was wondering why the locals can not just listen to and trust the experts. This gets to the heart of the problem
for the council and the SWS, trust has been broken. The social contract that we implicitly enter into with governments has been if not broken, at least bent out of shape. The consultation was not a free and frank discussion with the citizens to come to an agreement before a course of action. From my point of view one can argue that it was the experts who gave us the Iraqi War, who gave us the nuclear accident at Fukushima. People on the other side of politics as myself would be able to say something like, it was the experts who gave us the Carbon Price, the MRRT. Experts, while of course useful and expert in their fields are not the people who actually have to live the decisions.

So with these words in my mind and no great expectation in my heart I went along to the meeting at Copping Hall.  A functional little building just off the Arthur Highway on the road to Marion Bay. The plain walls of the wooden hall were decorated with pennants of cricket winning team, and the obligatory, sorrowful memorial plaque to the dead of the Great War.

If Churchill described the Soviet Union as a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside and enigma, this meeting can surely be described as a pretence wrapped in a sham inside a facade.

The permits already have been issued to Southern Waste Services. With no support from the local government, and no support for the residents of the Carlton River Catchment coming from the State Government the purpose of the meeting was a face saving exercise for SWS. What wasthe point of the meeting? It seems no more than a scene from Tom Wolfe's essay Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers, that is a chance to let some locals vent their anger in a safe manner, while people who  can not change the situation  catch the flak of the public.

But let us digress for a moment and look at this word consultation. It comes from a Latin word consulatare, and for the Latins this word meant pretty much the same as our usage of the word. To consult, to take the advice of. More exactly my dictionary defined consult as: Have discussions or confer with (someone), typically before undertaking a course of action. This lead me to question the use of the word discussion. And again looking at the dictionary I found this: The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.

So quickly we find that this meeting, this second round of consultation is not consulting at all, but rather a safety value releasing after thought. To consult, to have discussions, means to talk and take advice, to consult BEFORE undertaking a course of action. Any other usage of this word is a type of spin.

The meeting at the Copping Hall was held on a cold windy and threatening rain sort of early spring evening in SE Tasmania. When I arrived at the meeting, the hall was full. I counted over 150 concerned residents before I stopped counting. So when the ABC reports the meeting having some 200 people that would be pretty much accurate. In a small town on a dismal night this is a very strong turnout.

I was in the crowd, but was not given a chance to ask a question. The meeting started with a talk about the structure and form of the C Cell. Then the meeting was opened to questions. And according to the panel of experts only valid, sensible questions would be taken on board to be potentially added to the permit conditions. Of course this begs the question of who gets to decide what is valid, what is sensible. The period of asking questions was limited to only one hour. Many questions were not only unanswered, but were not even raised. I am sure the locals could have stayed longer asking questions. The question time was noisy and rowdy, with frequent interjections from the 'mob' and threats by the experts to stop the question period
sooner. This showed the attitude to democracy, it is no more than a facade, a sham. Democracy, as we were reminded by Donald Rumsfeld, as the museums of Baghdad were being looted, is messy. Democracy is loud
and it is rowdy. Apparently democracy only works for experts when they control the agenda and the time frame.

I was taken aback by the patronising attitude of the panel, of course I should not have been as previous comments from Christine Bell and others spoke of the uneducated, emotional response of the community,
about how the locals have been hijacked by a misinformation campaign.

But on the misinformation front I think that SWS has given as good as they have received. On ABC radio last week Christine Bell said that the plastic layer to contain the waste would be 5mm. Last night it was
agreed that this layer would be only 2mm thick. The panel refused to use the word toxic, always referring to the waste as controlled, and then asking if we (the Tasmanian community) want this uncontrolled waste just sitting around in the backyards of industry. But if the waste is so safe and benign why not leave it where it is. Because it is dangerous and needs to be stored. The meeting went around like this for a while as SWS tried to spin what is meant by the word toxic and controlled.

I personally was annoyed by the attempt to use the slogan of a 'Clean, Green Tasmania' to promote the idea of this C-Cell. Again industry is able to go along creating waste and leaving it for others to clean up, and if you do not roll over and accept what we have come up with, then you (the local residents) are holding back Tasmania becoming a Clean, Green State. To use the phrase of Alan Jones, you are wrecking the joint.

Putting on my old timey radical hat these seem to me to be once again that this is a question of Surplus Value. Things are produced in industry, the owner pays the worker less than he or she produces. For example a person in a widget factory gets ten dollars an hour and is able to make fifty dollars worth of widgets in the time. After taken out other costs and etc, which for the sake of argument let us say equals twenty dollars, so the outlay for widgets is thirty dollars and then the boss gets twenty dollars. This fight for the surplus produced is an important key to understanding much about politics and economics in our modern age.

One of the costs that is not included in these sorts of equations is the cost of cleaning up. We all know of mining companies, timber cutters etc who happily go along making profits and then when the forest or mine is clapped out, they walk away and do not pay for any of the clean up. This Carlton River Hazardous Waste Dump allows the owners of industry to increase the level of surplus value, to increase the rate of profit.

Rather than have the companies pay to clean up toxic material, rather than have industry work out how to deal with waste, the costs can be passed on to the local community and the local government. If, as
local resident and citizens, we oppose this plan to dump the waste onto the community and allow industry to walk away, we are then abused and we are the ones who hinder the economy and the ones who put up the
signs saying Tasmania is closed for business. There seems to be an idea that if industry does not get everything they want than they will close up and go home. But, to use the old slogan, we live in a society, not an economy.

This demonising of the locals as uneducated wreckers is obviously false. If this dump was such a good idea why then did the councils and SWS feel the need to make decisions behind closed doors? Surely if a new type of dump is to be built in Tasmania, why could the Councils have brought in community consultation from the very beginning of the process? This is not a simple thing like making a new park or changing the cost of parking fines. This is a site that will have to be monitored for many years, decades and even centuries. This is a site that, if the worst was to happen, could have very negative consequences for the physical and financial health of the community. This a project unlike other projects undertaken by the local councils.

The Sorell Council likes to use the argument that the pre-existing tip has been running for ten years and has not had any problems. However we are not comparing apples with apples. The one site, the current site takes normal domestic waste, while the new tip will take more hazardous wastes. Also how much does the community know about the current tip, is waste leaking into the rivers? We know that plastic bags are being blown into the surrounding bushland. The people of the area did the right thing by agreeing, by allowing the current tip to be built and operated. The community even swallowed some of the concerns they had, because the residents knew the importance of the site, and how it is helpful to the greater community. Now that there
is a dump built, we see that the council and the company they have set up SWS, is moving to next higher level of hazardous material. Is it not valid to query whether in another ten years the authorities will be
able to say we have a pre-existing dump and no one is complaining, let us (for example) now dump radioactive waste in this site? Now that the Council has lost the trust of the community can we not say that this will not happen?

The residents who have lived with a Class B tip are rightfully upset over this new extension to the Copping tip, as we have been kept in the dark. This extension was sprung on the community in a way that has
decreased trust. And once this trust is broken, insincere apologies and a sham of a consultation process are not enough to fix the problem.

Not being able to speak for the all, my view is that the only course of action is to cancel the permit and to start over again with local citizens being consulted and informed on each and every step of process. If as SWS says this project has been under review and investigation for some ten years why the sudden rush now? Why not spend another six months or so doing the work properly and with proper consultation? I for one would like to see the EPA review other sites to the same level as they did Carlton River site. In talking about alternate sites we are told, conflicting information, as to the sites investigated. Did SWS and EPA simply look over a map and say this site is too far from highways? I would also like to see the site chosen on purely environmental and public health issues, not what is cheap and expedient for industry (the ones who have caused the problems.)

Dump The Dump

How many trucks, laden with hazardous materials, will drive though the town of Sorell?

On a cold, rainy, typical South East Tasmanian winter evening, I went to Bream Creek Showground for a public meeting concerning a proposed Hazardous Waste Dump in Copping. Copping is a small town about 20 kilometres from Sorell, or some 50 kilometres from Hobart. As I drove in the dark and the rain I thought of the many trucks that will soon  be driving up and down these roads carrying loads of dangerous material to a Class 3 dump.

I first become aware of this plan, like most members of the community, on a lazy Saturday afternoon not too long ago when my partner pointed out an article in the Hobart Mercury. This article reported that a hazardous waste dump was to be built in Copping. Being active in the community, we were taken aback as neither of us had heard anything about this. The article quoted our local member Rebecca White as also
being in the dark about the plan. It was natural that a plan thus sprung would generate a strong community response, as no one likes to be treated like the proverbial mushroom. Public meetings were called. It was far easier for me to find out the time and location of the meetings than it was for me to find information about the
consultation process taken by the local Sorell Council.

As can be imagined when a community is treated in such a cavalier way the public meeting held at the Bream Creek Showground on Friday Aug 31 was very well attended. Several hundred locals turned up with
latecomers having to hover in the cold and wet and darkness around the door. The hall was filled to overflowing with concerned locals. Sadly neither the Mayor, nor the Deputy Mayor was able to attend, as the they were interstate. (What would a cynic make of this non appearance?) The Friday night was an good old fashioned bolshie town meeting, with passions running strong. One thing that struck me as significant was the broad demographic range of people attending. Young people, old timers who had lived generations in the district, families with children, all were in attendance. Support for opposing the dump seemed to come from all elements of the community. Which, if the goal is to stop this project, is a very good sign. For the only way to stop this dump is with committed passion and talents of the local community.

There was a strong current of anger within the crowd. The locals were justifiably upset as it appears the local council had done no more than adhered to the strict letter of the law in informing the community about this project. This was implicitly admitted at the meeting when the champions of this plan agreed to 'pause' all work, and allow a month of public comment and submissions. When asked if this would allow the halting of the dump, the response by the Southern Waste CEO Christine Bell was that this was 'not likely' to
happen. Presented with the fait accompli of already issued permits, this was not well received by the crowd.

The council, did the minimum required by law to meet consultation requirements, but did not in any way adhere to the spirit of democracy. Democracy, taken from the Greek, literally means the power of the villages. In this way we can see that democracy is meant to work best on the local level. One of the important features of Attic democracy was the attempt to equalise the power of the towns with that of the villages. Sadly this support for the local people has been sorely missing in this process. A second month of consultation, while admitting that nothing will stop the poisonous 16 wheeler truck from bearing down on the people of Copping and the wider region, is not consultation at all, but rather a safety valve to try to disperse the locals anger. The usual plan is to try to wear down the opponents and allow for concerns to disperse and for enthusiasm of activists to fade. This second round of consultation is no more than a pretence, it is a way to allow for the communities anger to be vented, to allow a box to be ticked and in the end for nothing to change. If consultation can not work properly at the lowest level of democracy, where council members have strong links with the community, what faith can we have in decisions made by our representatives?

A variety of concerns were raised during the meeting about the project and chosen site. The main concern of course was the safety of the site and the types of waste brought into the area. The experts tried to explain away public concerns with soft sounding words of risk mitigation and independent assessments. While the crowd was in agreement with the need to process waste and to do this is a controlled, green manner, this was overruled by the feeling that this was not the right place to build this dump.

It seems to me to be a risk not worth taking to site such a tip so close to rivers and creeks. The site is only some 100 meters or so from a creek which flows into the Carlton River, and less than a kilometer from the Carlton River itself. As Tasmania and Australia in general is known for wild extremes of weather it seemed to me as if  the experts did not have an answer to the logical question of what will happen in the inevitable 100 year flood when the proposed site would be under water for possibly days at a time. This will happen, as
one of the locals told a story about how he saw this very site flooded on several occasions. If Tasmania is to have a clean green economy and 'brand' how would it look to outsiders to have flood water mixed with
heavy chemicals and other sorts of industrial waste flow into the ocean and pollute the growing aquaculture industry.

What is the community to think of the increase in road traffic? As most of the waste for the site will come from Hobart, there are serious concerns about the routes the trucks would have to take. As anyone who has driven this very important tourist route to Port Arthur knows, once past the airport the roads become a thin dual carriageway. Trucks will have to cross the causeway, past a RAMSAR bird sanctuary, over a pair of bridges that are subject to strong cross winds. Bridges where during storms wind whipped waves of the
Orielton Lagoon and the Pitt Water often break across the bridges. From here the trucks will move through the townships of Midway Point, Sorell, Forcett and Copping, passing Lewisham and Dodges Ferry, crossing several creeks and rivers along the way. The trucks will pass schools, playgrounds, shops, churches, community centres, peoples houses. There are many choke points and dangerous sections of road. With the increase of traffic and very little scope, and even less money and will, to widen and strengthen the road network, it surely is a only a question of when, not if a truck accident will happen. Who then will cleanup? If
an accident was to happen on one of the many bottlenecks in the region, any response would be hampered. What would be the effect on brand Tasmania to have a truck roll, spilling dangerous heavy metals across this most important tourist route?

An interesting point was raised during the meeting. Apparently the Copping area is the most earthquake prone spot in all of Tasmania, with a fault line lurking under the proposed dump site. When asked if this was taken into account no one could say for sure that this was modeled, only that they thought it may have been. Another question that was not answered was the question of what alternative sites where investigated. Having been a public servant for over a decade I understand the importance of getting three quotes for any purchase. It seems to me that this rule should have been adhered to in this situation.

A member of the audience raised the very sensible question of why should this community pay for the sins of industry? Why should profits be privately appropriated, while losses and costs must be borne by the
community? Surely if the owners of the zinc works think this is such a grand plan, they should be only too happy to pay for their own waste management. And if it is so safe why not site the dump on their own
properties?

From a purely selfish point of view, as small business owners, how will attendance to our bookshop will be effected if the worst happens and a truck does roll in the town of Sorell? Would customers, and tourists not be scared off for weeks or months? I often take my small children to the local beaches, can I be sure that there will be no pollution in the water? What of the many local organic farms in the region? Any contamination of these farms would be a catastrophe to these businesses.

While not being able speak for the organising committee, it seems to me that the only proper course of action for the various levels of government and Southern Waste is to scrap the process, to cancel the permits and start over again from square one. Only this time our elected officials should follow process, including proper consultation.

During the recent tsunami in Japan, I was struck by a report I heard. Sea walls were built to a height of some eleven meters, this was to defend against tidal waves. The sea walls failed, even though the waves were only ten meters tall. The power of the earthquake was such that the land around the sea wall subsided over a meter, allowing the water to rush over the top and flood the town. This to me showed something very important, nature is immense and humans are puny. Have we not learned our lessons? Do we need to keep making the same arrogant mistakes over and over again? It seems with the Copping dump projects our experts have not learned and refuse to learn.