There are those who will never forgive Peter Garrett for apologising at the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000, to a global audience, for Australians’ historic maltreatment of indigenous peoples. But while that has faded like the midnight oil in the bright morning light, perhaps more powerfully, there are those who will never forgive the musician-turned-politician for what they see as ditching the faith — selling out environmental ideals, and the environment, for capitalist gain.

But has he?

Quietly does it
Garrett was elected as the Labor Member for Kingsford Smith (an eastern Sydney-centred electorate) at the 2004 federal election, then appointed Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts after Labor won the last federal election. (But he was stripped of the climate portfolio (which went to Penny Wong), which he’d represented in Opposition, some say after a disastrous election campaign, which included telling Sydney shock jock Steve Price that ALP policies would change if the party was elected to government.)

Before the ALP came into power, the former front man for rock band Midnight Oil was — going on his vociferous history — quiet on the pulp mill proposed for Tasmania’s Tamar Valley. And he’s not said much since, either.

With his party in Opposition, Labor’s star recruit did not speak out against the incumbent Coalition Government’s support of the mill proposed by public timber giant Gunns Ltd, despite a plethora of others who did so. Loudly. It was strange times indeed, with Garrett as famous for his bald pate as for his outspoken habits and passionate environmental support.

Indeed, his official ALP biography includes the mention of Midnight Oil being “renowned for a fierce independent stance and active support of a range of contemporary concerns including … protection of the environment”.
(Garrett was also awarded the Australian Humanitarian Foundation Award (environment category) in 2000, plus an Order of Australia (Member, General Division) in 2003 for “his contribution to environment and the music industry”.)

So it’s no surprise accusations were flung that Garrett was forced to toe the party line — support the proposed mill, it would be good for jobs.

But the former president of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF, who served for two terms, 1989-1993, then 1998-2004), who is also a former international board member of Greenpeace (1993-95), has found himself at loggerheads with his erstwhile environmental colleagues. And not just on the mill issue.

On World Environment Day this year, the ACF began an e-card campaign to Garrett, protesting the Rudd Labor Government’s new restrictions to the solar panel rebate programme.

But back to that mill. Although Garrett fended off accusations that his stance on the mill as Labor shadow minister for climate change and the environment seemed to differ markedly from his sometimes aggressive song lyrics, he insists he was never gagged about speaking his personal views on the mill. He did give a hint, however, saying, “I made that very clear that I accepted that when I joined the Labor Party and, as a consequence, you are a team player and being a team player means you get on with the job.”

He has also said that balancing the seemingly opposing environment and economic sides of the forest debate is “difficult”. However, Garrett maintains the same stance now as earlier in his political career: that the mill is a solid proposition, that will be environmentally sound.

On record as saying he opened a world’s best-practice pulp mill when he was ACF president, Garrett’s views today have not changed since he was in Opposition, saying he believes if Australia continues to import $2 billion worth of paper products annually that would be worse environmentally, because we’ll be consuming paper from poorly regulated overseas mills rather than properly regulated Australian ones.

So it’s was par for the course that Garrett approved Module E of the Tamar Valley mill project (managing environmental impacts), on the back of Modules A (overview), B (vegetation clearing) and C (bulk earthworks). The modules are sections of the detailed Environmental Impact Management Plan (EIMP) Gunns must submit to the government to ensure the mill can go ahead. Approving that latest module meant construction of the accommodation facility, located on the outskirts of George Town, can proceed. Gunns will submit additional modules in coming months.

Prickly bed
Today’s political stances have made strange bedfellows. Back when then-ALP leader Mark Latham offered Kingsford Smith to Garrett in June 2004, stating he’d be “tickled pink” if Garrett accepted the offer, the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) was no friend of “environmentalist Peter Garrett”, releasing a statement saying there would be a massive backlash if Garrett was pre-selected. When environmentalists later launched legal action against the way the mill had been approved, the union applied to join the court battle against the greenies.

Agreeing with the approval of the proposed pulp mill (which was approved by the previous Coalition government), has effectively now put Garrett and the union on the same side. Indeed, in March a senior CMFEU official from Tasmania described pulp mill opponents as “terrorists”, who should be “subject to the full force of the law”.

It’s an interesting situation considering that when Garrett held the position of ACF chief, he was actually at odds with the ALP’s policy on Tasmania’s old-growth forests. Before he accepted the Kingsford Smith pre-selection, the ACF was pushing for immediate protection of 240,000ha of Tasmania, including all high-conservation, old-growth forests and wilderness areas. (The ALP, however, didn’t want to abandon the existing Regional Forests Agreement and therefore jeopardise timber industry jobs.)

Another prickly point as past and present clash is Gunns’ assertion the pulp mill will be 80 per cent based on native forests upon opening. That directly violates the ACF’s forest policy. With no word on how these two ends can be reconciled.

Tasmania divided
There’s no shift in the Coalition’s policy regarding the mill, with those still left in parliament from the previous federal government maintaining the stance taken by former Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

In Tasmania itself, policy for both the ALP and the Liberals is to support the mill. The Greens (both nationally and state based) are against the mill being built, and most Tasmanian independent MPs also voted against supporting the mill and its fast track assessment, but a couple did vote for it. (Considering ALP policy, it may or may not be a surprise that the member for Franklin, Paula Wriedt, who is Minister for Tourism Arts and the Environment, voted for the fast track.)

However, Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett (who, when Paul Lennon was Premier, was at one point the Acting Economic Development Minister) has remained firm on his government’s stance re the mill, saying no more public money would be spent on its development. He has said that without public funding the project would only go ahead if Gunns and its financiers could make it happen. With Bartlett at the helm, the Tasmanian ALP has ever-so-slightly backed away from the fierce support his predecessor, Paul Lennon, gave to the Gunns project.

Earlier, Bartlett had also ruled out any public funding for a planned 35km water pipeline to the mill. Before that decision, and the public funding being made public, Tasmanian taxpayers could have been up for $65 million for pipelines that would annually supply Gunns’ pulp mill between 26,000 and 40,000 megalitres of fresh water from Trevallyn Dam, Launceston’s main supply source. The pipes would also carry mill effluent into Bass Strait.

Bartlett said the government would not own, hence not build, the pipeline, and public monies would not be spent for one company.

The Tasmanian Greens, along with environment groups, have consistently accused the Tasmanian Government of hush-hush deals, and covering up data, particularly that regarding emissions. In Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Greens have asked for documents they believe hold information the public and business communities need to know, to make an informed decision about the mill.

Greens shadow pulp mill spokesman Kim Booth, member for Bass, has accused the Tasmanian Government of employing a “deliberate and belligerent stalling tactic” by withholding 25 documents relevant to his FoI request, by forcing him to go through an appeal process. He also accused David Bartlett of obfuscating FoI process when he was Acting Economic Development Minister.

National Greens leader, Bob Brown, says the Greens would support a pulp mill that used no native forests and had a totally plantation-based wood source, plus did not use a kraft (sulphur-based) pulping process, was totally chlorine-free and was closed loop, recycling its effluent.

Brown also says the proposed mill should have a paper machine as part of the process to maximise jobs and wealth creation. He says the Greens had the same philosophies regarding the Wesley Vale pulp mill (and the campaign against that in 1989). “The Greens have always expected pulp mills to meet these conditions and nothing has changed.”

Policy wise, there have been no shifts, seismic or minor, from any party regarding its stance on the proposed Tamar Valley pulp mill. The major parties continue to support the mill for economic reasons and the Greens and environment groups will keep fighting it for environmental reasons.

The only changes that will occur now are if the Greens and their environmental colleagues are successful in any of their legal challenges.

As for Garrett the environmentalist, maybe he has more support than mainstream media would sometimes suggest. Environmental blogs have their equal share of punters opining that Garrett can do more good than Greens’ national leader Bob Brown, because Garrett’s party is in power.

Comment below to have your say on this story.

If you have a news story or tip-off, get in touch at editorial@sprinter.com.au.  

Sign up to the Sprinter newsletter