Is this the end of dissent in Australia?
Melbourne Age December 16 2004
Gunns' action in suing activists could have sinister ramifications, warns Martin Flanagan.
Earlier this year, I wrote an article in which I urged Australians to become concerned about what is going on in Tasmania's old-growth forests ("The sorry state of Tasmania", on this page on March 15). I likened the present period in the island's history to the one, only a few decades ago, when the cause of hydro-industrialisation united the interests of big business, the unions and the Labor and Liberal parties under the mantra of supplying employment, to the extent that dams were contsinuing to be built long after there was serious community concern about whether such dams were actually required.
I further argued that a similar coalition of interests had coalesced around Gunns, the world's biggest exporter of hardwood woodchip and the island's first billion-dollar industry.
It was a strong article. I expected a strong reaction. There wasn't one. To my knowledge and that of the editor of the Opinion page, Gunns made no attempt to defend themselves in the pages of this newspaper. I was extremely surprised. Then came a second, even greater surprise.
The emails I received were 70 in favour of what I had written, three against. The letters to the editor of The Age arrived in roughly similar proportion - with the result that, after only a few days, no more were published on the fate of the Tasmanian old-growth forests. When I took this up with the editor of the letters page, he said that the page was a vehicle for social debate and as there were no more letters arguing against my position, there was, as far as he could tell, no debate to be had.
As a result of this experience, were I a PR man advising a large corporation engaged in a deeply contentious social activity, I would say that taking a hit in public is not the worst result since if the issue drops out of the press it also drops out of the public consciousness.
Meanwhile, the contentious activity continues. Driving down the island's east coast on my next visit to Tasmania after the article appeared, I encountered 13 log trucks, fully laden, in 50 kilometres.
I also met Denys Walter, an 83-year-old retired school teacher who was declared Citizen of the Year by his municipality on the east coast on Australia Day 2004 and was then arrested three months later defending an area of native forest called the Blue Tier, about half an hour's drive from his home. He was concerned about threats to rare species and the effect of clear-felling on local water catchments, and said support for his action in the local community had been "almost universal".
I wrote an article about Walter in which he described Gunns as "the monopoly taking over the state. They have their own agenda, and that's that." Again, there was no response from Gunns.
How, I now ask, does Gunns' earlier aversion to public debate square with its action this week of taking out writs against a cross-section of those opposed to its activities in the forests? Why this recourse to litigation against opponents with ordinary incomes and therefore no resources with which to seriously contest the writs, a tactic used elsewhere to silence dissent?
The stakes being played for in Tasmania are huge. This year I noted that Gunns' name had appeared on the major grandstand at York Park, site of AFL matches. As far as PR is concerned - as far as enhancing Gunns' reputation as a good corporate citizen is concerned - this is brilliant. No doubt there are people in the hierarchy of Gunns with a genuine interest in football. But, again, I cannot think of a quicker path to broad public acceptance in Tasmania than by becoming associated with bringing AFL football to the island.
My reading of this may be speculative, but I refuse to believe Gunns don't have some strategy for managing the endless public rumblings aroused by its activities. My advice to Gunns would be to invest as much as possible in what is local and benign. Sport is the obvious example.
Once again, I am urging Australians to become more interested in what is happening in Tasmania. In Shakespearean terms, Tasmania is the play within the play; it always has been. Tasmania is now a corporate state. It has a supine government and an opposition that is an opposition in name alone. Its Labor Premier, Paul Lennon, demonstrated during the recent federal election campaign that his loyalty to the logging industry outweighed his commitment to a national Labor victory.
If Tasmanians opposed to Gunns are silenced, all who challenge the rich and powerful in this country are vulnerable.
Martin Flanagan is a staff writer. His book In Sunshine or in Shadow, about growing up in Tasmania, was published by Picador in 2002. mflanagan at theage.com.au