PROTEST: Say NO to a Sweetheart deal on the pulp mill.

Gunns today removed the pulp mill from the RPDC assessment and have referred it to the State Government!!!

This is an admission that the pulp mill could not meet environmental guidelines.

See attached Media Release for full details.

Gunns will be looking for a ‘sweet-heart’, dodgy deal from the Lennon government to push the pulp mill through parliament.

PROTEST TOMORROW, we need the support of EVERYONE!!!

Come to: Parliament House Lawns, 12:30pm

We need everyone’s support from right across the state, please pass this message on.

Bring banners, placards etc.

Is this Gunns admitting financial defeat for the unwanted Tamar Pulp Mill?  Is it true as Sue Neales wrote in the Mercury recently, that Gunns couldn’t secure the finance, no one likes the figures! Have they decided to cut and run, save face but blame the RDPC because of these new timelines before the end of the financial year?
Then there is the ominous presence of Big Red.  Basically, like the Meander dam he will create his own Enabling legislation, bypassing the science, economics, public disquiet because he can’t go any redder, losing face.
If those spineless Labor backbenchers, and other snorters of the public trough allow this sort of dictatorship, what are they saying about who owns Tasmania?

This is the trigger for Paul Lennon to push the proposal through the State parliament.

Doubtless the liberals will stampede for the right to lie down for this, with appropriate levels of oil already being poured onto the federal libs to help save this ‘vital project’ for the ‘future of Tasmania’ and get John Howard re-elected (groan).

We’re watching a glove puppet show that’s designed to appeal to uncritical observers and answer no serious concerns while assuring that favoured companies (those that contribute handsomely to the right parties) get a grossly unfair advantage over everyone else.

Welcome to Tasmania

Gunnns withdrawing from the process of the R P D C leaves all the local Mayors in limbo that have signed the Mayoral Alliance to abide by the discssions of the RPDC. Mayors what are you going to tell your ratepayers now? Where will the truths come from and what studies will be accepted re pollution air water and sea.

It looks like the Department of Justice is gearing up to assess the Pulp Mill proposal. There are three new jobs advertised today in the government gazette in the State of the Environment Reporting Unit. IN the Department of Justice, of justice!

Yeah, Shady. Nice irony, innit?

The department of Justice being asked to assess this project is like Jamie Oliver being asked to assess a kitchen. Don’t expect annny surprises.

Let there be no misunderstanding—the RPDC assessment, however long it might (should) have taken, was the only way this project would receive appropriately rigorous scrutiny for its environmental and health impacts, water usage, and so on.  (If nothing else, approval of the project—which will require some 26 giglatires of water a year—at a time of serious impending water shortages, would seem foolhardy, at best.)

Assure me, please, how rigorous the assessment by the Department of Justice will be.

And what will become of the poor New Zealand chap hired for the RPDC panel for his expertise on pulp mill science? Hope his suitcases are still packed.

The show goes on.  Shame the ending was written first.

I read the Gunns release and its really quite bizzare isnt it.

They state they are not happy with the length of the approval process, its costing them $$$ waiting, overblown figures of $60 million every six months even though they have only spent $30 million in 4 years so far and their suggested approval deadline of June 2007 obvioulsy seeks to make their own deadlines not the RPDC’s.

Gunns makes it wildly clear they have no intention of participating in the approval process at all, that they wish to manipulate that process to suit their own agenda, they publish figures even blind Freddy can see are doctored and they also seem to remain ambiguous as to whether they will continue with the mill proposal at all.

If this isnt obvious to everyone that Gunns is seeking to both blindside and manipulate the RPDC and the general public and to railroad the mill into being on the back of outlandish claims of how modern it will be and how much benefit it will have to the Tasmanian people, then i think the definition of obvious may need redefining.

MEDIA RELEASE 15/3/2007

TASSIE POLITICIANS URGED TO REJECT ANY MOVE TO RUSH PULP MILL THROUGH PARLIAMENT

Tasmania’s conservation council has urged Tasmania’s lower and upper house politicians to reject any attempt to ram Gunns Ltds’ proposed pulp mill through the Tasmanian parliament. 

Gunns Ltd has withdrawn its pulp mill from assessment by the RPDC on Wednesday, and conservation groups are concerned that this is a blatant move to bypass Tasmania’s normal planning processes by bulldozing the proposal through parliament.  In a press conference on Wednesday afternoon, Premier Paul Lennon refused to rule out such a move. 

“This pulp mill would have horrific implications for our natural environment.  It would lead to a huge expansion of logging in native forests across the state, the pumping of billions of litres of effluent into bass strait, and significant air pollution issues in the Tamar valley,” said Convenor of Environment Tasmania, Dr Phill Pullinger, “To try to bypass any formal assessment of the pulp mill, and to try to ram this pulp mill down the throat of Tasmanians who deserve a right to have a say about the future of their island – would be an outrage,” he said.

Environment Tasmania is arguing that such a move should be rejected by all Tasmanian politicians, regardless of their position on the pulp mill itself. 

“This is about proper democratic process.  All Tasmanians deserve a right to have a say on an issue that will have wide ranging detrimental impacts on them and the future of this state.  We call on all Tasmanian politicians, regardless of their support or otherwise for the pulp mill itself – to reject any attempt to ram this through parliament without due scrutiny by the RPDC.  Politicians have a responsibility to ensure that Tasmanians’ right to scrutinise and have a say on development proposals in this state is protected,” he concluded. 

Environment Tasmania is Tasmania’s representative conservation council.  It represents more than 20 member conservation groups from across the state, collectively representing more than 5000 Tasmanians.

Listening to Paul Lennon’s Gunn’s speech in Parliament today (15/3/7), I am shocked at the heavy breathing and especially the gasping that punctuated the entire speech. 

It sounded like our Premier was running a marathon, when in fact he was standing at a lecturn delivering a speech, one of many thousands he has delivered during his career.

Just how healthy is this man?

Concerned,
Jason Lovell

maybe he needs a holdiday or a bit of bushwalking in that prime tassie wilderness…;-)

Shooting from the hip Paul you made reference to how well our economy is going,yes it is without a PULP MILL?/How much better off we all would be if our taxes weren’t pumped into forest related industries==better health,welfare education hospitals etc.Housing boom, GST increase tourism has more than helped your coppers who needs a pulp mill?

If the Rpdc cannot complete its assesment in the immediate future,how can Big Red do it sooner.?A non transparent process on mates rates??

I felt like puking when i heard john gay snivelling the process was costing millions,he seemed to have millions to sue anyone who dared to object to gunns raping and pillaging our state.

Jason, he’s on his last legs I tell ya
The saveloy is about to burst

How many “Mr. Speaker” ‘s were there?

I need to know!

People appear to forget that the RPDC allowed illegal logging of the State’s forests for a decade (at least).

Remember that up until last fortnight the word ‘protect’ really did mean ‘protect’ in the Regional Forest Agreement and the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act??

What did the RPDC ever do to ensure ‘protection’ for any living thing??  For heaven’s sake they insisted in fact that no ‘overt protection’ for rural folk would occur against chemical aerial spray drift into water tanks and creeks. They oversaw the biggest native forest clearfell in the State’s history and corruption in almost every forest coupe.

How can people honestly say that integrity ever lay with the Tas RPDC?  Yet here we have the Greens and other ‘environmentalists’ saying we need to go back to that body.

In a State where both sides of Parliament are riddled with corruption the public interest is dead.

The answer to this terrible dilemma clearly does not lie in the perpetual use of failed institutions.

http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj

Is the spineless Labor party going to nod thier heads and look at the floor while they agree to Lenin pushing through a pulp mill process, unworked out, no parameters, no idea of who in the zoo has a clue, and I think I heard him say he’d heard enough of the public.
Little Will must have smelt the changing wind as the effluent of the influential in
Tasmanian big business starts to seep into the hallowed halls of our democratic house.
Federally, they must be looking at old Kev Newmans’s seat of Bass, and wondering what public opinion showing Tasmanians of all colours, particularly in the Tamar valley, who don’t want the mill. 
It’s not only the NIMBY thing, which suits the spinners, it’s the damn lies and obfuscations that have cost Gunns, and Lenin, any credibility about a safe plantation driven mill.

How utterly depressing that Tasmania has its own equivalent of Robert Mugabe.
In our state we are supposed to be treated with equality and justice but the last two terms of government have shown just how fragile that perception is. Why we are electing two houses of parliament when the “president” is not accountable because he is not elected and his “emperor” makes every decision by his own choice is unfathomable, but of course acceptable to those who receive the direct benefit from this. A $7 billion pulp mill is of little use to those whose industry and livelihood are ruined by its presence and it says nothing about the future long term effects of carcinogenic inhalation that scientific research has noted will exacerbate far above the levels already costing the local community millions of dollars to treat each year. A structure of review was put in place because the elected parliament has stated previously that they cannot make choices without scientific evidence presented beforehand. The consequences of abandoning this procedure is ample proof of suspected corruption and collusion that has been a constant presence in this current government and it will never die down until Tasmania has a Royal Commission to address it. Even a simple matter such as equally distributing “slush funds” for AFL matches in Hobart is an example of this same bombastic roughshod treatment of all who do not agree with the clothes the “emperor” wears.

Big Red will be remembered for many things, but his ability to write/orate will not be amongst them. Oxygen problems aside, his ramblings remimded me of the old Sunday morning Jaycees’ “Youth speaks for Australlia.” In terms of content, it seemed to be the same speech taped together and delivered twice; with his murky plan left to the last moment. I thought his army of spin doctors would have been more helpful.

As an aside to these matters which even Brian Burke would consider dodgy, I thought the premier’s statement “... a devastating body blow for those of us who want to see an end to the lunacy of shipping woodchips and jobs out of Tasmania,” http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=20398 was fascinating, especially use of the word “us”. He’s one of “us”? And lunacy? He didn’t think it was lunacy all that long ago…

My God - the hyperbole! the outrage! Equivalent to Mugabe?  What a shameful comparison. Corruption - what is actually corrupt about the Govt doing its job?

You disenfranchised need to reminded that this is an elected government going about its business. Bound to have the support of the opposition. The government is more concerned about the signals to business and Tasmania’s future prosperity than your concerns. That’s the size of it. I have my doubts that Gunns will follow through with the mill in Tasmania though.

Here’s something for the government to consider.  If they are SO confident that Tasmanians need this mill, if they are so confident in the veracity of Gunns’ claims about the project, and if they are SO confident that it is indeed in the best interests of the state, they will include a referendum as part of their assessment process.

And don’t anyone give me that tired old crap about there already being one recently, ie last year’s state election. You don’t get thousands of people fronting up to two rallies held six or eight months apart if public sentiment is completely behind this project as the government seems to believe it is.

IF the government decides to have a referendum, none of this ‘choose the lesser of two evils’ business like the Franklin Dam vote—choose this destructive project, or this slightly less destructive project.

Yes to a mill, or No. No Mill. That’s it.

Of course it’s a fantasy—but we need something to cling to.

Brenda, experience with complex systems confirms that you are right - the same institutions won’t provide the answers, particularly when the same thinking is being applied.

Modern management groups read/see/hear their own PR in the media and they assume that it’s true! After all, it WAS in the papers! Serious criticism is rarely made due to Australia’s distorted libel laws. 

Our leaders and major organisations don’t get useful feedback…they get their own PR telling them how successful they’ve been and learn of no obvious bad things happening…break out the champers another round of executive raises.

Of course, when no-one is allowed to bring bad news, then the captain will never know if he’s off course until there’s a crisis.

The various actors continue to perform their roles in the ‘traditional’ way, although that’s not useful when facing unique situations.

Can a system like this really achieve self awareness?

If you ran your body like the government runs its business, how would you be?

Hey Tomas,

Hamas was Palestine’s duly elected government, going about its business, when the US and Israel decided that this was the wrong duly elected government and drove them out with sanctions and embargoes includng food, money and medicines.

What’s good enough for the USA and Israel, is surely good enough for we disenfranchised. If the USA and Israel can decide that a duly elected government going about its business was unsatisfactory. Why should’t we?

Richard (#23) - go for it, do your best, overthrow the govt if that is what you want. I’d be interested to know how you would do that? Cutting off the food, money and medicines?

These comments are laughable and predictable. As for Cameron and his referendum - bring that on too!! Surely the Greens could organise a massive polling exercise on the issue at least? Or let’s see the tens of thousands of signatures on some sort of petition. Why not? Because the numbers aren’t there my friends. Most Tasmanians are clearly behind these kinds of developments.

That is why the great majority of the politicians from the Lib/Lab side are behind it, and why the MLAs will pass whatever legislation arises, and why the Feds will pass it too.

But I am still not convinced that Gunns will go ahead with it in Tasmania at this time. Might have seemed like a good idea some years ago but I am not sure the figures and opportunity are so good now. They may go ahead out of pure bloody mindedness.

Well said Tomas. TT contributors should get some perspective. Pulp mills exist all around the world and this mill would be an environmental exemplar compared to all others. Furthermore, the Bell Bay site is by far the biggest heavy industry conglomeration in Tasmania. It ain’t pristine wilderness.

TT contributors should get out more - maybe leave West Hobart some time and drive north in their old lead petrol spluttering Volvos and see for themselves. Maybe you’ll come across one of the 85 per cent of Tasmanians who voted either Labor or Liberal and who support the mill because they work for a living, maybe have children and want Tasmania to have an economic future.

TT contributors don’t seem very representative of Tasmanian voters. Why don’t the Greens admit that they wouldn’t support any paper mill of any environmental standard because it might mean a few plantation trees are cut down. You’ve already got more than 40 per cent of Tassie locked up. How much more do you want? The Greens originally wanted plantations established and then changed their minds. Then they wanted down-stream processing for timber products. Well, this is it!

This mill will proceed because the people of northern Tasmania’s marginal seats are very different to TT contributors. They work hard and pay taxes and aren’t hung up on fashionable talk about saving forests.

I tell you who is laughable and predictable.
‘Safe bet Tomas’... the anonymous. Always willing to put himself out there and state the bleedin’ obvious
Always right on cue with his contrarian twaddle. Mate, you are a fence sitter if i ever saw one.

“I have my doubts that Gunns will follow through with the mill in Tasmania though”. says Tomas

Each way bet Tomas. Tomas wants to be able to taunt all the folks who have the stones to put themselves out there, but hedge his bets in case the Greenies get a win

“I,m still not convinced the mill will go ahead” says Tomas”.
Gee faarkin whiz Tomas. I cant wait till tomorrow to hear your next big scoop. But hey dont put yourself out there too much tiger.
Oh and by the way Tomas, I would remind you that on the 19th of October 2006 a petition of more than 8,000 signatures of residents against the pulp mill was presented to Parliament by the Greens. I,m sure it wouldnt have been hard to get more.
And remember buddy, it is folks like you that will help to awaken the sleeping giant!! Dont underestimate us bushpigs up here in the valley.

Richard Richard typical of Tasmania’s myopia.

Tasmania is not locked up. Forty percent has been recognised on one of those exemplar lists, World Heritage no less, not for some old lock up. This lockup you talk of is recognised as being a crucial example of intact ecological, cultural, historical and indigenous richness for the world.

And think for one minute. This ‘lock up’ actually makes us millions of dollars. It is home to alot of commercial activity. Beekeepers have been forced into reservses and the WHA due to their diminishing resource - economic activity, is it not - about $2 million a year I think. Then there’s recreational fishing. Commercial tourism. The arts. The fact we sell our tourism image on sweeping untouched vistas (funny I dont see new plantations on the front of the tourism brochure)

Where Richard, Tomas and others get the argument so wrong, so wrong is in regards to the remaining trees that you think you can do anything you like with.

The way we ‘use’ the ‘rest’ of the trees will be the way Tasmania differentiates its forestry sector. At the moment this sector ruins it for other sectors. Day after day negative publicity, international articles that contradict our image, people in business losing contracts internationally. It is an industry that is so far behind the other industries in terms of value-adding, leadership, traceability, accreditation, branding and marketing.

Dont you find it strange that its acceptable in the forestry sector to only use 15% of the tree for value adding - not economically viable in other sectors! Whilst you think about susbsidising bulk commodity extraction and processing (pulp or woodchips, same thing, unless you have a paper mill, boutique of course) our promises of innovation and economic returns is replaced by an embarrassing public brawl.

Australia watches Tasmania yet again fight over forests. We’re sick of it. It’s embarrassing.

The perverse relationship between Gunns and the Premier and the Liberals is exactly what will turn away investors in Tasmania. Not the fact you cant get a smelly, inappropriate, third rate pulp mill up. Its the fact that businesses are given favourable treatment. The business community does not like favouritism. Grow up you idiots.

Richard [#26] seems to have a problem with Tasmanian Times contributors, who are apparently not representing Tasmanian voters.

Maybe he should visit the website of Tasmania’s best-selling newspaper, The Mercury, and read through the 181 comments on their pulp mill story.

Like Tasmanian Times, the great majority of the commentators on The Mercury’s website are against the ramming of the pulp mill approval process through Parliament.

One suspects that the usual moving feast of forestry apologia will now start a campaign alleging those weirdo, extremist readers of the state’s best-selling newspaper are not representative of the population of Tasmania.

Failing that, next likely cab off the rank is a campaign against all the weirdo, extremist Internet-users, who are not representative of the population of Tasmania.

Ah well - I do enjoy networking, so next time I want a lecture on being Tasmanian (or un-Tasmanian for that matter) I know Richard will help me to understand.

regards,
Jason Lovell

‘Richard’ says: “fashionable talk about saving forests.”

Yes. Talk of survival on the planet is becoming more and more ‘fashionable’.

“In general, forests are being cut much faster than they are being replanted. Globally, the cut:replant ratio is about 10:1 (that is, 10 ha are cut for every 1 that is replanted to trees).

CONSEQUENCES IN THE BROAD SENSE:

Deforestation adds a source of CO2 to the atmosphere and removes a sink for CO2.

Habitat destruction is the leading cause of species extinctions, which are now estimated to be between 20-75 species per day or 7300 - 27,000 per year. This extinction rate is similar to—or maybe even faster than—the rate that prevailed during the period of mass extinction that saw the loss of dinosaurs…”
http://oregonstate.edu/~muirp/fortrends.htm

We have to go back to the on-the-record quotations of Dr. Raverty to see what is happening here. Dr.Raverty has said that whilst Gunns may have passed the guidelines for Hampshire, at Longreach they needed to be a lot tighter for obvious reasons making a mill built there much more expensive. He also said that a major project such as this would take far more than 6 months to assess properly.

Realising the RPDC process will effectively stop the mill they are hoping that a much simpler assessment with the simple question ‘Has the project passed the guidelines?’ will get through
quickly and they can build a cheaper mill that the RPDC would have rejected because of the implications for the Tamar valley.

Unfortunately for them, it is unlikely the public and, more importantly, the Federal Government will accept such a simplistic solution.

Not only that but Gunns, by rejecting the RPDC option that was agreed by all parties, has opened a large can of legal worms. Various groups are now succesfully raising funds to challenge the process in court - a move likely to delay the project far more than the RPDC.

However, it is possible that Gunns have decided that the project is just too expensive and too risky and are playing the blame game.

Rick - I think Gunns announcement this afternoon verifies my earlier (and much earlier on TT) predictions about the chance that Gunns will back out of a mill in Tasmania regardless of what the Government says. As for being contrarian? It is precisely the minority of Tasmanians who oppose the mill that are contrarian (Mill denialists or skeptics). 8,000 signatures - big deal - when you have 10s of 1000s come back. When a state/federal Lib/Lab politician loses a seat because they don’t support the Mill, come back and be high-minded.

I’ve mentioned before that I don’t give a rat’s about whether the Mill gets built or not - it is the posturing and outrage from the Greens and supporters that simultaneously irritates and amuses me. I am though thoroughly intimidated by the potential rush of valley bushpigs - must make sure I am out of town when they descend.

What I find really intriguing is the push for a pulp mill in the Tamar location when it really only suits one entity in its present form – and we know that is Gunns. Every other entity that might stand to gain some measure of profit will have to find the means and wherewithal from taxpayer funds to initiate alterations to their situation before they can expect to receive any beneficial flow-ons. There is an enormous amount of infrastructure to be implemented to facilitate the operations of this mill. Now it is one thing to maintain the state cannot afford to not go ahead with it but what is going to happen to infrastructure throughout the rest of Tasmania, whilst every resource is poured into this location?

Not that it matters to the north of the state but the Hobart statistical area alone requires an amount estimated to be upwards of $650million for road infrastructure alone, not counting the “new” Royal Hobart hospital. Gunns themselves have said that the mill has a lifetime expectancy of 20-30years. The state government have said that the potential is for an increase in population of up to 20,000 as a spin-off. That is great but where is the master plan? Where the hell is it? What is going to happen at the end of the mill’s life, where are these people going to be absorbed? A few years back we were being told to embrace zero population growth, now we are told breed and we will pay you for it-and just what are we breeding? Anti-social recidivists, who should not to be confused with the disenfranchised, nor activists against collusion against the populace.

Oh clever IT state of Tas it is now 2007 not 1917 when the EZ works came on line or 1937(?) when ANM did the same in the Derwent River valley and since then we have populated around these plants and grown and eaten from the produce thereabouts. Why is the same mistake being made again-to date no significant research has been undertaken into the effects of all this, except for Prof Harry Bloom’s publications on heavy metal river pollutants. Back in the mid 1700’s people left the farming areas of mid-England and moved to the industrialisation hubs that were springing up, so much so that eventually they were taken out of these localities and into prison hulks en route to the land of OZ and thereafter via encouraged immigration.

Are we embarking on a path to repeating everything in reverse? Another story altogether.

The sad part of this situation is the many other industries already located within the Tamar valley that are reliant on our “green” image who are going to be treated with contempt along with the inhabitants (who rely on the government for honest and just judgement). Incredible even more is the fact that the Gunns logo is now on major wine production from this same locality. Talk about ethics in business or life!! But not only this, they have embarked on major expansion in N-E Tas, gorging on the Great Forester River for another of their Stalinist style projects once again. The end result of all this will eventually be, they have a controlling monopoly on the wine industry within Tasmania. Some might say this is simply business but in reality it means the denigration of another product of excellence from our state. It is their stated intention to saturate the European and then American markets with the Tassie brand of mass produced cheap wines ie.“plonk” so as to gain control of the market place. Wave goodbye to excellence.

What is important in all the various “pipes” throughout the state is that whether or not this mill proceeds is that people have access to protest on perceived unacceptable behaviour. There have been a great many susceptable manouveres made over time by various charlatans purporting to represent the people but of a nature designed to disenfranchise.People fought hard and long many years ago for education and working rights. However if I am told it is necessary to drink MY OWN effluent so be it, but I draw the line when I am told I must eat THEIR faeces. Why be educated?

tomas ,herbert
            and co are entirely correct with their statements of there having been earlier periods of global warming, however those events were without.motor vehicles,ships ,planes ,coal,oil, aerosols,chemicals etc,etc ,etc, all of which came with the help of the Human animal over the past 100 years or so,
            As the concern on global warming has been taken on board by the civilized world ,I find that Tomas in particular ! who claims scientific cred surprises me ! as i feel sure do his (fellow scientists )
              D.D.

Tomas

Last election, Lennon promised us an independant RPDC would do its job. He did this quite clearly. Gay has got his knickers in a twist and doesnt want to play by the rules because he will lose. Lennon responds to the christmas grip Gay so obviously has him in and says “no prob, maaate, we will just change the rules.

Sorry cock, but when I am told something will happen, that is what I expect to be delivered. I do not expect those elected to represent my interests to fold just because some(one) threatens to take his toys to someone else’s yard.

Gay’s rant is no more compelling an argument than me refusing to abide by the road rules because the speed limit costs me time and money.

All your blithering drivel won’t change the above, and will not make Lennon’s lack of moral fibre go away.

As for your twaddle about signals to business, last time I looked the mineral industry was going gangbusters. Funny how we dont hear a peep about it having problems with regulation, or accountability. Wynyard has just won a business that will employ around 200 direct employees.

It is the timber industry that is the problem and one suspects a limited number of individuals within that industry who want a public resource for nothing are to blame.

A royal commision is well overdue, because the stench here is well beyond nauseating.

PS Tomas, I am not a green, a greenie, or unwashed. I support any honestly conducted enterprise that abides by the community’s expectations. I do, however, have some experience with lying shits, and see several of them acting major parts in this state. That you fail to recognise them, and at times attack those who do, dimishes greatly your claims of intellectial superiority

It was sickening to see on the news tonight Paul Lennon going around supposedly seeking community feedback on the pulpmill.  “Now is the time to have your say”. What a joke!
Did he talk to any groups opposed to the mill?
Oh no, only those “community representatives” who are guaranteed to appease and flatter him and his ridiculous sense of righteousness.
Paul Lennon will go down in history as the (!) and most (!)t premier we have ever had.

How many new jobs?
(See Paul’s open letter to all Tasmanians in Saturdays papers)

Assuming forest and transport operations continue as at present, then the only “new” permanent jobs will be at the mill.
Two thousand new mill jobs, I doubt it, more like 200.

Maybe he means 2000 new jobs during construction.
I can’t see 2000 builders/tradesmen looking for work in Tasmania right now.
OK, so lets find them interstate/overseas(but we will still say it is 2000 new jobs for Tasmanians),... and some housing for 2000 new workers and families….no problem, we have a housing commission, they’ll fix it.

And an extra $6.7 billion injected into the Tasmanian economy,....hmm… OK so 2000 into $6.7 billion equals $3.35 million, (I might just join the queue for one of those jobs)

So where am I going wrong?, can somebody explain these figures for me.

Kate, are you responding to the pro-mill meeting organised by the student from Newstead College?

What an interesting PR exercise that was. I will state in all sincerity that it is excellent to see young people motivated and passionate, and good on her.

But two things occurred to me when I saw it—firstly, only 45 people? It smacked of being organised in a hurry, but if this Mill really is the saving grace that this state so badly needs, can they seriously only find 45 people to support it?

(I could be facetious and report that 45 is the figure quoted by organisers; various media reports placed the figure at between 30 and 35, although the real figure is more likely to be 25. But perhaps that would be out of order…)

Tomas, your arguments about numbers take a bit of a hiding here, I’m afraid.  The most conservative estimates indicated about 5000 people at the March in Launceston last year, and close to that figure again at the Land and Water Rally a few weeks ago.  Perhaps those who support this project are so complacent about its success that they don’t feel the need to hit the streets?

And of course if the Premier was really interested in gauging the broad spectrum of community feeling on the issue, he would have appeared at one or the other of the rallies I mentioned. But he didn’t.

3 men facing charges today indicated that they intended to abandon the court process.

“It’s taking too long” said Tommy ‘Bananas” Banducci, “I want to get on with my life”

“How can the State government expect us to stick around with all the delays?” wailed Jesse Hinze. “I might be up for murder but that’s no reason for me to endure this convoluted process”

Tommy Banducci said that he’d be removing his case from the courts and placing it with the government.

“We cannot sit on our hands while people’s lives are disrupted by our courts” said the Premier, “I’m calling a special meeting of Cabinet to draft laws to deal with this issue”

Sunday Examiner March 18:

Paul Lennon: “What I won’t do is allow a shabby assessment of the proposal.  I will not be taking recommendations to Parliament that I’m not satisfied with myself”

Oh how utterly reassuring Mr Lennon, after all you have such high ethical and moral standards yourself.  We know that you would never allow yourself to be compromised by succumbing to pressure from big business or your mates.  We can sleep well at night knowing that Tasmania is in such good hands with you and Mr Gay in charge.

Lilly White seems to be having some difficulty with the sums. One needs to be cognisant of the multiplier effect. This is like the butterfly effect but without wings.

When Southwood was first mooted, a Huon Councillor proudly declared 16 jobs would be created. This soon became 45.

Community pressure intensified and FT did its PR campaign throughout the Channel and Huon districts. This resulted in an estimate of 250 jobs before Greg Norris, the mayor, declared (in the Mercury) 500 jobs were in the offing! Southwood still awaits.

The pulp mill will ultimately provide employment for every man, woman and child across the next three generations of Tasmanians (plus some).

Lilly White requires patience and a dice with 2,000 sides.

Cameron - do you think that if public opinion was against the mill would federal and state Liberal and Labor politicians (and most MLAs and all councils) line up and fall over themselves to support the mill? Do you think that this multitude of (mostly) fat-arse lazy, do-nothing bench warmers in this over-governed state would be doing something if their principles directed them away from the mill if it didn’t risk their electoral lives? We know the 18% or so Tassie Greens supporters are deeply against the mill, but I wonder really what is the extra % against the mill?  Is it 25, 40, 60 or greater % or Tasmania opposed to the mill? Anyone want to guess? And why are there no polls on this? Why dont the Greens contract an independent pollster to supply them with ammunition? Simple answer - most Tasmanians are in support of the mill.

I would also suggest that if the mill goes down, then the Greens will be blamed by all of their opposing political parties and the wiser Tasmanian public (fairly or not), and that there will be no growth in the Greens vote at the next election. They may well yet win the battle with the mill, but the social fall-out and division will cost them the electoral war for decades to come.

Perhaps you’re right about the future of the Green vote if the mill proposal tanks, Tomas, but I would suggest that this is the price to pay for have anything remotely resembling ethics or integrity as a political party.

Paul Lennon boasted about hearing nothing but pro-mill messages during his trip around the state over the weekend—well of course he did.  When you select your audience, you can control the tune.

If Lennon had been anywhere near Launceston a fortnight or so ago, he would have heard a very different message.

Bring on a referendum—if the Premier is serious about gauging definitive public opinion, instead of subjecting himself to crowds of politely nodding heads, he will do so.

Really, i am not ‘fully’ informed but the pulp mill looks like a tragedy wiating to happen…

1)Huge captial investment
2)dubious enironmnetal impact
3)very dubious placement
4)dubious job benefits
5)highly dubious need to justify continued old growth logging
6)dubious political process around it..

No what if the 1.5 billion, thats $1,500,000,000 was spent on ‘renewable’ and ‘sustainable’ alternatives for Tasmanians ?

That could probably fund the setup of several new industries that would create jobs, several alternative developments into alt pulp sources and crops, several currently established industries could expand and there would still be some left over for a pulp/recycling mill to supply paper for Tasmanian use.

If that kind of funding were to go towards self sufficiency initiatives rather than offhsore supply of Tassie resoruces then there ‘should’ be enough jobs created to keep up with demand for years to come.

The money is there, maybe it could be spent more wisley, i get the impression that if the mill goes ahead it will create large scale debt, suck the guts out of old growth forests and do little for Tasmanians other than some industrial jobs.

I have heard lots of comments on here about the process, how about about some good options on what to do with the $$$ that would create work in the long term and not wreck the environment.

Why on earth should the government hold a referendum on the pulp mill proposal?

If it showed a majority in favour it would only confirm their current belief, which is the basis on which they are proceeding anyway.

If it showed a majority against, they could safely ignore it, knowing that the Liberals and most of the Upper House would support them.

Besides how would the question be framed?  How much detail would have to be included in order for people to cast an informed vote?  Would we get a choice of sites, a la Franklin dam referendum?

Public input has been specifically excluded in case people slow down the process with incovenient truths.

Tomas is right.  Unfortunately most Tasmanians do not concern themselves with details of the Mill.  They can’t tare themselves away from, or too busy choosing their new 427’ Plasma TV.  We do deserve the politicians we get, including Lennon.

Gunns’ is a ‘third world’ proposal in the most inappropriate location, make no mistake about that.  You need only to glance over the Executive summaries of the peer reviews of their IIS to confirm this.

Which is why it needs to be rammed through, it will not be built any other way.  And Lennon is the man to do it.  No hang ups or second thoughts of what he is actually doing and to whom, just get it done, one step and head kick at the time.

Subsequently the voting public will be forced to find out the hard way that what they were promised is not what’s in their backyard.  Of course by that time there will be no way to shut the mill or force it to clean up its mess despite current assurances.  Lennon will make sure that Gunns is protected in the legislation in the name of ‘commercial clarity’ which the company requires for the next 30 years to operate profitably.  They won’t get the finance otherwise.  But you won’t get to see much of the protection because it will be ‘commercially sensitive’ or some other rubbish hidden by FOI.  Not unlike the contract between Gunns and FT tying wood supply costs to the international price of pulp essentially getting the public to underwrite Gunns margin.  Good business if you can get it, but still, shades of corruption in a democracy.

I believe that the longer term impact of the building of this mill will produce a much more significant social and political change in the State than not building it.

If it does not get built, and that will be blamed on the greens, even a significant drop of the green vote would not have any measurable effect on future directions of Lib/Lab governments to come.  But it would have a major impact on Gunns and current forestry practices in the state.

On the other hand, if built, the mill would be around for at least seven to eight elections, and likely to be many more.  In light of issues manifestly arising out of its day to day operations, its real environmental and economic impact on people around the state, the result will be the gradual but significant rise of the green vote.  Inevitably, this is going to deliver successive minority green governments in Tasmania and an ongoing green presence federally in the senate. 

So, don’t despair, despite ramming it through with built in protection for the life of the Mill, imagine for example, a green influenced future government significantly tightening transport laws, inspections and controls for log truck movements around the state.  Could easily send the mill broke by stealth.  And there will be many other avenues I’m sure to slowly choke it out of existence, along with current forestry practices

What ever you think of them, given that the greens are the only remotely effective opposition in the state, I guess we can take their gain as the single positive aspect of this disgraceful shamble!

Tom said: “...the greens are the only remotely effective opposition in the state, I guess we can take their gain as the single positive aspect of this disgraceful shamble!”

At this point in history it would be wise to consider whether our electoral systems and ‘democracy’ (including a media constrained by big business interests) are failures.  After all they have brought us to the very brink of global catastrophe.

Global warming, huge ocean dead zones, ozone hole depletion, pollution, collapsed fisheries and poisoned clear-felled forests.  We don’t have time to wait for the emergence of a stronger, more effective and more ethical opposition party.

It may be quicker to tear up the State and Federal Constitutions and start again.

Fish stocks to collapse within 50 yrs, say scientists. 03/11/2006. ABC http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1780209.htm

Two planets will be required to meet global demand by 2050
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6077798.stm

Brenda, i accept the need for a ‘redesigned’ society, it’s fairly obvious when you look at the outcomes we are currently facing.

The structure of this new society could be made of the vary movements and impetous that has characterised many of the ‘alternative ’ movements in the last 40 years.

The issue I am grappling with is is exactly what the plan would look like, taking into the consideration the ‘needs’ of our current society and how would such a plan to activated, given the lack of success most of the alternatives have had in terms of infiltrating mainstream thinking, which is still pushing us in the same directions that are causing the problems.