In a hung parliament there will still be 19 or 20 members who support the pulp mill so what is John worried about? 

Could it be that he is looking for a convenient exit strategy as the mill becomes less viable. The IIS was supposed to be completed eight months ago. 

Meanwhile the share price struggles and as each day passes the 1.3 billion required grows.  Will a company capitalised at $900 million be able to finance a project such as this given the fickle nature of the international pulp market. 

Might be easier to take it to China!

Even if it was a minority government (Assuming a 12-7-5 split), couldnt a bill to support the pulp mill be passed if both labor and the Libs supported it?

It’s obviously nothing to do with a hung parliament.  It’s a way of saying Vote Labor without offending the Libs.

Someone very close to the heart of these matters (who would deny it if named) says they have never intended to build the mill in Tassie all along, or at least not unless they got an extraordinarily helpful deal from the State Gov’t.  Much, much more than is likely.  Some Third World country makes a lot more sense from a shareholder’s point of view.

Um, forgive my ignorance as i’m not really ‘up’ on corporate law, but shouldn’t John Gay have made his “pulp mill threat” through the ASX. 

Isn’t it standard (& lawful?) practice to make such announcements through the ASX?  Surely such a possible dramatic change in the company’s direction should be made known to all shareholders, not just Tasmanian media. 

That way ALL shareholders can make a decision on whether or not they wish to remain connected to a company that is possibly going to make a big future directional change. 

PS:  If Gunns move the pulp mill to Asia, where are they going to source the timber for it?  Will we be exporting our forests to feed another Asian pulp mill?

This has always been the danger of blanket attacks against forestry - it is much cheaper in terms of money and regulatory hurdles to have these industries in places such as SE Asia, India or China. So, if we antagonise the industry unnecessarily, then we risk driving it off to parts of the world where it will ultimately do more environmental harm.

While I am no fan of old growth logging, Tasmanian forestry operations are amongst the most regulated in the world. Woodchips have to come from somewhere if we want newspapers, copy paper and toilet paper. If not Tasmania, then it will be torn out of somewhere else with potentially disasterous results - notably the dreadful mudlside recently in the Phillipines. While it is certainly OK for protesters such as Les Rochester to raise their concerns about operations in their local community, they must also realise that they are preventing the establishment of an industry which will employ many Tasmanians.

My continuing beef is that while we have very articulate voices against development (incl born-again Greens like Cassy O’Connor - I have long suspected ) there is an economic and social cost for stamping on new industries. This largely won’t be born by the local anti-development forces as they have employment in other fields and/or lifestyles that they consider immune to local economic forces. It is therefore a socially divisive issue - a clash of cultures.

While I am a resident of Dension, live a cosy life in Hobart, like cafe latte and have a good income, I come down on the side of the less affluent on this issue - our less wealthy fellow Tasmanians who rely on such industries to make a living for themselves, their families and communities. It doesn’t mean that I am for any type of development, it just means I get cross when the reasons we hear for being anti-development obfuscate an intention to keep industry and development out of someone’s backyard. In this case, we may end up adding to the destruction of ecosystems and communities in other parts of the world.

“Alternative sites?”
http://abcasiapacific.com/news/stories/asiapacific_stories_1573871.htm

At first the ‘alternative site’ was the North West Region of Tasmania, I thought.
However, I can recall a formal information meeting with GUNNS and TRAC ( http://www.tamar-trac.com ) in Launceston, and Les Baker’s rather dismissive argumentation in GUNNS’ boardroom. He insisted that an alternative site was never a serious option.
And now this: “..., I have to have somewhere where this mill can be built.”
Now, who is the fool here?
And this morning on ABC with Tim Cox, the Pulp Industry Expert actually made the point clear, if GUNNS would build a mill in an underdeveloped country, they may build a less clean mill!
That’s a statement, or in other words they will do what ever they get away with!
Is this the ethical way under the Australian Forestry Standard, endorsed by the PEFC, or ISO continued improvement etc.?
I think as the world is round, what ever goes up will eventually come down…
Have fun on the ski slopes people:
http://www.asx.com.au/asx/research/CompanyInfoSearchResults.jsp?searchBy=asxCode&allinfo=on&asxCode=GNS

The link to the story:
http://abcasiapacific.com/news/stories/asiapacific_stories_1573871.htm

The Australian forestry company, Gunns, says it could build a pulp mill in China if it does not get approval to build it in the island state of Tasmania.

The company’s chairman, John Gay, says there is no intention of making the project a joint-venture with a foreign company, or any company.

However, he says Gunns has been thoroughly studying overseas options in case the Tasmanian plan falls through.

“When you’re building a mill of this size, you need to have alternative sites than only one,” he said.

“Our alternative sites are either on the coast of Malaysia or the coast of China.

“If there’s a hung parliament and the mill doesn’t get approved, I have to have somewhere where this mill can be built.”

Sunday: Paul Lennon gets asked the tough questions: Why did a Gunns subsidary renovate your home, and what rate did you pay?

Monday: Paul Lennon tries to shrug off further questions about the Gunns allegations. Places emphasis on the econonmy, Tasmania’s forest industry and the importance of majority government. Ironically, that same afternoon, Gunns’ Jon Gay enters the fray and talks about the importance of majority, the economy and the threat to the pulp mill if majority ( read Labor ) isn’t re-elected.

Now that’s what I call a convenient coincidence!

...well, it’s not really a threat to the truly rational person.  Get out of this state Gunns.  You don’t own our dominant discourse. You don’t impose your structure of ideas and beliefs on us!  We don’t believe in profit for profit’s sake.  Nor wealth through death and destruction.  These are not our priorities nor our sense of values and philosophy.

We don’t except your relationship of property and power.  We believe that much better things are possible.  We will not limit our horizon of moral norms.  We can see immense practical possibilities.  Take your apocalyptic fantasy and shove it up your ....

It is not, whatever super Annoyed says, a matter of exporting jobs.  There are plenty of more employment-effective ways of using our timber resources than the proposed pulp mill.

I don’t live in Denison and latte makes me sick, but I would love to be able to stop the kind of development that exploits those who are desperate for paid work while at the same time being profligate with such valuable things as clean air and water and bio-diverse forests.  Not just on this tiny island, but anywhere on the planet.

I think JustaBloke is spot on in his first post. It really does look like a (fairly transparent) ploy to scare people into voting labor - ``for stable, majority government’’ that is ;)

I can see what Super Annoyed is saying - ask anyone in the street what their opinion is on old growth logging or helping the environment and they’ll say they’re against the former and for the latter. But let’s imagine Gunns DOES pack up their pulp mill kit - Tasmania will miss out on an opportunity there. I don’t believe the mill would only provide low paying jobs designed to appeal to those `desperate for paid work’.

It’s difficult for impartial people to decide, because to us `you guys’ (I’m looking at you Get Out Guns ;) ) are as crazy as `them’.
I’m not for any type of development at any cost, at all. But SA is right when he/she says there are social and economic implications.

And I still want a lot of wilderness left in Tasmania - that’s one of the things that maks this state so great.
I guess, unfortunately, my simple impressions would be shared by the majority -  who will probably vote for whoever they think, on polling day, will be most `stable’. Everything else will just be lost in the fog.

If John Gay is ‘threatening’ not to locate Gunns pulp mill in Tasmania, will he therefore commit to return all the taxpayer’s dollars so far invested in his mill proposal?

Get Serious

In my opinion Super Annoyed, who cares if Cassy O’Connor is a born again anything. Some new articulate, intelligent voices in parliament can only be a good thing.

And Christopher Purcell has made a telling point about announcing major changes in company direction via the ASX; Only goes to show the cavalier attitude with which John Gay treats his shareholders. In view of the lowering share price of Gunns, comments such as this are hardly likely to give the shareholders a warm inner glow.

So now Tasmanians are “threatened” with shipping the dirty mill off to China.

You don’t have to use a threat, just take it and go!

That will save the cost of transporting all the materials required to build such a behemoth to Tasmanians, because there is no way Tassie is set up for such heavy manufacturing…although China is.

Labour is cheap in China, in fact dirt cheap, so that should all tie in nicely with the share price of the proponent by putting a third world pulp mill in a country that would welcome it with open arms.
They have massive pollution problems in China, so more couldn’t be that bad could it?

If the guidelines in Tasmania are “the toughest in the world”, then why is the proponent so eager to jump ship if there is a hung parliament?

Perhaps the dirty mill is not as squeaky clean as the glossy brochures that promote it and the house of cards will come a tumblin’ down?

This is a great show and more entertaining than a ride down the slippery slopes of the ASX or playing “pin the pulp mill on the country”.

Stay tuned for more exciting instalments.

If the mill goes ahead here, the highly paid jobs will go to people who immigrate here.  I’m not aware of too many unemployed industrial chemists in Tassie.  There are much better ways to employ Tasmanians, but employing Tasmanians is not a priority for Gunns.  If it were, then their shareholders would be right to get very upset.

As for Mike Bolan’s point, there is no mechanism whereby that money can be returned.  It was for educating the public about a pulp mill, and if the mill proposal dies, then one could argue that it has achieved its purpose.

When Gunns reaps huge profits from a polluting Indonesian mill, we can all sit back with that warm inner glow, knowing that a local has made good.  A bit like Princess Mary, really.

Yes John, you should take your pulp mill to China and you should fuck off with it too.

So we as a community can get on with building a boutique pulp and fine paper mill and start value adding our products far better than you could have ever imagined.

Drop the court case, stop clearfelling and start working with the Tasmania people, or as I said before - fuck off.

Here a report from WA,
Wheels turn at $20m Albany terminal
WA Business News, Australia - 8 hours ago
... s price per dry tonne of woodchips was settled at $179 last year, higher than Australia’s market leader in woodchip exports, Tasmania-based Gunns Ltd which ...
The woodchips from Timbercorp and ITC’s combined 210,000 hectares throughout Australia is marketed by their joint venture company Plantation Pulpwood Exports and carry the internationally recognised Forest Stewardship Council certification
http://www.wabusinessnews.com.au/story.php?/7/34910/Wheels-turn-at-20m-Albany-terminal

FSC certification has advantages in the short and long term…
The Forest Stewardship CouncilForest Stewardship Council (FSC) is a non-profit organization devoted to encouraging the responsible management of the world’s forests.
http://www.fsc.org

But not for GUNNS or Forestry Tasmania,no they use their own AFS -PEFC -having Barry and Scott to ticking the boxes.
By now the stupid GUNNS20 court case has turned into a Ball and Chain for John & Co.
But Resources Minister Brian Green still takes their glossy brochures as gospel! No matter how much he could learn from taking the blinkers off, as suggested by so many.
His position on ABC radio again calling the clearfelling of forests “sustainable management”,  is as balanced as a bloke would feel “warm and relaxed” with having one leg stuck in a hot water bucket - the other foot in an ice bucket.
What does it take to wake him up?

I am feeling quite nauseous as the election campaign ramps up and I read today’s Mercury, discovering that our fearless leaders are throwing our money around like there is no tomorrow.
Lennon confirms that woodchips are not the way to go….perhaps a desperate lunge to grab a few “Green” votes?
http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18255638%5E3462,00.html

Hidding is suffering “pulp mill fever” as he tries to sure up votes.
Blind faith is an amazing thing.

Meanwhile the “image builders” are hard at work trying to patch up the tattered remnants of our fearless leaders, while more hospital specialists depart our shores due to lack of support.
Sorry…back in a sec…..feeling crook…..
………………………………………………………….
Mmm bit better.

My only hope is to come back a racehorse at Elwick….not any native animal….perhaps I could come back as a pollie…they seem to be a protected species….deep trough, long snout, home and hosed!

If I could find a doctor I would get some anti-sick pills……..no luck there…..ah well just have a glass of “Dioxin Red”….will do the trick.