Over the last decade or so Tasmanian forestry issues have emerged as the predictable wildcard in Australian federal politics. I say predictable because the issue is always there but tends to manifests itself in unpredictable ways.
At the last federal election unionists rallied for John Howard, a Liberal Prime Minister, when Mark Latham, the Labor challenger went ‘too green’ in his forestry policies. Neither political party released its forestry policy until the last week of the campaign. Then a few days out from the election, television images of blue-collar workers cheering John Howard at a rally in Launceston stole momentum from the Labor party in the final days of the campaign.
There is another federal election likely sometime before the end of the year and it initially appeared Tasmanian forestry would not be an issue. Both parties have similar policies including on a proposed pulp mill.
But a now former prime ministerial adviser has decided to very publicly attack the environment minister for apparently supporting the pulp mill.
Geoffrey Cousins says he will campaign against Malcolm Turnbull because he is appalled the Minister has fast-tracked the approval process for the proposed $2 billion Gunns pulp mill in northern Tasmania.
As far as I can tell the pulp mill has not been fast tracked. Rather the greens have thrown as many obstacles in the way as they can over many years, and every time one is lifted out of the way, someone is accused of being undemocratic or fast tracking approvals?
And who is Mr Cousins anyway. Why is the media making such a big deal out of his bully-boy tactics?
Previous posts on this issue include:
Tasmanian Pulp Mill assessment process vindicated by the Federal court
Tasmanian Pulp Mill at Crossroads: A Note from Cinders
pulp mills aside; cinders should stake his claim too on a choice piece of Tassie realestate while there is an option
The plot thickens; ABC News is reporting that Mr Cousins owns a property next door to Dick Smith's planned eco-tourism lodge at Crescent Bay on the Tasman Peninsula.
Both businessmen put in development applications to the Tasman Council on the same day, and they plan to share an access road.
See http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/24/2014617.htm?site=tasmania
A fellow blogger pointed out only recently on this blog that there has been deafening silence displayed by Bob Brown, Peg Putt and the rest of the Greens, in relation to the Crescent Bay proposal. See second comment at https://climatelab.com.au/blog/archives/002125.html despite pristine coastline, threatened sea eagles and other high conservation environmental values.
Just what is going on?
Peter: I maintain truck movements are a big issue for the public at large. If Gunns had their way a fleet of those trucks would go straight through Hobart too
Peter makes a good point that counters Geoffrey Cousins claim of "absolute madness" the proposal to build a $2 billion pulp mill in the heart of Tasmania's prime wine district.
Perhaps he should also check the TCA website for the Media release about wine and pulp mills in France, the 'capital' of the industry.
While at http://www.tca.org.au check some other myths about the mill!
Gavin,
It is a billion dollar investment, I suggest that any investment of such a scale has inherent risk, financial, resource, market, labour, IP etc. Indeed as you say the international market in pulp and woodchips is also a part of that risk. It is the same for any business that purchases raw materials, processes that material into a saleable product and takes that product to market.
As for TCA, it is a community organisation that is fulfilling its charter, namely looking after the interests of its members.
If you think that truck movements are not an issue then you have paid little attention to much of the dabate about the scale of the mill.
Any company that considers making an investment of this scale, regardless of what it happens to be, will seek a level of certainty from the regulators (i.e. the state and federal governments). The boards of those companies woold be negligent if they did not do so. Indeed that was part of the process in determining if the mill was a project of state significance.
Peter: What is your idea of the financial risk in the proposal? Is it private funds? Is it resource supply? Is it technology? Given all the public discussion so far I reckon it’s more about your TCA going down the tubes with Gunns and one or two pollies.
The time line on financing within the Tasmanian political framework is a diversion. There were many other issues including the timber & pulp trade round this hungry world
Truck movements only become an issue when the proposal is too big for its boots and I’m suggesting that is probably the case given the fuss from various quarters. Gunns pulp mill is an uncomfortable fit when the operators have to demand so much state and federal imposed support.
My comments are generally thinking about a selective access process to public resources such as roads, ports and power along with native timber, fish and minerals etc all subsidised. Its free handouts at election time with a smile. Indeed; sloppy democracy becomes a feature if we let it.
Stop the rush and tread softly then listen to the birds.