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 http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002209.html
Tasmanian Pulp Mill at Crossroads: A Note from Cinders
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001972.html
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I dare say Gunns has never used ‘bully-boy’ tactics.
I like the quote from the article below (link):
‘The Environment Minister [Malcolm Turnbull] has described Mr Cousins as a rich man trying to get his own way’
Ha! Too funny.
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/22/2012422.htm
This Gunn’s mill project seems to tilt all over the place.
Neither side wants to attack mill workers in Tassie, three seats probably hinge on it.
Labor will monitor closely and I’d say any bat to be played will be play by the State.
But Howard’s mate attacking Howard’s heir apparent, may have some smoke and mirrors hiding some deeper Gambit.
The issue seems bent around cottage and wine industries adjacent and the ever present hairy leg greens lol against big bad Gunns.
But Howard with work choices, can’t have a win as per the last election, the worker part of the electorate will smell himm lifting off in Canberra on Rodent 1 The Presidential Jet.
Jennifer: The seat of Wentworth has become symbolic in the campaign for rational environment outcomes as time the federal election closes in on voters. It would not be the first time a federal minister has lost his seat over power and glory politics down in Tasmania.
It would be naive to think the greater environment doesn’t mater this time round. We on this blog only just got over debating things like coastal fishing. Something else Malcolm Turnbull has to consider right now is how we continue to find good stocks of wild seafood in previously pristine waters around traditional fishing areas including much of Bass Strait.
To my knowledge the Tamar region and the whole East Coast of Tasmania have not had forestry mixed up with fishing before Gunns took over the place. This big pulp mill proposal from the outset had the capacity to frighten both people and our fish.
The likely backwash from the proposed mill deep water outfall can’t be tested yet. The RPDC had so little to go on it was pathetic to witness. That’s because we had no equivalent hardwood pulp operation any where to build up the necessary local technical knowledge. Also previous pulp mills were a big pain in the Tasmanian environment. It seems nobody bothered to check up on their history before rushing in with a design from the overseas softwood trade.
IMO assured plain sailing with off the shelf mills for our eucalypt pulps notorious black liquor problems and bleaching difficulties was hardly a convincing start to the operation.
In fact Gunns could go backwards before commissioning was completed and who pays for that in the end. My bet is the Libs want to wash their hands, hence the rush.
Let’s hear from the ALP again hey
Not much point to having fish if you cant eat ’em, research has shown that wild fish are high in omega3 (the good oil) whereas farmed fish are high in omega6 (the bad oil)
Reason? lack of fish oil so fish farmers use vegetable oil.
Wild fish eat wild fish wheras farmed fish eat what they are given.
Why lack of wild fish? locked up in marine parks.
We could modify grains to increase levels of omega3 but we are against GM, arent we. In fact we are against most everything.
WWF are pro fish farms.
So just let Gunns do their job, OK?
Would like to put in a comment on this one, especially on Geoff Cousins, (now a director of Telstra) but a bit hard to download all the Documents from the Ministers Web site http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/assessments/2007/3385/invite-comment.html
Perhaps now that Cousins is the champion of regional Australia we might get some high speed service
the dioxin report “Response on Submission citing dioxin calculation concerns by Roger Drew and John Frangos, June 2007, as I think that Text Box 1 and 2 explain the detection limit and standards.Might show his concerns are unfounded.
Perhaps I could also down information on the Scallop survey just published by the Tasmanian Government as well.
Was going to switch to Optus but this bloke also used to work for them.
However he now has a tie up with the sponsoring of the WWF, perhaps our Insurance (IAG) millionaire critic of the Minister should have read the Federal Court judgement at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2007/1178.html
A read of this could have been more informative than a walk in the bush with a greens politician that has a stated public aim of defeating PM and the Current Federal Government.
The judgement ruled that Turnbull’s decision not to hold public hearings was entirely valid. It was lawful, made without bias and strictly in accordance with the responsibilities as a Minister administrating the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
This decision was made as a result of legal action taken by the Wilderness Society funded by donation claimed to be tax deductible due to the wilderness protection role of the Society.
Despite the proposed pulp mill being only 55 km from the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area and that harvesting of pulp wood will occur right up to its boundary the Wilderness society chose not to sue the Minister for his decision that Wilderness would not be impacted. (They and their backers obviously agreed).
But the WS chose instead to defend the closest Commonwealth Land, the Stony Head Artillery Range. Perhaps the Wilderness Society should be renamed the Unexploded Ordinance Society!
Jennifer: There is a lengthy editorial in the Canberra Times today that imho pretty well sums it up “few could argue that the pulp mills assessment and approval process has been open and above board”. Sorry Cinders.
It goes on to look at the pulp mill approval spat in Wentworth between Cousins and Turnbull then notes the PM declines to endorse either. This editorial also suggests is unlikely the Coalition or the ALP will push for a wider inquiry. The author must have read my thoughts on Braddon, Bass etc
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=your+say&subclass=general&story_id=1042221&category=letters+to+the+editor
Blog readers should note the anti pulp mill campaign must remain strictly independent to be effective at this late stage. Cousins seems to fill the bill.
Gavin,
The letter writer makes the same fundamental assumptions about the mill approval process that you seem to have made. The Comonwealth has had ample time to review the mill and its impacts. It has not been an overnight process.
I have also noticed that the debate on the impacts of the proposed mill fails to mention that Gunns, the proponent, is the owner of the Tamar Ridge vineyards, which happen to be sited on the western side of the Tamar Valley in amongst the area claimed to be most at risk by mill opponents. I think it highly unlikely that Gunns would risk the success of their highly successful vineyards and winemaking enterprises for the sake of the pulp mill.
As Cinders and others have noted previously on this blog the Eastern side of the Tamr is quite possibly the most heavily industrialised zone in Tasmania. In that regard it is the perfect place to site the pulp Mill. It also exposes the lie that is constantly trotted out by mill opponents that the Tamr valley is devoid of heavy industry and is unspoilt from its natural state. You Gavin should know better, given your stated familiarity with all things Tasmanian.
Peter: The Commonwealth has a very small frame through which they can view this proposal. They can’t or instance look at Gunn’s economics or their chance of success in pulp making for their first time given the tight restrictions as proposed in this latest round.
Tasmania’s industrial zones were pretty much all over so this Longreach site on the Tamar is hardly the main attraction. Things move fast too, another region had its hand up but was ignored. Until now nobody here has mentioned Hampshire as the logical alternative to Gunns big bid on the Tamar.
It’s been my view throughout Peter; several smaller pulp mills in the heart of long term forest operations was the way to go. Simply trucking everything through the state to one giant mill was bizarre. If not for tourism it’s for locals’ safety that this thing can’t get the nod as it stands. Anyway who pays for the roads?
Tasmania’s capacity to produce was maximised as the basis of this proposal. The other obvious objection from my point of view apart from environment issues is the apparent lack of partners like papermakers. Gunns seemed to want total domination of the industry way back. Also a few dozen more jobs in pulp making beyond the Gunns wood chip mill is hardly worth everybody getting hung up about.
Let’s have some perspective: Burnie and Wynyard people are enterprising enough to make up for the state not having another giant automated process industry. Check out the export of local built mine trucks starting with Elphinstone. Home grown engineering was always the way forward. It started in a real paper mill industrial complex. Scrounging and recycling was the key to independence after the timber resource was clobbered.
That’s my experience in a nutshell.
Gavin,
What nonsense, Since when does the past experience of a project proponent guarantee their ability to succesfully run a particular enterprise. The proponents ability to manage a vertically integrated business enterprise that employs a significant number of people and its track record in doing so should be enough. If we applied your test to every person that wanted to operate a business then we would never have any new startups.
Tasmania’s major industrial zone for heavy industry is the east bank of the Tamar. Sure theere is industry spread over Tasmania but not of the type that is located in the Tamar.
Hampshire would require a greater number of truckmovements than what the Bell Bay proposal does. It would require a similar number to get the raw material in to the mill and then transport from the mill site tot he docks in Burnie. It would also require longer transport times which may impact on other road users.
It might be your view that several smaller dispersed mills throughtout Tasmania would be the go but you are not the one taking the financial risk. As for papermakers coming on board, the international market for pulp is such that it does not require paper makers to me on board as partners in the construction and operation of such mills. They are now the customers and purchase pulp on the world market.
As you rightly say “Also a few dozen more jobs in pulp making beyond the Gunns wood chip mill is hardly worth everybody getting hung up about.” exactly, so why are you getting worked up about it? Could it be because a mill of this type and size will provide yet another level of legitimacy to the Tasmanian forestry industry. It is amusing that all the proponents of tourism as the saviour of the Tasmanian economy fail to acknowledge that the tourism industry has grown hand in hand with the forestry industry. Why these two industries are seen by some to be mutually exclusive is beyond me. Especially given their symbiotic relationship.
As for local enterprise being the way forward, surely Gunns is just a prime example of a local company investing in the State, investing in an enterprise that utilises a renewable, sustainably managed raw material.
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.
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 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!
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
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 http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002125.html despite pristine coastline, threatened sea eagles and other high conservation environmental values.
Just what is going on?
pulp mills aside; cinders should stake his claim too on a choice piece of Tassie realestate while there is an option