The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A balancing act > Comments

A balancing act : Comments

By Andrew Macintosh, published 27/9/2007

Gunns: how not to conduct a robust and transparent assessment process.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. All
Well said, Andrew. Your comment that "The interests of business are viewed by many as synonymous with those of society ..." is spot on, as it has typified the attitude of the proponents of the Gunns pulp mill proposal. More people need to challenge that view. Your article is yet another reminder that the (lack of) approval process for this pulp mill should send shivers down the spines of all reasonably minded citizens. Malcolm Turnbull has the opportunity to provide appropriate democratic leadership on this issue, giving appropriate weight to all factors, economic, social and environmental, something that has been distinctly lacking from the John Paul led Tasmanian government and most local members of parliament at both the state and federal level.
Posted by Ian D, Thursday, 27 September 2007 10:14:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A conclusion based on a rumour is no conclusion at all.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 27 September 2007 4:15:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't pretend to know a whole lot about environmental assessment processes in relation to major developments, but I believe some of the core presumptions made about the Tasmanian pulp mill in this post are questionable.

In my view, the primary reason that the pulp mill has become a major electoral issue is because a wealthy businessman has been able to conduct a media-savvy campaign based around a flawed 'opinion' article by novellist Richard Flanagan. This has been supported by massive misrepresentations of the project by the media based around a supposed pristine Tamar Valley (described as 'classic Tassie wilderness' by 60 Minutes, and as 'largely untouched' by ABC Lateline Business; and misplaced concerns about effects in the forest.

In my view, concerns about the environmental assessment process have become magnified in support of this campaign, not the other way around.

I suspect it would not matter much if all scientists agreed on air quality and effluent and the process was conducted to the highest standards of transparency. Strong community concern would continue because the primary issue related to the pulp mill project is that it is seen (rightly or wrongly) as guaranteeing a future for an industry that key sections of the environmental movement have been trying to close down for decades. I suspect their view is that they will have no future relevance if the pulp mill goes ahead.

The view that 'business interests have been able to exert a disproportional influence on the outcome of approval processes' may well be valid in many industries, but surely not forestry. Over the past 25 years, state governments have re-badged 11 million hectares of Australian state forest as national park or reserve, largely at the behest of activist-inspired community concern about the timber industry.

The prevalence of 'community concern' suggests that no environmental assessment process will ever be acceptable because environmental activism demands that industrial development must have absolutely no impact. If minimum acceptable standards are unachievable who can blame industries for heading to countries where there may be very relaxed standards. Would this be the best environmental outcome?
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Thursday, 27 September 2007 6:04:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know what to believe about the environmental impact of the mill. Diametrically opposed opinions, and inflammatory comment do not contribute in any way to the debate.
The point which deeply concerns me, and, I suspect, a majority of my fellow Tasmanians, is the trampling of due process.
Premier Lennon is deeply indebted to Gunns for their assistance on his house renovations. The removal of the project from the RPDC process, and the passing of project-specific legislation smacks of this indebtedness.
I have tried to engage Tasmanian politicians of both major parties in a discussion of this problem, but none of them will respond to my correspondence.
Posted by Kalophon, Thursday, 27 September 2007 6:36:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given the Timber Industry workers and their supporter's in Tasmania helped Howard to win Tasmania and the last election in order to keep their jobs.

Maybe the favour should be returned by preventing this Mill from going ahead and placing more restraints on their industry through our electored officials
Posted by Yindin, Friday, 28 September 2007 3:16:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem with Andrew's article when he refers to the Gunn proposal, is that he assumes that the assessment procedures are not flawed in any way. In the case of the RPDC process, it was the Green's who derailed it. They were continually opposed to its process, they even went to great lengths to discredit one of the panel members. Their sole aim was to disrupt and delay the assessment process because they realised that their arguments against the mill were not believable by fiar-minded people.

The real irony is that the Green's now complain that the RPDC process should have been followed and claim Lennon's replacement process which set definate deadlines, was not appropriate. The worst thing was that armchair expects like Andrew, Cousins and other wannabe celebrities fell for this hook, line and sinker.

Lets use an analogy for Andrew to consider. Lets say he just bought a nice expensive block of land to build a small factory to earn him some money. He had to borrow lots of money and the more the building approvals were delayed, the longer to start getting a return on his money. But he ran into problems with the local council's assessment process. And some locals complained about Andrew's plans during the consultation process. Council took on board their concerns and asked for some detailed studies to be carried out by Andrew for no reason other than to avoid conflict but this delayed the approvals. So Andrew fronts the Council to find out when his approval would be forthcoming if he did this extra work. Council refuses to give him any indication when he might get his approval and no guarantees that they won't ask for even further reports. This is despite Andrew pointing out he did everything that was asked of him when he first applied. Andrew, do you think you would be happy with this situation and is the assessment fair and equitable? Any asessment procedures need to ensure that opponents who oppose simply as a delaying tactic are not part of the process.
Posted by tragedy, Tuesday, 2 October 2007 3:50:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy