Ahem, sorry, just see I have a small question.
Nothing to do with big capital, I have none of that.
See, embarrassed about this.
I am watching the Murdock unraveling with hope.
Have, every day of my life thought he bought and sold politicians, because he had the cash.
His biggest sin in my country may be that, he purchased opinions, without concerns for those he rolled over.
Ahem, why is this different?
Greens are not hopefully, immune to criticisms for leaving wreckage of ordinary lives and incomes in their wake.

Mark, how can you denigrate Graeme Wood “one of whom does not even live in the state”, when you do not live in the State yourself.
I suggest that you move here before you start to criticize any Tasmanians who are only exercising their rights of free speech about the State they live in.
At least he is putting his money where his mouth is.
As for derailing a democratically-elected government's control and management of a public resource. They lost control of the forest a long time ago and have only been doing as told by Gunns.

It is clear that the present management of the forest is mismanaged and not financially sustainable with FT being near insolvency, despite having the forest as a gift, as it’s assets and still unable to run it at a profit.

The plaintive cries of how it will affect the small millers because they cannot dispose of their waste, is just nonsense.
If you were living in Tasmania, you would see parked trucks with only small amounts of firewood in them priced at up to $180 a load.
I would think that that is far above the price that a load of “waste” would fetch at the chip mill. Therefore there is a steady outlet for “wastewood”.

Are you now saying that a simple buy and sell contract, in full view of the public, is not allowed? I seem to remember when Gunns were buying just about all the other timber businesses and then after a short time closing them down and laying off the workers. I did not hear you complain at the time.

Strangely you later start castigating Gunns for nefarious practices when up till quite recently, they could do no wrong.

You say, “Largely due to appallingly unbalanced mainland media coverage”. We know that 70% of the mainland media is owned by News Corp, yes they are renowned for unbalanced reporting but it is usually in favour of the clear felling policies of companies such as Gunns.

Sarnian

You said: "Mark, how can you denigrate Graeme Wood “one of whom does not even live in the state”, when you do not live in the State yourself"

I lived in Tasmania for six years and worked in the forest industry and have maintained a long standing interest and association with it through occassional work and friendships with former colleagues. I have followed the forests debate and been exposed to all aspects of it for years.

On the other hand, Mr Wood's exposure to the debate seems to have been only a recent thing spawned through his financial association with Greens politicians with an agenda to end timber production and put all forests in national parks.

You said: "It is clear that the present management of the forest is mismanaged and not financially sustainable ....."

Again... straight out of the Greens and ENGO activists handbook.

You siad: "The plaintive cries of how it will affect the small millers because they cannot dispose of their waste, is just nonsense"

Oh yes ... and how much firewood could they sell in Tasmania each year .... I'd wager just a fraction of the total waste.

You said: "Strangely you later start castigating Gunns for nefarious practices ...."

Not sure that I castigated Gunns, just pointed out what they are doing and that their primary motivation is to build a pulp mill.

You said: "We know that 70% of the mainland media is owned by News Corp, yes they are renowned for unbalanced reporting but it is usually in favour of the clear felling policies of companies such as Gunns"

Papers like the Herald Sun and commercial radio which are seen as right-leaning, do not bother reporting forestry issues at all. So, the media coverage that this has had on the mainland is restricted to the left-leaning ABC, The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, etc.

The exception is The Australian which has reported the Tasmanian forestry developments quite extensively. Although it is seen a right-leaning News Corp paper, it has a left-leaning Tasmanian correspondent, Matthew Denholm, who reports from a Greens-Left perspective.

“And how much firewood could they sell in Tasmania each year .... I'd wager just a fraction of the total waste.”

It would not matter how much they sold as long as they made their “profit” from it.
According to one complaint, it was the money earned from wood chipping the waste that gave them their sole profit and the milling was done for no profit. Well that’s a funny way to run a business. I would have thought that if the milling did not pay, you would either give it up or put up the prices of the product.
Having to depend on a by-product to survive is not what I would call a sustainable business.

You did not answer the point about the right to buy and sell for everyone and not just Gunns et al.
Why would Woods & Cameron not be allowed to buy anything that was on the open market?
Also surely if you buy something, it is up to you how you dispose of it?
Is the Government or it’s present incarnation in Lala Giddy to dictate that can buy and what is done with it?

“On the other hand, Mr. Wood's exposure to the debate seems to have been only a recent thing spawned through his financial association with Greens politicians with an agenda to end timber production and put all forests in national parks.”

What is wrong with that? If you discover an interest in something, is there a required time before you can act on it?

As regards financial associations, well Gunns has been known to pay for it’s lobbying.

I wonder if there is any way to sever the painter that ties Tasmania on behind Oz, like a dingy behind a yacht.

It really is too much bother to keep, & the pointy heads it shoves into our national parliament are so often nothing but trouble.

I reckon we would be much better off with out it.

Would the Kiwis be dumb enough to accept it, if we were to give it to them? Probably not.

Sarnian

For some more recent details about the Triabunna mill sale, see attached:

http://www.vexnews.com/2011/07/how-greens-govern-sleazy-deals-for-mega-donors-and-cushy-jobs-for-mates-mar-greens-rep-over-mill-sale/

.... and read the letter attached to it.

I'm not questioning the right of companies to buy and sell assets and properties. This is more about motivations, not the mechanics of such transactions.

What I am questioning is why entities who know next to nothing about an industry would buy a key industry facility and the role of the Greens in this (given that they are determined to close said industry). The article also points out that the seller (Gunns) was well down the path to selling to an industry-player but then suddenly sold for substantially less to a non-industry party, and what they stand to get out of this change of heart.

The article also points out the potential impact of this for Tasmania, for no real gain other than to tick-off something on the Greens wish-list no-doubt making their affluent, well-heeled urban supporters happy at the expense of thousands of rural and regional livelihoods.