There is no such thing as a social licence. It's either legal or it's not.

The collapse of Gunns is a tragedy for Tasmania, not least its workforce. The state will remain a parasite, sucking the blood out of mainland taxpayers, until it gets over its anti-development obsession.

What we need is a more objective way to evaluate all development proposals.

Every land use has an environmental impact. Some land uses contribute value to the nation. Some don't.

Every development application should require an assessment of the environmental impact (AEI), and the benefits (if any) to the community and the nation. All land is zoned, one way or another. Some is put out of reach of development (national parks, conservation reserves etc).

The AEI should consider how rare and unique the land to be used is. For example, most of the NSW coastal strip is very beautiful and unique worldwide. Ban development. In contrast, much of the interior is not remarkable, and there is a lot of it. The AEI should consider the effect/impact on neighbours - visual, dust, noise, traffic, water systems. Many mines are in the boonies, where there is little impact on neighbours. Consider whether the land use is permanent or temporary (mines are rehabilitated at closure). Consider the area of land to be disrupted. Consider the impacts on rare species.

The benefits assessments (Assessment of Project Benefits - APB) should consider the benefits to the community and nation - likely jobs, contracts, infrastructure, taxes and royalties, export earnings, flow on benefits and the like.

Consideration of the AEI and the APB will show whether the project is justified (APBs very much outweigh AEI) or not (APBs don't outweigh AEI).

This sort of assessment should be mandatory for every DA. The reason for this is to educate the public about the issues. Have a random audit procedure to check submissions. Submissions from larger projects should all be assessed.

Apply the same rules to all land-uses. Be objective.

More of the same tired old stuff from this same author. This article is premised on several contentious assumptions, including:
1. That Tasmania needs a pulp mill, the only question being where.
2. That Gunns or another firm like it is essential for the wellbeing of Tasmania.
3. That additional adjectives sprinkled through an article make it more convincing, especially if perjorative of the enemy and supportive of the author's point of view. Well, they are not.
4. That 'scare quotes' don not impede comprehension or break up the continuity of the article. In reality, they serve no useful purpose apart from demonstrating that the author has run out of words that say what he means and has chosen to try to allocate a new, sinister meaning to those words which he has adorned with them. They are perhaps expected to serve as devil's horns sprinkled through the text. Examples include:
'dance-on-the-grave' post mortems from long-standing critics
'green' votes
akin to a 'cult'
'cultish', unprincipled and uncompromising...
'social licence' (a bunch of times, perhaps 20)
There is no 'truth' here, only opinion... (My opinion good, your opinion bad?)

Is it too much to ask that authors support their opinions by facts, especially when accusing others of not doing so?

It is most unconvicing to read self-important nonsense published in an attempt to support a failed and foolhardy corporation which caused much sorrow and division in the community in which it operated for several decades.

Gunns lost.

Many folk are absolutely convinced that this is a Good Thing.

Get over it.

Spruikers for the Tasmanian forestry industry should face the future; one without the pulp mill that never was.

We have heard a lot in recent years about the entities that "are too big to fail".
This was the way that Gunns saw themselves and aided and abetted by the liblab parties decided that they would ride rough shod over any opposition to their plans.
Well they were wrong and the destruction of Gunns is the result.
Most Tasmanians are concerned by the loss of jobs and the uncertain future. At least Latham's plan would have softened the landing.
The death warrant is being executed now and it is not financially-compensated to the degree that it would have been.
There is no easy answer to Tasmanian employment problems but one thing is certain, waiting for the magic pudding to come to it's aid with a huge mill is not it.
Latham was prescient about the future of the forest industry. It's a pity that he did not get more support at the time from his own party though you could understand the Liberals being set against him.
As for Gunns, no tears will be spared for their demise except by those who stood to gain financially and the unfortunates who are now unemployed. They tried to get away with building a chemical monstrosity in a pristine area , fudged the information about the operation and when they could see that it would not pass the tests required bypassed the tests with the forced through parliamentary "approval".

John Bennetts

Interesting that you would expend so much effort addressing the article's style of writing. Could it be that you can't discuss the topics that it addresses because you have no arguments to mount?

In case you missed it, the article is about the shortcomings of the concept of 'social licence' (that would be why the term was mentioned 20 times) which is being used against proposed developments and industies (not just in Tasmania), but is essentially impossible for them to achieve in many cases.

I don't disagree that your points 1 and 2 are things that are debatable, but this article did not set out to address them.

Your point 3 is just silly. Perhaps you should read the articles that I mentioned by Flanagan, Cousins, and Latham. You'll find they use infinitely more colourful and descriptive language than I do - but hang on, you agree with their viewpoints so thats alright. Just a tad hypocritical I think.

Your point 4 - 'scare quotes' do serve a very useful purpose in showing just how the nutty much of the opposition to Gunns was - which your post only further exemplifies.

Please explain why commentary from Flanagan, Cousins and Latham coming within days of a company's fall is not 'dancing on the grave'

If you'd read the article properly, the term "cultish" was actually used by Mark Latham in relation to so-called 'pro-forestry supporters' I have simply recycled it.

Where have I not supported what I've written with facts? - or are you denying that Cousins, Flanagan and Latham said the things that I've quoted?

Your use of 'a failed and foolhardy corporation' again illustrates your hypocrisy in attacking me for descriptive language.

I can appreciate how people living nearby might not have wanted to live with a pulp mill, but unfairly discrediting the project and its proponents through misinformation deserves no respect. Sadly when it comes to Tasmania, it seems any resource use industry is going to be attacked in this same way.

Robert Le Page

Parts of your post exemplify what I have said elsewhere about the tendency for opponents of Gunns and Tasmanian forestry to play fast and loose with the truth.

You say: "they tried to build a chemical monstrosity in a pristine area" In fact they were trying to build the world's most advanced and environmentally-friendly pulp mill in an industrial precinct next door to two export woodchip facilities that have been there since the early 1970s.

You say: "they would ride rough shod over any opposition to their plans" In fact, the project was subject to a four-year State and Federal Government approvals process - how is this riding rough shod over the opposition?

You say: "Well they were wrong and the destruction of Gunns is the result" Much as it may suit you to think that public opposition to the pulp mill undid the company, their problems are a manifestation of a complex array of issues, including a Global Financial Crisis.

You say: "Latham was prescient about the future of the forest industry" Doubtful unless he had a crystal ball. He was deluded into thinking that losing seats in Tasmania by greatly downsizing the state's most important industry, would be outweighed by the support of 'green voters' in mainland capital cities. Nothing more.

You say: "As for Gunns, no tears will be spared for their demise except by those who stood to gain financially ....." Its a wonder you didn't mention the tobacco industry, they usually get wheeled out in any discussion about corporate self interest. In fact, there are many with no association with Gunns who will cry for what this means for Tasmania in terms of attracting future investment, and what it means for common sense in trying to value add to a primary resource to break the mould of Australia being simply an exporter of raw materials