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

JohnBennetts you sound suspiciously like an academic on the public payroll. Why don't you offer your job to a forestry worker who lost his ? You seem to have absolutely no regard for those workers now facing unemployment. Do the right moral thing & forfeit your employment as well. Then try & get over it by spruiking for unemployment.

Any mention of Gunns and geoffrey cousins in the same sentence brings three thoughts to mind.

1. As a director of telstra, cousins sat asleep at the wheel as the US bandit destroyed shareholder value, until sol left telstra. He went with a golden parachute supplied by a board of directors that rewarded mediocrity with multimillion dollar bonuses. Then cousins has the hide to criticise other company directors for poor performance.

2. As I drive though local forests, from time to time, I cross the easements dozed though native forests, where telstra cables now run. Cousins is quiet on this issue, which smells of hypocrisy.

3. The business success of cousins and the publishing success of flanagan were underpinned by mountains of woodchips from the forests of the world. How holy one can be if one ignores one’s business and personal consumption of forest products.

Gunns in the end was guilty of trying to satisfy some of that consumption from Australian plantations.

After the demise of Gunns, it is likely that the assets will be purchased by foreign investors. I doubt that foreign investors will work as hard for a "Social License" that a Tasmanian Company did. One should always remember to "Be Careful what you wish for".

What part of:
"the clear felling of old growth forest is detrimental to the soil, water supply, to population due to chemical spray, burn offs, decimation of wildlife, reduction of CO2 sinks, decreases in rainfall, erosion of land."
do you not understand?
As for social licence, it would be interesting if a referendum were to be held on the forest industry including woodchipping, pulp mills and clear felling in place of selective logging.
It would not ever be allowed to happen of course.
As to value adding:
If you degrade the value of the surrounding property, the sea, the air, can you subtract that from the dollars raked in by the shareholders and the quite small actual numbers of jobs
I think not.
By the way, 'worlds best practice", does not mean that it is acceptable. It just means that there is not a better way of doing it at the moment.

Mark, it is interesting that you single out and use extensively, the term “social licence”. As I recall, Gunns did much to influence the decisions of local authorities and the police, by trying to convince them that this pulp mill would not impact negatively on the region. In doing so, Gunns then CEO, John Gay, claimed to have a social licence. It works both ways and both sides have argued respectively over such and asset. I say asset because in today’s world, where environment and society count, public opinion is vital for projects such as this. A social licence is as much an asset as new plant or a good ratio in the ledger. Gunns however, did not have public opinion on their side and despite getting a double whammy from government and investors, with the added advantage of timber at $7.00 per tonne; Gunns could not afford new plant and failed in the ratio stakes. This was obviously a bad business model because three other corporate giants did likewise, before Gunns.

You talk about Geoffrey Cousins being an activist, as though somehow, he has changed sides from business to green. Mr Cousins is an astute businessman, with a vast amount of experience in corporate Australia. He argues that Gunns is not a company in which he would put his trust, because of that company’s poor track record in environmental destruction. It is possible for a business to be environmentally sound.

You talk about ‘dance-on-the-grave' post-mortems’ by many but I prefer the pre-mortem version by Peter Cundall. See the Geoffrey Cousins and Peter Cundall arguments here and decide for yourself: www.theage.com.au/tv/Environment/A-Worm-in-the-Apple-4262515.html

The Gunns pulp mill met the stringent environmental requirements of the democratically elected governments of the Tasmania and Australia. The environmental standards and the investigation of the processes has been quoted around the world as Best practice by institutes such as the world bank. Yet an orchestrated campaign by the greens and their allied groups not only discredited the environmentally sound pulp mill but destroyed the reputation of the company.

The greens have not only cost the Tasmanian community jobs and economic wealth, they have denied the state the opportunity of value adding and processing a renewable resource, saving not only greenhouse gas emissions but the destruction of tropical rainforests that continue to supply our nation's pulp needs.

The images of old growth destruction used against this mill show just how willing the greens and their cronies were willing to mislead the public over this mill that was designed to process regrowth or plantation wood. The scaremongering claims based on chlorine bleaching was designed to undermine the environmental credentials of Elemental Chlorine Free bleaching, now the International standard.

No matter how many propaganda films and essays by green activists, history will not change, the greens will stand condemned for denying this social license for an environmentally friendly and sustainable enterprise!

Robert Le Page

You ask: What part of "the clear felling of old growth forest is detrimental to the soil, water supply, to population due to chemical spray, burn offs, decimation of wildlife, reduction of CO2 sinks, decreases in rainfall, erosion of land." do you not understand?

This litany of claims only further exemplifies the article's central premise that such misinformation has entered the public conscious despite being wrong or highly exaggerated and therefore makes any chance of getting a 'social licence' impossible. Ditto for your suggested referendum (even though most Tasmanians would probably support the forest industry). Those opposing it would be doing so largely on the basis of wrong information.

By the way - what part of "the Gunns pulp mill was only going to use plantation wood" do you not understand?

David Leigh

You say: "Gunns however, did not have public opinion on their side ..."

As above, if public opinion is overtly influenced by misinformation, the whole notion of 'social licence' becomes meaningless. I'm sure Gunns did try to put their side of the story of the proposed pulp mill. Why is this seen as a bad thing when it is a perfectly natural response to the public being bombarded with misinformation.

I'm sorry but Peter Cundall deserves absolutely zero credibility in this discussion - he was simply a celebratory activist pushing one view, but he did presumably influence others to join the cause.

I admire your incessant efforts to promote your film, I guess the substantial government grant that you received to make it has to be justified.

I'm sorry I have only watched the first 5 or so minutes and found (from memory) around 10 errors or highly contentious presumptions presented as though they were undeniable fact. That was enough for me.