In 1990 the ALP based their election strategy on Green preferences, a strategy put in place by its Environment Minister from NSW. There were two key elements to this election victory gained ‘at any cost’, the first the Environment Minister being able to delay a decision on the Wesley Vale Pulp Mill in Tasmania based on green protests, despite the support of the Union movement and being able to meet Environmental guidelines.

The second plank was over turning the Helsham inquiry which recommended that only 8 per cent of 283,000ha of forest studied be listed as World Heritage.

The Greens, as usual, wanted the lot. Former Hawke Finance Minister, Peter Walsh later recounted that Environment Minister Richardson observed that the Helsham inquiry needed to be "fixed up". Helsham's report was sidelined and the 8 per cent was boosted (by non-public and non-accountable processes) to 70 per cent.

It now looks like both major parties want to do a “Richo’ in a desperate bid to gain Government at this election. Both parties seem hell bent on using the Tasmanian forests and the industry as an election issue as they scramble for green preferences in marginal seats in NSW, Victoria and Queensland. But at what cost?

The most likely outcome of pandering to the greens will be handing them the balance of power in the Senate. They will have the whip hand regardless whether Kevin Rudd or John Howard wins. The new government will be forced to adopt the radical policies of the greens if they want to keep their election promises.

Already we have seen the ETU (and perhaps the building wing of the CFMEU) fund this minor party that wants to destroy forest industry jobs. What about the NSW ALP; have they done a sleazy back room deal to reelect Greens Kerry Nettle on preferences.

Yes Taz, we’ve seen this all before, in Tasmania it was called the Green-Labor Accord that has since been called the “Tasmanian Green Disease”. This like a future Senate controlled by the greens, was a disaster on economic, environmental and social grounds

Taz

Boy I do think you need to take a BEX and have a good lay down your argument is getting a bit wobbly.

But befor you take you leave I will leave you with some good facts about water use by the pulp mill.

The mill will require a volume of 26 GL per year of water, extracted from via a pip line from Lake Trevallyn.

This 26 GL represents approximately 1% of the average yearly flow into the Tamar Estuary.

In a dry month,the pulp mill requirement would represent an estimated 3 to 4% of the flow into the Tamar estuary.

Environmental flows in Cataract Gorge will be maintained at all times. Similarly, drinking water supply requirements for Esk Water will take precedence over supply to the pulp mill.

The Trevallyn power station has a maximum power generating capacity of 83.6 MW.

This equates to about 2,500 Giga litres of water a year, almost all the 2600 GL that flows into this dam from the South Esk river and irrigation system. Prior to being used in the power station 28 GL is diverted into two water treatment plants serving the West Tamar and the South Esk schemes and for riparian water to maintain environmental flows to the Cataract Gorge.

Riparian Water for the environment of the Gorge is released at 0.43 m3/s or 13Gl per year

The Pulp mill will buy at commercial rates 26 GL each year from the power station’s water that would be generating about 0.83 MW of power and then flowing out to sea.

The mill will generate about 90 MW of excess renewable power to be made available to the power grid.

Hydro Tasmania has publicly stated that the minimum price to be paid by pulp mill for the water is $24 per mega litre. This compares to the $12.50 paid by irrigators that draw water from Lake Trevallyn. The developer will be required to pay an asset facility fee and provide all additional infrastructure.

Now off you go and have lay down (don't forget the BEX)

TJ; There is still time yet. We can have you back in the bush cutting green wooden droppers for farm fences out of pulpwood before Howard calls on the GG for this election. I reckon he needs the time to think.

Cinders knows; when I drive down the federal highway I can look both ways. AD’s in the Senate were renowned for their negotiations. Where I vote there is an interesting choice this time and I’ve been busy Last week I wrote this piece to a blog manager –

‘Gunns pulp mill proposal has the ability to unseat the Liberal Government Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Malcolm Turnbull and crush his ALP shadow Peter Garret.

“Dr Peacock's report is due within days” ABC. I reckon Malcolm is beyond guessing but Peter is still sweating.

The electorate as a whole is currently more worried about bricks and mortar than pulpwood. Malcolm and Peter may well be sidelined by the majority in the final rush to secure futures.

However, from experience a handful of other quirky marginal seats will determine the shape of our new government. Many of those 16 or more odd seats will remain polarized over forestry and the environment. Malcolm Turnbull’s decision either way will be a big headache for the incoming government.

Swinging voters usually look at health or education issues. This time they may recall our Chief Scientist was an advocate for GM’. Dr Peacock said that people like himself had "probably failed miserably" in recent years to help the public gain a better understanding of gene technology” ABC.

Let’s also say our wine will never be the same after the election because it all depends on the science.

CHEERS

Taz

Nar never liked cuttin droppers to much work for not much return and every one wants them steel ones now days. Any way all ways knew that you couldn't beat a good racked stack of 6x2's to pay the bills.

Best possible value adding is the go; just like the pulp mill for example did you know that detailed economic modelling by Monash University has concluded that the mill would yield substantial positive benefits to Tasmania, and Australia as a whole, through greater economic activity and employment.

It also found that Tasmania’s gross state product (GSP) would be $6.7 billion higher in net present value terms over the project life, with over 1600 additional jobs sustained on average while the mill operates.

This is all backed up by that fact that continued value adding of our regrowth forest and tree plantation resource is consistent with Australian Government policy including the Regional Forest Agreement, 2020 vision that has a goal of reducing our balance of trade deficit. Did you know that Australia’s balance of trade deficit in forest and wood products is approximately $2 billion per annum?

Monash also found that the proposed Bell Bay pulp mill has the potential to reduce this balance of trade deficit by $400 to $450 million each year (20 to 25%).

Our farmers also see great social benefit.

The Tasmanian Farmers & Graziers Association estimate that 40% of commercial wood production is on private land and much of that from commercial farming enterprises. Roger Swain President of the TFGA said “Putting it simply, the pulp mill will strengthen the enterprises for many, many farmers.” (Media Release 6August 2007)

Best possible value adding is the go says TJ

“Forests are a reservoir of biological diversity and are functioning ecosystems. They provide protection for soils and water resources, and are increasingly being recognised for their potential as carbon sinks through their ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. They are the foundation for a broad range of cultural and spiritual experiences for diverse groups of people and a major tourist attraction for Australians and overseas visitors, providing for a vast array of recreational and educational activities” Year Book 2006.

TJ avoids this bit “The hardwood mills are generally small scale and scattered” My contention is large scale “pulpwood” concessions have seriously damaged this traditional value adding industry and its jobs. Perhaps the TCA was blinded by the reflection from REFLEX and other fine finished dried pulps.

Too easy hey. Besides that, Where is Gunns long range paper machine proposal combined effluent recycling, domestic market R & D and potential partners downstream in a variety of solid products? Royalties, for pulpwood versus tall timber from native forest is an issue well lost in the wash. Bales of ECF pulp are not much good in fences, benches or tabletops.

Best return for your investment TJ may be a whole new bunch whittlers, chair makers and toymakers. Imported cutting boards made from blocks are the go.

Check out Aldi but be quick. Sorry about Myers.

How many of you have read the peacock report on the Pulp Mill?
Peacock states clearly that: “The likely consequence is that fine particulate matter and attached contaminates such as Dioxins will not accumulate near the outfall, but will instead ultimately accumulate in deposition zones with low bottom stress, either in deeper water offshore or in sheltered bays and estuaries inshore”.
He also states, “The department has not identified any likely significant impacts on the marine environment in Commonwealth waters from the proposed mill. HOWEVER, there are indications that levels of pollutants that may accumulate in Tasmanian waters may be of concern”.

This so called scientific report and its recommendations e.g. hydrodynamic modelling, only address Commonwealth waters which are five kilometres offshore; it does not address any Tasmanian concerns at all.
Does anyone apart from the “Laborial Party” really think its ok to protect commonwealth waters while Tasmanians are left to wallow in the poisons from this mill and its associated industries?

TAP “Tasmanians Against the Pulp Mill” are running a Voters Block Campaign from their web-site which I have asked Get Up to take Australia wide.

Please help us overturn this horrendous decision to let the Pulp Mill go ahead.
Make your voice heard, Sign up for the Voters Block and vote NO on the poll on http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/default.asp.