If the citizens of Taswegia were so much against what the two major parties are doing, the Greens would be in power now. I would suggest that it is pure humbug to put up the arguments that have been made against Gunns. Tasmania needs jobs, Gunn's is a sustainable industry which can give those jobs, otherwise Tasmania will gradually decline into being a third world country, living on handouts from the mainland.

David

Individual local politicians do not represent their electorates; they represent the party who enabled them to be elected. Anyone who has ever contacted his or her local member will know that it is always the party line that comes back.

People vote Liberal, Labor or one of the minor parties because they have few chances to vote for an independent who might just do the obvious and represent them. It is almost impossible for an independent to get up because we have become inured to a two party system. The voters who the author tells us: “voted overwhelmingly for politicians who have no concern about any of the impacts of the pulp mill …” had no choice. No one in his or right mind is going to vote for an extreme leftist like Bob Brown just because his policy is against pulp mills. His other policies are so silly and extreme as to nullify his stand on pulp mills and forests.

Had there been suitable, sane independents, things might have been different, but it is just too hard for an independent to be elected.

The only two groups presently capable of forming government at state and federal level are Liberal and Labor. Both are so very similar on all issues.

Most of us probably share the author’s opinion on politicians (this is what the article is about, not any particular issue), but, until decent people, not interested in “careers” but wanting to do something for their state, country and the people they represent, start getting themselves known and standing as independents, nothing is going to change.

Congratulation to Peter Henning on a very well written article. Spot on. The choice between liberal and labour in Tasmania is a choice between the “far-right” and the “far-right”.
Our state labour government certainly has a snug relationship with big business, a relationship which leaves a whiff of sleaze in the air

Those who argue that legitimate democracy should hinge on a choice between 2 parties are only one tiny step ahead of China, which insists you need only 1.

If you really think a choice between Coles and Woolworths, Telstra and Optus..... is a fair dinkum choice, then your horizon is rather jaded.

The real problem in Tasmania is what to do when you have a civil society coupled to an uncivil government. The people of Tasmania are too peaceful to bring down their government through sheer force. Yet they are bludgeoned by that very government every day.

The Gunns saga is an engrossing tale of government wedded to big business via a string of corruption scandals. Every week brings on a new scandal. This week it was the news that the government intends to pay for the $60 million water supply infrastructure to the mill. Is it not legitimate that there is a debate about use of public money for that purpose?

By all means let's have a decent debate about the best way to provide jobs in Tasmania, but damaging the state's clean green brand, and, in doing so, jeopardising all the industries and employment that now rely on the branding, is stupid beyond measure.

Those opposed to Gunns' pulpmill do include people who are aghast at the onslaught in the native forests, but more so they include hundreds of ordinary landowners, farmers, business people, retirees and residents who are negatively affected.

Make no mistake the Gunns mill is not viable without immense government subsidy. If one industry is to be subsidised to that extent, then other businesses have every right to cry foul. Tasmania has more than one economic future, and there should be a lively debate about what that future should be.

One way to make problems such as the subsidies to Gunns more visible is to require that all expenditures made to benefit an organisation like Gunns be made by Gunns. Rather than the government building a water supply for $60M whose purpose is to supply water to Gunns then the money has to be given directly to Gunns who are then charged with spending it on a water supply.

If this is done then the extent of the subsidy is clear for all to see.

This principle can be used for most government expenditure that benefits particular identifiable individuals, communities, or companies. It would make for simpler administration, and make expenditure visible. For example instead of Forestry Tasmania running forests on behalf of timber mills give the money spent by Forestry Tasmania to some other organisation (Gunns?) to run the forests. If we did this then the outcry would soon stop this form of abuse of the system.

Gecko, much as I would like to agree with you, it doesn't appear that too many people, Tasmanians or otherwise, are interested into entering into a "lively debate" on the subject, judging by the number of responses here. The Economic Rationalists have won the day, probably without a shot being fired. The mainland Greenies seem to have deserted the cause.

David