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

It appears that the author of this article has ignored the recent federal election, just like the couple of hundred die hard opponents to the mill did last week when their protest included the street theatre of coffins claiming democracy is dead.
Well just have a look at the November Federal Election where the 'Demos' (the People) had the opportunity to decide on the pulp mill. In his national advertising campaign, Bob Brown said: “Vote Labor or Liberal and you vote for the pulp mill!”
Well, Australians did in their millions!
In fact over 10 and a half million Australians did or about 85% per cent of electors gave their first preference vote to the Labor or Coalition parties.
National voting results for the House of Representatives were
Labor and Coalition: 10,576,807 (85.16%)
Green 967,781 (7.79%)
Only the author and the greens refuse to accept the umpire's (in this case the people) decision.

David you are genuinely misguided if you believe clearfelling Mountain Ash wet schlerophyll forest then firebombing the leftovers and poisoning the native animals is 'sustainable'. Then woodchip the magnificent timber and export it to Japan. All done with industrial machinery. Do you have any idea of ecology or are you just talking for the sake of it?

The comment earlier on Tasmania being too peaceful is a little short of the mark, i fear. Tasmanians are Australians, and Australians are comfortable and rich. And conservative. Because why would we want to come down off this consumerism trip to bite the hand that feeds us? Injustice and inequality will continue so long as we continue to support this ridiculous 'democracy' that lets one person be more powerful than another, all the way to the top of the political and corporate pyramid/s.

If you don't "firebomb the leftovers" then you will not get any regeneration, as seems to have happened on Bruny Island, where there were once stands of magnificent timber, but now only trash. This is not the case with the forest south of Hobart, where good stands of timber are now growing in areas which were logged about ninety years ago.

I will certainly agree that good timber should not be turned into woodchip. That should be left to old growth forest which is only going to die anyway and has little if any millable timber present.

David

Hi David

Yes i understand that Eucalyptus regnans does not regenerate without fire but do you know what fire does to all the other life that is(was) living in that forest? Dead. Also contributes to further nutrient mobilisation from erosion. Also massive amounts of carbon released directly to atmosphere contributing to air pollution. The difference between this and natural fire regimes is that it might be 500 years between fires in wet schlerophyll, and when it does happen all of the existing biomass remains on site, as it is. Trees remain as shelters for animals. The soil is not churned and mobilised from industrial machinery. Much more life remains after a fire if it is not first raped by massive machinery.

A 'regenerated' forest after clearfell and napalm is far less biodiverse.

I am glad you oppose woodchipping. Quality timber can be obtained from managed plantation, it is not that hard. paper can be obtained from plantation timber and crops. Old-growth logging is a cheap-land grab, they pay next to nothing for this state forest and then reap the rewards from 'plantation' or 'sustainable' timber in the years to follow.

I suggest you read

http://www.fiatas.com.au/index.php?id=11

Although I don't think it was specifically mentioned, the area of the coops logged at any one time is comparatively small so that when the regeneration burns are carried out, there is ample opportunity for wild life to move to adjacent safe areas. This does not occur in wildfire situations.

David.

Mule

Contrary to your assertions, fire does not discriminate on whether a European or God has lit the fire. High intensity regeneration burns lit by foresters occur over a much smaller area than uncontrolled wildfires which you claim are "natural". This means that erosion can be much higher as well as the release of carbon. The longer the absence of fire, the higher the fuel levels. The higher the fuel levels the hotter the burn. The hotter the burn, the greater the release of nutirents, particularly nitrogen. If it is uncontrolled then the chances of a very intense burn over a much larger area is much greater.

Your claim that biomass remains on-site after the first wildfire in 500 years is impossible. In the wet forests anywhere near that age, you cannot get a low intensity fire when the understorey is made up of mesic species and/or a rainforest. The only fire that can occur is a very high intensity crown fire under severe fire weather. Under these conditions, all the biomass is removed and the forest has an opportunity to rejuvenate itself back to a eucalypt forest without the rainforest understorey. In the absence of fire the eucalypts disappear and rainforest takes over. This is part of the constant war between ecotones where one type tries to dominate the other (in this case eucalypt vs rainforest). The main agent for change is fire or the lack of it. Since lightning isn't an ignition source in southern Tasmania, the hand of man (as well as climate) has played a big role the distribution of both wet eucalypt forest and rainforests for millenia....(cont'd)

cont'd

Statements like A 'regenerated' forest after clearfell and napalm is far less biodiverse" shows your ignorance of the ecology of these forests since a eucalypt seed doesn't care how the fire occurred, or who or what started it. It only cares about sunlight reaching the ground and an ash bed post -fire (mechanical disturbance from a bulldozer exposing the soil it loves even better)so it can regenerate prolifically.

It matters not whether a forester sitting in a helicopter, an arsonist going crazy on a blow up day, or a spark from a powerline starts the fire. It is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that now Eurpoeans have assets near these forests, it is much better to have the fires we want, rather than the fire nature wants once humans provide the ignition source.
I can assure you that removing the forester won't mean that you will get a more "nature-friendly" fire.

And woodchipping isn't a form of forest management. It is a forest product. You can clearfall the forest and not produce woodchips. Until you grasp this concept, you will struggle to understand silviculture and the ecology of our forests