Great article.
It makes one wonder whether the Tas state government learnt their thuggery from the NSW state government, or was it vice versa?
Vice, anyway.

The title suggests that there is something new about forest politics in Tasmania.

What I find really fascinating is how forest politics never changes in that State. Particularly the passionate, incestful marriage between the Tasmanian ALP and the logging industry.

Go to 1991 when Premier Michael Field, at the behest of the forest industry, increased the politically agreed ceiling on export woodchips. That act was in breach of the then Green-Labor accord and resulted in his government losing office. A decision he was happy to wear - at the behest of the industry.

Go to the famous federal election when Premier Lennon campaigned directly against the national ALP Labor leader, causing immense embarrassment to Labor's national campaign and contributing to its failure to win office. At the behest of the logging industry.

Nothing changes. During the past year the Tasmanian Labor party has wrecked its re-election chances - again at the behest of the logging industry. Multiple scandals have exposed that the very fabric of proper governance has been abrogated to support the Gunns pulpmill.

For Tasmanian citizens, these examples abound every day. Smoke filled skies (from regeneration burns), polluted water supplies, thousands of wildlife slaughtered via the use of 1080 poison, introduced marine pests from woodchip ship ballasts, road deaths caused by log junkers.... the combined toll that logging wreaks on Tasmanian society vastly over-rides the supposed economic and job benefits.

Labor remains unmoved. It will support the logging industry even if it means going down with the ship.

Tasmania's fundamental problem is (like that experienced by many third world states) that the government is so small that it is easily held to ransom by an entity that is more powerful than itself.

The seat of power in Tasmania rests now with Gunns, not at parliament house. The Tasmanian Labor party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the logging industry. Lennon just happens to be the bunny in the seat. His eventual replacement as Labor (or Liberal) leader will be chosen by Gunns.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, "If the Tasmanian population was so concerned about Gunns, then why didn't the Greens get a much bigger vote in the last Federal election, and why did Christine Milne just scrape in, in the previous election."

Makes you wonder.

VK3AUU -- Tasmanians have a vested interest in the Gunns/government nexus - in many respects their lives depend on it - until the state can develop alternative economic drivers the governments of the day will be bed hopping between miniers and foresters - you can throw Federal hotels into the mix as well.

If any one wants to see the forsts of Tasmania -- I know it is tiresome and I say it regularly- but it is true - stand on the Murchison highway - or any major arterial in Tas and you can see them driving past on the back of trucks - when you tire of that go and see the largest man made structure in Burnie - it is a pile of wood chips.

It's basically the problem of such a small state where you can have this tight nexus between the two major parties, the trade unions and the Big End of town. Anywhere else it would be a very unnatural, as well as unholy, alliance. It's a bit like the 19th century when the Conservative/Liberals in the UK bought off incipient Trade Union leaders which held up the emergence of a real alternative Labour Party to represent the people's interests, rather than that of the ruling class.

The Greens started here in 1972 and have essentially become the real opposition, as much of the media acknowledges, but the constant demonisation ("Extreme Greens" is another emotive term like "terrorists" and "Greens tell lies") and manipulation of the electoral system a decade ago, has prevented the return of more Greens or Independents enough to create a Coalition.

This would give new young electors a chance to see that there was an alternative and older voters, at odds with the Laborials over forestry and corruption, to see that the Greens were responsible partners in a coalition as they have proved elsewhere in the world.

Sadly little will change here while the House of Assembly only has 25 seats, keeping out new faces in all parties except when someone retires, and while the Unholy Trinity of Old Men continue to control the ALP. The Liberals are at last beginning to realise the problem of having so few seats in the House but the ALP will not agree to a change so long as Lennon and the Old Guard remain in power.

One of the problems is if the Greens get too much power, half of Tassie's jobs will go out the window. You need to have a much more pragmatic approach to how things might be done.

David