Yet another extremely biased spew interlaced with trivia from Peter Henning.

At least while working for the Tasmanian times you don't have to pretend to be a real journalist.

When will onlineopinion stop republishing such poorly researched and biased articles from Tasmanian Times?

Before this one was republished, even the usually uncritical readership of Tasmanian Times had spotted its major flaws.
It claims that the Pulp mill assessment act was “was carefully framed...quite deliberately written to ensure that any common law legal rights were obliterated as far as that could be done”
The act and its controversial section 11 was “supported by all Tasmanian Labor-Liberal MPs, and by a majority of so-called independent MLCs (most of whom are Liberals to the eyeballs)” and “The PMAA is an exemplar par excellence of the state of governance in Tasmania, for it demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that those who hold the reins of power, and those who aspire to replace them”

However in an embarrassing admission one of the anti pulp mill activists on Tasmania Times http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/stannus-go-the-jimbox/
“Some of what we have been given to understand for the last two and a half years has been incorrect. Section 11 of the PMAA 2007 was never about stopping people seeking redress for injury or damage as a result of the construction or operation of the pulp mill. Many claims have been made about the effects of Section 11...

The original PMA Bill which was introduced into Parliament contained a different Section 11(1) where any action etc relating to or arising from the PMA Act was precluded. In order to guarantee the people’s access to common-law rights for actions etc to do with injury or damages, the Bill was amended in the Legislative Council so that these rights were provided for while yet limiting the ability to attack the assessment/approval process with the object of delaying or stopping the project”

So just as the claims on the impact of commercial fishing was exposed last year ago when the ABC was forced to apologise, [http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2448132.htm ] we now have the anti pulp mill activist admitting that they were wrong about section 11 and the PMAA in that it was the result of democratic process and not as claimed in this article.

Cinders you are with TCA? Right. Are you a lawyer? No. Well listen up.
The purpose of Section 11 is to provide bulletproof protection to the approval of the pulp mill project as it has been given by parliament in the form of the pulp mill permit. The approval, and the permit, are by section 11 put beyond the purview of the Supreme Court,
the Magistrates Court, and any other body which, but for the section, would have jurisdiction to review or in some other way interfere with the approval or the pulp mill permit.
It is also clear beyond any question that “assessment or approval” means an assessment or approval by government, whether state or
local, or by any body, such as the RPDC, invested with assessment or approval power by the Crown in the right of the State of Tasmania.
The purpose and effect of section 11 is that neither the approval
given by parliament under the PMAA nor the pulp mill permit may be attacked by any body in any way whether by court action or by some other process of judicial or administrative review.
Section 11 is simply to bulletproof the approval by parliament of the pulp mill project and the pulp mill permit.
Democracy Tasmanian style. Where a so called representative parliament puts a protective wall around a poor vulnerable logging corporation to protect it from those evil Tasmanian citizens.

“Cinders, you are with TCA”, is the start of a rant against my previous post. I assume TCA is Timber Communities Australia, a nationwide organisation of community groups that depend on the sustainable timber industry and draws its membership from people in small business, that work and care for our forests, and folk that seek to promote the environment, economic and social benefits of the renewable resource management.

Details of TCA can be found at www.tca.org.au where you can also find detailed analysis of claims (myths) made against the modern value adding pulp mill and the findings of the Independent Complaint Review panel on the flawed 7.30 report mentioned.

TCA people are proud of the fact that a balance was achieved a decade ago in Australia’s forest management that has seen reserve levels, such as 1 million hectares of old growth in Tasmania, exceed targets set by international groups such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the IUCN and WWF target of 10% managed for protection.

But it is not TCA that I quote to discredit the claims against the Pulp mill Assessment Act but anti mill activists and academics published on Tasmanian Times, an electronic platform for the many misleading claims about Tasmania’s forestry and its ECF pulp mill. The link in my post even includes a number of opinions from a Senior lecturer at University of Tasmania Faculty of law.

The pulp mill assessment and approval process has already been subject to a variety of legal challenges that have all failed dismally including in the Federal Court by Lawyers for Forests and one in State Supreme court by three Tamar Valley landowners. One these landowners led yesterday’s protest in front of Parliament House over ‘corruption’ based on claims made in this article.

Such publicity stunts would be more effective, if they name who paid the bribes, who received them and how much was exchanged. Surely the protestors are not frightened to be sued for defamation; without doubt they want their day in court.

Perhaps Dreem could also give them some expert legal advice!

Dreem on,

The legislation was passed to protect the economy and citizens of the area from the legalistic economic vandals that were continually delaying the approval process.

These vocal "citizens" while claiming to represent the people of the area only represent the lunatic fringe.

This became obvious in the 2004 elections when the labor party took their "green" ideology on board and succeeded in losing most of the seats in a previously labor stronghold.

The labor gov is likely to be very wary of the noisy self righteous claims of the extreme environmentalists such as Peter Henning and their mouthpiece toerag the tasmanian times which has as much journalistic integrity on this issue as the national enquirer.

The nasty reactions we see here to Peter Henning, who is by no means an extremist of any sort is so typical of the way in which the corrupt Tasmanian woodchip industry deals with dissent. Pete Henning is a lovely bloke, a Tasmar Valley farmer and former school principal and excellent Tasmanian writer. We are proud of Peter here in Tassy. George (cinders) is part of Tasmanias labor party machinery. Thats fine. George is one of those archaic throwbacks who believes that anyone who criticisesthe corrupt Tasmanian woodchip industry is a "green" man form mars and must be destroyed.

Dreem on,

I notice that PH who agrees with you is a "nice chap" and cinders who disagrees with you, and whose party is aligned with the greens, must be corrupt.

"Peter Henning, who is by no means an extremist of any sort", posts extremist rubbish with no pretense of objectivity. A review of his articles reveal tirade after tirade against the Gunns project, so much so, that I doubt he has anything else to talk about.

Scuttling of the RPDC process by the Lennon Government was a clear demonstration that legitimate concerns have been swept under the carpet. The RPDC was concerned about some aspects of the proposed new mill, and when Gunns Management had a tantrum, the RPDC process was halted. Farmers and fishermen of the Tamar Valley are being dubbed as extremists; as are other people with genuine concerns.

The credibility of the process is now in question.

The comment is often made that only extremist Greens question the Pulp Mill: however, a number of Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Aldermen of the Tamar Valley do not support the mill.

Ant,

I agree that "The credibility of the process is now in question."

The continuously repeated requests to re evaluate the information and begin new studies meant that 2 1/2 years and many $m later the process was in disarray and no closer to reaching a conclusion.

As it became increasingly clear that the greens had no intention of allowing the process to reach a conclusion, the only option was to concede to the greens that they had the ability to stop any industry in Tasmania or take the action they did to restore credibility to the state to be able to take rational decisions.

Shadow Minister, the proper process of evaluating the Pulp Mill by the RPDC was halted by the Lennon Government. The decision to scrap the RPDC by Lennon was made on the basis of Gunns stating they would pull out of the Mill proposal; the RPDC process was being too thorough in it's scientific investigations. Due process went out the window when the RPDC process was curtailed. Since the original assessment was halted,any further positive comment from the proponent of the mill has been met with skepticism not just from Greens.

Farmers, fishermen, and Mayors and Aldermen from various Tamar Councils are marginalised by comments saying it's only Greens who have grave reservations about the Mill.

Ant,

"the RPDC process was being too thorough in it's scientific investigations" is understating the issue somewhat.

The company had spent years researching the EPA requirements and the technology required to meet it prior to the RPDC, and in an mature industry whose processes are an open book, the endless requests for new studies 2 1/2 years into the RPDC process is way beyond thorough and far into simply obstructive, and added very little to the process.

The objectives of the greens was not to make it environmentally safe, but to stop it at all costs.

The process was halted by the gov because the process had been diverted by the greens from setting safe conditions to an endless "bleed Gunns dry" process.

Any business wanting to build any plant in the future is viewing the RPDC process with suspicion, and the Tasman example has not put the greens in a good light.

Making an accurate observation that an article is poorly researched and biased is hardly being 'nasty'. There have been millions of words written about the adverse impacts of the pulp mill most of it fiction masquerading as informed opinion. If each outrageous claim had been successfully challenged when first raised, the pulp mill would be built by now providing jobs and wealth to Tasmanian communities with no adverse environmental impact.

Just because someone is a nice bloke or an ex school teacher does not mean that articles should not be based on fact. Facts such as that the RPDC conducted a one year investigation on pulp mill and upgraded environmental standards issued by the CSIRO in the mid 1990s. All its recommendations were accepted by the Government in 2004, including the use of TCF or ECF technology to safeguard the marine environment as well as standards to protect air quality. The RPDC was then given the task to carry out an integrated social, economic and environmental assessment of the proposal for Bell Bay, after two and a half years it could not give a time target for the completion of this assessment but blamed the developer for the delays.

It was then that the developer pulled out, not the government as alleged on this thread, and rather than lose the project, alternative assessment methods were put in place including a State Parliamentary Vote and an independent scientific assessment under the EPBC act.
Another fact ignored by opponents of the mill is for the wood supply, no pulp wood from old growth forests in the upper Florentine or the Styx or Weld Valley will be used in the mill. In fact no old growth at all, the mill is designed to take plantation wood and while this source matures, young regrowth logs will be used in the first years of operation.

My name is not George and I am not a member of the ALP but fully support forest minister Tony Burke’s statement on forest management and value adding accessed here: http://www.tca.org.au/Home%20Page%20Documents/24Jun09_Ministerial_Statement_Forestry.pdf

Recent history is being re-written on this thread. Gunns stated they were going to pull out of Pulp Mill project when the RPDC was clearly making sure the project was safe on all accounts. The Lennon Government then caved in and began a new process of assessment leaving many questions. Gunns had been adamant they would pull out of the project if the RPDC process of a scientific study was not thwarted.

Ant,

Given the information in Tony Burke's statement:

"The most significant value-adding investment proposed for Australia’s forest industry is the Gunns Bell Bay Pulp Mill, in northern Tasmania.

At up to $2 billion in capital expenditure, the mill would be the largest ever private sector investment in Tasmania, and the largest ever by Australia’s forest industry.

The economic benefits for Tasmania should not be underestimated. The mill will add an estimated $6.7 billion to Tasmania’s economy. Construction of the mill and flow-on investment would create some 8,000 direct and indirect jobs spread across the trades and other areas. Another 1,500 jobs would be created during operation. The mill will also provide a significant boost to Australia’s export earnings.

It is important to note the mill would not result in any increased harvesting of Tasmania’s forests"

We are not talking about building a corner tea shop.

Most countries in the world would be falling over themselves to obtain an investment of this nature. Given the mature nature of this technology it is not unreasonable to expect from the RPDC a decision to be taken within a defined time period and along defined guidelines.

The arbitary meandering fashion that the RPDC followed gave industry two clear signals:

1 - That the RPDC process is highly political
2 - That the RPDC process requires unlimited time and money to pursue.

Given the unlimited risk in applying to invest in Tasmania, most businesses wouldn't touch Tasmania with a barge pole.

The action the government took was an attempt to salvage some credibility for Tasmania as a viable investment destination.

While a mayor or politician might prefer his rural lifestyle, inflicting poverty and unemployment on the rest of the population to protect his lifestyle is hardly ethical.

Now who is making up history? On 14 Mar 2007, the developer of the modern ECF pulp mill advised the Stock exchange of its decision to withdraw the project from the RPDC assessment process. http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070314/pdf/311gb47qkl7td9.pdf

Gunns Limited advised that the indefinite time line for approval placed the company in an untenable position and imposed a significant impact its financial risk. The developer feared that the RPDC recommendations would not be considered by the Government “until well into 2008”. This would be more than 3 years since the project was submitted for approval.

On 24 February 2005 announced that Long Reach, near George Town is its preferred site for a pulp mill.

Gunns developed an Integrated Impact Statement consisting of a 7500-page social, environmental and economic analysis represented a planning investment of more than $11 million and in excess of 350,000 hours of research, study, modeling and reporting.

However at its Directions hearing on 22 Feb 2007 the RPDC gave indication that it was unlikely to make its report before November that year. It was then the developer, not the Government pulled out.

It was only after this announcement that the Premier advised Parliament on 15 March 2007 he did not want to give up on the potential for an extra $6.7 billion being added to the economy and that he had called a special meeting of Cabinet on the night of 14 March 2007 to make sure that the assessment process of the proposed pulp mill can be completed in another way in a timely manner.
http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/HansardHouse/isysquery/b30efefa-027a-44d4-9374-eeadb50b94dc/4/doc/h15march1.htm

The Tasmanian Parliament then approved the amended Pulp Mill Assessment Act that established a new assessment process for the project requiring expert reports and the approval of both Houses of Tasmania’s Parliament. Tasmanian Parliamentary approval was given on 30 August 2007.
In addition, to protect Commonwealth environment values the project required the Federal Minister for the Environment’s approval. The Federal Minister approved the project on 4 October 2007 upon the advice of the nation’s chief scientist and a panel of ‘experts’.