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’.