Login / Manage membership        Not receiving GetUp emails? Join now to receive updates There are currently 342589 members.

Politicians blog for GetUp after pulp mill decision


Posted on the campaign blog , October 4th, 2007
Yesterday the Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced government approval for the Tamar Valley pulp mill. GetUp has been campaigning on this issue with over 25,000 members voicing their opposition to the mill. In keeping with the contentious debate over the mill, GetUp has invited the Minister and Shadow Minister Peter Garrett to blog directly to the public. They are joined by Greens Senator for Tasmania Christine Milne, and Tamar Valley resident Judith King. We invite you to engage with them in the comments section.


Malcolm Turnbull - Minister for the Environment and Water Resources
Federal Member for Wentworth


I have imposed the world's toughest environmental conditions on the proposed pulp mill in Tasmania's Tamar Valley, including independent scientific and environmental monitoring.


I have accepted the independent, scientific advice of the Chief Scientist and his panel of scientific experts and have released his report, together with my decision today.


In the draft recommendations of my Department released in August, 24 conditions were imposed on the proposed pulp mill. In response to Dr Peacock's advice, the number of conditions has now been doubled to 48.


Dr Peacock and his panel have reviewed my decision and conditions and have confirmed they reflect the recommendations of the Chief Scientists report. My decision also takes account of advice from my Department and over 36,000 public submissions received through the three consultation periods over the five month assessment period since April this year.


I would also like to thank the many individuals and organisations who provided valuable input through the public comment periods during the Australian Government assessment process.


My decision has been made consistent with my obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.


Further information regarding the decision is publicly available here and here.



Peter Garrett MP - Shadow Environment Minister
Federal Member for Kingsford Smith



Dear GetUp members,

Thanks, as always for your passionate interest in this issue.


Federal Labor's always supported a world class mill for Tasmania - one that achieves best practice environmental outcomes and reduces woodchip exports in favour of value-adding.


But up until now we've had a shambolic process. The original assessment process Mr Turnbull put in place was completely inadequate and that's caused a lot of anxiety around the country.


Let me be really clear that Labor and I recognise there are high levels of concern about the environment in this area and we also recognise that we need to add value to our forest estate. Making that balance work is never easy.


The most important thing we can do now is ensure these extra conditions are properly and adequately scrutinised and make sure that the environment is protected, for example maximizing the use of plantation timber.


Precisely how these conditions are monitored and implemented will make a big difference to the environmental outcomes of this project. Of course the environmental impact of this mill is really important, and I would uphold these conditions vigorously if granted the privilege to serve in a Rudd Labor Govt.



Senator Christine Milne - The Greens
Senator for Tasmania



Dear Get Up members,

Thanks for the opportunity for me to respond to Malcolm Turnbull's decision to approve the Gunns pulp mill in my home of Tasmania.


This is an issue that has been close to my heart for twenty years. I first became involved in environmentalism and politics because I was so appalled by the proposal to build a pulp mill at Wesley Vale. Now it is happening again, and, once again, we must stop it.


In approving the pulp mill, Malcolm Turnbull has delivered what Gunns and the Prime Minister wanted, but he certainly hasnt taken it off the election agenda. Moreover, he has not saved his seat. But what he has done is put some pressure on Federal Labor, Peter Garrett and George Newhouse to say what they would do.


Mr Turnbull claimed today that this mill would be world's best practice. But how can a mill which will destroy 200,000ha of magnificent forest, 500 times whats being protected, be worlds best practice? How can a mill that pumps effluent, albeit less than it might, into a pristine environment be worlds best practice? How can a mill that adds 10 million tonnes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere every year be worlds best practice?


I want to make this clear - this campaign is not over. The people of Tasmania do not want this pulp mill and will see this commonwealth decision as being politically expedient, not scientifically valid. They, and we, will continue to campaign to protect the clean, green and clever economy of the Tamar Valley in particular and Tasmania in general.


Please come and read a more detailed response, see a video I made earlier this year, and contribute to discussion on the pulp mill decision at the new Australian Greens blog.



Judith King - Tamar Valley resident



We need help to fight the mill in Tamar Valley. We are feeling desperate after being deserted by elected representatives in Tasmania and now Federally by Turnbull to allow Gunns to make a quick profit by raping our island.


The proposed mill is going to be spewing pollution at a massive rate and has been approved when the majority of Australians are very concerned about climate change and the environment. What's going on?


We live in the Tamar Valley and it has an airshed inversion problem that can cause fog and heavy smog for days on end. It is a well known problem with local council programs trying to get people to stop using woodheaters. AMA [Australian Medical Association] Tasmania has said that 6-8 people a year will die from respiratory illness from the industrial pollution from the mill...how can anyone then approve a mill that is going to kill people? It just doesn't make sense.


There will also be 750+ log trucks a day driving on roads where kids ride their bikes and horses. Diesel and noise pollution, our kids being hurt and a massive increase in road kill of our wildlife.


We only know 2 people pro the mill in our area. 100 of the 120 Hillwood residents signed a petition against the mill as they are frightened for their health and that of their children.


It is the wrong mill and is definitely in the wrong location. Something is very wrong in Tassie and we need the rest of Australia to please help us.


1721 comments

Leave Your Comment

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Campaign Blogs
This blog post is from the Campaign No Pulp Mill.
Blog Tools

Featured Articles

Join us on COPtv
Francois Chemillier

Latest Comments

Join Getup

Whether it is signing a petition, engaging with the media, attending an event or helping to get a television ad on the air, you'll only ever asked to take targeted, coordinated and strategic action. Taking action is optional, convenient and proven to work!
Join Now.

Subscribe!



Jason Martin
October 4th, 2007

How is the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle going to survive the destruction of its habitat? The effect on this bird species is just one of many negative impacts that the pulp mill will have on the local environment. There needs to be less concern about generating profits for industry in this country, and more focus on preserving the unique parts of Australia that are still left!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Amber W
October 4th, 2007

malcolm turnbull doesnt seriously expect us to believe that the primary byproducts of a pulp mill are sunshine, lollipops and rainbows? does he?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

dinah randall
October 5th, 2007

I am ashamed of all the people, especially Malcolm Turnbull, who have submitted to capitalist pressure and approved the pulp mill. It's heartbreaking to see so little care for our world, our environment and our people.

I can't endorse any part of this -the goverment are not acting for me.

Watch out for your voters Malcolm

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Allen Wright
October 5th, 2007

Well! what a shambles, Not having read the conditions applied to the mill it is hard to comment about the mill proper. But I do feel right in commenting about the destruction of forests which will feed the mill. I read regularly about our politicians going on about forest destruction in other countries, in our country it seems that our forests are Ok to be pulped. Turnbull hiding behind the Chief Scientist, Garret hiding behind both. Thank goodness for Christine Milne

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Tim Hardy
October 5th, 2007

I cannot believe that Peter Garrett personally supports this development, given his passionate history of fighting to protect the environment. This is just another case of the Labor party mimicing Howard's policy announcements. It is all about gaining power. Hopefully when Garrett is the minister he will be able to be more true to what he believes in: the environment will be the winner if he does!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Pat Jennings
October 5th, 2007

I looks like the Greens will get MY VOTE at the upcoming elections - GO BOB BROWN!!!!!!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

susan ferguson
October 5th, 2007

Your comment Government and Opposition are remarkably similar!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

October 5th, 2007

Gunns Ltd told the Tasmanian Government that the pulp mill approval process was unacceptable and our parliament simply legislated a new process which was acceptable.
No one could possibly believe that a federal minister will in future stand tell the then owner of a Tamar Valley Pulp Mill that it cannot operate.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Brian Mier
October 5th, 2007

Your comment
I am sick of the bully boys like Paul Lennon, Tasmanian Premier, and his strange bedfellow, the Chairman of Gunns Timber, and Malcom "His Arrogance" Turnbull, and Peter "The Useless One" Garratt, and Johhn "The pompous Prick" Howard dictating that American-style 'profit at all costs' projects like the Tamar Valley Pulp Mill are more important than the health of Austraoian citizens and the health of the Australian continent.

I lived in Tasmania for 8 years, and I know the Tamar Valley area. I fully endorse the comments of Judith King, the local resident's blog above. I remember driving from my home in Ulverstone down into the Tamar Valley at Launceston, at times into a sea of smog. The Pulp Mill will extend this unhealthy layer of pollution further northwards up the Tamar Valley, as well as polluting both the Tamar Estuary and the surrounding sea in Bass Strait. It will jeopardise or kill both the seafood industry and the Tasmanian food, drink and food processing industries in the beautiful North East - industries for which I once worked.

Enough is enough.

Let's decide in this forthcoming election to shown ALL politicians that their perfornce and behaviour is just not good enough. Let's campaign to "VOTE YOUR SITTING MEMBER OUT by putting him/her last, AND PUT THE OTHER MAJOR PARTY CANDIDATE SECOND LAST." Only by causing a massive dumping of sitting members of all parties will we really get the message across that government is by the people and for the people, not by the elite and power hungry for their pockets and those of their big business and big union mates.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

LISA HANSEN
October 5th, 2007

I am so disappointed with the decision announced yesterday re: Pulp Mill. It just shows the true priorities of the the liberal and labor parties when it comes to the environment.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Bronwyn Bain
October 5th, 2007

We continue to destroy the planet that feeds us, shelters us and allows us to blossom as humans.

We have to feel the heartbeats of the trees, because trees are living beings like us

David Suzuki observes:
We were made from the sacred elements that together compose the Earth. We are made from the Earth, we breathe it in with every breath we take, we drink it and eat it, and we share the same spark that animates the whole planet. Our stories tell us this, and so does our science.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

virginia maddock
October 5th, 2007

i am appalled but not surprised about malcolm turnbull's decision to approve the pulp mill in the tamar valley. it reflects the liberal government's continued self interest in money and not the wishes of the majority of australians, many of whom elected them, and the environment of which we base our lives and depend on so greatly.
i am however, surprised at the total lack of backbone and leadership shown by the labour party by not unequivocally opposing the pulp mill, and especially of peter garrett who i am sure would have shown a different stance before he joined labour.
i can only hope all australians will vote accordingly at the election and rid ourselves of the selfish and corrupt leadership of the 2 major parties. i hope that the greens can at least achieve the balance of power so that need comes before greed and the environment can become the real winner!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Kevin V. Russell
October 5th, 2007

I don't know if it is the wrong mill in the wrong part of the country but if it is true that it will not be economic without access to native forests then it is a bad idea and should be scrapped.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Lyn Beinat
October 5th, 2007

I'm as mad as hell. Our environment is being killed by greed and the psychopathic pursuit of money! It is clear that vested interests now drive the politican agenda in this country.

Well I'm a vested interest too!! I have a lot more at stake than a burgeoning bank balance and personal prestige. I have two beautiful children who deserve better; the opportunity to live their lives in a peaceful, sustainable world.

The 'cashing in' of all of our childrens' future can stop at the next election. Fossil fuel lobbied, wood chip lobbied politicians MUST be replaced. Anybody care to join me?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Margaret Murphy
October 5th, 2007

I fully support the residents of Tamar Valley. Both Labor and Liberal Governments are being totally irresponsible about health issues. Whatever happened to the "precautionary principle". These residents will be exposed to more heavy vehicle freight on their roads as well as the massive pollution from vehicle emissions and the Gunns Pulp mill.
As a resident in the Coffs Harbour Region, I can relate to the feeling of absolute disgust for both sides of politics. We are about to get a motorway running through the middle of our growing urban communities - under the guise of saving lives. We could accept this if Coffs Harbour were by-passed - but all levels of Government refuse to look at a by-pass for Coffs Harbour and Northern Beaches. We will also be subject to noise and air pollution and suffer the mortality and health costs associated therewith. This is simpler for the Government, they are not as easily recognised as road deaths - even though deaths through pollution more than doubles road trauma.
Good Luck Tamar Valley - I will remember this when I vote!!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Douglas Wilkie
October 5th, 2007

Why is the pulp mill needed? Some would argue 'to provide jobs' - but these jobs will be short-term. Will they still be there in 50 years, 100 years? Not likely. And in the meantime an environment that has taken thousands of years to establish has been destroyed... and will probably recover again only thousands of years after mankind has become extinct. Some would argue 'it's for the economy' - but our economy and the one that the pulp mill feeds is driven by greed, not need. Do we actually need what this mill will produce? The greed of current consumption would say so - but there is no way that current levels of greed cannot be sustained. We don't really need it. It's time we all looked at the big picture, the big future, instead of short term profit and short term selfish comfort.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

mark hope
October 5th, 2007

When we wake up to the fact that economic development isn't
the broad church we need to go and fulfill our spiritual, financial and emotional needs. Why? Because it's destructive. Then we'll make decisions that aren't political, aren't illusory, aren't economic, aren't based on fear but are courageous enough to go to the heart of the issue which is nature must be nurtured and not destroyed in this rampant way.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Peter Nicholas
October 5th, 2007

The notion of pulping one extra branch of our national forest resources, plantation or otherwise,is anathama. No matter what conditions are laid upon Gunn's this Mill should not be allowed. Tasmanians don't want it. Australians don't want it. Politicians take heed. All should remember that in this period of climate change every tree is important. Timber products are not essential nice though may be, and needs can be can be satisfied by existing timber mills. Timber pulp products, particularly paper pulp, should be strictly used for domestic uses, not for export. Again, existing mills can satisfy this need.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Marlene Ebejer
October 5th, 2007

How disappointing to see that the labor party still can differentiate itself from the liberal party. Even more disappointing is Peter Garrett, used to think he had sensible views about the environment!!
No to the pulp mill and further damage to our environment - why not look at alternatives.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

sara mitchell
October 5th, 2007

In looking for a new definition of insanity, the decision to approve the Gunns mill fits perfectly. People say that it will create more jobs and be good for Tasmania's economy. But what about the established and very healthy variety of industry in the Tamar Valley? Whats going to happen to their jobs? It doesnt make sense to destroy existing jobs to create new jobs. This is a politically motivated decision and all about profit before people and the environment. We have the power. Remember, the politicians SERVE US! lets make them hear that, loud and clear on election day.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Kathleen Brown
October 5th, 2007

Peter Garrett I am ashamed of you and the Labour Party which I have always supported, in this matter. As someone else said, a bit of intestinal fortitude from the opposition would do a lot of good. I want Labor elected but I hope Bass votes against them. a bit of lateral thinking on the matter would help! And if they stick to the conditions I will eat my hat.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Margaret Kelly
October 5th, 2007

I'm trying hard not to be disappointed in Peter Garrett....I expected no better from Malcolm Turnbull. From the moment that Howard came out and said the mill would go ahead I knew he would sit on Turnbull and it would happen. Hopefully he will lose his seat...hopefully they both will but after Garrett's roll over will a Labor Government be any better for the environment?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Mark Doyle
October 5th, 2007

There will be little change in the way the company Gunns operates within Tasmania until there is a comprehensive corruption investigation into the relationship between the Tasmanian State Labour and Liberal parties, Forestry Tasmania and Gunns. During an interview in 2004 on Four Corners this exchange took place.

TICKY FULLERTON: So you don't see yourself as a de facto Premier?

JOHN GAY: I beg your pardon?

TICKY FULLERTON: I say that because people around Tasmania say you have an extraordinary amount of influence with both sides of Government.

JOHN GAY: I would think that those people are on the political scene on the other side of Government.

TICKY FULLERTON: What the Liberal Party?

JOHN GAY: The Green Party.

TICKY FULLERTON: So is that the other side of Government?

JOHN GAY: Well it must be.

How can there be proper oversight of this companys business practices when the only two governing parties are seen as an adjuct to its ongoing business plans?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

lyn kelly
October 5th, 2007

i fully support the people of tasmania and the rest of australia, the world, in opposing the puplp mill.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Ivor Morgan
October 5th, 2007

People before profit

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Robyn Ryan
October 5th, 2007

All the conditions in the world will not last when the mill is in operation. We know about the lapses over time and once the mill has been built the government will lose its power over the operators. Leave logging alone. We dont need anymore wood chip mills and certainly not in this location.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Brendan Lee
October 5th, 2007

Shame on you Peter Garrett for not only allowing this to happen, but openly approving of it. You're a joke mate. We all expected better from you.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Eddie Keane
October 5th, 2007

The totally undemocratic method of forcing this mill on the residents of the area is a permanent blight on the Tasmanian Labor Govt.
No public submissions were heard and the long term environmental integrity of the mill area and surrounds cannot be guaranteed

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Philip Lidbury
October 5th, 2007

Whatever "safeguards" are proposed Tasmania does not need this polluting, destructive mill. Hoping that both Peter Garrett (who shows absolutely that he has no backbone) and Malcolm Turnbull are one-term politicians.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Jacqui Sosnowski
October 5th, 2007

I, like everyone else in this blog, am disapointed and ashamed to be part of an Australia that has so little respect for its environment that it would condone the destruction of a part of it. But I am also disapopinted it seems that GetUp is merely preaching to the converted - How can we REALLY get to the rest of Australia and get them to change the way things are? Especially when the most viable political alternative has just become a "turncoat" as bad as Turnbull?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Leonor Gouldthorpe
October 5th, 2007

Please protect Tasmanian forest and the environment which is so essential for people's survival and stop any further polluting industry.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Richard Howlett
October 5th, 2007

Gunns share price went up immediately the approval was announced. The "money population" only wants the best returns possible on it's money and it doen't care about the local problems in Tasmania, or anywhere else. Australia has sold its soul for money and our leaders don't appear to have any real concerns about that. Anything is OK if it makes or saves money. How can we have a $20B budget surplus with charities phoning pensioners to ask for donations? How can we prevaricate over global warming and export coal to China thereby supplying the raw materials for their massive pollution production - in the name of money of course. Our thoughts don't rate very highly in Canberra or State Govt Offices and with the "money people" and we are being, and will continue to be, manipulated by all branches and levels of politics and big business - but let's keep trying anyway! Get Up and say something.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Leonie Kelly
October 5th, 2007

Shame on you, Peter. We have learnt to expect no more from the Coalition Government. You once were a respected environmentalist - now you're just another pragmatic politician. Congratulations to Christine and The Greens. We know where you stand before and after any election. Let's hope John Howard, Joe Hockey, Malcolm Turnbull and their ilk are all out of our federal parliament in the near future - and more Greens are there.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

bob
October 5th, 2007

Congratulations Peter Garret you're now a real politician! Using pernacious weasel words as well as the rest of the weasels.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Ian Peak
October 5th, 2007

How much have the 2 big parties received from Gunns? That's how it works isn't it?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

susan youngberry
October 5th, 2007

How did we end up with such spineless, narrow minded, short sighted, easily manipulated men making decisions for us, our children and our planet. Worse, how did we end up with the same men in opposition!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Phil Clarke
October 5th, 2007



The pulp mill is an industrial facility that is market driven. The mill will exist because it will supply a demand that also exists, and that is not the fault of its operators. Maybe we need to start with this reality in our desire to reduce deforestation.

The pulp mill issue is not just about one isolated kind of reliance placed on wood supplies but is part of the bigger issue of all excessive demand on an increasingly scarce resource, whatever its end use or form - be it paper, particle board or timber

It is a bit rich to see so many people who complain about excessive deforestation demanding timber construction for their new homes and extensions. Wood should become the material used decoratively and sparingly rather than structurally. It appears to me that an awful lot of theoretically Green supporters dream of log cabins and wood fires, with a couple of environmentally disastrous pussycats stretched out in front of the fire

The continuing use of timber and particle board as primary building materials is dictated not only by customer taste but also by chronically poor architectural and construction standards, together with a lack of public awareness as to alternatives. In many cases - if you inquire closely enough - even brick and mortar construction can be cheaper. What is wrong with concrete constructed flooring and tiling instead of floorboards and wooden joists?

In Australia the problem seems to be that house builders come into the profession mostly via carpentry, rather than via bricklaying etc. Maybe a change in builders licensing conditions should be considered, to include more extensive practical knowledge and experience of all construction techniques, and a stipulation that the license holder be part of a structure of the kind of continuing education and assessment demanded of lawyers and doctors. This education should include tuition in the preservation of resources through good advising of customers and use of alternative techniques

In addition, a publicly popular legal ban on junk mail would vastly reduce the quantity of paper being demanded. How many of us would miss the barrage of department store advertisements and most of the political codswallop that lands in our letterboxes? Has anyone ever changed the way they vote as a result of reading junkmail?

In the coming years it will be essential for the world to reduce its reliance on oil. How about getting in ahead on the need to reduce our reliance on wood too, instead of waiting until we reach tipover point on that resource?

The world needs a new architecture and an entirely new building ethos. That is what our universities and technology schools – including TAFE – should be teaching and spreading.

Perhaps it also what those magazines and newspapers made out of our pulped forests should be telling us. Otherwise they too are killing the goose that lays their golden eggs - for as wood gets scarcer newsprint paper costs – also market driven – are bound to rise

The pulp mill is not the disease itself but a symptom of a far worse social illness. The cure lies in the use of new technologies at grass roots level and that in turn requires far higher standards of education and awareness. A dumbed down population is generally also a wasteful one.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

andrew mcintyre
October 5th, 2007

Par for course as discissions made by Australian polititions go.
Short term profits for long term distruction of the enviromnet wraped up in latest poly speak . Best practice my arse!!! As far as policy goes its more likely a script from Yes minister.Tragic.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Dagmar
October 5th, 2007

SHAME, Mr Turnbull! You had the opportunity to show strength of character by truly representing the majority of Tasmanians. Instead you succumbed to the biased greed of a minority, showed lack of forsight and disregarded a more appropriate potential future for Tasmania.

Not only was the environmental impact an issue here but also how bullying has overridden our democracy. "I have imposed the world's toughest environmental conditions on the proposed pulp mill in Tasmania's Tamar Valley." What confidence can we have that this will be properly monitored and enforced given the past successful bullying tactics of Gunn's which enbales this company to be a law unto itself?

So, Mr Garrett, you also support pulping Tasmania's historic environment to value add to the pockets of few greedy, short sighted minority?

"The most important thing we can do now is ensure these extra conditions are properly and adequately scrutinised and make sure that the environment is protected, for example maximizing the use of plantation timber" You couldn't stand up to the bullies thus far but you expect us to have confidence you will in the future????

Why has the value of preserving Tasmania's forest estate been ignored?

For example:
Worldwide, there are folk who hunger for 'time out' in a peaceful, safe, natural environment ... this demand is ever increasing. Accommodating these visitors has less risk of environmental destruction and preserves our forest estate not only for now but for the future ... making it a long term asset for many!

PS I do not live near the Tamar Valley, am not involved in any tourism ventures ... but a mere, humble mortal who chose to live in Tasmania and am disturbed by the lack of concern, forsight and respect afforded to this state by both State and Federal politicians.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

George Barrett
October 5th, 2007

Peter Garrett and Malcolm Turnbull have shown what a total lack of balls they have. I am disgusted by their spineless behaviour. Australians DON'T WANT this mill - and we don't want gutless politicians either.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Gillian Rayner
October 5th, 2007

What a win for Gunn's! After all, they don't care if Turnbull loses his Seat or not. Capitalism is not a democratic institution. Once more, it seems that Garrett has failed the environment, and neither major party offers any real solutions.I'll be voting Green, and 2nd preferencing whichever other Party puts Greens as it's second preference (within reason!)

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Ewen Finnane
October 5th, 2007

The fight against the pulp mill is just starting. Here in Bennelong there is a strong sentiment against the pulp mill and Lindsay Peters, the Bennelong Greens candidate is vowing to make it a centre piece of his campaign against John Howard. Remember the Franklin River Dam. It was approved and supported by both both major parties but after a years fierce campaigning by the public was eventually stopped.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Pat Thomas
October 5th, 2007

Dear Judith,

Our family shares your concerns. I don't understand how in this era when climate change and the destruction of the enviroment are fundmental to our survvial as a race that such a mill can be approved, a mill that will destroy so much native forest. We are behind you and support you 100%.
I think both major parties have this worng and we will be supporting the Greens in this election.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Susan Lawler
October 5th, 2007

We have to stop using the words "Worlds Best Practice", because obviously, world practices are so poor that we can use this phrase and still cause huge environmental damage. I would like the mill to have No Impact. As a minimum, let the impacts be made very clear and measurable so that we can have a real debate. The cost-benefit analysis for this mill is unbalanced because the costs will be borne by the environment, tourism and many small buisiness in Tasmania while the benefits will belong to a few individuals and lobbyists. I can no longer, in good faith, vote Labor.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Jonathon Troy
October 5th, 2007

I remember the stories about banana republics and how companies could control democracies. It looks like Gunns has done the same. I thought that politicians would listen to people like the community before they made decisions. I won't be voting Labor or Coalition this election. They will have to fight for second last and last from me.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Paul Munro
October 5th, 2007

Unhappily, the Tamar Valley mill decision and the process associated with it illustrates the deeply corrupt character of our democratic and policy formation processes.

Big money counts more than ever; politicians have their
hands deep into the public till to fund advertising and agency programs supportive of their continuance in office.

Australia has never needed as much as it does now the checks and balances that foster sound and accountable policy formation and public administration of it.

Paradoxically, the marginal seat fixations of the major political parties betray democratic principles and values rather than serve them. We are now conditioned to accept the spectacle of pork barrelling handouts, slanted advertising at public expense, and general degeneration of quality debate. That spectacle is not much different from the direct electoral bribery that has become the hallmark of elections in Papua-New Guinea. Our process and the abuse of governmental power has uncomfortably close parallels to practices of governing regimes in countries like Zimbabwe. Power corrupts and those who collectively seek it can also be corrupted by the lust for it.

In this debate we should ask ourselves which of the available options, which candidates for election, might best be supported in the interests of restoring a more accountable better balanced administration of policy in the public interest of our society.

Nothing said to this point satisfies me that pumping woodchips and effluents respectively into consumer product and the environment serves the public interest in the medium to long term. How does that public interest weigh against the sectoral interests of Gunns and the people who will work for it? Who guards our guardians? Why should we trust any of the above? I certainly do not.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Marion Wilson
October 5th, 2007

Will the supply of timber, necessary to keep this mill viable, be available long term? If/when the supply of timber decreases due to climatic or other conditions do the people of Tasmania/Australia have the means to close the mill before the environment is damaged beyond repair. Good regrowth in logged areas must be guaranteed before the mill has access to new areas.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Peter Walters
October 5th, 2007

Does everyone know that the only people who voted no on the latest parliamentary pay rise bill were the Greens? Speaks volumes to me! I dread the next election results because Labor proves time and time again how they have abandoned all their principles - and now this! Peter Garrett- pathetic,pathetic, pathetic.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Ann Clarke
October 5th, 2007

This approval is a shocking blow to Tasmania's ecology, fishing industry, community health and lifestyle let alone potential tourism income that will be affected.

I am alarmed that the Labour government is not more active in protective the environment and reducing greenhouse emissions.

Ann Clarke

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Chris Collier
October 5th, 2007

You can't blame Malcolm Turnbull for getting in good with Gunns.

I guess he sees the writing on the wall for the next election and it won't be a huge surprise when Malcolm Turnbull joins the Gunns board along with it's other pocket politicians.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Patrick Watson
October 5th, 2007

Turnbull and Garrett are both a disgrace as is the liberal and Labour parties when it come sto our environment. The issue of the pump mill will not go away, much as they hope it will. Both of their parties are being true to your history of political expediency on environmental issues, offering faux policies with deceptive intention. This expediency continues with the announcement of permitting the pump mill to proceed. The only good thing that can come out of this decision to proceed with the pump mill is for you both to loose your federal seats. Lets hope we have a stronger green presence in the senate after this election so as the senate can help rescue our threatened environment.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Rob Grant
October 5th, 2007

Once again our politicians have been controlled by big business,we would have hoped that their lack of action and support of the coal and oil industries in the face of continuing global warming and the impending catastrophies it has,and will continue to cause may have warned them that financial returns are not as critical as protecting our planet.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Peter Trollope
October 5th, 2007

So Turnbull handed his wish list to the chief scientist and got him to negotiate with Gunns to reach an agreemant so this mill could go ahead. How many pulp mills has Peacock worked on before? Why does the CSIRO scientist Warwick Raverty, who has 20 years pulp mill experience, say this is not environmentally sound? Lets not forget Raverty spent years working on this very pulp mill assessment and peacock spent 2 WEEKS. I know who I believe.

Peacock is lying when he says the pulp mill will be environmentally neutral too, because he only assessed the Commonwealth areas, not the state areas of air pollution or the loss of wildlife habitat.

Lastly if the Commonwealth has had to put 48 extra conditions on the Commonwealths area of responsibility then what about the state areas of responsibility? These are 48 new conditions on areas that the state Lennon Government had previously passed and there so called expert Sweco Pic also green lighted.

I wonder if Peacock would be willing to publicly debate Raverty on this subject?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Rick Ryan
October 5th, 2007

Garrett, you are a sell out. Your true colours are shining brighter than any 'Oils' legacy will penetrate.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Vera Hamm
October 5th, 2007

This is disgraceful. The Federal Government does not care about the people it is supposed to represent. How many of the politicians in favour of the mill live in the Tamar Valley? I think that if they did they would not be in favour of it. Peter Garrett seems to be going the way of many politicians, he is more interested in being a politician than living up to his supposed ideals. This country is being run by idiots.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

kate
October 5th, 2007

I am loooking for leaders with vision. Ones who are prepared to work towards a future informed by respect for the country, aware that we hold this country's extraordinary natural resources in trust as its traditional owners have done. This is yesterday's industry - outmoded, damaging and unnescessary. I see nothing but a generation of rapacious interests banded together by short sight, self interest,and corruption spearheaded by identical political parties. Go and bully yourselves in a corner, play rugby union, join the army - just find something which stops you spoiling the world for the rest of us

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.


Joan Dugdale
October 5th, 2007

Few issues so vividly demonstrate the lack of intellectual, moral and imaginative leadership in Australia as this pulp mill.
It would be wonderful to hear a leader address the question of the mill in the whole context of climate change, environmental protection and alternative, labour intensive industries for Tasmania.
I'm no expert, but it seems there are alternatives to woodpulp for paper making: strong contenders for atmospheric carbon uptake such as hemp that would also produce oilseed crops, fabric for clothing and upholstery, meal for animal and human food. Why can't we have a national discussion about where to locate such industries to maximise the benefits to the whole human and ecological environment, rather than allow "the market" to decide, purely on the basis of what benefits their shareholders and management?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Steve Baxter
October 5th, 2007

Your comment This seems a remarkable BACKWARDS step for the environment, for Tasmania, and for the Democratic process of Government.
I thought that the Government was to govern FOR the people not AGAINST them ? It is CLEAR that the majority of people throughout Australia, and in Tasmania DON'T want this Pulp Mill, no matter how good Gunns says it is for their pockets or the economy of Tasmania! It will DESTROY more economies than it feeds, and it will also adversely effect the environment for DECADES to come !!
Am I also to understand that WE the Tax payers will also be subsidising this mill because of the price of Pulp may drop out of the bottom of the market at any time ??

It is NO WONDER that people DON'T TRUST POLITICIANS when they are CLEARLY SO OUT OF TOUCH with the concerns of the MAJORITY of the people - particularly with regards to the environment and Global Climate change ?!?!
The Coalition will pay dearly for this decision !!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Diana Rickard
October 5th, 2007

Couldn't see much difference between what Turnbull and Garrett had to say. Certainly both are intelligent and informed enough to understand the precautionary principle and yet both toe their party lines to obfuscate the issue.

We don't need a pulp mill in Tamar Valley. Simple concept, isn't it, lads?

'Best practice' means No to Gunns. Shame that our two conscientious legal lads boasting of green extraction have bowed to such obviously nasty bullying and anti-environmental nepotism.

Oh well, its their consciences - and their kids who'll suffer in the end from the greenhouse effects.

I hope they can live with it. Obviously people who've lived with and love the Tamar Valley - can't.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Ron
October 5th, 2007

Dear Mr Garrett, you have disapointed me greatly. Was I fooled by Midnight Oil?...I have a video of Midnight Oil showing massive destruction of forests and habitats, which when viewed always allayed my fears that prominent persons/bands etc and politicians helped save destructive and downright stupid deforestation - but alas! The pulp Mill is destructive in all its guises...Hopefully Bob Brown, Christine Milne and Nick McKim will be governing Australia and get rid of all those who favour wholesale destruction of our environment....Has anyone heard of climate change?...Tasmania is one of the last Paradises in the world - and we want to destroy that?....The people who support this crazy scheme (Pulp Mill) obviously do not have children or family that would like to live in a healthy , sustainable,clean planet....

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Jim STEVENS
October 5th, 2007

How long are the Australian Voting Public going to be held to rensom and blackmailed by a couple of Tasmainian electorates?
I for one am sick of this Prostitution of our Democracy - not only in Tasmania but in Queensland where the Government is determined to block Daylight saving while at the same time posing against "Global Warming" which such opposition assists - it's either got to be one or the other.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Magi Marcon
October 5th, 2007

As has been our ongoing experience as citizens, we are again faced with a government decision that allows our environment to be decimated to benefit a few, especially big business.

I understand the workers' fear of unemployment through loss of their logging industries if environmental values prevail. They need assurances of a future that can only be provided by a moral decision by an ethical government to develop alternative industries in Tasmania. Alternative environmentally sound industries will provide employment but no support is given to their development.

Labor will not oppose this pulp mill, not least because they want to win votes. Peter Garrett sold out the moment he agreed to stand for the Labor party; no one would have been naïve enough to think otherwise. No matter how much we'd like to believe the majority of voters oppose the mill, the major parties don't believe anyone except those directly affected will vote on the issue as a primary consideration and they believe those supporting the development will be in the majority in that electorate.

We can only hope that when Labor wins the federal election, they will understand their mandate is to give us a different 'model' from the one we've been forced to endure from the Liberals.

It's also to be sincerely hoped that we never again give the power of both houses to any Government; only a strong senate can hope to modify the power of the major parties. The Democrats failed in this role, giving us GST for example. The Greens SHOULD at least be able to hold the line on the environment.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Kerry Ivan Shipman
October 5th, 2007

I'm curious, does the new god "Science" have any moral code or is it at the exclusive service of self-interest and the old, but new ethic of everything is simply a means to my end, including the natural environment and the rather tattered social fabric?
Garrett, Turnbull, and Lennon - What a pack of boof-heads!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

October 5th, 2007

I heard Peter Garrett give an impassioned and inspiring speech at my Uni back in 1988 about the environment, i went to a midnight oil concert and heard him bag out Queensland for its environmental record, ive been reluctant to believe that hes sold out to the political machine. But im afraid the writings on the wall. Very disappointing. You've lost my vote!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

BrentOsment
October 5th, 2007

How John Gay can say it will have no enviromental impact is nothing short of a lie. As for Malcolm It's Bye Bye and Peter get a back bone and show some green credentials. Brent from Currumbin Qld

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Di Keller
October 5th, 2007

Even if the effluent issue was resolved by these conditions, the air pollution problem was not even addressed!!! Every photo you see of the Tamar valley shows a haze over it. It is so blindingly obvious that this is the wrong place for any industry that affects the air.!! This has just been totally brushed aside!! So "world's best practice" for effluent and just ignore the air we breath?????

Just quietly how can any amount of effluent be ok??????

Strangely enough I found a little ray of hope in Peter Garret's comments. He's definitely playing the game but he is probably our only hope of achieving anything constuctive. If he protested now he would only make himself a target. Let's hope all the reasons we were happy to see him become a politician are still there .

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Ian Faulkner
October 5th, 2007

All your government runs on is favours from big business. You do not have the support of honest people and will lose the federal election. Your policies are always in the interests of short term money earnings, not in the greater good of Australians. I write this in full knowledge that neither my opinion or the opinion of any voter matters to you. You decieve only the willfully ignorant and have no credibility either as a beurocrat or a human being. Your goverment is the mouthorgan of big business and the USA. I would never contemplate voting for your party which I know to be fully corrupted by mindless greed.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Des Fowles
October 5th, 2007

There are too many people in the community who want to live an advanced western lifestyle with its inevitable environmental impacts, but continue to react to environmental issues grounds on purely ideological grounds. I applaud those who try to make a well-balanced decision on the basis of all relevant factors and the best information available. However, I am not convinced that the matters considered by Malcolm Turnbill have been extensive enough.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Sam T Shine
October 5th, 2007

The major political parties have absolutely no credibility on this issue. Peter Garret particularly has abdicated the moral high ground and his volte face on this and other environmental issues is breathtaking. At least one expects this kind of political bastadry from the Libs and the likes of Turnbull whose meally mouthed self interest is stomach churning. The archaic notion of destroying forests for woodchips for fibre would be absurdly funny if not so tragic. There are other, superior and more renewable sources of fibre. And what's the point of a job in an environmentally degraded world? Vote Green, upper and lower, everywhere!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Jan Haselgrove
October 5th, 2007

I was not surprised by Malcolm Turnbulls decision, as the bottom line was always going to be the $ and not the environment. After all this Govt only became interested in global warming, when they realised there was money to be made out of it. How sad is it that so many beautiful trees and animals will be lost for ever, because of the greed of a few.Malcolm Turnbull is really " Destruction of the Environment " Minister and Peter Garrett ( the turncoat ) is right there beside him holding his hand. Thank the Universe for the Greens.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Karyn Bradford
October 5th, 2007

I keep hoping that politicians will do the right thing, show leadership, put people and the environment first but now I'm done hoping.
I'm going to make sure I know exactly what local politicians stand for before the next election and will be voting accordingly but I'm also going to encourage others around me to get involved, get engaged, develop an opinion, sign petitions, write and join groups with similar values - become activists.
WE are Australians, we are not our politicians. It's clear that they are out of touch with us. WE know what's right and together we can fight to make it right.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Jack Frawley
October 5th, 2007

This yet another case of politicians doing their masters bidding - in this case Gunns. Both Turnbull and Garrett prattle on about 'best practice', but who determines this? What about achieving 'best practice' in representing people rather than big business.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Lindsay Peters, Greens candidate for Bennelong
October 5th, 2007

This is a disgraceful decision by the Environment Minister Turnbull, whitewashed by a sham of a scientific report. What's even more reprehensible is Peter Garrett supporting this filthy mill, and so soon after his words of "concern" about the environment and greenhouse gas emissions at Maxine's recent Climate Change forum.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Barbara Ross
October 5th, 2007

I have just one question. Why are we paying 3rd world countries to stop logging and yet supporting logging in our own country? Where is the logic in this? OK that is two questions

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Huw Grossmith
October 5th, 2007

This is about nothing other than the need for greed. We have learnt absolutely nothing from the late 80's and one can only hope that some of the (almost non taxpaying) puppet masters get burnt badly when the next crash comes.

Shame on the Feds both Lib and Lab, please people vote for someone else in both houses, and shame on the Tassie government too. This decision will not create jobs and will practically denude a beautiful wilderness to keep the mill fed.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Angus Denton
October 5th, 2007

The problem lies with the fact we have no economic model that describes what a forest does for the environment or economy, it's just an untapped resource.

What would be the cost of building and operating a machine that transpires water into the air, removes and fixes carbon from the atmosphere. My point is that a forest has a value before it is fed to a mill.

If you cut down the trees there will be less rainfall and we desperately need rain.

Stupid unimaginative politicians....

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Steve Goldberg
October 5th, 2007

These are the weasal words which we no longer believe: "World's Best Practice"
The same crappy argument used to justify every hyper-damaging development. Want truckloads of examples? Do some googling and you'll see what I mean.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Mal Whyte
October 5th, 2007

It appears that once more greed and big business has won out in the short term. When are politicians going to realsie that they are the servants of the people and are there to protect the environment not destroy it for profit for their supporters. Keep up the pressure on all politicians to make resoned and correct decisions for forest use in a truly sustainable way. Once the ebvironment is ruined there is nothing for mankind at all. It is like life after a nuclear disaster only done slowly.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Mitchell Duncan
October 5th, 2007

Sally (5 yrears old): Grandpa, why are Tasmanian rivers poisoned and all the tress cut down?

Grandpa (55 years old): That's because some people wanted to keep their jobs in the timber industry. They were the ones who made money cutting down trees.

Sally: But there are no more trees Grandpa. I can't see any !

Grandpa: Yes, I know.

Sally: What happened to the bad men who cut down the trees?

Grandpa: They got rich and left after the rivers got poisoned.

Sally: Didn't the goverment [sic] (she's only five!) stop them?

Grandpa: No, they helped them.

Sally: But Grandpa, won't there be any more trees now?

Grandpa: No Sally, not unless we plant some more.




Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Andrew de Weerd
October 5th, 2007

To all you Liberal and Labor politicians who sold out the country’s inheritance for the wealth and privilege of a few families who own Gunns Limited, you are a disgrace. May you all be remembered for selling out the future and hocking the nation’s natural treasures for pulp. Damn you!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Margarett McPherson
October 5th, 2007

What a terrible state of affairs where wedge politics is used for such an important issue, although we should not be surprised. We have a government which uses issues like the pulp mill, invasion of the NT to further their causes and to try to push the opposition into backing their actions for fear of offending the constituents. Thank God for the Greens - I pray for their eventual entry into the lower house in numbers large enough to threaten the government of the day on issues such as these.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Rmdas Sankaran
October 5th, 2007

The ALP and the Coalition have sold us big time on this and other critical issues of social equity and climate change. We have a democracy allrigth but its any thing but reprentative of the diversity of our popultation, not just religious, ethnic, cultural and gender, but the plurality of socio economic views. We have 64 women in PArliamnet but only 2 in Cabinet. The only non Christian member of Parliament is one of Jewish background. We have no Buddhists, Hindus, Bahais, Sikhs etc and not one indigenous person. At the last Federal election only 44.29 % of those who cast their votes, voted for the Coalition parties but yet they won 58% of the seats. More than 2.47 million, nearly 15%, of Australians voted for parties other than the ALP, Liberal, Nationals and the CLP or voted informally; yet they accounted for only 2% of the seats. OUr system is stuffed and we dont address this basic flaw we will contnue to get the types of policies with regard to climate change, refugees, indigenous matters, etc regardless of whose in power i.e the Coalition or ALP

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Ivan Matthews
October 5th, 2007

While I understand the need to add value in Australia instead of just shipping off the raw product, a pulp mill has no advantage to Tasmania or Australia for that matter.

A few hundred jobs gained will pale against the number of lost jobs caused to other industries in the area.

Yes, I do understand that the pulp mill is to be sited in a heavy industrial area where there are already other polluting industries. But that is no excuse to add to the mess.

Why would the Howard government want to give Indonesia millions of dollars to save trees, while simultaneously giving the go ahead to chop down pristine forests in Tasmania? The hyposcrisy is startling, even for this government's decision making processes!

The mill is going to pump out dioxin - a suspected carcinogen. It is thought to affect reproduction and sexual development, the immune system and accumulates in the food chain. So good bye to the fishing industry in the larger area. What will the Health costs be to Tasmanians who live in the area or other Australians who purchase products made in the area. Do you like King Island cheese?

Would you trust any Government (but most specifically the Howard lot) to continue to monitor the environmental impact once the mill has long gone from the front page. I think not. How many times have we heard of Tiwi Island forest being damaged in breach of the original agreement, the overflow of mining wastes in Kakadu and elsewhere. The company gets a slap on the wrist and on the polluting goes.

We are bombarded by government advertising telling us to save electricity by changing our light bulbs to reduce our greenhouse foot print and then the government decides its OK to add 10 million tonnes a year! HELLO! How stupid do you reckon Australians are?

The whole process is tainted. Special legislation, greasing of palms, short cutted studies by consultants who know what the report is going to say before they even have a look, a state government that is in bed with or scared to death of, the forestry company. Apparent bullying, ignoring the community sentiment, closed sessions, etc. all make the whole deal stink worse than a pulp mill at close range.

If this whole process had been handled transparently, honestly and with genuine environmental concerns addressed then the mill would probably be under construction today.

We can all smell a rat, especially a dead rat, a mile away.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Philip Emery
October 5th, 2007

It's little wonder Joe Blow public is so cynical about politicians and politics. It takes men and women of great courage to stand up to powerful vested interests corrupted by the almighty dollar, and do the right thing. Pathetically the actions of Turnball and Garrett follow a long line of compromising principle in the name of political expediency - death by a thousand cuts - curiously paralleling the fate of native forests in Tasmania. Before long you are advocating the merits of corrupted decision making processes and boasting "world's best practice" where evidence suggests nothing of the kind.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

DAVID BUCKLE
October 5th, 2007

Dr Peacock may give his qualified recommendations on the limited information available on the marine environment, but I take Senator Brown's point that the law requires the Minister to be sure before he approves. The public have no explanation in press accounts as to why chlorine bleaching has reappeared in the plan despite the original boast that this dangerous process had been superceded.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Sue Monticone
October 5th, 2007

I strongly agree with Greens Senator Christine Milne and Judith King, this issue has firmed my desicion to vote Green again this year (as I did in the last election). I am disappointed that Labours Peter Garret could not be a stronger voice on this issue and certainly hope that he will stand by his word if elected. I have been a traditional Labour voter in the past - but it remains in the past now. The Liberal party must stop this tokenism "green" policy garbage - they will never win my vote.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.


Stefan Sojka
October 5th, 2007

This is a horrendous decision - to agree to build a forest-eating machine that will devour as much forest as it can possibly devour, as it's sole reason for existence. Maximum destruction! Trees are worth a lot more growing in the ground than they are pulped for toilet paper. One wipe of your ass, and it's over. these trees are part of a multi-billion year old chain of events - and you want to end that chain with one flush. Peter Garrett you ought to be ashamed of yourself.. and Malcom Turnbull I wouldn't expect anything less from you - your inability to factor in real costs beyond the balance sheet is unsurprising.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Peter Trollope
October 5th, 2007

I call on Ministers Turnbull and Garrett to answer this question. The tax havens that the wealthy use in the form of MIS are directly responsible for the exponential growth of tree farms and the need of this pulp mill. These managed investments schemes are taking over our most prized agricultural land, not just in Tasmania but Australia wide. I recently read an article where the sugar cane farms of North QLD were being replaced by tree farms (how long before they need a pulp mill on the barrier reef too). I know Howard removed all other types of farming from eligibility under this scheme a year or so ago. This gives the logging industry an unfair advantage that mostly is paid for by the poorer Australians as the wealthier Australians can take advantage of the tax free status. My Question: Will Turnbull and Garrett commit to removing this unfair advantage and put tree farming back on a level foot with food production or will they publicly state that we should pay more for food because logging needs subsidizing to be viable?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Frances Urquhardt
October 5th, 2007

I weep for our planet.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

wez
October 5th, 2007

A majority of Australian's, a majority of Tasmainians, a majority of people liveing in the area (and electorate) where the mill is planned and a majority of people in Malcolm Turnbull's electorate want the mill stopped. In a democracy, what would his decision be?
What principle or interest then IS driving his decision?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Louise Hayes
October 5th, 2007

Shame on both the major parties. Labour why arent you there to support the envirnment, as you claim you would be!! The climate chagne issue is the most significant issue our planet has faced. Any decision which may threaten the environemnt should be at the very least postponed. How can so many hectares of forest being destroyed be good for our planet right now!!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Lynette Payne
October 5th, 2007

I believe only the marine environment has been considered.
What about the air quality for all -- job won't help if families health is at risk.
Where is all the timber going to come from to sustain the mill economically, in the future. Trees take some time to grow!!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Madge Sceriha
October 5th, 2007

The voices of the people who live in the area are surely the ones who MUST be listened to in this matter. They know about their environment and how its health affects their health. When the talk is of world's best practice, it doesn't reassure people like me that this means it is beyond reproach, uninvasive and would do no harm. We don't know what all the variables might be in this matter, but what we do know is enough to say it is too risky.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Gay Kalnins
October 5th, 2007

Peter Garrett is a turncoat. He should go back to music as we don't want his kind in parliament. But then, he's no different from the rest of the Labor Party. Shame Labor, shame! What we get from Liberal is what we expect, but not Labor. Shame again.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Jenny Kent
October 5th, 2007

I think that this is a disastrous decision both for the people and forests of Tasmania.

I am extremely disappointed in the Labour Party's lame response to this issue and heartened by the fact that the Australian Greens will not be preferencing either party in Tasmania. In fact the Greens once again have shown the most principled stand on the pulp mill proposal.

To the people of the Tamar Valley I hope that thinking Australians will deliver a vote in the coming election that will help your cause.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Mary Ann Sulc
October 5th, 2007

I am ashamed of Federal Labour, who I feel are pandering to the Tasmanian timber workers.
The Tasmanian Labour Govt has always been beyond enviromental hope!
Those timber workers will get other jobs, but no one can create clean air, water and soil.

Pollute the soil, air and water, which affects our very lives, and jobs are pointless!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Robin Turnham
October 5th, 2007

I am not surprised by Malcolm Turnbull's decision. That was going to happen regardless of the scientific advice. He has now supported the mill using scientific advice that is partial only - it did not cover the full range of environmental impacts that a best practice approach by government would require - e.g., air quality issues have been omitted and yet are critical in this decision.
I am equally disappointed with Federal Labour for not taking a leadership role in this matter - by demanding comprehensive environmental impact information be gained before a decision is made and not giving a view about the mill until that is received. For a labour voter that is very disappointing.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Leigh Simpkin
October 5th, 2007

If we can quarantine old growth forest in Tassie from ever being pulped in this Mill then after the plantation forests have been pulped Gunns will lose money and the mill will have to be closed.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Geoffrey Cartridge
October 5th, 2007

Political expediency at the expense of the environment! Global warming is a reality! despite the mealy mouthed concern expressed by John Howard about climate change, the Murray River and salinity, his actions only support big business. Howard's transparency is too evident, but then this government has been duplicitous from way back, Tampa, Children overboard "No GST". I will always remember John Howard and his repeated fervent "I will never ever...." , and then do the opposite. Making an election ad highlighting Howard's "never evers" would be a bit of a hoot, and so damaging!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Georgie
October 5th, 2007

I think it's sad that Peter Garret is now going to be remembered, not for his years of activism, being proudly passionate about his beliefs and what was right, to someone who succombed to the political party machine. Worlds best practice? How can destroying these forests be worlds best practice. I'm in shock.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Francine Bartlett
October 5th, 2007

I feel devastated about this and many other decisions and actions being put forward by. I'm in awe of the stupidity of it. Australia needs leadership and commitment to genuinely seeking the wisest actions for good governance, social, environmental and economic sustainability to guide Australia to a viable future for generations. The issues in health, welfare, education, employment, climate change, etc indicate the need for a radical shift in consciousness to get through extremely difficult times. Not considering the whole impact of Gunns has led to a tricky, short term "solution" that cynically sells out the potential for alternative jobs, saving the forest, postively impacting on global warming, seeing the economic opportunities for clean food production, etc etc ensuring a future for all. So if the world's best practice monitoring shows it is a disaster, what then? Pull it down again? Perhaps Gunns should consider building a series of small paper recycling plants spread appropriately through the Island instead?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Judy Cameron
October 5th, 2007

Your comment
That Australia's Chief Scientist, with all we know about climate change, would approve this mill that will destroy so much native forest (regardless of whether it is old growth or regrowth)is unbelievable. The citizens of this country are so far ahead of politicans on this issue - as they will find out at the Federal Election. And I am very upset at Peter Garrett's sell-out of the environment. Vote Green for the balance of powerr in the Senate to stop this nonsense!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Irene Schardijn
October 5th, 2007

Show us the numbers!
Who will benefit from the plant?
How much profit will be made and where will it go to?
Only then can we put the facts (predictions) alledged by all parties side by side so that everyone can find peace with the final decision.
This is what I understand as being Democracy.
What happened here is another sad example of savage capitalism disguised as democracy.

The fact that the major parties in the decision making haven't given us the numbers is because they cannot be accepted!

Turnbull will have to answer to God for this and he has just thrown his name in the mud of history!
And Garret forgot his balls on stage when he stepped out of it.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Max Tickner
October 5th, 2007


Pollution aside - (and I spent my career fishing the Arctic Circle and saw how quickly the northern oceans were stripped of aquatic life by commercial greed and pollution) the Gunns' proposal - and let's ensure that's all it remains - is uneconomic.

Gunns claim they can operate the mill on plantation timber 'without recourse to native forests'. This is of course nonsense - if not a calculated lie. And both Turnbull and Garrett display either crass stupidity - or hints of a corrupt influence in accepting this claim.

Gunns, in their prospectus touting for finance suggest the mill will be soley reliant on plantation grown trees, and produce 'pulping chips' at $70 per tonne.

Already South American sources are offering that same product (using native timber) at $30 per tonne. Obviously even before it is built the Gunns plant is running at a loss. Or have both major political parties (Lib and Labor) agreed that the Australian tax-payer will cover any future shortfall - for a 'backhander' to party coffers ?

Alternatively will it be deemed 'necessary,' for the sake of economic running, that Gunns will be allowed to waive the 'plantation' part of the agreement and rip into native forests.

If Turnbull and Garrett really do understand the impact this mill will have on the environment - and economy of Australia - and still agree to its progress - then they are at best fools undeserving of public support - or at worst corrupt and should be brought to public trial.

Max Tickner, New South Wales

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Bob Goodbourn
October 5th, 2007

I never thought I would see the day when John Howard and Peter Garret would be singing the same environmental tune..... it seems our democracy is hardly more real than Burma's and I'm tired of watching my taxes being used for environmental, social and humanitarian vandalism both locally and internationally.

I think that it's time we all got up and moved to New Zealand... and New Zealand can put an immigration entry test into place that effectively prevents our politicans from following.... perhaps we could use the vacant Australia as an international dumping ground for unwanted politicians......

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Sharon Hetzel
October 5th, 2007

Mr Turnbull's decision only makes sense if he and the Labor Party will give us a cast iron guarantee that they will enforce strict sanctions on Gunn's - including shutting down its operations - if Gunn's does not abide by the conditions imposed on the licence approval.

This decision and that of the Labor Party simply reinforce my view that both parties increasingly govern for sectional interests and are incapable of making decisions in the long term best interests of the general community and the environment. What a pity that MOther Nature doesn't havea vote - but she'll get us in the end if we aren't much better governed!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Dominique Comber-Sticca
October 5th, 2007

How can we endanger our environment by continuing to have political support for projects that are clearly devised to provide votes, rather than provide sustainable environmental procedures. The pulp mill is more than just providing jobs in Tasmania, surely with all of our knowledge we can still employ people without having to harm the environment those people and their children live in.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Wendy Lohse
October 5th, 2007

Thanks Getup, for the opportunity to publicly voice my dread now that the decision has been made. Tasmania WAS the cleanest, greenest state of Australia. The jewel in Australia's crown. I came here for the air and the land and the water. Malcolm Turnbull took the easy way out. AGAIN. He believes the coalition won't lose many votes over this issue. He has not considered the air, the rainfall, the smoke inhalation, the toxic poisoning that Gunns already sprays over us whilst pillaging and raping this island.

This mill will not go ahead. I believe that in my soul. Tasmanians are good and sensible people, except for those politicians on the major party sides. They'd sell their grandmother for a dollar. The almighty dollar is doing the talking on this issue. Malcolm Turnbull has no idea of the real public outrage. Peter Garret is the blackest, most Burned-Out-Once-Upon-a-Green-Timer whose plummeting down to the deepest darkest depths I have ever been unfortunate enough to witness.

Poison, Dollars, nudge-nudge-wink-wink, Poison, Dollars, Poison, Greed, Poison, Greed, Poison, Greed.

I just wish ALL Greedy politicians would leave this state to the people who love it. We, who love this state, are far more interested in its quality, not what we can plunder from it. Tasmania WAS superior to the Big Island. And now, greedy Big Islander politicians have climbed into bed with the self-confessed bribe-taker, Paul Lennon, to make an ugly and greedy gigantic scar on this planet's surface. And pollute our waters for evermore.

WHO, WHO could give this island away? Totally? Without the blink of an eye? To Gunns-Vandals-Corporation? How can those people take what's ours and give it away like this? Oh yeah. Politicians. They've been doing that since 1788.

More than a blemish, this is a cancer. Greed is NEVER satisfied. Like Cancer, Greed grows. The Haves are impossible to satisfy. They will take from the HaveNots until there is nothing left. Only then will they leave Tasmania and go elsewhere to continue their plunder. The greed of Gunns, Lennon, Turnbull, Garret and all other supporters of this toxic dump, knows no bounds.

Gunns will not stop until it has pulped every single Majestic-Old-Forest Tree on this island. Gunns will not stop until it has done its worst on this island and taken it to the point of NO Return.

Climate change? Well, we know that Malcolm Turnbull's team didn't believe it was even happening until the election was closing in. So this approval doesn't come from science at all. It comes from Greed. What will this Pulp Mill do to exacerbate climate change? Gunns intends to obliterate this whole island - and I know Greedy Giants have done this before. They've already got Pulp Mills. But Greed Grows. This will not be the last destruction this Giant will satisfy itself with.

Once there was an island near the equator. It was called Ocean Island. It had an indigenous-islander population of around 2,000 and they loved their home. It had been theirs for many thousands of years. Then one day in the 1950s a Greedy Giant, the British Phosphate Company, moved in and mined it away. That island is no more. By 1970 the islanders whose home it had been for thousands of years were relocated without compensation. Nothing. That's the arrogance of Greed.

Kind of like we did to Tasmanian Aborigines, saying to ourselves, aren't we generous, we've given them somewhere another island to live on. Not a fair trade in any sense. Why did we do that? Simple we did it so that we could rape and pillage their island too. Greed. Greed. Greed.

Can Tasmania secede from Australia? Then we could deport all of Gunns planet-deforestation gurus. Where to? Who cares? Perhaps the moon. No, Mercury would be better. Then they might understand this global warming concept. Gunns has been on my boycott list since I first came to Tasmania in 2003. Let's go to real Tasmanian outlets. We need a Tasmania-wide boycott of all Gunns outlets. There are more jobs in Tasmania than job seekers - already - without a Pulp Mill.

Oh, of course, Gunns is counting on that. They know where they can get the cheapest labour on the planet and the State and Federal Government will simplify it for them. The poor and unfortunate who need and seek asylum perhaps. More, Much More, Labour at a fraction of the cost. Greed. It's a hand-in-hand agreement Gunns-StateGovernmentsAndOppositions-FederalGovernmentsAndOppositions. Of course. That's what the Greedy do. More slaves for less pay. It's crystal clear.

And not one woman amongst these decision makers. Not one mother. Not one grandmother. These mysoginists know nothing of nurture. They only know Rape and Pillage; Money and Greed.

There are plenty of Greedy-Grunge-Leftovers all over this once beautiful planet. We can already see what Gunns have done to Tasmania and it sure isn't beautiful. What other evidence do politicians and scientists need. The scars are everywhere.

Election Day my votes will go Green-1, Democrat-2, Independent-3, Independent-4, Independent-5to97 (as many as are there), Labor-98, National-99, Liberal-100.

Please Tasmania - give Bass and Braddon and all the others to the Greens or the Democrats. All major parties have betrayed us. Again. And we don't have a Bob Hawke this time. Labor is devoid of soul now. Mark Latham had this right before the last election, that's for sure. Shame we didn't see it then.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Leanne Veitch
October 5th, 2007

If Labor is so keen to support the chipping of indigenous species, they can start by chipping my old Midnight Oil records. They will make some nice plastic mulch for Peter Garrett's garden.

With the new Gunns mill now approved by both major parties, there will soon be no tree left standing in Tasmania.

I am deeply ashamed to be an Australian right now.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Naval Pols
October 5th, 2007

Both Turnbull and Garrett do not mention the huge logging of the trees. Even in the impossible case that there is no pollution at all, on the ground of the loss of the trees the mill is not acceptable. Besides, where are Peter Garrett's so called environmental credentials suddenly??? Talking about a turncoat! Also the "independent" chief scientist is paid by the government, independent? Do they think we are all stupid?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Cecile Storrie
October 5th, 2007

I can't find publically acceptable words to comment on Peter Garret's reversal on the environment!

I sincerely hope that the chief scientists will accept the challenge from Bob Brown to face open debate on their findings.

You pollies make decisions governed by how many votes are in it for you - but what you don't get is that so many of us are extremely worried and concerned about the environment and our current voting may fly in the face of your outdated preditions.

I wish you could just look at what is best for Australia not some b----y international company!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

October 5th, 2007

It's about time big business and developers stopped running this country to suit there own money making agenda. Governments, at all levels, are just puppets pandering to those who pay most into their party coffers.
Their attitude to pollution and climate change is no different to their attitude in the past to Asbestos, smoking etc.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Martin Male
October 5th, 2007

I find this an appaliing decision. Surely this is the similiar the the Franklin dams issue. I feel the Labour party has simply caved into the CFMEU and the need to win seats in Tasmainia. I am deeply dissapointed with Peter Garrett, he seems to have become a party stoodge. Yet again a decison is made based purely on economics. Enough is enough.
How can pulping trees be "best practice. Next we wil be saying pumping excess salt into the sea to make water for us, is, whoops we have already been told this. With the agreement by all sane and scientific scientists that CO2 is a major problem in regards to global warming, (Greenhouse effect) then how can cutting down vast tracks of trees be 'best practice'.
When I did my science degree we were taught that trees are essential in the CO2 cycle, maybe there is some new research that the Chief Scientist hasn't told us about?
If the Labour party believes this is 'best practice' then the choice is clear vote for the greens, the only party committed to the environment.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

October 5th, 2007

Can I ask.......Why do we need a pulp mill?
I cannot see any financial benefit whatsoever to the Australian economy. Indeed, now that we are considering 'CARBON TRADING', what other Australia industry(ies) should be penalised if this plant goes ahead, in order to 'balance' that carbon waste! The obvious loss of oxygen put out naturally, and the carbon dioxide absorbed naturally by forest growth alone would outweigh the cost of actually building this pulp mill. Environmentally this pulp mill would be a disaster. This pristine wilderness may never recover....Shame on the human race! Shame on the politicians!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Alexander Molnar
October 5th, 2007

Aren't they being given the go ahead on the assumption that eventually they will comply with all the required environmental criteria? Why even give them criteria if they don't have to satisfy all of them to run their mill?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Guy Jones
October 5th, 2007

This decision is the PROOF that the leaders know Co2 is not creating the danger we are told !

500,000 hectares of massive native trees are going to be missing in there job to absorb Co2 and release oxygen.

That is enough to discard such a vandal act

But we know Governments only DO facilitations for the corporations ,that is ANY GOVERNMENT

We need a grass root movement focusing on VOTE BOYCOTT
We need to create a vote crisis by voting BLANK in mass then start a process of establishing new rules
New rules that regulates Politicians behavior and performance.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

antony partos
October 5th, 2007

From what I understand the pulp mill will not be just using plantation timber but native forests. I t will be using a bleaching process whereas there was a way to achieve a similar outcome without the toxic affects of bleaching. This project will be receiving huge amounts of government subsidy to make it viable.

Both labor and liberal governments are not truly democratic entities, rather they are just figureheads for corporations that donate money to them. It's a great shame that more people don't seem to care about this fact.

The wood would have a much greater value if it was used to create pieces of art or furniture rather than simply pulp.

I fail to see how this pulp mill will have a neutral footprint when it is an undisputed fact that it will create a huge amount of carbon in its operation and spew out toxic waste into the river system and atmosphere.

Peter Garrett and Malcolm Turnbull have both sold out their principles.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

margaret beavis
October 5th, 2007

To destroy native forests is criminal in light of what we now realize is destroying the planet. Aust. wants to pay Asia to stop logging!!!!!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

October 5th, 2007

Why is everybody so surprised Labour is not in a position to give up seats in Tasmamia and after the debacle in the last election the Liberal party was praying that they would reject the pulp mill and leave them open to attacks re union members in Tasmania. The reallity is that loggers and their families vote along with the unemployed who are promised jobs ( these jobs will disapear but not until after the election). The labour party were caught between a rock and a hard place as Little Johnny intended.

Enough of the lies and divisive politics that Little Johnny has used to win previous elections lets get rid of the moron our country deserves better. I deserve better

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Tony Bates
October 5th, 2007

I cannot believe the stupidity of Peter Garrett in rolling over like a pet cat expecting to have his tummy rubbed for going along with Malcolm Turnbull's environmental attack. The world's best practice? What on earth (literally and metaphorically) does this mean. The damage to the environment, the noise and diesel pollution from trucks, the stench from the mill (visit the Latrobe Valley for a breath of fresh pulp air!) and the adverse effect upon tourism all add up to a huge negative. Both of these politicians deserve to lose their seats at the forthcoming election because of their own naivety re the matter; or is it a case of big business ruling the roost.
A shame upon all those who are so blinkered that they cannot see the bigger picture and to all those other people of whatever political persuasion who are still fighting this retrograde and regressive decision, 'may the power be with you.'

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Prudence Parker
October 5th, 2007

I am disgusted by the political actions of Malcolm Turnbull and also of the gutless nature of Peter Garrett. The future is not in the destruction of forests and especially not in an area as pristine as Tasmania. Tourism and clean green is by far the way of the future for Tasmania and is one that we as Australians should be proud of... Whose to be proud of one company raping and pillaging the countryside for a quick buck... what do the policitians really see as the gain here? Money? No, it is definately NOT ENOUGH.. stop the mill!!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

October 5th, 2007

The Stockholm Convention of '05 which Australia signed dictates zero discharge of organochlorines that include dioxin and other cancer causing agents.
Yet this will now proceed because of Malcolm Turnbull whose name will appear in future histories as being an enabler of countless cancer victims who fell victim to this sham of a review process for this Tassie pulp mill.
It isn't ignorance that will bring down our Australian society, it is greed and the silence of Garrett! Vote Green in the forthcoming Senate election and maybe this stupidity can still be stopped!

Byron Kaufman, Canberra

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

G Huntley
October 5th, 2007

An honest report in answer to a dishonest question.
The terma of reference were designed to give a known answer to restricted areas of concern but excluded investigation of the totality of the effects of the proposed developement.
This hoary trick so successfully used in the debate on the election v appointment of a president does not fool any aware and alarmed member (voter) of the public.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Dennis Nestor
October 5th, 2007

Our extended family happened to be gathered at my place last night when the TV reported the pulp mill decision. We all voted for the coalition last time, but we all decided to vote for the Greens this time as a protest.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Gavan Breen
October 5th, 2007

Malcolm Turnbull says the minister can shut down the mill if it doesn't comply with the conditions. But, as Kerry O'Brien pointed out on the 7-30 Report, if the mill is built and is employing lots of people, there will be enormous pressure on the minister to let it stay open, even if it doesn't comply.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Mary Burford
October 5th, 2007

I can understand the stringent conditions being put in place but my concern has always been the loss of old growth forests. There seems to be little attention or controls being placed on Gunns re the use of old growth forests.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Brooke Eddington
October 5th, 2007

My main concern with the pulp mill, aside from the release of dioxin into waterways is with the actual amount of timber required for the mill and where it will come from.

Gunns pulp mill will consume 4 million tonnes of wood per annum for pulping and burn 500,000 tonnes of wood to generate power per annum. At start-up 80 per cent of this will be sourced from Tasmania's irreplaceable native forests.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

John Wildman
October 5th, 2007

Was the scientific study a complete EIS covering the mill operation, the forests needed to supply the mill with timber, is the timber to be used is plantation or natural. If natural I am opposed to the mill and i do not believe the scienticfic study of the mill covered every aspect of the operation. I detect some environmental vandalism and i am surprised by Peter Garrat attitude.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Kevin A Pope
October 5th, 2007

The scientist has only looked at one part of the picture and as Joe Hockey said about the study on I R Union money was involved and that made the study suss was the chief sicentist payed by the government and is this study suss.
As for Peter Garrett the old me too I have just been converted to the Greens after years a deadset Labour voter

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

ian daniel
October 5th, 2007

Warnings of what we as a species are doing to the biodiversity of the planet have been in the public domain at least since the 1950's. It was then, when as a child I recall the warnings given.
The tipping point for the public consciousness to focus in on global warming, came 12 months ago when people connected David Suzuki and Al gore when both visited Oz at the same time.

The recent CSIRO (who now have a voice) warnings of at least 5 deg C rise by 2070 should put the skids under any proposed development which would increase the emmissions of greenhouse gases. Remember we have been told a temperature rise of this amount is considered carastrophic or the end of civilisation as we know it. Lovelocks forcast of 10% of the worlds population surviving to 2100, comes sharply into focus.
This summer in the arctic there has been a heat wave, the north west passage is open while climatologists forcast an arctic summer, sea ice free by 2023.

The kicker to our present understanding of global warming is we are still to experience climate change effects from greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere from 30 years ago.
Western democracies have continued to pump these gases expodentially into the atmosphere for these past 30 years while China and India slumbered on in ignorant bliss of what we were doing. For politicians to now use China and India as the excuse for not signing Kyoto is a monumental statement in hyprocacy.
To say the USA and OZ carry no responsibility for these gases which are still to impact on the earth's systems says a lot for the shop front governments of western democracies have become for the worst of capitalism. To equate capitalism with democracy, a result of successful branding by those who would control others in self servitude and fear, is an ongoing never ending process of double speak.

Paper can be produced by other means through carbon sinks renewed on a yearly basis. The infrastructure to grow these plants is ready to go. it is no big deal.
Monstrocaties such as the Gunns proposal destroy carbon sinks with related ecosystems and should been seen for what they are. It has little to do with employment. If they could run their mill with one operator they would. It is about redistributing wealth turning a public asset into the private wealth of the few.
In Australia it's called 'keep the dream alive'. In the USA 'the american dream' is the hook. It's about time the public woke from their slumber. Growth economics is an illusion with only one outcome.

The dream of endless economic growth will have our children and grandchildren regarding our generation as being collectively insane as we steal a future far less cruel from them right before their eyes, because we did bugger all to stop what we knew what was happening.

The extinction rate for eden's species is now estimated to be 10,000 times the normal background rate of extinction.
As mother nature writes her report card on how we have behaved as a species, take some time to contemplate the lyrics from Supertramp in the 1970's and their album 'Crime of the Century'. In the end we are all responsible.

Now theyre planning the crime of the century
Well what will it be?
Read all about their schemes and adventuring
Its well worth a fee
So roll up and see
And they rape the universe
How theyve gone from bad to worse
Who are these men of lust, greed, and glory?
Rip off the masks and let see.
But thats no right - oh no, whats the story?
Theres you and theres me
That cant be right

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Lindsay Hope
October 5th, 2007

What a tragedy! Malcolm Turnbull narrowing the scientific terms of reference and Peter Garret rolling over. We should now vote Green whilst making sure that this doesn't assist the Libs to get back in. We should now also try to assist Peter Cousins somehow, who said this morning that he would now concentrate on the banks to encourage them not to lend the huge funds needed by Gunns.

To quote Richard Flanagan from 'Gunns out of Control'...."The rape of Tasmania will continue until one day, like so much else that was precious, its great forests will belong only to myth. Tasmanians will be condemned to endure the final humiliation: bearing dumb witness to the great lie that delivers wealth to a handful elsewhere, poverty to many of them, and death to their future as the last of these extraordinary places is sacrificed to the woodchippers greed. Beautiful places, holy places, lost not only to them but to the world forever. Lindsay Hope

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Valda Cross
October 5th, 2007

Your comment
Gunns wants to build a new pulp mill because the world wants MORE PAPER!!

That being a fact (PAPER), why can't the Greens admit that if a pulp mill is not built in Tasmania, then it will be built elsewhere in the world (say, India, or another "developing country" who are exempt, at the moment, under the Kyoto Agreement).

As global warming is a world problem, then the CO2's or greenhouse gases are a world problem, and will occur no matter where a pulp mill is built.

Let's get real, it is a commercial decision in Tasmania's economic interest with scientific safeguards to protect the environment. We can't control what happens in the rest of the world, but we can control what happens here, and none of us are prepared to go without the paper even the Greens.

The crux of the matter is that our Government has made a decision via Malcolm Turnbull. Labor has endorsed the decision (surprise, surprise) via Peter Garrett. And, who is being criticised? Malcolm Turnbull of course!!! The media spin once again, is unreal and unfair and biased. Good grief, give me a break.........

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Joan Smiley
October 5th, 2007

It seems unbelievable that a person who claims to have integrity should approve this pulp mill especially when Gunns will be receiving large sums of taxpayers' money in subsidies. Spend the money on retraining the workers and help them to resettle where there are jobs. What is Peter Garrett thinking of? Tasmania is one of the few pristine areas left in the world and what an example we as a rich country are sending to Third World countries. Please stop this lunacy.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Alisa Wortley
October 5th, 2007

This decision is so unbelievably wrong. How have we managed to get to the stage where a small number of jobs are justification for this kind of environmental destruction? This is 5 steps back for a very small step forward.

Malcolm Turnbull has never had my respect as Minister for the Environment - the Liberal Party has never been known for their progressive environmental policies, and this simply reinforces that, despite their trying to appear otherwise with their ridiculous 'Climate Clever' campaign. Mr Turnbull - to be an effective Minister for the Environment you need to lead by example, something you are not doing.

Peter Garrett for the ALP however - people expected so much more from you, and as a long-term Labor voter I'm now stuck between a rock and a hard place. I cannot agree with your stance on this decision, and it will affect my vote.

This is NOT just a Tasmanian issue, to be decided by a small group of people. This is an Australian issue and a multi-party issue - the major party's politicians are disgustingly out of touch with environmental issues both on a national and state level (witness the soon-to-be damming of the Mary River in QLD).

The more progressive countries in the world are shaking their heads at us, and I for one am truly embarrassed to be an Australian at the moment.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

gail Caster
October 5th, 2007

How will we dance when our earth is burning............

Terania Creek, The Franklin Dam.......

Gunns Pulp Mill.........don't you hear the people sing?






Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

rachel king
October 5th, 2007

In 50 years time nobody will say "Boy I really wished we had destroyed more of the world's native virgin forest!" If we need paper, grow trees and cut them down and make paper. If that's not profitable - then make do with less paper.

Gunns claim no virgin forest additional to their existing permits will be logged. What crazy tinpot government in the 21st century is dishing out permits to cut any virgin forest at all?

Worlds best practice starts with logging plantation forest only. Logging virgin foest is permanently destructive and will be regretted more and more as the years roll by.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Quentin Grant
October 5th, 2007

Whoops -Malcom, the man who would be King, has been handed the poison chalice and is now up to his neck in Wentworth, um, effluent.

Johny Howard, you cunning little rat!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Amanda Wilson
October 5th, 2007

Peter G how can you sleep?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

lineke salmeron
October 5th, 2007

This mill should definitely not go ahead. I totally agree with Christine Milne about so called best practise. The mills size alone will require far more than plantation and secondary growth timber to make it run at optimum capacity. And let's face it this will become a vital economic issue, after all is this not what 11 yrs of Howard has taught us. Economic prosperity for a few, rip offs for the unskilled worker,green house gas emissions, no global warming and the earth is flat? It is even more disturbing that the wishes of Tamar Valley residents are completely ignored. With the majority of residents being against the mill , why does this project get the approval of both sides of politics? Peter Garret you've really disappointed me. What has happened to you, where have your principals gone, is it really worth your while to sell out everything you believed in and so passionately promoted? A pulp mill is a pulp mill Peter it will grind up trees, what is the difference to woodchipping and what do you mean by value adding? What value, the Tamar Valley residents' health, cleaner affluents released into the environment, cleaner Co2 emissions? Come on!! I am definitely NOT voting Labor and will remain a Greens voter!!!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

JIll Trevillian
October 5th, 2007

Surely the greatest value that can be added is the preservation of the environment. I am saddened by the fact that both the coalition and the ALP are addicted to short term economic outcomes at the expense of a viable future. How can anything that destroys our rapidly disappearing forests be considered 'best practice'?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Katherine Moseby
October 5th, 2007

I am extremely disappointed in the Labour Govts. response to this mill. I had expected more from Peter Garrett and had hoped that they would make an election promise to stop the pulp mill. I am now seriously reconsidering my previous intention to vote labour at the next election. Protection of tasmanias' forests should be a high priority as tourism could easily bring in more money than logging in the future. This decision is short sighted and extremely disappointing.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Alisa Wortley
October 5th, 2007

Would love to see a list of all products associated with Gunns so I can boycott. Anyone know where there is one? And yes, I'm prepared to pay more for something if it means supporting GOOD environmental practices.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Libby Winter
October 5th, 2007

What is happening to Australia's government? Where is the effective opposition? Aren't we a democratic nation? The people's wishes are not being heard on issues such as unwanted council amalgalations and non-viable dams in Queensland, but this is a whole lot more serious in terms of global repercussions at a time when we have no choice but to place the highest prioruty on environmental protection if humanity is to continue living on this planet. Never give up.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Maureen Davies
October 5th, 2007

The decision by the Federal Government to approve the Gunn's pulp mill is appalling but not surprising given that the Federal Government has been in lock-step with big business while it's been in office. The rubber stamp by the Labor Party is just as disgraceful and Peter Garrett's whining whaffle about why the mill's been approved just shows how much he's sold out for the spoils of office. Quick to take up pollie doublespeak, isn't he? Gutless coward. No wonder politicians in the main parties are on the nose when the stench of corruption surrounds the whole pulp mill approval process. Who's actually the Government in Tasmania? Gunn's, not the people. So much for democracy. I don't live in Tasmania but I really feel for the small businesses who'll be badly affected by the environmental degradation which will undoubtedly arise if this mill ever gets underway and for the destruction of Tasmania's wealth of forests to feed this monster. The issue that needs to be faced is that, given global warming, we cannot now always succumb to the "jobs for workers" blackmail. We need to develop alternative industries and give genuine assistance to those workers affected by closing down or preventing enviromentally destructive industries. Native American elders used to consider the effects of decisions on seven successive generations. Would that the greedy, self-serving politicians in the Coalition and Labor governments could off the same wisdom. Labor's lost my vote through this and it's mealy-mouthed endorsement of Kevin Andrew's racist dog-whistling on African refugees.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Peter Walters
October 5th, 2007

My major concern is that this pulp mill, regardless of how clean it is, is 'institutionalising' the clearing of forests in Tasmania. If it goes ahead we will not only have the 'timber jobs' argument, but the 'pulp mill jobs' argument for the felling of even more trees. The mill will soon become an immovable fact of life in the economy of Tasmania and the environmental sustainability argument will be pushed further into a corner.
Thanks Getup for your activism.
Cheers,
Peter

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Margaret Orth
October 5th, 2007

I understand that not all the environmental impacts such as air quality were investigated. How can Mr Turnbull approve such a project and Mr Garrett support such a project and for that matter the Chief Scientist not put the brakes on such a project without a thorough investigation of *all* impacts to such a beautiful part of the country.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Christabelle Baranay
October 5th, 2007

I am distressed that this mill has been given the go ahead!
I live in the beautiful Brunswick Valley Northern NSW and can only imagine what it would be like to have something similar be built here. A small taste has been the expansion of the Pacific Highway, contrary to community wishes. When pristine environments,established agriculture and tourism can be affected, it show that the govt and business are just greedy and not thoughtful for the bigger picture. Also with concerns re global warming, how can such industry be given then go ahead?? Their priorities are questionable. It saddens me that Labour is in agreement. Yeah ! for the Greens!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Simon Woodacre
October 5th, 2007

The fact that Labor and Peter Garret have been too gutless to stand up to Gunns and the redneck timber workers (and their Union) and put a stop to this mill is a disgrace.
Whats the point of having two party politics if they agree with other all the time?!
This was Peter's chance to restore some much needed credibility by opposing this mill with the passion that he once had for the environment, and instead he failed miserably by towing the party line and hunting for votes.
In reality this has achieved the opposite, I have always voted Labor, but will have to find an alternative this election.
As long as the Greens preference doesn't end up with Labor theyve got my vote for sure!!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Michael Webster
October 5th, 2007

Shame on Peter Garrett and the ALP for approving this. It's obvious there's only one party which will stand up to Gunns and their pet government in Tasmania. Go Greens in the election!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Wendy Rose
October 5th, 2007

Your comment I am furious that both Liberal and Labour have agreed to this pulp mill. The report only looked at the effects on the sea and the top scientist this morning was not prepared to even talk about the effects on climate change with the destruction of the trees.

How can labour say they are an alternate government when they are becoming "a me too" party. Where has Peter Garrett left his values on climate change.

I am disgusted that our polititians are not prepared to make the decisions to save the planet, but give in to a few jobs that will destroy it.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Lurline Mcculloch
October 5th, 2007

I am totally disgusted with the State govt. - the Federal Minister for the Environment (Minister for WHAT?) - and the Shadow Minister for the environment.
Are they totally deaf to the pleas of the majority of the Tasmanian people that they LEAVE OUR FORESTS ALONE?!
We want no more wood-chipping at all. We want no more streams of massive wood trucks on our roads, endangering us and tourists alike. Limited saw-milling is of course acceptable and always has been.
We KNOW that the so-called enquiries and scientific reports were nowhere near comprehensive enough.
Why do you treat us as though we are stupid, and will believe ANY spin?
Check the polls - and ignore the majority of the people's wishes at your own peril!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

mark finch
October 5th, 2007

world's best practise?? at what? destruction and profit margins?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Michael Burton
October 5th, 2007

How can Turnbull go from addressing an international summit on Climate Change calling for the need to preserve native forests one day to approving a plan which will see the destruction of such forests the next? Is he all posturing and no substance?

Why cant we simply use plantatations to meet our paper needs?

How can Garrett so meekly agree? My preferences were never going to flow to Liberal, but now you can be sure that they wont flow to Labor either.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Bill Hall
October 5th, 2007

The obscenity of the pulp mill must be stopped, if for no other reason than the world's respect! History will view this fiasco as Turnbull's Folly and other peoples across the globe will see and say the Australian people are more interested in money than the health of the planet, a view that will, without doubt, damage our standing internationally; in quick step with our failure to sign the Kyoto Protocol. I want Australia to be a world leader in care for the earth, I believe our stewardship is vital and of world value and a positive and healthy way to move forward into an uncertain future. Climate health before greed...!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

David Richardson
October 5th, 2007

I read in the SMH this morning that the mill is only "viable" for Gunns because of massive federal & state government funding.

Notwithstanding the pathetic stance of both the Government & Opposition to the effective destruction of the northern Tasmanian environment & marine ecology, this is yet another blatant use of taxpayers funds to prop up an uneconomic business.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Peter Trollope
October 5th, 2007

If you want to boycott Gunns then there is a list of there businesses on their website http://www.gunns.com.au/ Also ANZ bank is a major financier and many of our superannuation funds invest heavily in them through managed investment schemes. If your concerned ring your super fund and ask them if they invest in these schemes.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Keith Ralfs
October 5th, 2007

Quite simply the pulp mill should not go ahead unless it can be proved that
1 Is minimu carbon neutral or better still carbon negative from seed planting to delivery at receiving port
2 Uses no Chlorine at all for processing
3 Plants 3 native trees to replace every single tree removed
4 Invests 50% of profits in alternative energy (such as wind) to replace current energy sources
5 Has no residues or waste contaminating either the river or atmosphere
6 Invests 10% of income in research into none tree based pulp production for paper-making
7 Where ever possible Tasmania should be preserved as a pristine environment
8 More employment could be created via none wood pulp industries, such as wind turbine manufacture

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Dr Lee W Andresen
October 5th, 2007

Your comment

Years ago we wrote "NO DAMS" on our federal election voting papers and the world changed for the better. What shall we all write this time? "NO PULP MILL"? Who will organise the campaign?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

October 5th, 2007

Why on earth do we need a mill at all?
Its ridiculous that we are cutting down old growth forests- at the same time expecting the developing world not to.
The fact that it is being subsidised by the state and federal governments appalls me.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Janette Hynes
October 5th, 2007

I don't care how many environmental controls are placed on the mill, I will not be convinced that this project is not motivated by a desire to benefit a minority group - mainly big business and shareholders' profiteering. Peoplepower stopped the Franklin Dam project, we can do it again.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Susan
October 5th, 2007

How many pieces of paper do we need to save, reuse, recycle to not need the mill?

Every time a dame is proposed we at least know (usually) the alternate option.

Or is this all about selling paper offshore for more GDP?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Louise Dyer
October 5th, 2007

This is an appalling decision at a time when the world is abuzz with the talk of global warming, poor air quality, pollution, etc. We know trees are the lungs of the world and also that old growth forests are the habitat of many species, some endangered, that have the right to share the world with us. Gunn has no soul and is only after profit, they will leave bare unproductive land when they are finished and the trees and the animals will be gone forever. What criminal foolishness!!!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Noelle Rattray
October 5th, 2007

If anyone is tempted to feel the new stringent guidelines make this pulp mill OK now - think again! These conditions ONLY relate to Commonwealth issues.

NO MONITORED IMPACTS are going to be done on our forests, the air pollution, the Tasmanian waters and their flora and fauna, the impact of log trucks on our roads and wildlife,or any other State jurisdictional matters.

Paul Lennon cannot heal the rift in Tasmania - he would have to get out of bed with John Gay, get dressed in clean clothes and address his responsibilities to the people - not the boardrooms.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Christopher James Aitchison
October 5th, 2007

I feel devastated, not only for quickly diminishing native forests of Tasmania, but also for Mr Garrett. Mr Garrett knows very well that the best way to 'add value to our forest estate' is to preserve it and not pulp it. Give us an opposition who will oppose developments like this wretched mill - developments that diminish the lives of the many for the financial benefit of a few - and we may just give it Government.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Peter Hood
October 5th, 2007

This mill can be stopped. We should put pressure on the ANZ bank not to grant the funds. Also make this an election issue and support those candidates who will support the environment. The Tamar valley is not the place for this mill. There are other alternatives.
It's a disagrace that we knock down old growth forests for wood chips.
I can just see GUNNS complying with all the conditions!!!!
Keep fighting until it is stopped. Remember Franklin??

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

maryanne mckay
October 5th, 2007

When we are facing such a dramatic climate tragedy, it is so pathetic to approve the largest pulpmill ever in Aust. This is the Govt and opposition acting with such disregard to the whole community. Peter Garett, what a disappointment politics buys anyone. I will not be voting for labour I have been erring. Thanks to the Get Up program I am much the wiser.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

neal ames
October 5th, 2007

Saying something is "worlds best practice" is a pointless and misleading statement. If something causes damage to our ecosystems then it doesnt matter whether it is the best practice in the world, it is still causing damage.

I have been a liberal voter for all my life. I live in a safe liberal seat in Queesland. This is a world issue. I will be wasting my vote and voting Greens.

There will be no jobs on a dead planet.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Lisa Armstrong-Cook
October 5th, 2007

I have been a regular visitor to Tasmania for over 10 years and would one day like to make it my home. Why? Because of its beautiful, peaceful, CLEAN environment. Yet with each return visit, that dream is slowly diminishing. This beautiful place is slowly being destoyed by the likes of Gunns, aided and abetted by unfeeling governments who think more of the dollar than of life itself.

I have seen the fogs which descend upon the Tamar and they are very pretty. But it is fog. Harmless. To think that the next time I visit I would not be breathing in the sweet Tasmanian air, but would be inhaling Gunns pollution sickens me. And for what? For wood chips and wood pulp to produce things which can easily be created from recycled products. In the process we lose the very thing for which Tasmania is world-renowned - it's world-heritage environment. A pulp mill is a pulp mill - irrespective of its 'Green' credentials. Its very existence signals the unecessary destruction of the environment in which we live, breathe, grow our food and raise our children.

The Federal and Tasmanian State governments should hang their heads in shame at the legacy they are leaving the people of Tasmania (and, indeed, Australia), and the people of the Tamar Valley in particular. Next time I get a glossy package from John Howard advertising his government's 'achievements' I will silently grieve the loss borne by Tasmania in the process of its making. And I will then toss it where it belongs. In the recycling bin.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Linda Zibell
October 5th, 2007

I am bitterly disappointed to see permission given to reduce magnificent trees to rubbish for consumers, contrary to the need of our country to reduce CO2 and to increase indigenous vegetation, particularly trees.

Shame on you Malcolm Turnbull, shame on you Liberal party, shame on you John Howard. Our country has lost 50% of its indigenous vegetation. It is the worst in the developed world for land clearing and the worst country for endangered and threatened species. Where is the sense in this decision?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Jamie Smith
October 5th, 2007

I went down to Tassie recently and went for a drive through what once was old growth forest.
At the top of a hill I looked out at miles and miles of devastation.
Yes people need jobs but this is just madness.
The Greens will get my vote.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Ina Mulli
October 5th, 2007

Garrett, we were thrilled when you stood for our seat. Where are you now? GetUp, what does the Australian Conservation Foundation say about this mill?
2031 residents.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Emma Marro
October 5th, 2007

whether government spends $1 or 10 billion dollars absolutely NO ELABORATE ADVERTISWING WILL SWAY ME. i look for ACTIONS AND PROMISES ACHIEVED by politicians/government.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Marilla North
October 5th, 2007

We are desperate for men and women of Vision.
Our country and the World are at risk from rapacious greed, war mongering and the close relationship between the Arms industry barons, the oil industry sheiks, the woodchip moguls and the politicians.
Vision takes courage.
Courage to stand up for principles and for a sustainable environment. STAND UP AND BE COUNTED PETER GARRETT. We expect Malcolm Turnbull to stick up for Money versus the Common Good and the old growth forests ... but NOT the man who sang The Beds are Burning.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Nancy Parker
October 5th, 2007

Another example of the Federal Government's inability to create any policies for a sustainable future. I'm disappointed that Federal Labour also seems determined to follow short term political gain. What a disaster for Australia! I'm so terribly sad we have no leaders with the wisdom and courage to prevent this destruction. I apologise to future generations for the mess we are leaving you.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Katherine Lyall-Watson
October 5th, 2007

I am appalled at both parties' decision to go ahead with this mill. What's going to feed the mill? What's the raw source of the pulp going to be?
Old growth native forest.
This is the most sickening, short-sighted and greedy political decision.
You've just lost my vote, Rudd. I'll be voting Green.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Craig
October 5th, 2007

Gunns does not even rate on Corporate Responsibility index. This company seems not answerable to anyone but it's own greed, in some respects you can call it the "Blackwater" of Australia.


Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

October 5th, 2007

You cannot consider the pulp mill in isolation it must be considered along with the effect on the forests, the harvesting of which will reduce our carbob sequestration capability and this must also be taken into account. Where are the private plantations they refer to ? .

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Paul de Burgh-Day
October 5th, 2007

This has been one giant con job - by the Lennongrab government, and by a subservient (to Howard) Malcolm Turnbull. As for Peter Garrett. How does he sleep at night?

The media are wrong in claiming that Gunns and the governments have won. In doing so, they have swallowed the fiction that the mill has been given a big scientific tick. They have chosen to ignore the facts.
Even the RPDC assessment was not addressing all the environmental considerations. When that was torpedoed by Gunns, Paul Gunn (oops! Lennon), set up a fastrack process that eliminated almost key environmental assessments.
Malcolm Turnbull's brief was limited to only a handful of environmental factors that came under Commonwealth legislation - a tiny fraction of the environmental big picture. He deployed the governments chief scientist to deal just with an extremely brief.

This is being portrayed as giving an 'pure science' big tick of approval to all the environmental issue that SHOULD have been addressed.
THIS IS A FRAUD!

If this proposal had been subjected to a complete and proper scientific assessment - it could never have been approved.

Approval (in reality, a foregone rigged conclusion) does not construct the mill.
No finance has been approved. Gunns' bankers, the ANZ, will now consider the viability of what is proposed in the context of the conditions imposed.
Attention should now focus on the ANZ - they must be held to the environmental and sustainability position they have been promoting.

Recent shockwaves through the global finance and credit industries were only the beginning of a massive implosion of economies - not least the USA - and the whole banking system. I must say that I would not want to be looking to a bank - or any other affordable financier - to put upwards of 2bn on the table to build what would be - in reality - a globally uncompetitive pulp mill in Tasmania!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Geoff Tosio
October 5th, 2007

It's obvious that corporate money has a stranglehold on our political system, there is just no way this mill should pass with such overwhelming public opposition and negative scientific opinion.
Keep track of the people who have fought for and against this mill Tasmania, because as the election pans out I hope that there will be a turn around. And when the Gunns supporters run for cover we will need to hold every one of them accountable.
This doesn't just border on boundaries between right and wrong, it's completely immoral.
This doesn't just border on legal boundaries either - it's a denial of free speech and our democratic process.
Shame on you Malcolm Turnbull!!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Tom Coyle
October 5th, 2007

I never thought I would ever see a time when I didnt vote labor, thanks a bunch Peter. I consider your rollover on the Pulp Mill obnoxious and you are certainly not worthy of my vote, the Labor party has gone from the best thing happening to same same me too in just a few months, Im depressed and angry with you.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

emma
October 5th, 2007

when are short sighted greedy governments going to learn that it is not about "your patch" anymore, you are making decisions which effect the globe. this pristine wilderness is one of very few remaining in the world, why be known as one of the 'slash and burn' politicians that took away the last remaining piece of nature Australia had to offer. its a sad day in the history books and Malcolm your name is tarnishing our landscape!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Marguerite Marshall
October 5th, 2007


But how can a mill which will destroy 200,000ha of magnificent forest, 500 times whats being protected, be worlds best practice? How can a mill that pumps effluent, albeit less than it might, into a pristine environment be worlds best practice? How can a mill that adds 10 million tonnes of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere every year be worlds best practice?


This campaign is not over. The people of Australia do not want this pulp mill and we will continue to campaign against this decision.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

tony campbell
October 5th, 2007

I live in the electorate of Kingsford Smith, and have been a labour voter for all of my 32 voting years. Not any more.I am so ashamed of our sitting federal member.Peter Garrett and the Labour party's stance in support of the pulp mill. How can someone with his environmental credientials turn on us like this. I would like to believe he is just attempting to blindside rednecks to get their votes, but I sadly feel that what Bob Brown has said about Mr Garrett being done over by the Labour party is true. So sad,so dissappointing,so my vote's off to Greens land.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

mark johnson
October 5th, 2007

"world's toughest environmental standards", oh dear, Howard staff (oh yes all in that gormless party are merely his staff) just can't help but lie can they? Firstly countries like Sweden, Finland, and Denmanrk have much more stringent controls of dioxine outflow levels, and secondly Peter Hartcher's article today in the Sydney morning herald exposes the sham that Turnbull's "process was and is".

As for Garrett, God help you Peter as you have to sacrifice principle so to prevent Howard and his legion of the screaming banshees from playing with their wedges. Hopefully one day we can see you as the man of principle we know you to truly be, when the Howard government and the Liberal party is but a gruesome memory.

Greens, thankyou for not everbeing ashamed of principle, and sticking it to these Howard bastards! One piece of sham legislation won't prevent the success of the long term campaign.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Alisa Wortley
October 5th, 2007

The cutting down of old growth forests is irresponsible and dangerous to the environment generally - and despite the rhetoric of leading Politicians, they are NOT replaceable. There are severe environmental imbalances caused by replacing diverse old-growth forests, that have working, integrated eco-systems, with plantations of only 1 or 2 types of trees. This paves the way for disease and insect infestation amongst other thing & can culminate in the destruction of entire species. Using the plantations we already have is great - but cutting down old forests to plant new ones is so far beyond wrong it's not funny. These are NOT 'big picture' people we have running our country.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

rob butchart
October 5th, 2007

Wrong technology, try Swedens, seems a lot better to me.

Short term greed seems to be the flavour of the decades in australian politics!

Who was the bloke who said "Forgive them for they know not what they do"?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Ron
October 5th, 2007

I have rung my superannuation plan people and made sure they do not put any of my super money in Gunns or the ANZ, please help and do the same.....

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Tim Mintern
October 5th, 2007

I have been a Labour voter for forty yeas. I will be voting for the Greens in the Senate.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Eric Oppel
October 5th, 2007

For those people wishing to boycott Gunns products,
here is some information obtained from their own website which may be useful.
It seems they own the following retail outlets......
Gunns Mitre 10 at Launceston, Devonport, Ulverstone and Port Sorell. Also George Town Mitre 10, Pineworld Youngtown, Devonport Timber and Hardware and Burnie Timber.
In addition to this they own Tamar Ridge Wines, who also make Devil's Corner Wines and there is a construction company known as Hinman Wright & Manser (Gunns Constructions) a division of Gunns Limited.
For those who wish to enquire further, they have a corporate enquiry page on their website at http://www.gunns.com.au/corporate/enquire.html

Lets all let them know we don't want this vandalism!!!!!!


Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

October 5th, 2007


well you may be surprised to know that there are tasmanians who actually want this mill. I think we may be in the silent majority as we who want work for our citizens and want our children to stay on the island care about the balance or work and wilderness and just go quitetly about our daily business.
45 percent of Tasmania is locked up in national parks, can other states say that.
I would ask you all out there to really find out the facts.
Also the old growth will not be used only plantation forests.Logging will go ahead with or without a pulp mill.
This area has always been zoned as industrial.
The process has been going on for four years.
Tasmania cannot live on tourisim alone, how many of you who live on the mainland have ever been here i would be very interested to know if you have helped our tourisim.
Do you use paper in your printer do you use writing paper etc. Is it better to have the Pulp made in australia than sent off shore.
You on the mainland have to realise that we need to work and have jobs the same as everyone else.
Our Premier is 5th generation Tasmanian and only wants the best for working famillies.
I as a tasmanian beleive that this should only be a Tasmanian issue.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Malu Hall
October 5th, 2007

Your comment: Please, please, start listening to the people of Australia! They are the ones who need your support. I've always been made to believe that our politicians are "OUR" servants, not Our Masters! Why should we be forced to vote, when we don't agree with what is being done to Us, Our Children & Grandchildren, Our Homes, Our Land, and Our way of Life? We are being made to vote for the Lesser of Two Evils! So Everyone take heed!
Malu Hall

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Adrian Glamorgan
October 5th, 2007

On the plus side we have better conditions, but on the negative side, the wrong place for a mill. Why are the government and opposition so content to allow a mill to be placed in a beautiful valley, where the stench and bioaccumulating dioxins represent a concern for local residents and food producers and consumers?

Many of us have admired Peter Garrett for what he stood for in the past, and many of us understood there was a mephistophelean bargain involved in him signing up for Labor (a party that preferenced the Nationals ahead of him in 1984) - but now it's clear who's used whom. He might be seeking power, but his role in the Labor party has diminished his credibility.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

tony campbell
October 5th, 2007

Forgot to mention that Peter Garrett will be doing whistlestops to meet & greet his Kingsford Smith constituents this Sat 6th October at:Cnr Mount St. and Clovelly Rd. 9am-10.30am and 11am-12.30pm at Coogee Beach Plaza Coogee. Perhaps he can tell us in person why he has sold himself and and his constituents out.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Stockley Arnold Ward
October 5th, 2007

If Peter Garrett was still president of the Australian Conservation Foundation I doubt that he would approve of the pulp mill. It is unfortunate that starry-eyed new members of parliament become victims of the party machine. I note that The Greens are still sticking to their principles in opting for fair treatment to the environment and the people and other life forms that dwell therein.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

chris evans
October 5th, 2007

i'm voting for the other guy! what's the point of you have a nice mill, if you chop down all the forest!

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

October 5th, 2007

A couple of questions; was Turnbull previously employed by a US major, a Pharmaceutical Company ? Is he still ? If so, could this possibly influence his judgement & decision-making ?
Why has Garrett suddenly become silent ? Or does becoming a labour man require emasculation ?

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Shane Wood
October 5th, 2007

It would seem that news reports today have done much to undermine Mr Turnbull's claim that this mill will work under 'world's best practice'. In one breath the owners say that these are very stringent impositions on their operation but that they will be able to address them and start building the mill in the next few weeks!
Something is not quite right here. There is still no answer to the cutting down of trees and the need for this industry to restructure and retrain its employees so that they can find employment elsewhere.
If Gunns want to go somewhere else - call their bluff and let them go.

Reply to this comment...

Alias:
You can customise the name that will display beside your comment.
Email:
Your email is for our records and will not be displayed.
CAPTCHA:
Enter the text as it appears above to help us prevent spam.

Abusive, racist or expletive language won't be tolerated.
Note:
because you are not logged in, your post will be held until reviewed. We aim to review comments once each business day but during busy campaigning periods this is not always possible.

Jackie Delaney
October 5th, 2007

This issue is a clear example of why to vote Green and not Labor. Peter Garrett, former environmental rock star turned opportunistic politician (exactly why did