Of course the TNC want a negotiated outcome. If it gets sorted out on the numbers they will loose, by a huge margin. Please don’t insult me by painting expedience as a virtue Nigel, when it is simply a cynical tactic.

As for building a platform to get into politics, lets have a good hard look at Scott Jordans last few failed attempts to make that leap. Look forward a few years and I can see the greens running him #2 on a senate ticket on the strength of this.

This whole argument is predicated on the global financial crisis ending soon and a return to the pre-GFC market for minerals. What if it doesn’t go that way? I don’t think Bryan Green has manufactured this fight. Did he write the exploration leases he signed-off on? I don’t think so. Why did a Tarkine coalition board member agree to mining in state forests during the IGA negotiations? Even Jonathan West requested mining in state forests and Environment Tasmania agreed, although their director is a member of the Tarkine Coalition. Finally if Bryan Green really is this devious why are the Greens keeping him in power? My solution? Give them all the rope they want. If the Tarkine really can compete with WA, including the extra freight costs to China and if it can compete against the massive mothballed deposits in Roxby Downs then let them go for it. The market doesn’t need these minerals anyway.

I think one will find that the North West Coasters dont want the creation of more National Parks nor a repeat act of a Labor Green government!
It is likely the Tarkine will be broken up into a series of either Forest Reserves or State Reserves once the prime locations of commercial quantities of rainforest rich species and mineralogy is established to target future mining based on current and ongoing mineral exploration.
The RPDC should be in a position to adjudicate findings as the outcome for the Tarkine progresses.

Burch’s analyis of former MP and now Mayor of Burnie Steve Kons amounts to nothing more than an ongoing grudge against the man, however he is correct saying that Labor is on the outer, a “fresh or maybe not so fresh” Liberal team will take the reins after March 2014.
Just ensure that Chinese money is not directly involved in the future developments in the Tarkine. OK!

Bryan Green did grant 11 mining leases to venture a couple of months ago on his own say-so: the planning legislation of 2009 gave the Minister that power, by-passing proper assessment and public input. So the given is that Green did set this ball rolling. Why doubt he is that devious Karl? Green is a hardliner who with Greens in the Cabinet is forced in general to take a softer line except, when as here, he can act off his own bat. By doing so, and with the unscrupulous Howes (after the no less unscrupulous butter-wouldn’t melt-look Shorten), he has created—with Giddings—the old divide that Nigel paints here. The Laborials thrive on conflict. It’s the way the system works. Not only the contrived conflicts between the tweedle-um and tweedle-dee Labor and Liberal parties (despite Kevin Bonham’s post on voting in the House, which only demonstrates that most conflicts are indeed contrived—on most major issues of principle Labor and Liberal are are as at one) but the real conflict that is generated is designed to keep out Greens and independents. The meeting last weekend was a prime example of stirring up the masses to keep out those anti-everything Greens. Just heard Kons comment on the radio on this: his take is that, now that forestry is less of an issue, the Greens have manufactured mining as the new divisive issue. I think this supports Nigel’s case very well. It is Labor and the Liberals who are creating this second and more dnmagerous type of division and blaming the Greens for it.

Why are the Greens keeping the Bryan-type Green in power, Karl? Good question. There are two types of answer: cynical and real-politik. The cyncial answer is obvious to cynics, the r-p answer is that he and Cassy can better mitigate the worst that Labor can do from inside the tent than from outside. As it is the Greens have it both ways: Nick on the inside pissing out and Kim on the outside pissing in. I just hope they miss each other in the process.

The really sad thing Nigel is that whilst political & commercial vested interests orchestrate, manouvere and further their own agendas and the wrong people are scapegoated the Tasmanian media are an absolute pushover and seem completely unwilling to explore these issues in a more critical & nuanced fashion preferring instead to fan the flames of conflict, sensationlism & prejudice.

Leading the charge is ABC Tasmania.

When you have a government so thick that it’s promoting another extraction industry, mining, by analogy with its scandalous forestry racket, you know things are out of control.

Despite all previous embarrassments, they are back to their old game of wildly exaggerating the employment and economic benefits of the new gold rush and blaming all their failings on the supernatural powers of two lite Greens.

With Bryan at the resources helm, you can feel the state accelerating in its ethical freefall.

John Hayward

Or, Comment 6, is the major problem the State government simply keeping up its “old game of wildly exaggerating” its real-world business credentials, competence and experience?

Hint: just look at their CVs.

I have to agree with Pilko @5 - what a disappointment ABC radio is - here was a classic opportunity to explore the issue - but all we end up with is a series of whinges and uncontested claims by various interviewees/callers.

Sometimes I wonder if Compton is actually listening to what the people he is speaking with are actually saying, or is he already thinking about his next question.

I’ve nearly had it with local ABC radio.

#1 Simon, I know you believe that we need better quality in politicians. I’m not a Green, and never will be, but if Scott Jordan ever seriously stood for office I would want to be on his campaign.

In the Hare-Clark system parties tend to run at least the same number of candidates as there are vacancies. So for the Greens in Braddon, four are there with no serious expectation of winning. They stand, at considerable expense and effort, solely to ensure that Paul O’Halloran is elected. It is similar for the Senate. If you ever spoke to Scott during a campaign, you will know that he never said “vote for me” - he always said “vote for Paul” or “vote for Bob” as the case may be.

Don’t let cynicism win. I know Scott, and I help him because he is one of the most honest people I have ever met. I met him when he used to come and see Steve about issues and say: “These people have a problem. Can you fix it for them?” He didn’t want publicity. He was happy for us to take any credit. If you know Steve, ask him. I believe that he would privately tell you the same.

It can be very hard to know which people are straight and which are in it for themselves. On the other side of politics, I remember Leon Perry standing for the Liberals. I was campaigning for Steve, and came across him and Scott Jordan all the time. Leon was another one who was straight as a die, from what I could see, yet after spending a fortune of his own money, and working harder than anyone else in the entire electorate, he polled badly. There are so many bad politicians, that good people get tarred with the same brush. I hope Leon stands again and is appreciated, and I hope one day Scott’s talents are appreciated too.

Fanning the flames, the Laborials do. Igniting and directing them is the incestuous Tasmanian ABC; bent on snuffing any new green paradigm. I never thought that I would hear myself saying any such thing about public broadcasting. Here in Tasmania, we hear the same old voices, the same old takes on controversial issues that have negated all that taxpayer-funded broadcasting ever stood for and have all but shut down enlightened debate. I never imagined that I would propose doing away with the local ABC to eradicate a self-feeding, regressive influence on the community. Or should the formerly brave broadcaster be confined to sport, weather and children’s programming? Tasmania would be none the poorer. There might be room for some progressive journalism and editorial policy.

When Eric Reece was Premier he met a sustained campaign against allowing a Casino in Tasmania

Eric was a master politician he took it to a referendum and let the people decide , the outcome being a Casino approved by the electorate.

Come on Lara and Will do an Eric , we are sick of all the posturing.

All you both are doing is allowing a minority to rule Tasmania.
Bethune and Reece would have bit the bullet
You are both insulting the intelligence of the electorate.

With the performance of the Newman Liberal Government in Queensland , and the graft in Labor being exposed in New South Wales true independents could be elected in state parliament
at the election in 2014.
It has been done before with Doctor “spot ” Turnbull from Launceston and Bill Wedd from Hobart

Mining start ups in Tasmania just before a massive recession are not going to happen.  Its going to be all talk, lots of capital raising on the whiff of something that has no prospect of getting into production.

If you do not have a financed project or a BFS now, its not going to happen for a very long time.  Full stop.

This is not going to get Tassy through the next decade.  Processing certain concentrates could happen.  Fabricating high tensile polymers and graphites could happen.  Making high tech parts could happen.  Making specialized mining software and equipment could happen.  Training underground miners could happen.

Blaming the Greens for things they have no say over is silly.  The problem is not the Greens.  They merely reflect the idea that we can all continue to suck on the treasury.  Guess what, its over.  Expect debt deflation to come to the world in 2013.  Now comes the hard bit.  We may have to actually invent something and do it.  Something that is compelling and internationally competitive.  Something that is exclusive.

Indeed Pilko.

On ABC936 this morning, the host interviewed nine people about mining in the Tarkine and the associated rally at Smithton on the weekend. He absolutely grilled one of the two interviewees opposed to expanding mining in the Tarkine – Christine Milne – while allowing the seven pro-mining interviewees go on and on and on, to the extent of actually sounding like he was in love with a number of them.

All these interviewees had hard questions to answer, but Leon only asked hard questions of Christine Milne, which was gobsmacking given the appalling history of a number of the pro-mining speakers (something the host was probably not even aware of), and in particular the hypocrisy of Paul Howes’ speech at the weekend rally (something the host most certainly should have been aware of).

Paul Howes addressed the pro-mining rally on the weekend, and told the crowd that Tasmanians should decide this issue and that Tasmanians shouldn’t allow themselves to be dictated to by people from outside Tasmania. But Paul Howes is not a Tasmanian and Paul Howes does not live in Tasmania. I could not believe that this obvious hypocrisy was not put to Howes,  but it doesn’t surprise given the quite apparent lean towards one side of various debates from “our” ABC’s Morning Show.

Note to ABC936: where do government employees with safe well-paid jobs get off talking in supercilious tones about unemployment on the NW Coast, after allowing “our” Morning Show to be used as a wrecking-ball for employment on the NW Coast by supertrawler opponents? Are we now living through a time where “our” taxpayer-funded ABC gate-keeps and shapes debates over which resource extraction industries are okay in regional Tasmania, and which are not? It sure sounds that way to me.

#12 Basically agreed although I must point out that the notion that the current economic system is unsustainable is essentially what many in the pro-development lobby have been arguing for decades. That is, that the debt-fuelled consumption boom is unsustainable and that our future must rely more on production and less on consumption.

If you are correct about the broader situation, and I think you are, then there is limited potential in the likes of tourism or the myriad of “service” industries that nobody actually needs. There is, however, a future in smelting zinc or in manufacturing high value items.

History doesn’t repeat but it rhymes. At some point in the not too distant future, the oil and debt fuelled boom in the service industries and general over consumption will fall in a heap.

Then, after a few years of general doom and gloom and a war or two, we’ll manufacture our way back to some form of prosperity (most likely amidst a climate of protectionism).

In the specific case of Tasmania, renewable energy will most likely represent a key resource for economic development. Related to that is that the rapid inflation of electricity prices under the current industry structure is itself undermining the rest of the economy. You don’t have to be Einstein to foresee that this ends with the creation of a state-run electricity authority and subsequent acquisition of the industry’s assets just like last time.

Then comes the setting up, under protection, of whatever are the high tech manufacturing industries of the day.

In addition comes the setting up and protecting anything deemed important to national security (aluminium, zinc, ferro alloys and bearings all come to mind in the context of existing Tasmanian industries).

The great downside, of course, is that there’s one significant point I’ve neglected to mention thus far. We go through a period of general misery and a war or two in order to get there. Nobody’s likely to care too much about the environment whilst all this is going on either which is another downside.

As for the Tarkine, I’d have thought that in the long term the most likely resource to be extracted would be renewable energy rather than metallic minerals.

All the remedial plans for Tassie suggested above require at least a modicum of expertise, imagination, cooperation, and integrity. 

So where’s the plan B?

John Hayward

Message for Nigel Burch and please reply:
The lie that Steve Kons told in Parliament that you then created a storm from was nowhere near as bad as the stupidity that Bryan Green created with attempting to use of his advisor to lie for him in court!
Guy Nicholson is an intelligent and trustworthy person, as one of Green’s advisors he did not deserve the sort of treatment that idiot Green tried to bestow upon him.
Kons at least admitted his misconduct and apologised to the Parliament and the public. Green never did causing Labor considerable loss of stable governence,  operating with less Ministers shouldering greater responsibilities while Green squandered on the back bench.
Green went on to become a almost hopeless Deputy Premier, its a joke beyond my comprehension !
In my opinion Kons should have stayed on and gone on to become Premier, on the way sorting out the State’s financial mess before it was too late.
Kons loss as an MP was a blow for Labor to ever get back onto a firm footing, it never has, Lennon dragged Labor down, Bartlett did a runner and Lara has only managed to imagine herself as a shining example of Labor by keeping a brave face amidst a confused mess having no “powerful” ministers under her control.
Pity that you ever interfered Nigel, as it was an extremely unusual event for Kons to do what he did, you could be blamed for the demise of Labor?
Hopefully Braddon will wake up by March 2014 and not make the mistake of voting for Green again.

#16 Robin, both men (Green and Kons) have their own strengths and weaknesses, and as a general rule I find that politicians are better than the people they represent. They have to be, because they are under intense public scrutiny.

Green was actually a far better representative and Minister than Steve Kons. He was capable of getting things done, as his campaign slogan suggested. His weakness was a lack of judgment about what should be done. In this he needed Guy Nicholson, who was, as you say, honest and trustworthy. He was also intelligent. Unfortunately Green did not always listen to Guy, and like me, Guy was sacked.

You err in thinking that I brought Steve down. We were mates at the time, and I was concerned about Lennon and Hornsey, not Steve. Steve brought himself down without any help from anyone else. You should read the Upper House report into Senior Appointments. As I have said before, the document that I gave Kim Booth to table in parliament contained nothing that could have hurt Steve. It only became damaging to him when he said that the document did not exist. And he said that contrary to the Premier’s Office’s instructions.

wanna do something for tassie

restart building the gordon-below-franklin hydro scheme with masses of cheap ,green, renewable power & lots of blue colar jobs for tasmanians ( e.g.. former loggers & other forestry workers).

#16 Wow! Talk about blame the whistleblower! Poor poor Tassie when some voters feel the only choice they have is between a proven lie and an unproven one.

re 17, you say: “Green was actually a far better representative and Minister than Steve Kons. He was capable of getting things done, as his campaign slogan suggested.”

My expereience of the man is quite the contrary. A friends daughter was sexually assaulted .... It took some time for this to come to her mothers attention and the police were displaying an inexplicable reluctance to interview the alleged perpetrator. When the childs father attended the police station to inquire as to the reason the alleged perp was not being interviewed he was spoken to by a policeman whose response included the phrase “so you are not going to let this drop, are you”.

I arranged a meeting between the childs mother and Bryan Green, our elected representative, at which we were told “Bryan will get right on it”, 2 weeks later, no action, and Bryan’s secretary told me again that Bryan would “get right on to it”.

Some weeks after that in the middle of a week highlighting child sexual assault, and in the knowledge that nothing had happened I rang Bryan Green’s secretary and suggested none too kindly that her minister had better get right on it by the end of the week or I would give Dot Boxhall a call, alert the media, and send her ministers career into the sewer. Bryan got right on to it all right. Apparently the alleged perp had form in NSW for pedophilia.

If I have to ask my elected representative 3 times before he gets off his arse to look after a 10 year old sexual assault victim he is, in my view, a useless waste of space and nothing in his conduct since has altered that view. I am understating my position by a considerable margin.

Once should have done the trick.

mike seabrook 18. Let’s bite the bullet and put a road tunnel under Bass Strait? Look at Google Maps how the islands are lined-up from Wilsons Promitory to Flinders Island? You use big pipes on the sea floor and pump the sea water out like they did with the Sydney Harbour Tunnel. Maybe you could put a train line into it as well. More electricity is not really needed. Cheaper electricity is needed.

#21

and no doubt you are in favour of wind & solar power, at much higher costs than hydro, & whacking up the power bills of the tassie battlers.

you misrepresent me - be clear - I am emphatically opposed to any looting of the tassie treasury for useless schemes which will never achieve a payable return on investment.

The gordon-below franklin is an economically viable scheme - when it was canned by the feds after construction had been commenced tassie was compensated by more than $500million dollars

- which raises the question
- did Canberra believe it was an economic scheme requiring compensation - or -
did then Robin Greys Tassie Lib government dupe all the ministers in Hawkes ministry.

#17 Nigel thank you for your reply. You state “as a general rule I find that politicians are better than the people they represent”
My god what an inflammatory statement, if they cant treat and talk to you as an equal then they should not be representing us!
Yes we all have our limitations, Mr Green in particular (TCC)...
Now all Green can do at forestry, farming and mining meetings when asked about the Greens in government, Green tells a bullshit story how the government is working well with them as partners!
Green only inflames these groups as soon as the Greens are mentioned.
Time for Braddon to wake up, after the weekend Tarkine Rally I think that they finally have. Bring on March 2014.

#22 No compensation was paid for loss of several other viable hydro projects which, collectively, are significantly larger than the Gordon-below Franklin itself.

The real issues related to the events of 30 years ago aren’t loss of a dam itself but in the consequent loss of overall, and in some cases individual, industrial scale. The shipping problems we have today (as one example) stem directly from that.

A large chunk of the transmission (as distinct from distribution) expenditure is related to it also and is a consequence of where this scheme would have connected to the system (that is, effectively at Glenorchy (Hobart)) rather than where the alternate schemes actually connect (effectively at the other end of the transmission system at Farrell).

For practical purposes the effects are largely irreversible now so there’s not much point debating it these days. It would only be of real relevance to the state’s broader circumstances if both of the following happened (1) Basslink became technically unviable to continue operating and (2) the overall economic climate were conducive to the establishment of manufacturing industries in Australia. Neither of those apply today.

The scheme itself could still be viable under lesser circumstances, but without the broader economic implications. Those circumstances are essentially (1) carbon tax is retained and (2) stagnant economic conditions with sustained low interest rates.

So the dam itself is closer to outright economic profitability now than it’s ever been but, somewhat ironically, it’s of less benefit in a broader sense.

#24 shaun

would you see sustained low interest rates condition as being facilitated by 30 year government bonds if & when they become a reality.

if political & economic business environment is not conducive for manufacturing - Tasmania specifically & Australia as we know it is done for.

- expect that Tassie & Australia will have to experience a long duration recession, before the voters come to their senses ( when the $aud will be significantly devalued) before this “favourable” business environment comes about.

- capital strikes ( by those realists who refuse to invest without an appropriate risk adjusted expected return & who transfer their wealth & possibly their main residences elsewhere) may speed up the process somewhat.

How would you rank the other viable hydro projects ( I presume you meant 30 years ago when the feds strangled the Tassie economy).

#25 The operation of the National Electricity Market (NEM) makes statements about the useful capacity of the Tasmanian power system somewhat complicated, but…..

In rough terms, we could build another 2 zinc smelters identical to the one at Lutana and run them using electricity we already have available. And we could do so without a major change in the market price.

If you take a pure engineering view (ignoring cost) then the supply capacity is even higher.

This doesn’t mean we have “excess power” as such, since much of the supply capacity arises from imports.

In Layman’s terms, here’s where “cheap” power comes from:

Hydro = 80%
Wind (upon completion of Musselroe) = 6%
Combined cycle gas = 15%
Net imports = 24%
TOTAL = 124%

So at about current prices, we have 24% more power available than we actually use. That’s assuming the past decade’s (relatively low) hydro inflows continue (that is, that there has been a permanent reduction in rainfall).

Not mentioned here is the medium cost import capacity, the open cycle gas turbines (which in practice sit there doing nothing) and the Bell Bay steam units (which are literally disconnected from the system and have been since 2009). Collectively they amount to about 35% of present consumption.

So it seems reasonably safe to say that the *physical* supply of electricity is unlikely to be a constraint to any development proposal in Tasmania. If someone wants to build another zinc works then the power to run it is already there (apart from a line to the site etc). Only the permanent loss of some existing supply source or the construction of multiple new large factories would create a need for additional electricity supply.

The economic benefits (or otherwise) of any new power scheme (of whatever type) are thus limited to that of power production itself. It is not a case that building a power station then facilitates building a smelter or some other factory - we already have power available if someone wants it.

Nor is it a case that building a new scheme would reduce prices. Due to the operation of the NEM, there would be a slight drop (few % at the wholesale level) in prices but that’s it. All that ends up happening is a shift in the import / export balance and perhaps a bit less generation from gas at Tamar Valley.

In other words, building a new power scheme simply displaces production from some other source which then sits idle. In the absence of a large increase in load, it makes little difference to the physical supply or price of electricity to Tasmanian consumers.

So the economic merits of the Gordon-below Franklin or any other scheme are limited to that of producing electricity and selling it, plus any side effects (eg tourism). It won’t bring about the construction of new factories etc.

30 years ago that was very different since physical lack of power was indeed a constraint on Tasmanian industry and that was the main argument in favour of more dams. It was thus quite true to say that not building more power supply subsequently prevented the expansion and/or ongoing operation at economic scale of various industries in the state.

In more recent times however the construction of Basslink and gas-fired generation has produced a physical supply capacity which substantially exceeds actual demand, thus ending the physical supply constraint (to the point that most of the gas-fired generation sits idle).

Building new dams instead of Basslink or Tamar Valley was a technically viable option. But the only reason to do it now, after Basslink and Tamar Valley have already been built, is if such a dam makes sense in its’ own right - it’s only going to displace generation from other existing power stations rather than add to it as such.

The costs of Basslink and Tamar Valley have already been incurred and can’t be avoided now whether actually used or not. Since they are relatively cheap to actually supply power, after the fixed costs are considered unavoidable, there’s not a lot of point in building some other power source in order to avoid using the ones we already have. Reducing CO2 emissions is really the only logical reason you’d consider it under present financial circumstances.

So far as possible new hydro schemes are concerned, here are the most significant possibilities grouped according to output (Large, Medium, Small, Minor).

Numbering indicates approximate order in terms of overall engineering / technical / economic viability. 

Large capacity:
1. Gordon-below Franklin
2. Franklin and King

Medium capacity:
3. Huon
4. Upper Franklin
5. Upper Gordon
6. Davey
7. Albert Rapids (this one is technically problematic to build)
8. Jane
9. Upper Arthur
10. Middle Arthur
11. Lower Arthur
12. Que
16. Wilson-Huskisson
17. Mersey Lakes

Small capacity:
13. Donaldson
14. Whyte
15. Savage
18. Upper Meander
19. Judbury
24. Upper Nive
25. Traveller’s Rest

Minor capacity:
20. Lake Dixon
21. Lake Spicer
22. Lake Beatrice
23. Derwent Bridge