Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche


Your Say (Archive 2)

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. Bob Manton

    March 29, 2005 at 4:53 am

    A giant pulp mill costing billions. Great, I am all for it. Gunns obviously do not know about peak oil.

    There will be no customers for all this pulp, ships to take it away, oil to run the ships, fuel to cart the logs so there is a good chance that all those millions in profits will be tipped into a bottomless pit with not dividends at the end of it.

    Maybe Gunns would be better to save the cost of the “new” pulp mill and hide the money under the bed for a rainy day.

  2. Dave Groves

    March 9, 2005 at 1:09 am

    Don’t be a dill, let’s have a mill.

    It is interesting to see how the “clean and green” pulp mill fiasco unfolds.

    We have watched as the propaganda machine that taxpayers have funded shifts into top gear, the pulp mill bus laden with balloons and gift packs touring the countryside telling prophetically of the glory to come.

    We have watched experts on television and read all the “good news” in the papers.

    Nothing but steam coming out of an alleged 200 foot high chimney, nothing but salty water coming out of a 4 to 5 kilometre outfall, no extra noise, no smell, no extra trees cut down, jobs for all, economy in the green, no environmental consequences and un Tasmanian if you don’t support this project.

    A pulp mill that will leave our state “pristine” has been touted by our leaders.

    Why even have processes for the mill’s approval? This creation is too good to miss out on by the sound of it.

    Let’s wack it up now before we miss out on all that steam and salty water!

    Looks like all the unemployed will now have jobs, our forests will remain “pristine” and our economy will swing up and up and up into the “green”.

    The best news, according to the paper, will be that if I support it I will become Tasmanian instead of a “latte sippin’ mainlander”. How good is that!!!

    Personally I reckon it will look like Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory with people running, skipping and tasting their products.

    There will be shiny trinkets all over and a double rainbow behind the chimney leading to a pot of gold for all to share.

    Workers will run and jump with glee and little fish will look up from the Tamar and smile with delight at their new outfall, while snow white gulls with a twinkle in their eyes will sing the praises of the new addition to their environment.

    The townsfolk will gather in the square, dress in green and dance around a tree stump to honour the mill their saviour and a public holiday will be held to celebrate the occasion.

    All around the world people will gather and say to each other “what a wonder of man this is, why didn’t we build this here 16 years ago?”

  3. pat synge

    March 8, 2005 at 2:27 am

    Keeping us in the Dark

    Greg Barns (Mercury 7/3/05) points to yet more deals behind closed doors – this time with the dealings between The Hydro and Macquarie Bank over the Basslink project. As usual Macquarie managed to pocket many millions ($40m??) of taxpayers’ money and, as usual, we are kept in the dark.

    With Basslink the State Government may continue to keep us in the dark – literally.

    Victoria and S. Australia, rather than making a real effort to minimize power consumption, will suck up Tasmanian hydro generated power during their peak demand periods. Already we have to run gas-powered generators to supply Tasmania’s current (!!) demand and Zinifex, the second largest consumer of electricity in Tasmania and an employer of 560 (+ 200 full time contractors), might well find its Tasmanian operation unprofitable if having to bid for electricity against Victorian consumers. There are huge losses of power along the way – more than 10%+ of the energy, I understand, simply gets lost in transmission. That is 10%+ as Tasmanian generated power goes to the mainland – then 10%+ as we buy power back!! Will this be enough to warm up Bass Strait?

    One thing is certain, however. Regardless of the probable lack of economic sense of the project (except for the contractors and the parasites) and regardless of the considerable environmental negatives we will be paying for Basslink for a long, long time and will almost certainly start experiencing the same power shortages that our mainland neighbours enjoy.

    Pat Synge

  4. Greg Barns

    March 7, 2005 at 7:40 pm

    My point was that the panel should include alternative points of view. Isn’t this what the defendants in the Gunns matter are claiming to represent? Are they not arguing for freedom of speech and dissenting views?

    If so, why does the panel contain speakers who are only supporting one side?

  5. Barry Brannan

    March 7, 2005 at 5:38 pm

    I’m not sure if they will be able to change the speakers for the SLAPP forum at this point, but I do hope Greg Barns will come along to challenge the panel with his point of view at the end.

    It will make for a most interesting evening.

  6. Pat Hess

    March 7, 2005 at 5:02 pm

    Why don’t you go along Greg, and do the honours?

    Or maybe, we know, all too well ‘the alternative point of view’ .. that’s why a writ has been SLAPPED after-all.

  7. Jason Lovell

    March 7, 2005 at 4:43 am

    To: Barry Brannan
    Re: David Bartlett

    That’s very interesting Barry. So interesting in fact that I think we should all read Mr Bartlett’s (only?) contribution to yesterday’s Clean Up Australia Day:

    “Tasmanians have been urged to defy the forecast rain and get out to do their bit on Clean Up Australia day this Sunday. Pulling on his gloves for the day, Labor Member for Denison, David Bartlett, said he looked forward to seeing as many Tasmanians as possible doing the same.

    “This year, the Clean Up Australia Day theme is Put Rubbish Away for Good,” “That’s a responsibility that starts in our homes, follows us to work and school and is with us in our recreation,” Mr Bartlett said. “Clean Up Australia Day is a great way of being involved with your local community.” “Getting out and working with your neighbours brings about a real spirit of community in your local area. “Volunteers are welcome at one of the many sites around Hobart. “Just make sure you turn up at the appointed time, wear appropriate clothing and remember to register before you start.” Locations and times where volunteers can turn up on the day include:

    Mt Stuart Provedence Valley Reserve at Clift St Entrance and Cascade Gardens 9.30 am; and
    – Cornelian Bay, Market Place Salamanca and Waterworks Valley at the Quarry 10.00 am.
    “Get out in your community and do your bit this Sunday to put Tasmania’s rubbish away for good,” Mr Bartlett said.

    NB: David will be available for comment tomorrow at the Clean Up on the Hobart Rivulet, starting 12.30 pm.”

    “Pulling on his gloves for the day,” my arse.

    It would seem that the press release regarding the clean up is more to do with creating a media opportunity for Mr Bartlett than anything else. His response when the press failed to film him speaks volumes on this point.

    I refer again to my response to Mr Bartlett’s public hand wringing over the decline of participative democracy. (Politician’s Vie With Used Car Salesmen …) The main driver of this decline, that I know of, is politicians saying one thing while blatantly doing another.

    We’re still lacking any evidence to prove that Mr Bartlett is any different …

  8. Barry Brannan

    March 6, 2005 at 3:18 pm

    Poor ol’ David Bartlett (Labor Denison MHA). It must have been tough on him to turn up to Clean Up Australia Day and walk away without a good photo opportunity.

    I watched from the sidelines as Mr Bartlett turned up at the Hobart Rivulet near the Royal Hobart Hospital. After chatting to a council worker and the ABC TV crew, he must have realised that no-one else was going to turn up and he was quickly on his way.

    I’d like to know why didn’t he stick around to pick up any rubbish though?

    Meanwhile, ABC TV found some footage for their evening news at John Turnbull Park in Lenah Valley. Thankfully Jimbo’s Magic Show had been playing for the kids and Jimbo lent a hand after his act. He roped twenty or so of the little ones and their parents into picking up rubbish. Prior to then, not a soul had turned up to clean up.

    What a fun day…

  9. Greg Barns

    March 6, 2005 at 11:17 am

    Re the SLAPP Forum – Is any speaker presenting an alternative point of view?

    A forum where everyone is madly agreeing sounds awafully authoritarian and intellectually dull.

  10. Paul de Burgh-Day

    March 6, 2005 at 9:35 am

    The Examiner ran a story on Thursday, followed by an editorial on Friday. Both are part of the rush to discredit professional people of honour and integrity who are seeking to inform the people of Tasmania.

    As we all know, it takes a lot of courage – true grit – to stand up to these bully-boy tactics. Too few are those with the courage to do it.
    Here is my letter, sent today:

    The Editor,

    I do not trust the testing results on water from rivers around Tasmania – as reported in the Examiner Thursday, and commented upon in your editorial Friday. I am aware from personal experience that there is a close relationship between DPIWE (Department of Primary Industry, Water and Environment) and the analytical laboratories at the University of Tasmania.

    As a result of my experience, I have no confidence in the integrity of testing done at the behest of the government of this state.

    When looking at the claimed results, one must ask . . .

    Q. Are the test results from an absolutely independent organisation, and conducted according to rigorous scientific guidelines?
    A.I argue that this is not the case in Tasmania, and that we can have little if any confidence in them.

    There is no doubt that it is possible for testing to be conducted in a way that will ensure a ‘clean bill of health’. On the other hand, rigorous independent testing directed to finding problems would most probably yield a different result.

    Recent peer reviewed independent scientific studies in the USA and other countries has shown that some classes of organophosphate and organochlorine (endocrine disrupting and cancer causing) chemicals have their most profound effects at homeopathic levels. These levels are so low that no testing can identify their presence. And this is using analytical equipment that is far more sensitive and precise than is available in Tasmania. Homeopathic effects were noted in the Marcus Scammell report, but were, predictably, dismissed as ‘unscientific’. Marcus Scammell is a very highly regarded scientist in NSW.

    Dr Scammell and Dr Alison Bleaney are now being subjected to all too familiar (and disgusting) vilification and attacks on their professional integrity. These methods are employed around the world by chemical corporations, biotech companies, pharmaceutical companies and others – and by government spin doctors – to silence those who seek to inform their community with information that is considered ‘inconvenient’ or ’embarrassing’. Information that might reduce profits.

    When is it going to be recognised that doctors swear a Hippocratic oath to do their utmost for the health and well-being of their patients? It is a disgrace that Dr Bleaney, who has looked after the medical needs of her patients in St Helens for some fifteen years, upholding the Hippocratic oath she swore, is being subjected to a viscous attack by those who are acting on behalf of the government and the forest and chemical industries. There are all too few doctors, scientists and other professionals with the grit and determination to do what they must in the face of this unconscionable pressure.

    Shame on the AMA, particularly here in Tasmania, for failing to stand behind Dr Bleaney.

    In your editorial, you conclude by claiming that ‘any illnesses caused by water are much more likely to be from bacteria’. Leaving aside the fact that any bacteria caused illness is generally a very quick reaction from which one recovers quickly – compared to chemically induced illness which most often follows from multiple exposures to low doses of a cocktail of chemicals over a long period of time – I am moved to ask . . .

    Would you prefer a short term belly ache? Or cancer?

    Paul de Burgh-Day

  11. Pat Hess

    March 5, 2005 at 8:00 am

    A beautiful post Dave .. that is exactly why your forests must now be left alone. They are the heart and soul of Tasmania.

    We mainlanders consider Tasmania with great affection … you have many things we do not.Your forests and steams are second to none.

    Maybe it’s time for ‘economic growth’ to take second place .. for it is affecting your heritage.

    Whenever I meet people now, and the conversation comes to Tasmania … it is always about forestry/Gunns – forest – Gunns 20 (the focus is on you people, bless you )

    I hope you are right Dave.

    The Turning Tide,



  12. Barnaby Drake

    March 5, 2005 at 7:31 am

    So it’s Official!

    Money is the be-all-and-end-all of every legal consideration.

    In an incredible ruling by the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal it was ruled that Forestry Tasmania was not responsible for the result of its actions, even though it could cause landslides in the area and even death.

    The logging of South Sisters Tier is to go ahead because their contractors could lose up to $50 000 a week if they don’t carry on with this destruction.

    The chairman has exonerated them from any subsequent claims for responsibility for their action, and has upheld that breaches of EMPAT could only be ‘by actions and not by consequences’.

    As Forestry Tasmania has approved its own act of cutting down the trees, it is therefore legal and any impact on the environment, the people of St Marys, the 56 year affect on the water supply in the area, landslides and death of the citizens is not their responsibility, only the potential loss of money.

    All of $135 000 – minus costs!

    Under this ruling, I wonder, if I were to pull a trigger of a gun, which is not an illegal act, and the bullet consequently lodged in someone’s head, would I be liable, especially if I had been paid to do it and I might lose my commission?

  13. rickpilkington

    March 5, 2005 at 6:58 am

    Isn’t he the joker who was taking Bibles into Iraq under the guise of a humanitarian aid programme.

    Billy’s boy and one of Dubya’s spiritual mentors! He has had some rather unkind things to say about Islam too from memory. It will be interesting to see which of our local pollies schmooze with him.

  14. Paul de Burgh-Day

    March 5, 2005 at 5:35 am

    Letter sent today to the editor of The Mercury, reponding to their editorial Friday 4th March.

    The Editor

    Your editorial today (Friday 4th March) “An issue best left to science” raises a fundamentally important question. Can science – or should I say scientists – be trusted?

    A profound tragedy of these times is that too much science, too many scientists, have been corrupted by their corporate and government masters. This is not unique to Tasmania – it is a global problem.

    There is today a vast amount of evidence – for those who care to see it – that science and scientists have been exploited by corporations, by regulators and by governments. Scientists who have the gall (I would call it courage) to present the scientific facts on issues unhelpful to a corporation or government are vilified. Their careers are destroyed. They are treated in the same way as whistle blowers.

    It is not possible in a brief letter to the editor to start citing countless examples to demonstrate my point. I know only too well (what can happen to) scientists, as with many other professionals.

    You live in a small community like Tasmania, you want to stay here, you want to raise your family in peace with a secure income? Then you (may be) obliged to compromise your principles.

    Few are those who will not compromise their integrity, who will stick to their principles, come what may.

    After years of studying the corruption of science in this modern era, the term ‘sound science’ has become a euphemism for ‘bought science’. The biotech industry with its genetically engineered (GM) food crops has become a well documented global example. This is a tragedy for what was (and still is for some) once a highly honorable profession. It is a tragedy too for all the people of this world.

    I regret that your editorial does absolutely nothing to deal with an undoubted problem. It serves only the interests of those who wish to see the ‘safe drinking water’ issue go away.

    It does nothing to reassure those drinking water from catchments contaminated by agricultural and forestry herbicides, fungicides and pesticides. Is this not the majority of Tasmanians?

    Tasmania – The Clean Green State? The state with the worst cancer statistics in Australia!

    Paul de Burgh-Day

  15. editor

    March 5, 2005 at 4:52 am

    Hi There,
    Ever wonder how much the cash-strapped Tasmanian churches are forking out to pay for Franklin Graham to come here?

    I hear it approaches half a million.

    They can’t afford to properly compensate victims of abuse, but how much are they paying for Franklin?

    How much does he personally get paid?


  16. Dave Groves

    March 5, 2005 at 12:23 am

    Good friends.

    Your anger at this injustice is well justified.

    Our alleged leaders talk of the value of the peoples’ forests in dollars only. While chasing the dollars they cannot see the human or spiritual value in these places. These forests and our natural places provide unmeasurable benefit to our wellbeing.

    As Tasmanians often compare this state to ‘the mainland’, let’s do that. Visitors speak of warm and friendly people here who have the time to talk, to befriend and to share. Visit Sydney and among its many man-made environments you will find people who rush around lost in the chaos. Violence is rife and fear is the common denominator.

    It may be quite simplistic of me to make such a comparison as I am sure ‘experts’ will have a more scientific tack, but this observation is personal and I know that loss of environment and the detachment from nature is a serious blow to morale and the human spirit.

    In these ‘modern’ times we as a race seem lost in the chase for ever expanding wealth that has no end and no real purpose.

    Our leaders scoff and insult. Their words are not kind and soothing, they have no compassion, self respect and no regard for nature and the boundless wealth it provides to the heart and soul of the community. They have their own selfish agenda which will ultimately be their undoing.

    The ‘everyday’ people who have the ‘David and Goliath’ fight on their hands are true leaders. You take on the purveyors of greed with a passion for what is right and true. I am in awe of you folk and wish you every strength in your quest.

    Fear not for the tide is turning.
    Best wishes,

  17. Neil Cremasco

    March 3, 2005 at 7:55 am

    Come to the SLAPP Forum (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation)

    If you are concerned by the attempts of big business to silence those speaking and acting in the public interest, then you do not want to miss this important public forum.

    When: 7.00pm Monday 21st March 2005

    Where: Stanley Burbury Theatre,
    University of Tasmania,
    Churchill Ave Sandy Bay

    Chaired by Dr Pete Hay

    Senator Bob Brown (Defendant 10 in the Gunns lawsuit against 20 conservationists)

    Professor Sharon Beder, leading author and academic, School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication at the University of Wollongong

    Author of
    . Toxic Fish and Sewer Surfing,
    . The Nature of Sustainable Development
    . Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism
    . Selling the Work Ethic: From Puritan Pulpit to Corporate PR and
    . Power Play: The Fight for Control of the World’s Electricity.

    Brian Walters SC, Co-founder of Wild magazine, President of Liberty
    Victoria and Vice President of Free Speech Victoria.

    Author of: “Slapping on the Writs: Defamation, Developers and Community Activism” on the growth of SLAPP suits in Australia, and how to overcome this threat to democracy.

    Simon Cocker representing Unions Tasmania

    To be concluded with a discussion panel.

    For further information and enquiries contact
    Bill Harvey 0428 243 964

    Don’t miss it!
    Neil Cremasco

  18. Dave Groves

    March 1, 2005 at 12:28 pm

    Bullies run rife!!!

    Today in modern schools children are shown that bad behaviour such as bullying is not acceptable in our society, but they will soon learn it is ok to be a bully once you are an adult.

    Forestry Tasmania is bullying the folk of St Marys because they can.

    They have money to burn and will try to show the community who is boss.

    They have ignored the community and their representations and are, despite huge opposition, about to destroy a magnificent eco-system.

    See http://www.southsister.org/

    The flora and fauna are helpless in the face of these bullies.

    Their only hope is a band of brave souls who have been forced into legal action to stop the injustice.

    These community people stand to lose financially if FT “wins” in court.

    FT will use its huge financial backing in an attempt to bully the community into submission and then to pulverise the South Sister.

    Please give the folk at South Sister your support.

    It may be your backyard next………………

    Dave Groves

  19. M. J. Latham

    March 1, 2005 at 3:58 am

    About Kyoto, industrial emploment law, etc;
    Federal government making decisions that may not gell with Tasmanians or in fact any of Tasmania’s local area residents (trodden under the downunder that’s downunder we don’t matter).

    Local communities must surely be free to set their own industrial employment arrangements within their own locale.

    We’ve watched the growth of corporate takeover for 35 years now. Corporations legally recognised as sovereign nations – and all that!! Somebody bat an eye-lid!!

    Blind Freddy’s starting to see possible truth; even that the 666 prophecy is coming true – a tattoo on the forehead is the only way to get your groceries in a few years.

    But no. We’re all too busy. Gotta pay for this luury and that thrill. We’ve heard that train acoming. I wonder if it’s getting closer.

    There must be some way to secure our local indo-cultural rights. Who’s good at this sort of politic? I’m happy to write for them, or paint or design a new parliament room; but I can’t do the politic.

  20. editor

    March 1, 2005 at 2:44 am


    Coupe NI114A at South Sister, St Marys, is worth about $138,000 to Forestry Tasmania as once off royalties, before it pays for its roading costs in the coupe.

    The coupe is 163ha, from which Forestry Tasmania will sell 800m3 of Category 1 sawlogs, 800m3 of Category 8 logs, and 7000 tonnes of pulpwood, in total about 9600 tonnes for $138,000, an average of about $15 per tonne.

    This return is equivalent to an annual return over a 30 year logging cycle of some $28 per ha , the price of “5 hamburgers with the lot”.

    Of course Forestry Tasmania prefers to say the coupe is worth $800,000 to their customer, being their figure for the milled and chipped wood.

    While this doesn’t say much for their customer confidentiality charter, it does say that the wood becomes worth $83 per tonne to their customer, a 480% markup on the pittance paid to Forestry Tasmania to meet direct logging, cartage and milling costs, recover a hefty slab of general overhead and make a healthy contribution to overall profitability, while Forestry Tasmania continues its crazed race to give away more hamburger coupes before it is overwhelmed by the tide of debt lapping at its coupes because of its financial incompetence, and has to yet again ask the Government for debt absolution.

    That’s what really hurts – that they would log it for hamburgers!

    David Clement
    Save Our Sisters
    St Marys

  21. Barry Brannan

    February 28, 2005 at 8:12 pm

    Multi page newspaper inserts, TV & newspaper advertisements, newsletters, websites, overseas trips to Scandinavia, environmental “guidelines”, lawsuits, a tour bus… could this be the most elaborate propaganda campaign of any Tasmanian Government?

    Paul Lennon has reached new heights of spin with the pulp mill campaign and is clearly playing to win. Having learned the lessons of the Wesley Vale pulp mill campaign, the stakes are a lot higher.

    The biggest change since the Wesley Vale is not advancements in pulp mill technology. Rather it is advancements in techniques of deception and manipulation. It is becoming clearer every day that a carefully orchestrated campaign to “sell” the pulp mill was planned from day one.

    Behind all the hype about the mill’s environmental credentials, what have we actually been offered? A mill that uses chlorine dioxide bleaching (so-called Elemental Chlorine Free – ECF) and not closed loop. The biggest lie in the campaign so far must be the selling of this technology as being world’s best environmental practice. There are a number of mills around the world based on the cleaner TCF (Totally Chlorine Free) technology and various degrees of closed-loop. We are being offered second rate technology.

    The idea that the proposed mill is “clean” and “green” is just absurd. ECF technology is so ordinary that 75% of all the world’s pulp is made with it. The world’s greenest pulp mill? No way. It nothing more than “run of the mill”.

    At the rally outside Parliament on Friday 25th February, Christine Milne said that no-one had expected that the Wesley Vale mill would have brought down the Gray government. We can only wonder if Ms Milne is right with her prediction that the Gunns mill will bring down Lennon.

    Barry Brannan
    Sandy Bay

  22. editor

    February 28, 2005 at 5:08 am

    Gunns Ltd v. Kingborough Council Take 2, Round 2.

    Some of you will remember that almost three years ago logging of a coupe at Middleton was not done exactly by the book, and as a result Gunns Ltd and some residents as well as the Kingborough Council ended up on opposite sides in the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal.

    That little caper ended as something of a stalemate.

    Late last year, Gunns Ltd applied to the Kingborough Council for a Development Application to log another coupe in the hills behind
    Middleton. Twenty seven people lodged representations with the council, opposing the DA.

    At the council meeting at which it was considered, the council voted against the recommendations of its planning officer and refused the application. Gunns appealed the decision and as a consequence, they, and others joining the appeal were in a Tribunal hearing today (23 February 2005) before Registrar Jarrod Bryan, for directions.

    Mr Armstrong is appearing for the council and Mr McElwaine (who appeared for Gunns on the last occasion) is acting for them again.

    Joining the action are a number of others with an interest in the matter.

    There was discussion between Mr Armstrong and Mr McElwaine (on speaker phone from Launceston) about the grounds on which the DA was refused, with Mr McElwaine firmly putting the view that discussion on the planning scheme should be excluded.

    Mr Armstrong, on the other hand said that his instructions were to argue on wider considerations.

    Since the council planning officer’s advice was refused, and he needs outside advice as a consequence, Mr Armstrong requested 21 days to prepare a list of issues, a request Mr McElwaine said was outrageous. Mr Bryan granted 14 days.

    On the matter of timing of the hearing, Mr McElwaine said that he expected that a week would be required, and that because extra
    expenses are likely, Gunns Ltd would seek costs in the event of a win.

    On the question of whether mediation was possible, only Mr McElwaine commented, saying it would be pointless.

    The directions hearing concluded with Mr Bryan setting aside five days from 30 May 2005 for the hearing. A panel will be selected once each of the parties has listed the issues to be brought forward. As a planner commented to me after today’s hearing, it is a great pity that settlement of planning issues had become so legalistic. As a result, good planning sometimes became collateral damage.

    The Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 will be the reference for this hearing.

    Some might call me naive, but to me, Schedule 1 Part 1 of LUPAA is clear. It reads as follows:

    Schedule 1 – Objectives. Sections 5,8,20,32,44,51, and 72

    PART 1 Objectives of the Resource Management and Planning System of Tasmania

    1. The objectives of the resource management and planning system of Tasmania are

    (a) to promote the sustainable development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity; and

    (b) to provide for the fair, orderly and sustainable use and development of air, land and water; and

    (c) to encourage public involvement in resource management and planning; and

    (d) to facilitate economic development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c); and

    (e) to promote the sharing of responsibility for resource management and planning between the different spheres of Government,
    the community and industry in the State.

    2. In clause 1(a), “sustainable development” means managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while –

    (a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

    (b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and

    (c) avoiding, remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

    Those words seem clear enough to me. How many interpretations of those objectives can there be?

    Answer: as many as the number of lawyers in Tasmania.

    John Maddock
    Citizen Reporter

    Earlier: http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/weblog/comments/council-blocks-logging-is-this-a-tasmanian-first/

  23. Pat Hess

    February 28, 2005 at 4:44 am

    Unfortunately it’s FT and Gunns writing the programme! .. time to re-write it I’d say.

    I am starting to read the Constitution; “The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Government” If the Gunns 20 want some enlightenment then this is a must-read for them. The Constitution is about the Power of the People, to be upheld over everything else.

    I’d say not read by Governments, Councils, lawyers and such … and not read by us. Because we have apparantly disempowered ourselves, by our ignorance (of the contents of the Constitution).

    http://www.upmart.com is a website, dedicated to the information in the Constitution. I am told, Malcolm McClure is contacted often, by barristers and lawyers, who are now having results in the Courtroom, by knowing the Constitutional Rights of every Australian.

    I am also told, that governmental bodies, councils/enforcement etc … hate him. This hatred is indeed a key … hatred is fear.

    Namaste dudes,

  24. Dave Groves

    February 27, 2005 at 10:22 am

    The numbers racket.

    Just reading last week’s Examiner (Sun 20 Feb) and ruffling through some figures that caught my eye. The marvellous article showing the plight of the folk, flora and fauna of the soon to be logged South Sister area quoted that 800 cubic metres of sawlogs and 7000 tonnes of pulp wood will be obtained from this exercise for a total income of $800,000.

    John Gay from Gunns Ltd says that ‘green chips’ are worth $80 per tonne, making South Sister coupe worth $560,000 in woodchips and $240 000 in sawlogs.

    70 percent of this coup’s income will be derived from woodchips.

    $300 per tonne for sawlogs, $80 per metre from woodchips-something doesn’t add up.

    All this for a community that clearly does not want this area logged.

    Come on FT get with the program!!

    Dave Groves

Leave a Reply

To Top