Mr Woodward’s general tenor – that the ‘public’ and journalists are misinformed is emblematic that Gunns and its advisers are suffering the cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias that they project on to their opponents and that they still have no clue how to win a public relations debate. Irrespective of ‘truth’, at this stage in the debate Gunns should be signalling that it has: taken onboard the concerns, it thanks the public for their involvement and lets them know that they are building a better project because of it. It is likely that Gunns would have done a lot better with more involvement by Pitt and Sherry early on in the approval process. If this had been the case then perhaps RPDC Commission Chairs Julian Green, and then Christopher Wright, would not have identified the Gunns’ impact statements as manifestly inadequate. Pitt and Sherry may have been able to identify the errors by Toxicos before they became the subject of public debate. They may even have been able to advise Gunns that perhaps the Tamar Valley was not the best site for a pulp mill, all things considered.
What might have been had Gunns not been run by cowboys and old men? Read more, Comment here