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

Politics

Bartlett’s planning plan

Sue Neales Mercury
TASMANIA’S planning system is to be revolutionised with the Premier to announce massive changes to laws and structures. The state’s two main planning bodies, the Resource Planning and Development Commission and the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal, will be merged. Mr Bartlett will designate major projects, especially those involving water pipelines, as “projects of regional significance” — bypassing multiple council planning approvals. The reforms are central to the Premier’s State of the State address to be delivered in Parliament on Thursday. Mr Bartlett’s speech will focus on infrastructure spending plans for: • Low-emission community transport options for small regional communities; • Rolling out wireless broadband (WiFi) connections; and • Shifting Tasmania’s West Coast water to the Midlands and East Coast to address Australia’s food security crisis. But the future of plans for a new Royal Hobart Hospital will not be clarified — that will have to wait another eight weeks, after the business case for a new waterfront hospital serving the entire state is considered by Cabinet. Read more here
What the Greens say …
What Environment Tasmania says, Thursday …

TASMANIA’S PLANNING SYSTEM ON BARTLETT’S FAST-TRACK
Quick and Dirty Planning Decisions no Substitute for Good Community Outcomes
Nick McKim MP
Greens Leader
Tuesday, 24 February 2009

www.tas.greens.org.au
The Tasmanian Greens today accused Premier David Bartlett of preparing to deny Tasmanian people the opportunity to participate fully in planning decisions by radically restructuring Tasmania’s planning system.

Greens Leader Nick McKim MP said that Mr Bartlett’s belief that Tasmania’s planning system is a ‘blocker’ to development shows that he believes that fast-tracking assessment processes is more important than public participation.

“Here we go again. Obviously Mr Bartlett learned nothing from the community backlash when people were sidelined from the pulp mill assessment by the fast–track process he personally supported,” Mr McKim said.

“Mr Bartlett clearly favours a fast-track process that delivers quick and dirty decisions over a genuine engagement with people. He is placing the profit motive above community outcomes.”

“Unless communities are given the opportunity to genuinely participate in planning decisions we see outcomes like the pulp mill, where Tasmania remains divided and no social license exists.”

“This is yet another divisive proposal from this Premier, who seems to enjoy setting Tasmanians against each other.”

Mr McKim said that the primary aim of Tasmania’s planning system should be to provide good outcomes for Tasmania, not just making quick decisions because that’s what profit driven developers want.

MEDIA RELEASE – 26/2/2009

FEAR THAT PLANNING CHANGES WILL CUT ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC, OUT OF PLANNING SYSTEM

Tasmania’s peak environment body today expressed grave concerns over speculated changes to Tasmania’s planning system. Environment Tasmania (E.T) has asked the government to rule out cutting ordinary Tasmanians and small business out of the planning system and the fundamental democratic right of third-party appeals. E.T is also concerned that the changes are a smokescreen for removing independent scrutiny and environmental protection from planning and development in Tasmania.

“A stable investment environment is created by an open, independent, fair and transparent planning system. When you provide for proper scrutiny, allow for genuine public input and expert input into planning and development decisions, then you create an environment where everyone is treated in a fair way and concerns are heard and addressed,” said Dr Phill Pullinger, Director of Environment Tasmania.

“The debacle over the pulp mill fast-track process should have given the Tasmanian government a crystal clear view that shoddy deals for developers creates the exact opposite of a stable planning and investment environment, and that Tasmanians want an independent umpire and a fair and transparent planning system,”

“Instead of giving Tasmanians a fair go and a genuine say about their local community and environment – the government appears to be on a pathway of creating an ‘in-house’ planning system that will be a recipe for more corruption, cronyism and controversy,” he concluded.

Environment Tasmania is Tasmania’s conservation council, an umbrella body that represents 25 Tasmanian conservation groups, with collective representation of over 6000 Tasmanians.

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

36 Comments

  1. pilko

    March 9, 2009 at 11:30 am

    It was the persistent protests and the targetted campaign of a few so called small ‘interest’ groups and think tanks (local tasmanian citizens who vote!) that helped to bring down the former Premier Lennon. The so called masses (83%) or majority agreed with them and so did his party. The same can be said of the pulp mill. The few drove the campaign, the majority sided with them.
    And so it goes all of over the world, throughout history revolutions and social change(look at the Russian revolution).
    Does the Liberal and Labor party not constitute but a small percentage of the population? An incredibly well funded minority group. Wouldnt the wilderness society and Greenpeace have larger membership of these organisations?
    Tomas’s view of how democracy works is a very dangerous one and if followed to its logical conclusion the masses would vote at elections once every four-six years and inbetween be censored and forced to accept the will of government – therefore resulting in a dictatorship.
    Here endeth the lesson

  2. Charles and Claire Gilmour

    March 9, 2009 at 3:13 am

    It’s To-mass (the unenlightened public)not tomas, Dr Raverty, let’s get it right! he’s the sexiest tassie nymph known to man or woman, don’t you know that? Of course he’s 10 years behind the times, no where near up with and in tune with the modern Tassie Times! Scientific verification is a dream not a reality for the likes of the, to-masses of the world.

  3. Tomas

    March 9, 2009 at 1:06 am

    I appreciate Warwick’s point of view on the role of the minority. And yes, he is right in that a minority, or even one person, can be a catalyst for change. Similarly, voting in a government with a clear majority can also be a mandate for change. But is you are a minority concern, then you would have to ensure that you were either morally and/or scientifically right. Your opposition to Gunns and the mill seems to stem from your own experience, interactions with Gunns and your subsequent opinion of the company, as well as your good opinion of the residents who dont want a mill in their neighbourhood. All of this is valid and you are very free to protest about what you like. The mill issue is probably moot as the times do not suit its progress. Will a mill be built in the future, well I don’t really care as I am not sure there is much that can stop Launceston following a number of other northern towns in becoming substantially an old persons home.

    However, the broader issue that I have truck with is the continued campaign by a minor section of Tasmania to dictate future direction and progress against the majority wish of the people. The majority still support either Liberal and Labor (ostensibly the same thing nowadays at a State level) and wish to see them working through decisions in an orderly way that by and large seeks to balance a range of views. That has been the great success of Western-style democracies. But we also have this other group, that pop up all too frequently on TT, that have a different agenda which can be broadly termed anti-development, anti-government and anti-globalization, who see Tasmania as THEIRS, and are so affronted when the masses do not go along with them. You saw this at work Warwick on the RPDC at the systematic attack on the process, seeking to bog it down with concerns about this that and the other in order to break the proposal. You see it at work in the plethora of interest groups and home-grown think tanks (not a lot of think in them). I wouldn’t say that it is very coordinated, but represents collective middle class leftie angst that the world presents them with disappointments of various kinds. And the pain of their irrelevance can only be assuaged by rattling on about the same things time and time again, while the policy-makers and the politicians switch off because it would be just too annoying to have to deal with the inwardly focussed.

    Even this post is somewhat repetitive, as I have said before that the goal to relevancy is to engage with an issue with the vision that sees it from the variety of potential perspectives, not just through the filter of prejudicial thought processes. I am not saying people have to become engaged with the political process to make change (Peter Garrett is a good example of this), but then don’t be surprised if the change that you are seeking does not happen – or at least, does not begin to happen.

  4. William Boeder

    March 8, 2009 at 10:56 pm

    We whom choose to comment and deliver our opinions on the shortcomings and failures with and by our State government, (and in our so doing disapprove of all that is false, misleading and of no beneficial substance to the State of Tas’,) do feel inclined to write of our concerns rather than blindly follow the blather of our inept politicians.
    All the critics of free speech and expression whom criticise the contributors opinions to this site, really do not have to waste their time here, they can leave us alone and simply go and back-slap their political heroes, instead of childishly provoking the issues they know nothing of.
    Perhaps there are other blog-sites more suited to their kind of negative botherations.

  5. Dr Warwick Raverty

    March 8, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    Continued from previous post.
    As for Tomas’ comments, ‘Direct complain [sic] and protest is often the tactic of the minority who wish to see their views imposed on the majority. I find it sad when these squeaky minority-view wheels do get the grease.’, I feel sad that intelligent people like Tomas dismiss this ‘tactic’ as somehow intrinsically wrong. If squeaky minority-view wheels did not persist in seeking to have their views imposed on the majority, we would still have legalised slavery, no votes for women, no hygiene in hospitals, legal smoking in workplaces and restaurants, motor vehicle driving without seatbelts and a thousands of other modern advantages that were only introduced because of persistent minority complaint. It is part of the human condition Tomas, that the majority are usually ‘wrong’. This is nowhere more evident in the current Western response to climate change and one notable commentator (whose name I forget) has questioned whether or not our current political systems are equipped to meet the challenge. So while the very obvious and tangible threats posed by Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and General Tojo were adequately met by the temporary suspension of democratic debate in favour of a well-informed ‘minority’ (and the sacrifice of millions of lives) between 1940 and 1945, the arguably greater, but less tangible threats of climate change and debauchery of the Tasmanian body politic must be tackled by silence from the minority of people who have genuine concern for their environment and their governance according to your reasoning. Tomas’ own family heritage should tell him that Benito Mussolini came to government in 1922 because of support from ‘ the military, the business class, and the liberal right-wing.’ Certain resonances with Tasmania in April 2006 are apparent here. In April 1924, Mussolini’s political coalition gained 64 percent of the popular vote. Was the majority ‘right’ on that occasion too?

    And as for the ‘yada yada yada’ to which Tomas objects, his political naivety is exceeded only by his apparent ignorance of human psychology. In the great majority of cases where people are living under serious stress because of circumstances over which they feel they have no control, such as the now 4-year long uncertainty over the pulp mill, expressing their frustrations and anger in writing is a very effective and helpful way of alleviating stress – EVEN IF IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE CIRCUMSTANCES. In this way Lindsay Tuffin and TT provide a very valuable public health service, in addition to their manifest benefits to public debate in Tasmania.

    In contrast, Tomas’ serial complaints on these pages remind me very much of the urban myth about the lady who complained to the police about her male neighbour walking naked around his bedroom without the curtains drawn. When the police investigated they found that the lady in question had to carry a large step ladder into her kitchen and climb to the top of it in order to see through her neighbour’s bedroom window.

  6. Dr Warwick Raverty

    March 8, 2009 at 9:49 pm

    Thank you for your condescending comments Tomas. I am glad that you can see ‘some sense’ in what I say. I can see some sense in what you say – but not very much. Although the support for non Lib-Lab parties in Tasmania seldom gets above 20% as you say, I suggest that this is because the proportion of people in most western societies who think at all deeply about the political system under which they live seldom gets above 20%. As evidence of this claim I refer you to the page of any ‘Green Guide’ from the Melbourne ‘Age’ newspaper on which are published the Melbourne and National ‘Top 10’ TV ratings are published. The banal drivel with which most TV viewers (and therefore most Australians) fill their minds provides ample explanation for why non-Lib-Lab parties receive such low support. If any further explanation is necessary, it can be found in the pages of Noam Chomsky’s book, ‘Manufacturing Consent’. That is not to belittle the efforts of your so-called ‘minority’, ‘inner city lazy left’, or ‘NIMBY cousins’ who want to see their environment and government improve. I became involved publicly in Tasmanian affairs in March 2007 simply because I met many of the people that you pejoratively label NIMBY cousins and came to see that their objection to having Gunns put the southern hemisphere’s largest kraft pulp mill in the middle of a prime residential and tourist area was entirely justified. The fact that the concerns of the great majority of these people is NOT mere selfish NIMBYism is attested by the well-documented poll conducted throughout Northern Tasmania (not just the Tamar Valley!) that found that over 70% of Northern Tasmanians would be happy to have a kraft mill constructed at Hampshire as long as it was based 100% on plantation wood (of which there is ample in Victoria and SA) and totally chlorine free. While I, as a scientist, have no quibbles over whether the bleaching process uses chlorine dioxide, or ozone, I fully respect the right of non-technical people to be suspicious of elementally chlorine free effluents and to insist on an alternative, particularly in the hands of a patently dishonest and inept company like Gunns. As I have said publicly many times before, I have become so appalled by the misleading statements made by senior Gunns staff and by their actions in the last 2 years that I now would not support Gunns building a kraft pulp mill (TCF or not) anywhere on planet earth. That is not a view that I held while I served on the RPDC Assessment Panel, but one that I have come to based on the evidence that I have assembled in the intervening 2 years since Paul Lennon forced my resignation from the RPDC Panel.

    Since 20th December 2006, my concerns about Tasmanian affairs has broadened considerably from the relatively minor issue of the siting of a large pulp mill to the much more serious issue of the debauchery of public administration and government in Tasmania. And lest you attempt to dismiss these concerns with your platitudinous, ‘And this is where the Labor and Liberals do work – as talentless as they often seem, they do represent a substantial group of people who work hard at the art of politics in the community to achieve the good will and consensus to continue to get elected, and therefore to have their platforms supported.’, I would point out that over here on The Big Island, in Victoria, a substantial group of Liberal and Labor people also work, BUT there is no ‘Victorian Times’, no ‘NSW Times’, no ‘Queensland Times’, no ‘yada, yada, yada’ as you dismiss these legitimate protests. Why is it so? It is so Tomas because mainland state politics do (largely) represent the legitimate interests of the electorate (admittedly with some recent exceptions in NSW!) to the general satisfaction of the electorate, whereas Tasmanian politics are POXED – to put it bluntly! The announcement by Michael Aird concerning the future of the RPDC is just one further piece of evidence of the malaise.
    Continued in next post……..

  7. don davey

    March 8, 2009 at 12:43 pm

    You really are a lame arse Tomas, either you receive recompense from a Gov’t source or you just take glee in stirring the pot, as does another individual this place ,and if it be he latter why not add to the debate instead of just being a tiresome spoiler ? it’s not as though you don’t have a modicum of smarts !
    d.d.

  8. pilko

    March 8, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    Tomas thank you for your incredible wisdom, knowledge, experience, and intuitive understanding of party politics. You are a true teacher of men (and women of course)
    Now I understand.

  9. don davey

    March 8, 2009 at 3:38 am

    (19)

    Well Linda , I too like to know who I am addressing, however you are not being abusive under you nom de plume and I have no problem with all you have said , and totally agree , and it,s all been said before ! and as yet we have no been able to find a way to combat these problems.

    d.d.

  10. Tomas

    March 7, 2009 at 11:41 pm

    Warwick – there is some sense in what you say. But we often hear on TT how the masses are sick of labor and liberal yada yada yada, and yet the majority of the electorate supports these. There is the third party to rally behind, but it’s support rarely gets above 20%. So perhaps the significant minority view mirrored on TT should keep it down a bit, as they clearly do not represent the will of the masses. I believe though there is a tasty rarebit of a psychological truth as applied to the professional protesting poster, which is the smug belief that they know better than the majority – and this has characterised a significant segment of the inner city lazy left as well as their 5 hectare ‘get away from it all’ NIMBY cousins. And I do emphasize the pejorative ‘lazy’, as if if you really wanted things to change, well then I expect you would be forced to work for it, which goes beyond a bit of prose here and there. And this is where the Labor and Liberals do work – as talentless as they often seem, they do represent a substantial group of people who work hard at the art of politics in the community to achieve the good will and consensus to continue to get elected, and therefore to have their platforms supported. Direct complain and protest is often the tactic of the minority who wish to see their views imposed on the majority. I find it sad when these squeaky minority-view wheels do get the grease.

  11. Dr Warwick Raverty

    March 6, 2009 at 8:32 pm

    Well Tomas,
    The proof of the pudding is in the eating, isn’t it:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/07/2510048.htm
    Your advice to ‘Join a party, even start a party, but spare the thinking world insights into your festering chronic complainant mentality.’ is naive in the extreme. The Tasmanian electorate has but it’s trust in these Lab-Lib bastards to do a job on their behalf and that trust is betrayed on an almost daily basis. Even the most politically naive person would know that joining a party, or starting one is just another way of neutralising the legitimate anger of those who have been betrayed. Our democratic system is set up, by the sir Humphrey Applebys and Hollowmen of this world to bury 99.999% of the people who attempt to do so. What a waste it would be! Direct protest and complaint – over and over again, until you Tomas are worn down into a pile of festering frustration – is the correct course of action in my view.

  12. Gerry Mander

    February 28, 2009 at 12:18 am

    I have that feeling in my bones that our Mr Bartlett has swapped his ‘Line in the sand’ for a ‘Dime in the hand’!

  13. Charles and Claire Gilmour

    February 27, 2009 at 9:22 pm

    Fairdinkum tomas, we have invited the ploticians heaps of times to engage. The last time we actually had a polly here he told us he would DENY what FT had said to us – Basically he’d lie. Now who would that have been? Oh that’s right – he who lost his memory, he lost his mind, he who who wants to sacrifice the devil so he can live on taxpayers dimes!! How much closer does one get to the bone? Oh that’s right – link exaggerator (examiner) family members, the gunna pollies, the gunna team and yep, it doesn’t matter how much truth the rest us show, it’s a greedy game for land and public money control. SOMEONE IS at fault for that. WE’d suggest foolish publicly unengaged Premiers!!

  14. Tomas

    February 27, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    The problem Mr Boeder is that there is no ‘discussion’ here – just endless complaining from the ‘we know best’ crowd. When, indeed, there is no consideration of what is proposed, no invitation to those who might know what will be in there to present something on the web site. Instead, we have the usual, and increasingly fetid, frenzy of fear-mongering. I note the seemingly endless references to monoculture on TT, the problem we have on the web site is a monoculture of thought, punctuated briefly by a contributor or two who wants to take a longer perspective on the issue du jour. We have had discussions on relevancy of TT from time to time – I have no doubt that it is relevant to somewhere around 20-25% of the population who share a broadly similar set of views. No problem have I with like-minded people, but there is a monotony of opinion that feeds endlessly on itself. I now come back to TT every now and again, not to learn something new, but to feed my astonishment about how close-minded and insular people can be.

  15. salamander

    February 27, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    I do so agree with you Tomas, it is not always someone else’s fault! The point of much of the discussion on this blog is that it is often our own fault – for not caring enough to act, or not having the perception necessary. You however, see nothing wrong – which is the bigger crime?

  16. Rocky

    February 27, 2009 at 2:21 pm

    20# Well tomas it is obvious what the subject of your “festering chronic complainant mentality” is!

  17. William Boeder

    February 27, 2009 at 1:07 am

    Well tomas, why do you choose to shoot the messenger, the comments by Linda the nurse are worth you re-reading and having a good think about the insanities that are rampant in the worlds timber industries.

  18. tomas

    February 26, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    Thought I’d have another look in and we still have parades of the ‘we’ll be rooned’ crowd at their naysaying best. The extraordinary thing on such blogs is the self-assured smuggery on show. I metaphorically shake my head and have to wonder what has prompted such negativity? A simple solution for all of your self-perpetuating inward group-think might be to get involved in the political and decision-making process. Join a party, even start a party, but spare the thinking world insights into your festering chronic complainant mentality. It is not always someone else’s fault.

  19. John hayward

    February 25, 2009 at 11:43 pm

    Free market capitalism has clearly failed. Though he hardly fits the conventional image of a visionary, we should seriously consider giving Mr Bartlett’s recent ideas for an open kleptocracy a fair shake.

    John Hayward

  20. Mark

    February 25, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    The most important failure here is not just political, but also commercial. We could have had, by now, one or more commercially viable and large industries operating here to downstream-process an appropriate portion of the right trees in an environmentally acceptable way. Instead we have an appalling proposed pulpmill which may never happen, which in the process has made most members of parliament look corrupt, and which has come close (so far) to bankrupting Gunns. It’s just incompetent, and it all happened because politicians tried to help their mates get one particlar project up without putting in the effort to find the best projects. Paul Lennon as Premier was a total disaster, and he isn’t the only one. Lazy and incompetent sods the lot of them.

  21. Eagle eye

    February 25, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    History gives a very good guide to where it will stop, Ben. It gives two options, either the sheeple grow teeth and bite back, or they spend a very long time on their knees, enslaved by those who, because they are basically pshycopaths, feel the need to control everything.

    The trick is leading the sheeple to a place, from which they can clearly see these two options laid out. Perhaps we are getting there with the current cluster fuck that is the economy causing everyone to start exercising their imagination.

    Stupidity is repeating the old actions and expecting a new result.

  22. tOne

    February 25, 2009 at 2:00 pm

    The point of most laws made by humans is to protect humans from themselves and each other. If you take the BIG picture into account – over consumption of the worlds resources, climate change, pollution and general destruction of environments on our planet, then many very short sighted laws which only serve to protect the short term greed of a few men are wrong, and needs to be challenged, whether it be whales or forest diversity, a water consuming polluting pulp mill, or inappropriate canal developments. Our government’s are supposed to be our elected REPRESENTATIVES. When Mr Bartlet says: “And I believe there are four things the state Government was put on earth to do; health, education, police and infrastructure” he fails us in the biggest way possible, as a supposed caretaker of the planet for not only us, but future generations.

    Tony Bacon
    SOUTH HOBART.

  23. Ben Quin

    February 25, 2009 at 2:25 am

    It is difficult to articulate the depth of my concern ahead of Premier Bartlett’s State of the State address.

    State Parliament was prostituted through the pulp mill assessment act. Having been so, those who controlled our “representative” chambers through that disgraceful period must either justify their actions, or admit to prostitution.

    Bartlett is now exposed as a bald revisionist. What can Hodgman do apart from being wedged? Recruit Mr. Fergusson as an eager, future Minister for Revisionism?

    If we are facing economic catastrophe today, and if Bartlett’s justification for his Conjurer’s pipelines (that the Midlands is a desert) is true, then it is beyond argument that our existing system of representation, led by our elected prostitutes, has comprehensively failed us. We are not blameless. We have delivered ourselves to this point by our collective failure to participate intelligently in public life.

    So what is the solution? Whack on another dose of the low-brow toady treatment according to Bartlett. Amend the planning laws and distract the masses with “food-basket of Australia” bullshit. More money for thin jam will surely solve the problem – just ask Bryan.

    Where will this stop?

    Ben Quin

  24. (Dr) Warwick Raverty

    February 25, 2009 at 1:30 am

    As I said publicly shortly after Thuggo Lennon’s incompetence/ malfeasance forced julian Green’s and my resignation from the RPDC and its Assessment Panel, in my opinion the RPDC is the finest planning authority in Australia and a model that other states could do well to replicate. Of course, being independent of political influence – at least in principle – and being inquisitorial by design, it does not sit well with the current Tasmanian political culture of spin doctoring and down right lies. In my assessment the RPDC Act was drafted by men of principle (including Julian Green) in an attempt to destroy those same spin doctors and liars. That these same people would now want to neuter the RPDC comes as no surprise to me at all. Every Tasmanian who is not in the pay of these ‘robber barons’ should oppose these changes as strongly as possible. Even Thuggo Lennon is on record as saying the RPDC allows good projects to ‘get up’ and bad projects to fail. Nothing has changed except the perception of what constitutes a ‘good project’ by the man who now occupies Thuggo’s former seat. He is about as transparent and caring as my arse.

  25. Pete Godfrey

    February 24, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    Look out for more backflips. There has to be some coming as the PAL policy will get firmly in the way of the Gunns Pipeline.
    Because they want a 30 metre easment over the pipeline route and the farmers won’t be able to use the land any more the PAL policy will come into play.
    The government have been in action running little test cases over ‘Fettering” in RMPAT and now it will come back to bite them.
    As they won’t be able to remove the agricultural land from production and the pipeline will fetter the farming activities.
    Watch out for a PAL revision 2009 that makes pipelines for Pulp Mills exempt.
    Over to you Dave

  26. William Boeder

    February 24, 2009 at 8:42 pm

    Well said Peter Henning!
    The present position of Tasmania, its state of affairs and financial shortcomings, are a direct result of the poor planning and decision making of Tasmania’s Labor Party ministers.
    It is the supposed intelligence or even intellect of these ministers, that ultimately provides the consent or non-consent to so much of what is created in Tasmania.
    With such a weak and feckless knowledge base among them, combined with the absolute lack of wisdom in this Party, we continue to see this incompetence allowed to run its course.
    The feeble attempts and ineptitudes of the Liberal Opposition Party are unable to halt the Forestry dominated ministers from sliding further downward into trashing even more of our State.

    Truth honesty and integrity are qualities unknown to this labor Party.
    Judge for yourselves the sly lies as told by:
    Lara Giddings.
    Michael Aird.
    Bryan Green.
    Steve Kons.
    Graeme Sturgess.
    David Bartlett.
    David Llewellyn.
    (This by the bye, is without that rampaging thug Paul Lennon.)
    This is the Tasmania of today with its supposed leaders of today.
    Then today, during the most difficult financial
    meltdown ever in Tasmania’s history, the above ministerial goons announce the plan to spend millions of dollars tarting up the Tasmanian Parliament House.
    Please message me through this site and lead if you can factually disprove the above?
    William Boeder.

  27. Rocky

    February 24, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    Spot on Peter, the taxpayers will end up paying for the pulp mill pipeline, there should be no doubt on this, whatsoever.

    I have been claiming exactly that for a long time now, ever since the tax payers paid for Gunns Meander dam. If anyone doubts it, just ask John Gay and other Gunns employees who have responded, when asked about water for the Mill, “We have the Meander dam.”

  28. Mike Bolan

    February 24, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    Loved the Mercpic of the Jedster staring strabismatically at his ‘state vision’ that leaves out the taxpayer.

  29. Buck and Joan Emberg

    February 24, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    If anyone doubted the need for a minority government in the next state election…should now understand the need. It is the only way we can stop these rampaging bulls of government.

    We also MUST knock off Ivan Dean as a matter of urgency!

  30. Duncan Grant

    February 24, 2009 at 11:56 am

    #6 Dave, I am deeply suspicious of leaders who have narcissistic tendencies.

  31. Dave Groves

    February 24, 2009 at 9:03 am

    Again Peter has smacked the nail fair and square.

    It is deeply saddening to see our community crumble at the hands of Bartlett, a man so bent on under doona activities with big business, a man who is keen to spend his time and public monies on propping marginalised votes with kooky schemes and half baked ideas while people wait in hospital corridors for beds and others wait for day old bread deliveries to give their children something for dinner.

    Bartlett, you are a man of little significance. You have taken your position of power and used it to continue to breathe life into the Lennon legacy.

    Meagre handouts to isolated communities are a sick and twisted means to your end and for that you should be ashamed.

    Get off your arse and be a man.

    Find your heart, your covered soul.

    See how our people, your people, survive.

    See what you have sown.

    Despite our comparative wealth in world terms, we no longer live in the lucky country.

  32. Duncan Grant

    February 24, 2009 at 8:24 am

    I suppose next Bartlett will have proposals for detention without trial to counter the terrorist threat to State security.

  33. anne

    February 23, 2009 at 11:35 pm

    Any lingering vestiges of hope David Bartlett might yet prove to be the clever, kind and caring premier he claimed he wanted to be have now been completely dissipitated.

    With every day that passes he has made it abundantly clear he cares not one jot for the people of this state. He wastes millions of taxpayers’ dollars promoting projects a majority have said they neither want or support, (new hospital, logging road, pulp mill, water pipeline, waterfront development).

    Quite clearly he’s no better than his unlamented predecessor, and the sooner Tasmanians are given the opportunity to vote out the whole wretched mob the better.

    I just hope they will also wake up to the realisation that voting Liberal will provide no better an alternative, and that the only hope this state has for any sort of future is to vote in as many Greens as possible.

  34. salamander

    February 23, 2009 at 10:03 pm

    Once again, Bartlett the democratist has his private definition of democracy. As with Hobart’s waterfront, he will decide what is good for us, and when the time is right, he will let us know his decision. No wonder they have put up that glass panel to block the public off in parliament. For OHS read Our House Stinks.

  35. Charles and Claire Gilmour

    February 23, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    Maybe Bartlett should take the rose coloured specs off and have a practical look around.

    No specifics, on how to create a pipe dream? An uphill battle no doubt! Does this mean this lot have recognised that the Great diversion Lake, is not the greatest lake afterall?

    Mr Bartlett said, “But we don’t want to get knocked off course from the great transformational renaissance we have seen over the last 10 years in Tasmania.”

    Now that’s a priceless piece of spin. Sounds like something Lennon would have said. So transformational the vision for food production was clearfelled for continued transformation of farm land and water catchments into increasingly unproductive plantations.

    Take note that the big dodgy monocultural companies, soo stroked by Labor, are falling by the wayside. Such dodgy business and companies drop off first in financially hard times. Look at Great Southern. They took over a huge productive beef farm on the west coast, took away the food, planted woodchip trees which ultimately employed fewer people, then commenced a dizzy spiral downhill.

    The East coast is a traditionally dry area. The midlands have been used and abused by bad farming practices, along with dizzy politicians transferring naturally traditional water away from their natural systems, ie stealing water from the upper midland creek systems and redirecting to the north. People should be asking who is stealing their water. The central north and northwest, traditionally wetter, more fertile and significant farming areas, compared to the east, have been taken over by water sucking plantations, a crop no one can eat, a crop that takes the water for free.

    But hey Mr Premier, carry on… spinning water wheels, dodgy company deals, spinning food into woodchip pulp mills – the continuation of previous ex premiers visions of massive short-sightedness – the proof that ‘someone’ at least knocked off the ability for a sustainable transformational renaissance. Because more awareness of pipe dreams could at least create a situation where we finally get to knock off blind political stupidity. Truth forums, without the political spin doctors need to be created. Let’s go…..

  36. Peter Henning

    February 23, 2009 at 4:06 pm

    Well, here we go again. Watch your backs, residents of the Tamar Valley. New legislation for major projects, “especially those involving water pipelines as projects of regional significance, bypassing council planning approvals”, is coming your way.

    They’ve been beavering away in the dark behind closed doors ever since the West Tamar Council threw a spanner in the works, don’t you worry about that. Not to mention the irritant of those East Tamar residents objecting to a pipeline across their property.

    You can guess the sales pitch. “Drought proofing regional Tasmania”. It will be interesting to see where the statute bars are put in.

    The scenario looks pretty obvious. This will be explained as having no connection to the pulp mill, but as Ivan Dean would say, if it happens to benefit that development down the track, all the better. It will hit the airwaves in similar vein to the way the upgrade of Bell Bay port facilities did. Something about the need for developing infrastructure for container shipping. Yes, right.

    This will put things back on track. Things have been said about Gunns unable to get finance, but we’re coming into a brave new world. The Maryvale mill has just been sold to Japanese interests, has it not?

    What’s stopping that happening with the Gunns’ project? Not much once the mill can get its pipelines. Garrett has approved 13 of the federally imposed conditions under the EPBC Act. Only three to go.

    The wood supply agreement is about the best arrangement any vertically integrated pulp-paper industry would want. Basically a free resource. Water costs? Well, tell me another joke.

    Stockpiles of wood around the world, mills closing down, mills breaking down, mills poisoning the environment? Doesn’t that all make things a bit doubtful?

    Don’t you believe it. I don’t. My guess is the pipelines will paid for by the taxpayer, as will the port facilities, as will the transport infrastructure, as will the resources, both timber and water, as will a substantial part of constructing the mill itself.

    But then I don’t have any trust in the Tasmanian Labor-Liberal accord on this matter whatsoever. I have not the slightest reason at all to trust anything they say about the pulp mill.

    You’d have to have a pretty heavy dose of amnesia to extend any trust to them on any legislation which talks about pipelines, “projects of regional significance”, forestry, infrastructure, health, threatened species and so on.

    There’s nothing brave or new about the Labor-Liberal accord, and boy, am I sick of saying it!

Leave a Reply

To Top