Taxpayers may help fund pulp mill

TAXPAYER dollars could be used to help Gunns Ltd build its contentious Tamar Valley pulp mill.

The Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources acknowledged last week, as part of a Right to Information request, that it was in discussions with Gunns about “commercial-in-confidence matters” associated with the pulp mill.

The confirmation coincides with comments by Premier Lara Giddings on Friday that the Government would be happy to help the $2.5 billion pulp mill go ahead, by providing ancillary public infrastructure.

Ms Giddings said on Friday the pulp mill was now essential to counter the slowing Tasmanian economy and job losses.

She said that while the massive project had once been “the icing on the cake” for Tasmania’s booming economy, it was now, in tough times, “the cake”.

Ms Giddings did not specify what infrastructure Gunns was asking the State Government to help fund or facilitate other than to make clear it would be linked to infrastructure away from the mill site, such as public roads, rail and ports.

The Premier’s attitude toward public funding for linked infrastructure overturns the now-infamous “line in the sand” drawn by her immediate predecessor David Bartlett when he ruled out any further government money for the pulp mill.

…

On Friday, Ms Giddings openly linked approval for the Tamar Valley pulp mill to a resolution in the Tasmanian forest peace talks being mediated by former union boss Bill Kelty.

Greens leader and government minister Nick McKim made it clear yesterday the Tasmanian Greens would never agree to government requests that the party support the Gunns pulp mill in the Tamar Valley.

Mr McKim also appeared to warn the Government about making the Gunns pulp mill part of any compromise or trade-off deal negotiated between forest industry players and environmentalists.

“The Gunns Tamar Valley pulp mill is not, and should not, be part of the process Mr Kelty is overseeing around this statement of principles,” Mr McKim said.

“The pulp mill wasn’t mentioned in that [October] agreement, and it should stay outside the process now, where it belongs.”

Read the full Sue Neales story HERE

Dave’s view: HERE