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

Economy

Neville-Smith treating residents like mushrooms

The proposal for a woodchip export facility at Port Esperance first came to public notice in Dover late last year. Because of the lack of available information around the proposed Dover Woodchip Port there is an increasing groundswell of community interest in what James Neville-Smith, CEO of Neville Smith Forest Products is actually planning. Despite numerous invitations Mr Neville-Smith has refused to front any town hall style meetings. With just a bunch of representatives and without the presence of the CEO, the initial Dover “information” meeting in December 2017 was a complete farce.

http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/southwood-mr-neville-smith-misleading-public-on-their-proposed-woodchip-exp/

The latest information from the Huon Valley Council is that they are still waiting on more information from Southwood Fibre (Neville-Smith Forest Products) before their Development Application (DA) becomes live. The Council is unable to make any comment at all about this DA until it is deemed a “live application”.

When and if the DA gets to Council, and is valid in that all the information is provided and fees are paid, it will then be referred to the EPA. At this stage Council presumes the EPA will make an initial assessment to make sure they have all the information they require to make a judgement. It will then be open to public representation probably for a period of 28 days if it is determined to be a Level 2 activity.

At the end of the 28 days the EPA will then start its assessment. The timeframe of this assessment will be determined as to whether it is a Level 2 A or B or C. The EPA will assess it. They can decide to refuse the application. They cannot make Council approve the proposal. If the EPA does not refuse it then Council can assess it. Council will assess the application on its merits according to the Planning Scheme. The Commissioner expects that if the EPA decides that it can proceed to Council assessment they will have a number of environmental conditions. That is up to the EPA. Whatever environmental conditions the EPA impose must go onto the final DA. Council will then assess according to the Planning Scheme. There will then be a recommendation at the end of that time to Council for approval or refusal.

Because the community will only be given at best 28 days it will very difficult for residents and ratepayers to examine all aspects of this significant proposal in that time period. This is why we have been asking Mr Neville-Smith for more information to assist us in learning more about his plans. To date he has continued to ignore the community at large and has instead held a number of secret back-room meetings with avid and enthusiastic supporters of this project, who obviously stand to gain from having their snouts in the trough.

The Southwood Fibre website, proclaimed by NSFP to be to a “one stop shop of information”, has not been updated since January as far as we can ascertain. Despite phone calls, numerous emails and letters from many members of the community to Mr Neville-Smith and Smartfibre GM Danny Peet, there has been no community engagement apart from the initial futile Dover meeting.

The end result is a good number of concerned residents and ratepayers in the Huon Valley have been forced to drop everything, roll up their sleeves and do their very best to learn more about what is proposed with this apparent 50 year-long project. A project that Mr Neville-Smith feels the valley should be welcoming with open arms as he walks on water, throwing around his cash from a private multimillion dollar company – that according to initial research may well have offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands.

When everyday ordinary citizens need to learn more about plantations, wood chipping, planning laws, shipping, crown land approvals, B-Double trucks, transport routes and the many impacts on people’s health from burning millions of litres of diesel fuel, endangered and threatened species and the overall impact and damage to our environment – it all takes time, money and resources. None of which any of us have much to spare.

In calling out for help, the Bob Brown Foundation and the Wilderness Society have come to our aid to assist in the production and printing of flyers and posters to advertise a series of community information meetings over the month of June to help raise awareness of what is being planned, and the wider effects of this proposal. Each of the community sessions will consist of a 60 minute presentation of the information which has been gathered so far, followed by a 30 minute Q&A session. There is no hidden agenda other than a dissemination of information.

We are volunteers from the community concerned about the impacts of what a 24/7, 7 days a week, 48 weeks of the year industrial scale woodchip operation may be on Dover and the Far South, as well as the many communities south of Hobart which will be affected by up to 120 B-Double log trucks per day carrying feeder logs to the Southwood mill in Lonnavale.

The impact to communities of a log truck every 5 minutes of every day traversing through Main Street Huonville, Cygnet, Kettering, Franklin, Port Huon, Lucaston, Glen Huon, Judbury, Lonnavale and more will be a game changer for life as we know it today in the South of this State.

*Geoffrey Swan is a resident and ratepayer in the Huon Valley who has a deep interest in truth, transparency and justice. In the past ten years he has been vigilant in his efforts to save the Russell River in Lonnavale from the daily polluting discharges coming from the nearby Huon Aquaculture Hatchery; and he continues his keen interest in doing whatever he can to ensure the recently sacked Huon Valley Council does not fall back into the hands of the old guard. His curiosity about the proposed Dover woodchip port was piqued when another apparent snake oil salesman rolled into town with an offer that the Huon Valley surely could not refuse.

Rosalie Woodruff: Dover Woodchip Port Decision Rests with Hodgman

60 Comments

60 Comments

  1. monte latham

    June 6, 2018 at 1:23 pm

    I think the story doesn’t express the significance of the Esperance area as a wonderful feature asset to Tasmanians, Australians, and all with sanity.

  2. William Boeder

    June 6, 2018 at 2:14 pm

    #1 … Monte, the matter remains doubtful that Will Hodgman and his honcho ministers will vote for the greater interests of the Tasmanian people.

    These resource extractive and environment-damaging business proposals seem ever to gain the support of Will Hodgman’s hostile-to-the-people State government.

    Tasmania’s citizens seem to be without any escape from the moneyed string-pullers of our puppet government, eg Greg money Barrell, Miles Taswater, Peter and Francis of the underwater polluters association, and their colleagues in the same line of business. Then there are the forest rodent enterprises that have the support of the much disliked Zombie Smiling guile bar-knot.

    Now to add to those shysters above, are this state’s easily purchased mainstream media mind-benders.

    The imprimatur of the current State government and a strife-inviting Liberal Senator with the sobriquet of Aids & Abets is to not let honest and fair dealings get in the way of party donors that permit state elections to be bought with other people’s money, which we know will inevitably lead to Tasmania’s detrimental outcomes.

    One must also be on the watch to the non-benefit of Tasmania .. the return of a huge overseas-owned fishing trawler steering its way back to the waters surrounding Tasmania.

    Bugger to all of that which is of extreme concern to the people of Tasmania.

  3. john hayward

    June 6, 2018 at 2:44 pm

    When you follow mandatory lawful procedure out the back door and down the drain, you know you are on the Tas Inc trail.

    You can follow the footprints of Federal Hotels and Ta Ann to the place where Neville Smith aims to go.

    John Hayward

  4. Russell

    June 6, 2018 at 2:49 pm

    I’m with the effing Forest Industry – ‘you locals can trust me .. and you move your effing fish farms!’

  5. Geoffrey Swan

    June 6, 2018 at 6:44 pm

    #1 … I certainly do not disagree with you, Monte. This is just one more place in Tasmania that we must protect, and not only for today’s generation but for generations to come.

    There is so much to this whole project that just does not make any sense whatsoever. To quote Richard Flanagan back in a December, 2003 issue of the Bulletin:

    “Since woodchipping began 31 years ago, Tasmanians have known the unspeakable sadness of great forests of mystery transformed into ash. For 31 years, they have watched as one more extraordinary place after another of their country has been sacrificed to the woodchippers. Beautiful places, holy places, lost not only to them, but forever. Tasmanians have lived the woodchippers’ deceit all their lives and have borne dumb witness to the great lie that delivers wealth to a handful elsewhere, poverty to many of them, and death to their future. And at the end of 31 years, the majority of Tasmanians want an answer to just one question: How can this rape of Tasmania be allowed to continue?”

  6. Geoffrey Swan

    June 6, 2018 at 6:58 pm

    #4 … Come along to one of the community meetings Russell, and have a listen to what people in our community have been researching about this proposal.

    This is not a ‘them and us’ or an ‘either or debate’.

    It is an issue that has the potential to strongly divide our communities, much like the forestry wars of the past. There are other options to wood chips. There are other options to a Port in Dover.

    The community must be made aware of the implications if Southwood is allowed to become an industrial mecca for woodchip, rock crushing and a Biomass plant which I truly cannot believe is still being discussed as a feasible option.

  7. Claire Gilmour

    June 6, 2018 at 7:22 pm

    I can understand the Dover community not wanting the wood chipping industry, but I don’t understand why the Dover Community wants the industrial fish farms. Apparently it’s a jobs-for-mates thing. So what if it was whaling? Would they want that too? For the jobs! For the money!

    I could easily have logged my whole forest just for the money, to survive, to afford to eat more than 3 times a week. That may sound like being a martyr, but at least I maintain my integrity. It’s a principle thing. It’s recognising one’s own immediate scale in the scheme compared to long term longevity of species beyond just humans .. indeed to help humans.

    If Dover wants the industrial fish farms such as “Far South Future” says … well, take ‘em all from the west coast, the east coast and the potential north/west coast. Plant them so-called fortress salmon fish farm pens between you and the Antarctic and see how long it will take to destroy the breeding grounds of the native fish species … and then don’t come crying when it destroys your area!

    As Tassie’s remotest southern town, I’d heard it had an antique shop. Is that still there?

    What is the town show casing now – industrial fish farms !?! That puts me off, and therefore I will not recommend to any tourists. I only recommend wild Tassie to tourists.

    Be open, be honest, be a whistle blower … think and act beyond your own short term gain …

    Coming out of left field …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T73xhutNXQ

  8. Russell

    June 6, 2018 at 9:02 pm

    Re #6 … I am in total agreement with you. The woodchip industry is a total loser, welfare industry benefitting a handful of selfish immoral puppets.

    They can stick their poisoned antibiotic and hormone-saturated ‘fish and chips’. Give me quality, locally grown and offered food products, and places to enjoy them in perpetuity, anytime. That’s what the tourists come here for.

    There is so much more money to be made, and employment to be created in tourism without any destruction, than the woodchip industry can ever deliver.

    The runs are on the board.

  9. Geoffrey Swan

    June 6, 2018 at 9:35 pm

    #7… I met a lady the other day Claire, who will soon be opening an antique shop for three days a week in Geeveston … not sure about Dover.

    I do not live in Dover but I do care about our environment. I have campaigned with the Oakhampton Bay folk, I have presented to the Senate Committee into Finfish Aquaculture, and I have worked tirelessly in my fight to save the Russell River from Frances Bender and Huon Aquaculture – and they have not seen the last of me by a long shot. Mrs Bender recognised me at a funeral the other day but did not say Hello.

    My personal view is that before long the only options for Tassal and HAC will be to locate much further offshore where the water is cooler as the world faces increased global warming. Their industry is also rapidly changing as automation takes over, and fewer and fewer staff are needed in this industry. In time, places like Dover will either feel the loss of local employment because of climate change, automation, or some other man-made disaster.

    My real fear however, is with the the non-stop Forestry mob who just don’t know when to lay down and die. The only reason anyone is making any money in this industry is because of subsidies, access to “our” people’s timber for zilch, government intervention to keep looking after the old boys club, and the mindless pursuit by too many people in this State to chop everything down or to kill anything that moves, and while there are still trees growing on this wonderful island there will be someone wanting to make a fast buck from harvesting them.

    For now, perhaps the question should be “what is the worst evil for Dover? Long term I believe it is this proposed Woodchip port .. in fact a Woodchip port anywhere South of this State is absolute lunacy. Hopefully in time, the Far South will be returned to “the people” as aquaculture moves elsewhere, or like Forestry and Hydro previously, it is just a matter of time before the boom is over and it all goes bust.

    Tourism and the wilderness will hopefully still be there – unless we totally stuff it all up.

  10. Geoffrey Swan

    June 6, 2018 at 11:25 pm

    #8 … I did not pick up your satire at #4, Russell.

  11. TGC

    June 7, 2018 at 12:00 am

    Clearly the sooner we hand Tasmania over to the clean/green tourist operators and close down everything else .. the happier Bob Brown will be.
    Bob is not a friend of the worker.

  12. Geoffrey Swan

    June 7, 2018 at 2:27 am

    #11 … Just to clarify for you Trevor, as regular readers of TT are very aware of your political leaning …

    These upcoming meetings are ground up community events funded by busy fund-raising and from personal donations of dollars, resources and even gifts for raffles; not to mention the considerable unpaid hours by many ordinary residents and ratepayers in the Huon Valley.

    When the community is up against the deep pockets of people like James Neville-Smith with his millions, and possibly even Chinese investors, it is very helpful and supportive when an organisation like the Bob Brown Foundation is able to assist with the production and printing of flyers and posters.

    Who else is there in this Island State that ordinary people with an interest in protecting our environment, and also in this case protecting our World regarded Tourism industry, turn to? Do any other options come to mind, TGC?

    Maybe you can put in $100 of your hard earned .. or our supposed (according to others) squillionaire MJF? Let me see if there is a BSB/Acc number that can be posted on TT.

  13. mike seabrook

    June 7, 2018 at 3:43 am

    How about some jobs in the Huon Valley? Build a hydro/tourism/ fishing dam on the lower Huon which will flood-proof the main street of Huonville and provide lots of blue collar jobs.

    It’s interesting to see the quantum of the value of the fish pen sites virtually gifted to the fish farms

    How much are they offering for the port site? Surely they do not expect it to be gifted!

  14. MjF

    June 7, 2018 at 2:34 pm

    Lord help me.

    As difficult and challenging as it may be, why can’t the opposition use correct terminology ?

    It is NOT proposed to build a port.

    A port is a facility which allows the loading and unloading of ships with handling capability for variable materials. Ports also require an extended range of support services.

    Current ports exist at Hobart, Bell Bay, Devonport, Burnie, Stanley, Grassy and Lady Barron. Strahan used to have one, and historically it may still be classed as such, but I don’t think so. There may still be others eg at Port Huon.

    The ex woodchip mill at Triabunna had a single-purpose chip loading facility. It was not a port, nor was it ever referred to as a port. No cargoes were unloaded there.

    The Longreach mills have single-purpose ship loading facilities. It is not a port..

    Woodchips are loaded at Bell Bay and Burnie which are general-purpose ports which include the transfer of passengers, bulk and containerised freight.

    JNS is not proposing a port.

    I guess the intent is to infer something to be much bigger, grander, imposing and disruptive than it actually is. ‘Poetic licence’ as they say.

    #13 … Where have you been hiding, Seabrook ?

    If you read and believe the current levels of propaganda, the valley is literally awash with jobs in tourism and aquaculture. Things have never been more vibrant with optimism at an all time high.
    Now all’s under threat by you-know-who. Your call to arms for jobs has been previously answered, and there’s far too many threatened species involved to consider any new dams.

  15. Geoffrey Swan

    June 7, 2018 at 4:26 pm

    #14 … Semantics surely, Martin.

    I am told the word “Port” has already been used in some government circles with respect to this proposal – maybe a faux pas, maybe not.

    Bringing a ship in and out of “Port” Esperance will still require a tug boat or two, and lights and machinery throughout the night when the loading is in full swing. That sounds industrial to me.

    Is that why the MacQuarie Point option appears to have died its own death? That’s not a good look for our booming Tourism sector.

    It might be an OK look for Dark Mofo, however.

    PORT
    noun
    noun: port; plural noun: ports

    …a town or city with a harbour or access to navigable water where ships load or unload.

  16. TGC

    June 7, 2018 at 6:46 pm

    In Tasmania, any suggestion of a woodchip ‘port’ will produce a storm.

  17. MjF

    June 7, 2018 at 6:50 pm

    #15 … Clearly a government faux pas as a reference which suggests ignorance on their part, and I dispute semantics.

    Tell me how the old Triabunna ship loader which could berth one small carrier (but still needed 2 tugs) compares with the ports of Bell Bay ? or Hobart? or Devonport ? or Burnie ?

    If you choose to argue the case Geoffrey, then employ the correct terms.

    Using ‘port’ is misleading in my opinion, and is suggestive of something on a scale not proposed. I would prefer to think you’re doing this subconsciously. No-one’s saying its not an intended industrial facility.

    Now if you want to reference Port Esperance, then lets agree a port already exists .. and you can remove the word ‘port’ altogether from your fliers, and reprint them in the interests of fairness.

    Re Macquarie Point .. I suggest a trip to Burnie to see cruise ships disgorge their passengers adjacent to Forico’s woodchip piles. Apparently it all co-exists quite well.

    You can only squeeze so much leverage from this tourism wild-card, one which is being overplayed right now.

  18. Geoffrey Swan

    June 7, 2018 at 9:48 pm

    #17 … It’s good to hear from you too, Martin. I can feel the heat from here .. time for a tipple, I suggest.

    I am a mere concerned resident and ratepayer in all this, Martin. I certainly have no influence over the posters and flyers, hundreds of which have already been printed, posted, and placarded all over the place.

    I can understand your point of view. Ports are generally large scale structures. The plans for this JNS proposal are still shrouded in secrecy, and they are only revealing what they choose. In their own words they said they are intentionally keeping some information back. Is the $42 M, for example, just for the Port facility .. or does it include upgrades to Forestry roads or Southwood .. or another chipper etc?

    Until JNS comes clean with more information, I personally feel using the term ‘Port’ is entirely appropriate.

    There is also the obvious concern that once any infrastructure is in place it is the thin edge of the wedge to make it bigger than Ben Hur.

    There may be even a perfect opportunity for the inbound Chinese ships to bring in some of their waste that does not meet their new recycling standards – for example why not dump it in the wilds of Tasmania? Now that [i]is[/i] contentious, MJF.

  19. mJF

    June 7, 2018 at 11:59 pm

    I think it unlikely a permit would be issued Geoffrey, to dump Chinese waste in the “wilds of Tasmania”. But if the EPA signed off on it and dumping fees were agreed, there’s little you can do apart from agitate against it.

    But seeing as its to be a single purpose loading facility Geoffrey, the Chinese junk has no way of being unloaded, and I shouldn’t have to point that out.

    I don’t see that it’s any of your business what the $42 million funds. JNS confirms the project is fully self funded with no government subsidies, grants or other fiscal assistance.

    The site will be leased so a return is generated to the state on that front. Who cares what it costs him overall from his private equity ? Why is this inadequate for you ?

    I also wonder why you think JNS is obligated to provide any information at all to the public, other than him saying he would. Well, I guess he’s changed his mind.

    All the proponent is required to do is make their applications to the appropriate regulatory authorities.

    I don’t quite understand why the general public all of a sudden thinks it is owed a comprehensive and complete disclosure of what is and isn’t involved from any proponent.

    Let the authorities do their job of assessing submissions and you’ll get your chance to comment at the appropriate time. If you think 28 days is inadequate, then lobby the appropriate authorities for an increased time frame. That’s where I would be directing my energies.

    And I’ve had my tipple. Thanks for the best suggestion so far.

  20. TGC

    June 8, 2018 at 12:40 am

    There’s never too much difficulty in spotting #18’s inclinations.

  21. Geoffrey Swan

    June 8, 2018 at 3:01 am

    #20 … C’mon Trevor – surely you haven’t worked me out already. My Bio with this article is about where I am at in life, so please do not suggest anything more or less than that.

    #19 … Martin, at the risk of turning this post into 100+ comments as we did last time, suffice to say that I do hear you although I do not necessarily agree .. but unless we mere citizens stand up and ask the questions then Big Business and government will continue to walk all over us. This is no more than history repeating itself.

    I am sure you understand the planning process.

    Because this is most likely a level 2 DA, the EPA will be involved and this will hopefully still mean the community will have 28 days to read and comprehend what we have been advised is more than a 500 page DA (normally only 14 days) and then from those who have the inclination, ability and time, there may be a few representations.

    Given a multimillionaire like JNS has spent years preparing for this, don’t you think it only fair we mere mortals have every opportunity to at least be educated about whether this project is good or bad for our Valley? Still no one, not even the Premier, and this is his electorate, has asked the community what it thinks about this proposal BEFORE he granted Crown Land access, and he appears to have overlooked the fact that there is a conflict with a rather large employer in Aquaculture in the middle of the proposed shipping route … hello …

    Don’t worry .. there are many who will be ready for the 28 days. Council has already received a formal petition of 1,200 signatures. When Denniss Bewsher tried to get a Port (or loading facility if you prefer) at Waterloo Bay there were only 190 submissions .. so let’s see what happens next.

  22. Robin Charles Halton

    June 8, 2018 at 6:02 am

    #19 , MJF … I don’t know what Chinese junk importation #16 Geoffrey is referring to, but I thought that chip wood carriers usually come to Australian ports in ballast! Water ballast which of course would have to be discharged well out at sea before entering our Port Esperance.

    #17, MJF … I have similar views here. I don’t see any problem mixing tourism and having a woodchip loading facility with stockpiles nearby.

    We visited the Port of Albany WA which has an important tourism industry with an abundance of Tas Blue gum plantation areas inland near Mt Barker at Pongerup reaching out towards the magnificent vistas of the Stirling Ranges.

    Surprisingly, the mix of industrial wood fibre plantations, varied vegetative native forests and farmlands appears to be quite OK to my discerning eye!

    The woodchip pile and loading facility at the Albany wharf is seen further out in the background on a semi-industrial port but does not appear to detract from both the historical and overall rough coastline areas surrounding the port, and in fact the industrial side of most port towns seems to be quite a normal activity!

    A point that I would like to make from the environmental point of view of protecting marine life, and the moving of fish farms in order to maintain resting sites for marine life recovery, should already be a practice in place by the salmon industry!

    The EPA and the industry should already agree on this, or a similar practice, in order to maintain an improved environmental signature for their industry instead of having the government on tenterhooks all the time, with the Greens’ community constantly biting back.

    With proper regulation and practice I cannot see why salmon farming and a Southern woodchip storage and loading facility cannot co-exist within reasonable proximity of each other by sharing the same mass of water nearby.

    Had the woodchip facility been installed at Macquarie Point as a part of the operations of the Port of Hobart, I would have no objections whatsoever!

    The scheduling of trucks, with their long bins, would have to be carefully thought out by not clashing with peak hour traffic entering Hobart, and there would be no salmon farms to be concerned about, either!

    In the case of the Dover facility, most roads to be used would be via forestry roads, as far as I know.

    #18 … Unfortunately Geoffrey, Mr James Neville Smith is reluctant to release the nitty-gritty of the loading port. I can understand why it is being kept in house, too!

    With people like the Bob Brown Foundation trying to rule our forests, and constantly telling SST and the industry what they should and should not do, no wonder outward communication is limited – thanks to BBF and their string of agitators!

    We have all of this HWP resource, so let’s productively use it and get on with the process the same as what has occurred at Burnie and Tamar, and which is a part of normal business activity!

  23. MjF

    June 8, 2018 at 12:40 pm

    #22 … Exactly, pyro Robin.

    Give it 6 months for the novelty to wear off and Southwood’s operation will be all part and parcel of life in and around Port Esperance. Dover won’t have been nuked by woodchip rockets and the tourists will still be careering up and down the Huon Highway. Locals will even speculate when the next vessel’s coming in.

    The woman who wrote an opinion piece a while ago attacking the Southwood proposal and stating she was a successful architect based in Dover and was turning business away …so what I thought. What was the connection here ? The connection was never made but she’ll still be there and still turning business away, as successful architects do.

    I fully expect Dover will have to increase the provision of short term stays as a result of contractors to Southwood regularly coming and going. And that means spending …

    And do you know the best part ? The people will be so well informed from having done their unnecessary but self-imposed due diligence. In fact they will probably emerge as the very best educated, but least affected, woodchip co-tenants in the western world.

    Swanny will come to realise that in time.

  24. Geoffrey Swan

    June 8, 2018 at 2:52 pm

    #22 … Thank you once again for your observations, Robin. TT readers have previously read about your amazing adoration for piles of woodchip.

    “In the case of the Dover facility, most roads to be used would be via forestry roads, as far as I know.”

    Robin, if you educate yourself no further from this post, please realise that the most important message from JNS is that underpinning this proposal is that no trucks carrying woodchip fibre will pass any residential homes or be carted on residential roads is a deliberate misdirection of the truth, in my view, and totally disingenuous.

    Yes, their carefully conceived plan makes use of all the Forestry back roads from Southwood Mill through the back of Geeveston, and they only cross the road in Strathblane at one intersection. Genius. But to produce 800,000 tonnes of woodchip over a 12 month period will require intensive 24/7 harvesting of the HWP resource from all over Southern Tasmania in their revised 142 km radius of Southwood.

    The ONLY roads that will provide access for fully laden B-Doubles, and whatever other combination of heavy vehicle they use, will be residential roads from Bruny, Kettering, Garden Is Creek, Franklin, Sorrell, through Hobart CBD, Cygnet, Huonville and closer to home – Glen Huon and Judbury.

    As the trucks get closer to Huonville then it’s an expected log truck every 5 minutes of every day, 48 weeks of the year. These trucks will have no option than to travel down Main Street Huonville, the Huon Highway, Glen Huon Road and Lonnavale Road. Empty returning trucks may choose North Huon Road – which is permitted provided they are under 20 Tonne. There are NO Forestry Road options. Please prove me wrong.

    Plenty Link Road will provide for Derwent Valley HWP resource – and efforts to advise the Derwent Valley residents and ratepayers is beyond the scope of these community meetings in the Valley at this time.

    The only other road is Southwood Road itself, but this will already be clogged with woodchip fibre trucks travelling in both directions to and from the “Port Esperance loading facility”. Are you happy with that, MJF?

    Whilst I personally disagree that the only options for the existing plantations is to harvest for low cost woodchip, a project of this magnitude will require an industrial scale operation such as Smartfibre is proposing. It is not the same as spasmodic harvesting – this is full on 24/7 .. and for the next 50 years, we are told by Danny Peet. This will forever change the face of the Huon Valley as we know it today, and as I have previously stated in the media, there needs to be a community uproar over this.

    By the way, the word on the street is there are nowhere near enough heavy haulage trucks currently in Tasmania to meet this demand, and at an entry cost of $350,000 for a rig, how many of the faithful will JNS talk into taking on backbreaking leases that will have the very real potential to bankrupt these keen workers.

    You mention Burnie … why are the plantation logs not simply loaded onto trains from the South to Bell Bay?

  25. William Boeder

    June 8, 2018 at 3:13 pm

    #19 and #22 … So, given each of you are providing your rabid support as regards the dread of wood-chipping in general, is this entrepreneur of public-owned Crown Land clear-felled forest and native forest discarding the new Gunns Ltd in this state?

    Right now is the time to reflect on, and then deplore, how much political obeisance will be available from the likes of the Zombie Smiler.

    Furthermore, each of your contributions may provide an occasional valid opinion, but only subjected to the upside benefits of the topic matter in discussion. I do not accept that the recent logging history in Tasmania is a qualified hunting ground for your ongoing supportive considerations.

    Any furtherance to the plague of bastard wood-chipping of native forests in this State is a sorry topic for any supportive commentary.

  26. Geoffrey Swan

    June 8, 2018 at 3:57 pm

    #22 … Unfortunately Geoffrey, Mr James Neville Smith is reluctant to release the nitty-gritty of the loading port. I can understand why it is being kept in house, too!

    “Despite the allegations that we have been secretive, we have put everything we can on the website,” he said. … May 15, 2018 James Neville-Smith.

  27. MjF

    June 8, 2018 at 4:20 pm

    #24 … Much better, thank you for correctness.

    Re your claim of harvesting for low cost woodchips: I have pointed out to you several times that peeler logs will be produced from these plantations, either for whole log export or potentially as feedstock to the proposed Hermal mill at Hampshire.

    Either of these options will value-add the returns to timber owners and contractors.

    Why do you choose to ignore this Geoffrey, and claim every stick will be tipped into a low cost chip pile ?

    Re rail freight from south to north: It’s clearly not cost effective with Tasrail log freight historically proving itself many times over to be unreliable and inefficient – which is a pity.

  28. Great nephew of basil

    June 8, 2018 at 5:05 pm

    “Furthermore, each of your contributions may provide an occasional valid opinion … ”

    This is some sort of admission, Willy. Are you feeling OK ?

  29. Gerrya

    June 8, 2018 at 5:23 pm

    #24 … Geoffrey, you have not mentioned the $12 M Summerleas Rd debacle, with two south bound lanes after coming off the outlet and only one north bound lane. Slow moving log trucks, perhaps?

  30. Geoffrey Swan

    June 8, 2018 at 6:11 pm

    #27 … I’m pleased there is no need for a midday tipple, Martin. I feel there is a sense of calm today.

    I’m not ignoring your peeler log theory. It is just from all my research so far I am not yet convinced there is enough supply within the 142 km radius of Southwood to meet the NSFP plans for 800,000 tonnes per annum of woodchip. They will surely need every stick they can get .. or is that when they will tell us they now need to access the native forests for supply?

    I’ve just finished reading a fascinating “Value Management Study” for the “Wood Centre to the Huon Highway – Transport Options” prepared by FT in March, 2001. I can now understand why JNS is not prepared, at this time, to discuss supply and transport of feeder logs .. the issues and concerns about impacting residents, businesses and driving through Huonville were as evident then as they are now. Even more so 17 years on.

    Also of interest in this report is the very viable option of using rail freight from the Derwent Valley and Hobart – in fact rail is recommended.

    Surely it is still the most appropriate option, given this latest NSFP proposal will be needing some 18 million litres or more of diesel fuel per year, and with an immense increase in trucks on roads, and for which for every litre of diesel fuel burnt there is 2.4 kg of exhaust in the form of carbon dioxide containing arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde and nickel. In total more than 40 toxic air contaminants more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke, and long term lethal to anyone within 50 m to 100 m of any passing trucks.

    Give us rail any day, Martin – horse and cart stuff. Give TasRail the demand and good supply will follow.

  31. Geoffrey Swan

    June 8, 2018 at 7:53 pm

    #29 … On the money, Gerry. All along my suspicion of this very costly upgrade has been to assist our Forestry industry, but when it was revealed the upgrade has done nothing to help the traffic movement, apart from the apparent fixing up of a traffic accident black spot, it leads me to wonder … has someone stuffed up here?

    With the increased number of log trucks in both directions we are in for fun times indeed, and we won’t mention Hobart CBD just yet. It was meant to be in Sue Hickey’s new portfolio task before she became Speaker, so whose problem is it now?

    Then there is the big fuss about upgrading Jefferies Track through to Lachlan from Mountain River.

  32. William Boeder

    June 8, 2018 at 9:08 pm

    #28 … Thank you, the Great nephew of Basil.

    My reference, as you have touched upon in your #28, comes with the caveat contained in that comment … “that is specific to all other subject matters outside the topic of forest degradations, Crown Land forest plunders, the overall support that you engender toward the quasi-theft of the this State’s resources that belong-um to the citizens of Tasmania, also your other support mechanisms gifted toward the Tas Inc despicables that engage in the rape of this Island State.”

  33. Pete Godfrey

    June 8, 2018 at 9:30 pm

    #31 Geoffrey … t must also be remembered that Guy Barnett, in his infinite lack of wisdom, sold off most of Forestry Tasmania’s plantation, along with a gift of a 100 year lease on the land, gratis. My memory says that he sold off 28,000 ha of plantations.
    That leaves FT with only around 17,000 ha of plantations to its name.

    If Neville Smith were to only be buying off FT then that would mean that they would definitely not have enough wood supply. Say they work on a 15 year rotation – then they would only have 1,133 ha a year to get their wood from. At an average of 150 tonnes per ha that is only 170,000 tonnes of logs.

    They must be planning on buying from the private plantations as well, that is of course, if they can pay the right price.

  34. Great nephew of.basil

    June 8, 2018 at 9:35 pm

    The peeler logs are not a theory. I now give up.

    Your imagination is in overdrive, G.

  35. Geoffrey Swan

    June 8, 2018 at 11:21 pm

    #34 … Is that you Martin? I did have a moment struggling with what word to use .. theory was kind, I thought. Seriously sorry if I offended. Don’t give up … please.

    Just heard on ABC news that David Walsh and his MONA is now an employer of over 400 people. Almost as much as FT .. sorry STT. I am not aware of Mr Walsh having any impact on our environment apart from the pollution from all the extra flights into Tasmania because of the huge increase of tourists.

    The other top-of-the-ABC news story tonight was the shortage of hairdressers in Tasmania. The hair dressing body is trying to encourage hairdressers from the mainland to come to this isle. They are seeking government assistance. wonder if our government, which just love handing out money to forestry and aquaculture, will do the same for hairdressers.

  36. Not related to great uncle baz.

    June 9, 2018 at 1:36 pm

    #35 … Unbelievable. What’s next ? 457 visa hairdressers from the Philippines?

    What’s wrong with local hairdressers putting on local apprentices ? I understand there’s already in place some federal incentives to train apprentices.

    I recall Mr Walsh’s money comes from being a successful gambler and developing systems for punters, but correct me if I’m wrong. His funds ultimately come from losers, addicted punters from variously unknown domestic crises which often require government support, intervention, and the use of precious resources from charities .. loser punters who can’t gamble responsibly.

    If you think that’s totally ethical, then I’d be surprised.

    Your position on gambling is what G ?

    But hey, all good. No carbon footprint right ? No unsightly woodchips either.

  37. Geoffrey Swan

    June 9, 2018 at 3:07 pm

    #36 … I do have a philosophical issue responding to non de plumes such as a former Mickey and Minnie Mouse and Barney Rubble. I will persevere with whoever you are for the moment.

    I would need to see the full ABC article. It suggested apprentices cost the salon $130,000 over 4 years. Government handout is $4,000 and it costs the Salon $3,000 for TAFE costs etc, and at the end of the 4 year apprenticeship they may up and leave the salon.

    In my experience this is no different to any trade. Some stay, some go, but in the meantime the boss has had the benefit of very cheap labour (learned from an apprentice hairdresser a year back when she was on $8 an hour) and meantime hopefully the apprentice has learned his/her trade.

    Gambling is something I do not condone in any way, and to which I have never been hooked. I once enjoyed a few games of illegal Two-up at the infamous Kalgoorlie Two-up ring way out in the bush, and won enough to buy a bottle of rum.

    David Walsh and four/three other mates developed a “method” to win from the big boy casinos. Sure, it all comes from the small punters’ losses, but I do happen to like Robin Hood type stories. ATO tried to suggest the “group” were acting as a company and therefore owed the ATO $50 M or something in company tax. It went to court and was settled out of court, I understand. I have no idea if David still plays this game .. banned I think from Casinos, and wanting to build his own high roller at MONA. I assume he is now just playing with his millions, having fun and giving something back to we plebeians.

    But you never know. David may well display a large pile of woodchip at MONA and call it Art… because he can. This would of course delight our friend Robin who would be taking his Kodak snaps with utter glee.

  38. Geoffrey Swan

    June 9, 2018 at 6:38 pm

    #33 … Thanks Pete.

    Guy Barnett did indeed sell, read, and “give away” the “peoples” resource during their fire sale in order to make STT books look better. The new Owner is now Global Forest Partners .. along with a 100 year lease.

    There is some chatter, not confirmed, that GFP has purchased SmartFibre from JNS, with JNS remaining as the CEO. This would make sense I guess, even though JNS told me earlier this month they have no supply contracts yet in place for this proposal.

    But of course our commentators RCH and MJF will just say none of this detail is anyone’s business.

  39. William Boeder

    June 9, 2018 at 9:55 pm

    #34 … Often is the impure action of our Guy Feux (struggling native forest logging lurching Liberal) government representative minister, to strongly advocate for agreement from his ministerial colleagues to set forward another clandestine enhanced sanction to another of his “costly to the state’s disservices.”

  40. Robin Charles Halton

    June 10, 2018 at 1:11 pm

    …..

    Western Australia would put Tasmania to shame …..

    Take Macquarie Point, every Tom Dick and Harry well knows it is not a fabulous site for anything fancy otherwise by now the Celestials would would have snapped it up ages ago to construct a massive iconic tourism complex. Local investors don’t want MC and all of its land fill problems either.

    MC, with its existing wharfage facilities, without doubt would be the best site for a huge wood chip pile and berthing of huge woodchip carriers.

    Why the hell are Tasmanians so complacent? I can’t understand that at all.

    …..

    ….. copy WA, woodchips ports at Esperance, Albany and Bunbury are simply a part of the multiple and diverse businesses including tourism in these WA towns, wake up Tasmania although it has a welcoming woodchip pile along the waterfront in Burnie.

    I can assure the seductive smell of eucalypt woodchips close to any those ports is a healthy sign of business activity with quite a low impact footprint on the environment.

    I am getting sick and tired of Geoffrey Swan’s twisted personal views on forestry, enough is enough.

    Post Gunns failures and fantasies we are still fighting an anti forestry war and that is what it is all about, isnt it Geoffrey!

    Dover is a second option in my view, it does involve land clearing along and behind its coastline which is a pity when a derelict and unwanted and expansive site already exists here in Hobart.

    Believe me Macquarie Point is development ready, but on an industrial scale, and should trigger an urgent requirement for a much improved traffic plan for Greater Hobart as well as supporting a more diverse business opportunities.

  41. Geoffrey Swan

    June 10, 2018 at 4:35 pm

    #40 …“I am getting sick and tired of Geoffrey Swan’s twisted personal views on forestry, enough is enough”

    I recently attended an information session at the Huon Valley Council for those intending to stand for the upcoming Council elections. It was made very clear that in order to be a Councillor a “thick skin” is required. At the time I thought to myself that will never work for me.

    Tasmanian Times is a wonderful medium for commentators of all persuasions and differing points of view. Provided the comments comply with the TT Code of Conduct we can be assured the Editor will allow complete freedom of speech. We are most fortunate to have TT and to be living in a democracy.

    Robin, I do read your comments but I some are ‘over the top’. I have previously mocked your adoration of piles of woodchip, and because I was born Western Australia (in Collie) and have lived and worked in WA, I know all about what you are now tending to repeat ad nauseam on various TT posts about Albany and Bunbury.

    I do not recall ever reading an original RCH article in Tasmanian Times, Robin. Do please treat us to one of your photos of the mountains of eucalypt smelling edifices along with your essay on the woodchip industry. Given your wealth of knowledge in this area I am sure many other readers will be further enlightened as to why this beautiful Island State feels the need to keep on harvesting and chipping anything that stands in order to make a quick buck, and in fact not exactly big bucks, as I understand it.

    We do not appear to be learning from our past mistakes, and it seems that both our Liberal and Labor governments in this State continue to bow down to Forestry Tasmania. Sorry, but I cannot come to grips with the oxymoronic name ‘Sustainable Timber Tasmania.’

    My personal interest in Forestry comes from reading comments in TT and from reading the excellent “Rise and Fall of Gunns” by Quentin Beresford, and also Richard Flanagan .. and even a book recommended by your mate Martin Fitch – “Against the Odds” about The Risby Timber Company which until its demise in the mid-1990s was one of Australia’s oldest family-run firms. I value what I read and I hope I am making informed comments, but I am always open to being corrected – not criticised, but properly corrected with facts.

    Back to the thickness of my skin. I am constantly being surprised at how much of what commentators like yourself, and what previous adversaries have had the gall to say, just washes over me.

    I welcome constructive comment Robin. I am offering my Comments based on my observations and my research which of late has been extensive as I examine the Dover Port (loading facility) and the history of Southwood. The Southwood Mill story in itself from as early as 1997 makes quite fascinating reading. It’s a concept conceived by FT some 20 years ago which is yet to come anywhere near what was being spruiked at the time and as for the 200+ full time jobs – well, jobs, jobs, jobs will always win votes.

    I am a curious person and I do like to ask questions. Unfortunately however I am finding when the questions get tough, some people just fall away, particularly so on TT.

    Can you please explain why my personal views are “twisted” Robin? I am sure readers here will forgive me for seeking some personal feedback.

    Please submit an article from your own pen Robin, and you too Martin, for that matter … something which I feel is long overdue.

  42. William Boeder

    June 10, 2018 at 6:44 pm

    #40 … That’s an interesting comment by you Robin Halton, with your [i]”I am getting sick of and tired of Geoffrey Swan’s twisted personal views on forestry, enough is enough.”[/i]

    The same may be claimed against yourself by all the conservation inclined people in this state when your incessant support is given to arguably the most destructive state government undertaking of all .. this being the prime forest clear-fell destruction of Old Growth native forests (often at the expense of Tasmania’s taxpayers, only to feed the dishonourable volume allocation of indigenous forested hardwood log-supply to Ta Ann Berhad) along with the harvesting costs that support this State’s predator wood-chipping operations, generally at the cost of granted taxpayer subsidies to the TCC with its varying list of expenses, or be it an occasional huge block of cash.

    I would suggest that Geoffrey Swan has gained quite a good deal more support from Tasmanians than you and your forestry proponents have been offered.

  43. max

    June 10, 2018 at 7:34 pm

    #40, RCH … [i]”I am getting sick and tired of Geoffrey Swan’s twisted personal views on forestry, enough is enough.[/i] Well RCH, we have the same trouble with your monomania.

    Western Australia’s timber industry apparently has the same problems we have, what is there to like? The consequences of FPC’s participation in the market place, inter alia, are:

    FPC operates continually at a significant real financial loss and does not maximize its potential profit, as it charged with achieving.
    The State has had to continually bail out FPC financially through cash injection and subsidies.
    FPC’s pricing policies inhibit/preclude the development of a commercial agro/forestry industry based on private plantations and a fair-return for such investment.
    FPC’s pricing policies are anti-competitive and privileged, to the advantage of a few major clients.
    The disparity between the wholesale price of timber and the retail price is unreasonable and worthy of investigation for price gouging.
    There is no evidence of market failure to justify the involvement of FPC.
    FPC is obliged to distort its financial and environmental position to ameliorate its true operational situation.
    FPC is not growing the potential forest industry of WA.
     FPC now exists to transfer the costs of the planting, growing, silviculture, management and harvesting of timber (pine and hardwood) from industry to the State purse FPC’s activity in the native timber area embroils government in a volatile and ongoing politically damaging public debate about forestry and the environment.

  44. Robin Charles Halton

    June 11, 2018 at 1:00 am

    Geoffrey Swan your self inflation is getting under peoples skin, tone it down it is not possible that everything you state about forestry is heading from bad to worse as you progress with your quizzical ambitions.

    You speak in a determined anti forestry tone when forestry in the region remains as a part of local economy be it smaller than it was more than two decades ago.

    A steady stream of trucking movement carrying HWP thinnings comes through Hobart from the Southern outlet every day heading a long distance up to the north of the state for processing!

    With a Southern export wood chip plant, the traffic flow from the Huon be shorter in the reverse direction to Dover as well wood from the Upper Derwent Valley via the purpose built the Plenty Link trucked into the Huon valley region.

    Later this year there will be fresh council elections for Huon, let things take their course, there is no doubt potential candidates will equipped with their views based on facts that can be debated properly with the public giving voters a balanced indication the issues of the JNS proposal.

    Possible HVC candidates would already be familiar with the JNS proposal!

    Personally I would have preferred Macquarie Point being more central to the HWP action but being a part of a mainly affluent Denison electorate of city dwellers who feel that their is no requirement for them to acknowledge country side forestry as the previous Labor government and their Green allies made a Peace “settlement” that left the public deluded.

  45. gerrya

    June 11, 2018 at 11:41 am

    #44 … [i]”Later this year there will be fresh council elections for Huon, let things take their course”[/i]

    If only they were to be “fresh elections”. Sadly, as you indicate in the next sentence, some of the old guard with the interests of a few at heart, rather than those of the wider Huon, are resurfacing .. not only the HoH mob, but others with close ties to Abetz, Armstrong, Harriss and the forestry brigade.

  46. Santa's Little Helper

    June 11, 2018 at 12:03 pm

    #17 states that the Dover proposal is not a port and that ‘No-one’s saying it’s not an intended industrial facility’. Agreed, that pretence is long gone.

    But what is a port? It is a facility for loading and unloading ships. They have things like cranes and long conveyor belts and get visited by trucks. Sometimes lots of trucks.

    The most comparable example in Tasmania to the Dover port proposal is the Port Latta loading facility on the north west coast. It is used to load bulk materials via conveyor onto ships located well off shore. It meets the requirements of the planning scheme there because the land and wharf are zoned General Industrial.

    The land at Strathblane is zoned Rural Resource. Whether it is called a port or a facility for loading ships is irrelevant. It doesn’t change the fact that the proposal is not a permitted use within the Rural Resource zone under the Huon Valley Interim Planning Scheme (2015).

  47. Robin Charles Halton

    June 11, 2018 at 1:29 pm

    #45, gerrya, that is likely to be the case but at least they wont be pushing for the Huon Barges this time but for something more substantial to foward forestry activity as the result

    There are no perfect answers for the Huon economy but some compromises may have to be met to accommodate a local wood chipping facility to also consider the salmon industries concerns, tourism and local business in the Dover area.

    Hopefully the peoples elected “new council” have learnt from their previous mistakes with the misuse of Council funds and glorification of the right wing element by propping up their own!

    Commander Taylor needs to leave a very clear message of public trust for the oncoming council.

    In fact the Huon should be sparkling with visitor encouragement to visit far south of Cygnet and Franklin on the opposite bank of the Huon River, especially during the summer months.

    A multiple semi industrial/primary industry and improved tourism focus for the area is the way to go.

  48. Geoffrey Swan

    June 11, 2018 at 2:57 pm

    #4 “… your self inflation is getting under peoples skin”.

    Here you go again Robin – did you not read my last post #41? Perhaps our comments have crossed in the editing process, and I hope that is the situation. I have no idea how many people I am upsetting with my comments, must be that you are somehow in contact with others over and above these posts. Please do explain, Robin.

    I repeat, I am simply doing my research. Please do not shoot the messenger. Please correct me with the facts wherever I have erred.

    Also with respect, please do not suggest you are so well informed about the upcoming Huon Valley Council elections. From your lofty heights at Sandy Bay all is not what it seems in this Valley.

    As #45 has pointed out…a number of rascals (my words not Gerrya) who have been previous Huon Valley Councillors are again standing for this next election. Councillors who are so blinded, IMV, by all things Forestry, (any many other matters), in this Valley, that there is no chance of any impartiality when it comes to this Dover woodchip proposal.

    And please forgive me a lesson in the Local Government process Robin, though I may well be getting even further under your skin:

    Proposals such as this are passed to the Planning arm of Council, and in this case also the EPA. If matters concerning planning meet with the legislation, and if the EPA approve, then it is highly unlikely the elected Councillors around the table will have any real influence on this proposal.

    For example, looking back at the DA for the Southwood “Integrated Wood Processing Centre”, later renamed “Newood” and now “Southwood”. There were 261 representations from members of the public. These were all grouped into common matters such as increased truck movements, air and noise pollution concerns, aboriginal heritage and even the incredibly frustrating concerns such as not enough time being given to the community to find out more about the proposal.

    On this occasion, during the infamous Armstrong era, and when well known pro Forestry Councillors Wilson and Dillon were on Council, the DA was advertised December 15th 2001 closing January 22nd, 2002.

    When the “community” responded with outrage that such a large and important DA could be advertised over the Christmas and New Year period, Council simply advised they had met all the legislative requirements for advertising.

    This is why it is so important to raise as much community awareness as possible well before the DA goes through due process. JNS has invested heavily in preparing this DA over the past two years. He is refusing to release any more information. He is refusing to front any Town Hall meetings. He is refusing to advise where the supply will come from and what routes the feeder log trucks will take on their journey to Southwood — and continues repeating that no wood fibre log trucks will pass any residential houses etc.

    The other comment about candidates standing for Council Robin. Whatever their views on an DA proposal such as this Woodchip facility in Dover, when Council is acting as Planning, Councillors are required to have no “personal” views.

    However, in my personal experience I have witnessed too much corruption and wrongdoing when it comes to matters of planning and Councillors-elect.

  49. Geoffrey Swan

    June 11, 2018 at 3:29 pm

    From my extensive reading in the past few weeks…the Dover Port (loading facility) is just the latest “thought bubble” in the fantasy world of Forestry Tasmania.

    Paul Harriss is on the public record saying the success of the Southwood Mill site is reliant on a Southern Port.

    Port Huon, Waterloo Bay, Electrona and Macquarie Point have all been tested as options and so far have failed as viable Port options. Largely due to community awareness and the realisation that fully laden log trucks carrying feeder logs and woodchip fibre throughout the streets of Southern Tasmania is no longer acceptable.

    The communities have had enough. It is not acceptable to have trucks every 5 minutes passing peoples homes, schools or business shop fronts. The pollution from burnt diesel is 2.4kg for every litre of burnt fuel. It contains some 40 toxic compounds to include arsenic and nickel. People within 50m to 100m of a passing truck breath in particulates that are around one fifth the size of a human hair. These particulates lodge deep into our lungs. Children, whose lungs are forming are the most impacted.

    My calculations estimate some 18,000,000 litres of diesel fuel will be burnt by the feeder log trucks alone, per year, in this latest NSFP proposal. Add to that the same amount of wood chip trucks, the harvesting machinery, the workers… and we have a massive impact on the health and well being of residents in Southern Tasmania, and a huge impact on climate change.

    Importantly, the supposed need for a Southern Port was well before the issues of Triabunna. The criticisms of Graeme Wood is simply more game playing by our State government. A Southern Port has been on the Government’s agenda for over 20 years. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors and bowing down to FT.

  50. MjF

    June 11, 2018 at 4:07 pm

    #45

    To be fair gerryA, pyro Robin’s next sentence is:

    “Possible HVC candidates would already be familiar with the JNS proposal!”

    Nothing sinister or unreasonable in that comment.

    I see no correlation here with your inference that he actually means “some of the old guard with the interests of a few at heart, rather than those of the wider Huon, are resurfacing .. not only the HoH mob, but others with close ties to Abetz, Armstrong, Harriss and the forestry brigade.”

    Think you’re jumping at shadows g and misrepresenting our pyro man.

    #46……Incorrect SLH.

    I explain what generally constitutes a port in my #14.

    The important point being that a loading facility is single purpose, unlike ports which cater for multiple materials and have various handling systems.

    This is an important point of difference when JNS opponents manufacture spurious theories about crushed rock and other unrelated materials such as minerals being shipped from JNS’s facility, claiming this to be the thin edge of the wedge.

    I would agree that it’s possible for a loading facility to be further developed into a port. But one is not automatically the other.

    The closest existing facility to the JNS proposal would have been the berth and ship loader at the old Triabunna woodchip mill prior to partial dismantling.

    Now the closest are the two dedicated woodchip loading facilities at Longreach on the Tamar.

    These are single purpose facilities with minimal infrastructure extending into the river due to adequate water depth. These facilities have been in use since the early 1970’s with no other commodity being processed or loaded/unloaded simply because they physically can’t be.

    The Port Latta facility, while single purpose for loading pelletised iron ore, extends offshore a great deal further than the JNS proposal. The actual berth is also longer to cater for larger ships.

    So your example of a comparison actually comes in, in 3rd place.

    If the planning scheme does preclude such an activity, then no problem it won’t be built.

    From the said planning scheme, Rural Resource Zone definitions:

    26.1.1 Zone Purpose Statements
    26.1.1.1
    To provide for the sustainable use or development of resources for agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, mining and other primary industries, including opportunities for resource processing.

    26.1.1.2
    To provide for other use or development that does not constrain or conflict with resource development uses.

    26.1.1.3
    To provide for non-agricultural use or development, such as recreation, conservation, tourism and retailing, where it supports existing agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, mining and other primary industries.

    26.1.1.4
    To allow for residential and other uses not necessary to support agriculture, aquaculture and other primary industries provided that such uses do not:

    (a) fetter existing or potential rural resource use and development on other land;
    (b) add to the need to provide services or infrastructure or to upgrade existing infrastructure;
    (c) contribute to the incremental loss of productive rural resources.
    26.1.1.5
    To provide for protection of rural land so future resource development opportunities are no lost.

    26.1.1.6
    To provide for opportunities for economic development that is compatible with agricultural and timber harvesting activities, environmental and landscape values,

    We should await the regulators decisions.

    I don’t see how such a proposal is not permitted under this zoning according to these purpose statements, it may certainly be discretionary as a minimum.

    But you may understand it better than I do.

  51. gerrya

    June 12, 2018 at 11:29 am

    # 50 Comments stand. However, seems I missed MjF off the list

  52. MjF

    June 12, 2018 at 12:52 pm

    #51 … Rubbish.
    Your prejudices (justified or not) are not what RCH said.

  53. Robin Charles Halton

    June 12, 2018 at 1:47 pm

    #50 … Martin, the “Huon Barges” proposal, which must have been a desperate measure by the former Huon Council to grab at the impossible, costed the ratepayer consulting fees for a “double handling” facility to transfer forest products as well as gravels and stone from truck at Waterloo-barges- ship!

    The puzzling question remains: why would we need to export gravel products? Is there a actually a demand for such products? Or was this actually either a concocted dream or a viable proposal coming from Duggan’s at Cradoc and maybe from Hazells at Leslie Vale as well?

    If in fact there is an existing demand for aggrerates that can be exported from a loading wharf, then that should be pursued as well!

    I have no objections to multi-purposing a loading facility at the Port of Dover as we already know that forest exports can be of a cyclic nature, as Evan Rolley used to drill into us and the public when he was CEO of FT.

    The woodchip industry before the time of Gunns’ demise was often on shaky ground, although I think it was really more about the rise of demand for plantation quality fibre chips over native forest eucalypt for overseas processors!

    As we all realise, or should wake up to, there’s also a worrying national security issue with the rise of China in our region! Having a multi-purposed facility that can be immediately transformed into a military base, as far away from our capital city as is possible, and in fact remote from those long range “things” that are continually being developed far north of our Australian continent with their extended ranges that can threaten most of our continent.

    Not all is clean and green and safe either! Wake up Australia! We have all been sleeping for too long in a bubble!

  54. Geoffrey Swan

    June 12, 2018 at 3:52 pm

    #53 … Facts please, Robin. The Waterloo proposal was put up by developer Dennis Bewsher of Telopea Pty Ltd. Nothing to do with the Huon Council.

    I am pretty sure you are correct however, that any development in this Valley will more than likely have a Duggan, Hazel or Doyle name attached in some way, along with the full support of the now sacked HotH team of former Councillors.

    It was almost hilarious that this proposal was being pitched by Bewsher as clean and green “I’m pitching it as a clean, green proposal. For every truck that doesn’t go to Bell Bay and goes out through this there’ll be a massive saving in CO2 generation.”

    And now we have an NSFP proposal discharging some 50 million tonnes or more of carbon dioxide, which will include some 40 toxic compounds, into the Valley each year.

  55. William Boeder

    June 12, 2018 at 6:39 pm

    #53 … RCH, you continue to speak about the conservation inclined people and a couple of Greens party ministers as though they have been responsible for the grand-scale larceny of Tasmania’s Crown Land native forests.

    Your and MJF seem to be suffering from a viral delusionary paranoia specific to former Forestry Tasmania advocating employees. Have you sought professional advice on this serious “logging of Tasmania’s forests at great expense to the Tasmanian citizenry” mania?

    Another consideration is that there may be a pecuniary benefit going to each of you in order to have each of you support the renegade logging minister and his ongoing denudation of Tasmania’s native forests. One has to wonder at your motivations.

    From my perspective, ordinary human logic seems to have escaped out the window, because often one is unable to identify one’s own annoying personality traits.

    Also, the secrecy of this private industry NSFP proposal submitted as some sort of necessary State project is clearly of nil-benefit to the overall Tasmanian citizenry, and it happens to reek of cronyism. Personally, I am more than happy to support the greater population of our Tasmania.

    This NFSP push to add to the fortunes of its owner, Mr. Neville Smith, is something that seems to have a rather potent illegitimacy underlying its singular personal benefit.

    One must not overlook how the state’s logging insanity had previously seen a change to the Government Business Enterprise statutes in some sort nefarious undertaking to single out the former Forestry Tasmania primary objective of generating profits to the benefit of Tasmania’s revenues.

    This in itself seemed to fit into the delusional theory that logging in this State was recognised as a loss-making State government undertaking. Mind you that in my having read up the GBE statutes I found that it was only Forestry Tasmania that was given this escape clause.

    The reference and link below happen to recognise this failure to generate revenues, however it has become a far too onerous task to relocate the applicable amended statute.

    [i]”As some businesses continue to be reliant on Government funding or commercial support to maintain sustainability, and are not expected or are unlikely to generate profit sufficient enough to provide future returns to the Government the ‘for-profit’ corporate structures for these entities may not be appropriate unless a significant improvement in their financial performance is expected to occur.”[/i]

    https://www.audit.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Summary-Report-No-5-2017-18-Auditor-General’s-Report-on-the-Financial-Statements-of-State-entities-Volume-2-Government-Businesses-and-Tasmanian-Water-and-Sewerage-Corporation-Pty-Ltd-2016-17.pdf

  56. MjF

    June 12, 2018 at 7:17 pm

    #53, RCH … I have little knowledge of the Brewsher gravel/ barges/export scenario but it certainly sounds flaky at best. Thank you Swanny, for your additionals on that proposal.

    Now Halton, you’re taking it to a whole new level with rapid conversion of merchant ports into military bases. I’m not sure that I have any worthwhile thoughts on that, other than asking what would be wrong with re-purposing Battery Point as a last line of defence. It clearly worked for VDL colonial governments, never coming under French attack once. It would probably impact real estate values there, but hey, no problem with national security at risk.

    Are you a bit racist towards the Asiatics, Robin?

    You sound very anti-celestial at times.

  57. Geoffrey Swan

    June 13, 2018 at 1:07 am

    #56 … I know it is automatic to want to write ‘Brewsher” Martin … but strangely it is “Bewsher”.

    It’s all history now but there’s more from well known and respected TT contributor and journo, Bob Hawkins here:

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/waterloo-bay-the-great-deceit

  58. Geoffrey Swan

    June 13, 2018 at 2:16 am

    The first Community meeting at Cygnet went well tonight. About 100 pax I reckon, and only two very loud hecklers who just did not want to listen. I don’t know their names, but I have seen and heard them before. Self declared Forestry workers.

    Big complaint from one gent was that “You’se people who sit on your bums all day forget about the workers who are out in the bush making a quid. They cannot get to these style meetings that start at pm ’cause they’re still out there working”

    It was impossible to have any debate, but I did want to inform him that JNS has been invited to come to these meetings and to speak at his own self-organised Town Hall meetings, but he keeps refusing. Besides he is overseas until the end of July. Maybe he is catching some sun in the Cayman Islands.

    Bruny Island this coming weekend … I just heard we are in for thunder and rain and 7 degrees … brrggh.

    Everyone is most welcome .. even hecklers – as long as you know when enough is enough

    I’m wondering if we should run a similar community meeting in the Derwent Valley given the huge impact the log trucks will have on their community. Does anyone on TT have an opinion, or can offer any suggestions?. It would all be a bit of a stretch as we are all volunteers, and even putting fuel into our cars is a big hit these days.

    There is also a huge tract of plantation in Derwent East out Sorell way. Any comments, please?

  59. Robin Charles Halton

    June 13, 2018 at 10:16 am

    #54 … Geoffrey, I am pretty sure a former HVC gang of four were supporting the Barges proposal, one of those being a hard line forestry supporter!

    At a particular public or council meeting in Huonville, HVC tied four for and four against the submission. Mayor Peter Coad wisely at the time, given that 95% of 202 submissions were against the Huon Barges concept, threw it out and the motion was defeated.

    Leading up to that I do believe the HVC as well as the RDPC spent considerable time and effort with what was really pie in the sky!

    #58 … I think it is fair enough that both the Derwent Valley and Sorell trucking movements would need to be known soon within the NSP proposal, if that is the case!

    A meeting at New Norfolk and perhaps at Sorell could be beneficial!

    I suspect there is an obvious cut off point in Central highlands and Eastern Tiers including the Tasman Peninsula where loads of plantation wood heads north to the Tamar area. STT as well as Forico personal would be well aware of this! You could inquire with them!

    MJF, who is usually well informed with tracking the latest of forestry developments, may know of the current intentions.

    My guess is wood from the SE to the north of Hobart will head north to Tamar or Burnie much the same as is currently the case!

    My other guess is that the bulk of the Derwent Valley wood will come south to Dover mostly via Plenty Link Road from Bushy Park-Uxbridge route.

    There may a decision to rebuild the Styx River bridge with a concrete deck at the Karanja end with a concrete deck to facilitate another transport option if Norske Skog agree as forest owners at the Karanja end.

    As I understand it, with a 10 tonne limit on this bridge it is only suitable for unladen log trucks on their return journeys.

    There probably needs to be some upgrading near the Gordon River Road/ Glenora Road junction as the engineering design is tight, as well as poor line of sight, similarly the junction nearby onto the Uxbridge Road, though Feilton section, which is very narrow on that section of the PLR just past Norfolk, is permitted only for empty log trucks returning to their loading destinations.

    #56, MJF … ditto above. Any knowledge on those proposed trucking routes would be helpful.

    Yes I am concerned about the grip that Asiatics are having on Tasmania. VDL dairying at Circular Head is having a bad start so far. Now the sale of the 3,300 ha Cumbria estate at Swansea to Mr “Who” and a Beijing investor. Our second-rate University system is being prostituted for the major benefit for overseas students.

    With all the goings on the South China Sea, diplomacy can only achieve so much, thereby delaying what should be seen as an increasing concern for Australians.

    I have no problems with current trade relations and with visitation ! Increasing foreign ownership will reach an end point within the next decade, and it will not end as a lasting diplomatic agreement of harmony!

  60. Geoffrey Swan

    June 14, 2018 at 1:25 am

    #59 … Interesting story around Mr Hu and his Cambria estate in today’s ABC media, Robin.

    Mr Hu is telling us he has lived in Australia for 30 years, and he says he “definitely shares Australian values.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-13/chinese-development-sparks-tasmania-foreign-ownership-fears/9845018

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top