Great Gunns... again!

It seems like everyone is talking about the Gunns pulp mill now. There are reports in all the papers about it. The Australian has had a good run with the story, as have other media outlets such as the ABC. It's a bit late, though - the mill is virtually approved, and now the media starts talking about it... but better late than never.


I guess the main reason it's suddenly become a story is that Geoffrey Cousins is running a large publicity campaign about it in Malcom Turnbulls electorate in Sydney. The papers obviously don't think it's a story unless there's a Sydney angle, right? Anyway...

Still, the debate goes on. There is a vote due any time now in the Tasmanian upper house, giving final approval from the state. And there are reports of new environmental concerns. This latest report finds that the mill will not meet 15 environmental conditions. That has to be disturbing for anyone who's interested in the project.

There are even reports that Malcolm Turnbull might be considering telling Gunns to move the mill to another site (Hampshire, rather than the Tamar Valley) I think that would probably be a good idea, although I doubt Gunns would consider it. They'd probably just pull the plug on the whole thing rather than try and re-design the whole mill so that it could be done at the Hampshire site. It'd almost be as bad as starting from scratch again.

I can understand why Gunns is frustrated. This project was originally proposed several years ago now, and should have been resolved before this. Now it's got caught up in all the election-year politicking. Since the federal government has to sign off on the assessment before the mill can go ahead, it's become a federal issue. Neither side of politics will want to make a committment before the election because whatever they decide will annoy some voters. And those voters are in a marginal seat which might turn out to be critical to the election result...

So what's going to happen? I've got no idea. What should happen? Everyone should forget about the politics and focus on the actual effects of the mill. I still think the whole approvals process has been a sham so far - maybe the federal government process will be better, but since this is an election year I think the final decision will have more to do with electioneering than an actual assessment of the mill on its merits. Hopefully, I'm just being too cynical here, though...

And I still think the mill is dubious on all sorts of environmental grounds. I don't think the approvals process has taken these fully into consideration.

Basically, the whole thing stinks. The Lennon state government really needs to go, in my opinion. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an opposition. Anyway...

Previous entries: Gunns part 1, Gunns part 2.

Also: An interesting piece in today's Crikey about the politics of the mill and Geoffrey Cousins. Like I said, Tassie only gets national attention when there is an outsider involved...

Update 2: An article by Warwick Raverty in New Matilda lays out the good, the bad and the ugly sides of the mill. And here's a conflicting view from Jennifer Marohasy, pointing out that the mill is supposed to be built in Tasmanias largest industrial estate. It's true that Bell Bay, with the Rio Tinto aluminium smelter is in the same area, along with other industries. I think, though, that the mill will be built further upriver than Bell Bay, away from the rest of the industrial sites. And that doesn't answer the other environmental problems, either. Still, it's an interesting point, and I can't comment much more than that since it's been a long time since I've been through the area.