What is going on in Tasmania?

[woodbe]

Source: The Mercury Newspaper (News Ltd), http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story...007221,00.html 11th of May 2007.

Finally - if you are going to quote facts, figures and websites I am asking that they are reputable. You cannot construct an argument solely on secondary research by pulling articles off the web, I just don't believe it should be the basis of a "well rounded" opinion.

Ok, Felixe, you're guilty under your own standards.

woodbe.

[felixe]

Why because I quoted from a reputable source, which reported directly from a "reliable" Government department ( and probably backed up by ABS statistics)??

Oh no - naughty me!

[felixe]

Sorry Woodbe, I should also add that while I was down in Tasmania in January it appeared to me that the economy was strong and proserous and this was indicated by the number of gainfully employed people I saw striding around as I was having my holiday.

The News Ltd article is a reliable source of secondary information to support my own primary research I undertook while on holidays.

Am I off the hook?

[woodbe]

Felixe,

No.

woodbe.

[reeves]

Well Felixe, the job figures are so good it doesnt look like they need a 2 billion$ Pulp Mill does it?

As for your comments on 'reputable' sites. Any source government, media or private can be biased or provide misinformation, the only way you can suss it out is to check various sites and cross compare info.
I have no prob with those stats, standard ABS stuff and pretty much common knowledge. I do have a problem with the ridiculous attitude you promote that somehow you know ALL about the Tassie issues and are right about it all anything anyone else says or what different sites say has 'no credibility' in your eyes. As for seeing people gainfully employed (that you laughingly call research) thats because of two reasons,one the Howie government has been hardling people off welfare since they got in and two because Tasmania now has growth in a variety of business areas more closley linked to to Tourism than resource exploitation.

Check this post from an entirley legitimate site run by Tasmanians for Tasmanians that advertises Tasmanian businesses and allows open comment.. often has links to mainstream media or government sources.(the same ones you link to).The article is written by a bloke with a long working history in Tassie inlcuding tourism developments.

TWENTY years ago a small island endured a heated debate around a plan for a controversial world-scale chlorine pulpmill. The Premier warned the economy would be ruined without it. Opponents were slammed as anti-development.
The pulpmill didn’t proceed. Yet, ironically, over time unemployment halved and the economy boomed. New vibrant industries created jobs and tourism flourished. The island’s lifestyle became the envy of the nation, community conflict began to heal and the islanders discovered a positive attitude and love of their land.
That island is, of course, Tasmania.
In 1989, when the Wesley Vale pulpmill was stopped, Tasmania’s unemployment was the highest in Australia at almost 10%. Now, 20 years later, unemployment is down to only 5.4%, no longer lagging behind the other states. Participation is strong at over 60%. 35,000 new jobs have been created. Economic growth over 3% is ahead of the national average of 2.8% and in front of NSW, Victoria and South Australia. Our youth no longer leave the state in droves to find jobs and for the first time we have recorded positive net interstate migration figures.
If the pulpmill proponents had been correct, Tasmania’s economy should be in tatters rather than the nation’s success story.
The full economic picture is even more startling. Numerous other resource-intensive industries shed hundreds of jobs as they struggled with global competition. In round numbers, employment fell at Comalco by about 700; at EZ by 2000; at ANM 600; Renison 400; Savage River 600; Temco 500; EZ Roseberry 1000; Tioxide 600; King Island Shelite 400; and Mt Llyell 1500. The forest industries cut 5,000 jobs as the focus turned to pulpwood.
This story of economic disaster and employment melt down allowed Tasmania to undergo no less than an economic revolution. Employment creation has boomed as new clean green and clever industries have not only replaced the thousands of jobs lost in the resource industries, but have created enough new jobs — some 50,000 — to halve unemployment. Growth in these emerging industries has resulted in more state income to fund health, education, social services and subsidise forestry. The multiplier effect has been enormous. There is no longer just a dim light at the end of the tunnel, Tasmania has entered sustained economic sunshine.
What led to this clean, green and clever economic resurgence? The answer lies in the seismic events of Tasmania’s last 20 years centered on environmental protection and social progress.
No issue has featured more prominently in Tasmania than forestry. The debate has been ferocious. Time and time again the forest industry has claimed protecting wild areas will turn Tasmania into a basket case, but the evidence is very different. Every time a National Park has been created or an old growth forest protected, unemployment has fallen as new economic activity is generated.
With twenty five percent of Tasmania now protected as National Parks and World Heritage Areas, unemployment keeps falling. The forestry industry has been wrong. Protecting our wild country creates jobs. Hard working Tasmanians previously employed in the resource industries are finding secure work in the new industries. The few ideological extremists who still claim protecting the environment costs jobs, are now little more than a well funded vocal minority.
Tourism has become Tasmania’s economic powerhouse. The turning point was saving the Franklin River. Since then the number of tourism visitors have tripled to over 800,000 and the amount they are spending has doubled to nearly $1.2 billion every year (coincidentally roughly the same as the total cost of the pulpmill). Even Forestry Tasmania has had to move into this growth sector to offset their losses. Employment has risen by over twenty five percent. Tourism is now our number one employer and twice the size of any other industry.
Many of Tasmania’s emerging industries rely on our new ‘clean green’ brand. The image of a verdant, wild island where innovation flourishes, underpins our fine food, wine, agricultural, marine farming, organic and fishing industries.
The clean green brand could not have been created when resource businesses dominated Tasmania. In fact it was the collapse of the old industries which allowed the new sectors to take root.
The revolution in Tasmania’s social policy has also been instrumental in our new economic revival. Our parliament has passed some of the nation’s must progressive laws. Gays and lesbians are no longer criminals and discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is outlawed; we have the toughest gun control; we’re the first state to apologise to and compensate the stolen generation; we have handed land back to the traditional owners, stopped using 1080 in state forests and banned industrial dumping at sea.
Each time Tasmania has acted to protect the environment and create a more caring, progressive and inclusive community, unemployment has fallen and economic activity has increased.
Together, the social and environmental reforms have created fertile ground for our new economy based on creativity and a wild pristine environment. The variety of innovative industries is staggering - from computer technology, organic cosmetics, software to map the oceans, intricate fine furniture and elaborately transformed manufactures.
The new ‘Tasmania’ has become a magnet for what Saul Eastlake calls the ‘creative classes’. The success or failure of regional economies is now dependent on attracting and keeping these innovators and some are already saying they will leave Tasmania if the pulp mill proceeds.
This economic transformation didn’t come about by accident. At first the Greens promoted the new economic strategy. Later Liberal Premier Rundle embarked on a brave industrial plan to support and foster emerging clean green industries. Labor Premier Bacon continued the work. Until Paul Lennon, Tasmania’s successful industrial strategy was backed by all political parties.
Leading industry strategists like Professor Porter support the strategy, “The conflict between environmental protection and economic competitiveness is a false dichotomy.” Kenichi Ohmae agrees, “We have to accept the fact that natural resources are no longer the key to wealth.”
In truth, the pulpmill is a dangerous distraction monopolizing Tasmania’s economic horizon. Industry debate is dominated by it. The government bureaucracy is focused almost exclusively on it. Our Minister for Economic Development, Paul Lennon, is totally mesmerized by it. This myopic vision has distracted our public resources and political attention so fully Tasmania is ignoring industries at the heart of our economic revival.
Equally worrying Tasmania is failing to explore emerging opportunities. The world’s economies are about to undergo an industrial revolution the likes of which we have never seen before. The climate change challenge will create more business opportunities than the agricultural, information and biotechnology revolutions combined. What is our government doing? We don’t have a single officer in Economic Development dedicated to it and Paul Lennon was the only Premier who didn’t attend Kevin Rudd’s summit.
The pulpmill would employ about 250 but it will undermine the basis of our new economy. Already the controversy is doing damage to our brand as mainlanders learn Tasmania may soon be home to one of the world’s biggest industrial polluters. A decision to go ahead with a resource development of this immense scale will signal a ‘U turn’. It would take Tasmania back to our failed resource-intensive development strategy.
Paul Lennon says building the pulpmill will hang an ‘open-for-business’ sign on Tasmania. Open to fast-tracked, polluting, resource-extractive industries maybe, but firmly ‘closed’ to the new clean green and clever industries responsible for Tasmania’s economic renewal.
Turning back to focusing on the industries of the past will cast a heavy shadow over Tasmania’s future and our island’s new-found economic sunshine.
Rod West is currently undertaking a $12 million tourism development on the Tasman Peninsula. He has established Tasmanian businesses focused on gourmet food, fine furniture, organics and learning and discovery. He was Chief of Staff for the Tasmanian Greens during the Liberal Minority Government and previously a branch Vice-President of the ALP in the ACT.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/upl...nt_Vs_Jobs.pdf
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/...omments/truth/

[RETIRED]

Keep it nice now people.

[reeves]

sorry for the double post guys but in the spirit of the original question..what is going on in Tasmania, this post represents the views of professionals regarding the economic 'directions' the Lennon government is 'leading' Tasmania into

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...50-601,00.html

Premier 'misleading' on mill benefits

• Matthew Denholm
• May 12, 2007

SENIOR economists have accused the Tasmanian Government of failing to adequately assess the economic impact of the $2billion pulp mill that timber company Gunns wants to build in the state's north.

In defending his decision to fast-track the controversial project, Premier Paul Lennon has repeatedly warned that, if it falls over, the state will return to the economic "dark days" of the mid-1990s. Mr Lennon has warned of a repeat of the collapse in jobs and investment that followed the failure of the Wesley Vale pulp mill proposal after a community backlash in 1989.
Several senior economists - including Saul Eslake, chief economist with ANZ, Gunns's banker - have told The Weekend Australian they disagree with the Premier's claim.
"It is not sound, economic logic," Mr Eslake said. "The dark days into which Tasmania sank in the 1990s were not primarily a response to Wesley Vale (pulp mill proposal) falling over, but were instead a consequence of the fiscal ineptitude of the Gray government."
Mr Lennon has also claimed that by adding $6.7billion to economic output over 25 years, the mill would mean "each household is likely to have $870 extra every year to spend".
University of Tasmania associate professor of economic policy Graeme Wells said this was "palpable nonsense" and "misleading at best".
The Lennon Government's fast-tracking was a response to Gunns's decision to withdraw the project from the state's independent planning body. The new process allows government-appointed consultants to recommend that parliament approve the mill even if it fails to meet pulp mill emission guidelines.
Mr Eslake said that rather than one or two "mega-projects", Tasmania's prosperity depended on its ability to produce and market premium goods and services, such as top-quality food and wine. Many such producers in the Tamar Valley fear the mill will destroy their businesses by undermining their "clean, green" image. They are seeking government guarantees for compensation.

[felixe]

I do have a problem with the ridiculous attitude you promote that somehow you know ALL about the Tassie issues and are right about it all anything anyone else says or what different sites say has 'no credibility' in your eyes.

Oh Reeves, you make me smile! I love your posts, I always get a giggle

I have never said or promoted that I know about all Tassie issues, this is your attempt to discredit me by insinuating that I am a "know it all" with an opinion on everything.
Sorry but this is not so, I am humble enough to acknowledge I don't know all the facts. But this will not stop me from giving my opinion, and I certainly welcome the opinion of yours and others, it is what makes discussions on this forum so rewarding.
You need to lighten up, I thought this was a discussion on "whats going on in Tasmania" and the Timber industry in Tasmania.

This is actually relating to Dazzlers post - I disagreed with his statement, I argued a case, he clarified his position.
I actually believe Dazzlers last post, that money on welfare outranked all other spending (again I could be wrong).

I read your posts and the related articles, it is good to see you are posting articles from "reliable" media, not just that ratbag newspaper the Tasmanian Times (The number of times you use the Tasmanian Times, I have to ask - Do you have an "interest" in this Business? I can't think of any other reason why you would promote the website so often.)

Anyway, I agree with the Australian article, if the pulp mill does not go ahead it shouldn't be the end of the world, however it is definitely a bonus to the economy if it is established. The fast-tracking of the mill has raised plenty of media concern and does not reflect favourably on Paul Lennon or his Government.

Tasmania has a "diversified" economy, in your post where you ridiculed my observations (A personal attack on my opinions! - and hypocritical if you refer back to your post on page 4) you failed to give credit to the Labor Government of Jim Bacon who played a role in reviving the economy after Gray and the Greens stuffed it up in the early to mid 90's. But why can't a diversified economy have sustainable logging and forestry as a part of the economy?

[dazzler]

Keep it nice now people.

They need to (insert dr evil voice) " get a Freeeeking room"

[dazzler]

And I still dont know what ratbag was talking about

[reeves]

I am humble enough to acknowledge I don't know all the facts. But this will not stop me from giving my opinion, and I certainly welcome the opinion of yours and others, it is what makes discussions on this forum so rewarding.

mmm some pretty heavy self referencing there Felixe, I am sure that other members including myself can draw their own conclusions from your posts about whether you are indeed humble or agree with you about not knowing all the facts (pretty obvious really and who does, we all have much to learn which i guess is why Mr Woodbe posted this thread in the first place). As for welcoming the opinion of others well your recent posts indicate that you 'could' go a little further in welcoming the views of other members, but thats just my opinion ;-)

I read your posts and the related articles, it is good to see you are posting articles from "reliable" media, not just that ratbag newspaper the Tasmanian Times (The number of times you use the Tasmanian Times, I have to ask - Do you have an "interest" in this Business? I can't think of any other reason why you would promote the website so often.)

Well let me explain a little, in your first response to my initial post you stated

Your credibility went downhill when you quoted the "Tasmanian Times".

So not only do you choose to attack my credibility because i referenced a successful Tasmanina community website but you are suggesting that the site has 'no credibility' because as you later outlined it as run by 'ratbag greens'. Now really Felixe those comments would suggest that not only are you willing to bag forum members for exercising our rights to post freely but also thousands of Tasmanians who enjoy the same rights, not a good way to be seen as 'open' or knowledgeable on such issues.

To make my view clear on this, I am refuting your claims about credibility and 'suggesting' that if you can get past your own limited and predjudical views, you may consider reading some of the articles there and looking into the responses of Tasmanian citizens represented by the articles and comment, rather that your incorrectly percieved motivations on who runs the site, which in my view (and the 16000 or so people who visit it every month) is a lot more detailed and indepth in terms of gaining information about what is going on in Tasmania. I have no vested interest in TT as you claim , other that seeing it as a great site that offers articles and comment free from the restrictions of mainstream media which is always limited to the views of editors and journalists on the payrole. I am saying why not read the articles and posts by Tasmanian people and forget about who may be 'running' it.

An example of the more detailed information available is Mr Saul Eslake, the ANZ economist ( an entirley credible proffesional) quoted above by the Australian newspaper. Now if you want to read a lot more of his information, read comments on his information and even contact him yourself, you will find the opportunity to do so on TT. This article by Mr Eslake has a lot more up to date detail on the Tasmanian economy than will ever be published by mainstream newspapers.It is published by Mr Eslake himself on TT.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/saul2.pdf

In fact if you are interested in some serious proffessional research on the issue of current Tasmanian economics it is contained in that PDF.

You will find many other posts by him (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/...c0577ad902785/) as well as other Tasmanian and mainland professionals innvolved in Tasmanian issues. These include Dr Raverty the CSRIO scientist who resigned from the RDPC citing interference form the Lennon Government and many others from all professions and walks of life.

more examples citing recent landowner concerns on councils implementing PAL policy without public consultation, a serious erosion of Tasmanians rights and potentially disastrous issue for farms, small business and rural landowners.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/.../not-your-pal/

Barnaby Drake

Meander Valley Council, Wynyard Council, Central Coast Council, Break-O-Day Council and many others in all rural areas have already taken action at the behest of the Premier to impose these new laws on a largely unsuspecting public. Minimal information has been disseminated and the public is largely ignorant of what is about to happen. This has not been helped by a virtual news blackout. It was left to the public-minded initiative of the Deputy Mayor of Meander Valley Council, Bob Loone, to let the public know about these actions in a private, but strongly worded advert, paid for at his own expense. The response was tremendous, and within a few days, the council received over 1200 objections. This has obviously caused them some embarrassment, for they have since hinted at ‘extending the timeframe’. It has become a wait-and-see game for the first council to make the moves that will set the precedent for all the others. This was to be the Meander Valley.

Anyway, I agree with the Australian article, if the pulp mill does not go ahead it shouldn't be the end of the world, however it is definitely a bonus to the economy if it is established. The fast-tracking of the mill has raised plenty of media concern and does not reflect favourably on Paul Lennon or his Government.

Well the 'media' concern over this reflects the concerns of the Tasmanian people on all sides, not just the newpaper editors. As for not reflecting favourably, it actually paints the Gov as corrupt, willing to change laws to suit big business, willing to breach due process, willing to breach the RFA and EPBC, and in general erode 'any' public trust they may have had. This does not bode well for Tasmania and Lennon will most likely be looking for a new job come next election time, possibly on the board of Gunns Ltd.

Flannagns article published in a London Newspaper (entirley 'credible') magazine is probably a good example of 'what is happening' in Tasmania and in the least a good point for discussions on that issue.
You have yet to acknowledge reading it or responding to points made in it.

http://www.johnreeves.com.au/images/...stsarticle.pdf

But why can't a diversified economy have sustainable logging and forestry as a part of the economy?

No reason at all, in fact responsible and TRULY sustainable forestry practices would be a vital part of any diverse economy.The questions that have been raised both in this thread and on a wider scope are not condeming of the entire forestry industry but directly related to

1)extensive clearfelling of old growth forests
2)extensive profit dependance on woodchipping not value adding of other forestry products
3) The effect that largescale clearing of forest, plantation developments and big 'regeneration' burns has on tourism, rural economies, farming lands and landowners.
4) the monopoly dominance of the forestry industry by one company, Gunns.
5) The concerns of timberworkers regarding the growth and supply of speciality timbers used for woodwork, cabinet work, furnitures etc when much of these timber species are affected by the above mentioned clearfelling and biodiversity loss.
6) Innaccurate use of the term sustainable when loss of old growth forests means they are not to intended to be 'sustained' but cleared. Selective logging of old growth 'would' be seen as sustainable as would 100% reliance on plantation timbers for pulp and other sources.

Unfortunlatley Felixe you are talking with someone who has over 25 years working in various media related industries with extensive research experience in film documentries work, corporate IT/web, University course building, teaching and multimedia production. I dont buy your attidtude to 'research' or your claims of having researched anything in an objective and beneficial manner.

So if you r unwise enough to state that your 'primary research' innvolves going on holiday and watching Tasmanians work or reading the brief and limited articles from mainstream newspapers that everyone can easily read then you are leaving yourself wide open to many questions, refutation and potential ridicule, , your concept of research and 'reliable' media is pretty laughable mate and if you are genuinely interested in what is going on in Tasmania you might wanna broaden your references a little more and rely less on your own opinions.

So in the interest of research into what IS happening in Tasmania I suggest you read the Flannagan article in PDF and the Saul Eslake paper in PDF (you can save them both to your machine) I consider both documents to contain serious research into what is happening in tasmania, and get back to us with your comments, which I look forward to.

The truth is out there, can you see the wood from the trees ?



;-)

[reeves]

Government admits failing to protect Tasmania's forests

http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story...4-3462,00.html

Boundaries moved: Abetz

SUE NEALES Chief Reporter
May 12, 2007 12:00am

THE Federal Government has not fulfilled promises made at the 2004 federal election to protect specific old-growth forests in Tasmania, Forestry Minister Eric Abetz has admitted yesterday.
Senator Abetz told a gathering of forestry industry players in Hobart yesterday that not as much of the Styx and Florentine forests in Tasmania's south-west had been "locked up" as originally promised by Prime Minister John Howard.



But Wilderness Society forest campaigner Vica Bayley said the claims were part of a "slick" presentation that overstated the environmental benefits of the CFA.
"There was much talk today about locking up carbon in timber products and houses; this is spin that totally ignores the reality that the majority of timber extracted from Tasmania's forests goes directly to the woodchip mill and ends up being burnt or disposed of as paper very quickly," Mr Bayley said.

[felixe]

They need to (insert dr evil voice) " get a Freeeeking room"

Nice one Dazzler

[dazzler]

[felixe]

Hmmm, with my ability to continually upset Reeves I thought it was more.....

Anyway I must focus on the Issues at hand or else I will be accused of ignoring the issues.

Reeves, I could waste the next 15 minutes referencing your last posts, but I will instead summarise by noting that your answers to my questions consist of you:

• continually misquoting me,
• and misleading others by quoting my posts, referencing them and then drawing your own misguided and ill-informed conclusions on what my beliefs and motives are.
• Using this to attack me personally rather than focus on the topic of this thread.

In response to my "primary research" on the employment in Tasmania - it was a humourous response to Woodbe's post as he had obviously caught me out, he saw the humour in it, you did not and took it literally, sorry mate - I now realise you have no sense of humour at all.

I am happy to continue this discussion but only after you get down off your soap box, calm down and are ready to be rational.