Most voters in the marginal Tasmanian electorate of Bass oppose the proposed Gunns pulp mill, an opinion poll shows.

The Newspoll carried out for the Wilderness Society found 53 per cent of voters in the northern Tasmanian electorate oppose the mill, while 35 per cent support it.

The poll of 400 residents also found 65 per cent of voters in Bass are in favour of protecting all areas of old-growth forest.

http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=414367

I think there’ve been previous polls of the whole of Tasmania.

They need to play the issue in terms of election strategy - whatever position they take. They especially need to assess what effect each position has.

If Howard assumes that Tasmania is a lost cause then he might cancel it to keep Turnbull safe in his seat.

Makes you wonder why they dont use their favorite answer to these things - let Tasmania vote on it. Maybe a new method of govt, anything you dont want the blame for put it to a vote.

THEY should realise
1. Howard is their worst enemy and the enemy of the environment
2. This election is not going to be a walk-over and a few seats here and there may make the difference - so they can’t act like millionaires with seats
3. You simply cannot make a determination on how Green or not Labor is from this election campaign. But if you want to think about it look at the make-up of Labor - they are mostly Green friendly.
4. You will get a nuclear industry fast-tracked with Howard
5. Howard & Co only intend fake action on Climate Change so as to not put out business [the green mafia]
6. Labor is also strongly in favour of renewable energies
7. Turnbull would be beholden to the right of the Liberal party. Don’t think he gets to push a more social Liberal party.

There is only one issue at the moment - winning the election. The pulp mill issue they need to play in terms of that.

The Greens have the advantage of not being an alternative government. They can exist by appealing to one part of the spectrum. They should be like Labor single minded in outing Howard and his government - it is only then can they make any decent headway on environmental issues.

It’s good to see (long overdue) some real publicity and political heat be generated. It gives us all some hope that there are democratic solutions to undemocratic activities by both business and parties.
And if anyone wants to argue that “Tasmanians support the mill” they are wrong; polls ahve consistently shown more oppose than support it.

Lennon duly scrapped the RPDP process and drew up legislation to fast-track the review/approval by the Tasmanian Parliament in a way that precluded public hearings and was legislated that it was unchallengeable in the Tasmanian courts even if errors were found, or corrupt or illegal activity was found to have occurred.

Turnbull doesn’t escape blame from this. He agreed to a new “review” that didn’t conform to the original Federal RPDP process, but was also a fast-track process. Now Cousins and friends have caught him in the spotlights and he’s blinked.

And Gunns have now blinked. Now Gunns say they will abide by an extended process that goes past where the original RPDP process would have ended. This just shows both the corruption of the Tasmanian political process by Gunns and Lennon, and the suckering to pressure from Gunns.

As a Tasmanian, who grew up 10km from the proposed mill site, and having read some of the reports, I am against it on the local environmental grounds. Another significant factor is that the Mill will require extended logging of native forests for some time before the plantations have matured to provide it’s supplies. And I can guess that once built and access to native forest is granted Gunns has incentive to delay plantations and press for more native forest access. This would reduce their costs and improve margin.

you wouldn’t be a pollie for quids.

wentworth has quite a few other cross party, cross faction battles going on– malcolm gazumped rudd’s $20 million jewish school’s security measure – which was announced a few weeks ago. (14% jewish vote in wentworth)

george is a good jewish boy – which should shore up bondi at least, but I can’t see him cutting much more into woollahra LGA and so far the synagogues are lining up for the catholic convert, according the shane easson via imre:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22337310-11949,00.html

gay rights is another one – with the addition of the cross and parts of darlo into the electorate….but will malcolm’s keen support for gay rights - be similar to his vote on the RU486 bill?…..he actually voted BOTH ways - for the bill, and for the amendment… like wtf??

i can’t see the pink vote turning blue – more likely redder.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/turnbull-takes-on-mission-for-gay-and-lesbian-rights/2007/08/12/1186857348360.html

re: pulp mill - the green primary vote in wentworth was 11% in 2004.

in the 2007 state poll - in coogee state seat - which is a huge hunk of southern wentworth – the greens polled 21% with about 80%2pp to alp & in vaucluse state seat – the northern half of wentworth - the greens just outpolled labor with 20% – peter debnam increased his 2pp 6% off the back of labor preferences. state polls are sort of meaningless - except that loads of wentworth voters have voted green 1 – in local/state & federal polls - & if the ALP can capture ALL green preferences….including those last few cent etc (and convert many more to primaries)…so many preferences, so little authentic policy difference on environment issues……

speaking of which, just a few headlands south, mal’s shadow – lucky peter garrett was gifted kingsford smith by local anti-hero laurie ‘danger man’ brereton – some parts of kingsford smith are now very, very pricey esp. in the northern parts – clovelly, coogee (ex-phillip) but it’s pretty hard to tart up long bay gaol, the coogee south/maroubra housing commission, port botany oil refineries, mascot underpass etc – a solid 9% margin, before workchoices. (& i’d back the bra boys voting labor), so pete is sleeping way more soundly than malcolm.

boo hoo again!!

i’m sure others have pointed how eerily similar the pulp mill issue is to - the franklin dam in 1983 – crazy, out of control (state owned) corporation the Hydro-Electric was busy flooding half of tassie and telling the exact same lies about employment and community benefits like Gunns, and had the same power over state pollies as Gunns………cross fingers for the same outcome as ‘83.

Thanks suz for the link to the flanagan article – will email to some locals…

Tasmania is a beautiful place (if you ever get the chance, take a boat down the Derwent and around to Port Arthur - the cliffs are stunning), but it’s not all pristine wilderness.

And the Tamar Valley and Launceston certainly aren’t pristine wilderness but they were almost our favourite place (we’re urbanites) and I think the pulp mill would wreck tourism to the Tamar.

But it’s not just that place - before we went, I was told by one Sydneysider who’d been to Tasmania recently (to do the Cradle Mountain walk) that seeing the logged hills and the logging trucks on the way to and from the walk had been so upsetting she wouldn’t go back.

And what Helen said.

Tasmania is a beautiful place (if you ever get the chance, take a boat down the Derwent and around to Port Arthur - the cliffs are stunning), but it’s not all pristine wilderness.

Of course, if you can’t go bushwalking without seeing a logging coupe, that might put a crimp in tourism…

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not supporting the project by any means. But I’d like to see the opposition’s arguments in more detail, to see which ones stand up. For instance, I’d wonder whether the increased road deaths takes into account alternative economic activity that might result if the pulp mill wasn’t built (tourists in cars on Tasmania’s twisty roads kill themselves on a fairly regular basis, for instance). My guess is that the logging is the biggie, but I’d like some more detailed information to make a judgement. Maybe some of the evidence Flanagan refers to in his article might be worth a look.

Australian LABOR Party, my ass.

AUSTRALIAN ass, my arse.

Never trust a man whose family has spent generations naming offspring after Governor Bligh.

Condemnation by association is the go now, is it? In another context this would be condemned as naked bigotry.

But it isn’t a wedge issue: if Turnbull says ‘yes’, Labor can either say ‘your decision’. Or, as Rudd has already implied. it will stall till after the election, and why wouldn’t it? Garrett/Rudd aren’t going to stop campaigning to play pretend government by ruling on thousands of pages of material.