I thought I had a reasonable grasp of Oz politics but the way the Federal Labor Party is kissing Lennon’s bum has me really puzzled.
Can anyone please explain why Rudd & Garret are giving Guns everything they want on a silver platter?

Agree, Dismord, but no I can’t explain it. Clearly no-one in the Rudd Govt has read Mike Bolan’s splendid “Tasmaniana and the risks to Rudd” TT article. There’s the Rudd-in-general factor and also the Garrett-in-particular factor, which is even more puzzling. Garrett’s behaviour from the word go has been utterly at odds with why he was elected. His most recent statement (in latest Monthly) that the ‘hydrological changes’ brought about by his allowing dredging in Port Phillip would benefit the orange-bellied parrot habitat is simply cock-eyed rationalisation. True, he has inherited Turnbull’s contradictory ruling on the pulp mill: ‘Yes go ahead, but if you haven’t met my conditions, then my successor will see that you have to pull it down again.’ The way Garrett is behaving, he is painting himself into a no-retreat. The more Gunns does the more likely they’ll do more—Garrett certainly hasn’t the guts to be firm. Is he really that weak? Has he really sold out everything that he once stood for? Or maybe he really has changed his views on greenhouse gases and the logging industry. God help us all if the last is true.
One positive suggestion: As many as possible should send the URL to Mike Bolan’s article plus some well chosen words to as many Rudd Ministers as possible. Someone will get it—Penny Wong, surely.

I’ll explain.

For over ten years the main political parties have made ironclad commitments to the forestry industry. They have tied their own shoelaces to MIS schemes, unions, regional electorates and scumbag politicians.

Australian and overseas investors have poured money into plantations and other forestry infrastructure. The raw timber needs to be processed otherwise we have the proverbial white elephant.

Ipso facto…a pulp mill.

You can’t help but feel that some game is being played behind the scenes that is totally invisible to us mere mortals. Not an entirely unusual thing, but what is unusual is that the game actually is invisible.
Surely it can’t be money? The mill involves big dollars but it’s not that big in the scheme of things. Election’s all over so it’s not votes? Of course at this point Tomas will pop up and say it’s actually because the mill’s a wonderful idea and we’re all just nimbys. Trouble is that it’s not just the locals who think it looks like a really stupid idea.
Even Bill Heffernan ran away from the issue!

Keep sending emails to the GARNAUT CLIMATE CHANGE REVIEW, and simply by adding a coversheet you can turn a vanilla email into a YOUR VERY OWN SUBMISSION. Get the coversheet here:
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/submissions
Save your coversheet and add it to every email you send Ross. You could tell Ross all about how Lennon-Gunns are wrecking the planets climate and you can tell Ross every day. Soon your SUBMISSION
will become Gunns SUBMISSION as they realise building their project with your money will still not help it compete with cheaper Indonesian pulp.

Garret said that he supported down-stream processing, and I think he said that to explain his support for the mill.  Trouble is, a lot of us would support downstream processing, if it wasn’t on the Tamar, if it wasn’t Gunns doing it and if it was closed-loop, chlorine free and used only existing plantations.

I don’t know what he stood for.  I know he’s in the labour party - so is Paul Lennon.

Good work Karl (comment 5) and thanks for the link. I will now be concentrating my immediate efforts on making a submission to the Garnaut Climate Change Review exposing the hypocrisy and deceit spruiked by the likes of Garrett, Lennon, FT, Gunns and Co. and recommending that all major projects, such as the pulp mill, be subjected to a full Federal Govt Climate Change Audit prior to approval and/or commencement (with no execeptions for forestry etc.).

It seems to me that Garnaut represents our best chance of bringing some pragmatism to the pulp mill/forestry debacle as he doesn’t appear to have the same vested interests which motivate these other “apparatchiks” therefore I would encourage TT readers to make their own submissions.

It is pretty simple really - there are votes in it. Try not to be too shocked by simple facts.

I assume the need for the Tamar site actually relates to port facilities. This would not just be for exporting pulp but also the processing much of Australia’s/Gunn’s plantation holdings across Victoria, SA and WA.

I AM being a little cautious ! as “Garrett” signs off on the deal he tempered it by saying that “All” is conditional on “ALL” the safety factors being a   “fait accompli”  and i really can’t see those guidelines being accomplished !  can anyone ?
                    d.d.

8; I’m not shocked Tomas , just puzzled. No doubt there are plenty of grandmothers in a premature grave because they got between a polly and votes but where’s the votes in this one? I can see some logic in the context of the stressful maneuvers just before the election. I have no doubt the whole mill thing was timed, including dodgy Tasmanian legislation,  to ensure that the crucial federal permits came up prior to the election. It’s a different story now though. Elections all over and, as I see it, the mill is going to be an albatross hanging around Garretts neck for a long time to come.
I’d welcome a credible explanation but I’m struggling to accept votes. The voting population has a notoriously short memory and whatever Garrett does now is going to make little difference at the next election. I do think his mill support will take a long term toll on his credibility though.