old-growth forest logging

[Ent]

Hi ent,

Without commenting on gunns for I do not know the circumstances,

As a bank mgr I do feel you are being a bit harsh,

The joy of borrowing money is that interest & repayments are met if so no problem if not as a secured lender the reason why security is taken is to get your money back (as the person giving the money you get to set the rules) and I am quite sure that all the term deposit investors are quite happy about this for it is their money that is being lent out

If the rules are not acceptable then don't borrow the money

Cheers

Steve

Yes the administrators do very well and we are all employed in the wrong job in regards to the valuation an asset is only worth what somebody is prepared to pay.

Hi Steve

I prepared a detailed response but site logged me off and IE then records a post failure and chucks everything away with no ability to get it back Firefox is so much nicer as you can backtrack.

Steve the simple issue is this. Plantations required long-term loans but the banks used short term funding sources and then after the GFC panicked and "forced" all the plantation companies into transitioning their loans from long term to short term under threat of immediate closing of accounts. Once the new loan conditions became legally enforceable they then one by one pulled the trigger and demanded monies back, thus companies could not meet the "going concern" requirement and failed. Put in simple speak, if the banks demanded that people repay your housing loan today most could not. The simple fact is all the major companies involved in plantations have been forced into receivership by the Commonwealth and ANZ bank. At the very least a complete failure in lending policy by these banks with a near 100% industry failure rate. Where are the loan officers responsible for this disaster now? It is not a case of knowing the conditions as the lending conditions suddenly changed and no doubt, once the dust settles, more will come out. Basically, the big four banks do not understand agriculture and any company involved in agriculture in my humble opinion should not use them for funding, only use banks for transactional banking.

The big issue is the land is held by security by the banks and they are trying like mad in the courts to get the value of investors' trees reduced as low as possible (often negative value in some cases). Here it is not the shareholders suffering but mum and dad investors being held to ransom as they were flogged the tax effective investments by financial advisers but now have enforceable loans against them but no asset, or a dubious one.

The underlying problem stemmed from Western Australia where a major player changed the model from the tree investors funding the plantation through to harvest costs to one where the plantation company funded this and did it through borrowings. Pre GFC the banks were delighted to lend the money (in fact actively encouraged this) so made the older model unsalable to financial advisers. You even had the ridiculous situation of the banks lending to the plantation company that then lent to investors so the investors could “gear” their tax deduction to be the whole value of the loan. As a banker you might imagine what a mess some made of this with low document loans and even tax fraud. Sadly, the industry followed like sheep despite many accountants saying no. but marketering trumps accountants any day in a boardroom battle. The new model relied on stable financial markets and interest rates for fifteen to twenty-five years along with bullet proof growth rates. Commonsense would tell any sensible investor that this was not going to happen. But we are talking pre GFC bank stupidity and a tribe of financial advisers profiting from sizable commissions.

The big losers are the employees and investors in trees. The amount of money lost by shareholders is rather small by comparison and banks are doing nicely from penalty interest rates and default fees. My hope is the financial advisers will be subject to scrutiny but there has been no sign of that. Australia does not have the chapter 11 bankruptcy protection so solid assets and businesses subjected to short-term crises are shredded in Australia by our Shylock administrators and receivers laws. I saw firsthand two teams, one from the receiver, and one from the administrator billing huge fees for doing exactly the same job. There is something terribly wrong with our laws on company failure where a bank can engineer a failure and then profit from it.

Cheers

[walkinTas]

i see Gunns has gone into administration.

The alarming question now is who will end up buying Gunns' assets for a song. Will it be a foreign company?

...and we will only have the arrogant backwards looking dinosaurs on the Gunns board to blame despite what some here seem to think.

OMG! So now we will be told to believe that those who will have the party and celebrate are of course in no way responsible for the outcome they are celebrating! I'll just turn down my BS filter a little bit before it is overloaded.

Fact is nobody really knows who got here first (at least 'first' after the aboriginal peoples).

In fact we still haven't worked out who got here first before the more modern aboriginals. I saw a very interesting documentary recently on Denisova man showing that many aboriginals have Denisova genes and the Denisova spread east from asia. 50,000 year old remains of Java man have been found in Australia. Yet other aboriginals arrive from the Pacific. Tasmanian aboriginals were definitely distinct from any mainland group. So much is still unknown.

Last edited by walkinTas on Thu 27 Sep, 2012 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[steveh72]

Hi Ent,

Thank you for the detailed reply and you actually nailed the problem into two excellent points.

**One of the "rules" of lending in general is to tie the life of the loan to the life of the asset, and this was obviously not done & this exposes the borrower to financial risk that at the expiry of the loan can it be re-financed will conditions be changed etc (which iroinicly alot of companies are having the same issue at present). Which ultimately comes back to my point if you don't like the rules don't take the money.

**The underlying investment was a crap investment only set up to give so called financial advisors excellent commisons and the investor a handy tax deduction, not really the way an investment should be considered, I prefer Warren Buffet's rules 1) don't loose money & 2) refer to rule number one.

If the loans had of been structured right in the first place ie long term - then the only way that the conditions could have changed is for an event of default to occur otherwise the Bank can not change conditions of a loan for this is breach of contract and the Bank would loose in court. ie when Westpac took over Bank Melb clients on the old Bank Melb loans kept their lower interest rate & fee structure even though ownership of the loan had changed "godfathering of loan conditions is the terminolgy"..

So summarise my time in banking has taught myself through numerous examples that there is normally two sides to every story and then somewhere in the middle sits the truth.

so this appears to be as follows

company wanted funds

bank offered funds but poorly structured loans

company agreed to poorly structured loans

bank @#$!! themselves at expiry of short term and changed conditions - if long term loan had been taken then this could not have happened.

client wanted tax effective investment

advisor sold crappy product with high commssions

client accepted crappy product without due dilegance under pressure no doubt from advisor who wanted high commison & client was happy go along because year one they did very well. Investor even geared loan to maximise tax deductions again not the smartest way to invest.

I'm not touching the valuation issue because gut feeling tells me you are probably correct but without knowing details I can't make judgement one way or the other.

I guess I'm trying to say it's not just the Bank's fault but all concerned and I would first point the finger at the stupid tax laws that encouraged said investments.

It is the employees of the companies that I feel sorry for !!!!!!

I look forward to discussing this on our next hike as I'm sure it will fill in the time, and I think we will find mutal agreeance on most points.

Last but not least (tounge in cheek of course ),in regards to the banks being avoided for lending as they don't understand agriculture - you will have to pick me up because I won't have a job given I only lend to agriculture.

Cheers

Steve

[stepbystep]

I'll just turn down my BS filter a little bit before it is overloaded. .

Too late mate you've been swallowing male bovine excretions for a long time it seems. I've already acknowledged the role of conservationists in the larger forestry debate but Gunns problems lay firmly at their own feet. Explain to me if you will how such a powerhouse corporation has failed then because all the analysts and pollies I've heard have been blaming market forces the high Aussie dollar and poor management with no vision. What's your theory WiT?

[Ent]

Hi Steve

I think I qualified the banks being the major four so you should be right The issue is the specialized banks such as agricultural banks and development banks (held by the states) were sold of to the big banks in a deal made back in the eighties. This means you have general banks involved in areas where there is limited to none in house understanding. We are starting to see the growth of specialized banks as well as so called community banks but it will be a long time before they can fill the gap and then there is the constant taking of them over by the big banks and dumbing them down.

To pluck some numbers as a guide. Say a plantation company has $500M (mainly land) in assets with loans of $200M with tree investors having $1,000M. A bank can "engineer" a default and then appoint their own receivers that basically stops trading and charges say $1M a month in fees. The bank then charges default fees and penalty interest so starts eating away at the $300M in shareholders funds. But the bank can not directly take the $1,000M in investors holdings legally so need to arrive at an arrangement with the investors but the receivers are more inclined to be thugs than business people. But by the receivers by controlling the company then can refuse to pay say the rates thus causing a default situation that results in the land being sold. The receivers then values the trees at say $100M and stuffs around for says at least three years and before long all the value is transferred from the shareholder ($300M) to the banks and receivers plus the $1,000M winds up being $100M or less. Chuck lawyers into the mix with administrators fighting the receivers for a piece of the action and bingo no much left but the banks and the receivers do extremely well. It is just plain wrong. A simple fix is once the receivers are called in interest stops along with penalties and the banks can only get back the money that they are owned. This would drive them to push the receivers to act promptly. A receiver floods a business with huge number of staff that run around in circles falling over each other. Each staff member is charged out at a huge cost but the actual work is nearly always done by the employees of the "failed" company. You are talking 20 year kids charged out at hundreds of dollars per hour.

Actually the big issue is as you alluded to is the driver behind the whole concept. In normal business you have a market and someone producing stuff to sell to the market that seeks investment to expand their production capability to match the customer demands. So you have three parties, customers, producer and investors with all needing to be in step with the producer being the controller. But with plantation you have investors that depending on the latest tax ruling and or other schemes will either flood the plantation company with money or starve it. So you get huge lumps in plantings with some years being almost none. Then when harvest comes along you have feast or famine in production so try building processing plant to deal with that The whole process is broken to begin with. It is not a planned approach so grower returns well be heavily influenced by what was planted twenty or so years ago.

Basically as you say, tax effective investment is not necessarily good business. The big issue with Tassie, SA and WA is huge plantation timber coming on stream with no processing plants. Heck, SA takes the cake for maximum stupidity with Kangaroo Island (from memory) not even having the port infrastructure to ship the timber! So chip it and ship it is the only answer. So the USA pension funds due to fire sale purchasing of the plantation make a killing and countries not afraid of down stream processing get the jobs. The whole concept behind old growth logging was to supply quality timber for the high end value adding such as veneer and furniture industries and use the unsuitable timber to feed a pulp mill until the plantation timber came on stream. We I be stuffed, that is not going to happen.

My rough calculation between just two forestry companies the Tassie government is down $6M in payroll tax alone per year. Whether it be nurses, teacher, or candle stick makers that money is not there. Get ready for state service cuts that will make Queensland look mild. This is one job recession that will likely penetrate even the most secure ivory towers.

Regards

PS SBS what the Gunns board will be doing is not much now but other boards will be forming the opinion that Tasmania is closed for business as the sovereign risk is too high.

[stepbystep]

PS SBS what the Gunns board will be doing is not much now

Business as usual for them then eh... Somehow I don't think any of them will be worried about their entitlements!

[tasadam]

Interesting discussion. I'll throw this into the mix, something I saw on facebook.
Possibly a little more related to the topic than tax law etc, but then, I've already had one of my posts edited, so lets see how this one goes.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1348744793.174765.jpg (168.04 KiB) Viewed 19942 times

I hope that comment meets the rule about discussing moderation, it's been a while since I've read it & can't check on tapatalk.

[Ent]

PS SBS what the Gunns board will be doing is not much now

Business as usual for them then eh... Somehow I don't think any of them will be worried about their entitlements!

SBS I strongly suggest that you read the corporations act before you make any more comments such as the above as it is totally incorrect. Their entitlements are capped at a very small amount.

You appear devoid of any compassion. The board and employees will be shattered and at a loss what to do. For many it is the second time around in as many years. They will have in the coming period of time endure uncertainty of employment and even if they will get any of their entitlements. Crowing about it is very poor taste.

Regards.

[steveh72]

Hi ent

Great reply, I have also had first hand experience with administrators & at $650 per hour I try & keep the conversation short

Like I said I think we are all in the wrong job, I do swear that the only people who do well are the administrators & solicitors, I know it costs around $30k in legal fees to repossess a property + the damage done to image etc, so despite popular belief in 22 years of banking I have only been unloved in four sell up's - one was a divorce where neither party paid the interest , one was where the fella did a runner , two was where the farmer handed back the farm

Contrary to popular belief we normally try and work something out first

Cheers Steve

[photohiker]

To pluck some numbers as a guide. Say a plantation company has $500M (mainly land) in assets with loans of $200M with tree investors having $1,000M. A bank can "engineer" a default and then appoint their own receivers that basically stops trading and charges say $1M a month in fees. The bank then charges default fees and penalty interest so starts eating away at the $300M in shareholders funds. But the bank can not directly take the $1,000M in investors holdings legally so need to arrive at an arrangement with the investors but the receivers are more inclined to be thugs than business people. But by the receivers by controlling the company then can refuse to pay say the rates thus causing a default situation that results in the land being sold. The receivers then values the trees at say $100M and stuffs around for says at least three years and before long all the value is transferred from the shareholder ($300M) to the banks and receivers plus the $1,000M winds up being $100M or less. Chuck lawyers into the mix with administrators fighting the receivers for a piece of the action and bingo no much left but the banks and the receivers do extremely well. It is just plain wrong. A simple fix is once the receivers are called in interest stops along with penalties and the banks can only get back the money that they are owned. This would drive them to push the receivers to act promptly. A receiver floods a business with huge number of staff that run around in circles falling over each other. Each staff member is charged out at a huge cost but the actual work is nearly always done by the employees of the "failed" company. You are talking 20 year kids charged out at hundreds of dollars per hour.

Entertaining, but the missing factor is risk. The banks will step in when they see their loans at risk. Once the trading company is running out of liquidity and has no hope of obtaining more working capital (i.e. Gunns) then the banks have no choice but to step in. Compare this with Fortescue's recent refinancing If you have good sales, workforce, and solid assets, a rock solid and workable (believable) business plan, you can retain finance.

Once a company goes into administration it is a sign that everyone is about to take a haircut, usually including the banks and the tax dept. The banks tend to act early because they know the longer they wait, the less will be left to repay the loan. Criminal, isn't it?

Yes, receivers milk the shell for all it's worth. They are the Hyenas of the finance world cleaning out a dead body. Ultimately, the fault is not the banks but the Board of the Company.

[walkinTas]

I'll just turn down my BS filter a little bit before it is overloaded. .

Too late mate you've been swallowing male bovine excretions for a long time it seems.

Yep, we all have. Its a basic ingredient in many energy drinks.

I was simply objecting to your use of the word "only". But, I'm certainly not going to enjoy the sanctimonious green press that we will all now be subjected too. With political encouragement Gunns gambled and lost. I''m not so overweening as to believe I have all the answers as to why. There are lots of reason sbs, and no doubt someone will write a book about it soon enough. Perhaps in a year or two after all the court cases and reprisals. I just think it is a sad reflection on the cost of doing business in Tasmania. I'd love for you to explain to me how Tasmania is suppose to build the necessary pulpmill and other post harvest processing industries required to manage the forestry estates into the future.

[stepbystep]

PS SBS what the Gunns board will be doing is not much now

Business as usual for them then eh... Somehow I don't think any of them will be worried about their entitlements!

SBS I strongly suggest that you read the corporations act before you make any more comments such as the above as it is totally incorrect. Their entitlements are capped at a very small amount.

You appear devoid of any compassion. The board and employees will be shattered and at a loss what to do. For many it is the second time around in as many years. They will have in the coming period of time endure uncertainty of employment and even if they will get any of their entitlements. Crowing about it is very poor taste.

Regards.

I'm pretty sure ONCE AGAIN Brett you have made an assumption as to my thinking. Try reading each word slowly. Compassion and empathy for the employees are the motivation for my comments against the board. A board who in complete ignorance of reality arrogantly stumbled on for the last 15 years with the status quo. They had many opportunities for reform and failed to pursue them. They made some attempts in the last 2 years, all too late. Who did Gunns sell Triabunna too?

If you want a discussion Brett then have the courtesy to try and understand the context. Your last effort was amongst your poorest yet.

So are you saying the board have done a great job then and are beyond reproach.
Where's John Gay now? Oh that's right he cut and run didn't he, top man.

[photohiker]

I'm pretty sure ONCE AGAIN Brett you have made an assumption as to my thinking. Try reading each word slowly. Compassion and empathy for the employees are the motivation for my comments against the board. A board who in complete ignorance of reality arrogantly stumbled on for the last 15 years with the status quo. They had many opportunities for reform and failed to pursue them. They made some attempts in the last 2 years, all too late. Who did Gunns sell Triabunna too?

If you want a discussion Brett then have the courtesy to try and understand the context. Your last effort was amongst your poorest yet.

So are you saying the board have done a great job then and are beyond reproach.
Where's John Gay now? Oh that's right he cut and run didn't he, top man.

SBS, agree with this. Care and compassion for the employees starts with the board operating the company in such a way that the employees have stable and secure employment.

Compassion for the employees? Yes. Board? No. Should the board feel shattered and endure uncertainty of employment? Absolutely!

[stepbystep]

I'll just turn down my BS filter a little bit before it is overloaded. .

Too late mate you've been swallowing male bovine excretions for a long time it seems.

Yep, we all have. Its a basic ingredient in many energy drinks.

I was simply objecting to your use of the word "only". But, I'm certainly not going to enjoy the sanctimonious green press that we will all now be subjected too. With political encouragement Gunns gambled and lost. I''m not so overweening as to believe I have all the answers as to why. There are lots of reason sbs, and no doubt someone will write a book about it soon enough. Perhaps in a year or two after all the court cases and reprisals. I just think it is a sad reflection on the cost of doing business in Tasmania. I'd love for you to explain to me how Tasmania is suppose to build the necessary pulpmill and other post harvest processing industries required to manage the forestry estates into the future.

Knew I didn't drink those things for a reason

Of course I don't have the answer, tree plantations seemed like a great idea at the time, didn't they? I've had a problem with the scale of these plantations and I'm not reconciled with how good vast monoculture Eucalyptus plantations and everything that goes with them are for the environment.

If a pulp mill is to be built to deal with this resource then I'd suggest there are some lessons to be learned from the debacle at Bell Bay. The uncertainty for the poor property owners, tourism operators and wineries of the Tamar needs to end. There has been quite a consensus in regards to Hampshire. A LOT of 'greenies' have wanted to see a level of contrition in regards to the pulp mill that was never given.

I get rather annoyed at being labelled a 'greenie', because I look at each issue as it comes up. I prefer the term 'practical environmentalist'

BTW - most bushwalkers are seen by most forestry workers as greenies, so are you happy with that tag?

Care and compassion for the employees starts with the board operating the company in such a way that the employees have stable and secure employment.

Compassion for the employees? Yes. Board? No. Should the board feel shattered and endure uncertainty of employment? Absolutely!

Not rocket science is it Michael...

[TerraMer]

So where does Tassie go from here?
What initiatives are being developed to increase employment in renewable/sustainable/green industries in Tassie?
Will Christine Milne be reviving the national green jobs scheme soon?
Tassie, right now, seems like a suitable place to exert some effort in this direction. The hope of future job security will save many individuals and families a great deal of pain and hardship. And, right now, Milne needs some positive press that can't be distorted by popular sensationalist media

[Ent]

So SBS and Photohiker the strategy is vilification of the board. Um? Let me see North Broken Hill was vilified and then decided to abandon Tassie to preserve its reputation. Gunns a Tasmanian company of nearly 150 years history is being destroyed. Forestry Tasmanian is to destroyed and its past leadership vilified. Yet we are expecting another organisation to take up forestry? It would be a very courageous board to do that given the abuse that has been heaped at past company boards. Basically any board that puts up its hand for developing and providing jobs in Tasmania will be vilified as will any poster against your views. This is the mode of operation of the conservation movement and looks to be very effective. No Tasmania has put up the closed for business signs.

Good point made on what will happen next. We have effectively a Green/Labor government for two years but where is the innovative job creating projects based on a clean green future? Simple fact, it is much easier to destroy than create. Much easy to waffle about what should happen than to make it happen. The number of shops vacant in Launceston is the best indicator of what is happening in the broader economy in the north. When state treasury does the sums then get ready for either huge borrowings or massive greater than Queensland style job cuts. Basically we will be reaping what we sowed.

Regards

[PeterJ]

It does not matter what apologists for Gunns say, the process was tainted by refusing to follow proper assessment process. The people and board running the company at the time have a lot to answer for; as do the politicions.

[photohiker]

So SBS and Photohiker the strategy is vilification of the board. Um? Let me see North Broken Hill was vilified and then decided to abandon Tassie to preserve its reputation. Gunns a Tasmanian company of nearly 150 years history is being destroyed. Forestry Tasmanian is to destroyed and its past leadership vilified. Yet we are expecting another organisation to take up forestry? It would be a very courageous board to do that given the abuse that has been heaped at past company boards. Basically any board that puts up its hand for developing and providing jobs in Tasmania will be vilified as will any poster against your views. This is the mode of operation of the conservation movement and looks to be very effective. No Tasmania has put up the closed for business signs.

Note: Disagreeing with Ent does not amount to vilification. Pointing out that a failed board made bad business decisions is not vilification.

It's a classic case of if the cap fits wear it. You proposed that it was the banks, the greenies, whatever, instead of the people actually making the Gunns business decisions. I have no interest in vilifying the board or you, but it might work better if you responded to the opinions proposed rather than attack the messenger (again). The Gunns Board was in control of the company and making the decisions, playing funny business with the political process, stacking the odds against the public, ramming protesters into the courts, betting the company and their employees jobs on the results. If you don't think that is the case, please show how and where the Gunns Board was not making the decisions that caused it's demise.

The message for anyone wanting to take up forestry in Tasmania is clear: 1950 is finally over.

[photohiker]

It does not matter what apologists for Gunns say, the process was tainted by refusing to follow proper assessment process. The people and board running the company at the time have a lot to answer for; as do the politicions.

Amen.

[ILUVSWTAS]

Well said Michael.

[Ent]

The message for anyone wanting to take up forestry in Tasmania is clear: 1950 is finally over.

We agree, no job security, no economic growth and no money for social services that made the 1950's a wonderful time for families as they could afford cars and such things for the first time.

Just curious where the money will be coming from?

Regards

[doogs]

This extract from an article gives shows the distorted image of Tasmanians about the forestry industry. The question I keep asking myself is why are so many people so far off the mark? Is it because we have been led to believe the sky will fall on our heads without forestry operations being at current levels?

"In a recent poll conducted by The Australia Institute, Tasmanians were asked to estimate what proportion of the Tasmanian workforce they thought was employed in and logging (growing and harvesting forests) and in the forestry and forest products industry more generally (growing, harvesting, transporting and processing forest products). The average estimates were 19% and 24% respectively. In reality, forestry and logging accounts for roughly 0.5% of employment in Tasmania (around 1000 people), while employment across the entire forestry and forest products industry adds up to a mere 2% of the state total (around 4,500 people out of almost 240,000).

The same distortions were evident in responses to questioning about the contribution of the forestry and forest products industry to economic activity (gross state product). The average estimate was 28%; the reality is around 3%."

[photohiker]

The message for anyone wanting to take up forestry in Tasmania is clear: 1950 is finally over.

We agree, no job security, no economic growth and no money for social services that made the 1950's a wonderful time for families as they could afford cars and such things for the first time.

Just curious where the money will be coming from?

Regards

Job security in the modern age is based on an employee's education, quality of output and historical ability to work. In past times, (1950's included) job security was achieved by being employed in a single enterprise for most if not all of one's working life. Seniority, not capability, ruled. If you look around you, we've moved on from that model some time ago.

The 1950's was a time of economic growth with the world coming out from under the dark cloud of WW2. It was part of the age where we as a community felt we could plunder the natural environment and gobble up the spoils for ever with no impact on the planet. Many (most!) of us now know that is no longer the case, those that don't are slowly learning the hard way.

As for where the money will come from, I don't know but I expect some of the answer will lie in moving Tasmania's output up from the lowest possible quality output to the highest, and therefore up from the lowest price to the highest. There are already enterprises in Tas that do this, just not forestry. for example

[walkinTas]

Of course I don't have the answer, tree plantations seemed like a great idea at the time, didn't they? I've had a problem with the scale of these plantations and I'm not reconciled with how good vast monoculture Eucalyptus plantations and everything that goes with them are for the environment.

They were a good idea at the time, and they still are.

Some folk might like to read the Australian forests at-a-glance 2011 for an overview of forestry practices in Australia. It is much more balanced than some of the comments that have been made here.

For a much longer read, some might prefer The global outlook for future wood supply from forest plantations.

It does not matter what apologists for Gunns say, the process was tainted by refusing to follow proper assessment process. The people and board running the company at the time have a lot to answer for; as do the politicions.

Amen.

Its just too easy to sit back and say you have the ONE answer to what went wrong. No analysis needed, no evidence required. You have divine insight, amen brother, hallelujah! ...and please don't pigeon hole everyone who asks for answers or who expresses disappointment as somehow being an apologist. Some of us have legitimate concerns about the future of this state that a few iconic small businesses won't satisfy.

I get rather annoyed at being labelled a 'greenie', because I look at each issue as it comes up. I prefer the term 'practical environmentalist'

I would dislike the "greenie" label because I feel it smacks of being radical or overly zealous - unfortunately. For some people, being a lighter shade of green is not being truly green.

Last edited by walkinTas on Fri 28 Sep, 2012 3:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[ILUVSWTAS]

I get rather annoyed at being labelled a 'greenie', because I look at each issue as it comes up. I prefer the term 'practical environmentalist'

I would dislike the "greenie" label because I feel it smacks of being radical or overly zealous - unfortunately. For some people, being a lighter shade of green is not being truly green.

Lucky for us they dont call us Brownies after Bob Brown.

[Ent]

Strange the colors of Tassie politics. Grey, Brown, Greene. Not a bright cheerful colour amongst them.

Curious list as number one is a heavily subsided Government Business Enterprise, Blundstone moved 360 jobs offshore, and nothing speaks louder about the north/south parochial divided than the two beer brands but if you were a Tasmanian you would already know this.

I suppose Incat would do a better job at producing submarines than other places in Australia we certainly could do with the huge subsidies.

Regards

[ILUVSWTAS]

Strange the colors of Tassie politics. Grey, Brown, Greene.

They are natural colors.
In the wild something bright and colorful usually means poison.

[walkinTas]

Yes, like RED. ...but Bob Menzies fix that! (The younger generation will just have to google).

[frenchy_84]

Yeah I thought they were known as watermelons rather than brownies. And Ent you forgot to mention that the 2 beer brands are foreign owned. And does the TSO actually make any money?

[photohiker]

Strange the colors of Tassie politics. Grey, Brown, Greene. Not a bright cheerful colour amongst them.

Curious list as number one is a heavily subsided Government Business Enterprise, Blundstone moved 360 jobs offshore, and nothing speaks louder about the north/south parochial divided than the two beer brands but if you were a Tasmanian you would already know this.

I suppose Incat would do a better job at producing submarines than other places in Australia we certainly could do with the huge subsidies.

Regards

Hardly worth a reply Brett. Put the spite in your back pocket and go for a walk or something.

It doesn't matter if the beer brands are not respected at the other end of Tasmania - the object is to bring money into Tasmania, not strangle it in parochial animosities. It's a 2 hour drive for heck sake. Those were just a few examples I found quickly with Google (14 years old, yay!) and I bet you and every other Tasmanian here could mention Tassie enterprises that cater to quality rather than price. I've had some great Pinot from Tas, look at what NZ has done with Marlborough, you couldn't drink NZ wine in the 70's (unless you were desperate), now they are in every bottle shop and they kick butt with their Sav Blancs in wine competitions.

I usually drink Cascade, think I'll switch to Boags.