Tarkine mining

[photohiker]

Separation of powers Frenchy, it's a wonderful thing.

Burke's decision was politically motivated as was the approval process.

Exactly. +1000

And if the minister makes such a decision why on earth shouldn't it be challenged in court?

Go the Devils.

[Hallu]

I can't see how a golf course and an air strip is eco-tourism though. And there's already a golf course at nearby Bridport... Put the 5 star hotel there if you want... Or why don't they develop Ringarooma Bay instead, which isn't in a conservation park or near a national park ? I agree there's a lot of potential on the North-East coast for tourism, but they should leave Mt William NP/Musselroe Bay as a wilderness destination, and develop Ringarooma Bay or maybe Nooland Bay.

[sthughes]

No dams, no mining, no wind turbines and now no Golf Courses as well? Guess it's no bushwalking next?

[stepbystep]

No dams, no mining, no wind turbines and now no Golf Courses as well? Guess it's no bushwalking next?

Oh don't be so negative sthughes

Meander Dam was finished in 2008, I'm sure some more digging in the dirt will be approved, Musselroe Bay, Flinders and KI will all be getting or already have new turbines, Woolnorth was expanded not that long ago and KI and Sth Arm are both getting new top notch golf courses. Careful what you wish for

[frenchy_84]

And if the minister makes such a decision why on earth shouldn't it be challenged in court?

Bourke is elected by the people to govern for the people, a magistrate/judge isn't. If majority of people do not agree with the governments decision then they can vote them out at an election. You cant vote a magistrate/judge out if the majority isn't happy with their decision. Isn't that supposed to be how a democracy works? If the majority of people do not want any mining in the Tarkine then I assume we will be having a federal green MP for Braddon by the end of the year then.

[photohiker]

And if the minister makes such a decision why on earth shouldn't it be challenged in court?

Bourke is elected by the people to govern for the people, a magistrate/judge isn't. If majority of people do not agree with the governments decision then they can vote them out at an election. You cant vote a magistrate/judge out if the majority isn't happy with their decision. Isn't that supposed to be how a democracy works? If the majority of people do not want any mining in the Tarkine then I assume we will be having a federal green MP for Braddon by the end of the year then.

Bourke is elected by the people to govern for the people within the bounds set by the law. His decisions must be in accordance with the law. When his decision appears to be outside the law, either knowingly or erroneously, vis:

Environmental group Save the Tarkine sought a judicial review of the decision, arguing Mr Burke did not act in accordance with the Environment Protection Act.

then it is behoven on those with a stake in the issue to bring the decision to the Federal Court, as they have done, to right the wrong.

This is not about votes or politics, it is about doing things according to the law of the land. As it stands, it would appear that Mr Bourke failed in this regard although I'd be surprised if this is the last we hear of it.

[Hallu]

If he broke the law shouldn't he face charges too on top of his decision being revoked ?

[photohiker]

If he broke the law shouldn't he face charges too on top of his decision being revoked ?

Good point. The miners should sue him for wasting their time

No idea Hallu. Not a Lawyer

[taswegian]

In regards to the decisions made before (ministerial and others) and now the courts, it is what every day Tasmanians face whenever an application is put to the relevant authority for a permit to make a change to something.
A decision for whatever reason can always be challenged, such are the nature of our development laws.
An adverse decision, an error of judgement, call it what you may will always bewith us when it comes to final outcomes.

Not crossing every T or dotting every I inevitably leads to scenarios like the Tarkine mining decision.

So whilst that is unfortunate for many, spare a thought for the countless cases that never make it to the national news and yet are so devastating to those affected.
The problem here, is the real issues preventing the application being given the nod by the courts will be lost in all the irrelevant (to the case at hand) squabble and name calling etc. And the merry go round continues when people lose focus and become distracted.
It's a sad reality but a real one.

[corvus]

Sad that if a lack of the finite T and Q resulted in this waste of your tax money fingers crossed that sense will prevail and we can add income to our economy when this Mine gets operational.
corvus

[Clusterpod]

If sense prevailed the local economy wouldn't depend upon the exploitation of a resource in the Tarkine found in abundance elsewhere in the nation.

Its a nonsense that such a project should even be considered given the vast quantities of iron ore being sucked out of the ground already.

Of course, its imperative that we mine everything this generation.

[Wandering-Foxbat]

How many of those people joining the bandwagon celebrating today's latest court decision actually know where the Shree Minerals Proect is? Last time I looked at the Google Earth image, the project area at 41deg 9.2'S/144deg 44.6'E adjoins an existing active forestry area - hardly the untouched Tarkine rainforest that most would imagine.

[stepbystep]

There is a far broader issue at play foxbat. This area has many significant attributes that need protection. Have a read of the thread and you might get a grasp on them, and yes I know the area extremely well and have spent weeks covering all environments in the area.

Clusterpod is spot on.

[Hallu]

Yeah stop complaining about a tiny setback for mining in a country where mining is king. For about every decision in favour of the environment, there are 10 in favour of the mining industry... It just so happens that Tassie is different, and whether you accept it or not, this is the greenest state in Australia. We should be proud of that.

[frenchy_84]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-18/n ... ed/4828232

So the devil wasnt account for well enough, I don't think it will take long for it to be approved again. If the devil is the issue, build a devil proof fence around the site, don't allow truck deliveries between dusk and dawn, simple (I don't know why I haven't been given the sole responsibility to govern the country ). Get on with it.

[maddog]

Hallu,

From our humble beginnings (living on the sheep's back), Australians now rely on the mining industry to sustain high living standards (as do the Canadians). While mines may not directly contribute to conservation outcomes, by increasing our wealth, mining makes a substantial indirect contribution. The link between GDP and environmental concern is discussed in the following paper:

http://www.soz.unibe.ch/unibe/wiso/soz/ ... 02_ger.pdf

The inconvenient truth Hallu, is that conservation is a luxury that the poor can not afford. So perhaps it is time you stopped worrying and learnt to love the mine.

[Nuts]

Sheep were good to us but it was actually gold that ensured the country a place in the first world.

I listened to Terri Irwin yesterday (she presents surprisingly well on tourism): http://blogs.abc.net.au/tasmania/2013/0 ... rism-.html
I would agree, I think some people expect a seamless move to a tourism future. Unfortunately they assume that mining and forestry are an anathema to this (not without evidence) but do they need to be? What struck a chord from Terri's talk is the idea of better surveying, better audits. (To her with a focus on tourism) To me- stripping back the BS (which unfortunately seems just as likely these days to come from green groups) and seeing what sort of realistic way forward is left. Is the impact of the mine that much worse than resort/golf course/tourist movements? Can we have a bit of both? Can we (especially in Tassie) afford not to? Is the emerging economy interested in more than just 'seeing stars'.. For strange animals, Beerwah is a lot closer than Tassie.

Existing large resort developments, they are just as ruthless in business as anyone else. I have seen here environmental compromises to appease them. They too will lobby for the best location or $ return as freely as any business i'd expect.

The other compromise of a tourism future is the notion of an 'empty shell', in the words of Paul Keating (iirc) a 'Banana republic', not necessarily highly skilled and at the whim of a markets discretionary income (ie proves to be very much hit-and-miss, not much security year to year)

[Clusterpod]

The inconvenient truth Hallu, is that conservation is a luxury that the poor can not afford. So perhaps it is time you stopped worrying and learnt to love the mine.

The inconvenient truth, is that the poor are exploited and coerced. It is why they are poor. What they can and can't afford is a decision made by the ruling classes.

So sure, stop worrying, learn to love the mine, because the ponzi scheme of an economic system and those that control and perpetuate it leave you no choice.

[Hallu]

Hallu,

From our humble beginnings (living on the sheep's back), Australians now rely on the mining industry to sustain high living standards (as do the Canadians). While mines may not directly contribute to conservation outcomes, by increasing our wealth, mining makes a substantial indirect contribution. The link between GDP and environmental concern is discussed in the following paper:

http://www.soz.unibe.ch/unibe/wiso/soz/ ... 02_ger.pdf

The inconvenient truth Hallu, is that conservation is a luxury that the poor can not afford. So perhaps it is time you stopped worrying and learnt to love the mine.

If that were true, no country in the world could have high GDP and no mining. Which obviously isn't the case, take France, Germany, the UK. I don't deny that mining is essential to Australia's economy, and I don't deny that stopping it right now would be a disaster (you'd have to be pretty stupid not to realize that...), but what I think is that mining should fuel the growth of tourism in this country. They should be taxed to help build a tourism industry that would be infinitely longer lasting than mining. What should be stopped is this "free for all" attitude in the mining industry in Australia, that only seems to be (relatively) kept at bay in Tassie. I see you or frenchy or Corvus pissed when a mine project is canceled or slowed down, but where are you when huge parcels of lands containing huge and rich ore deposits are sold to the Chinese or any growing superpower ? This isn't helping the Aussie economy one bit, especially when most miners employed there aren't Australians...

[doogs]

Mining is a possible answer to the high unemployment in Tasmania but a small mine such as the one in question isn't going to solve the problems itself. The Federal and State governments need to be thinking of other ways to promote business in Tasmania, more sustainable businesses. I liked the idea a few months ago which suggested that Bass Strait be reclassified as a bridge, in fact the idea has been around much longer than that but has recently resurfaced. This would lead to an even playing field for Tasmanian manufacturers, cheaper ferry costs for interstate visitors and also Tasmanians wanting to visit the mainland. A mine does create money and jobs but it is not a long term solution, in fact in the long term there could well be issues left from the mining which future generations have to deal with.

[Hallu]

I don't understand what "Bass Strait be reclassified as a bridge" means ? Could you explain that please ?

[doogs]

I don't understand what "Bass Strait be reclassified as a bridge" means ? Could you explain that please ?

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/we ... ss-strait/
or this
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/20 ... -news.html

[Nuts]

It means the trip to Melbourne/Tasmania on the ferry should be classified under the National Highway scheme, that is- it should be subsidised so as to cost similar to driving the distance on the mainland (with or without an overnight stay included depending on the proponents). It is rolled out on occasion, perhaps when a tourism authority is pressed for new ideas, maybe when an election looms.

We are still (as a state) well overfunded on a national basis, I doubt it would create wealth, shuffle money and buy votes yes.. if it was at all a viable option I suspect it would have been better implemented long ago.

I agree that with the concept of conservation being a luxury. The higher the unemployment figures the more fanciful conservation becomes. The only possible way forward is for industry shifts to be vaguely viable short term.

[maddog]

Hallu,

It is a mistake in any conservation debate to ignore the surrounding social reality. Conservation needs public support without which (no matter how noble the cause), it will fail.

When considering the importance of social licence to conservation it is worth pointing out that mining companies have (generally) learnt to actively engage with stakeholders, and the broader community. This is one reason they have been comparatively successful in achieving their aims.

When attempting to engage with the community environmentalists have a problem of credibility. In the past people have heard the promise of an ecotourist economy, and liked what they heard. But the reality has not lived up to expectations. Mining and industry provides people with skilled jobs, pay well and provide dignity to those employed (e.g. geologist, machine operator, or environmental scientist). By way of comparison tourism and service jobs are poorly paid, casual in terms and servile by nature (e.g. hamburger technician, shop assistant, or cleaner). It is ok if you are the one living the dream, when it is you that are being served, but when viewed from the uncertain reality of the average Joe things are quite different.

[Hallu]

Personally I don't see any problem in visiting Tasmania. Flying there is cheap, and a rental car there is often cheaper than on the mainland, not to mention that rental companies are less fussy about you driving on gravel roads than on the mainland. I've never considered taking the ferry, it's not even about price, it's just that it takes ages. Even if a ferry return trip (with the car) was 50$ (so half the price of a return plane ticket) I wouldn't consider it. It's far harder to visit the Kimberley, Cape York Peninsula or even the Red Centre with their expensive flights to Alice Springs and all rental cars limited to less than 1000 km...

[stepbystep]

The idea of Bass Strait being classified as a national highway is not about tourism, that's a by-product. It benefits manufacturing and import/export.

The problem is federal political will and dollars.

Which is also why we are obsessed with low return primary industries like forestry and short term mining options like the Shree Minerals proposal.

There is no political will to encourage new industries and particularly high end sustainable industries. No votes in that, and no vision beyond the next election.

Long live the pariah state and it's long history of falling far short of it's potential.

[Nuts]

I think you may be confusing the national highway proposal with the freight equalization scheme as far as being directed at industry?
http://www.humanservices.gov.au/busines ... on-scheme/

Anyhow, yeah, I agree.. definitely a short term vision.

[RichB]

I find it strange why Tasmanians think they will actually get these jobs that these mining companies are offering..Shree minerals is an Indian company, and will more than likely want to employ Indians on 457 visas or other Asians..Apparently their destruction in the Tarkine will only last for 2 years and then they will be gone with all their loot..What will happen to the handful of Tasmanian workers then..They may have to find a job on the big mainland..oh well.. Life is hard. But the devils,quolls and all our other treasures will be gone..Never mind at least a handful of tasmanians had a couple of year work..Get your lazy *&^%$#@! over to the mainland where there is work and stop wining..

[Nuts]

That's what i though. Mt Lyell is owned by an Indian company Sterlite Industries, asking around- they do have a few 'international' staff (probably on 457 visas i suppose) but definitely still rely heavily on local employment. (just saying, not a blinkered 'opinion')

[Hallu]

I don't believe Tasmanians think that, most of the people in favor of this mine for jobs reasons on this topic aren't Tasmanians, except for corvus. Most of them probably think like SBS : that the economy need a real long term decision from the government, but that in the meantime, the primary industry is all they can get... But thanks for the info, I missed that Shree Minerals was actually Indian, because they present themselves as Australian and based in Tassie... But when you look at their board of directors : Sanjay Loyalka
Mahendra Pal
Arun Kumar Jagatramka
Andy Lau
Amu Shah
If you dig a bit, you see that Mr. Sanjay Loyalka is affiliated with Aditya Birla Group, a Mumbai based Indian conglomerate. Another guy is related to Gujarat NRE Coke Limited, which already owns 17% of the Pike River Mine in New Zeland. I honestly don't care whether they're Indian or Chinese, but masking it as an Australian and Tasmania based company doesn't feel right... You really have to search for it to see that they're actually Indian. But then I guess they all do it, it wouldn't look good if they didn't sound Aussie.

Rich, could you please show us your source on the 2 years deadline info though ?