Gunns desperate for publicity: Cundall
Posted
Updated
Outspoken opponent: Cundall has been a vocal critic of the pulp mill. (ABC News)
The former presenter of ABC TV's Gardening Australia, Peter Cundall, says television personality Don Burke would not work for Gunns if the timber company was building a pulp mill in his backyard.
Cundall lives in the area and says people will see the move to hire Burke as a publicity stunt.
"If someone decided to put a giant pulp mill right near where he lives he'd be alongside me and I alongside him opposing it," he said.
"What they're asking Don to do is to come here to the people of Tasmania from another place and tell us what he thinks should be done, and it won't work.
"I think Gunns are desperate for some kind of friendly publicity, so it's natural that they'll attract someone to use who's sympathetic to the mill."
However Burke says he would still support the mill if it was located near his home.
"If Gunns came to me and wanted to build it next door I'd have it," he said.
Burke sent a message of support to a pro-pulp mill rally that was held in Tasmania last year.
Search for news
Comments (42)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
DeepFritz:
09 Oct 2008 2:00:13pm
Give me a home around the pulp mill,
With lots of cash bills,
A dollar or two for a different view.
Pollution 'round the front,
and toxins by the fence,
all in Gunns backyard.Agree (7) Alert moderator
-
Mark D:
09 Oct 2008 2:01:02pm
How is it that there is absolutely no comment about the fact that Gunns and the Tasmanian State Government, constantly moved the goal posts for this project? That is the most important thing that needs to be debated. Most people would have been happy with Gunns' original proposal, which they also said was their preferred option, to build a closed-loop pulp mill at Hampshire, NW Tasmania.
And step by step they changed it until it is now an open-loop mill at Longreach, NE Tasmania.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Rob Palmer:
09 Oct 2008 3:22:25pm
So what if they build an open loop mill? Look, if the development approval is done properly and the environmental impact is negigible, as the DA must surely require, where's the issue? Raw timber supply, perhaps? Well that is a different issue and it ought to be assessed on it's merits. Whether people like it or not, the fact is we as consumers need industries to be established and to operate. Yes, they should have a zero impact on the environment and on the immediate neighbourhood. Providing this happens, there ought to be no issue. And the same goes for a nuclear power station: aprt of the risk assessment is the likely impact on the neighbourhood in the event of a disaster. If the project gets a tick, build it.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
-
Scott:
09 Oct 2008 2:02:51pm
Don Burke has sold out. I thought he was a person of who's opinion mattered, I was wrong.
I might value his view on the mill if he wasn't on the pay role. Tasmanians will see this for what it really is, a publicity stunt.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
09 Oct 2008 2:50:16pm
Don Burke sold out years ago and has no credibility to call himself an environmentalist. He once said (on his own show) we should not be recycling paper and plastic because we still have plenty of space for landfill.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Somewhat Perplexed:
09 Oct 2008 3:03:53pm
I think if you look into the history of Don then this is a predictable behaviour.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Gary W:
09 Oct 2008 2:04:16pm
Peter Cundall, man of integrity and dedication, is right as usual. What media tart is Gunns going to drag in next? Don't rats usually desert a sinking ship?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Yetti:
09 Oct 2008 2:04:29pm
Stop the Gunns' mill. Tasmania is one of the last places on earth which has not been spoilt by excessive industry and pillage of its natural resources. It will be worth far more in tourist dollars than a mill will ever supply. If the Government is serious about conserving the environment then let them act on this one. The results will be immediate and inexpensive.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
09 Oct 2008 3:01:58pm
I think natural selection rather than any government decision that will stop the pump mill. The costs keep blowing out and the financial risk keeps going up (and up and up and up). No bank in its right mind is going to fund something like this any time soon.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Stealth Pooch:
09 Oct 2008 2:06:39pm
I seem to recall John Howard saying that he wouldn't mind a nuclear facility near his house too. You gotta love the 'hypothetical'
I don't quite understand Don Burke's position in this case. I know Cundall is a local down here, is passionate for environment, and is not 'employed' by any company to protest against the mill. However, please correct me if I'm wrong, Don Burke is EMPLOYED by Gunns to speak for the mill? How in earth is Burke going to convince us of the merits of a stinking, corruptly approved, hated by the majority of Tasmanian's Pulp Mill if he's employed by the company who he's backing?
Due to the overwhelming negative attitude towards the Pulp Mill and Gunns at the moment: Don, you've just lost a lot of fans...Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Interested Onlooker:
09 Oct 2008 2:07:21pm
a bit hypocritical for one 'gardener' to be pointing the finger at another don't you think? Wasn't the Sydney 'latte set' heavily used to push the no-mill point a few months back? Now Cundall is saying the Gunns shouldn't be sending people to Tassie from 'another place' to tell them what to do.
Quite laughable really.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Stealth Pooch:
09 Oct 2008 2:21:52pm
I think the key point here is that the 'latte set' as you call them were not PAID to object to the mill. (As one of the majority of Tasmanians firmly against the Pulp Mill, I welcome their interest and objections.) Whereas mainlander Burke is employed by Gunns to sell the mill to Tasmanians.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Greg h:
09 Oct 2008 2:24:48pm
Yeah good point. It is pretty laughable indeed when the bulk of the opposition to the mill is from the latte set in the mainland.
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
09 Oct 2008 2:51:49pm
The bulk of the opposition is from Tasmanians. Unfortunately both sides of state politics have sold out to Gunns.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Mel:
09 Oct 2008 2:54:45pm
Mr Burke, I hope for your sake this mill never gets to cause some sort of environmental disaster. I think you are banking on it never being built, but if it defies the credit crunch and is actually built, I bet you will be nervous.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Greg h:
09 Oct 2008 2:14:37pm
Hey Peter Cundall, Australia is still a free country and Burke is entitled to his views. Just because you do not agree with the eco fascists in this country it doesn't mean you dont care about the environment.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Peter O:
09 Oct 2008 2:35:34pm
Tasmanian Governments have been "hell bent" on allowing destruction of the pristine environment of that beautiful island
for over 60 years, and are not likely to change the policy of Big Business before the environment any time soon.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kocsonya:
09 Oct 2008 2:52:41pm
Hey Greg h, Australia is still a free country (is it?) and Peter Cundall is entitled to his views. Just because you are not paid by a big corporation in this country it doesn't mean you don't care about the environment.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
dragon:
09 Oct 2008 2:16:19pm
Can't help but giggle here.
I'll leave the serious issue aside and just say .......
Cundell vs Burke (2 gardeners)
Leeeeets Get Reaaaady To Ruuuuumble !
Doesn't sound as imposing as a Tyson vs Lewis stoush :)Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
steven:
09 Oct 2008 2:17:57pm
Before you make comment, read the report by the Chief Scientist and look at the requirements imposed upon Gunns and also look at the industrial land they are planning to build it on. I would be happy to have it next to me, in fact I would like some of my current neighbours removed to make way for it, there are places certainly more toxic and enviromentally damaging that people are quire happy to live nexct door to.
This is just another example of our enviromental hypocrisy. Use white paper but export the enviromental cost of it to a third world country where there will be no enviromental controls in order to claim top be Green. If you are a true enviromentalist, build these things in our country, stick strick enviromental controls on them that a free press and informed community can moniter and tarrifs to prevent then importating of itmes such as these from countries without the same enviromental controls.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Peter G:
09 Oct 2008 2:28:49pm
It's not what's in the chief scientists report that worries me, it is the environmental impacts that lie outside the federal jurisdiction that are a real cause for concern. The issue of destruction of carbon sinks is also a problem. In any case, it won't be built. If John Gay thinks he can raise funds in the current credit environment then he has been smoking 1080.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Scott:
09 Oct 2008 2:19:39pm
Don't worry Mr Cundall. Gunns hasn't got a hope in hell of coming up with the money in the current finance market. The project is dead; Gunns just don't want to admit it because they are afraid they will be called on all their outstanding debts.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Huonboy:
09 Oct 2008 2:20:57pm
This is just another attempt by the logging industry to role out Don Burke to try and 'green' up their environmentally destructive activities.
Mr Burke was first co-opted by the mining and logging industry when he became part of the corporate front group, the Australian Environment Foundation, whose address and phone number was the same as Timber Community Australia's melbourne office.
And for Mr Burke to say he was against old growth destruction in the same breathe as annoucing that he now works for the largest old growth logging company in Australia, is a little rich.
Good on Peter Cundall for taking Mr Burke on.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
09 Oct 2008 2:53:51pm
Peter Cundall was always the better gardener and better environmentalist. Burke is a better businessman.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Peter G:
09 Oct 2008 2:22:19pm
Burke has well known business interests. Anyone who is against environmental destruction on this scale should send Burke a message by withholding their cash.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
steven:
09 Oct 2008 2:38:02pm
enviromental destruction on what scale?
Plantation timber which is monoculture and an enviromental desert I have been told by the Green movement and a factory on a brownfields site already destroyed by existing industry plus emission limitations and restrictions that are the lowest in the world
Less hyperbole and emotive slogans please and more rational arguementAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
hugh jampton:
09 Oct 2008 3:03:16pm
The long term viability of the mill is dependent on the extensive logging of old growth forest, which will then be replanted with more monoculture plantaions - that's the large scale environmental destruction.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
ron:
09 Oct 2008 2:27:28pm
Don Burke, has said he will not lose his 'integrity', I'm thinkin' naive ex-TV person, by signing up with one of the 21st century's biggest industrial vandals - Gunn's - if it dont move, cut it down, if it moves shoot it mentality of Gunns and their board members.
stop all this crazy pulp mill and forget the idea!....I'm betting that it won't ever go ahead - try raising some cash from overseas banks at the moment!....Are the Gunn's board so stupid they havent noticed that there is a credit crisis on!...which means the grab for Naive Don is a waste of time, and his integrity that he may have once had is gone down all the dried up rivers in mainland Australia!
please someone disband the Gunns Co .....Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
09 Oct 2008 2:55:58pm
Don Burke is far from naive. He's a very shrewd businessman who has been a paid mouthpiece for the logging and mining industries for decades. If Don Burke spruiks the pump mill and Gunns can't get funding to build it, he still gets paid for his services.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Marcus:
09 Oct 2008 2:38:31pm
Gunn's Ltd., along with a completely compromised Tasmanian State Government continues to clear-fell and fire bomb old growth forest. The strategy is pretty simple. Convert as much old growth forest into "re-growth" timber coup(s) as possible. Previously cleared forest will then be available for harvesting over the long term, shoring up wood chip supplies.
The real economics of course don't add up. The industry actually consumes taxpayer funds. Additionally, the carbon emissions created in clearing old growth forest are large, really large (see abc.net/science/news for a recent article on this).
There are many players here, the CFMEU can be counted upon to be deliberately hysterical, to play the "we stick up for your jobs" cards, when in fact few jobs are at stake, and numerous studies show that increased protection for these forests will bring 2 or 3 jobs for every one lost - of course they won't be members of the CFMEU. The State Government lives in fear of being cast as anti job, or development and are in thrall to both Gunns and the local papers - who receive most of their revenues from the Government and Gunns-a virtuous circle you might say.
That Don Burke is willing to be the official apologist for Gunns Ltd indicates that Gunns is, as Peter Cundle states, a little desperate, and also Dons need for cash. I would guess Gunns Ltd is paying lots and lots....
the shame Don
MarcusAgree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jan:
09 Oct 2008 2:53:48pm
It is really funny how there is this expectation that if you repeat something enough, it will become truth.
For those of you how haven't been to Bell Bay, the site of the proposed pulp mill is disgusting. Great factories belching out all sorts of stuff. And this is NOT the dreaded pulp mill. This is industrial Tasmania's heartland.
From the carry on above, anyone would think that Gunns plans to flatten every tree in Tasmania. Well folks, 40% of the place is already protected. And we have to make money from something, since most of the population lives on Federal handouts.
A tree only slurps up carbon dioxide while it is GROWING. And in Tasmania the average eucalypt doesn't make more than about 300 years at the very best, if it isn't burnt first. And most are burnt in bushfires.
If a tree is harvested a new one grows in its place and takes up more carbon dioxide. The carbon in the old tree is only released if it is burnt.
From some of the comments above, one would think the harvested forest was turned into wasteland. Instead, a new crop is busy sequestering carbon.
Let's have more science and less hot air. Please.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Peter G:
09 Oct 2008 3:10:31pm
I couldn't agree more, lets have more science...and common sense. However debating with Gunn's lobbyists is a bit like trying to explain evolution to someone who thinks dinosaurs roamed the earth 5000 years ago.
On the carbon issue. Carbon will go into the atmosphere through clearing planation sites, burn-offs, logging activities, transport and off course the mill will be burning off the waste. Prime agricultural land is being targeted by these predators. In any case, I believe they will not be able to wean themselves off native plantations.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Les Fiedler:
09 Oct 2008 2:41:16pm
Don Burke is all for the environment in his own backyard but he is not concerned about Tasmania
No one can buy his integrity as it appears he has not got anyAgree (1) Alert moderator
-
Eds:
09 Oct 2008 2:58:43pm
Don Burke for hire, yep and he does not even live in the area so what would he realy know about the wants of the enviroment and what the community realy wants, all Don is interested is in the pay packet as an employee of Gunns.
Peter Cundall on the other hand lives in the area and knows what most want and is not an employee of Gunns Ltd and has in my opinion untainted views on what is best.
Don Burke your credability has taken a nose dive siding with enviromental destruction of the land and the sea.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
ravensclaw:
09 Oct 2008 2:59:08pm
This nonsense is an example of how far activists will go in being deceitful to the population.
The Gunns Pulp Mill Project is a very good one.
For those wanting a few facts about the proposal read this.
http://www.gunnspulpmill.com.au/faqs.php
http://www.gunnspulpmill.com.au/factsheets/The_Inconvenient_Truth.pdf
As you can see the level of deceit by people who oppose the Gunns Pulp Mill is not small.
The people of Tasmania deserve the same rights for prosperity as everyone else.
It is time people stood up for a free country especially when it is about sustainable development.
Good on you Don Burke!
CheersAgree (1) Alert moderator
-
Brad:
09 Oct 2008 3:07:56pm
I would hardly regard Gunns as an impartial or balanced source.
Tasmania can have prosperity without destroying its environment. The difference in a truly sustainable future is the jobs created will be filled by small business, not by CFMEU members.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Patch:
09 Oct 2008 3:12:21pm
No no no Ravensclaw, you cannot get your facts on this issue from the company involved, and therefore with a massive vested interest in getting it happening, and at the same time complain bitterly about people getting their facts about climate change from climate scientists, who have a far less clear cut vested interest (one that most people dont really think is a vested interest. You would ask a vet a question about your dog, even though they have a vested interest).
Well you could, but you would be a massive hypocrite.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
NoMill:
09 Oct 2008 3:04:29pm
Seriously, who cares about Don Burke? He's a washed up has-been who once tried to tell us that seagulls nesting on moored boats was an example of creatures adapting to our modern environment! Next he'll be saying that the pollution from the mill would help make Northern Tasmania's population "stronger" though "natural selection" as the polluted air kills off people with genetic lung conditions!
Is Don Burke seriously the best Gunns could do? Couldn't they get anybody new from Tasmania to support their cause? If I was Gunns I'd shut up and let this project die as quietly as possible, instead of constantly reminding the people of Tasmania and rival international timber companies how incompetent and ignorant they are, especially at a time where they are increasingly vunerable to both a takeover and a financial collapse.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
roger b.:
09 Oct 2008 3:09:14pm
Don Burke , you have sold your sole to the devil(Gunns). How much are they paying you Don???? If Don thinks that Mulching 200,000 Ha of Old growth Forests and then burning the rest and than planting water sucking pine trees and then 1080 baiting the animals that lived there and spraying chemicals is good, you must be joking. Greed is NOT Good Don ???
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
PB:
09 Oct 2008 3:09:29pm
Instead of boosting the (non esistent) environmental credentials of the pulp mill this will destroy Don Burke's own reputation and makes a mockery of his so called integrity and green credentials.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ardbeg:
09 Oct 2008 3:20:48pm
If Don Burke is as committed to the environment as he claims to be he will insist that Gunns:
1. Introduce a closed loop system to the mill to prevent toxic effluent from being discharged into Bass Strait.
2. Use no native forests for the mill.
3. Stop using 1080, atrazine and other poisons in their plantations.
4. Cease the conversion of native forests and prime agricultural land to plantations.
5. Stop clearfelling of old growth and high value native forests for export as woodchips.
6. Transport logs by rail instead of by road.
7. Drop the (Gunns 20) court case against environmentalists.
8. Allow the release of the scientific report on the discharge of toxic effluent into Bass Strait.
Anything less will prove his appointment to be nothing more than a brazen act of duplicity.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jack:
09 Oct 2008 3:22:36pm
"What they're asking Don to do is to come here to the people of Tasmania from another place and tell us what he thinks should be done, and it won't work."
What like those Sydney armchair-greenies that are anti-mill Peter? I'm disgusted.
Sydney still pumps 922,000,000 litres of RAW sewerage into the ocean every day!!Agree (1) Alert moderator
