THERE is a glaring error in Kerry Finch's letter (Letters, April 15). He is expressing (unqualified?) support for a pulp mill at Hampshire despite there not having been anywhere near the investigations about the suitability of that place when compared with the Tamar Valley site.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The feeling is that this is a classic case of NIMBY-ism and it is not uncommon on this issue.
Opponents of the Tamar Valley site have frequently asserted "It should be at Hampshire", confident that there is no proposal for a pulp mill at Hampshire - nor likely to be.
Mr Finch presumably has statistical support for "most of my electorate of Rosevears is against the proposed pulp mill on the Tamar" ?
But the very poor response in the recent House of Assembly elections towards candidates unequivocally opposed to that pulp mill ought to create some doubt for Mr Finch.
A pulp mill for Tasmania is an appropriate "downstream processing (for) our forestry industry" and Mr Finch agrees.
Some eggs will need to be broken for this omelette to be made.
Mr Finch's electorate should be prepared to sacrifice some of those eggs even if it doesn't necessarily like the omelette.
- TREVOR G. COWELL, Perth.