Gary
The Prime Minister John Howard says that he wants the mill to go ahead, as it would create jobs in northern Tasmania and it's important for the maintenance of the forestry industry. However, he adds that the mill does have to stack up environmentally: it cannot be approved regardless of the findings of a scientific panel.

So it all depends on the scientific panel headed by the Chief Scientist on this account. Do the politicians expect the scientific panel to rollover? The politicians do seem to be alli in favour of development as it stands for jobs, investment and value adding. Or are they hoping that the panel provides them with an exit strategy.

Pam,
It may be the case that the criteria is this: For the Liberals the mill will have to conform with the EPBC Act. For Labor it has to conform with the requirments of the forestry section of the CFMEU and meet some ill defined world class, best environment standard.

If the mill must meet world's best environment standards and outcomes , then that statement is meaningless unless Labor commits to an environmental impact assessment.

Given the Lib/Lab/Gunn alliance in Tasmania the people of that state have an option of return another Green Senator to support Brown and Milne in the Senate.

I presume that Garrett reckons that where you can actually do something as Minister, and that he is working to help build the agenda for change with the ALP. So why not argue for a different location using plantation timber?