Turnbull is the minister for the Environment, not Commerce:

Lynn Good writes: Re. “Malcolm and the midgets” (yesterday, item 13). Christian Kerr’s paean to Turnbull seems to miss the fact that his hero is supposed to be a minister for the Environment, not Commerce. Even in the latter capacity Turnbull’s performance as a public official is questionable. Gunns relies absolutely on the peppercorn prices it pays for public trees, combined with the massive rort of Managed Investment Schemes. Turnbull’s own knowledge of forestry has reportedly come largely from his own involvement in the South Pacific logging business, hardly an education in things ecological. While the celebrities may know even less than Malcolm about the environment, they also lack both the means and motives to sell it out. Malcolm has lately shown signs of ditching his support for the mill; even if he doesn’t, that hardly makes him a “giant”.

Wil Blackburn writes: Christian Kerr misses the point (as he unfailingly does on environmental issues). Most people aren’t against any pulp mill; they’re against this one in this location. Gunns has plenty of other options to put forward a reasonable compromise.

Stephen Woods writes: I’m sorry, but for a moment while reading Christian Kerr’s three articles yesterday (items 13, 14, 15), I thought I was reading the Herald Sun in Melbourne. An ensemble of reactionary, condescending, fearful and skewed tomes. Reminds me of a certain chip off a certain old stone block – Flint! – geddit? Methinks old Kerr is feeling the heat of a crushing defeat?

Bass and Braddon:

Peter Lloyd writes: Re. “Bondi, Bronte, Bellevue Hill – and Bass and Braddon” (yesterday, item 14). It’s a shame Christian Kerr loses his ability to analyse anything once environmental politics become involved, with its implication that Pulp Mill = jobs in Bass and Braddon. While voters in Wentworth might be blind to the actual implications of a 10% unemployment rate, it is equally true to say that one reason why Tasmanians have a third world economy is because they have been led by mediocre politicians with all the economic sophistication of Boss Hogg. Cash is thrown at Gunns hand over fist, allowing these politicians to secure comfy retirement jobs and keep the small, corrupt clique of locals in the manner they enjoy. One industry, and increasingly one single company, crushes all others and consequently Tasmania has a lop-sided economy, with the second tier and smaller businesses always struggling or ignored. Tasmania has plenty of excellent products that should be sold into the cashed up markets in places like Wentworth, but lack of scale and assistance means this will never happen. Meanwhile, the social asset of forests is being destroyed without any long-term plan or benefit. A strong majority of Tamar Valley residents oppose the mill — this is a long way from being Vaucluse versus Launceston. A look at the political donations list and the remarkable few surnames shared among Tasmanian politicians past and present shows clearly why corruption is accepted as simply the way things are done. The Pavlovian response by a certain, unskilled section of Tasmanian voters to threats of economic doom shows just how the leadership that has caused this situation continues to benefit from it. But people are waking up.

The umpire’s decision and Gunns:

Penelope Toltz writes: Re. “Gunns may get the vote, but see you in court” (yesterday, item 12). If the proper environmental enquiry, which was independent, had been allowed to finish its enquiry and report, perhaps the people of areas other than those from where workers for the pulp mill will come, would have understood and even agreed with the umpire’s decision. However, whenever proper governance and information are provided and Gunns are on the other side, the process is circumvented. What about all the farmers and growers in the area where the pulp mill will be polluting. Many farms in this area are organic. Tasmania has one of the cleanest greenest reputations in the world. Many small businesses will fail to fulfill the clean and green criteria after Gunns are through with polluting the area. I understand that wages and jobs are essential for an area to thrive, but killing one set of industries for another seems stupid to me.

Never fear – the celebrities will save Tasmania:

Matt Hardin writes: Re. “Never fear — the celebrities will save us!” (Yesterday, item 17). While most of the issues that have attracted the support of celebrities are ones traditionally associated with the left, I hardly think raising awareness of the new enrollment rules and encouraging the youth to exercise their democratic rights is a left issue. Unless of course, you can only vote if you vote the “right” way.

Brett Elliott writes: The so called celebrities who lent their signatures to an advertisement in a local paper were attacked a number of times in yesterday’s Crikey. Heck, all they asked for was “a full and just hearing”. In a democracy, we shouldn’t even have to ask.

Martin McKenzie-Murray writes: In yesterday’s item Luke McKenna mistakenly wrote: “Australian born former NBA star Luc Armstrong joined Tim Winton in a community fight to save WA’s Ningaloo Reef from large-scale development plans.” The former NBA star in question is Luc Longley, who I would like to point out is 7 foot 2 inches, played for the Michael Jordan-era Chicago Bulls, once missed a few games for his then team the Phoenix Suns because a scorpion stung him on his a-se, and who once had to duck to enter the Brass Monkey pub in Northbridge, Perth. I was there to see it. For the record, I stand at the meagre height of 5 foot 4.

Yuendumu:

John Mill writes: Re. “Aboriginal kids to be ‘worked until visibly tired'” (yesterday, item 1). Having travelled through Yuendumu a few years ago, I note that it would take the kids a few years, at least, to clean up the mess. Why not get the adults to do it, as most of that lies everywhere in the streets appears to have been left there by them. They would be setting an example to the young ones, and their actions might help instil a sense of social pride in their community. From our brief drive through the community, there appeared to be plenty of idle adult hands to do the work.

WorkChoices:

Ian Lowe writes: Re. “On IR, Kevin Rudd chooses WorkChoices” (yesterday, item 2). If it really true, as asserted in Crikey yesterday that the impact of “WorkChoices” in the building industry is “Profits are up by about a third, wages … by about ten percent” you can see why employers think it is a good deal — but why is the ALP accepting that as an equitable outcome?

Mike Crook writes: As one who spent 30 years working in the construction industry, I note that Julia and Kevin both miss the real point of union access to construction worksites, ie. safety. The overall responsibility for enforcement of workplace safety rests with the various state government Construction Safety and Industrial Safety Divisions normally a part of the States Department of Industrial Relations. The problem is that with the going out of fashion of enforcement of regulations in the 1980s and 1990s these bodies have become extremely poor at their purported role. As has been noted elsewhere about other policing cultures, the relationship of construction safety inspectors is with the employer, not with the employee and their degree of effectiveness in promoting industrial safety is just about zero. I can speak with some authority about the NSW and Queensland safety regimes where under resourcing joins happily with corruption and incompetence to deny workers access to safe workplaces. Certainly the practice of giving advance notice when one of their inspector’s infrequent visits is to take place is very questionable, and the essence of an effective inspection regime is that visits not be notified in advance. It is not therefore surprising that the unions have elected to conduct their own workplace inspections as part of their duty of care to their own members. I contend that this has saved a lot of lives in the last 20 years. Could I strongly suggest that rather than formulate a policy based on employer lobbying that they might be better off asking a rigger, crane driver, concrete worker or boilermaker what they would like to see.

Cutting red tape:

John Parkes writes: Re. “Cutting red tape with more red tape isn’t working” (yesterday, item 11). I can’t remember where but not all that long ago I read a report which suggested that a measure of well run government and democracy in a country was the number of pages of legislation issued by it’s Parliament in a given year – the higher the better being the standard. It would seem that the opposite is really true. A well run government should not need more legislation, and extending that to the obvious the less time we give Parliament to deliberate the more they are likely to leave us alone. Now that would be democracy.

The AFL drug scandal:

Bill Darby writes: Re. “The AFL drug scandal: no public interest and no ethics” (yesterday, item 6). Denis Muller wrote: “Dylan Howard has been quoted as saying he took at face value the claim of his source that she had found the documents in a gutter outside a medical clinic in Ivanhoe, a north-eastern suburb of Melbourne. This indicates that little was done to verify the legitimacy or authenticity of the material.” Or the ownership? … Didn’t it occur to anyone to ask the clinic? A new definition for “gutter press”?

Mike Smith writes: This goes to show Channel Seven’s true nature: a gutter press. I really hope the AFL players follow through on their threat to boycott the Brownlow Medal presentation — that would hurt Seven more than any other single sanction.

David Flint:

Geoff Roberson writes: I read Mark Hardcastle’s piece (yesterday, comments) on the monarchist toady with a growing sense of amazement, until I got to the last sentence. It’s satire! Of course, David Flint is full of it! But Mark, we already knew that.

Colin Ross writes: Great to see you encouraging another satirist, Mark Hardcastle, to your contributors. His comments were a wonderful take off on David Flint’s pompous style. And to finish with the expression that all Australians know “and David Flint is full of it” was brilliant.

Michael Latz writes: Like (I suspect) a lot of your subscribers I don’t read David Flint’s deluded little quasi-human missives – why bother? However, I always read the responses to them in your comments section. Sure, maybe this means that I’m an ignorant wanna-be “elitist” (probably true), but I reckon it’s also because I enjoy a good laugh. Flinty really seems to draw the best out of your readers – he’s as mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore. Keep it coming, I’m loving it.

Keeping the bogans happy:

Kate Finch writes: Re. “Only one jet?” (Yesterday, item 8). Who gives a damn? Riverfire is very pretty I grant you, but am I wrong in thinking that our ageing F111s should be doing something a little more useful than wasting enormous amounts of fuel to keep the mums, dads and bogans happy? And the extra pollution in addition to the huge amounts of crap and smoke that wind up floating around after the yearly look-at-moi-look-at-moi that Riverfire seems to be – how is this a good thing? Whomever your tipster is seems to think that having extremely valuable military hardware dumping valuable fossil fuels so it can look pretty for him/her is some kind of right and they want to complain because there’s only going to be one this year – boo hoo. This is just pathetic.

Nick Place writes: Thanks a lot for running the “one jet or two” yarn from Brisbane in yesterday’s “Tips & Rumours”. Finally, a media outlet with the balls to tackle the weighty issues. (By the way, no jets would equal less wasted fossil fuels).

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name – we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.