Pulp Mill Commentaries

On Monday the ABC undertook to discover the Pulp Mill Task Force’s Executive Director’s (Bob Gordon’s) qualifications and presumably in regard to their relevance to the pulp mill issue.

It was somewhat illuminating to discover, via the ABC’s investigations, that Mr Gordon holds a Bachelor of Science Degree. By implication, it seemed that this information was being presented as something that should impress ABC listeners in respect to his qualifications to speak in regard to the pulp mill proposal. With respect, all by itself, and as an undergraduate degree, this qualification wouldn’t necessarily qualify him for all that much.

Clearly, Mr Gordon has, and would need, other qualifications (university or other) in order for him to have won the high profile Pulp Mill Task Force’s Executive Director’s position. This is a government funded (public?) position and one that attracts a significant salary. Given this, it would be relevant for the Pulp Mill Task Force to provide a more fulsome account of its staff’s, and spokespeople’s, relevant qualifications and experience. It isn’t to be found on the Pulp Mill Task Forces Website.

People need this information in order that when Mr Gordon and others make a comment on an issue, they can contextualise it and hence put what they have to say into perspective.

As things stand, seemingly, Mr Gordon speaks with less authority than one might expect and this is somewhat surprising. Mr Gordon spoke quite unconvincingly in regurgitating the proposed pulp mill proponent’s arguments at the University debate in Launceston September 19. Indeed, he was comprehensively out classed in the exchange. This is a concern as, by implication, the Tasmanian Government was also discredited given its funding of his position. Simply put Mr Gordon didn’t perform as one might expect that he should.

Given all that is at stake, the wider pulp mill ‘debate’ that is now raging needs to be given some real perspective. Consequently, the qualifications and credentials of commentators, their relationship(s?) to the proponents, government and others, their community standing, their stakeholder status, etc. needs to be articulated so that those trying to assess the situation can put their comments in context. This very often happens but it seems some are reluctant to put their qualifications and/or credentials up for scrutiny and one has to wonder why that might be.

What is at issue here is the partiality and credibility of the commentators (Mr Gordon and others) who speak out in support or otherwise of this Tamar pulp mill proposal. It is past the time when this issues needed to be addressed.

Dorothy Joiner
Senior Partner: Joiner Barton Vale & Associates