TAP Briefing Paper: Why The Community Isn’t Buying The Big Sell

This is a briefing paper on the current debate over the future of Tasmanian forestry and Gunns’ planned pulp mill prepared by TAP Into A Better Tasmania, November 2010. A pdf is available for downloading from below.

http://tapvision.info/sites/default/files/Briefing Paper for public release - Forestry and pulp mill - why the community is not buying the big sell.pdf


A stalled proposal for a world scale pulp mill, the slow motion collapse of the forest industry, the astonishing alignment of environmental groups behind industry for a plantation-based pulp mill and the prospect of big money changing hands marks an extraordinary period in a small island’s history.

So how did all this happen? It’s time to examine the causes in detail because to misdiagnose the causes invites the wrong solution. One solution being proposed, for example, involves ‘compensating’ the forest industry to the tune of over a billion dollars. But that in turn carries its own serious consequences eg. lack of funding for public hospitals.

The interpretation of the causes presented here provides a big picture perspective from a hitherto ignored community view, the one that the special interest groups involved don’t want to hear.

So how did we arrive at the point where the aims of some environment groups now mesh with industry, where conservationists signed up to support a plantation industry and a pulp mill in Tasmania, and the community was sidelined?

The story started decades ago.

A smelly tale of foul odour - Odour Advisory


CEO of Gunns Ltd, Greg L’Estrange told ABC Stateline (25.10.10) that Gunns would work “with the community so they understood what the pulp mill facility planned for the Tamar Valley is”.

We don’t feel confident that he will explain why his pulp mill will stink as do all others of this type around the world. So TAP Into A Better Tasmania has followed the foul odour trail through leaked letters, restricted terms of reference and incomplete reports to produce this Odour Advisory. It tells the story that Greg L’Estrange won’t and why it is a significant risk for business and health of the 100 000 people who live in the Tamar Valley.

The assessment of this issue carried out to date has looked only at odour from the stack, and not at odour which after about twelve months starts to leak from thousands of pipe seals and other leakage points. These fugitive emissions pose the biggest threat to your business, as they make up 98% of the odour escaping from pulp mills, including the most modern ones.

The Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC), which was initially given the task of assessing Gunns’ proposal, determined that the odour zone would have a radius of 55k around the Long Reach site. This odour will affect all wineries, tourist operators and other businesses in the zone; Tamar Ridge is of course only 5km from the site and will be one of the businesses worst affected.

This poses serious political, financial and project risks for potential joint venture partners and business investors alike. If a financial backer can be found, only one more regulatory hurdle (permit for marine discharge into Commonwealth waters in Bass Strait) has to be cleared before construction may begin.

The history of the failed assessment of odour is summarised in the next few paragraphs.

Gunns: The Next Chapter by John Lawrence

First published on Tasmanian Times


The Truth and Reconciliation Roadshow continued last week with a presentation by Gunns’ CEO to a conference run by investment bank UBS, coincidentally a Gunns’ shareholder.

The changes from the presentation which accompanied the release of Gunns’ preliminary 2010 financials in mid August were subtle and revealing of the future chosen path.

John Gay’s business model was then described as being “a conglomerate of long life low yielding assets…..(consisting of) many businesses….. excessive levels of encumbered assets .....excessive debt levels to earnings,..... (where) potential investors do not understand the business.”

The latest presentation includes further criticisms of the old model. Mr L’Estrange confirmed that Gunns was “cash negative” and was bedevilled by “aging inefficient assets”.

Cash negativity is a fairly serious condition. If it persists disaster usually awaits. Aging inefficient assets make the problem worse. Forget about a social license. Gunns needs cash and a more ‘efficient’ portfolio of assets.

In August the new look Gunns was to comprise a division devoted to ‘hardwood and softwood’ sawmilling.

This has now been revised to ‘softwood processing’ only. No mention of hardwood sawmilling. Literally, this means an exit from all hardwood sawmilling not just native forest sawmilling.

Normally a CEO when spruiking his Company will attempt to explain and justify the latest P&L Statement. UBS has been critical in the past of the book entries of Dickensian proportions that have been used to prepare Gunns’ financial accounts. Hence Greg didn’t dwell on Gunns’ appalling 2010 results. He was on a hiding to nothing. He simply said “if your investment focus is purely about this year’s trading, GNS is not your stock”.

Never a truer word has been uttered.

TIDE framework for community and regional growth

TAP supports promotion of Talent, Innovation, Diversity and Environment (TIDE) and a shift in government policies towards promoting more diversified resilient sustainable development based on Tasmania’s unique clean island qualities, niche markets and favourable climate. But Gunns' proposed pulp mill is damaging to TIDE and displaces opportunities for community and regional growth.

Adapted from the Cool Cities program, Michigan, USA, the acronym TIDE represents four conditions that are holistic and systemic rather than causal. Each one is necessary but by itself is insufficient for generating long term prosperity. To attract creative people, generate innovation and stimulate economic growth, there must be substantial, balanced performance across all four.

In TAP’s assessment, Gunns’ proposed pulp mill has a negative effect on Talent, Innovation, Diversity and Environment and therefore scores a fail on each condition.

Gunns' Annual General Meeting

Gunns' AGM is set for Thursday 25 November, at 10.30am, at the Boat House 55a Lindsay Street, Launceston. 

Tappers will be in action. Watch this space for details as to how you can join in the fun.


Mr Eastment, pulp mills and cities

By Metternich
Reproduced from Tasmanian Times


On the morning of Friday August 27th, pulp and paper analyst Robert Eastment was interviewed live on ABC936 by talkback host Tim Cox about the forestry roundtable talks, and Gunns proposed Tamar Valley pulp mill.

During his interview Mr Eastment claimed that there are pulp mills now being built in the middle of cities in Europe and nobody cares because they’re quite comfortable with it; er, you know, the technology is such that you can put this sort of manufacturing facility in the middle of large areas, um, that sort of understanding is still not widespread in Tasmania.

Mr Eastment’s claim that there are pulp mills now being built in the middle of cities in Europe and nobody cares, was immediately challenged by Greens Senate candidate and Tamar Valley resident Peter Whish-Wilson. Whish-Wilson said the only new pulp mill he knew of that had been built recently anywhere near a European city was the Stendal mill in East Germany, a mill that has had more than its fair share of problems, and is well-known as the source of foul odours that impact badly on surrounding residents. Whish-Wilson called on Eastment to clarify his claim and point to pulp mills that are being built now in the middle of cities in Europe.

Robert Eastment responded Monday morning, August 30th, by providing ABC936 with a list of the pulp mills that he was referring to last Friday.

Unfortunately for Mr Eastment, there is a major problem with his list

Forestry: Nothing has been learnt

By Dr David Leaman

Reproduced from Tasmanian Times


Someone at the current round table (forest industry peace meeting) formed to “solve” the forest debate is unhappy – otherwise we would not be able to read a leaked draft document. And, rightly so, since it appears that the same old errors are being made by much the same people.

The panelists lack some key players.

This is stupid blunder number 1 for there must be full inclusion of interested and affected parties – including farmers and land owners.

There also seems to have been no consideration of the future and the planning of resources and community needs but then I would not expect this of groups who cannot see beyond trees.

In the third edition of my book, WATER-facts, issues, problems and solutions (2007) I included two essays as appendices THE REAL ISSUE IN TASMANIA’S FORESTS, THE CONSERVATION ERROR IN TASMANIA’S FOREST DEBATE (pages 156, 159). The content remains as valid, if long ignored, as when written several years earlier.  Supporting information and science is in the book plus a 2008 addendum and a reviewed summation listed as (Leaman, D. E., 2008. Comparative Assessment of Catchments in Eastern Tasmania – issues for Management. WATER DOWN UNDER 2008. Proceedings 4th International Conference on Water Resources and Environment Research, Adelaide, April. Pages 542-554. Engineers Australia).

The issues go much wider than narrow definitions of native or old-growth forests. Any trade off involving plantations and pulp mills must include the interests of people affected and the wider environment.

From Forest Destruction and Public Subsidies to Profitable and Sustainable Forestry Practices

By Tim Thorne, with John Biggs, Max Bound, Stuart Godfrey, Austra Maddox. For Now We The People Tas.

Reproduced from Tasmanian Times


Although at the time of writing we have no clear idea as to who will form the next Australian Government, it is certain from the results of the 21 August election that there is a growing recognition of the need for important changes in policy directions.

In conditions of climate change, addressing the issues of economic, social and ecological sustainability requires transparency in government and long-term visions for the future.  Open discussions, democratic procedures, social inclusion and economic equity,  as we develop new ways to live with our physical environment, need to be both real and important in the new directions that we seek to pursue.

It is clear that many Tasmanians who are concerned about environmental, social and economic matters want an open and inclusive discussion of the issues surrounding the production of paper pulp from our forests, both native and plantation.

Both before and since the call on Tasmanian Times (July 1) by Dr David Obendorf for such a discussion(1), there have been a number of articles written on this subject.

This paper notes some previous contributions and suggests possible ways to involve more people in working to end the widely perceived corruption in forestry.  It advocates open discussion of the issues rather than talks that are, as advocated by Minister Bryan Green, “out of the public spotlight.”  We hope to start such a discussion and to go beyond discussion to action in the interests of a more sustainable, healthier, more prosperous and more genuinely democratic Tasmania. 

Public opinion poll. Gunns' planned pulp mill on the nose for voters

Sunday 1 August 2010. TAP media release
"Internal polling of the northern Tasmanian 63 telephone district shows a clear majority of the electorate is less likely to vote for a political party that intends to support Gunns proposed pulp mill with taxpayer funds," said TAP Into A Better Tasmania spokesman, Rod Hutchins.

Open letter to Premier Bartlett re pulp mill concerns of TAP Into A Better Tasmania

Dear Premier,
Following your impromptu meeting with TAP members at the Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery on Friday 2 July, we wish to explain further our concerns and what we believe is required to fix the turmoil created by your predecessor over Gunns’ proposed pulp mill.

Members of TAP want to protect the community’s health, lifestyles and investments from the proposed pulp mill. TAP is also concerned by the failure of political ‘representatives’ to represent our interests. The level of anger and frustration towards the pulp mill and the government is reflected in the two thirds of Tasmanians consistently opposed to Gunns’ project, and by a large membership of 1000, and in meetings attended by up to 100 TAP members every two weeks for the last five years. TAP Into A Better Tasmania (TAP) does not support any particular political party.

The community has a long list of serious concerns over Gunns’ proposed pulp mill and its wood supply which cannot be brushed aside. They know their health will be affected by pulp mill smell in a valley prone to inversions. Some angry members have been directly sprayed with pesticides near plantations. They know that roads are made unsafe by more heavy vehicles and that tourism jobs will be lost when the tourists stop coming. They know from direct experience that streams and springs are drying up from thirsty young trees in plantations.  They are worried by the effluent impacting fishing and by the damage to Tasmania’s clean image. Fishermen say it takes only one contaminated scallop to lose an export industry.

The community knows that the government is not doing its job of protecting the people, the environment and businesses from the harm this pulp mill would cause.

They also know that the talks between loggers and environmentalists over forestry exclude consideration of the harmful impacts of plantations.

Under the old RPDC guidelines a large project proposal was to have addressed “all potential environmental, social, community and economic impacts of the construction and operation” of the pulp mill. Instead, the Lennon Labor government delivered a limited benefits-only study by manufacturers of pulp mill technology, Sweco Pic.

It is clear that Gunns are in no hurry. Given the foreshortened assessment by RPDC to supposedly avoid severe economic losses, that Gunns’ project information was “critically deficient”, and the ongoing rejection by banks and possible partners, the proposal should be axed or be resubmitted to the planning system for a complete assessment at Gunns’ expense.

TAP would accept the verdict of a planning process that:
1. did not harm the health of the community;
2. did not prevent those who are adversely affected from seeking adequate compensation for harm or financial loss;
3. protected existing businesses that depend upon a clean green Tasmania;
4. protected the air, water and land environment upon which we all depend;
5. did not rely upon ongoing subsidies (including the wood supply) which should be better spent on services such as hospitals and schools; and
6. did not compromise the capacity of Tasmania to withstand future challenges from climate change, population growth, forest diseases and fire among others.

In addition, the planning process must:
7. review the proposal with all its inputs (including wood supply) and outputs:
8. include independent and scientific assessment;
9. accept public input; and,
10. include an assessment of alternative uses of our resources including water and land use.

If you set in place a good governance process to deliver results against the ten criteria above, it gives you some chance of getting the community to back a revised pulp mill proposal and to back your government.

Our members have been telling us that they would never accept Gunns’ pulp mill as proposed. Many of the costs that would be imposed upon the public including damage to health, lost jobs, water losses and road damage were never considered in the Government’s benefits-only study.

We trust that you will in good faith consider the ten crucial criteria above in order to heal community divisions for the long term benefit of all. We look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely
Ross Story, President TAP Into A Better Tasmania

Forest policy of Environment Tasmania

The 15 page forest policy of Environment Tasmania (ET) can be downloaded from below.

Note, TAP as a community organisation does not necessarily endorse the content of ET's  policy but provides access to the document here to facilitate discussion on the Round Table meetings between environmental and forestry groups.

Initial Response to the George River Water Quality Panel

Initial Response to the George River Water Quality Panel
Dr Marcus Scammell & Dr Alison Bleaney, 1 July, 2010
The Panel has come to the conclusion that the toxin or toxins present in the
George River are within acceptable limits, and therefore pose no threat to the
ecosystem or the community.
This is despite recognition that there have been oyster mortality events and
apparent other anomalies within the catchment. It was these mortality events
and anomalous ill-thrift that led to our investigations.

Premier Bartlett meets with TAP and asks a question

An impromptu meeting between Premier Bartlett and members of TAP Into A Better Tasmania took place on July 5 at the Queen Victora Museum, Launceston. The Premiers key question was "Is there any, can I ask you a question, is there any circumstances under which a pulp mill, you know, if you think about it, if it was totally, um, chlorine free, if it was closed loop, if it was in another place, I’m just saying, I’m trying to ask you, is there a scenario and it was obviously all plantation fed and accredited by FSC, is there a circumstance under which you would say No, that’s a reasonable project? Would you object or not?". Read the full transcript at Tasmanian Times.com


Premier David Bartlett's minder checking for 'dangerous' community members. Tappers - Estelle Ross, Susie Clarke and Buck Emberg. Photo Garry Stannus.

The Forestry Assault

By  Mike Bolan. Published 22 June 2010 on www.tasmaniantimes.com

If someone wanted to damage you, your property, your lifestyle, your future and/or your business how would you feel about it if they also expected you to pay them to cause the damage?

Unenthusiastic? Hostile?

That’s basically why so many Tasmanians oppose forestry as it’s conducted here.

Overall it seems that the shift of focus of Tasmania’s timber industry from valued timbers to woodchips has fuelled a range of dysfunctional results, including huge losses to the industry involving multiple bankruptcies (e.g. Great Southern, TimberCorp, FEA) and lost profits for Gunns. The ongoing efforts to shoehorn the idea of turning trees into their lowest common denominator of fibre, has corrupted our political system and threatens a massive community revolt.

The forestry story has previously been focused on environmental objections versus forestry interests that decry objections as “green” (and therefore presumably irrelevant). Without paid representatives and professional media spokespeople, the stories of communities and ordinary individuals have been swamped by paid spinmeisters.

I will try to tell the story simply - complex and extensive though it is - and to go beyond the name calling, accusations and assumptions of entitlement that are usually contained in forestry’s self-interested narrative.

The island …

… of Tasmania is about 63,000 sq km, much of which is inaccessible. Overall, it offers one of the few remaining places on the planet where some natural wilderness still exists along with low population densities that promise rural lifestyles that could be enjoyed in peace and tranquillity.

Because there are still some natural forest areas that remain beautiful and offer peace and tranquillity, the island offers the opportunity for relaxed lifestyles, intimate relations with nature and innovative industries (for example, self sustaining retirement centres) except for …

The forest industry

… which dominates Tasmania’s landscape, resources, infrastructures and governments and enjoys multiple exemptions from the laws that apply to, and protect, the rest of us; that judges public grievances against it and finds itself blameless; that depletes the landscape and our water catchments at our expense; and that constantly expects more money and more resources from us in order to feed global fibre markets and line the pockets of a few.

Astute readers will note that trying to compete in a global low margin/high volume commodities market from a small island with relatively high costs was always a very dubious proposition. It seems to fit a 19th century “big is good” mentality but doesn’t fit Tasmania.


Scale of Tasmania relative to other countries

The only way that forestry has been able to maintain any semblance of profitability is via generous subsidies and exemptions from laws coupled with low or no cost resources and other forms of public assistance. Forestry describes their heavily subsidised state as “sustainable”.

When the absurd “world scale” pulp mill was first mooted, it was well known that global prices for pulp were on a long term decline and that low cost suppliers would dominate. Indeed expert forest actuaries and others advised the ill fated Resource Development and Planning Commission (RPDC) of the realities. The Labor government’s answer to that problem was to dump the RPDC!
Historical pulp price
DBS Vickers pulp and wood report published at the time the pulp mill was to be evaluated, forecast current world realities …

Low cost suppliers could displace existing producers. A key trend on the supply side is that producers from low-cost regions like Brazil and Indonesia could displace higher cost producers from North America and Europe. This is especially so given that supply is expected to exceed demand over the next few years. The closing down of some capacity should then help to tighten supply.

When we read the Vickers report (and many others) and looked at Gunns “world scale” proposal in context, we saw that the entire idea was ridiculously over scaled for a small island like Tasmania. The only “solution” was more and bigger subsidies from taxpayers; money that couldn’t possibly be justified if forestry was “sustainable” as the industry insisted.
Global wood stocks
To get a better sense of what “world scale” means, Gunns mill was to produce about 1 million tonnes of pulp per year, requiring 4 million tonnes of green pulp wood. With a production rate per hectare of land of around 150 tonnes per hectare taking around 15 years to grow, that means clearfelling about 270 sq km of densely planted trees each and every year - about twice the area of Sydney.

Since it takes about 15 years to regrow, the total area to be shaved clean by the mill would be around 4,000 sq km! To produce that timber requires more than 600 Gl of free water taken from Tasmania’s catchments each year at the expense of food producers and communities, plus a load of fresh water to be converted into a toxic waste stream by the pulp mill’s operations.

From recent collapses in the pulp wood supply industry it’s pretty clear that Tasmania cannot compete on price in global markets in which the price paid is not only non-negotiable, it’s declining every year!

Tree growers and forestry contractors are the ones who must suffer the predictable price squeeze. Taxpayers must fork out for any losses via a cosy $15/tonne 20-year wood supply deal between the government and Gunns that prices our resources to attract foreign buyers. We already know that …

The impacts so far include …

  •  closure of sawmills, many of which were family owned;
  •  job losses as mechanisation takes over from manual work;
  •  expansion of activities to feed a global market with a low value commodity (fibre);
  •  expansion of plantations to nearly 3,000 sq km requiring 600 Gl water each year;
  •  large reductions in rates income to Councils as plantations pay a fraction;
  •  legal problems for everyone as forestry exempted from laws that apply to taxpayers;
  •  health and other system failures as taxes are diverted to forestry subsidies;
  •  serious concerns that vast plantation operations are polluting water supplies;
  •  health problems as autumn forestry “burns” cloud skies with particulates;
  •  frightening driving experiences from encounters with massive log trucks; and
  •  MIS failures creating big losses for mom and pop “investors”.

Some argue that Gunns is fortunate that they don’t have their $2.5 billion pulp mill already because they’d have more than $3 billion debt that they couldn’t pay off as opposed to the current level of $600 million.

Ever since the mill was first falsely described as an investment in Tasmania, the industry and government have relied on deception, ignorance and spin to sell their proposal. The community always knew that the mill was a $2.5 billion investment in Scandinavian suppliers that Tasmanians would have to pay off with their resources and taxes.

Why is it all happening?

According to many, Australia’s governments believe that forestry money and CFMEU votes can get them elected, consequently, like Howard’s government previously, they are prepared to sacrifice our lifestyles, our hopes and aspirations, our taxes and other services, our water and forests, impartial representation, our environment and animals and anything else that it might take to get this outsized, 19th century, big smokestack proposal off the ground and lever themselves into office.

What Tasmanians get

Here’s the story that I was told by the many people that I visited in rural communities in Tasmania.

“The industry puts its hand out for multiple favours from taxpayers in the form of big cash subsidies; free water to feed their 3,000 sq km plantation estate which was acquired at taxpayer and small investors’ expense; free roads and bridges plus their maintenance; paid forestry research and publicity; legal exemptions from planning, clean air, freedom of information and other laws that apply to everyone else.

“So many exemptions and favours that forestry is now literally a law unto themselves.

“In exchange they cut down our forests to sell as wood chips to overseas markets; destroy animal habitats; burn off everything with napalm including ground cover and organic soil; smoke out our towns and villages and threaten asthmatics and anyone else with breathing problems; dominate our roads with overloaded log trucks; put poisons in our water supplies; and threaten us all with a sub standard pulp mill whose approval was bought from a Swedish pulp mill supplier.

“The result of forestry’s efforts includes losses of food production farmland; huge depletion of our water catchments (600 Gl/yr); bankrupt food processing businesses; forest contractors forced to operate on a shoe string; bankrupt MIS schemes; massive losses to small investors and taxpayers; and a divided community and corrupted government.”

That’s what most Tasmanians have got for their hard earned taxes … detrimental impacts, big costs, conflict and division. Meanwhile patients of our health system are suffering as lack of funding bites deep into essential services.

Mark Poynter’s article ( Extract, Comments on TT, HERE  On OO HERE ) goes a long way to showing how that conflict is inspired and maintained. Instead of recognising the damage that forestry is doing, he takes the simple-minded approach of attacking critics as being “deep greens”. In doing so, he extends the problems for forestry and for communities.

The root cause of conflict is the actions of forest clearers that attack the lives, properties, health, governance, taxes and futures of forest lovers and ordinary people who must pay for the depredations and failures of an industry that was designed for another time and another place.

The debate

The exchange of media releases that passes for debate in Australia has mainly been focused on environmental objections to forestry. Both these and industry arguments have been advanced by paid representatives of the groups involved.

The community’s paid representatives are the politicians from Labor and Liberal parties that “approved” the pulp mill before it was even evaluated. Once party approval was achieved, Labor and Liberal politicians took a position of ignoring community representations against more support for forestry, or opposed to a “world scale” pulp mill.

The community chant of “no pulp mill” can now be replaced with “no taxation without representation”.

The perversion of our “representative” system is complete.

That represents the case for the community.

Key concepts and assumptions that I used:

  1. Most Tasmanians want to retain the unique qualities of the environment that we have, rather than degrade it to advantage a few people at the expense of many.
  2. An industry should contribute more to communities than it detracts.
  3. Communities have the moral right to establish the manner in which industries operate in their midst (e.g. pollution and noise control) and the moral right to determine how their resources and monies are used.
  4. In Tasmania too much “forest management” means wholesale clear felling and burning, with valued timbers along with pulp wood all going to the chipper.
  5. The level of concern being expressed in the community (approximately 65 per cent oppose a pulp mill) is proportional to the damage being done by forestry.
  6. Tasmanian Times doesn’t create anti-forestry fervour; it is the actions of forestry that lead to those views.
  7. The existence of forests does not itself justify the actions of forestry nor create a need for woodchips. The existence of areas reserved from logging do not justify further logging undertaken elsewhere.
  8. By dint of paying taxes, Tasmanians and Australians are entitled to fair and equal representation from their paid representatives.
  9. All Australians should be equal under the law. There exists no justification to exempt one industry from the laws and requirements under which the rest of us must live.

Mike Bolan is an independent complex systems and business consultant. Mike worked for the Tamar valley community and others to prepare materials for the RPDC in which he spent about a year visiting Tasmanian communities, businesses and individuals to learn the impacts of forestry operations and the implications of a pulp mill on them. The lessons learned from that period are still relevant today and are used in this story, which is told to inform not to gain income.

Media release 21 June 2010, Forest talks set to fail

“Private discussions between environmentalists and forest industry groups to solve conflict over logging in the State are doomed to fail if the wide-ranging concerns of the public are not considered”, said John Day, spokesman for the community group TAP Into A Better Tasmania.
The proposed forestry roundtable to thrash out a way forward for the industry in Tasmania has been sidelined in favour of private talks between environmentalists and the timber sector.
“Environmentalists do not speak for communities hit by aerial spraying, lost jobs in food production, depleted water supplies, and many other impacts from the way forestry is currently practised”, John Day said.
“The fibre plantation wood supply for the proposed pulp mill is a major land use and imposes a huge burden on many for the benefit of a few”, he continued.
“A full independent risk assessment with community input is essential and must include the costs and impacts of all plantations on the Tasmanian people, public subsidies and the ability of the Government to fund basic essential services”, he said.

For further information contact:
TAP Into A Better Tasmania spokesman, John Day

For further information contact:
TAP Into A Better Tasmania spokesman, John Day