Nuts wrote: ... it's simply a commissioned submission document that should be seen as it would if from any member of the public/ entity ... A 'Foundation' in no way essentially qualified or necessarily authority. Destructive criticism would be as entirely appropriate here as it would with any given proposal.
It's contents seem well considered, well researched and well written. And i'm sure those involved are vastly qualified in their roles. I noticed a couple of baulking points but they are probably not even at issue depending on the chosen level of 'thinking positive'.
There are all sorts of minimal impact opportunities throughout the region that would cost far less, even if $ were the bottom line.
Your comments at the start about a commissioned report are very valid. I've seen many reports that do nothing more than support the entity that commissioned the report. No independence at all. The reason is that if the consultant tells the truth, there will be less such jobs in the future.
Under the imprimatur of the Bob Brown Foundation one could expect to be disposed to believing it. I don't believe anything until I read it, which I did, quite slowly, until the start of the detailed track notes. Just because advice comes from a respected source is no reason to suspend critical scepticism. Edward de Bono called this black hat thinking, looking at where things go wrong, what is incorrect, and like issues. In finance, this is a sort of stress analysis. What if interest rates do this, the US$ does that, and the price of bauxite goes south? Easy - elect the DLP on 2 June.
The scope and breadth of the report shows quite clearly that Martin has experience in this area, and surely the Bob Brown Foundation knows about Tassie wild places.
So I read the start of the report carefully, and, as far as I can see, it looks good. However, you have raised a second very valid point: is there a better way that achieves a similar result with less cost and/or less environmental impact? Don't ask me, I don't know the region.
Searching for an alternative solution and resolving your baulking points is or should be part of the public assessment process. I'm not keen on the word "destruction" in the context of assessment. Certainly, it's quite possible that parts will be changed, perhaps abandoned. My preferred word is "constructive", which may apply to destructive. The semantics don't matter at all. What is important is that interested parties take a good look at the proposal and see if it works. At least there's a higher profile for the Tarkine and people are thinking.