Labor's flip-flopping on a wood fibre export terminal for the South of the State has reached a new height, with Bryan Green now contradicting himself on the Macquarie Wharf option in the space of a little more than a fortnight.
In today's Mercury, Mr Green is quoted as saying the Macquarie Wharf option was thoroughly explored by the previous government and rejected.*
Yet earlier this month the Opposition Leader himself suggested the use of the Macquarie Wharf, telling the ABC: "It is possible to just woodchip or chip residue in the bush and containerise those and export them in containers. They are options that are available to the Government, and they could easily be shipping from Hobart."^
Mr Green has questions to answer.
If Macquarie Wharf was assessed and rejected by the previous Labor-Green government, of which he was Deputy Premier and Minister for Resources, why did he say earlier this month that woodchips could "easily" be shipped from Hobart?
Is this another example of his apparently dodgy memory after he infamously told Parliament that he "forgot" to share with those attending a pro-mining rally in the North-West that he had renamed much of their region only days before?
Or is it, as we suspect, that Bryan Green is deliberately trying to have a bet each way on this issue?
How can Mr Green claim to support our forest industry when he has backed a wood fibre export option one day and canned it the next?
Even more hypocritical is that it is well known that the now Opposition Leader supported exporting wood fibres from Macquarie Wharf when in government but was rolled by the then Infrastructure Minister, David O'Byrne.
Has he now been rolled in his own Shadow Cabinet?
This is anything but leadership from Mr Green.
In contrast, the Liberal Government is committed to growing our forest industry, and that includes taking advantage of the opportunity to export wood fibres from our Southern forests.
The Government will commission a more detailed report on the feasibility of an export terminal at Macquarie Wharf, with a lifespan of one to five years and with an undercover base load storage capacity.
* Mercury, Pages 22-23, October 18, 2014
^ ABC News, October 2, 2014