David may I suggest a test for you. Bit of forensic vet work. Test yourself for any Blue Heeler or Terrier Genes that may have crossed into you while you worked as a vet. I think you may be one of the first transgenic humans.
Keep up the great work, I am sure that the Forest Industry and the Government have very sore ankles.

The devils in the detail …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6RUg-NkjY4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0XUTD7QYcs&feature=related

According to Wikipedia almost 37% of the Tasmanian land mass was already in reserves, national parks and World Heritage Sites before the IGA. The IGA adds another 13% to this area. That adds-up to 50% of the island. What’s interesting is that half of Tasmania’s population live in the ‘greater Hobart precinct’. That means 12 senators will represent half the island of Tasmania with 6 of them representing one town. Unless of course 6 of our 12 senators will be representing trees. To me this is a tremendous victory for over-government, excessive bureaucracy and stupidity. The system is broken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmania

Dr David Obendorf should be publicly recognized for his time and for his diligence in reporting the many vagaries that have plagued this long overdue agreement.
That this agreement linked as above, still falls short of prescribing any realistic changes to the current mode of logging by Forestry Tasmania, is quietlly evident.

Tis powerfully obvious that this agreement merely offers a continuity to the methods employed by Forestry Tasmania, in which its past operations are now far more guarded from the many disagreements and protestations than would normally be lodged against this Tasmanian State GBE.
The reading through of the many other stipulations and recommendations contained in this report are in effect meaningless, as its content will also be ignored in the same old familiar way as any former agreements have failed.

There are no real and visible changes to the present inadequate Forest Practices Code that is supposedly charged with overseeing this State’s logging practices and prohibitions, so it looks to be business as usual until the next forestry crisis calls for another huge injection of Federal government funding, only to continue these same age-old practices that are ever the bane of the people who must continue to sit and watch the destroying and destruction taking place within Tasmania’s forests.
When does it become the right time to trust the untrustables?

The Tasmanian Forests Agreement Bill 2012 that passed through the House of Assembly on 23 November is now available here:

http://www.forestsagreement.tas.gov.au/news

Pete Godfrey asks if I have terrier or blue heeler in my genes. Some of my detractors might describe me as a ‘dog’.

Having a canine nose to a suspcious smell?... maybe, but no dog genes. As for any comparison to ‘dog with a bone’ maybe so too… but that accolade is rightly owed to Mr Ian Rist for his tenacity on Tasmania’s mythical carnivore, the red fox. 

I like dogs very much, but my favoured carnivore with the greatest nose in Tasmania is our devil.

Tassie devils are terrific sniffers of dead flesh; they can smell a wiff on the wind from kilometres away and track it down to its source.

Tasmania has a legacy of ‘bad smells’ that need ‘devils’ to track them down before they’re disappear into the fog of our endless conflicts.

Remember the historic day a forestry peace deal was reached but we just whinged about it because we’d forgotten how to do anything else?

So much whinging, so little time.

Can all those opposed to the current proposal for peace, especially those who think having a pointless whinge or celebrating others’ pointless whinges is constructive, please list your achievable alternative proposal(s) to end the current forestry wars?

Without peace we will lose the forests, we will lose the industry, and we will lose a rare chance at pouring water onto a heated debate that has raged for far far too long.

What’s wrong with giving peace a chance?

I’d find it difficult to support any agreement with a “minimum” quota in it.
Seems a stupid concept that must play havoc with private timber growers. When demand falls, the price goes through the floor.

Well said Ben @7 !!

‘a rare chance at pouring water onto a heated debate that has raged for far far too long’, writes Ben [comment #7]

Any metaphor in your locker Ben for the mega forest fires that will come to Tasmania’s protected and precious forests?

Perhaps: Out of the fires, the Pheonix rises?

There was a Plan ‘B’ for a resolution to this ‘heated debate’ Ben but the ENGOs had switched off and stopped listening to others perspectives.

Time will tell if Water and Fire become Nature’s great teachers for Tasmania.

The Agreement has all the legal force and concision of a New Years Eve resolution, and all the gravitas of an April first guarantee.

Ten pages of hazy twaddle for$2.2m and two years of humbug. And the Bobster is still there, high above the Tassie law.

John Hayward

Ben #7, I’m so with your sentiments!

I’m so sick of the ping-pong arguments of industry and environment-protection supporters, each blaming the other’s continuing activity as an excuse not to put in place a beginning compromise such as the IGA. For god’s sake, give me a break will you - all of you - and let’s move forward!

Tasmania is a tiny island with very real, physical limits. More than anywhere else in Australia we are literally being forced to create progress within those limits and agree to compromise and diversify to prosper in all ways.

We know that multiple factors have influenced the need to revise forest practices worldwide, not just the environmental movement, so it can’t be blamed solely for industry downturn. Forget about the high dollar: what about asset-overinflation? Poor debt management? Ponzi scheme crooks? Bad advice on what trees to plant (i.e. single-purpose monocultures)? Rampant destruction of past forests? Symbiotic political-industry loss-making suck-ups? All motivated by self-interest, ugh.

But don’t expect the industry to blame itself for any of its own mess, oh no! Don’t let these mistakes get in the way of ‘business as usual’. Blaming the Greens as a means to get elected is a much-better cop out, isn’t it, because they’re the political outsiders, blah, blah, blah. And caught up in the middle of all this crap are moderates such as myself who just want to trust that the future has better, balanced forest management: why can’t we begin with the IGA?

We know there are vast areas of the supposed 37% of land currently protected in Tasmania that do NOT contain forest resources, but are open wilderness instead. So it seems the continuing “forest wars” intensify around those areas that do; over what remains of the most-desired trees as far as money is concerned, such as blackwoods and eucalypts that have taken centuries to grow, not just decades. I believe the RFA was designed only to limit the amount of land clearance in Tasmania, so it does not protect these public HCV trees from being gobbled up. But even though it is at the mercy of any residing government, I understand the IGA can protect them, so why can’t it be supported?

Obviously these trees are the ones most desired because their oldest-age is where the economic value lies - to get the quickest buck out of old wood - but this is shortsighted. If HCV timber continues to be clearfelled, what is left? We will have lost biodiverse forests and, sooner or later, lost industries that wanted to keep clearfelling them, anyway. This is all so stupid, stupid!

Meanwhile, other native species such as beeches and pines continue to be sacrificed along the way and, from what I’ve seen, they don’t appear in regrown native coupes, mostly eucalypts, made ready to be harvested again as quickly as possible. This practice, as well as protection, is also responsible for dwindling specialty timbers.

No doubt both positions are open to improvement; to consider further things outside themselves. But there has been considerable effort to do so with this agreement, so let’s just now make a start!

Carpet’s an absolute shocker.

Jeez David, debating with you is like arguing with my father ... when requried to provide basic justifications on a range of topics, you simply change the subject.

My own metaphor is that logging ceases in a large percentage of Tasmania’s old forests, reducing the fire risk posed by coupes full of highly-flammable discarded timber and slash, and that some of the money from the IGA is used to provide extra fire-fighting resources in all areas of the state, especially heavily forested regional areas and suburban bushland fringes where loss of life is most likely.

If you want to bring up fire risk and its relationship to logging in Tasmania David, how about you tell me:

Is the current focus on bushfire risk from pro-loggers a dog whistle for extremists to set fires in Tasmania’s forests this summer, and then point the finger at conservationists and the IGA? 

Oh, and I’d love to hear more about that “Plan B” of yours ... is that a revised version of your long-held belief that the Greens are to blame for not forming a coalition with the Liberals following the 2010 election, despite Liberal Leader Will Hodgman refusing to do so?

With any luck that big pic of her Maj will come crashing down and wipe three of them out. I know which three I’d be rooting for

First of all Ben, I’m guesing but I’m probably old enough to be your father but on what you say, I do pity your ol’ dad ;-)

Secondarly it is not my Plan B - where have you been for the last 30 months Ben? Check out the Plan B of Timber Worker for Forest, Now We the People, Clean Water, Tasmanian Conservation Trust all posted on Tasmanian Times as some stage in the last 30 months.

Thirdly, you ask a serious question: “Is the current focus on bushfire risk from pro-loggers a dog whistle for extremists to set fires in Tasmania’s forests this summer, and then point the finger at conservationists and the IGA?”

Wow…. Have you lived in Tasmania for long Ben?... if you have you’d be able to answer that question yourself. Most fires on total fire ban days are deliberately lit Ben… that’s what the data from the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission highlighted.

As to your last question, could I suggest you just ask Nick McKim if Will Hodgman gave him a call before the Greens decided to back Bartlett and Labor in 2010? I could be surprised. 

If I were you young Ben, I’d be trying to encourage the Legislative Councillors that this [Plan A] Forest Agreement Bill is as good as it gets.

And here’s a question for you Ben: Do you work for the Australian Greens or Tasmanian Greens Party?

PS: Thanks for your posts!

Your heart bleeds for the members of the Upper House.
Condemned to a crushed velvet sofa and forced to decide between $100 million now or another decade of the Abetz-Hodgman dream. What a conundrum?
Luckily ‘The Dice Man’ was never elected to a Tasmanian parliament.

With Gunns no longer a participator in this the Tasmanian Forests taxpayer funded rip off, the only player still standing that will keep Forestry Tasmania solvent is Ta Ann.

With no Ta Ann there is no GBE Forestry Tasmania.

The two key players, Rolley, former CEO of FT and Gordon the current CEO are re arranging the deckchairs to ensure the Government flow of funds keeps their aspirations alive and them in their respective jobs.

The Taxpayer, under this agreement will compensate Ta Ann for the decrease in their resource, a resource granted to them by FT on the demise of Gunns,a re run of the Gunns swindle for walking away from logging Native Forests.

The Liberal Party are on track to stuff up this in house deal in a political effort to thwart the Greens.

They will come back into line and Harriss will be rewarded when the extent of the Federal Labour largesse is duly explained to the MLC’s.

This game plan will cost the taxpayer millions.

It will happen, the die was cast when Gunns took the first 50 million to pay out their debt to FT.

The Liberals have lost the momentum on this as John Hawkins highlights in comment #18… the money trail always cuts these forestry players away from old loyalities to the Laborial ethos!

It was ever thus. Money rules again!

Anyone who heard Evan Rolley this morning on ABC radio would read the lingo… another ‘road to Damascus experience’ for the former FT CEO, Ta Ann long-term wood supply orchestrator and Labor Government insider.

No need to fain being part of the ‘new guard’  Evan.

The Liberals might have missed the forestry lobby bus again!

#16 Now you’re just being silly David, not to mention ageist, parochial and passive-aggressive. How about trying to focus on the issues at hand, none of which are me.

I repeat, what is so wrong with giving peace a chance?

Does Evan Rolley mean that Ta Ann don’t mind protest groups touring the world condemning TaAnn and Tasmania and seeking to halt the processing of our timber but will ensure Ta Ann closes if the Legislative Council blocks this dud deal?
“Money,Money,Money,Money,Money,Money, Money!  Can you use any money today?”

Has the main factor in this F.U.B.A.R been mentioned, let alone dealt with? - The absurdly stupid notion that governments, their ministers and their bureaucrats can run businesses? Particularly the reality-lite sorts of MPs we get these days.

According to the latest edition of the (Commonwealth) Parliamentary Handbook, as reported in The Australian this month, 40% of our Federal MPs “worked [sic -  that’s their term, not mine] as political consultants, advisers and lobbyists; staffers; party and union officials and administrators, or they served in other parliaments before they went to Canberra”.

Moreover, 68% of the ALP’s 103 MPs had previously worked in politics, and “previously” here means only their jobs before entering Federal Parliament.

Now, people, posters and countrypersons, these are the sorts of people, your State MPs and their mates, who are running our local forestry businesses.

Would you buy a used IGA from this mob?

And why should you, people, posters and countrypersons, let these people try to run your lives, telling you what you can and can’t think, or feel, or want?

PS: maybe the ordinary blokes & sheilas running IGA corner stores around the State should sue for defamation, or whatever.

How stoked do you think the MLC’s are for having to give up their precious holidays to return to vote?

I surrender Ben of the Avatar woods, ‘silly’ Dave is labelled ‘parochial, ageist and passive-aggessive’.

You can win Ben with comment #20. Seems that on that assesment I am the loser with no points and I’ve been comprehensively cyber-killed dead.

If that was your intention you succeeded; you get maximium points. Congratulations!

So… are you a Greens Party employee?

In your scoring passive-agressive, what would you score this repartee Ben?

Ms O’CONNOR [directed at the Liberal Opposition]: “Your pathetic motion, which I wanted to blow my nose on, frankly, your pathetic motion to take us to an election, you haven’t even articulated a policy.”

Ms O’CONNOR: “You’ve got the gall to come in here and move that nauseating amendment.

Reference: Hansard of the Lower House debate of 22-23 November 2012 on the Tasmanian Forests Agreement Bill

This is a real dilemma for the Legislative Council.

Last February, 12 of them publicly denounced the IGA, and the making of any concessions to ‘greenies’ whose protest activities were responsible for job losses at Ta Ann.  Now the executive director of Ta Ann, Evan Rolley has announced that the company will be forced to leave the state if the peace deal legislation is blocked in the upper house.

What will they do?  Maintain the rage, or follow the Tas Inc line and pass the legislation with much hand-wringing angst, amid cries of ‘We didn’t want to do it, but our hands were tied”.

The debate should be interesting, particularly the contribution of upper house puppet master, Paul Harriss.  If you’re looking for a master class in self-serving spin, tune in to the webcast on 11 and 12 and learn from the best.

And, incidentally, Rolleys’ announcement has effectively neutered the Liberals’ protracted lower house dummy spit over the Tasmanian Forests Agreement Bill.  Apparently, their membership of Tas Inc isn’t as valued as they thought it was.

Having now read the Agreement between the Signatories it is obvious that the taxpayer will pay a substantial price for the Agreement to take effect although the Signatories themselves will benefit significantly.  Furthermore, Tony Burke has said that any further Federal financial assistance will only come by reducing the budgets of other environmental projects elsewhere in Australia.

It is clear from Evan Rolley’s comments on ABC local radio this morning that Ta Ann is expecting significant financial compensation for reducing its long term peeler billet supply volumes from 265,000 to 160,000 cubic metres per year (based upon FT’s latest estimates of how much resource can be provided from the revised wood production areas after new reserves are created under the terms of the Forest Agreement).

Considering that FT has been providing peeler billets to Ta Ann for significantly less than the cost of production it would therefore seem equitable that the wood supply price increases accordingly so that the taxpayer does not pay for the cost of FT’s gross ineptitude. 

The management of FT should also be held accountable for the cost in buying back any Crown sawmill quotas that were extended in new long term contracts during the peace talks process.

Given that Evan Rolley also stated that certification of Ta Ann’s products are critical to its markets then it is imperative that all future forestry in Tasmania is carried out in accordance with the principles of the Forest Stewardship Council for responsible forest management and not the industry sham and self-regulated PEFC- endorsed AFS model. However it should be noted that FSC certification requires the open participation and endorsement of all stakeholders rather than the seal of approval from the self-selected non-inclusive signatories to the Forest Agreement.

It will be interesting to see if the Liberals and Legislative Council do a backflip and support the Agreement now that Ta Ann has publicly backed it, or if they seek to gain political capital by pursuing with their promise to trash the agreement and resurrect the conflict. 

Bryan Green’s second reading of the Tasmanian Forests Agreement Bill 2012 provides a good summary and can be found here: 

http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/ParliamentSearch/isysquery/53cbc37a-44f5-4a94-b2ad-cc1267e24c3c/1/doc/30_of_2012-SRS.pdf

For once I agree but for totally different reasons with TGC.

It is a dud deal.

If we give none of the remaining industry players any money or incentives and let the market determine if they sink or swim there will be no need for forest protection.

Ta Ann and FT will follow all the past players and go belly up.

The Liberal ethos of a free market should back this approach and the Upper House should vote the peace agreement down.

The Liberal agenda is a political game to con the redneck voter who thinks that the largesse will continue after the election of their Patron Saint.

The big problem—-there aint no money and as Darwin worked out Saints are a figment of the mind.

Harriss will ensure that the MLC’s let young Willy off the butchers hook.

All of a sudden Forestry Tasmania’s former CEO Architect and Blunderman has assented to the use of lesser grade native forested logs to be veneer peeled for ply-boards.
All hail this mighty mis-leader now CEO of Ta Ann Veneer Mills. so from hereon in there should be less native forest logs laying around to dry out, then become cracked and fractured at the Burnie holding yards.

Or did Evan Rolley already know of this insane excuse used by Forestry Tasmania to continue their plundering of the very best of our HCV logs sent at mate’s rates to Ta Ann?
Do either of the Ta Ann Veneer Mills onsell any of their cheaply bought and delivered to them logs?

Dear TT Cartoonist.

An image of Will Hodgman, pants pulled up over his navel with the mother of all political wedgies would be appropriate at this point.

Regards

Pilko

I’m with you on this one Ben (#7).

And I see the IGA as just a first tentative step towards reconciliation. There are still many issues to be dealt with. But the IGA is “the only game in town”. The more people who support and participate the better the outcome.

It is all about negotiation and compromise, trust and communication.

If the Libs/LegCo fail to support the IGA, the damage to our community, not just the forests, will be immeasurable. So I really appreciate all of this new positive support. Please keep it up, and give the LegCo absolutely no grounds for pulling the rug on three years of negotiation.

The thing that really annoys me sometimes about the environment movement is that they have as much contempt for the intelligence of the public as the logging corporates and politicians.

The urgent press conference by 16 environment “groups”. The “majority of Tasmania’s environment groups”.

Right. Yup…

As far as i can see every single one of these “groups” are member groups of ET. Theres nothing new here.

p.s and i’ll have Sheryl with a nice Hollandaise sauce & freshly squeezed lemon…mmmmmm

Here is why giving this peace a chance is a bad thing, Ben.

1, it lets past incompetence and inexplicable management actions lie unaddressed. Incompetence and actions that have left the industry unsustainable in its current form and with a dearth of saw logs for several decades, as I have had it explained to me. Knowing where we are is one thing, but knowing how we got there is quite another, far more potent, thing as it will allow us to avoid those mistakes in the future. Of course, one has to have lived through the occasional stuff up to understand that reality and its importance.

2, it is not a genuine peace, as there is a bunch of activists who have already publicly stated that they will not be satisfied until there is no native forest logging. It also leaves private land owners open to protest action from the zealots. Again, one has to have been around a while to appreciate the results of letting zealots have their way.

3, it allows 2 very partisan groups to decide the disposition of public assets and in doing so denies all other Tasmanians a voice. At this point claims that political party representatives are that voice are referred to the video of a crowd in Burnie recently expressing their view of their elected representative. Most would have sooner listened to anything else other than that twits voice. The only thing represented by our politicians at present is rat cunning and outright greed. The common good has been on the endangered list for at least twelve years.

We could look the other way and support this bullshit agreement, but some of us know full well that the way to hell is paved with good intentions. That wisdom comes with age, which your father has probably told you several times already.

Gordon, reconciliation will come when the entrails have been forensically analysed and we know what or who killed the dinosaur.

Until that happens what we are looking has the makings of a scam that allows the guilty to escape unpunished while the counterparty takes the blame in turn for the lock up of lots of forest. The victim in this scam is, once again, the long suffering taxpayer.

If we let this go ahead what value is there in having a parliament and all of democracy’s other expensive trimmings? Surely their job is to do more than rubber stamp dodgy back room deals?

The Liberals will never support anything that might achieve peace, as long as the “wrong” party is in power. Whether they are capable of changing their tune if they get elected - considering their astounding ability to flog a dead and stinking carcass - I doubt it. They only know one tune.

Hello PB#26, regarding your comment - “However it should be noted that FSC certification requires the open participation and endorsement of all stakeholders rather than the seal of approval from the self-selected non-inclusive signatories to the Forest Agreement” ...
Weren’t there other groups invited into the IGA who then chose not to participate, just as there were those who agreed to let IGA participants represent them?
I’m guessing those who chose not to participate would have wanted to slam it, anyway, whatever the outcome.
So why not accept those who did the hard yards over two years and let them be the sector/community representatives whose efforts towards compromise are worth supporting? If these people do not receive sanction to guide government legislation, then who is: the Liberal Party? Heaven help us!
Otherwise I greatly fear more time will be wasted to get another agreement to protect public HCV forests. It greatly dismays me to hear the Liberals and their supporters in the LC blindly continue to reject a market- and community-driven move into the 21st century and trench themselves in the failed “business as usual” tradition. Just because it is a tradtion does not mean it has to continue; the public handouts MUST stop with this.

#29 With Mr Rolley delivering said wedgie, I presume.

The Tasmanian Environment Groups that support the Forest Agreement will now call on such as Markets for Change - to change- and the tree sitter to come on down.
Ta Ann will probably score the bulk of the federal money that will be handed out- and country sawmillers the crumbs which fall.
This ‘Agreement’ is a dud for the timber industry in Tasmania (which is why Bob Brown smiled at its announcement-he knows a win when he sees one!) - and will be shown to be an expensive dud sooner rather than later and those supporting environment groups will eventually have to bear the embarrassment.

Yup. Rolley, Bayley & Pullinger. Whatever your personal view of the deal these lads have taken back a serious chunk of the moral high ground. Kudos for that piece of strategy.

But check this. The jokers in the ‘zero lockups’ pro logging group - “Give it Back” are setting out tomorrow on a Tassie road trip with their TFA coffin.

This is the same mob of keystone cops who masqueraded in TFS gear to shame greenies into firefighting but were subsequently towled up by the TFS chief for the unauthorised use of TFS gear and other miscellaneous transgressions.
The same group who promised to park it under Miranda’s tree for as long as it takes, then left after 2 days.

Oh they are special.

Could these geniuses have chosen a more inappropriate and ‘lampoon ready’ prop than a coffin, considering the serious threat their campaign poses to 140 Ta Ann workers? I might visit one of their protests with a Will Hodgman effigy and a picture of Ta Ann workers.

Keep that bow tight David O, appears you’ve swooned and dragged in at least 3 Green-eyed ‘chicken’ demons so far.

They are well known for being insular, not letting people into their own small think tank, that’s why they have failed to grow, and the only way they could get substantially into government was to flutter their green eyes at the reds. They have left many of the green-hearted in dismay. And that isn’t just my opinion. It’s been reverberated over the years, from ones more experienced than I. The Greens (note capital Green!)  blame others for dividing, but it is themselves and their inability to be considerate that is the divider in the Green realm. Giddy and Willy? … well they just want the money, and will toe the line. A few of us are very lucky David in that we are not particularly shy, and will keep pushing the boundaries …

There is so much more the IGA could have achieved. Not least being some decent changes to forestry management/practices.

Duly noted in the Tasmanian Forest Agreement 2012 …

Clause 31 a -  “… including opportunity for public input.”

That’s what they said in the Statement of Principles and it never happened. Con job 1 !

The whole deal appears to base the industry on public forests, how can it be practically feasible without taking into account private forests?

Let’s look at a few more of the very, very ‘elfish’ santa clauses …

Number 46 under Certification -  “The signatories support forest certification of appropriate remaining forestry activity in Tasmania …”

Does that mean all land/forests including private forests? More info please.

“50. The signatories have agreed to request governments to establish a dispute resolution mechanism, in consultation with the Signatory Council.”

Well we had the FPA too, and hello, that was about as useful as a trap door in a canoe.

“53. c. maintaining the ongoing application of the Forest Practices Code.”

The code is generic, it is not specific. It relies on ‘should’, not ‘will’ and does not specifically take into account individual water catchments, forest types, communities, species etc etc etc.

“54. The existing review of the Forest Practices Code should be progressed in a manner consistent with this agreement.”

Too broad again. Left to too much interpretation - which is why the publics forests have been logged to hell and ended up as a basket case.

“56. Where Signatories have agreed to ensure that certain outcomes occur, this means we will
do everything reasonable within our powers to support these outcomes, including through
public advocacy, proactive support for passage of necessary legislation to implement this
agreement, and joint representations to key stakeholder groups.”

Sounds very much like alotto money, again!  to shut down the general public and anyone who is negatively affected.

My favourite … !
“58. Where the agreement uses the words “should” or “will” they are interchangeable”

Ha ha ha …  fair dinkum now I know the whole thing’s a joke … might as well say ‘could’ but ‘don’t’  are interchangeable … that’s been the problem with FT, FPA, the Government and the 3 party’s all the way along. How legally binding?? It’s NOT, that’s why it’s in there! God you boys are a bunch of pretenders. It’s one of the consistent things Forestry Tasmania has said to me … we get away with what we do, because the code says ‘should’, not ‘will’. WHO has looked at the legally binding stuff in this agreement?  Legislate con jobs, screw the underdog, average citizen?  Of course, that’s how they play the game!

Perhaps it should be called .. Let’s ignore the public, screw the public, take from the public, con the public, indoctrinate the public and give the money to the mates club legislation … Hmmm?

“59. This agreement stands alone and supersedes all previous agreements between the
Signatories, including the Statement of Principles 2010.”

Of course it does, because there is not a word about any decent changes to on going forest practices, like you promised in the SoP!

“61. We call for a properly funded communications campaign to fully and effectively promote
the agreement outcomes and to enhance the reputation of Tasmanian forest products in
local, national and international markets.”

This is my second favourite santa clause … who you gonna get?  Perhaps the Examiner could do a reiteration of what they did for the pulp mill task force? You know,  just copy and paste what they are told to!  How many hundreds of thousands of dollar are you going to spend on trying to indoctrinate the public? Once upon a time the Greens and enviros wanted to ensure the truth was told, but apparently it’s now … if you can’t beat them, join em eh!!!

“ATTACHMENT A
A Vision for Tasmania’s Forests

This Vision encompasses:
Community
9. Meaningful engagement and involvement of forest stakeholders, the community and
governments in the management of State forests.”

Show me where the ‘meaningful engagement and involvement of the community’ has been given, considered?!?

“Management agencies/institutions
13. Continued public and private investment in forest and forest products research and
development.”

You mean same the ol’, same ol’ publicly funded clubs gets the money.

All 3 parties and their ‘club’ need a damn good shake-up, wake-up call.

Have a good hard long look at where and how the signatories live and work and who they suckhole too.

This is like another RFA, nothing in particular has changed except some more good HCV forests have been saved. There should be more than that if ‘peace’ is truly the goal …

Show me what really is going to change for the better in our water catchments and working forests, giving the average citizen and property owners better consideration, fairness and grow our state for the benefit of us all … and finally show WHERE the money from this agreement is going?!? The government deals in ‘oooooo’s (millions)  like it’s candy to a baby, (and look at the rot that it has cause so far) they have no perception of what 2 or 100 bucks can mean to person.

Please, everyone, remember the historic day a forestry peace deal was reached but we just whinged about it because we’d forgotten how to do anything else?

How do the Liberals escape this conundrum as they now offer to close Ta Ann and end its employment.

The could of course try and create a new agreement from the ashes of the one they vow to trash but how many of the current parties will sign on.

One giant step backward. No international market access, no funding and no chance of peace in the forests.

A brilliant end to a stunning period as opposition leader, Will has backed himself into a corner.

What will be his way out?.

The only way to protect the forests of Tasmania is to stop giving those who desecrate them the public’s money to keep them solvent.

Your money, Our money, My money, Police money, School money, Health money.

Let the industry “Sink or Swim” like any other normal business.

No More Money to back losers.

No More Money to back the unemployable.

No More Money to buy peace.

How simple is That?

No More Money!

#26 PB, interesting to read how Bryan (the giggler) Green is still the same old logging plugger he has always been, for he does not give a sock full of hot horse-scat to whatever conservation outcomes might result.
In the reading of the Bryan Green ‘2nd Reading of the Bill’ link, (kindly provided to Tas Times attendees by PB, thank you,) the arduous task of providing almost a tandem-trailer load of prescribed documents listing the benefits and the reasons to conserve such new reserve areas as must be provided, makes this whole IGA swindle show itself to be but another finely tailored document to continue the Forestry Tasmania controls of all things previously and subsequently considered available for trashing and burning.
Let us not pretend among ourselves that the sly ways and means of this grimy GBE twill suddenly change because of this costly IGA swindle.

(Do well remember the old dictum of Leopards and their spots.)
That these these former difficult out-of-control graspers and cut-throats may try to show themselves as become the carriers of the bible, offering their kindest wishes and giving their trust to all people, will only be for a fast fleeting moment of time.
Ever remember these 4 ill-boding words: Bryan Green-Forestry Tasmania.

Special Timbers get dudded again.

The agreement shows that the amount of specialty timbers required by industry is unknown. There were no less than 4 commitments to determine special timbers volume through the IVG/IGA process and still nothing has happened.

Some industries are already feeling the pinch as this important sector gets ignored.  FT admitted on ABC Country hour on Monday that they do not know how much timber can actually be produced from the production areas under this deal (should know later this week) but they did advise that there will be specialty timber shortfalls - in particular celery top pine is currently not available and there is nothing on the horizon for 2013. None of the mills nor FT have any logs.

So what is the boat building industry to do?

Also, can anyone advise why FSC certification is not being sought under the agreement for Special Timbers?

Shafted: Dudded:Betrayed.

Who would have thought that the suppposed extreme green agenda would be fulfilled by the Legislative Council. Led by Hall and Harris they could ensure that forestry becomes an artisinal activity free of the givernment largesse. Of course this should be the economic agenda of the Liberals but one can be sure whilst this island remains in the thrall of forest cargo schools, policing and health will be fed to this false idol as they have for years.

Wohler may rightly claim bird deaths will rise. He may even balme wind farms for ppushing the orange bellied parrot over the edge but it is functionally gone now, its coastal feeding grounds in Victoria reduced in extent and filled with feral predators. The only way to save this species is t manage a captive population.

What happen when these very flats are inundated by sea level rise. Look at the science, do the math.

Another one for Tasmania as the world is changed by human activity.

Congratulations to Claire Gilmour for noting Clause 58 which renders this document absolutely, completely and more importantly - intentionally null and void.

Only in your corrupt Tasmania can you hand out money when the Agreement legislates that the vital word “will” can be replaced as required with the word “should”.

Our Pollies spent 24 hrs debating this document and no one raised Clause 58,  a Clause that makes this deal a no deal with the stroke of a pen.

Hodgman or Green have no need to repeal or alter the Legislation all they need to do is replace “will” with “should” as written in Clause 58 having knowingly stolen the money from the head in the sand Feds and given it to their underserving allies.

How do we elect these pathetic complicit and totally useless criminals into our Parliament.

To the Editors of the Examiner and the Mercury the devil is in the detail hire youselves some reporters and thank god for Tasmanian Times.

How dare the Upper House of the Tasmanian Parliament pass Clause 58.

Re #44: Andrew Denman on 28/11/12 at 05:50 AM

...“So what is the boat building industry to do?

Also, can anyone advise why FSC certification is not being sought under the agreement for Special Timbers?”
As I am still in Melbourne following FSC meetings, I will keep this brief.
The chair of FSC Australia this year is TCA’s Executive Officer Jim Adams, surely you and George Harris will be able to consult with Mr. Adams of what is going on. One other of the 9 FSC Australia Directors is Warrick Jordan, the National Forest Campaigner of the The Wilderness Society. You may loke to formally approach FSC Australia with your questions as some homework will need to be required by people seeking credible answers.
Timber Workers For Forests Inc. was / is not involved in the IGA developments.
One thing is for sure I can say, IF people who now talk about seeking FSC for their operations do not follow ALL the 10 principles FSC International and think they can manipulate the Australian version of a National FSC Standard with exclusive minds, in Tasmania or elsewhere, they will learn soon that they wasting time, energy and money.
FSC has Principles and they are not to be watered down and they will not be picked and chosen.
As I see it, the IGA process is half baked and ignorant of a whole lot of important issues that need to be addressed to bring positive outcomes of lasting value.
The Upper House members will be another group that may still have questions.
Interesting times ... time will be the judge where things go from here.

Forestry Tasmania is in partnership with Ta Ann Tasmania. Its a joint venture remember? Here’s a direct quote form FT’s website ‘Through Forestry Tasmania’s partnership with Ta Ann, up to 25% of wood that was previously chipped is now ‘peeled’ here in Tasmania’.
The IGA contains many alleged ‘conflicts of interest’. This is another of them. Look at the current manager of TAT? Look at who supplies their logs? I’m glad its wedged the Libs as Pilko has pointed out ...

The blind stupidity of all the Signatories to the Agreement and the Tasmanian Government has now been exposed by revelations that Tasmania is set to miss out on $7 BILLION in carbon credits over the next 20 years which will instead go the Commonwealth when Australia signs the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-28/forest-peace-deal-carbon-credit-windfall/4396154?section=tas

Andrew (#44) I think we need to answer the question “is the public native forest special species industry based on a profitable, sustainable business model?”
Particularly with very slow growing, very low volume species such as celery top pine, myrtle, and sassafras just how do you make this sustainable and profitable? I certainly can’t see how that can be achieved. To date these species have been delivered cheaply as a byproduct of old-growth/mature eucalypt forest harvesting. That will no longer apply with the move to young regrowth and plantation.
The only option available is selective harvesting of very small volumes of timber from public forest. Can you afford to pay for the roading, harvesting or forest management costs? I doubt it very much, so where do you go to make a viable business case?
Forestry Tasmanias management of special species has never ever been commercially based. They have run it as a CSO, made some best guesses at available volumes and promised to deliver them regardless of cost. That is not the basis of a sustainable future. And the SS industry has always accepted this arrangement.
And if you want the Tasmanian taxpayer to fund the public native forest special species industry then you will definitely have a very shakey future indeed.
So what is your business model for the future?

Clause 56 says: “Where Signatories have agreed to ensure that certain outcomes occur, this means we will do everything reasonable within our powers to support these outcomes, including through public advocacy, proactive support for passage of necessary legislation to implement this agreement, and joint representations to key stakeholder groups.” However, as the words “should” and “will” are interchangeable, as stipulated in clause 58, clause 56 does not mean what it says.

It is totally pathetic.  It has taken 30 months to produce this utter garbage. They might as well also say that wherever they use the words “the signatories” and “we”, they are also interchangeable.  In clause 56 the same sentence refers to the signatories in the third person and then reverts to the first person.  What geniuses!

Claire is right on all counts. Clause 58 here:

http://www.forestsagreement.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Tasmanan-Forest-Agreement-2012.pdf

is a ripper. It should/will go into the dictionary beside catch 22.  Joseph Heller eat your heart out - you should have visited Tasmania to put a few touches to notions of sane/insane.

The one I like the best is “at least 137,000… as a minimum supply requirement”, which on any reasonable interpretation should/will mean that the “maximum supply requirement” could be anything over 137,000, anything at all.  But then, at clause 16, the document says that “sawlog volumes are to be reallocated up to 137,000 cu. m. pa… (and)… any contract volume of cat1/3 high quality native forest sawlog above this minimum agreed figure will be permanently retired”.  In other words at clause 16 137,000 is not a minimum but a maximum.  But wait.  There’s more.  Clause 16 can also be read as anything above 137,000 “should be permanently retired”, in keeping with clause 58, which means that anything over 137,000 not necessarily “will” be retired at all. 

That sure should/will make a minimum/maximum of sense.  Is that a sentence?  I guess spending 30 months producing this totally incomprehensible stuff should/will do funny things to people round a table…ahh… round the table … ahh… let’s dispense with the definite and the indefinite article, and decide “a” and “the” are interchangeable (like a pulp mill/the pulp mill).

Settle, Claire (#38), John (#47), Peter (#52).

You may have valid objections to parts of this agreement, but the contents of Clause 58 isn’t one of them.

Certainly, in legislation - and subordinate legislation like Forest Practices Codes and the like - “should” and “will” mean two different things. “Should” does have the effect of allowing authorities to do nothing, and in most cases that probably is the point of wording the document that way in the first place.

However, no one is contemplating legislating the wording of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement 2012. Neither is it an official government document.

It is merely a plea - albeit a commissioned one - from an identified group of citizens with special interests that State and Federal governments do something. The rest of us are entitled to petition a government too - and we can do so whether we are legal geniuses or not.

Clause 58 is quite clear and is simply a statement by the signatories that they “fully endorse” certain actions, and that they “expect these matters to be implemented by the governments”. The interchangeability of “should” and “will” is explicitly stated so that the signatories themselves could be less than 100% precise in a document which had to be drafted in a few short hours.

Clause 58 is in place precisely to avoid any possible misinterpretation that the signatories feel more strongly about one part of the agreement than they do about another.

It’s in the resulting legislation (if any) that we can all get het up about the “shoulds” and the “wills”.

#50

$7 BILLION in carbon credits over the next 20 years

who pays the carbon taxes when & if the trees burn & go up in smoke

who pays for roading & all other fire protection measures & fire fighting costs for how many years.  Is this compensated for.

Am i missing something here - are volunteer fire fighters an endangered species

- some one is missing out on an opportunity to get some of the $7bn here or is being conned & duped into volunteering.

Phil Pullinger & Environment Tasmania’s rolling out of its 16 member groups (and the tasty looking lobster) was the perhaps the most overt attempt by the ENGO signatories to wedge environment groups outside the tent, particularly HVEC, MFC, SWST etc.
Perhaps this was part of the payoff (along with the small matter of $50M - faaaark me. Face meet palm) for Evan’s dumping on his traditional allies yesterday.

The “majority of Tasmania’s environment groups” we were told. Yup.

Thus far the ENGO strategy has been to schmooze enviro’s/community groups outside the tent giving them private assurances while hanging them out to dry in the public debate by remaining silent as media & others take the stick to these groups outside the tent. This tactic is still lost on some of the uncritical airheads who have been determined to remain faithful to their idols in TWS/ET.

Expect the wedge to deepen between groups outside the tent as the ENGO’s become more overt & agressive in their attempts to discredit environmental groups critical of the deal.

The best tactic i can see for opponents of this deal is to attack the cost to the taxpayer including the mooted $50M headed for Ta Ann’s maxi saver account (no wonder Evan was so enthusiastic to spruik his sell out yesterday).

And hot off the press the TWS have just postponed the Dec 9 Rally. I’ll take cash or cheque for the advice Vica.

As most TT’ers often coment “Just as cwellmwe have a decent Legislative Council”

#26 PB gives us the critical clue why Ta Ann want the IGA process resolved!
It gives Evan Rolley Ta Ann’s CEO easy Federal taxpayer money for the Sultanate of Sarawak as compensation for loss of regrowth resource or will it be used to deal with profitability within its Ta Ann’s Tasmanian plants at Huon and Smithton?
Of cause that does not stop Ta Ann walking away from Tasmania at any time that suits them as they have always insisted the requirement of 267,000M3 of peelers for processing to remain viable!
The IRONY behind the Tan Ann for supporting an IGA resolution is that FT will probably forfeit half a million hectares of forested land to be included as permanent reserves!
The future of local forestry activities,hardwood milling and specialty timbers availabilty being limited by Ta Ann’s overwhelming support to get at the money, this makes Ta Ann the “Elephant in the Forests” by going down the same track as Gunns did when they left the Tasmanian forestry scene.
The rush of Federal money misused could see more upsets between the industry players who could be unjustly forced to take it or leave it as the native forest based industry loses in the long run.
The MLC’s must carefully consider the deal, my feeling is it could be seen as unfair/ bordering on fradulent dealing with its intent to favor some but not being honest with others ending up crippling yet another industry within Tasmania leaving it without future?
Tasmanian politics is both complicated enough as squabbling among both the elected and unelected representatives representing important State issues within this whole IGA debarkle never seems to end.
BEWARE, Puppet Forestry Minister Bryan Green is under orders to submit to certian interests within the forestry sector, in the long run he has nothing to lose as he will never be re elected into the State Parliament after March 2014

Neil, #53.  Have a browse through all the unrealised aspirational terms in the Forest Practices Code or the Integrity Commission Act.  Then consider the composition of the Tassie Parliament.

You might as well start getting het up immediately.

John Hayward

Further to my comment #50 regarding the $7 BILLION in carbon credits you can listen to the radio broadcast with Andrew MacIntosh, Associate Director, ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy here:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/tassie-forest-deal-will-generate-7-billion-for-canberra/4396502

And Cassy O’Connor’s predictable rebuttal is here:

http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/media_room/media_releases/government_aware_of_potential_carbon_credits_value

# 50

I’ve got some trees i don’t want to cut down before 20 years & 1 day from now

where do i line up for the loot - who is gunna pay me.

I know I live in the sticks and do not have ready access to the Examiner hard copy but at least on- line there appears to be NO story on TaAnn support for the Agreement nor any comment on the Liberals ridiculous position. Am I dreaming or is Barry Prismall et al just hoping it will all go away etc.Well Barry it aint but poor old Will just might!

Thanks for the insult, Pilko (#55). Obviously you are the epitome of worldly wisdom and intellectual rigour, whereas the rest of us, including the members of the 16 groups who signed up to that media release yesterday, are quite clearly nothing more than idol-worshipping airheads.

Perhaps it’s time you reminded us exactly what it is you don’t like about what we are doing. Is it something to do with outdated nonsense about some pulp mill or other? It’s rather hard to tell, since it’s a while that your posts ventured far beyond ad hominem attacks.

Seriously, the ill-feeling between people who were formerly allies in various campaigns is the most unfortunate feature of recent Tasmanian history. For its root cause we can blame the Lennons, Gays, Llewellyns, Bobsters etc.

And it isn’t going to heal easily. But I do believe that if this agreement gets implemented (and those Libs are prevented from meddling with it) that Tasmania in a couple of years’ time is going to look like a much more pleasant place to live. Perhaps then it may seem reasonable to bury a few hatchets and have a beer or two together.

#53 Really? You have it wrong entirely. Exclusion was the reality. I have no intention of a “settle” on your absurd terms.  My advice to you is to get used to being unsettled.

Scandal after wicked scandal ... Millions of dollars’ worth of losses and payouts at every turn ... Nothing else but FSC will be acceptable, blah, blah, blah ...
Can’t we just protect the nominated HCV forests now - those we all know deserve protection - and settle these festering scores later? Enough already.

Neil you say…“perhaps it’s time you (moi) reminded us exactly what it is you don’t like about what we are doing”.

Geez Neil you sound like your my dad or sumfink.

Mate i aint part of the family. I dont feel like part of the family.

Should i?

Admit it mate. You fancy Sheryl too. Happy to take you up on that beer. Perhaps over a freshwater cray or two…

#59 PB: Could one imagine Treasurer Wayne Swan being that gullable to waste the nation’s hard won taxpayer dollar to the tune of $7B to support this Green pie in the sky rubbish.
As far as Land Management goes, money allocated to regular fuel reduction burning of dry forest, scrub, buttongrass plains and waste land with both an asset protection and ecological perspective need to be invoked on lands surrounding important reserves that protect biodiversity.
There would be times the reserves themselves may need fire as a management tool to maintain their biodiversity.
The perception of the absence of fire within the Australian eucalypt landscape is incorrect, eventually these areas protected by the Green scientific myths will eventually be subjected to the creation of Mega fires across the landscape destroying the biodiversity that was meant to be protected as well as threating man made assets including lives and property.
  With a series of drought years, a bad fire year, unmanaged forest fuel loads, lack of skilled multi agency personell on the ground and Green political correctness our State alone could be in for a rough time from the madness evolving from non burning policy that most likely be considered as an important part of policy for areas of forest to be subjected to Carbon Accrediation values!
Take it or leave it folks I am speaking from experience, one only has to look at the Meehan Range on the Eastern Shore unmanaged by Parks, dependent on repeated wildfire by arsonists, note the severe degrade of eucalypt cover due to repeated severe fires.
It is all evident from the Clarence TAFE.

(53 – Neil) Drafted in a few short hours? they’ve had a couple of years to get it right. It’s a bit late to fine tooth comb, and much more difficult to change wording, once its legislation. A boat with holes in it isn’t very ‘durable’.

Rather than stand back and accept anything and everything we’re told, like a naïve child … now is precisely the time to seriously question. Do they really want to get it right or are they standing with fingers crossed behind their back?

Is the purpose to rush the ‘win’ of peace and protection through, rather than ensuring it’s a truly considerate, enduring and worthwhile piece of legislation?  Is it still in its somewhat idealistic stage?

So far in the rush, the bigger industry players (those already having previously received vast sums of money), have fallen over themselves in the rush for more. Perhaps if the wording of other forest supplying agreements had been better scrutinized, the likes of Gunns and Ta ann wouldn’t be the winners, and the public, as usual, the losers. 

Case in point being Ta ann now wanting compo (like Gunns) for taking less public native forest. Who was the bloody idiot who signed away decades of public forests, gave millions to help Ta ann set-up, now want to gift them more? 

To sell their product Ta ann ‘have to’ get out of HCV forests. What are they being compensated for – not buying a product they can’t sell?  they still have access to the plantations, but pretend they will be hard done by - by the lessening of the native forest portion.

Or do they (like Gunns) owe Forestry Tasmania for the trees they have used, but not yet paid for? Has Bobby Gordon gifted Evan Rolley free trees at the end of the day?

And/or are they being compensated for buying from private growers? Can’t they afford to buy their raw material at market rates? If that is the case, then how durable are they and indeed the industry if it can’t stand on its own two feet?

The whole thing’s a con. And with the likes of Rolley involved who can expect anything less? Those industry heads will ‘never’ change their spots. Every ‘i’ and ‘t’ needs to be checked and double checked whilst their hands are on such documents. Otherwise what does one say in the future, ‘oh well, Tassies been screwed again, told you so’?  They have taken advantage at every turn and this time is no different.

These sorts of agreements, contracts require an independent group to oversee not only the wording and legality of such documents, but the what, where and how for of the financial arrangements, prior to legislation and money handed out. Leaving it to the pollies, parties, industry heads is like leaving a lamb in the care of a wolf. It’s beyond a joke how the government, Forestry Tasmania and industry reps manage to create such gifting agreements just prior to the dawn fall.

I can’t believe how weak Nick McKim has been in so quickly agreeing to compensate Ta ann without questioning. Now why would that be? Perhaps to try and claim a short term political kudo … peace at any price perhaps ... is not durable, no matter how much they are intending on indoctrinating the public with publicly funded media spin.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/11m-loser-ta-ann-the-new-gunns-brown

And before some of the usual suspects come in …

(40 – Ben) (64 - Karen)  And simple simon says … don’t rock the boat,  put your fingers in your ears, keep your eyes down, don’t look left or right, don’t think, don’t question you little monkeys … see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil …

Don’t try and turn this around as score settling or people wanting to keep the fight up … common sense dictates the need to question. If everything is above board, then you have nothing to worry about do you?

Re #59
Cassy O’Connor’s media release under Lara Giddings’ Letter Head:

...“But given these are complex, rapidly-evolving markets, any speculation regarding the potential financial benefits to either Tasmania or the Commonwealth Government at this point is just that - speculation.

“The Tasmanian Government will continue to work with the Commonwealth to realise the opportunities that could be opened up through the potential sale of carbon credits on international compliance markets.”

So here we have yet another reason why the IGA as it is being presented to the troops and chickens by the upper class in our society, is terribly incomplete. That process is full of holes, the FSC Australia process is being rumoured to may receive the essential funding from the IGA process…
Tasmania may need to (or want to) trade in the global timber market, the global market may like to trade with Tasmania in one way or another again.
However, to grow and run a forest based business properly and to have the whole industry profitable the elitist, secrets, confidential long term deals have to end.

The brief debate on the Celery Top Pine this morning with one of the mismanagers employed by FT, the same bloke that was/ is responsible for the end and fall of Australia’s biggest tree a few years ago, highlighted again that the outlook still is about “in the short term?”...
Further studies have to be” looked at” and paid, for now that the party is over.
How these blokes turn up for work every day is beyond me as my fellow members and supporters had tried to have meaningful and proper dialog with the management agency.

This tragedy goes back to the mid 1990s, because the whole management post RFA process was about “in the short term.”
The submissions to the RFA were just ignored and belittled, it was all between the ENGO elite and the Industries’ big timber barons.

When I asked the questions in a formal meeting in Hobart to the same bloke, he was secretive and / or unable to provide the information.
I told the then and now Minister for Forest Resources about it in another formal meeting, but what would we expect?
Respectful, ethical trade is what Timber Workers For Forests is about; we are interested to explore the opportunities properly, not with cards firmly covered.
If people like to play the international FSC “Game”, they will have to follow all the rules and principles that applies to that FSC Game, not just some and some not.
Tasmania is a tiny producer in a remote position; Australia is a small producer of quality timber.
The management practices of the last 30 years are now demonstrate that the good stuff is just about gone and other countries will be able to cater for the needs with their quality timbers.
The last thing Tasmania’s players try to do is to sell FSC fuel pellets to far away destinations.
Watch this space, FSC in Bonn and elsewhere is watching and listening.
Interesting times Karen #64 sit back and watch where and how this goes!

For information and links to a positive way forward: http://www.twff.org.au

#62 “...idol worshipping airheads”  Well, yes.

Pilko, I expected something better than #65.

Just ignore the challenge if you find it too daunting.

But I’m still holding out hope for the beer eventually. Pencil it in, but it’d better be sine die for now.

#70 Believe me Neil, i’m not daunted. Thats the point.

Unlike you i dont believe that just because i’ve had a previous association with the ENGO’s & met a few of their people through another campaign i should retire my brain, my opinion and stay solid with a group of people who have demonstrated they have real problems staying solid with others. Including staying solid with TWS/ET’s own footsoldiers in HVEC & SWST who for years have done all the big ENG dirty work on the forest front lines - arrested, fined, bashed, gone hungry, without sleep, cold, wet, threatened, marginalised. These are the people ET’s dumb 16 groups stunt was aimed at wedging.
As a strategy it was piss weak. Morally it was bankrupt.

What do you want from me Neil? 24/7 backslapping for TWS? 

Sorry neil you misunderstand me. I’m not in the club & i dont want to be in the club. I’ll think & speak for myself thanks.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, and I know many people on here have been through the wringer when dealing with conservation in Tasmania. I’m not a member of any group. I never have been. I turn up if I believe it’s for the best. I know there are politics and legalese scattered throughout this whole process, anyone who doesn’t is kidding themselves. Anyone who thinks we are all blind to what’s going on is also kidding themsleves. I also know that I’ve watched nothing happen for 15 years re the lobster after a hell of a lot of posturing, grandstanding, promising, shafting and sabotaging. Finally there are actually areas nominated for the protection of lobster habitat. I ask those who sometimes appear to consider themselves all over this whole issue (which frankly is impossible), what is the alternative? What process could take place of this one and actually give protection to the habitat that remains? do we start again and go on for another decade? I’ve been in the firing line of people from both sides for years, and I’ll cop that, at the end of the day I want to make sure this animal has areas that will last the distance. Anyone who knows me knows I don’t conform a hell of a lot. I like lobsters and that’s about it. I find it pretty easy to sit behind a computer and catogorise my involvement. Go right ahead, water off a lobster’s back to me. Pilko ... pretty easy to write as though you know us all, even easier to catogorise and point out our obvious foolishness ... and good form to finish it off with culinary recommendations ... I sleep well at night whether people agree with me or not.

#72 Todd i took a shot at ET 16 member group media stunt.

I as much as anyone understand that ET’s member groups are pleased the peak body has secured a deal which may see their local interests served. But i’m also mindful of the many who have been shut out of the ENGO’s negotiations including, as i said the green infantry who have always done the dirty work on the forest front lines.

I read the 16 member media release which came out on the same day as Evan Rolley, who on behalf of Ta Ann & the industry signatories went public in what was the clearest & most unequivocal display of public support for the forests deal from Ta Ann thus far. The effect ( and the intent) of Rolleys public outing was also to drive a very large public wedge through the pro logging camp.

I read the 16 groups MR, how it was worded….“we welcome the agreement and would like to see all environment groups get behind it…...Majority of environment groups support the forest agreement”.

Pretty obvious to me that this day was a line in the sand moment for all signatories & the groups they represent whose interests are being advanced by the TFA. Like Rolleys wedge, far from “Healing the Divide” the intent & effect of the 16 member groups outing was to publically wedge green groups outside the tent.

A few people have remarked that its “easy to snipe & take potshots from the sideline etc”.

Is it really?

I’d argue that its easier in the current climate to be inside the tent, in a position of relative power, lecturing & moralising to interests who have been shut out of the tent.
I look at TCT’s argument which are compelling and it occurs to me that no matter how compelling, no matter how steeped in evidence or good policy there is NO WAY IN.

Todd i would hazard thats a big part of the reason why there are people taking so called easy shots. My comments are about the ENGO’s politics which at times have been just as cynical & hurtful as the industry side. At least Rolley fronted his organisation and did his own dirty work. Pullinger & the ET board instead remain in the shadows instead rolling out its member groups. Nah i didnt think much of that.

If rusted on TFA supporters want to frame me as being anti TFA, anti environment etc for being critical of the ENGO politics so be it. I expect it.

Thanks for your #53, Neil:  you made fair points about the implications of the Tasmanian Forest’s Agreement’s Clause 58 which provides for the interchangeability of ‘should’ and ‘will’ within the Agreement.  Its meaning is clear and your critics’ failure to respond to the nuts and bolts of your comment suggests that they found no counter to what you have written. 

TFA Clause 58 states:
58. The signatories recognise that many of the elements require action by governments who are not signatories to this agreement, but who have indicated that they will work with the signatories to ensure that an agreement can be successfully implemented. Where the
agreement uses the words “should” or “will” they are interchangeable, and mean that the signatories fully endorse the action and expect that these matters will be implemented by the governments, and that the failure to do so, may undermine the durability of the agreement.

Claire Gilmour (#38) incorrectly linked the TFA Clause 58 with the major flaw in the Forest Practices Code, which throughout that document allows ‘should’ to undermine ‘will’.  I quote from the Forest Practices Code 2000: 

The Forest Practices Code contains both ‘General Principles’ and the ‘Basic Approach’ for
particular forest practices. In the ‘Basic Approach’ sections of the Code there are two different
types of statements: the ‘will’ and ‘should’ statements. The ‘will’ statements are to be applied
in a practical manner to forest operations covered by the Forest Practices Act.  The ‘should’
statements show the desirable practice for most situations and are to be interpreted by a Forest
Practices Officer taking account of local conditions. ‘Should’ statements will be applied unless
there are good reasons for making exceptions, and acceptable environmental outcomes are achieved.

Clearly the FP Code is unacceptable for this reason.  However, Claire provided stream-of-consciousness rather than thoughtful analysis when she attempted to link the FP Code approach with Clause 58 of the TFA:

”Ha ha ha …  fair dinkum now I know the whole thing’s a joke … might as well say ‘could’ but ‘don’t’  are interchangeable … that’s been the problem with FT, FPA, the Government and the 3 party’s all the way along. How legally binding?? It’s NOT, that’s why it’s in there! God you boys are a bunch of pretenders. It’s one of the consistent things Forestry Tasmania has said to me … we get away with what we do, because the code says ‘should’, not ‘will’. WHO has looked at the legally binding stuff in this agreement?  Legislate con jobs, screw the underdog, average citizen?  Of course, that’s how they play the game!”

Claire has ignored the fact while the Forestry Practices Code distinguishes between ‘should’ and ‘will’, and ignores the fact that in the recent agreement between some industry and environmental groups, Clause 58 in fact represents a rejection of such a distinction.  Instead, under any reasonable reading, Clause 58 insists that ‘should’ requires ‘will’ and vice versa.  Clause 58 is not a reversion to FPC’s loopholes, it is a repudiation of them.

John Hawkins (#47) compounded the error.  His comment deserves to be reread in full:
“Congratulations to Claire Gilmour for noting Clause 58 which renders this document absolutely, completely and more importantly - intentionally null and void.  Only in your corrupt Tasmania can you hand out money when the Agreement legislates that the vital word “will” can be replaced as required with the word “should”.
Our Pollies spent 24 hrs debating this document and no one raised Clause 58,  a Clause that makes this deal a no deal with
Hodgman or Green have no need to repeal or alter the Legislation all they need to do is replace “will” with “should” as written in Clause 58 having knowingly stolen the money from the head in the sand Feds and given it to their underserving allies.
How do we elect these pathetic complicit and totally useless criminals into our Parliament.  To the Editors of the Examiner and the Mercury the devil is in the detail hire youselves some reporters and thank god for Tasmanian Times.
How dare the Upper House of the Tasmanian Parliament pass Clause 58. ”

Clause 58 of the TFA is not part of the legislation before our Parliament.  John is in his #47 ‘flogging the wrong horse’.  John has confused the Agreement which has just been signed with the legislation which has been before the Parliament for the last six months, and which has been passed by the HA.  As Neil pointed out in his #53:

“It’s in the resulting legislation (if any) that we can all get het up about the “shoulds” and the “wills”.”

.../cont

cont/...

So, what is before the Parliament?  There is before the Parliament this:

A BILL FOR
An Act to amend the Forestry Act 1920 in relation to continuing wood supply, and to enable certain land to be reserved, for the purposes of the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement entered into by the
Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania dated 7 August 2011, to create reserves and to amend the Nature Conservation Act 2002 for the purposes of benefiting economically from the carbon in Tasmania’s forests, and to amend certain other Acts

In fact, the word should does not appear in the Bill, and the word will appears once, in an uncontroversial context.

Peter Henning’s derisive #52 and his response to you Neil, at #63 added nothing of substance:

#52 ”It is totally pathetic.  It has taken 30 months to produce this utter garbage. They might as well also say that wherever they use the words “the signatories” and “we”, they are also interchangeable.  In clause 56 the same sentence refers to the signatories in the third person and then reverts to the first person.  What geniuses!
Claire is right on all counts. Clause 58 here:
http://www.forestsagreement.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Tasmanan-Forest-Agreement-2012.pdf
is a ripper. It should/will go into the dictionary beside catch 22.  Joseph Heller eat your heart out - you should have visited Tasmania to put a few touches to notions of sane/insane.”
and
#63 “#53 Really? You have it wrong entirely. Exclusion was the reality. I have no intention of a “settle” on your absurd terms.  My advice to you is to get used to being unsettled. ”

This is not debate, it’s assertion, ridicule and rejection.  Analysis?  Certainly #52 and #63 provide no reasons for putting aside Neil’s defence of Clause 58.

In lesser documents like the FP Code, the word ‘should’ is used as an escape clause, usually bolstered by the ‘where/when practical’ dispensation that allows for something sounding like a logging-at-all-costs regime.  In that FP Code, ‘will’ appears sparingly, actually, I think (from memory) it appears just once, in relation to the use of explosives or some such thing.  The interchangeablility clause strengthens the ‘should’ word and adds obligation to the sense of ‘will’. 

You were correct, Neil.  A hue and cry over Clause 58 was much ado about nothing.

Have those nailing their colors to the TFA mast considered that the TFA bill is almost certain not to look like it currently does if the upper house decide not to throw it out?

Have you considered the type of amendments likely to be made and if you can live with them?

Amendments might take the form of the ENGO signatories agreeing to desist from participating directly or indirectly in any form of public activism that undermines the industry/deal.
They may take the form of a scaled down reserve system, more resource for specialty timbers & Ta Ann…..and so on.

I predicted a while back that more money would be thrown at the deal to entice the industry side & a grumpy upper house. Looks like that money will be forthcoming. We now the deal is likely to cost taxpayers an additional 8 figure sum.

I think ET (“failure is not an option”) will agree to just about anything at this point & TWS arent far behind. What amendments will be acceptable to the Tasmanian Greens and supporters of the bill?

#76 I note that TFA supporters havent been willing to address my questions on amendments.

If you havent thought about them yet you’d better start because the TFA bill that went into the upper house is a dead duck. The current bill as it stands is dead.

The TFA bill either wont pass at all or if it gets to committee and comes out it will look very very different.

The bill will come out of the upper house committee with many amendments including some putting draconian constraints on environmental protest (that also means pulp mill protests. If there is any hope of the Tamar Valley pulp mill getting, any new proponent will face the enticing prospect of a virtually protest free environment)

It would appear that many of these amendments will be canvassed tomorrow.

Now the ducks & drakes really start. I’m seeing a sleepless night ahead for the Tasmanian Government.

If the amended TFA bill is then passed it will go back to the lower house so they can amend the amendments and so on…..

I’ve got few doubts TWS & ET would accept just about any amendment even if it sells out their own.

Crucify for me saying so. Pffft!

The ENGO’s have form.

In terms of the environmental movements input/control of the TFA i’m slightly reassured that the TFA bill is now out of the hands of the ENGO’s (aside from any input the ENGO’s may now have to an upper house committee) and control has shifted to the environmental movements politically arm - the more savvy Tasmanian Greens.

But what is acceptable to other TFA supporters?

Will you just meekly fall in behind the ENGO’s or is there a point where the bill would be unacceptable?

What will be acceptable to the Tasmanian Greens?

I hear Parliament House caterers are doing a special on shit sandwiches this week? Pucker up folks!