The TFGA was to have presented a formal submission this week to the Legislative Council Select Committee that is looking at the Tasmanian Forests Agreement Bill, the legislation that would enable the agreement between the industry and some environmental groups to be implemented.
You will recall the Bill flew through the House of Assembly in December, the day after the agreement was signed. It was left to the 15 members of the Legislative Council to examine it properly and a majority found it wanting.
We’ve spent a considerable amount of time and money analysing the Bill from the point of view of our private forester members. That research led us to drafting a formal response, due to be submitted by today. However, on Tuesday the government tabled 150+ pages of amendments and additional information for consideration by the Legislative Council Select Committee.
So Committee members have to get their minds across what the government is now seeking to do. And so do stakeholders preparing submissions – including TFGA. So it is back to the drawing board.
On Wednesday we told the members of the Committee that we would come back to them with our written submission when we’ve had a chance to consider and seek advice on this new information. In the meantime, we made the following comments.
We have had long-held concerns about the process from the start. They remain:
• the lack of due process
• the excusive nature of the negotiations that led to this legislation
• the absence of any public interest input until this stage
• the political agenda being pursued by both the Australian and Tasmanian governments
• the lack of socio-economic modeling of impacts
• the lack of sovereign risk protection
• the inability of the signatories to offer durability because they cannot control all parties involved in the Tasmanian forest industry
• the risk of regulatory creep – rules and regulations introduced for public forests spilling over to private forestry activities.
When the House of Assembly passed the original Bill, we decided to brief counsel on behalf of private forest growers. We sought an opinion from a barrister on the legislation and its interplay with both the Tasmanian Forests Agreement and the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement.
There are four significant conclusions:
• the Bill creates a new method of reserving land for conservation purposes, a regime that could see land reserved that does not meet the statutory requirements of the Nature Conservation Act
• there are inherent uncertainties in the Bill and the associated funding packages, including whether the Commonwealth government has the constitutional power to provide the funding that it seeks to provide. The 2012 High Court decision in the Williams case says if there is no federal legislative basis for the Commonwealth to fund an agreement, it might be subject to a High Court action that it has exceeded its executive powers
• there is the risk that the Commonwealth could renege on its agreement with the Tasmanian government in the future because the TFIA does not create legally binding rights and obligations. That strikes at the heart of sovereign risk. The government recognises that this is an issue, but has chosen not to include any provisions addressing sovereign risk in the Bill.
• the lack of compensation provisions in the Bill for those who may be indirectly affected by a protection order that causes an immediate freeze on forestry operations. That includes private forest managers - our members.
We’ll do our homework on the new documentation and prepare our submission on the issues we see as inherent in the Bill. However, we stand by our fundamental opposition to the Bill and to the whole flawed process.
Show Comments
Comments (11)
Thank you Jan Davis: ” ... the Bill flew through the House of Assembly in December, the day after the agreement was signed.”
Spot on, because according to Fred Ralph of the Tasmanian Sawmillers Association told me in Ross a week ago, the final Bill was presented for signature at ca. 2:00am that morning!
Talk about flying by night…doing a nightshift
Aiming at and working for a better Tasmania, I also strongly support the rest of your statements above.
The outcome of this elitist, exclusive process presented to the people is not something that can not stand the test of time. I like to thank all the Members of the LegCo TFA 2012 Committee for providing the fresh air & light and for asking the right questions that Tasmania needed raised for a very long time.
I like to express also a sincere thank you for outstanding performance to Tasmanian Conservation Trust Director Peter McGlone, and to Local Government Association of Tasmania CEO Allan Garcia.
I hope very much that these important contributions will be reflected in future developments in weeks to come.
The TCCI representatives also made valuable contributions that indicated the irresponsible development of the TFA Bill.
The last presenters of the week were three Forestry Tasmania representatives yesterday afternoon. If someone asked me about what I have learned from it, I would call it a mixed performance, for now!
After having listened carefully to the statements made by previous witnesses about the merit, need or otherwise of Forest Stewardship Council certification, it was stunning to most when Bob Gordon yesterday afternoon announced that it was not hard for him as a private pine plantation owner in Tasmania to get FSC certification via the Norske Skog group certification process,
just as it worked for smaller forest owners in France, he said.
How about that news from the bloke (still) in charge of Forestry Tasmania, who for decades was involved in the greatest and fastest forest conversion in this country?
I wonder if former Federal Forests Minister Eric Abetz was aware what the private plantation owner Bob Gordon had done?
Interesting also, how “detailed, qualified and reliable” the questions of data, maps and future outlook of special species timber were answered by the two battle hardened FT Managers. This after say some 2 years of special data information work conducted for the original “Round Table”, come IGA - come TFA Bill.
Stunning stuff how clever Steve Whiteley and Bob Gordon performed.
As there is no alternative Plan B or Plan C is on the table, and as long as the money keeps flowing into their direction, they will keep providing more of the same.
It will be interesting for how long the new FT Chairman Bob Annells is prepared to trust, support and represent these performers.
Only time will tell.
Jan didn’t have any indignation about regulatory creep or lack of due process when it came to stuff like the PAL Policy, Forest Practices Authority and Tribunal, or the innumerable legal breaks given to the plantation industry.
It seems she will have a problem with such features of the developed world as legislative or FSC restrictions on the clearing of native forest, but not even the most severely bent Tassie pollies can protect her from that for much longer.
John Hayward
Dont worry Jan the recent fires will have a significant impact on the the ENGO idealists who want our main FT bushfire fighting force either out of the way or with a lesser role with the passing of the TFA Bill 2012.
No way now the Bill will be passed under my watch either.
Cut the tree hugging bullshit, the farming lobby needs to be heard too.
I read about the lack of bulldozers now that FT is virtually defunct and the need for them to fight bushfires.
When we read that ember attack can go for kilometres and jump quite wide stretches of water as happened at Dunalley, what is the reason for clearing what can only be narrow firebreaks as a method of stopping a bushfire?
Jan
How about publishing on Tas Times a scan of the letter of comfort you were given by the Signatories to the process back in 2010 regarding the claimed fact that private land was not included in the process. I think at the time the TFGA was involved in the negotiations, was it not?
So Robin, what will Tasmania become without any more trees for Forestry Tasmania to clear-fell?
First we must take into account all that Old Growth Forest that is already allocated and sent to the Artec knackers at Bell Bay, then too, the enormous amount of quality billet logs almost gifted to the overseas owned plundering arm of Ta Ann in Tasmania, yet what does this State actually derive from all this maniacal desire of Forestry Tasmania to clear-fell the bejesus out of our State’s forested remainder?
Remember Robin, no real income is gained by this State from all of these forms of depradation by the clique of the well connected forest plundering desperados.
I long for the day when all of the reprehensibles that form up this dubious clique of government sanctioned scoundrels are prevented from any further engagement in their skull-duggery, by way of a new and far more comprehensive responsible law which will no longer permit these types to enter and plunder upon the Tasmanian people’s Crown Land.
I would also like to think that the merits of speciality timbers provision should not be made to suffer further by way of Forestry Tasmania’s ridiculously wasteful scorched earth policies, when now we are to see that type of speciality timber product being consigned to the wood-chippers and stealer peeler operators in whom are given far too much of that which is sought by Tasmania’s income-and livelihood reliant wood-crafting persons, before that which remains is then napalmed and thus sent into oblivion.
Re #4 Andrew Ricketts, not that Jan can’t answer for the organisation she represents, but what is the “letter of comfort” about when the socio economic impact of bad developments can not be isolated.
The Signatories of the process ignored so many community issues and even environmental impact issues that now in 2013 they have demonstrated how narrow, desperate their thinking actually is.
“Give us the area we have selected and we will assist [the forest and landscape conversion industry] in promoting the package deal overseas…”
What a sad, unrealistic picture!
We shall remember it in times to come.
When the ENGOs turned their backs on their own and would not listen to another way, this wheels were set in motion for yet another chapter in Tasmania’s mytholgy.
As time’s of sand slipped through their fingers, truth became legend and legend became myth.
When the Signatories didn’t take the journey from the head to the heart - to understand the degree of real suffering this forest carnage has caused - little wonder they ended up with the same toxic mire.
Lance Armstrong‘s confession could equally be applied to the deception in Tasmania’s forest - “The story as so perfect, for so long… it was a mythic, perfect story… and it wasn’t true.”
Where is the Social Inclusion that offers a pathway to lasting Reconciliation?
Frank Strie, comment #7
Further to my comment #5, I was talking on the phone with Jim Adams, CEO of Timber Communities Australia (TCA) (and who is, interestingly, also Chair of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Australia), clarifying whether TCA actually signed the TFA, which he assured me he did on behalf of TCA but he said not in time for it to be included on the 23rd Nov 2012 document itself.
During the conversation I guess we drifted onto other subjects. In any case Mr Adams told me about the “letter of comfort” (his term) that was sent to the TFGA by signatories (to either the SOP or the HOA?) over private land being excluded from the so-called forest ‘peace process’. My understanding is that the TFGA was participating in the process at the time.
You see Frank; there has been some bleating over this private land matter by the TFGA and Jan Davis its Chief Executive officer over the ‘peace process’. I think it is time to get to the bottom of the matter as to what exactly happened. I genuinely do not know. The said letter is obviously relevant to understanding what occurred, at least in the eyes of Jim Adams. And I can accept that fact. Does anyone else out there have a copy of that letter that was sent to the TFGA?
I am not sure if that answers your question Frank Strie?
As for comment #8, I can only concur.
Thanks Andrew #9,
The LegCo asked the AFG reps if they had been involved at the beginning of the [so called] round table.
This was denied and explained why some people may have made the claim, you will find the statements on hansard anyway.
You may also like to look for, read the statements by the Local Government Association why the 2012 TFA is an irresponsible, unsustainable construct.
Ther could be a better way I claim.
Cheers
Frank
“....• the political agenda being pursued by both the Australian and Tasmanian governments”
er, Jan just to let you know, Tasmania is part of Australia and as such the Federal government also governs for Tasmania.