.
The Tasmanian Legislative Council has a unique opportunity to demonstrate effective and important leadership which goes beyond the usual parameters of partisanship and vested interests, and instead considers the matter of the forestry agreement within a broader, holistic and integrated perspective.
We ask the Legislative Council to go beyond the widely-articulated rationale which states they should either reject the current forestry agreement proposal outright or to support it with amendments. We ask them to consider the whole proposal within the scope of their role as effective political leaders, which should be about constructively shaping the collective and individual thinking around this issue for the long term benefit of Tasmania.
At the moment there are a large number of people in Tasmania who do not support this agreement for all sorts of reasons, and/or do not support the process, but are willing to endorse it because they consider that the Tasmanian polity can deliver nothing better. Many people have concluded that this is the “only agreement possible”, and that if it is not supported by the Legislative Council that Tasmania will return to the trenches of all the bitter divisions of the past.
The Legislative Council is now under very heavy lobbyist pressure from politicians and former politicians, ENGOs, Ta Ann and Artec and other industry interests, to support the agreement. One Tasmanian academic has suggested to MLCs that they “hold their noses” and vote for it (Fred Gale, The Conversation, here).
We would like to suggest that there is another option open to the Council other than “holding their noses” in voting in support, or rejecting it outright, and that is to take a more long-term statesmanlike posture. There is every reason for the Legislative Council to maintain a responsible arm’s length from the heavy lobbyist pressure which now confronts them from a range of political, industry and ENGO vested interests.
We ask the Legislative Council to think beyond the highly-publicised either-or paradigm which is being promulgated. There is a third option, and that is to acknowledge that the whole process to this point has been too narrowly focused, too exclusionary and too secret, and therefore has omitted from consideration vital issues which have to be addressed and must be addressed if any degree of success is to be achieved.
The third option is to acknowledge that there is still the opportunity to do this in a better way.
The Legislative Council does have the opportunity to broaden the parameters of this agreement, by saying “no” this must be done in a more fully informed and integrated way, by saying “no, we can and must do better.” They do have the opportunity to say that this process has been too unrepresentative to work, too many stakeholders have been ignored, and too many valuable perspectives haven’t been considered. They do have the opportunity to ensure that a properly-based sustainable industry can be developed, where sustainability means more than just a “smaller paddock”, but also means reform of forestry practices according to FSC International guidelines, and also means ensuring that sawlogs for the future are not being harvested now for short-term profits in peeler billets and “residues”.
At no stage during the process which began in May 2010 has there been any attempt to examine successful examples of well-integrated, triple-bottom line forestry models operating elsewhere, for example in Slovenia and Switzerland, although Tasmania has a number of highly qualified people with expertise and experience in such forestry environments.
The best way forward for the Tasmanian industry is a real focus on high-value adding which benefits Tasmanians, not on a continuation of resource-stripping for the benefit of a few through the promotion of monopoly control. That model has failed and will continue to fail in the future. It is really incumbent on the Legislative Council to look beyond the foreign corporate lobbyists to places in the world where practices such as selective harvesting ensure careful maintenance of land and water resources for the future, as well as a timber resource for the future as well. It is clear that the current agreement does not cater adequately for a viable sawlog industry in the future, for it allows the harvesting of the resource while it is still immature for the short-term benefit of a single company.
The Legislative Council does have the opportunity to take a position of strong leadership on this issue by saying that more needs to be done before they will vote for it. They have the opportunity to say to themselves that there must be a better way, and that there is a better way, rather than just agreeing with all those who – for their own reasons – say this is as good as it can be. They have an opportunity to say it must be much better than that.
The Tasmanian community deserves better than never-ending failing business as usual in the forestry sector, where corporate welfare is the main game. It is well past time for some real courage to be shown by Tasmanian politicians, and for them to reject business as usual in the form of corporatisation and destructive management practices.
The Legislative Council does have the opportunity to demonstrate they have the capacity to offer more to Tasmanians than the now widespread belief that “anything, no matter how bad, is better than nothing”.
We are a small group of non-partisan individuals with a belief that the current agreement fails many fundamental tests, that it was based on a totally flawed and unrepresentative process, that it fails to address many key issues which can only be addressed within an integrated plan – not a siloed plan – and that it fails Tasmania’s future. It is unacceptable on those grounds, and we urge the Legislative Council not to pass it, but to also have the courage to insist that we can do something much better than this.
— Frank Strie, Peter Henning, Alison Bleaney, Peter Brenner, Claire Gilmour, Bob McMahon, Julian Wolfhagen
Show Comments
Comments (26)
Well done, those people. Their thinking makes sense to me.
Perhaps we need a Cultural Revolution (without the deaths in the Chinese version) to achieve the required results. The culture of the industry and its supporters has not been addressed by the negotiators and to my mind that is the key to the future - not how many trees can be felled, or how many hectares reserved.
JV
Prepare to be astonished! TGC generally agrees with the above- although I note this group appears not to consider itself one of those applying pressure to the Legislative Councillors.
The MLC’s should be pressured- to not agree with this Legislation and to recommend a much more broad-based consultative process.
I fully endorse this. It is one of the few sensible things written on the issue. Some of us have been arguing along these lines for many years now, since long before the Agreement and its predecessors were drawn up, but our viewpoint has been pointedly ignored by those in power and by those aspiring to influence power.
For too long, second best has been the most Tasmania has aspired to. Let’s aim higher before it’s too late.
Yes, I agree with much that the authors of this article say. There is a better way - probably several better ways - than what the present Bill offers.
But what the authors don’t factor in - are determined not to factor in - is the essential crudity of Tasmanian decision-making, something which has been demonstrated time and time again in our polity. The authors seem to think that in a short space of time they can transform this island - and the Legislative Council in particular - into an intellectual powerhouse.
Well, good luck to them. If in one year or two years’ time we can look back and say that Tasmania is a better place economically OR environmentally OR socially because the LegCo rejected this Bill, I’ll be the first to applaud the judgment of the present authors and congratulate them on their efforts.
But I think that achieving such an outcome has a snowflake’s chance in hell. As David Obendorf might say, this is Taz-mania!
All we have a choice to decide at the moment is between unrestrained unprofitable public-money-grabbing forestry on the one hand, and preservation of high conservation value forests together with a considerably circumscribed forestry industry on the other.
If the protection of the ecological values of forests is amongst the hopes of any of the authors - they don’t say - then a solution, even a stopgap one, is needed soon. Real soon. Otherwise most forests just won’t be there to allow a considered “better” approach in the future. The Bill must be passed.
Moreover, I don’t think I’m being overly optimistic in thinking that a smaller, more widely supported industry might actually better itself through its quest for certification and the guidance of the broad-based Stakeholder Council foreshadowed in the agreement.
The Bill isn’t perfect. No one ever said it was. How could it be when it resulted from opposing interests clashing together? There is an argument that it might be better than something coming out of parliamentary debate alone, but that’s another story.
What’s important to me is what is realistically achievable in the reasonable future, here, in the Tasmania we have.
It’s been said that the perfect is the enemy of the good. I’d add that, especially when the time available for a result is limited, idealism is the enemy of achievement.
Frank et al,
almost impossible to argue against this positive view of the potential future of the industry and future for Tasmania if all peoples interested and involved in this debate could collectively work together.
Regretably it may be that there are too many vested interests; political, environmental and business ambitions and hidden secrets etc to see how this could possible happen.
The greatest concern is of course as IMXLY stated in a prior post in response to John Hawkins “But what does he predict for the other side of the deal - the protection of 400,000ha of identified HCV forest areas, including the WHA extension? Is he confident that the restructured/ emasculated/downsized timber industry would simply leave these forests alone? I fear not, since many areas contain timber the industry most covets”.
As seen through the IGA moratorium FT will continue to plunder HCV forests, including potential WHA areas, with absolutley no regard to moral and ethical behaviour and sustainable and commercial behaviour. If there was an ability to immediately halt FT activities and guarantee such, then perhaps Option C could be pursued.
Is there any possibility of the TFA being accepted to be followed up immediately with the sort of collective process as described above being then pursued?
I suspect not!!
Its not clear how the Peace Plan actually prevents better forestry being done along the lines these writers suggest ? These are knowledgeable writers, but do they really have faith that the Tasmanian government can modernize forestry?
How is this idea prevented by the Peace Plan going ahead?
It isn’t spelled out here.
Whats to prevent it all turning to chaos again? And the environment being the loser. This letter assumes competencies that there is no evidence for in the existing forestry sector.
Effective political leaders? The Legislative Council???
You lost me on the first sentence.
The writers of the above are all voices who I respect. But their suggestion seems fantastical. How can people with a proven track record of NOT managing either government or forestry suddenly learn to do that?
Surely it will be a return to piecemeal and corrupt processes all over again. At least with the agreement, there are clearly defined reserves for perpetuity. Let this discussion be about how the remainder is managed - not the whole ball and dice.
The rapidly emerging climate crisis means that forests for carbon take precedence over any other use, and old growth untouched forests with deep litter and wet understoreys do that best. A sane government would reserve it all. The agreement is a workable compromise, and its NOW. I have no faith in future rationality if its not set in concrete now.
The process of the agreement actually was people power, we created those NGO’s. They may not have included everyone, but to do so would not have been possible. This actually is, IMHO, not the lesser of evils, but the best it gets.
Call me negative but I don’t think there is anyone in either house listening, or representing the state, or doing whats in Tasmanias best interest. They are all too far gone in my view. Let them have their gorge on public money and their sanctimonious chin tugging while they weigh up the pros and cons of enabling the Labor machine to pull a PR headline out of a convict-era top hat. I think they should demolish Port Arthur just to extinguish the criminal element infesting Tasmania.
Amen.
I have read some absolute corkers in my time, but Fahey’s effort here takes the cake: “The process of the agreement actually was people power, we created those NGO’s. They may not have included everyone, but to do so would not have been possible. This actually is, IMHO, not the lesser of evils, but the best it gets.”
Clearly he was out of the room when they discussed the meaning of “participatory democracy”.
The green torrent of self serving crap in support of this con mans wet dream has been most informative. God help us if this bunch of zealots ever get control. Labours pc nanny state has nothing on their contortions of meanings, double speaking and ability to ignore the need for decent open conduct of matters dealing with the disposition of public resources.
Oh, and by the way, Anne Cadwallader, it is illegal to leave any sheep unshorn because it is cruel. The analogy sucks.
It’s not actually the LC’s role to amend bills before it, even if they did have the mental and moral resources for such tasks.
The best reasonably possible outcome would be for all the closet Libs on the LC to simply knock it back, leaving an incoming Lib Govt to grab the illiterati vote and crash the pernicious industry by selling the remainder of the State Forest to their only market, China, for a mess of pottage.
There was an article in the Age a couple days ago bagging VicForests for logging an unsustainable 3550ha of their State Forest natives last year. Tas has often logged more than four times that much from less than half the forest area.
No point wasting time on reasoned argument down here.
John Hayward
What has to be confronted in the boldest of all manner is that the Tasmanian forestry industry is not an industry at all.
Certainly not just under the hands of the Bobster and Co, remember that he is being pressured/persuaded into continuing the same style of ruinous bash and burn that has existed for the last 30 years or so.
When one is able to step back and have a look at the past modus of all those well connected opportunists- (albeit there were a few good and sensible logging practitioners,) the rest being those past and present bash and burners operating in the ‘as good as unregulated’ State logging activity, (do realize Forestry Tasmania abide by no rule or regulation whatsoever,) it is hardly possible to try to reconcile the cloaked-over State government supported mad scrambling as it was and is, to git in and among them there Crown Land forests and cut ‘em down.
How this ‘small island’s’ forests could be so wrongly perceived as being an ‘endless unlimited big as Siberia quantum of Old Growth Forests,’ was and still is sheer lunacy, (despite the bull-shizer spieling by the honorable Liberal Senator Erich Abetz in times past,) first let’s just consider how much went into Gunns Ltd bastard wood-chips, ‘they grasping as much as they could get away with,’ all this was going on in the unlimited Tasmanian Old Growth Ancient Forest free-for-all.
Forestry Tasmania have now indeed taken over the from the slaughterous now bankrupt Gunns Ltd, (as was the gig then under the direction of 2 especially starry-eyed reprehensible’s, being the Gay and the Gray,) as the next lot of ruthless purveyors of Tasmania’s Old Growth logged timber.
How is it today that all of this same destructive unsustainable stupidity is being heartily supported by eg; Terry Edwards, Bryan Green, the FPA, as well as this State government itself, unfortunately this blind lunacy still prevails.
Now we are to understand that all of this former chaos and wood-chip greed-glutting was made so kindly possible by the silent encouraging- past and present executive board members of this State GBE?
Have we recognized the real problem here, it is not and never was the sourcing of timber for the building industry and those seeking speciality timbers, oh no, now think of the term ‘Tasmania Incorporated,’ (those elitist connivers who still infest our society,) then and only then will this logging free-for-all be understood for the quasi-criminal activity that it was and appears to be still intended?
There is still some small amount of room for a ‘proper regulated proportion’ of sensibly carried out logging in Tasmania’s remaining Old growth Native Forests, but please no more of the scheming under-handed bashing and burning.
Legislative Concillors should really consider whether the deal on offer in this Tasmanian Forestry Agreement Bill is really worth the paper it’s written on.
Is this ENGO/FIAT deal all that’s on offer? Surely not.
A duplicitous and secretative means to a manipulative, mercinary end… on that basis it is poor public policy.
Are we that thick? We don’t seem to learn new ways. We’re seem so struck.
Where is the fresh, long-term vision for forests and forestry based on genuine reconciliation; not based on this knock ‘em down ENGO/FIAT deal.
The members of the Legislative Council are a gaggle of very silly, middle-aged to elderly geese. And, I’m not being ageist - their age is the least of our concerns. It’s their witless inanity, and the persistent devotion to their simplistic, narrow-minded fantasies that we really need to worry about.
For some MLCs, more particularly Messrs Harriss, Hall, and Wilkinson, and Ms Rattray, life in politics is as cut and dried as ‘forestry good, greenies bad’. I suggest a ‘No’ vote will be in order for these four, with Harriss tipping his own personal balance in favour of his long time partner - the anti-green logging fraternity, rather than his more recent amour - the questionable timber processing company, Ta Ann.
Two of the MLCs - Goodwin (Liberal - No) and Farrell (Labor - Yes) will be required to vote along party lines.
The mild-mannered Messrs Finch and Gaffney could vote either way, but I will put money on a ‘Yes’ for both.
Ruth Forrest will, in her usual inimitable fashion, analyse the bill until it is screaming for mercy, but in the end vote ‘No”, because she hasn’t had a chance to parade all her proposed amendments across the floor.
Mr Dean, who is still holding grimly to the vision of a pulp mill that needs lots and lots of wood, will eschew the relinquishing of any more forests to the conservation movement, and vote ‘No.’
Relative newcomers, Mrs Armitage and Mr Valentine will have trouble extricating themselves from the giddy whirlpool of publicity, and arse-licking lobbying of the past week. How they will vote is anyone’s guess, but I’m taking a punt on ‘Yes’ for both of them.
Which leaves Mr Mulder, Mrs Taylor, and the president of the LegCo, Mrs Smith. If it comes to a tied vote, Mrs Smith should see the ‘No’ vote home. Her dedication to the old time logging industry rivals even that of Mr Harriss.
Mrs Taylor is something of an unknown quantity, but she appears strangely enchanted by Mr Harriss’ wily political ways. She is most likely a ‘No’.
Mr Mulder will attempt to colour the debate with as many jokes as he can. Some will be faintly smutty. In keeping, however, with his carefully cultivated maverick persona, I’m betting on a ‘Yes’ from his corner.
So, I’m going with 6 ‘Yes’ and 8 ‘No’. But I could be wrong. The bottom line is that each of the MLCs will vote, first and foremost, in the interests of their own political careers, and who knows what their lackey advisers are telling them.
PS Don’t you just love parliament webcasts
http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/Parliament/hatbs.htm
and Hansard. They help you get to know your pollies so much better.
No Karl, the ruin that is Port Arthur is to be propped up because it attracts funding and tourist income.
Large trees are in decline worldwide, but whilst trees remain the same propping will continue with the forestry industry regardless of its size.
The pattern is clear, historical activities like manufacturing fossil fuel burning cars or digging up, exporting and burning coal, no matter the evidence of the danger inherent in that, must be propped up.
The props include denial and delay followed by so small a target its not believable that those in power understand the data and the forecasts based thereon.
Props for the above extend from the failed cash for clunkers through to the continuing support for the mining and export of fossil fuel regardless of the impacts, such as on the Great barrier Reef, let alone the climate.
The Legislative Council’s conservatism should see this redical change to Tasmania rejected as it has with other radical ideas.
However, if it is passed you can be sure industry sees an advantage, a wiggle they can use to get more and more today and that they have lobbied to ensure that happens.
Do they know there is no tomorrow, or are they more optimistic than Minister Bourke who sees Tasmania’s carbon stores as valueless because of the threats from fire and drought.
These are the same supposedly valueless stores the Commonwealth will accrue to themselves with the payment to Tasmanian once the Tasmanian Forest Agreement Bill 2012 passes and recieves Royal assent.
CO2 Austrlaia estimates the value of the forests affected by this bill at an average of $350 Million per year for 20 years.
Strangely Jan Davis studiously ignores the similar value inherent in the privately owned forsets, but once the owners get it a rash of Carbon sink forests will appear changing the value of all forest products.
That is until the changes in the climate we are generating from fossil fuel burning come home to bite.
phill Parsons 15. Beautiful. They decided not to buy old cars but will restore a 19th century concentration camp because its a tourist attraction.
Observers predictions at 14 seem very accurate. I’m just glad I couldn’t give a stuff what games the upper house play.
Simon Warriner, I think you’ll find the original brand of the Tasmanian Greens was bought up in recent years by a large corporate interest group and rebadged into a cheaper No-Name look-a-like.
Quality product was sacrificed for retail leverage and market share.
Bob Brown might still be a large shareholder of the Green brand but he doesn’t run that company anymore.
I love and respect your idealism guys. But as I wrote on another post, there is absolutely no way the debate could be widened and have any agreement AT ALL on a “terms of reference”. Just not possible!
The diversity of opinions on the 1538 forest-related issues that need to be resolved would prevent any concensus at all. Such an enquiry would drag on for decades and cost far more than the industry is worth. And we just don’t have the communication and negotiation skills here in Tasmania to achieve such an outcome. And I’m deliberately not discussing the politics of forestry (look at current trends in QLD, NSW and Vic where the war drums are beating again).
Best to just regard the TFA as a first step to a better future. Let this be an evolution rather than a revolution. Instead of trying to go back to square one and waste more time and money, let us put our energies into thinking about square 2. What do we need to do next?
Here’s some ideas:
. create a state forest industry policy focused on private forest growers;
. create a forest industry council that represents all stakeholders, and helps keep the politics out of the industry;
. focus on high-value (eg. blackwood) and value-adding - how do we encourage this?
. improving market processes and transparency so that farmers get the best value for their trees;
. adopt a positive, cooperative business model that rewards excellence and innovation.
We really do need to move on. This is not a perfect world, never has been, never will be. That is not to say that ideals and principles aren’t important. We just need to recognise that sometimes a bit of pragmatism and a long-term approach may work just as well. Or in Tassies case any progress at all is a major achievement to be supported and rewarded.
Thanks, Frank et al., I agree, we must insist on proof of better forest management (maintenance) policy, across the board.
It grieves me that $270+ million is being paid out as compensation to “protect” forests we already own! The IGA money is for payouts, not for transition.
Why not stop clearfelling HCV forests anyway, and instead put the $270 million into designing and implementing better management models?
I do not want the learning and understanding of the IGA to be wasted if it is thrown out. So even if the result is “no”, then what knowledge it has collected must form part of the basis for a much-needed renaissance.
Hey, Frank, how would you manage $270 million dollars to do this?
No need to admire ‘idealism’, as you call it, Gordon Bradbury [comment #18] - maybe call it ‘common sense’ or ‘realism’.
Tony McCall, UTAS Political Science lecturer, summed it up from his political perspective this morning on ABC radio. Why the rush to press the Legislative Council into supporting this weak framework legislation that is a deal and not a vision for the future?
The roundtable process was flawed from the get go and we have had a range of individuals and organisations that do not support this Bill and the process that it took to get to December 2012.
The Legislative Council should not be bullied into supporting this legislation in its current form.
If it was me - knowing what I know - I would not support this legislation as it currently stands because the process was illegitimate and corrupted (similar to the Pulp Mill Approval Act].
A great idea, but I suspect it demands more of our political leaders than they are capable of giving.
A well written contribution from a group of great Tasmanians I admire. The problem is that there is a Liberal majority government on the horizon. I am concerned that the absence of a deal will leave a vacuum that will be exploited by the Libs with an attempt to return to the old ways. They will be emboldened by recent opinion polls and once in Government will be able to claim a strong mandate for all sorts of “pro development” policies they will have taken to the 2014 election. They will turn around and say “50% of the population voted for us” its full steam ahead in the Weld, the Styx, the Blue Tier etc. The Libs know that “greenies” are on the nose more than they have ever been in Tasmania and policies which appease those with a contrary point of view will win the day. I don’t support the IGA or how it was formulated but at least it may put a halt to the destruction of some beautiful places until something better comes along and it will be much harder for the Libs to undo when they win the next election. If the Legislative council vote it down it won’t be because of the valid points raised in the article it will be because of lobbying from pro logging groups in their electorate.
To all the above commentators:
Thank you for stating your points view.
Here the link to the ABC Mornings Radio interview
http://blogs.abc.net.au/files/monday-blog-dec-10-final.mp3
with Dr. Tony McCall of UTAS http://www.utas.edu.au/ird/people/dr-tony-mccall
mentioned by David Obendorf #20.
May the future be judge of what happens from here.
I draw everybody’s attention to this TT article
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/to-the-elected-members-of-the-tasmanian-legislative-council/
and urge you to download and READ the attached brief. It spells out in detail what many of us have put in less words. It’s a great wrap of what this TFA is all about. 35 pages! Install yourself with a drink. It’s very readable despite it’s length.
TEA_Brief_to_Legislative_Councillors_re_Bill_30_7-12-2012….pdf
#21 John, you say “A great idea, but I suspect it demands more of our political leaders than they are capable of giving.” But is that a reason to not ask, not just our politicians - as you say - but ourselves as well, about what is possible?
It is not just politicians that this group of people are writing to, because it is an open letter. If you like, it is a letter to everyone from a small group of people who have been drawn together from mutual respect and support for an agreed set of values which should not be compromised.
As David Obendorf has said, this should be regarded as principled and realistic, not unrealistic and unattainable.
Why is it that forestry practices introduced comparatively recently to support bulk commodification of the resource for corporate interests have wrecked the social, environmental and economic sustainability of the industry? It has happened very quickly.
Why is it that those practices be allowed to continue, as they will be under the current agreement?
It is time for a total change in focus away from what suits the short-term corporate interest, funded forever by us, supported by vested interests in the industry, political parties and ENGOs, and a return to what is best for the future interests of the broader Tasmanain community.
Idealistic? There’s no realistic alternative.
#14 was as much wrong as right- though well out in describing the Member for Rosevears, Kerry Finch as ‘mild-mannered’-on this occasion positively steaming.
#14 didn’t get the numbers quite right-though not totaly wrong but failed to pick the other option: Send it to a Committee- Good choice that.