Bob Loone’s truth

A foreword to Bob Loone’s powerful argument from Paul de Burgh-Day:

Arguably the best newspaper in Tasmania these days is the weekly Tasmanian Country.

I’m sure just about every farmer in the state gets it.

Many farmers read it for auction and clearance notices, some to read the priceless ramblings of The Tractor Tragic.

Every now and then there is a flurry of letters on issues of the day.

Generally serious issues. Tas Country is worth getting, if only to read the letters — particularly in recent weeks since Bob Loone from
Chudleigh has started writing.

Many Tasmanians will know Bob, a very gentle, quietly spoken and unassuming man of the land, recently retired from business, and currently deputy Mayor of Meander Valley Council.

There is a great deal about what is happening on our Island that bothers Bob, and he has sat himself down to write letters to the editor of Tas Country.

Bob is making waves. Bob is tilting at the holy cows in Tasmania, most particularly at that ever festering sore of the forest industry.

This is a bit difficult for the industry. They are used to slagging off tree huggers and others with Green credentials.

Bob Loone is another matter altogether.

Most who know Bob would I suspect consider him to be ‘one of them’. The thing is that Bob knows a lot of people in the industry. And he knows that a lot of them are not happy about the way the forest industry works these days.

They, like Bob himself until recently, were not in a position to take a stand, to stick their necks out. We all know what happens to whistle blowers here.

What makes Bob en even bigger problem is that he can write. He writes damned good letters. He knows what he is writing about.

Needless to say, those in his sights have written replies, and needless to say, they claim that he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

This letter below was published Friday 19th May. It was something like the third he has written, and here he deals with a response from the chief of the Forest Practice Authority.

The previous week, his letter was a very well reasoned and accurate tilt at the taxation scheme that is a massive incentive to investors who finance the plantation industry.

A tax scheme available to no other form of agriculture — that is, if you consider plantations to be a form agriculture.

There is a response on this latest issue from Tasmania’s own Liberal Senator Eric Abetz.

Tasmanian Country is to be praised for publishing these letters. They are often quite long — the daily media would not run letters of this length.

The issues are of fundamental importance to us all.

I thank Bob for his efforts — which come from his heart and soul. He should be supported by every thinking Tasmanian. Some may not agree with him — that is as it should be. I would ask everyone to respect Bob Loone for what he is doing, and what he is saying. Like many of us, he believes Tasmania should have a forest industry.

Like many of us, he knows that the industry we have is all wrong.

Paul de Burgh-Day
Lorinna

Bob’s letter …

Dear Sir,

Lots of nice words from Mr. Wilkinson about fostering and encouraging (see Tasmanian Country 28 April 2006,) only serves to confirm our evidence that forestry is out of control.

As Chief Forest Practices Officer, of the Forest Practices Authority, he is supposed to be the, “independent” policeman of forestry, but sadly as his letters clearly demonstrate, he is just another government paid forestry promoter.

Ultimately the Forest Practices Authority is our protector in the public interest. Mr Wilkinson’s letters clearly betray the interests of ordinary Tasmanians, and shows he is definitely not independent and has joined forces in with those it’s his responsibility to hold accountable, and therefore is a major contributor to our many forestry problems.

Indeed it is not Mr. Wilkinson’s role to become involved trying to prop up and cover up for an out of control forest industry. He should be listening, not spin-doctoring and pretending all is well when there is abundant and extensive evidence to prove this is not the case.

Our documented and reported abuses of the forest Practices Code and the Sinkhole Manual are ongoing and concerning to the extent that we wonder what’s the
point of having a Forest Practices Authority.

About the percentage of coupes which are audited, Chris Barnes says 5% Graham Wilkinson 15%. There are physical audits and paper audits, could it be that there are paper audits of 15% of coupes and 5% of those are actually inspected? Even 15% is far too low, but the real question is, how effective is this self regulatory system, where Forest Practices Officers are supposed to audit fellow Forest Practices Officers, who is kidding who here?

What’s the point of it all anyway when the political system to which Mr. Wilkinson reports is compromised by large forestry company donations to the major political parties?

The poor guy is faced with an almost impossible task. Sadly forestry is more about politics than applying the rules, economics, or sustainability.

The combination of power and the rush to spend tax exempt money which has to be spent also contributes to a forest industry out of control, cutting corners, and pushing the limits.

Mr Wilkinson needs to be aware that self-regulation does not work. If we removed all the penalties for breaking the law and emptied our jails and asked everyone to self-regulate, it’s a great idea, but would it work?

Already forestry enjoys exclusive privileges and exemptions from laws which effectively deny the community of its rights to hold forestry accountable, or to have the impacts it inflicts on innocent people addressed, through the Private Timber Reserves (PTRs).

PTR’s discriminate against the rights and welfare of the rest of the community. There are no reviews or sunset clauses, they can continue in perpetuity.

If self-regulation was working there would be no need for me to write letters. Mr Wilkinson says he welcomes constructive ideas, then goes on to try and convince us no improvements are necessary. In reality the system is cosy and public proof, with many “experts” to defend forestry privileges.

The very point of my previous letter was to try and be constructive. Improvements start with identifying the problem, which is what I was doing, and we can see how far I got with that.

Again I state that self-regulation does not work. We need a strong, truly independent in practice, Forest Practices Authority, whose primary responsibility is to work for, and not against, the public interest, and those who are hurting and suffering losses because of forestry activities.

We also need politicians who will put principle before party funds, by not allowing forestry donations to compromise their integrity, or Mr Wilkinson’s yet to be properly implemented authority.

In practical terms, due to the political power of forestry and the inadequacies identified in this letter, I see little likelihood of anything changing. Therefore it becomes the responsibility of Municipal Councils, who are the first line of community welfare and economic sustainability, to include the Forest Practices Code in their Council
Planning Schemes, and make forestry discretionary rather than permitted.

By doing this councils, or their officers, would be able to apply relevant conditions to limit the damage forestry activities inflict on the local community, and have authority to ensure the Forest Practices Code and the Sinkhole Manual is adhered to. I call on all councillors and communities to implement these two necessary safeguards into their Planning Schemes as soon as practical in the interests of the continued and sustainable economic welfare of our rural municipalities.

Yours Faithfully.

Bob Loone
President
Western Rivers Preservation Trust
Email: bob@loone.id.au