Dear Mr Eric Abetz

In his critique of Richard Flanagan’s essay on Tasmanian forestry, which appeared in the May edition of The Monthly, ( Out of Control ) Piers Akerman lamented (The Mercury 4/6/07 and Daily Telegraph 5/6) that Flanagan’s audience won’t hear the Eric Abetz response to the article. Forestry Minister Abetz addressed the Institute of Foresters of Australia and the New Zealand Institute Forestry on 4/6 at their biennial conference. In regard to the conference, Mr Abetz stated that he will “look forward to (me) trying to explain away the green myths (he) exposed” (The Mercury 6/6).

There are many disturbing allegations contained in Flanagan’s essay which relate to Mr Abetz’s ministerial responsibility.
The allegations relate, also, to the Howard Government more generally (for instance overly generous tax breaks made available through managed investment schemes have promoted broadacre conversion of biodiverse native forests to monoculture plantations in Tasmania).

Unfortunately, in your address, Mr Abetz, you have, rather than providing a specific and factual analysis of Flanagan’s charges, sought, with a sweeping brush, to devalue any criticism of Tasmanian forestry practices as the rantings of “extreme greens” whilst leaving all the serious questions unanswered.

I declare at the outset of this letter that I am not a member of any political party and that I am not “anti-forestry” in my stance. I support genuinely sustainable native forestry but I deplore conversion of biodiverse native forest to monoculture plantation. Similarly, I am opposed to the broadscale conversion of productive cropping and grazing land to tree farms.

I suspect that my views are mostly consistent with majority opinion in Tasmania. Something like 70% of Tasmanian people are against the clearfelling of high conservation value native forests (according to surveys conducted during the Tasmania Together community consultation process commenced in 1998).Tasmanians are not necessarily against the selective harvesting of old trees from lower conservation value areas, particularly if this timber is used for high value adding and labour intense purposes (good examples are wooden boat building, fine furniture production and other joinery).

Mr Abetz states that “old growth forests aren’t harvested for woodchips, they’re harvested for craftwood, furniture, sawmilling and veneering. It is the residue which is chipped for paper rather than it being wasted.” This statement is only partially true as, easily available, industry figures consistently reveal that in a typical clearfell coupe of native forest (including old growth forests) over 90% of the timber leaving the coupe is chipped.

Mr Abetz, I know you are aware that when an audit was conducted of the clearfell coupe Esperance 74D in the Huon district of Southern Tasmania by the community group Timberworkers for Forests in 2002 it was discovered that an estimated 60,000 tonnes of highly valuable specialty timber (myrtle, celery top pine and sassafras) was left on the coupe and, despite Forestry Tasmania being alerted, was subsequently burnt. There is evidence from all around Tasmania that this is not an isolated occurrence. There is also evidence for all to see that commercial sawlogs are being chipped rather than being utilised for their most valuable and job creating purposes.

Mr Abetz, you have accused the “green movement” of lacking ethics. Do you believe that such wastage of public assets is ethical?

Mr Abetz, it is contended by Flanagan that the Tasmanian forest industry has been the recipient of “$289 million of taxpayers money since 2005, much of it being used to facilitate further old-growth logging”. Is this true?

Flanagan is clearly not impressed by the value that the average Tasmanian gains from the harvesting of public (State) forests by Gunns Limited. He states that though Gunns have excellent access to harvesting these forests, the royalties paid by Gunns to Forestry Tasmania (FT), the Government Business Enterprise charged with the stewardship of the forests, are “paltry” whilst Gunns have made record profits.

Is it true, Mr Abetz, that in 2005 Gunns made over $100 million (much of it from harvesting State forests) whilst FT, tasked with getting a decent financial return for the Tasmanian people from their forests, made only $13.5 million?
Is it also true that, whilst so much of Gunns’ profits come from taxpayers pockets, the money disproportionately reappears in the wallets of interstate investors?

Mr Abetz, how do you explain the statistics which demonstrate that forestry in Tasmania, rather than being a “job rich” industry, is shedding thousands of jobs and reducing contracts?

Industrial conversion forestry, based on clearfelling, burning and the establishment of broadacre plantations, is compromising other important industries in Tasmania such as agriculture, aquaculture and fishing, leatherwood honey production, viticulture and nature based tourism.

Mr Abetz, as Minister for Fisheries, how are you going to ensure that the effluent from the Longreach pulpmill (containing dioxins which have been linked to cancer and attention deficit, hyperactivity disorder, ADHD) will not destroy the fishing industry in the impact zone and, more generally, the Tasmanian brand? Do you recall that the fishing industry based on Sydney Harbour was decimated by dioxin pollution in 2005?

In striking a “balance between the environment and the legitimate need for timber”, as you correctly call for, it is critical that the needs of the community are appropriately addressed. The inherent problem with industrial plantation conversion forestry is that there are major problems to consider in the areas of long term water security and fire risk.

Mr Abetz, you do recognise that rapidly growing young regrowth trees (after bushfires) consume much more water than mixed age, mixed species native forests. You must, therefore, be aware that rapidly growing young plantation trees behave in a very similar way.

Not only do plantations use more water but also they are highly chemical dependent. The list is extensive and includes the poison 1080, various herbicides (including the dangerous endocrine disrupters Atrazine and Simazine, linked to cancer and birth defects and banned by the European Union, which have been repeatedly detected in Tasmanian drinking water), insecticides and fungicides. Clean, safe drinking water is a fundamental human right which has been compromised by plantation expansion under the Federal Government’s so-called 2020 Vision (to increase the plantation estate of Australia from 1 million to 3 million hectares by year 2020).

When mixed native forest with a wet understorey is clearfelled and a dry plantation (eucalypt or pine) replaces it we should understand that the fire risk is greatly increased. A plantation destroyed by fire cannot be “carbon positive”. It is unreasonable and unsafe that plantations have been allowed to be developed so close to populated areas and infrastructure (the Private Timber Reserve legislation, which excludes local planning considerations, allows this to happen).

Mr Abetz, in your address to the forestry conference at Coff’s Harbour you appear to rely on the false logic that if an area, state or a country has a large reserve system in place then environmental and conservation obligations are satisfied. Does an extensive reserve system justify regular (and unprosecuted) breaches of the forest practices code? Have you read the audit of the Mount Arthur coupe near Launceston (compiled by the Community Resource Auditors in 2001) which demonstrated over 60 breaches of the code, mostly relating to the management of riparian vegetation? Would you like to?

In his essay Richard Flanagan refers to the forestry whistle blower Bill Manning who was subpoenaed to testify to an Australian Senate committee examining the impacts of the 2020 Vision in Tasmania. This testimony was provided in 2003 (along with submissions from a variety of other community groups and individuals).
Former forester Manning (who, as Flanagan points out, is hardly an “extreme green”) described “an ecological disaster” perpetrated by “an accelerated and unaccountable logging industry”. “The clearfelling is out of control” he told the senate enquiry. “The scale of clearfelling in Tasmania is out of control”.

It is now 2007, the many carefully researched and compiled submissions have been neatly bound into, publicly available, reports but there has been no Federal action to halt the destruction.

The Howard Government has, once more, allowed itself to be dictated to by the powerful forestry industry lobbyists and so the tax breaks for managed investment schemes in plantation monocultures continue.

Mr Abetz, you could easily see for yourself the damage that has been done by the implementation of the Howard Government’s 2020 Vision in Tasmania.
You could, perhaps, best do this by getting into an aeroplane and flying over the North-East of Tasmania and observing the extent of conversion of Launceston’s water catchment to plantation and clearfell. You would, then, surely come to appreciate the exacerbation of the current damage that will ensue if a “world scale” pulpmill is established at Longreach.

Mr Abetz, you could also come to a public meeting in Launceston on 23/6 to hear Professor (Integrative Biology) Tyrone Hayes from the University of California speak of the danger of endocrine disrupting pollutants (Atrazine and Simazine) to human health and the broader ecology.

Mr Abetz, I do realise you are a Federal politician and that many of the issues brought up in this letter have, at their heart, State politics. You are, nevertheless, a Senator for Tasmania and a Tasmanian, and I hope that you do understand the profound responsibility that your high position demands.

Please, Mr Abetz, consider the implications that your decisions, words and actions have for future generations.

For the transcript by Mr Abetz go to: Here

For another view of Tasmanian forestry go to: www.twovisions.net

Yours sincerely,

(Dr) Frank Nicklason
Spokesman, Doctors for Forests
West Hobart