CHARLES and CLAIRE GILMOUR
Forestry Tasmania predicted, (not something they are very good at – I have a crystal ball with a crack in it if they want to borrow it … at least it might be a little more accurate than their trying to wing it on a prayer. I’d readily exchange it for an assurance that Tassies water catchments would be properly protected – how much is that worth?)
Anyway, 2 years ago FT suggested, if not promised, they would be giving a dividend back to the public this year, 2009. Now they say, it may be next year … and in keeping with FT ‘sustainable’ statements, it will be the next and then the next year … the perpetual yearly con you see! Tomorrow just never seems to come for FT when it comes to FT promises of ‘one day we will give you something back’. Theoretically hope springs eternal… for FT … apparently. How much is hope worth? With FT in control of native forests about as much as the native forests they claim as an asset that they had no cost in producing… priceless.

According to FT’s spiel … “Breaking the Cycle!” 07/03/2008
“It takes courage to turn conventional wisdom on its head and try something different. Forestry Tasmania is doing just that and the results are encouraging.”

The results are not quite obvious, let alone encouraging … just yet.

However, in FT’s normal contradictive way, they go on to say …

”For the past three decades, a familiar pattern has developed in the way forestry is discussed and debated in Tasmania. The debate has become so predictable that it is possible to forecast with almost impeccable accuracy how each side of the debate will respond to a given set of arguments and circumstances.”

Oh so FT ‘are’ playing the public then? Thought so!

We would suggest, touche! indeed … as Barnaby suggests, ultimately it is a game of tic tac toe. FT supply the naughts, some of the public crucifies them. Pretty predictable. No wisdom needed to figure that one out. FT’s prematurely proposed, one could suggest erroneous, financial wisdom is merely tactical and very see through!

Call it what you will, FT’s little financial result game is ‘audacious accounting’, ‘compiled to confuse’, ‘designed to deceive’, but ultimately designed to gauge the public criticisms, so to design counteractive labor if not liberal political strategies. Mere pawns they think the public are.

De Ja Vu must surely by now, be something FT is very familiar with.

But just as a by the by, so to check mate FT … FT calls our native forests ‘crops’. A ‘crop’ implies planting costs. How lucky for FT to claim the goods, the end value, without the cost of hundreds of years of propagation/planting/natural immunity/ water/ etc etc. How much is that worth? Not much according to FT apparently. Realistically, FT cannot afford our native forests. They certainly are not replacing them as they were naturally designed.

But still Forestry Tasmania has flamboyantly claimed a nine million dollar profit. Terrific! If you minus the 13 million dollars that the taxpayers have contributed to the Forest Agreement, then they made a 4 million dollar loss. But maybe that’s what they want people to ‘quickly’ believe … ! That ‘little’ loss is their positive spin.

A quick perusal … As per FT’s 08/09 statement.
“Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement Income – The revenue from the Tasmanian Forest Agreement (TCFA) is recognised as income when the expenses have been incurred in relation to the specific projects for which funds have been received. Any remaining funds are held in income in advance until expenditures have been incurred.”

How much ‘income in advance’(simply put the publics money), has FT received but not accounted for because they have yet to report on the associated expenses?

There is nothing more, there’s nothing less, but shear corruption in the accounting policies of FT.

HIH, Babcock and Brown and many others did it for years…. creative accounting just to suit the people who were listening.

At this point of time, I wouldn’t want to be a director of FT if my bum pointed to the ground.

Oh and where’s the should be accompanying Auditors report, FT? No matter, as auditors say ‘based on’ FT supplied figures … all’s well that’s biologically clearfelled … apparently.

And, Dr Kevin Bonham: Silly Jarvis …

These comments appear at the end of this article, HERE. Comment HERE

And, useful links:

These links help explain what The business recorded an ‘operating profit’ of $9.3 million for 2008-09, up from $8.6 million in the previous financial year (from http://www.forestrytas.com.au/news/2009/08/forestry-tasmania-continues-strong-profit-performance) means…

Ie – not the complete picture.

http://www.investorwords.com/3464/operating_profit.html

http://www.advfn.com/money-words_term_3464_operating_profit.html

http://beginnersinvest.about.com/cs/investinglessons/l/blles4ebitda.htm