Thanks, Mike, for your article (HERE), which highlights some legitimate concerns regarding democracy its effects on the future management of Tasmania.
Like others here, I too am concerned about the condition of democracy in Tasmania.
However, I believe democracy exists not only in the political arena, but applies to our everyday interactions between other people and things around us, too, including nature, which, in the modern world, has lost priority.
Democracy is shown through humility in allowing the “voices” of other people – and things – to be heard within a forum of mutual respect and tolerance. From here, all perspectives can be considered, increasing the chance of reaching an optimal compromise.
The opposite of democracy is having one voice dominate all others. What do we have here? We don’t have humility, we have hubris. We don’t have respect and tolerance, but dictating factionalism. We don’t have compromise, only bullying.
This is the result of too much emphasis being placed on power and money. What gives?
Mike, you invited responses that might offer pertinent information relating to your observations.
So I wonder if you are aware of the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Forestry, as one option for progress?
I understand CRC for Forestry comprises a combination of private and public interest groups.
Perhaps there is an opportunity for more organisations or groups to participate?
The results of its reports that I’m aware of derive from public surveys and research undertaken by academic analysts. This might be one kind of independent and democratic recourse to community concerns that people may be seeking.
Such research is an attempt to gauge the socio-economic effects and opinions of forestry, by means of an objective and direct engagement with the public, rather than gauging opinion vicariously through the ballot box. It can help circumvent the bias of vested interest groups.
(As an aside, I would rather call the profit sector of forestry the “wood products industry” and the maintenance and care of native forests as “forestry”, or something like that, so that they are defined and accounted for separately.)
I am keen to support qualitative, academic-based research on the wood products industry for at least two reasons.
The first is because wood, being both renewable and biodegradable, is undoubtedly a valuable sustainable resource (and people need resources: we can’t exist on air alone). It is relevant to the “future culture” of Tasmania (I’m over the “past culture”!). But how a wood supply is democratically managed is my key concern and interest here, as it seems to be of many others.
Second, I support the CRC approach because, from my understanding, there is an inherent wisdom in the public’s responses in its reports (described below); a wisdom that should be adopted by “the powers that be”, simply because it just “makes sense” and contributes so much to a logical, valuable compromise.
Of particular interest on this thread are the CRC’s current “Communities” research projects, found on:
http://www.crcforestry.com.au/research/programme-four/communities/
I see two Communities reports relating to plantations in Tasmania (plantations = wood + money).
The first is the “Socioeconomic impacts of the plantation industry on rural communities in Tasmania”, a public report by Jacki Schirmer (2009).
From memory, this report, for example, compares the distribution of jobs and money in the community when plantations are established as an agricultural land use.
The second report is “Community attitudes to plantations: Survey of the views of residents of Tasmania”, by Kathryn Williams (2008).
From memory, this report indicates what kind of plantation practice is acceptable to the public, or not.
To summarise, such work offers some hope, at least. Our future democratic management is all about us, and it’s all up to us, too. We must keep searching and pushing for our “sanity”. Mike, please continue your work keeping us up to speed, many thanks.
