Tasmanian Times

Politics

Tasmania: The Fairer Isle?

C’mon, list all that is positive and visionary …

The John Hawkins’ Christmas (and New Year’s) Card: HERE

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
98 Comments

98 Comments

  1. chris

    January 9, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    re #104
    You make my point EXACTLY, Chris.

    Russell

    Your point was “but there mightn’t be any young people left to leave, which would be falsely shown as a positive because we have so few young people here any more”

    The point in my follow-up post was that the size of the population of ‘young’ Tasmanians had risen marginally between the two years of comparison and so to say that there mightn’t be any young people left to leave is clearly wrong.

    However, your general point that 10% of 100,000 (10,000) is a much different number to 10% of 10 (1), is worth addressing.

    I thought is was self-evident from the similarity in the size of the two total youth populations quoted in my follow-up post, that interpretation of the fall in the ‘rate’ of youth departures isn’t tainted by the relative sizes of the denominators used in the rates calculations. It is an alternative – comparing the estimates of the actual number of young people who ‘left’ in one period to the number who left in another – that does have the potential to create misinterpretation when the size of the total populations under the microscope at different points vary.

    In my example above if there were only 10 young people left on the island, then the game is lost anyway with not many people left to care about whether 10% or 90% of those remaining leave. While there is 100,000 or there-abouts, it is better to use rates for comparison so that – for example – 1,921 leaving in one year might be compared with 1,921 leaving in another.

    I think that report of the fall in the rate of youth departures in Tasmania has yet to be adequately challenged.

  2. Dr Kevin Bonham

    January 8, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    Russell, I have explained before that “virtual ignore” is applied only on a thread-by-thread basis, and why.

    You were the one who considered what you over-simplistically perceived to be my voting behaviour to be sufficiently important and relevant to this thread to mention my name in #8. So if that small matter amused your mind then presumably correction of the record will amuse it even more.

    I will say that one of the resoundingly positive achievements of the Bacon and Lennon governments, the value of which cannot be underestimated, was to win two elections as a majority party and thus keep Peg Putt out of any position of actual power until she finally retired. That was certainly a substantial part of my reason for voting for them in 2002 and 2006. 🙂

    It also intrigues me that Paul Lennon’s assistance with the resolution of the Recherche Bay saga, supposedly an environmental matter of very great importance at the time, is all but forgotten and has received no credit from anti-logging posters on this thread.

  3. Russell

    January 8, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    Re #106
    Small things amuse small minds, bonham. Off virtual stupidity are we?

    You might try staying on topic and giving some examples as asked, but I’m sure you’re about to attempt to shut the thread down with irrelevant nonsense, again, instead.

  4. Dr Kevin Bonham

    January 8, 2010 at 4:50 am

    I’m amused that Russell at #8 seems to know more about my voting intentions at the 2010 election than I do.

  5. Bonni Hall

    January 7, 2010 at 8:06 pm

    Perhaps it is time to close this thread as it has deteriorated into a group of ‘boys’ seeing who can pee highest up the wall.

  6. Russell

    January 7, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    Re #100
    You make my point EXACTLY, Chris.

    Even though we know our population has only recently increased to the Labor all heralded 500 thousand, the number of people between 15 and 29 still here has barely changed so they are still leaving at a rate not proportionate to the overall population increase.

  7. dev

    January 7, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    dear woodypants. you’ve bored everyone stiff with your tedious spin and bullshit much like your slightly less retarded alias rita. hush now, your betters are talking.

  8. Pete Godfrey

    January 7, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Woodworker I have no idea what you are on about, I pasted in a section from the one report then you come back with information from a different report then say that I edited it.
    For your information again
    The report that I quoted and pasted in information from was
    The Stewardship Report of 2008/9 written by Forestry Tasmania and available from their website.
    It says nothing like what you have quoted in you post.
    For those who want to see later data than Woodworker has quoted just download the 2008/9 Stewardship Report and look on page 30.
    Woodworker you had better read the latest stuff and the actual report that I quoted before accusing me of editing anything. It seems that my credibility is still firmly intact.

    This is the actual excerpt from Hansard that I was also quoting in regards to conversion in the 2007/8 year.

    Mr BOOTH – They are classified as old growth.

    In the annual report you have listed 3 179 hectares planted to plantation in the last financial year, including the Styx Valley and north-east highlands. The current three-year harvest plan also shows dozens of logging coupes scheduled for conversion. Minister, you and Forestry have made unequivocal statements on a number of occasions that conversion ceased in 2005. Can you explain why dozens of logging coupes are scheduled for conversion in the annual report and why 3 179 hectares was converted last year?

    Mr LLEWELLYN – The Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement included a commitment to end broadscale conversion of native forest to plantations on public land by 2010. This commitment was subsequently included in the Tasmanian Government’s 2007 permanent native forest estate policy, which requires that at least 95 per cent of the area of native forest mapped in 1996 is retained as native forest. The Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement provided funding for an additional 16 000 hectares of plantations on public land to offset the 156 000 hectares of new reserves established under the TCFA. The new plantations were to be achieved primarily through conversion of native forest. FT voluntarily ended its conversion program early, with no broadscale clearing of native forest and State forest to be initiated after 31 December 2006. ‘Initiation’ in this context means roading completed and harvesting commenced. It has developed its own permanent native forest estate guidelines, which exceed the Tasmanian Government’s 2007 policy. Plantation conversion coupes that commenced prior to 31 December 2006 are still being completed.

    Mr BOOTH – So how many to go?

    Mr LLEWELLYN – It takes some time for coupes to be fully harvested, windrowed and ploughed for seedlings to be planted, usually in spring. Most plantings will be completed in spring 2008, with a small carryover into spring next year.

    Mr BOOTH – How many hectares in total do you still have to go?

    Mr LLEWELLYN – Since the signing of the TCFA more than 9 000 hectares of plantation forest have been established or prepared for planting, most through conversion of native forests. This includes about 3 500 hectares of land to be planted in 2008-09 which was previously harvested and windrowed. The 2007 revision to the Australian Forest Standard no longer allows broadscale conversion of native forests. FT is audited externally against that standard. The May 2008 audit placed particular emphasis on native forest conversion and the result indicated that FT was fully consistent with its own permanent native forest State guidelines. FT will expand its hardwood plantation stake where opportunities exist on land that does not involve the broad scale clearing of native vegetation.

  9. amyb

    January 7, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Since when does Forestry Tasmania tell the truth on its website (or anywhere else)?

    Of course they’ll only report what they think is in their own best interests.

    To cut & paste something from that place of deceit, lies and spin and then pronounce it as fact with a dismissive “so there you go”, followed with a denigrating accusation of someone else’s suspect credibility for doing the same thing is amazing, to say the least.

    Can we get one thing straight, no matter which side you support, Forestry Tasmania’s website is a totally unreliable source for truth, just the same as using declarations from any self-serving company’s website would be. Do you think Ford would have reported on their website that their Territory model is a crock of crap which wears out ball-joints in 30,000kms? Or that GM would have warned people not to buy cars with its GenII V8 because it was an incurable oil burner?

    Geez, use your brains.

  10. chris

    January 7, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    re: #95 “but there mightn’t be any young people left to leave, which would be falsely shown as a positive because we have so few young people here any more”

    Russell

    The number of people aged 15-29 in June 2001 was 93,239 (ABS). In June 2008 this had risen marginally to 93,444 (ABS again).

    As mentioned in my original post the rate per thousand at which young people left Tasmania for 12 months or more has fallen from 73.5 to 61.5 over the years 2001 to 2008.

    In calculating these rates the 15-29 year old population numbers for these two years are used, so there is no change-of-population effect in the comparison as you have suggested.

    As mentioned in Post 92 all the stats in my initial post are: the most recently available; from reputable sources; accepted by all sides of politics as indicators of Tasmanian progress; easily accessible from the one site, viz:www.ttbenchmarks.com.au

  11. George Harris aka woodworker

    January 7, 2010 at 2:07 am

    Pete Godfrey, re your separate listing on Articles, (Here’s the info), you include an extract from the relevent Forestry Tas report, but it has been edited! There are critical passages taken out! Who do you think you could fool with a stunt like that?
    For those who would like to see the passage in the report, without editing, here it is:
    “Plantations
    In line with Forestry Tasmania’s commitment to make available at
    least 300,000 m3 per year of high quality eucalypt sawlogs from
    state forests, the plantation estate will play a vital role in supplying
    an increasing percentage of this volume over the next 10-15 years.
    To meet this requirement, the plantation estate must be managed
    to maximise production, while balancing long-term sustainability.
    In 2007/08, a total of 3179 hectares of new eucalypt plantations
    were established in state forests bringing the total hardwood
    plantation estate to 52,718 hectares (Figure 11). A total of 1100
    hectares of first rotation hardwood plantation were replaced by
    the establishment of 633 hectares of second rotation eucalypt
    plantation. Work on plantations established in 2007/08 was begun
    in 2006 before the Forestry Tasmanian decision to phase out
    establishing new plantations in state forests. Forestry Tasmania
    has 100 per cent ownership of 57.6 per cent of the hardwood
    plantation estate, with the remainder being managed through
    joint venture and lease arrangements.
    To monitor the performance of plantations, Forestry Tasmania
    has developed a series of plantation quality indicators, which
    are reported annually. For existing plantations, the focus is on
    improving growth and ensuring silvicultural treatments occur in
    a timely manner. For any new plantations established, the focus
    is on improving practices and techniques learned during the first
    rotation.
    In line with the requirements of the Australian Forestry Standard,
    Forestry Tasmania no longer converts areas of native vegetation
    into new plantation areas. Thus increasing the productivity from
    our defined plantation estate is the key to our future. Over the
    next five years, an increasing proportion of the plantation estate
    will be ready for harvesting, and subsequent second rotation
    establishment.”
    Those who want to see this for themselves need only to log onto the Forestry Tasmania website, and look at the Sustainable Forest Management Report for 2007/08, and they will see that I have copied and pasted it from there, and they will be able to see the ommissions that have mysteriously been made in posting “Here’s the info”.
    So there you go!
    And by the way, what is wrong with replacing existing plantations with second rotation plantations, and what is wrong with establishing plantations on vacant land, or redundant agricultural land that is not high value cropping land? (note my earlier expressed preference for properly managed native forest, and a well protected reserve system, including World Heritage Area.)
    Your credibility is looking pretty thin!

  12. Justa Bloke

    January 6, 2010 at 8:53 pm

    That’s OK, Baz. The existentialist possie is a comfortable one, I agree. Helps the pinot go down a treat. Pity about the social conscience, though.

    By the way, you still get LDB’s name wrong (his real one this time), but what’s a bit of dyslexia between comrades (or ex-comrades)?

    And I don’t think Orwell wrote poetry.

    All I believe in is the importance of not believing in anything. The only ‘ism’ I’m into is witticism (apart from the occasional solecism).

  13. Russell

    January 6, 2010 at 8:53 pm

    Sorry baaaaaaz, I don’t drink, but back with the other ruminants you go.

  14. Bazzabee

    January 6, 2010 at 8:05 pm

    Posting 91 opps Bloke sorry about my revolutionary typo my apologies also to the late comrade Lev Davidvich Bronstien alias Leon Trotsky.

    As to the answer we both know that you can expect nothing but “more of the same: a combination of corruption, incompetence and impotence” maybe you could try an existentialist position? I have and its amazingly comfortable and the view is quite lovely.

    Thus, my new goal in life is to see the number of postings reach the one hundred its sort of like existentialist cricket at least it is keeping me from wandering the streets in a psychotic fugue. I put that in to keep Karl Lagerfield (oppps) happy!! Now there’s a thought for the New Year a happy Russell.

  15. Russell

    January 6, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    Re #92
    Just sounded straight out of a public service handbook, which I guess it was coming from the website quoted.

    But, I did address your points and can’t help disagree that anything has got better when you take a good look around and don’t blindly accept figures from a compulsively lying government’s website just at face value which have been written to ‘look good.’ The figures quoted are selective with varying periods, and percentages don’t really equate unless you understand what they actually represent and in numbers of persons as well. For example, the “percentage” of people leaving Tassie may have decreased statistically but there mightn’t be any young people left to leave, which would be falsely shown as a positive because we have so few young people here any more. Those who replaced them are of an older demographic come to retire.

    Re #93
    You got it – Loser.

  16. Rita Skeeter

    January 6, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    My comments on the major environmental achievements of the Bacon Lennon Barttlet governments, particularly in reducing greenhouses gas emissions since the Kyoto base year by 24% seem to be diverted in answering a question by John Hawkins, who only responded by asking yet another question! Sorry John only one question is your limit, but perhaps at another time you could use this map of changing land tenure of the TWWHA [ http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=6522 ]to describe the areas of your concern, as your original question related to the 47% of Tasmania in reserves including the million hectares of old growth off limits to timber harvesting.

    This map could also be used a basis of the compromise sought by the pro plantation, anti native forest group OCG established as an initiative of the wilderness society. The OCG final solution is the ending of all industrial forestry in native forest and the ongoing development of plantations. Another solution would be for John Hawkins and his pals to identify all those areas of “poor forest” reserved by the expansion of the TWWHA, RFA and TCFA to be handed back to the forest sector. Use the map to identify these “hand backs”.

    Now rather than copy and paste the social and economic achievements of Paul Lennon look to Daniel Hulme’s fist speech http://www.danielhulmemp.com/speeches/20090305.html where he outlines the turn around that has attracted people to invest in this state rather than for our kids to be our “export”. Lennon of course will be particularly pleased with OCG spokesperson support for his Southwood vision in the Murdoch press!

    Love Rita

  17. George Harris aka woodworker

    January 6, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    I am still waiting for responses to my posts #61 and #71.
    Don’t tell me I’ve managed to shut you all up!

  18. Chris

    January 6, 2010 at 11:10 am

    re:#89
    Russell
    I am not sure why my occupation is relevant though my career includes one long period of miserable unemployment. All the stats are: the most recently available; from reputable sources; accepted by all sides of politics as indicators of Tasmanian progress; easily accessible from the one site, viz:www.ttbenchmarks.com.au

  19. Justa Bloke

    January 5, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    Thanks, Bazzabee, but I’m not waiting for anything except an answer to my question. I’m certainly not expecting any ‘cataclysmic change’ to roll across anywhere anytime. And as for ‘Lenin, Mao and Trotskey (sic)’ I wouldn’t give you tuppence for any of them. I’m a capitalist, but unlike the ALP and its supporters, I’m not keen on big business dictating to everyone.

    Perhaps I could rephrase my question: What can we realistically expect in the next Tasmanian Parliament except more of the same: a combination of corruption, incompetence and impotence?

  20. Bazzabee

    January 5, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    postings 62 & 87 NO nothings changed and in a revolutionary sense nothing will change later this year either at the State or Federal levels. Change is as we know the only thing apart from death that we can be certain of and for many even that date of our death keeps getting pushed back. I am unsure how long Justa Bloke has been waiting for the revolution and the cataclysmic change that will roll across the nation my guess would be since the 1960’s, I sense an old lefty hiding behind the name.

    If I might make a suggestion, comrade Justa Bloke could try, while he bides his time waiting for his Lenin, Mao or Trotesky to save us all, taking up a hobby – poetry I find tends to ease the savage and tortured beast it worked for Orwell in Spain and it worked for many a young officer and gentleman on the Somme. In Flanders fields and all that…

  21. Russell

    January 5, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    Re #86
    You must be a public servant? Depends how you jiggle the figures, doesn’t it?

    “The number of Tasmanians aged 15 or more who were unemployed and had not had a job that had lasted for 2 weeks or more for twelve months fell from 6,800 in the year 2001 to 2,200 in the year 2008.”

    Depends how you use the numbers. Why are 38% of Tasmanians on welfare of one sort or another? Another reason why these figures may be so is that so many of Tassie’s kids have left the state to find work. Out of the two families I have as closest neighbours (having 3 & 2 offspring respectively), 3 went to the mainland to find work, 1 has a mechanical apprenticeship in Tasmania (which pays almost nothing, but gets charged out at tradesman wages) and the other is a laid-off forestry worker. All completed year 12.

    “The proportion of Tasmanians aged 15-64 who had a qualification at the Certificate 111 or above level (including graduate and post-graduate qualifications) increased from 33% in May 2001 to 44% in May 2009.”

    This is because, to avoid being suspended from welfare payments once you have been on the dole for 12 months (I think, might be 6?) you MUST either find a certain amount of part time work, go back to school, or do a Certificate 111. All it does is juggle the figures to make it look like there are less unemployed and Certificate 111s are about as basic, relevant and worthwhile to most prospective employers as a fart at an interview.

    “The proportion of Tasmanians assessed as eligible for low care residential aged care service who obtained a low care residential aged care service placement within three months of assessment rose from 52.4% in 2001-02 to 65.7% in 2007-08.”

    Probably because there are more chronically ill people (75%) than before.

    “Over the year 2000-01, 73.5 of every 1,000 young people aged 15 to 29 left Tasmania for an interstate or overseas destination for 12 months or more. By the year 2007-08 this had fallen to 61.5.”

    By the time 2007-8 came around they had almost all gone, so there’s not many left here now to make the move. But they’re still leaving. And how many more will be after all the 2008-2010 factory closures?

    “In the twelve months ending in April 2001, an estimated 18% of Tasmanians aged 15 or more had participated in paid or unpaid work in selected cultural and leisure activities. By April 2007 this had risen to 25%.”

    What does that mean?

    “In the year 2000, there were 4,742 hectares of land that was owned or managed by the Aboriginal community. By the year 2009 this had risen to 55,617 hectares.”

    Has already been covered as the only positive so far. And it only took a little more than 200 years to happen. BUT there’s no real thanks to Labor State Government anyway, it’s a Federal matter.

    “Of all requests for information lodged subject to the Freedom of Information Act and decided by State Government agencies during 2001/02, 32.8% were refusals.In 2007-08 this had fallen to 9.7%.”

    Well, after much new introduced Lennon/Bartlett Labor legislation like Section 11, the PMAA and the like, we (in many cases) no longer have a vehicle to use FOI. Besides, Konsie’s shredder’s burning motors like nothing else.

    And, why are you selecting certain years and times of year rather than using the same for all your examples??

    “In the year 2001, Standard and Poors credit rating for Tasmania was AA- . By the year 2009 this had risen to AA+”

    I beg your pardon, what is it now?

    “During the year ending on the 30th June 2002, 1,350 hectares of old growth forest on public land was harvested by the clearfelling method. During the year 2008 this had reduced to 680 hectares.”

    What ‘method’ was used since 2008? Sure still looks like clearfelling to me. Has the definition of “clearfelling” changed since 2002?

    “During 1999-2000 the Department of Primary Industries and Water approved over 15 kilograms of 1080 poison for use. By the year 2008-09 this had been reduced to less than 1 kilogram.”

    Does this include all forms and users of 1080 in Tasmania, eg: Fox Task Farce baits?

  22. Nigella.L

    January 5, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    Thanks Chris, finally someone has taken note of the old Hag’s request for information to attempt to slightly balance some of the never ending negativity and twaddle that has been written in this and the other thread. Definitely long overdue !!!

    So, and with deference to all the usual posters, you might like to cool it a little and take note that there has actually been some improvement in social, economic and even environmental conditions in this State. Sure there is still much room for improvement, but compared to many other countries around the world it is pretty damn good here !!

    Despite all the bad things that have occurred during Labour’s rule, it won’t be any better if the Libs are elected. The Greens simply won’t be elected to govern as the majority of the State’s populace would never entertain such a thought.

    Similarly, I also agree with Justa Bloke’s views that the utopian ideal of a parliament full of fully fledged independant’s with a conscience is exactly that, a pipedream.

  23. Justa Bloke

    January 5, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Pete (#84), have you checked out Tasmania’s brand of independent politicians? Which of them (all democratically elected) would you like to see running the place?

    Anyway, the reality is that we are stuck with party politics in the short to medium term.

    Also, you seem to ignore the very real forces outside Parliament that determine policy.

    What we need are not naive utopian ideas but education and action. Parliament is not designed to deliver either, whoever has their snout in the trough.

    I’m still waiting for an answer to the question I posed in #62.

  24. Chris

    January 5, 2010 at 11:30 am

    Here are some positives for Tasmania fomr the past decade:
    The number of Tasmanians aged 15 or more who were unemployed and had not had a job that had lasted for 2 weeks or more for twelve months fell from 6,800 in the year 2001 to 2,200 in the year 2008.
    The proportion of Tasmanians aged 15 or more felt safe or very safe walking or jogging locally after dark increased from 41% during the year 2001-02 to 64% in 2008-09.
    The proportion of Tasmanians aged 15-64 who had a qualification at the Certificate 111 or above level (including graduate and post-graduate qualifications) increased from 33% in May 2001 to 44% in May 2009.
    The proportion of Tasmanians assessed as eligible for low care residential aged care service who obtained a low care residential aged care service placement within three months of assessment rose from 52.4% in 2001-02 to 65.7% in 2007-08.
    Over the year 2000-01, 73.5 of every 1,000 young people aged 15 to 29 left Tasmania for an interstate or overseas destination for 12 months or more. By the year 2007-08 this had fallen to 61.5.
    In the twelve months ending in April 2001, an estimated 18% of Tasmanians aged 15 or more had participated in paid or unpaid work in selected cultural and leisure activities. By April 2007 this had risen to 25%.
    In the year 2000, there were 4,742 hectares of land that was owned or managed by the Aboriginal community. By the year 2009 this had risen to 55,617 hectares.
    Of all requests for information lodged subject to the Freedom of Information Act and decided by State Government agencies during 2001/02, 32.8% were refusals. In 2007-08 this had fallen to 9.7%.
    In February 2001 female average weekly earnings were 86% of male average weekly earnings. By May 2009 this had risen to 91%.
    In the year 2001, Standard and Poors credit rating for Tasmania was AA- . By the year 2009 this had risen to AA+
    During the year ending on the 30th June 2002, 1,350 hectares of old growth forest on public land was harvested by the clearfelling method. During the year 2008 this had reduced to 680 hectares.
    During 1999-2000 the Department of Primary Industries and Water approved over 15 kilograms of 1080 poison for use. By the year 2008-09 this had been reduced to less than 1 kilogram.

  25. phill PARSONS is beyond salvation

    January 5, 2010 at 10:29 am

    #82 There has never been a liberal Green Accord. the Greens supported the Liberals against no confidence motions and its budget beacause they were the majority party elected, ie the voters wish.

    No formal agreement existed.

    Labor, as a minority opposition could have put up leislation and found it passed. I believe they failed to do so.

    Rundle crossed the Rubicon when he tred to intorduce Resource Security legislation.

    It requires a sophisticated old party to govern full term in a minority and we, on past performance, don’t have one.

  26. Pete Godfrey

    January 5, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Woodworker I agree that a mixed native forest is preferable to monoculture plantations. The advantages that you pointed out are true, especially no need for chemical inputs and fertillizers.
    My problem is that if we cut down rainforest such as I mentioned in the Tarkine,where stands of Myrtle, Sassafras and Leatherwood are clearfelled and then put in eucalypt seeds gathered nearby we are reducing the biodiversity of the region and unnecessarily destroying the minor species timbers that people like you depend on.
    On the issue of Legacy coupes, I still find it difficult to believe that FT have had 16,000ha ( the area the TCFA allowed) of land that was already cleared since before 12/2006 just waiting to be planted out.
    As you know if the coupe has been planned before 12/2006, or roading has begun to the coupe FT still think that they need to convert it.
    To say to the public that conversion has stopped since 12/2006 on public land is not true.
    To be totally honest with people the statement should read.
    No State Forest coupes that are planned or instigated after 12/2006 will be converted to plantations.
    I know to the insiders that they understand that but the general public would think that it all stopped when FT said it stopped. Which of course it didn’t.
    It may need some explanatation if FT ever go for FSC certification as well.
    On your post 61 well I can tell you that I am not the HAG.
    As far as differences between the Lib’s and the Lab’s ,I agree there are some in other states. Not so sure here as I haven’t seen the Lib’s in action or heard what their policies are. I cannot see a day when the Greens govern in their own right either. My ideal government would be made up of mostly independents who were strong willed and actually representing their electorates on the issues they were voting on.
    It would lead to robust debate, more realistic laws ( no rubbish like the PAL policy or Pulp Mill approvals bills or clarification bills) and would force the members to actually listen to each other, to us as well.
    Yep totally utopian but not undemocratic. To me party politics is not a good way to represent democratic process.

  27. George Harris aka woodworker

    January 5, 2010 at 2:18 am

    Pete Godfrey, (post #55 and #80), you have demonstrated that you do not know how to read a report. If you look at page 10 of the Forestry Tas Sustainable Forest Management Data Sheets, (http://www.forestrytas.com.au/uploads/File/pdf/pdf2009/Appendix2_Sustainable-Forest-Management-Data-Tables.pdf) you will see the details of plantations established on previously cleared Native Forest, that is, where harvesting was initiated prior to 31/12/06, which is when the policy was enacted to cease conversion. These are known as the ‘legacy sites’. Work continued on these sites after the cut-off date because they were initiated before the policy came into effect. After that date, no new sites were initiated, but it is reasonable to continue with sites that were initiated before the policy decision was taken.
    If you look at the Forest Practices Authority annual report for 2008/09 on page 20 you will see the following: “Conversion of Native Forest to plantation has effectively ceased on state forest. Almost all conversion since July 2008 is on private land.”
    You need to get a handle on the definitions. A plantation is where plants propagated elsewhere are brought to a site, and inserted into the ground. The application of seed is not a plantation. In regenerated native forest, the practice is to apply seed that has been gathered in the vacinity, as it is known that particular seed source has previously been successful. It compliments, and is complemented by, natural seedfall and wind-blown seed, and seed that is dormant in the ground which is stimulated by disturbance. The net effect is regenerated native forest, which is beautiful, and to my mind, much more preferable than plantations. They are organic, support a thriving natural understorey, do not need chemicals, pesticides, irrigation, (not that plantations are irrigated, either), harbour beautiful native animals and birds, and can be managed for multiple use (including human recreation) for many years before the next cycle of harvesting to meet human needs for timber and fibre and economic prosperity. Even backyard gardens cannot boast that!

  28. Shaun

    January 5, 2010 at 12:28 am

    Jason,

    I am NOT suggesting that the Labor / Green Accord did the wrong thing economically and I am very well aware of the financial circumstances of the time. Indeed that is what first lead to my dislike of the Liberal party – they literally sent the state broke.

    But the debate now isn’t about the Labor / Green Accord of 1989 – 1992. It is about the next government and the four realistically possible outcomes of the next state election, those being Labor, Liberal, Labor-Green or Liberal-Green.

    I doubt that anyone seriously expects the Greens or any other group, other than Labor or Liberal, to actually form majority government – like it or not, reality is that Labor or Liberal will be involved either singly or in partnership with the Greens.

    On that basis, my preference would be for Labor rather than Liberal due to the reasons you’ve outlined plus the experience of the Liberal – Green government of the 1990’s.

    The Liberals very clearly ran the state’s finances into the ground during the 1980’s, that is something I don’t think anyone could possibly argue about as the facts were clear and well known.

    In the 1990’s in government with the Greens, the Liberals stalled on the reforms of the Labor / Green Accord years and continued piling on debt. Meanwhile confidence evaporated and the state’s economy stagnated years after the national economy had commenced recovery.

    On the basis of that, I’d very much prefer Labor rather than Liberal given their track record. Labor has done better economically, both will do much the same environmentally. That makes Labor a better choice as far as I’m concerned.

    Greens? They are unproven in government by themselves, were somewhat positive during the Labor / Green years and were somewhat negative during the Liberal – Green years.

    That suggests to me that the outcome of any government involving partnership with the Greens will largely be determined by the other party. The Greens won’t, for example, stop a Liberal privatisation and outsourcing agenda (they certainly didn’t in the 90’s) and they won’t likely stop Labor deals with unions.

    A Labor-Green government would effectively be a Labor government subject to a few conditions imposed by the Greens. It will do deals with unions and business and so on as it’s always done. And forests will still be logged.

    And a Liberal-Green government would effectively be a Liberal government subject to a few conditions imposed by the Greens. It will pursue an ideologically driven agenda of privatisation and outsourcing regardless of the cost. And forests will still be logged.

    And so I conclude that the key issue is whether the next government is Labor or Liberal. The inclusion of the Greens may well have an influence, either positive or negative, but won’t likely alter the fundamental nature of the Labor / Liberal beast. A forest somewhere might be protected, Metro might run more buses, a few public homes get built and so on at the urging of the Greens but it will still be a fundamentally Labor or Liberal government.

    As I’ve said, Labor is a long way from perfect. But does anyone honestly believe, given the track record over the past 3 decades, that the Liberals would do any better on non-economic issues such as the environment?

    I see the two as being much the same environmentally, but with Labor preferable on economic grounds, hence my preference for Labor over the Liberals.

    Every Labor government the state has had over the past quarter century has tackled the economic issues, that’s something that would be hard to argue with.

    And every Liberal government we’ve had during the same period has either piled on debts or simply stagnated. That’s a pretty stark contrast.

    It’s either Bartlett or Hodgman for Premier, that’s the reality. The only real difference I can see, is that Bartlett will do deals with unions and big business whilst Hodgman will do deals with bankers and big business. Given that situation, I’d rather Bartlett than Hodgman.

  29. Jason Lovell

    January 4, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    Shaun – why do you continue the myth that the Greens were responsible for the ruination of the state economy in the 1990’s via the Labor/Green Accord?

    It is well documented, by people as diverse as Saul Eslake and Michael Field, that Tasmania’s economic downturn duing the 1990’s was caused by external economic issues that were massively magnified in Tasmania by the Gray Government’s virtual bankrupting of the state coffers in the lead up to the 1989 election. When they opened the books post-1989-election, Labor and the Greens found an empty pantry, save for a seriously damaging IOU.

    Honestly Shaun – what were Labor and the Greens supposed to do when they found that Robin Gray’s Liberal Government had more than just spent the state dry, it had also racked up a huge debt on top of that, a debt that required repaying because it was sucking up a huge percentage of Tasmania’s recurrent income to simply service the bloody thing.

    The Gray Government’s reckless spending and huge debt were responsible for the serious downturn in Tasmania’s economy during the 1990’s, and I would challenge you Shaun to come up with some evidence to back up your own continuance of the Liberal and Labor Party’s most beloved Tasmanian myth – that the Labor/Green Accord was actually wholly responsible for the 1990’s downturn.

    Regards,
    Jason Lovell

  30. Pete Godfrey

    January 4, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    Well Woodworker I am still waiting for yourresponse to my answer to your post no.44 My answer to that one is post no 55.
    Still curious as to how you can claim that conversion has ceased in native forests.
    Also the definition of conversion is pretty narrow isn’t it. If a rainforest is clearfelled and only eucalypt seeds planted as happens even today in the Tarkine to me that is also conversion, but I am only using FT figures in my post 55.
    So where is your reply,

  31. Jack Nimble

    January 4, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    Hey Woodworker # 61

    I am certainly NOT a closet Liberal, I have never voted for them in my 65 yrs. I have voted Labor for most of my life.

    My wife and I were so disilusioned with our current Labor party we decided to check out the alternative ( the Greens ).

    We were so impressed with them and their policies we decided to join the Greens.

    We have been to countless meetings and encouraged to help formulate policies etc as all members of the Greens are encouraged to do. For mine the Greens are a party for the people.

    If more people made the effort to seek more information about the Greens and their policies I would be confident the Greens could win majority government.

  32. Jim

    January 4, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    #73 – As do you Jack…. like most extremists, you only see snapshots with one eye open.

  33. pilko

    January 4, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    # Shaun my apologies for getting it wrong re your job and ogilvie. I thought you were Shaun Caris and I’m so sure I’ve heard a bloke by that name doing the traffic reports on ABC hobarts drive programme. My bad and sorry for the offence mate.
    I will get back to you when I have a bit more time at the keyboeard re other points
    cheers
    rick

  34. john hawkins

    January 4, 2010 at 8:17 pm

    Dear Rita,
    Try driving from Deloraine via The Great Lakes to Bothwell above the snowline.As a journalist of repute, a description of the loggable landscape please.If that does not appeal try the approach to Cradle Mountain,or the Liena road with its magnificent plantation views, I venture to suggest that you are treading on dangerous ground.Six million tonnes of chips a year demand an answer from the chippers and their spokeswoman as I personally salute them and wave them goodbye.
    I refer you to my posts on Tas Times 23 1 2009 and 26 1 2009 when I asked another of your persuasion a Julian Amos some similar questions he was unable to reply, over to you Rita?
    Love John

  35. Russell

    January 4, 2010 at 8:12 pm

    Re #71
    Loser

  36. Jack Nimble

    January 4, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    # 72
    Rita, you are just a labor & forestry patsy, full of shit & spin.

    I too have been to the Weld & Picton Valleys as well as the Styx & Florentine and seen the destruction of these forests on a massive scale.

    All I can say is you must have had giant blinkers on, only saw what you wanted to see.

  37. Rita Skeeter

    January 4, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    What a lot more posts since I last looked, I have been away in search of answers for John Hawkins (#36), who was convinced that whilst my figures were correct; the forests in reserves were “above the snowline, or part – buttongrass plains, inaccessible, or unsuitable for logging”, seeing he spent all that money on the advertisement in that rival publication, I thought as an award winning journo, I better investigate.

    So I went to the southern forests, the Huon, the Weld and Picton Valleys, crossed at Farmhouse creek, past the spot where bob brown’s shirt was ripped in front of the National media and the road making machinery and found…

    not scrub, unsuitable for logging, but trees as big as lighthouses, still ready for the sawmill that the Risby brothers spent a family fortune on to provide long term jobs for the then next century. Past these giants, I found magnificent stands of Leatherwood, just some of the two thirds of this species locked up in reserves and no longer accessible to our bee keepers.

    I journeyed north to the Styx and Florentine Valleys to find industrial timber harvesting since the 1930s, as well as tall trees reserved by the forest industry back in the 1950s, and those by the TCFA. To the Upper Weld and the Cole coupes, once described as the tallest trees in the State. Most of these magnificent tall old growth forests were added to the WHA when the original area covering the alpine ecosystem of Cradle Mountain Lake St Clair, the button grass of the South West and the Franklin Lower Gordon Wild rivers NPs was expanded from 769,000 ha to 1,374,000 ha, most of the increase being forest.

    I would have gone to the dry eucalypt forest of the Douglas Apsley National park reserved under the Green labour accord but chose to go to the Valley of the Giants at Beech Creek Counsel river, added as part of the Regional Forest Agreement reserves of 396,000 hectares of public land – most of it forest including at Savage River NP, Tasman NP and Blakes Opening. [Note the independent reviewer criticised mainland states and recommended action for poor reporting of RFA, but at paragraph 10.19 acknowledged that Tasmania had reported on time.]

    Then a quick look into the “Tarkine”, where even more high timber value forest, was reserved by the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement. The new reserves including the rainforest along the iron ore slurry pipeline from Tasmania’s largest open cut mine. The TCFA added 139,500 hectares of public forest to conservation reserves.

    However I called it a day and did not venture to the Interim Biological Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA) region, Ben Lomond, that extends east of the Tamar; to almost the coast (see http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2009/image/203/index.php ) and includes over 15% of its area in reserves.

    Yet I was not able to find the poor quality native forest that John Hawkins alludes to, whilst I am sure that even Forestry Tasmania manages areas of forest outside their production coupes, the vast majority of the reserves created by the WHA extension, the RFA and the TCFA are in fact, forest highly desired by both the conservation movement and the forest industry. If I am wrong I am sure people like the woodworker will have these “poor” forests back!

    I see also on my return someone objects to my use of a non de plume, yet given that this site is already populated by many award winning journos, the strength is the argument presented not the affiliation to a name, just read the Daily Prophet to see the ‘fear’ conjured by a name.

    But if I was a TCA type (comment 53) I would be joining the media throng at the 2 ha clear felled coupe at the rear of Bellerive beach next Thursday, and assessing the social and economic impact of this land clearing. Perhaps other TT contributors will be bushwalking and seeing for themselves our magnificent forest reserves.

    love Rita

  38. George Harris aka woodworker

    January 4, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    Come on! I am waiting for responses to my post #61.
    Have I hit some sensitive spots?
    Where are you, Phill Parsons, Jack Minble, Karl, Pete Godfrey, and the PGB herself?
    Those that needn’t bother include Russell Langfield, John Hayward, and dev

  39. Dave

    January 4, 2010 at 10:48 am

    But Dave I beg to differ with you for your pictures are precisely that, montages of images with words superimposed. They technically are not cartoons despite what you might like to portray yourself as. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news !!

    Perhaps you should find yourself a new career as an Advertising Man, for you surely would be in your element there.

    Oh and as to what has the current Government done that is a positive for the State, well for one they have highlighted just how incompetent all politicians of any pursuasion are.

  40. Dave Groves

    January 4, 2010 at 8:33 am

    I would like to thank those, who have supplied the unbridled swill of fodder, that has enabled me to churn out endless cartoons, and making me look like I know what I am doing.

    Without the ingrained ineptitude that envelopes our overpaid, under productive leadership, cartoons would be redundant, and I would enjoy endless hours of leisure.

    Idle hands are the work of the devil (apparently)

    So here’s a “hip hip hooray” to ya’ll….and you know who you are…

    May your path to oblivion, be lined by those you have touched, and your bumbling, fumbling, ducking and weaving, continue to inspire and delight cartoonists across the state.

  41. Shaun

    January 4, 2010 at 2:34 am

    “51.Gosh Shaun your line sounds like same tripe Madeleine Ogilvies – Labor Party candidate has been sprouting lately. Is she a mate of yours or are you in the same band or something?
    What are you, a Hobart boy Shaun? Arent you the traffic boy in the chopper on the ABC? Is that you. Now thats quite a job (if it is infact you)…”

    1. I’ve honestly never actually heard of Madeleine Ogilvies – I assume she’s a candidate in the upcoming election?

    2. I have never been employed by the ABC or in any job involving helicopters.

    3. Traffic control is a specialised technical / engineering field requiring substantial training and qualification – Google “SCATS”. That system is used throughout Australia and overseas.

    4. My employment contract precludes me from commenting on my present employment. I am a supervisor in the electrical / electronics construction and maintenance field however.

    5. My point is primarily that Tasmania under Liberal / Green was simply not competitive with what was on offer interstate or overseas, hence driving the brightest and best offshore. That was well documented at the time – hence the population loss.

    When was the last time you heard either Liberal or Green talking up the prospects of some employment and wealth creating opportunity for the state? When?

    It’s doom and gloom nearly all the time from these two, to the point that sovereign risk, something normally associated with Third World backwaters, was actually seen as an issue for business in Tasmania during the 1990’s.

    6. I am not personally living in fear of a return to stagnation. I have highly portable qualifications (which I didn’t in 1998) and, in 2010, no real reason to be tied in Tasmania apart from the fact that it presently offers a reasonable lifestyle.

    But I’m very well aware of the situation faced by others – 13% unemployment was a social disaster no matter how you look at it and totally inexcusable.

    It’s all well and good for those living in public housing, retirees and the like to not be concerned about employment. But for young people and families, prolonged unemployment is a life destroying experience. Nobody wishes to see their children finish school and then sit on the dole or work for a pittance.

    The bottom line is that people voted with their feet. We’ve tried the quaint backwater approach and people were leaving whilst the other states boomed. It clearly doesn’t suit the vast majority of Australians – they would have moved to Tasmania if it did.

    Where is the proof that the Greens have dropped their negative attitide and will support business? I see no evidence of this.

    Where is the proof that the Liberals have dropped their defeatest (and sell the Hydro to their banker mates…), doom and gloom attitude and will face the future with confidence? I see no evidence of this.

    That leaves Labor…

  42. Dave

    January 3, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    Re#54 Karl thank you for your posting. I did not mean to indicate that every posting on this blog is negative clearly this is not so, however, and I feel sure that you will agree a high percentage of postings are extremely negative. Some border on the paranoid/psychotic while others seemingly simple float around in the sad minds of the conspiracy theorists.

    Once again thanks, it would be good if some of the other bloggers took your lead and moved from their negative space and tried to be positive for once.

    Maybe it tells us something that they haven’t responded to my suggestion preferring instead to remain shackled by their long standing and non productive negativity.

  43. john hayward

    January 3, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    It’s easy to see what’s going on, Colette. Raising the rate of native forest logging over the same period that wood sales have dropped by 30% has its logic. Soon Woodworker will be taunting folks with “what native forest?”. The crucial cog in the logging machine is called LibLab. It has to be disengaged if you want a recognisable Tasmania.

    John Hayward

  44. Russell

    January 3, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    Re #58
    Your vote is easily bought! Again.

  45. Eagle eye

    January 3, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    This liberal/labour/green thing is such a moronic wank. Sorry people, but it is.
    The truth is that if we even look like getting a government that is going to put a stop to the gravy train that is the rape and pillage of our natural resource base, the real powers that be will find a way to steer the outcome back onto the correct path.
    Argueing about the relative merits of two obviously compliant and one unlikely candidates for the job of handing out our commonly held wealth to the likes of Gunns is a worthless exercise.
    We need to go beyond that and figure out a way of getting a government focussed on and capable of dealing with the threats and opportunities ahead of us.
    A start would be to collectively ask those standing for election what policies they would use to address the outstanding targets laid out in Tasmania Together, an apperntly stillborn child of the Bacon government.

  46. Justa Bloke

    January 3, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    I’m sick of all you wankers who think the coming election will improve things as long as we vote for your candidates.

    Whoever gets in will continue to rule over us poor subjects without giving a stuff about us. Whoever gets in will receive a huge salary plus perks while people like me earn less than the pension. Whoever gets in will be able to hide corrupt practices sufficiently well to avoid criminal charges (note I say ‘be able to’ – some will be too naive or stupid to avail themselves of this opportunity). Whoever gets in will do what they are told by big business, especially Gunns and Federal Hotels.

    Or has something changed in recent weeks? Is the recurring pattern of varying combinations of corruption, stupidity and impotence which has made up the political history of this island for the last 200+ years about to be broken by some force which I am the only person who is unaware of?

  47. George Harris aka woodworker

    January 3, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    So who are Hag (PGB) and her mates, then?
    Are they Greens who want to be Green and only Green? How realistic is that? Are they just gushing nonsense, and dreaming of a day when the Greens will have an absolute majority on their own, and Labor and the Liberals will have less than a majority between them? They might dream of such a day, but I cannot imagine it, ever. Certainly not with the Greens presenting as anything like they do at the moment. Their ideas would have to shift massively to suit the electorate, as I cannot imagine the electorate shifting sufficiently to give the Greens such a majority.
    So therefore, do they not realize there is considerable difference between Labor and the Liberals on many significant areas of policy, and a choice between them is important?
    Or are they really closet Liberals, who actually want a change from Labor to Liberal in the party that has the ministerial portfolios? And are they actually happy with the Liberals’ huge goose-step to the right, in which boy wonder Will Hodgman is smothered by the Abetz/Abbott axis of evil, and all the climate-change scepticism that goes with it? (and what about that strange brand of christianity that seeks to turn away boat loads of refugees, in contravention of the UN Charter for Refugees?)
    Come on! I’m interested to know…

  48. phill PARSONS is beyond salvation

    January 3, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Until the Rundle government tried the Greens beyond breaking point the Greens supported them because they were the largest party in the lower house and therefore they represented the expressed wish of the Tasmanian voters.

    The Greens did not vote for all Liberal legislation and nor did they hold any positions on the government benches. Some seem not to understand that once legilation becomes law that the government does not need parliamentary approval. It is why that vehicle is importnat in getting legislation ‘right’.

    The Greens must accept the changes they supported or won from the Liberals but can only be saddled with what they were not responsible for by the muddled, ill informed and disingenuous.

    Woodworker is right in pointing out the programs that Labor initiated 11 years ago. Its evedince that a change is not all bad just like the current administration isn’t either.

    The question is which change takes account of the future, as much as it is knowable.

  49. Ian Rist

    January 3, 2010 at 4:47 am

    Whoa Whoa Re # 44. Ended the use of all 1080 in public forests ? ?
    What about all the 1080 fox bait signs plastered all over state forests ? ?
    Steady on there woodworker. You know and I know the fox is one of the excuses to keep using 1080 on public lands.
    When your mate Big Red said that there would be no more 1080 used on public lands and state forest after the end of 2005 he didn’t tell us that a sunset clause would exempt the fox task farce.
    Sucked in everyone including the Greens.

  50. haz

    January 3, 2010 at 4:46 am

    This series of posts has done the unthinkable – made the Labor Party an attractive proposition. If being against the government means being with the vicious spewers of bile on this site then I don’t know where to go. Rita Skeeter’s posts are clear, calm, and persuasive – someone with time on their hands (someone who can afford to sit and watch the boards for their comments to come through for example) should do some research and reply in kind. If I was going to vote on the basis of what I’ve read here (I’m not, but you get the idea) I would definitely vote Labor rather than anyone suggested by the TT fans.

  51. George Harris aka woodworker

    January 3, 2010 at 12:47 am

    Not only that, Karl, (#48). However, the second line was edited out,(breached the code), leaving only the first being posted.
    If Karl were to express an interest in what I wrote, I could email it to him personally…

  52. sanguine

    January 2, 2010 at 11:22 pm

    Woodworker Darling – what headspace are you in?
    Do you really talk to your own – or any other -children like this? Reality is kids see through bulls..t quicker than any adult and consign same said adult to the BS pile.
    Good try – no bananas!

  53. Pete Godfrey

    January 2, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    Woodworker you are at it again.If you bothered to read the tripe that FT call their Stewardship Report you would find that they actually converted 2191 ha of native forest to plantations last financial year as well as re planting about 1200 ha of plantations they cut down.
    If you read the 2007/8 GBE hearing in hansard you would find that they converted approx 3500 ha of native forest to plantations that year also.
    So please get your facts right and stop peddling the industry’s lies to us.
    Some of the things you listed as labor positives were indeed good deeds; what bothers most of us on this site is the corruption and mates’ deals that go on.

  54. Mark

    January 2, 2010 at 9:20 pm

    Dave, I’m not a member of the Greens nor do I believe my comment (assuming it is one of the 50 you read) was negative. Council amagalmation is a budgetary efficency in dire need of full implementation.

    Some other policies I would like for the future include:
    1. Increasing the retention rate for secondary education into Year 12. This may require national integration into an IT initiative similar to the old Correspondence (Airwaves) School in regional Australia.
    2. Increased Commonwealth Public Service employment in Hobart for Tasmania’s youth integrated with tertiary education programs. Small business growth will accompany increased disposable income.
    3. A scientific, environmental and economic based forest industry without myriads of exemptions.
    4. Regional medical centres integrated with specialist hospitals located in Hobart, Launceston and Melbourne-Sydney.
    5. A Crime Commission of some value beyond “ethics.”
    6. Peak hour public transport initiatives.

    I’m not fussed about tax cuts. One cannot have the above without money. I believe all of the above are achievable by a competent government.

  55. pilko

    January 2, 2010 at 8:29 pm

    Rita you are TCA person..right? Why not write under your real name. Ashbarry (whom we know is Cinders)? Chipman? Down? one of the other yokels from the Lefroy or interlaken branch of TCA?
    Out you come tiger.

  56. Peter Bright

    January 2, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    Colette,

    One answer to this terrible problem lies in the refusal of the workers themselves to be used for illicit purposes.

    With the courage to get out of evil industries, and with the support of other workers via state assistance, these workers could be provided with superb passports into a far better life through retraining.

    The Greens don’t offer hardships to the forest workers; they offer OPPORTUNITY!

    Blessed be they who accept it.

  57. pilko

    January 2, 2010 at 7:39 pm

    Gosh Shaun your line sounds like same tripe Madeleine Ogilvies – Labor Party candidate has been sprouting lately. Is she a mate of yours or are you in the same band or something?
    What are you, a Hobart boy Shaun? Arent you the traffic boy in the chopper on the ABC? Is that you. Now thats quite a job (if it is infact you)
    Anyway Shaun, I reckon you should take a trip to vietnam or cambodia or some other third world country and tell them your sob story about not being able to work because of the government of the day.
    In those places you either find something to do and some way to make a living or you live on the streets with the dogs. People in those countries dont have the luxury of being able to AFFORD to leave their country.
    Folks on the left and right of politics in Tasmania could argue that bad government is driving them out of the state in Tasmania.
    Pollution, war, dangerous living conditions and mass unemployment drive people away. Where are these things in Tasmania? I would argue that there are cases of people exposed to pollution and dangerous living conditions in Tasmania bought about by government. There are also remote rural communities with high levels of unemployment. However in a wealthy place like Tasmania where even with relatively higher unemployment there are still many opportunities to further careers including via mature age tertiary education your sob story sounds a little contrived. Get some perspective tiger.

  58. colette

    January 2, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    What the fuck is going on with the landscapes around Cradle Mountain? Plantations, landclearing, monocultures all on the edge of the World Heritage Area. It’s extremely disturbing driving through there and seeing such relentless forestry activity. Stop in at the Mole Creek Pub, and the locals are cottoned onto this destructive practice all too well and talk of rapacious companies, contractors that think its shit but can’t talk for fear of losing job, international markets demanding something more ethical and how it works so much better in NZ.

    I despair when our Heritage Jewel is bastardised.

    We can’t even look after what we’ve got – so how on earth can we credit Labor with doing good things. It’s all new, new, new with Barto and his lot. Can’t look after what we’ve got. This will be Tasmania’s legacy.

  59. Shaun

    January 2, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Bottom line Jack is that I wouldn’t be sitting here in Tasmania right now if the Liberal / Green mob had remained in power.

    I’m not rich, I need a job to survive and can’t afford to be on the dole. That’s reality. Years after the national recession ended, Liberal / Green were still fumbling around with massive unemployment, population loss and the state slowly going broke.

    I was literally two days away from committing to leaving when the election was called. I stuck around, hopefull that Lib/Green would be given the boot and that’s what happened. The shackles came off business, things started happening and jobs became easier to get. Over a decade later and I’m still here.

    Liberal / Green had more than enough time to fix Bass Strait shipping, fix the energy situation, get the shops open, get investment flowing and so on. They blew it and I haven’t forgotten.

  60. Philip Lowe

    January 2, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    Woodworker,I used to think that Paul Lennon was full of shit and then I found that there was a tiny air bubble at the top.So I was wrong wasn’t I?Come on mate,labour have had a fair go and they have run out of decent ideas,fair go,the Libby Blues Brothers haven’t got any either.The Green Brigade have some good ideas but they are all mixed up with unrealistic idealism.Bugger!!!!!

  61. Dave

    January 2, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Having read my way through more than fifty extremely negative and all too frequently personally vilifying postings from people who clearly look to the a Green future with eager anticipation and a great deal of hope in their hearts I would ask you all why don’t you put your agenda before us here on this web site. Break the cycle of negativity go positive seize the future make it yours.

    Please tell us what the future you are looking so passionately to will look like? It’s oh so easy to carp, whinge, complain even attack but negativity how well structured and how ever much it may be based on experience won’t take any party into government and nor should it.

    Voters deserve to have a positive agenda for change placed before them and this should be done well in advance of an election not sprung on them after winning after all isn’t that what transparency is all about?

    So for those of us who are interested and I for one am, so please tell us what your hoped for tomorrow will be like?

    Dave

  62. George Harris aka woodworker

    January 2, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    Like some more examples of Tasmanian ALP government achievements ignored by the PGB, (Hag), and many tt tossers? Try these on for size:

    Engaged Professor Paolo F Ricci, PhD, LLM University of Queensland ( ENTox, National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology) to review of the Bleaney and Scammell report on environmental problems at Georges Bay, St Helens. This expert found that the report “lacks scientific credibility”

    Introduced a program to monitor Tasmanian water catchments for a range of herbicides and other pesticides in January 2005, despite sampling 55 sites over 20 times the last results published for Sep 2009, no pesticides have been found that meet or exceed the Health value set by the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.

    Reduced the clear felling of old growth forests in State forests to only 810 hectares in 2008/09.

    Ended the use of 1080 in all public forest.

    Ended the practice of converting native forest to plantation in 2007. (Some do not understand that harvesting native forest and then replacing it with re-generated native forest is quite different to replacing it with plantations. Some don’t understand the difference between state forest and private forest)

    Hosted a Reactive Monitoring Mission of the UNESCO, World Heritage Centre who inspected the WHA and saw the representation of old growth forest, including of the tall Eucalyptus forest within the area covered by the TWWHA and its management plan, as well as in the other reserves in Tasmania. It also found “the fact that potential threats from production forestry activities are well managed”, the mission did not recommend any change to the boundaries of the property to deal with such threats.

    Defeated Bob Brown in the full federal Court over his Wielangta Wank, and exposed the difference between the standards of propriety he demands from others compared to those he seeks for himself.

    Like some more?

  63. dev

    January 2, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    Shaun, you’re kind of vague on specifics there, old chum. Good to see the prozac’s kicking in, though.

    Woodworker, you smell like pooh.

  64. Peter Rundall

    January 2, 2010 at 11:58 am

    John Hawkins (#36) writes that Rita Skeeta’s numbers appear to add up despite shaky foundations. Like John, I do not question the reporting or arithmetic within Rita’s narrow framework. The starting point is another matter. The interpretation is just as narrow. To the uninformed newcomer who looks no further than the press release, the figures may look as impeccable as they do to the forest industry.

    John highlights THE BATTLEGROUND. Follow any road or track through State Forest or private land to higher ground that is not specifically protected. As you climb into headwater catchments the clearfell (or near-clearfell) increases. Plantations are ubiquitous. They drape seemingly impossible slopes. Original streamlets are nowhere to be seen. Barren gullies merge into ridges. Only the mountain scree and rocky ravines remain intact. Collateral damage lies ready to be burned. The prime spoils of the battleground are the grandparent gums remaining in the headwater gullies. Here lies more loot for the taking. No need to grow, build or create a single thing in order to cash in.

    Then, what IS left, Rita, beyond acreages on a map (deemed residual forest)? Would you drink from plantation run-off? Would you bring up kids on a neighbouring farm? Would you pick a safe time of day to drive the kids to the school bus stop? Would you find any but timber workers in the local pub? These realities don’t show up on a forestry map. They are lost in carefully contrived figures that cannot be refuted within their misleading scope. They come with love from Rita.

  65. Jack Nimble

    January 2, 2010 at 9:58 am

    # 38
    Come on Shaun, do you dance with the fairies at the end of the garden, or just eat the magic mushrooms.
    Have a good look at the posts above, I don’t see any good points. The labor party are a mob of corrupt red necks in a position of power which they have abused to the fullest.

  66. George Harris aka woodworker

    January 2, 2010 at 2:29 am

    You are full of shit, Karl.

  67. Shaun

    January 2, 2010 at 1:24 am

    Nothing could possibly be worse than the late-1990’s doom and gloom Liberal/Green government. All doom, all the time and no light at the end of a very long tunnel whilst the rest of the country prospered.

    Labor isn’t perfect that’s for sure. But at least they’ve given me a credible means of remaining in the state which is more than the Liberal / Green mob were even attempting.

    Not perfect, but at least Tasmanians now have jobs and the state isn’t bankrupt, meaning that we have choices for the future now rather than succumbing to serfdom forever.

    Credit where it’s due. A lot of faults certainly, but some good points too.

  68. Sos

    January 1, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    All three Premiers put up with our constantly and consistently relentless nagging for a better and fairer Tasmania.

    They didn’t hear us, but at least they listened.

  69. John Hawkins

    January 1, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    Dear Rita,

    It comes down to interpreting the figures. I am sure your numbers are correct, but they have been cleverly concocted to deceive.

    I am currently looking into the GBE, Private Forests Tasmania , which states that 49.5 per cent of Tasmania is forested with two types of forest, Native (3,135,000ha) and Plantation (217,409ha).

    The question is how many of these hectares of Native Forest are above the snowline, or part – buttongrass plains, inaccessible, or unsuitable for logging; hence placed by your side of the fence, in Reserves ?

    With your intimate knowledge of the subject, I am expecting an accurate answer.

    I suggest that the majority of Protected Forest in Reserves is in fact scrub, unsuitable for logging, hence suitably protected to look good within your figures.

    What is in dispute is the desirable wood-pulp producing forest visible on the slopes of Tasmania’s mountains, below the snowline and adjoining tourist roads.

    THIS IS THE BATTLEGROUND.

    Take the Ben Lomond region; a disaster area from the air. The Annual R eport of the Forest Practices Authority notes that they have logged since 1996, 25 per cent of the existing threatened Inland E amygdalina forest and 20 per cent of the E Amygdalina Forest on sandstone. How can this be when its status is given as rare, threatened, and endangered?

    Answer? It is saleable. Further it is given away by the forest authorities in Tasmania to closely allied timber giants.

    I am currently researching Private Timber Reserve, an area which provides much ammunition for debate over the battleground.

    And I look forward to your intelligent, articulate reply.

  70. Jack Nimble

    January 1, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    There are two positives for the labor party I can think of.

    I’M BLOODY POSITIVE I HAVE HAD A GUTS FULL OF THE SKUM LABOR PARTY, AND I AM POSITIVE I WILL BE VOTING GREEN AT THE NEXT ELECTION.

  71. dev

    January 1, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    Dear Rita,

    It’s not so much that you spew forth spin and bullshit, that’s to be expected. It’s just that what you’re cut and pasting is so obviously spin and bullshit that it’s rather insulting. Surely you’re not even convincing yourself, though woodpants might just be simple enough to be taken in, but let’s face it, he hasn’t really got a mind to change.

    Honestly, before you cut and paste your bullshit again, give it a ruin past the spinners if they haven’t had a crack at it already. It’s what they’re paid for and it really needs work.

  72. Daniel Ferguson

    January 1, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    I’m sure there were some positives, weren’t there?
    Oh yes, here’s one, they showed us with incredible clarity, why we need to remove both labor and liberal parties from the responsible tasks of being in government and ‘opposition’ respectively. They have both shown us how inept they are at performing these relatively simple tasks. Also, (a second plus) imagine how much harder it would have been for bloggers to fill the posts of the previous article without the copious amounts of material available. Also got read the comments from their supporters. Unbelievable, and probably a negative, sorry.

  73. George Harris aka woodworker

    January 1, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    There are many positive contributions that have been made by three successive Labor governments in Tasmania since 1998. Not only will I list some of them, but I will remind you of what a deep, dark hole the place was in during the last days of the Rundle/Groom governments. During part of that time, the Libs were kept alive in minority government with the active compliance of the Greens! Unemployment was the highest in the country, key economic indicators were significantly below the national average, homosexuality was on the statute books as an illegal activity, and John Howard had an active experiment in work choices to look at, in the form of Groom’s Part 1V a Industrial Relations legislation. Wage levels were well below the national average, there were no interesting jobs on offer, there was net population loss, and Tasmania was a place young people left as soon as they could.
    With the election of the Bacon government in 1998, the transformation began immediately, and the state is a vastly different place. And, it was done without selling the Hydro, as was believed the Libs were contemplating. Apparently their policy was to sell out the next level of communications technology before the possibilities were there to be capitalized upon.
    The Labor government immediately launched a series of industry audits, which were crucial in formulating long term plans for economic development. Innovations initiatives were put in place to stimulate the private sector, but significant government initiatives got the ball rolling. The new ferries have had a major impact. Visitor numbers to the state have practically doubled, from less than half a million to now almost a million visitors a year. Tourism turnover, and numbers employed illustrate this. The Arts have boomed in the last ten years. Ten Days on the Island, and other arts initiatives have made the arts scene unrecognizable from what it was, and there is a major redevelopment of the Tas Museum and Art Gallery in the detail planning stage, with projected cost of $30 million.
    The Tasmania Together initiative was a bold community planning exercise which will guide community development and provide benchmarks to the year 2020, even though less than two per cent of the population actively participated in its early deliberations.
    The Labor government was the first in the country to embark on reconciliation with the indigenous community, and made an historic apology, and gave compensation and the return of land. The Labor government removed the criminal status from homosexuality, and worked hard to achieve a reversal of the homophobic image of Tasmania, not only from within Australia, but internationally. The Relationships legislation placed Tasmania in a leading position in the country. The Labor government has done much to overcome discrimination in all its forms, and has put significant law reform in place. It has made major reform of residential tenancies legislation.
    Labor always has had strong social policy, but it well understands that good social policy is much more possible in a strong economy, and that includes having strong resource-based industries as well as anything else. No one connected with Labor is going to be apologising for that!
    So who is Hag really, or who does she represent? Is it a closet Liberal? Is it a loony Green who thinks they should be running the place, but can’t grasp electoral realities? When will Hag realise that not only can neither party work with them, but on crucial issues affecting resource-based industries, such as forestry, both will combine to defeat any stupid Greens initiatives? And what is all this name-calling bullshit? What is this Backdoor Backflip Barty stuff? Do you think that helps your cause? If you think it is OK to go on like that, I will start referring to Hag as the Pathetic Grizzling Bitch.

  74. james walker

    January 1, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    I racked my brains for ages and was going to say the sale of Hobart Airport for
    $350 million. So many dud contracts were done in the last decade. The Brighton Army barracks and Transport Tas site Collins street sales were absolute stinkers.
    So $350 million for Hobart Airport was a good price and a well timed sale.
    Although I do have miniscule RBF super account. RBF teamed up with Macquarie to buy it. Just as with water and sewerage reforms I managed to get fleeced by the process.

  75. Philip Lowe

    January 1, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Bloody hell Rita,you do go on a bit.

  76. phill PARSONS is beyond salvation

    January 1, 2010 at 10:16 am

    And so Garrett rejects the Hawke recommendations on improving forest management instead preferring the system that resulted in recommendation 38 of the Hawke report to remain in place to avoid a shit storm from the venal vested interests

    “”Additionally, the Government notes the concerns raised by Dr Hawke in recommendation 38 in the review regarding the current mechanisms in the Act for forest management under Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs), and is committed to working with state governments to improve the review, audit and monitoring arrangements for RFAs, including their timely completion, clearer assessment of performance against environmental and sustainable forestry outcomes, and a greater focus on compliance of RFAs in the intervening years,” Minister Garrett said. The Government intends to use upcoming RFA renewal processes to improve the achievement of these outcomes in future RFAs. In light of this, the Government rejects the mechanisms proposed in recommendation 38 and does not propose to review section 38 of the EPBC Act as it currently applies to RFAs.

    The Government recognises that the RFA’s contain extensive review mechanisms as a framework for continuous improvement and it will principally rely on them to address the issues that Dr Hawke’s review has identified.”

    http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/garrett/2009/mr20091221.html

    Further in relation to grennhouse Garrett says

    “”Dr Hawke’s Final Report also makes a recommendation in relation to a proposed ‘greenhouse trigger’. This recommendation has a direct bearing on the Government’s response to climate change, and to the CPRS Bill that will be reintroduced into Parliament on 2 February 2010. ” “For this reason, I feel it is important that we make clear the Government’s policy on this recommendation now. The Government favours a market-based system to reduce our greenhouse emissions, and for that reason if the CPRS is passed there will be no need for a greenhouse trigger to be introduced, even as an interim measure. This is entirely consistent with Dr Hawke’s intention.””

    Indicating the ld AGO measures under Kyoto have become dated and not relevant to emerging policy

  77. George Harris aka woodworker

    January 1, 2010 at 12:24 am

    Re #21, Peter, I know her well. Her figures are beautiful, and her own figure is, well, more voluptuous than cute, but that is OK for a more mature person. While more quiet and reserved as a personality, I can say, from my own observations, there is a fire smouldering within!
    I can also say she does not suffer fools at all, and while her responses are measured and considered, and backed up by impecable sources, she has the intelligence and capability to metaphorically circumcise, fundamentally, the tossers that ejaculate all over this site!
    Go Rita!
    You should admit when you are beaten, as you clearly are!

  78. Russell

    December 31, 2009 at 10:30 pm

    Re #23
    Is it just me, or do you just copy and paste the same thing over and over in the (politicians’) belief that “if you tell the same lie often enough, eventually they’ll believe you”?

  79. Rita Skeeter

    December 31, 2009 at 7:25 pm

    Now steady on Philip Lowe, if I was a statistician I would count the letters in the word, rather than as an award winning journo, know how to spell it.

    Yet you dismiss the figures quoted, to support the outstanding environmental achievements of the Tasmanian government, by quoting another writer that uses a well known non-de-plume, who may have copied and pasted this famous quote from a British Prime minister.
    [Note: Mark Twain’s quote of Benjamin Disraeli’s “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” refers to the persuasive power of numbers, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions.]

    The figures quoted earlier are also just copied and pasted from official Government reports that have been published and stood the test of public scrutiny. They are independent, unlike Karl’s critique that relies on his own web site and mathematic wizardry. They are certainly not written by spin doctors, or even award winning journos but by qualified experts in their relevant fields.

    For those unable to find the figures though their skill at using the internet, perhaps a look at page xi of Sustainability Indicators for Tasmanian Forests 2001-2006 http://www.dier.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/34744/200720INDICATORS20REPORT_FINAL202420May202007.pdf
    Then table 10 of Australian national greenhouse accounts State and Territory Greenhouse Gas Inventories May 2007 http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/climate-change/~/media/publications/greenhouse-acctg/state_territory_inventory.ashx

    Readers need to compare Tasmania’s achievements with the IUCN and WWF target of 10% forest reservation and that of International biological diversity conventions. Only recently the independent reviewer of the Commonwealth’s environmental law, found:
    “ As a consequence of the Tasmanian RFA, 79 per cent of old growth forest and 97 per cent of high quality wilderness is in reservation. This exceeds the global target of effective conservation of 10 per cent each of the world’s ecological regions, set out under the Convention for Biological Diversity’
    Dr Allan Hawke and his ‘expert’ panel also commented that “These achievements, which often go overlooked or unremarked in debate, deserve greater public recognition.”
    Judging from the reaction to my earlier post, more budding contributors should read these references including Chapter 10 of Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
    Love Rita

  80. Justa Bloke

    December 31, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    Mark (#19), because we would have either Mayor Bartlett or Mayor Hodgman. At least local government gives some semblance of community control.

  81. Peter Rundall

    December 31, 2009 at 1:05 pm

    People can read between the lines. Rita’s figures are revealing in ways that she does not appear to grasp. What is a forest by industry reckoning? What is a viable reserve? What of those forests and species not even claimed to be protected? What is a piece of a piece worth? What if we applied base-line studies to remnant forest communities? – What quality, the water? Rita has done a lot of homework to produce one number-strewn industrial insight that looks good to one community sector. In her own words, that is her perception of love.

  82. Philip Lowe

    December 31, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    Rita Skeeter,meter maid,
    something has come between us.
    You have remimnded me of the famous one liner,
    There are lies,damn lies and statistics.
    Are you a statistition?

  83. Mark

    December 31, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    Council amalgamation was started but needs much more. Perhaps, we only need the Municipality of Tasmania?

  84. Anne Layton-Bennett

    December 30, 2009 at 10:37 pm

    I’m with amyb #9. A clean, white page with no comments would be much more eloquent. As well as being completely accurate. Other than the indigenous land handback this govt has done nothing except waste taxpayers’ money. Roll on March 20th.

  85. Justa Bloke

    December 30, 2009 at 6:00 pm

    This government deserves praise for the following:

    Not having fully privatised Port Arthur
    Not having closed down the university

    And there’s probably something else, but I can’t think of it right now.

    In the long run, though, I’m predicting that it will be remembered fondly when we have discovered that all future governments will have been even worse.

  86. dev

    December 30, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    Rita, the main reason that your incomprehensible concoction of spin and bullshit doesn’t get reported is because it is self-evidently an incomprehensible concoction of spin and bullshit. I know that any attempt to make it more comprehensible will make it even more obviously spin and bullshit but surely some of the minders in the premier’s office could earn their keep and give it a bit of an edit.

  87. phill PARSONS is beyond salvation

    December 30, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    Its a funny old world Rita. Only the Private reserves can produce an economic benefit if Carbon Trading comes in. The other reserves, not being liable to forestry activities I understand will not be able to be carbon traded under the proposed new rules.

    So whilst intrinsically goood it does nothing to underpin the price of wood product by giving it a Carbon value.

    The positive you try to paint has been undertaken because of community pressure, not simply because it is inherently the correct thing to do.

  88. P Burns

    December 30, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    Reinforced the wealth of the Farrell Family, added approximately $2billion to their wealth without making them live up to their side of the contract. Sold them 3 of the 4 state icons, Freycinet, Cradle Mountain and Strahan. This is the ALP redistributing wealth their own way, as ever giving it to people who least need it.

  89. salamander

    December 30, 2009 at 1:33 pm

    A government that squeezes what money it can out of the populace may have forced us to be more innovative as we have to manage on less.

    The pulp mill has brought many people together to work for a common good. The results are yet to be realised, but it has given us the potential to be a more community-based society.

    Thousands have visited the forests, who would never have thought of going there before.

    The degredation and neglect of our roads may eventually force us to slow down, so perhaps the next year will have lower accident statistics.

  90. Rita Skeeter

    December 30, 2009 at 11:55 am

    Budding journalists that seek to take up Hag’s challenge need to look no further than the twin environmental achievements of the Bacon, Lennon, Bartlett Governments in reserving forest of high conservation value and reducing the State emissions of Greenhouse gas.
    The Sustainability indicators for Tasmanian Forests 2001-2006 state very clearly using independent and verifiable figures:
    “Forest tenure changes, particularly the creation of additional CAR reserves from State forest under the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement (TCFA) in 2005 [Lennon’s Legacy], have caused the total area of mature forest in conservation reserves to increase at the expense of State forest.
    Implementation of the comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) reservation framework agreed under the RFA has resulted in an extended system of public and private terrestrial CAR reserves.
    Within this framework, 1,465,000 hectares of forested land, or 47.0 per cent, of Tasmania’s native forests, are now protected, compared with the 1996 reserved extent of 977,900 hectares or 30.5 per cent.
    This is an increase in reservation of 487,100 hectares, or 48.8 per cent since 1996, and of 194,000 hectares, or 15.3 per cent, since 2001.
    In addition to the reservation of 1,417,000 hectares of native forest on public land, 48,000 hectares of forest on private land have been protected. Of the 50 native forest communities, 35 have at least 15 per cent of their estimated pre-1750 extent protected in reserves.
    Within the reserve system 973,000 hectares of old growth forest, or 79.2 per cent of Tasmania’s old growth forests, are now protected, including 9,000 hectares on private land. This is an increase of 291,000 hectares since 1996 and 122,000 hectares since 2001. Of the 42 old growth forest communities, 32 have at least 60 per cent reservation.”

    The Department of Climate Changes State greenhouse gas inventories for 2007 Table 10: Tasmania’s CO2 equivalent emissions 1990 – 2007 show a reduction of 23.9% by the State.
    This is more than the target set by Government for its Emissions Trading Scheme and short term goals of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
    Sadly the reporting of these facts is no longer a prerequisite of award winning journalism, all effort seems to be directed at discrediting the Government regardless of who is in power. Some reporters might even remember that these achievements were made when the Liberals were the Federal Government.
    Love, Rita

  91. amyb

    December 30, 2009 at 11:41 am

    Being that Hag already has a current thread on the stuff-ups of this band of incompetents, d’you think that simply leaving the comments box in this thread empty would have been the smarter response?

    It certainly would have said more.

  92. Russell

    December 30, 2009 at 11:16 am

    Hang on!

    In the posts so far, the only positive thing the Bacon/Lennon/Bartlett Labor Government has actually done in the past 11 years is hand back some land to Indigenous Tasmanians.

    For the life of me I can’t think of another, other than I’ve already posted, and I’ve given it a lot of time and thought. It seems everyone else is facing this same dilemma.

    Where are the “in-the-majority” voters (like Bonham, woodworker, Max Chugg, Bogus Fiasco, Bazzabee, etc.) to contribute some examples?

  93. Pete Godfrey

    December 30, 2009 at 8:23 am

    Innovative uses of the Judicial System.
    Particularly the Pulp Mill Assessment Act, the PAL policy that is designed to get normal voters moved off their valuable potential plantation land. The ways that the judiciary were used to let mates off criminal charges.
    Innovative appointments to help mates who helped mates.
    Innovative ways to spend vast sums of public money ($34 million on Elwick Racecourse)
    Great ways to foster monopolies,
    The Three Capes Walking track to help Federal Hotels gain a monopoly on the area.
    Massive Subsidies to Gunns ltd.
    Innovative uses for government offices in turning them into ministries for mis information.
    Apart from that can’t think of anything that the government has done well. As the public service actually do the work and the politicians are really supposed to listen to us and represent us they have failed totally in every area.
    Maybe some of the labour hacks will come up with some positives.
    I guess you could say that Sturgo paying a landscape company to take away valuable rail resources is innovative. In every other state these assets are tendered for an they pay the government to take them away.

  94. john hayward

    December 30, 2009 at 12:21 am

    This trinity of worthies has taken Tasmania to levels of de facto privatisation of both economy and government such as the world has never seen. We need Jack Johnston back to help finish the hand-over.

    John Hayward

  95. pilko

    December 29, 2009 at 11:48 pm

    The Premier rides a bike. It is a Trek mind you. But it is a bike nevertheless. I also think Barty’s obvious skills as a gymnast, particularly his backflip is worthy of some mention.
    He has a nice smile (his mum would like me saying that).
    Whilst not having the courage of his convictions to act on it i know that he hates the Gunns Pulp Mill and Bryan Green.
    Bike tracks -yep.
    He got rid of Wriedt. Big big positive.
    Ritchie gone – big positive.
    Integrity Commission.
    He is a ‘lighter version of Lennon’ which is a positive i suppose.
    He rides a bike. Oh i mentioned that.
    He will not be Premier in 3 months – also a positive.

  96. phill PARSONS is beyond salvation

    December 29, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    The Tasmanian Times, a voice for the community.

    At least one Opposition grown out of the community’s desire for a better place to live.

    The Landscape[s], some of which have been saved by community action.

    Protection for Recherche Bay, brought to us by community action.

    An apology to the Indigenous Owners and Custodians. [Although it has now been brought to nowt at Brighton]

    Bicycle ways, limited as they are.

    Offshore wind power potential, as yet untapped.

    Clean, green and clever image to live up to grown out of the desire for a better place to live.

    The climate, for the time being.

    Not much from government or its alternative, as it supplies the basic minimum essentials of a modern society whilst bereft of a future vision beyond more of the same old mistakes.

  97. Russell

    December 29, 2009 at 4:26 pm

    The return of some indigenous land, that Bacon set up.

  98. Divine Brown

    December 29, 2009 at 12:40 pm

    O.K here’s one. How about the former environment ministers innovative use of government vehicles and her driver. Almost worth a movie.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive our newsletter

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top