Letters to papers and pollies have produced personal replies from Doug Parkinson, Labor member for Hobart, leader of Legislative Council, and member of state cabinet:
On 07/01/2010 Jo McRae wrote:
Subject: one small step
Gunns commitment to a plantation-only pulp mill in the Tamar Valley is only one step in the right direction, in a ploy intended to please Sodra, Gunns preferred partner. The determination to maintain the 20 year wood agreement with Forestry Tasmania shows their true intentions, as native forest will continue to be destroyed.
Will our native forests be chipped, or used in the wood-burning power plant, part of Gunns’ claim for a ‘low carbon’ footprint, based on the current lack of value given to preservation of our forests?
Either way, loss of biodiversity and wildlife habitat will continue, particularly while there is no recognition of the difference between native forest and a plantation of anything, or that destruction of our forests is against state and federal laws intended to provide protection to native wildlife habitat.
Importing timber from interstate will result in a more expensive end product, surely making this mill less economically viable against cheaper products from other countries.
So this announcement is hardly good news for Tasmania.
Doug Parkinson’s response:
“Thank God 4 the RFA”
Sent from my iPhone
On 13/01/2010 Jo McRae wrote:
Subject: forestry industry self-destructing
Pulp is stockpiled worldwide, Gunns close saw mills, no ships are expected in Tasmania for weeks for exporting of woodchips, and the state government refuses to contemplate forestry worker support for improving skills and retraining.
Yet Dr Amos says it is the suggested policies for a sustainable forestry industry, promoted by Our Common Ground, which is threatening the destruction of the industry.
Doug Parkinson’s response:
“Thank god 4 the RFA”
Sent from my iPhone
On 25/02/2010 Jo McRae wrote:
Subject: favouritism in government doesn’t pay
If Doug Parkinson doesn’t like ABC’s “Something in the Water” program, he has his own government to blame for it being televised. This issue had previously been presented to government, in a report that was repeatedly peer reviewed – until one person could be found to disagree with the findings, so it could be ignored.
The damage to Tasmania’s reputation has not been done by the ABC, Dr Bleaney or Dr Scammell, but by our own government, too chummy with forestry to be sufficiently impartial to put the people’s health and welfare before self-interest. Small wonder that many want this problem dealt with by someone other than the Environmental Protection Agency, which is attached to a biased government.
Doug Parkinson’s response:
“What a sad analysis, and I must say quite typical of your contributions of more recent times.”
On 01/03/2010 Jo McRae wrote:
Subject: protected for forestry
Mr Bartlett claims Labor has a history of establishing protected areas in Tasmania. Given the ongoing destruction occurring in the Tarkine, Upper Florentine, Styx and Blue Tiers, the recent decision to not protect marine areas around Bruny Island, and the lack of funding for the protection of our many and diverse areas generally, I don’t agree with his good opinion of Labor’s record. Now the Bay of Fires seems to have been protected for forestry: certainly the plan doesn’t benefit anything else, least of all the environment, as two isolated areas unrelated to the beach are now protected, but the area in between is to be logged.
This is a typical Labor ploy: save the areas forestry doesn’t want, to accolades from Labor supporters, while destroying those with high conservation value and tourism potential.
Doug Parkinson’s response
“If Tasmania is the horrible place you keep saying it is, why don’t you leave.”
On 05/03/2010 Jo McRae wrote:
Subject: KRudd says:
Mr Rudd said “On the pulp mill in Tasmania, these other huge projects across the country, I don’t think anyone would fault Peter Garrett’s decision-making processes one bit.”
The destruction of our fisheries, wine and tourism industries will be the fault of whoever gives final approval on this project.
The pulp mill will cause the loss of thousands of jobs and small businesses, adversely affecting people’s livelihood, health, and future security.
I think there is a great deal to fault in the environmental assessment processes that can approve such a disaster.
Printed, SMH, 08 03 10
This was too much for Doug, he is now goading me to respond:
Doug Parkinsons’ response:
Is there anything you ever support.You opposed Bass link; you opposed Gas; you opposed wind farms; you oppose mining;you oppose native forestry; you oppose irrigation dams and pipelines;if you ever got hold of power there would be no industry;and your method of messaging is just plain gutless because you restrict the replies.
My response is to this criticism is:
I object to projects that bypass environmental assessment due to political influence.
I object to state government policy of excluding stakeholders from a say in their own future.
As Doug Parkinson has found it quite easy to reply, I think his last point is easily refuted. He had the choice of email, phone, or snail mail, which surely is enough to suit anyone!
His comment echoes one he made in Parliament on 26th February, when Doug ‘rolled out a list of 10 things he claims the Greens oppose including such broad statements as “the mining industry”, irrigation schemes, most of the forest industry, downstream processing, economic growth and the Legislative Council.’ (See Sue Neales, “It’s Plan B For Labor” Mercury 27 02 10)
Recently Doug Parkinson was requested to meet members of the Florentine Protection Society to discuss the addition of Upper Florentine Valley to our National Parks, but declined as “RFA’s are outside my area”.
On 07/03/2010 Jo McRae wrote:
As long as some politicians promote the fantasy that climate change is something we can choose not to believe in, government can continue to create ineffective policies as a sop to the public demand for action. The result is Australia is lagging behind many developed and developing countries who are already taking action to safeguard their own interests because without a sustainable future, there is no future.
New ‘green’ industries, that will provide the new jobs required to make us sustainable, are what will keep Australia competitive and financially viable on the world market. Maintaining business as usual will not.
Doug Parkinson’s reply:
Read prof Ian Plimer
Sent from my iPhone
Note: In Dr Ian Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth” he professes to “destroy every single argument that has ever been raised about human-induced climate change”.
