83.I have skimmed through this thread and, as is often the case, I am saddened by the to-and-fro arguments degenerating in to petty insult and bitter recrimination. For sure this has been a wonderful example of the divisiveness of the subject under discussion. The level of divisiveness alone and the acrimony that accompanies it should be a siren warning to those in influence that aspects of the forest industry and the legislation surrounding it are seriously in need of review. It may just be that the industry needs to be more open and accepting of scrutiny in order to douse the suspicion that clearly lurks in the minds of so many but maybe the rot goes a lot deeper and major surgery is necessary.
It is interesting that the Lilydale issues have raised their heads in this thread and rightly so as the experiences of Lilydale are a microcosm of what is happening all throughout Tasmania. Lilydale has earned eminence purely because the community boasts many residents who are informed, active and very unwilling to be fobbed off by platitudes and half-truths. They are also questioning and determined.
I am a proud and active member of the Lilydale Protection Group. As part of the group I have had the privilege of meeting and befriending a wonderful cross section of our community: business owners, farmers and graziers (including 5th generation landowners), ordinary families, professionals of every hue (health, legal, academic, industrial and public service) all united in their despair over the impact of the forestry industry upon the community and our environment.
Like other professionals in the group I have been sorely disappointed in the lack of professional behaviour exhibited by the industry in our dealings with them. For example the group was, over the recent issue concerning a coupe in the town water catchment, described as ‘uninformed’ and ‘not interested in facts’ by the industry regulator (who is meant to be an impartial adjudicator). This after many reasoned submissions including an independent report by a Victorian forest hydrologist of impeccable credentials (which identified serious issues with the FPP). Incidentally this hydrologist was employed by the LPG with the support of the LCC. Reasonable requests by both the LPG and LCC to allow access to the coupe in order for this hydrologist to do a detailed survey were rejected by the landowner/proponent.
None-the-less the community did their own audit of what was known of the draft FPP. We were told, again by the regulator (FPA), that the whole coupe had been comprehensively ‘ground-truthed’ using ‘GPS’ so we should jolly well leave them to it. Talking like that to professional people is like waving the proverbial ‘red rag’. Sure enough a basic boundary survey of the coupe found a class 2 stream that had been completely ignored on the draft FPP. This was an astonishing oversight as class 2 streams are as major as they get particularly when, as in this case, they feed an unfiltered town water supply. It is equivalent to a surgeon ignoring a major artery during preparations for an operation or an architect ignoring potential subsidence both of which would merit malpractice cases. When being informed of this by the LPG the FPA replied that an ‘adjustment’ had been made to the plan and no further action was required.
To put it simply, those who have and understand professional responsibility and liability, were aghast at this trite and very secretive response. It only helped to reinforce the impression that this industry is a law unto itself and not beholden to the standards of other professional activities.
With this widely held impression there can be no trust and without trust there can be no end to division.
The Lilydale community is utterly fed up with this division. Fed up with having to call open meetings that aggravate the divisions in order to obtain mandates for action from a powerless local council and (previously) disinterested state representatives. And yet there are democratically constituted forums to enable the conversations communities and the industry must have if forestry practice is to move forward. Returning all forestry activity to a position subordinate to the Land Use and Planning Act (LUPA) would retire one unfair special priviledge and help pull the thorn of community division.
If the forestry industry as a whole was confident in its integrity and professionalism then it would have no concerns about being subject to the same planning provisions that affect the rest of us.
Posted by Mike Scott on 17/04/10 at 08:36 PM
This comment first appeared on this article, HERE. There are two options to comment: On the original article, or below.
