Tassie Devil
Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
Peace in our Time
By
Posted on
Karl Stevens
October 18, 2010 at 10:32
Gunns is $1 billion in debt and they want to borrow another $2.5 billion? They also want the government to compensate them for sacking yet more Tasmanians so we can build our houses out of inferior nitens and imported steel? This is what happens when boys do the work of men.
amyb
October 18, 2010 at 10:51
Can’t wait for the details on this one, but thanks in the interim for Rob Blaker’s magnificent photograph of Forestry Tasmania’s “world’s best practice” in action.
Those hills look about as bare as the legacy that the 19th Century environmental troglodytes left the ones around Queenstown. How any of the soil there is supposed to survive a few heavy Tassie rains is beyond me. Any farmer seeing this would cringe.
And they wonder why people object…
Dave Groves
October 18, 2010 at 10:52
The Gunners arms goes up in flames, proving once and for all that timber works well as “biomass” fuel.
I hope they are well insured if still owned by Gunns, as this would be yet another red line on the balance sheet…….
Anyhow, back to the secret deal….wonder how much this will cost the taxpayers????
Frank Strie
October 18, 2010 at 12:08
My key questions below this text
Related to
http://www.wilderness.org.au/regions/tasmania/tasmanian-forest-and-forest-industry-talks-questions-and-answers#who-is-involved-in
Who is involved in the informal talks?

The talks have included Timber Communities Australia, the National Association of Forest Industries, the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), the Forest Industry Association of Tasmania, Environment Tasmania, The Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation. More recently, the Tasmanian Forest Contractor’s Association started actively participating with the partners. During discussions, all organisations continue to consult with their constituencies through reference groups and direct consultation. Other stakeholders have also been involved where needed.
What about the community and other key stakeholders?

If the informal talks reach agreement on the principles, the next step is to move into formal negotiations and gain government support and the support of the community through extensive consultation.
The parties involved in the talks all agree that the broader Tasmanian community must be involved in any formal
process to deliver a solution to the longstanding forest conflict.
Frank Strie
October 18, 2010 at 12:09
What will happen now?
If State and Federal governments support any agreed principles, a program for formal negotiations can commence.
To be successful, the negotiations will require significant input from a much broader range of stakeholders, experts
and the broader community.
How can I feed in suggestions and ideas?

If agreement can be reached in the informal talks, it will be agreement on broad principles only.
The next step is to ensure comprehensive community consultation and input. Feel free to contact us to find out more.
For more information, please contact:
Campaign Coordinator
The Wilderness Society Tasmania Inc
130 Davey Street, TAS, 7000 Australia
Phone: (03) 6224 1550
Cont..
Frank Strie
October 18, 2010 at 12:13
Cont …
My 4 logical and fair questions following the above:
1. Who pays for the consultation, the ideas and the consultation?
2. Who gets payed and how much is being paid for the formal consultation, the ideas and the expertise?
3. Who does not get remunerated for their consultation, their ideas, their expertise?
4. Who decides who is being payed and how much or refused pay?
Please provide real answers (no spin please) thank you
Frank Strie, FWM
Ecological Forest Management Consultant, OH&S Advisor, Mobile Sawmiller
Individual Member of FSC International http://www.fsc.org
Schwabenforest Pty. Ltd.
President of Timber Workers For Forests Inc. http://www.twff.org.au
Steve
October 18, 2010 at 13:33
These would have to be the most bizarre negotiations I’ve ever encountered.
They’re meant to be informal but they climax with a signed agreement?
They’re meant to be peace talks but neither side can really be seen to represent the people affected by the outcomes. I suppose the industry could be seen to be represented but if Gunns and FT don’t agree they can just carry on as usual. On the environmentalist side there’s no representation at all and how can there be?
This is no way to get a social licence. You get a social licence by genuinely engaging with the community, not signing agreements behind locked doors.
Mike Bolan
October 18, 2010 at 13:36
From Oct 19 Mercury “The road map to peace will form the basis of requests for compensation and restructuring to accommodate the radical changes.
It is believed the cost of the peace deal to the federal and state governments may exceed $1 billion of required funding to allow contractors and other players to leave the industry…
The forest industry believes it will need 30 years before all harvesting of native forests can cease, arguing that there is no hardwood timber of high enough quality yet growing in Tasmania’s extensive eucalypt pulpwood plantations to be used for building and furniture.”
So the ’roundtable’ has ‘negotiated’ giving more money than the cost of a new Hobart hospital to this industry while allowing it another 30 years in the forests?
Michael
October 18, 2010 at 15:21
#7 – “There will now NEVER be ANY social licence, and there will NEVER be a pulp mill of ANY kind in Tasmania.” – Posted by Russell Langfield on 19/10/10 at 09:00 AM
Umm, really Russell! There is already one operating just outside of Hobart.
Oh, one last thing to Langfield, Gunns will have FSC certified plantations in the near future as well! So a pulp mill plus FSC certified plantations will equal them producing pulp from a FSC certified resource.
crf
October 18, 2010 at 15:34
Frank (#4, #5 and #6), I would have thought (you) would have been one of those at the table. It’s a disgrace.
mjf
October 18, 2010 at 15:40
#7. Can also work very effectively from the bottom up but can be hard on the brakes.
Dave Groves
October 18, 2010 at 17:40
Perhaps this explains the sudden procession of log trucks that appears from out of the blue…..three months to chop down as much forest as possible…
Michael
October 18, 2010 at 17:50
#13 – Wrong again, mate. There is agreement from the ‘Social licence givers ENGOs’ (whatever that is) to support the construction of a pulp mill in Tasmania. Seeing as there is only one pulp mill being planned it can assume which one they are talking about! Do note, there is no mention of them opposing the Bell Bay mill.
Having these groups sign something like this is just another step towards FSC certification for Gunns, mate. Whether you like it or not. Their plantations will be FSC certified soon, probably just in time for the mill construction to be finished.
Gunns benefits well out of this, lots of synergy with their ‘no more native forest’ stance, FT and other native forest based companies probably not so good.
Never forget
October 18, 2010 at 17:58
To prepare for peace is to prepare for war.
Even without a Tamar pulp mill, the impact this has on northern Tasmania is far reaching.
Got to love the fact eucalypt is now added to the specialty timbers list.(specialty timbers principle).
CFEMU the first to publicly put this crap out there.
When you go out into the woods today, you’re in for a big surprise…
Freddi Mazoudier
October 18, 2010 at 18:18
Are we sure that there is only three months of native forest destruction left ??? the way the log trucks are flowing through Derby, there is a sort of indecent haste to grab as many of these trees as fast as possible,
But are we assured that a 12 week limit?? is it in fact another nebulous promise that will fade away as more excuses and the threat of that all too awful twenty year contract to allow Gunns to pillage our precious forests for years to come .. until there is nothing but E Nitens left to blemish the countryside.
I would like to see a definite date given for the end of logging Native forests .. I wish?? F.M.
Andrew Ricketts
October 18, 2010 at 19:42
The forestry ‘peace agreement’ signed on the 14th and released on the 19th October 2010 was signed by only three conservation organisations. It cannot be seen to represent the conservation movement.
The Environment Association (TEA) Inc. is a long-term stakeholder in any resolution to the forestry conflict but is not represented by any other conservation organisation formally or informally, including the three conservation organisations that signed the agreement.
We left the process several weeks ago in disgust.
This is how we see the forestry ‘peace agreement’:
1. Gives the green light for an expansion of artificial tree plantations in Tasmania.
2. Steps away from taking a responsible line on critical land clearance issues and avoids acknowledgement that land clearance is a threatening process under Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act.
3. Fails to protect or even advocate the protection of threatened species and especially those key or core areas of threatened fauna habitat that are likely to come under additional pressure as a result of this agreement, contrary to claims made today.
4. Fails to protect Tasmania’s most biodiverse forest ecologies and in the main fails to achieve a proper reservation of the endangered vegetation communities of Tasmania.
5. Consents to a pulp mill, obviously in the Tamar Valley, and fails to take a firm stance over the vital pollution aspect of any mill, anywhere in Tasmania.
6. Potentially and most probably reserves (at best) 320,000 Ha of unprotected forest and not the claimed 600,000 Ha of forest. A substantial area of existing RFA reserved land is included in the conservation negotiators’ map.
7. Provides no adequate mechanism for private land conservation, the most poorly reserved land tenure in Tasmania.
The negotiation process began in secret. Other groups were reluctantly accepted into the discussion about the negotiations but there was no transparency. TEA and other conservation groups criticised the process repeatedly but to no avail.
There were significant points of disagreement during the discussions but the conservation negotiators largely ignored the opinions of other conservation representatives. If you didn’t agree with the head honchos you may as well pack up your toys and go home, which we did along with several other groups.
Despite strong disagreements that led to groups leaving the process, the negotiators went ahead with their own agenda as they probably intended from the outset.
There was no attempt by those three negotiating conservation groups to involve the broader community in the process.
The whole thing was a far cry from what Premier Bartlett first suggested. A genuine roundtable may well have been far more equitable and sensible but it simply fizzled out.
We consider that this agreement will not solve the problems of forestry in this state. Gunns must be laughing. The three conservation organisations that signed the ‘agreement’ have let conservation and the community down badly.
Sincerely
Andrew Ricketts
Convenor
The Environment Association Inc
PO Box 261
Deloraine Tas 7304
a bit straighter
October 18, 2010 at 19:48
Michael states- “There is agreement from the ‘Social licence givers ENGOs’ (whatever that is) to support the construction of a pulp mill in Tasmania. Seeing as there is only one pulp mill being planned it can assume which one they are talking about!”
from <http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/gunns-pulp-mill>
“The Wilderness Society is campaigning to stop Gunns Ltd building a massive pulp mill in the Tamar Valley.”
you seem to be willing to compromise your integrity to try and win an argument on TT
Tom Torquemada
October 18, 2010 at 20:11
Michael (15). You may wish to check the link.
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/10/19/180071_tasmania-news.html
‘But the contentious $2 billion Gunns’ pulp mill on the Tamar River is not mentioned in the deal.
Environmental organisations say the Gunns pulp mill proposed for Long Reach will never receive their approval, despite the clause in today’s peace pact.’
The Tamar pulp mill is ruled out by the NGO’s. Oosting also restated the same on ABC radio today.
Simply put, they oppose it.
David Leigh
October 18, 2010 at 22:01
There are some interesting points of view in this thread and some very well informed comments at that. There is a little matter here of Math, however: Four major players minus three = one. The last standing woodchipper has lost 87% of its share price over the past 3 years. Add back 4.5c for the announcement to the ASX that Gunns has bought a new mill and you have small spike in the graph. (Funny how they do not advertise the closure of two previously aquired mills) The whole equation hangs on FSC acreditation and while Gunns cannot give a date on ending old growth logging, that will not happen… So one minus FSC = Zero pulp mill and zero share price. I guess we should just wait for the inevitable collapse and then Tasmanians can decide the outcome.
Brenda Rosser
October 18, 2010 at 22:05
So here’s the deal from these self-proclaimed ‘environmental’ NGOs and ‘greens’:
Lock out people from over half of the state’s ‘reserves’, keep them out of plantations and commercial forests as well. Stick them on the tiny bit of land that’s left over after most of their alloted hectare per capita has been set aside for industrial development.
I can see the future for humanity in Tassie. More and more highrise boxes to exist in. Escalating rates of disease and shorter life spans as industrial pollution intensifies from lives dictated to and warped into decades of compulsory, superfluous and toxic consumption. (There is such a thing as ecology for humans but who’s ever acknowledged this?)
Isn’t it about time we looked at the logical conclusion to this adhoc and secret ‘planning’?
Mike Adams
October 18, 2010 at 23:00
One wonders if the annual fire danger predictions of the Tas. Fire Service, announced each spring, may once again come true. And whether the brigades called out will be told, once more, to ignore the bush but save the plantations. Quite a few people I know would hope not…
max
October 19, 2010 at 01:09
The only real agreement was the one where forestry want a billion dollars. A billion dollars for what, the log trucks are going flat out, possible 30 years before plantations can replace native forest and no mention of Gunns handing back their wood agreement even though they claim that they are going out of native forests. What happens to the plantations without MIS schemes, what about plantations in water catchments and the sprays in our drinking water and and and without end.
Michael
October 19, 2010 at 01:28
#18 – ‘Artificial tree plantations’ you say? Since when do companies plant fake trees? What? Kind of like plantations of plastic Christmas trees? This I’d have to see.
#19 – Just reading between the lines, ABS. That is all… C’mon, you really think it means any other project?
#25 – Hey Russell, even Andrew in #18 says this about the mysterious ‘pulp mill’ that is mentioned in the agreement. “5. Consents to a pulp mill, obviously in the Tamar Valley, and fails to take a firm stance over the vital pollution aspect of any mill, anywhere in Tasmania.”
Like you said, the horse’s mouth!
Still, I agree with you that the whole agreement/talks is bollocks, though.
Karl Stevens
October 19, 2010 at 02:31
How interesting! The ‘final-Principles’ document I downloaded from Tasmanian Times was made by a ‘Sean Cadman’. If you look at the document ‘properties’ you can see the original title was ‘final-Principles-no-sigs.doc’ and the author was ‘Sean Cadman’. It looks like the document that was signed by all parties was originally drafted by ‘Sean Cadman’. It was not signed by TWS negotiator ‘Paul Oosting’ as you would expect but by the new head of The Wilderness Society ‘David Mackenzie’.
final-Principles-signed.pdf
a bit straighter
October 19, 2010 at 02:33
#27. uhh…yes, you don’t?!? believe what you will, time will tell, and no amount of relatively petty arguing on a blog site will change that 😉
Neil Smith
October 19, 2010 at 03:14
The ball is now in the Governments’ court.
Those who have insisted on criticising the “secret” nature of the talks to date do need to realise that any person or group of people (even a hitherto-unthinkable coalition of industry participants and environmentalists) always has a right to put a proposal to government and ask for its implementation. With or without asking anyone else if they agree first.
If the ENGO contribution seems a little heavily weighted towards native forest protection to the exclusion of other things we see as “environmental”, it’s quite understandable given their history of targeted concern. I’m not going to argue that it’s not a seriously important matter.
A group putting a proposal to government is what has happened, and always was what was going to happen. No one has sold anyone else out, given away anything, provided a “social licence” or suggested that the wider community, individual environmentalists, Forestry Tasmania or George Harris or Neil Smith (just as examples) has no right to object strenuously to any particular aspect of the proposal.
The whole importance of this process (if any) lies in whether and to what extent governments seek to implement it. This essential point is conveyed by the opening paragraph of the “statement of principles” – “The parties to the Principles seek from State and Federal governments……â€
If governments don’t come substantially on board (and how often do they when asked to do something?) this so-called “agreement” is a big nothing. On the contrary, if they do, it will quite obviously be against a backdrop of representations and counter-representations from all sorts of people. Some of which could carry political weight. There will as always be plenty of slips between cups and lips.
There are plenty of problematic suggestions in the “statement of principles” which illustrate just some of the difficulty lying ahead – and they are not in the picture the parties paint of their preferred forest industry. Against the heading “Government†we have “Reform and support government agencies, policies and legislation as necessary for the implementation of an agreement associated with these Principles.â€
Wow! If this really happens it will be a seismic shift in the way things get done in Tasmania.
And under “Legislation†– “REQUIRE STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION (my caps) to implement agreed outcomes arising from these Principles including appropriate review mechanisms, milestones and sanctionsâ€.
“Certification†is a pretty interesting one too. “ ENCOURAGE Forestry Tasmania to firstly obtain Controlled Wood accreditation ON DELIVERY OF THE MORATORIUM, secondly, obtain full FSC certification on resolution of an FSC National Standard and ONCE AN AGREEMENT BASED ON THESE PRINCIPLES HAS BEEN FINALISEDâ€.
Forestry Tasmania was not a party to the talks. Because, presumably, they always like to do things their way and can’t be bothered listening to, far less agreeing with, anyone else. So are we about to see the State Government telling FT who’s boss, instead of the other way around?
Interesting times indeed.
abcanon
October 19, 2010 at 05:35
Andrew Ricketts, The Environment Association #18 sums up this agreement.
It sacrifices the Tamar Valley by strong implication.
It contains apparently vague long term deadlines for completion of the transition from native forest logging.
It puts a respectable face on expansion of monoculture plantations.
It paves the way to burn forest for dirty power generation.
The Principles show little regard for bio-diversity and impacts on neighbouring human communities across Tasmania.
Why should we not expect the continuing use of deceptive terms in accord with the so-called Principles? Old Growth need be no constraint – if there’s been any disturbance whatsoever over considerable distance it may simply go unrecognized. Clear-felling may be written out of the charts, supplanted by remnant islands of ‘Aggregate Retention’.
Renewable Energy Certificates sought will permit carbon emissions from slashing, trucking and burning. ‘Waste’ for power is likely to be as loosely defined as ‘woodchip residue’ has been.
The document will be a powerful trick up a lawyer’s sleeve that will be wielded to achieve certification, ‘social licence’ and co-investment in the one mill that Gunns has ever entertained.
ENGOs have given generic mill approval to proponents and beneficiaries that have been party to a raging six-year controversy surrounding one plan and one site.
The mill technology and site were not negotiable in a major reiteration from the new Gunns CEO just weeks ago.
Yet concluding secret talks presumed that another mill might be considered.
Gunns may well be completely reinvigorated in its campaign for co-investment.
ENGOs have agreed to generic terms which are certain to be claimed as de-facto approval for one of the developed world’s biggest chemical factories.
In doing so, they appear to have ignored a population of 100,000 people sharing an air-shed with a known pollution history.
Lack of objection to the Gunns Tamar Valley mill appears to have disregarded the quality and sustainability of Launceston’s water supply, along with the air-shed, shorelines, tourist and boutique industries of the Tamar Valley and North Coast.
There can be no thanks for ENGOs who have dealt in secrecy. They have waved all principles of transparent, democratic and inclusive consultation.
The ends have in no way justified the means except for big industry players.
ENGOs appear to have misled the public by going along with the early description of ‘informal talks’.
These have now become law in the making.
If the industry succeeds in claiming a social licence from closeted ENGOs, it will be at great social and environmental cost.
ENGOs have now formalized entrenched monoculture plantations across this island.
They have given the nod to a potentially destructive and high-emitting new form of power that will create further demand for plantation by-products.
They seem to have represented few people outside a narrow wilderness-loving constituency.
ENGOs apparently did not envisage or strongly propose moving to high-value, reduced-volume selective harvest. A twenty-first century development plan would emphasize research and funding for innovative milling and processing. It would give rise to fresh export commodities.
Sadly, we witness The Examiner celebrating the tick for high volume slash, burn and pulp strategies!
That should give ENGOs the cold shivers like the rest of the informed community outside the woodchip industry.
I think that ENGOs should have a lot on their collective conscience.
Excluded people will not forgive or forget a secretive, treacherous and potentially disastrous sell-out.
(P.S. I would dearly love to be wrong in my conclusions drawn from the agreed Principles.)
AnnoyingOrange
October 19, 2010 at 06:57
Three months eh? I bet the saws are going overtime now.
The more I read, the more I can not believe what has happened down there in poor old Tassie. How did the forestry mob get away with it?
How did forestry get exemption from Freedom of Information?
Chemicals in drinking water catchments, rivers of silt, thirsty plantations sucking up water in a drying climate, native hardwoods wasted for inferior Nitens, thousands of protected animals poisoned, vast burn-offs, steep slopes logged, poor river buffer zones, people selling properties because of encroaching forestry … it goes on and on.
The Google Earth images are frightening, but it’s much scarier up close …
The term “Pristine Tassie” is a joke. A nice scenic flight over clear-fells and plantations? No thanks! A tasty trout from Meander Dam? No thanks! A glass of pure Tassie water? Only if it’s from a plantation-free catchment with no old tin mines!
There is still hope. Stop clear-felling, make plantation forestry organic, encourage organic agriculture and restore the rivers – then watch tourists, buyers and new residents flock as Tasmania’s reputation is reborn.
There isn’t much time left to do it though, just look at Google Earth.
salamander
October 19, 2010 at 10:34
#30 Thanks for that voice of reason. I have had enough of people crying “not fair” because the talks were behind closed doors.
Bartlett said the reason he supported the agreement this far is because there had been no “rock-throwing”. Excluding FT from the negotiations was essential to achieve that. Just consider what FT have been doing while all this talk has been going on – much of the Styx flattened, plans for destroying West Wellington proceeding apace, and even the karst area between Hastings Caves and the thermal pool, logged.
Just wait for the fires that we will enjoy in the next burnoff season!
Does anyone really imagine they would have come to any mediation table and talked in good faith?
The forestry industry will survive, in some form, but the hierarchy of FT might not.
Scott
October 19, 2010 at 10:44
I question why Gunns chose to announce the closure of the Scottsdale sawmill just before the announcement of the Statement of Principles? Gunns could have announced it weeks ago, or at some time in the future. I see it as a warning shot to the politicians to keep them ever mindful of “the jobs, the jobs”.
I await the next phase, which as ever with the Tasmanian forest industry will involve enormous amounts of taxpayer money being used to prop up unsustainable businesses for a few more years.
Michael
October 19, 2010 at 11:22
#29 – I don’t see Gunns, going through all the rigmarole again, for siting a mill elsewhere when they have most of the requirements already in place. We ALL have our own ‘conspriacy’ theories.
No it won’t change things, though we can have a bit of fun along the way, eh ABS!
Karl Stevens
October 19, 2010 at 13:48
The Wilderness Society and ACF negotiators were both bumped at the final signing. Don Henry signed for ACF and David McKenzie signed for TWS. The signed document is identical to the one I published 6 weeks ago, other than two extra sentences. The honor ‘existing contracts’ addition is interesting because it denies compensation for existing contracts. Some of these contracts are set by legislation and have been in force since the 1920’s. What is a ‘socially acceptable plantation’?
Surely this should be decided by scientists rather than people in a shopping center? The document contains a huge financial liability for David Bartlett’s government. I don’t think they know this yet so lets see how long it takes them to find it?
David Obendorf
October 19, 2010 at 14:15
A few salient questions to ask are:
1. Who [names and organisations please] DELAYED the signing of this Statement of Principles document for well over 5 months?
2. Who benefits by keeping the conflict over Tasmania’s forests and forestry going?
Julian Amos’ interview on ABC-936 Mornings with Tim Cox today suggests that the industry will need at least 30 years to transition to a yet ungrown sawlog-plantation estate.
Mr amos, does that mean the existing plantation estate has put most of its eggs in the nitens pulp basket?
How long can Tasmania prop up the balance sheet of Forestry Tasmania as ‘the manager, not the custodian’ as Julian Amos emphasised today of Tasmania’s forests? [I agree with Mr Amos!]
ENGOs will need to hit the ground running very fast or ‘this wee crack in the door’ will close again around the best filler in our Tasmanian society – the universal POLY-FILLA – MONEY!
Bob Kendra
October 19, 2010 at 14:48
Bob McMahon’s statement just ahead of these comments put the plantation/pulpmill picture into accurate, stark relief.
Gary
October 19, 2010 at 15:42
Perhaps the reason Premier Bartlett was lauding this agreement is because it was written on his favourite kind of stationery……sand
Truth
October 19, 2010 at 16:58
Oh Examiner … no swipe at this one in your editorial.
Can just see the vibrating now..
Just love the examiners ploy of always using a chief reporter when giving Gunns breathing space, makes it more credible doesn’t it.
Just wait for it folks, or will the paper keep sniping away like the attack on McKim over the prison? It is the style after all isn’t it?
Stick that up your e-edition
Truth
Leo White
October 19, 2010 at 17:11
A little bird tells me that despite the handshakes the CFMEU FFPD is balloting its members to gain support for the deal isn’t this like shutting the proverbial stable door after the horse has shot through… Too little and too late?
I can see what the environmentalists get out of this deal, I can see what the companies hope to get, but what on earth have the members and union got out of this deal?
Yesterday I heard Bob Brown say that this deal is only the start and needs to be followed by similar agreements in Victoria and NSW and I assume SA, Q’land and WA which will if it were to happen decimate forestry jobs and timber communities across Australia.
I can see that the tide is and has been flowing against the union for years and as a result many jobs have already gone but I don’t see why they have not fought harder for their members jobs they did in the past, who can forget Mike O’Connor and Scott McLean shaking John Howard’s hands at the Albert Hall meeting. At the time McLean was on the ALP National Executive and the handshake cost the ALP two seats in Tasmania.
Maybe its just me but I smell a deal (off the record; O’Connor and Mike don’t lie down roll over and say help yourself to anybody so a deal that could see the end of the union seems unlikely at best and surely is not on. Also can you serially imagine the boys in the building and mining divisions allowing O’Connor to sell his members out? I think not) Just a thought – a mere pondering!
One last observation the union have chosen this time to put up the members dues a letter went out under O’Connor’s signature this week. job losses dues up what next?
And I see that Scott McLean was heavily involved in the forestry discussions and deal why was this, he is no longer the CFMEU FFPD State Sec he lost his job after his run at Bass failed; so why McLean and not the new State Sec who had taken over from McLean even before the State election results were known. So what was his role his title during the talks? Did the new State Sec have any say a place at the table if not why not?? What was happening behind the closed doors maybe the members might like to know before they lose their jobs and their fees go up?
The ballot of members will not take place between 4/16 November so how can the deal have been done?
Redneck Greenie
October 19, 2010 at 17:14
On you Andrew Ricketts (TEA) appears there are few out there with a handle on this shameful display.
re # 28 PAY CLOSE ATTENTION HERE – for all you not in the know SEAN CADMAN is the Director of FSC Australia.
Think about that a bit, then have a another look at it. Yes that was FSC Australia.
Been sold out by the vested interests, NE Tasmania is well and truely rooted. A pulp mill really is the least of your worries.
I am only one of the very disgruntled individuals that a slowly linking up .We give a stuff and are not peace loving, easily stood over types.
Bob McMahon
October 19, 2010 at 19:26
#43
Andrew Rickets is very much on the money as are you Redneck Greenie.
I congratulate Andrew Rickets for his really important letter and his principled stand.
By the way. It’s groundhog day. Remember the Salamanca Agreement in 1990? Headline on the Examiner (June 6 I think) Editorial Opinion reads: Forest Industries: Is It Peace In Our Time? And what happened to the Salamanca Agreement?
Mike Adams
October 19, 2010 at 20:33
It will have escaped no one’s attention that two notable absentees from the signing were Forestry Tasmania and Gunns Ltd. Gunns pulled out of F.I.A.T. so not to be bound by anything F.I.A.T. put its name to: Forestry is above that kind of scuffle and rests secure in its hold over the two major parties (shades of Allen Knight’s Hydro in its heyday).
The only things that Gunns is likely to sign these days are dismissal notices, and maybe receipts for governmental cheques.
Malcolm
October 19, 2010 at 21:04
This triumvirate of apparently well meaning but embarrassingly naïve ENGOs has effectively locked in business as usual by agreeing that all existing contracts and statutory obligations override all the Principles.
Forestry Tasmania already uses its statutory requirement to produce 300,000 m3 of high quality sawlogs every year as a pretext to clearfell thousands of hectares of our native forests and has long term wood supply agreements with both Gunns and Ta Ann, the volumes of which are not disclosed on the public record.
The ENGOs have also undermined their own cause by agreeing to the false recognition of eucalypts as special species timbers.
The ENGO’s untenable agreement to “a pulp mill†has allowed Gunns to publicly claim that the Statement of Principles is an endorsement of its operations and construction of the “Long Reach pulp mill†as being critical to the transition to a plantation based industry.
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20101019/pdf/31t6xp7s2flxyg.pdf
This has led to a huge increase in Gunns share price, conveniently just before its AGM, and has resurrected the prospect of the pulp mill gaining finance from a JVP.
The ENGO’s have also neglected to stipulate an end to the expansion of the plantation estate which will lead to further social divide and environmental harm.
Finally, the parties to the Statement of Principles are expecting the Australian taxpayer to pick up the tab yet again for the mendicant and failed forest industry to adopt modern day practices which are still weaker than those required to achieve FSC certification which is a prerequisite for the industry to survive on a sustainable basis.
Andrew Ricketts
October 19, 2010 at 23:30
Michael (#27), our point regarding “artificial tree plantations†is that these are human constructs, plantings of trees, not forests at all. We made the point because the RFA erroneously (in our view) considers (see page 4 of the original 8-11-1997 agreement) that plantations are forests. They are not forests; they are not substitutes for natural forests and should not be replacing forests. It is long-accepted that “Artificial” means the opposite of “Natural”.
In criticising the so-called peace agreement regarding the inadequate arrangements over plantations, avoidance of land clearance as well as the very poor reservation of private land, the reality of what a plantation actually is becomes fundamental. Many people term such industrial plantings “monoculture†and even in the event one overcame such rudimentary shortcomings (which is possible) they remain artificial, that is to say, not natural.
To claim “artificial†is synonymous with “fake†in describing plantations – and by the way I am glad you agree they are merely trees – is simply a misuse of the word “fakeâ€. I hope you would agree however that the RFA definition of “forest†is fake.
mjf
October 19, 2010 at 23:33
#32. Get up to speed. Its now the Right to Information Act 2009, commenced 1/7/10
BogusFiasco
October 20, 2010 at 00:09
Bullshit in our time.
JJ
October 20, 2010 at 02:44
As I understand it existing native forest contracts won’t be impacted by the new forest deal.
The Smithton Wood Supply Agreement with Ta Ann Plywood runs until 31 Dec 2022, with a possible extension until 2027.
The Huon Wood Supply Agreement with Ta Ann Plywood runs until 31 Dec 2021, with a possible extension until the end 2026.
Are there any others out there?
Observer
October 20, 2010 at 05:34
Who said Gunns were not represented at these talks? Their share price has jumped 28.5% and they have traded 35 million shares in the last two days
Tasmania – you have been sold out!
phill Parsons
October 20, 2010 at 10:15
As McMahon points out the process has been, and will continue to be about Gunns restructure to build the now inevitable pulpmill. Already Edwards of FIAT has painted a 30 year phase out period for natural forest logging and this will be supported by the small amount of Federal funding to restructure the industry. Will,the $1.2B is not coming, try $2000M. Regardless of whether this is necessary or not it is an indication that the forest industry has a plan, and perhaps a deal brokered by former Premier Lennon, to continue with a business as usual approach. The only thing in the way is the global market for the woodchip product. Reserves may be expanded but the danger to the structure of communities and to biodeiversity through intensification of industrial plantations remains. The only ‘Peace’ is the ending of the most effective TWS campaign attacking the financing of this industry. Were conservation organizations to combine to return to this effort, and apply it to other questions throughout the world industry, would be looking to change its facade, if not its behavior, right across the spectrum.
salamander
October 20, 2010 at 12:17
#45 At the time that Gunns withdrew from FIAT, FIAT were doing their best to end the talks.
FT was not involved in the talks because they are government, and government was specifically excluded, and just as well.
Ta Ann are different ball game, their work practices will make them the next target.
#52 Terry Edwards and Barry Chipman have never been supportive of these negotiations, so what difference do their comments now make to anything?
CFMEU’s ballot and Bartlett are more relevant now.
I will also find it amazing if this goes ahead – but at least I am not trying to shoot it down. Skepticism is one thing, active destruction, as seems to be the theme here, is something else.
crf
October 20, 2010 at 12:29
Ricketts (#47) needs either a lesson on bad tautologies, or to be honest enough to admit his mistake.
The word “plantation” alone – whether applied to tea, cotton, rubber, trees or whatever – means it is a human construct.
As Michael rightly pointed out, an “artifical plantation” must be one constructed by humans with fake plants.
Karl Stevens
October 20, 2010 at 12:49
phill Parsons (52) I doubt if the campaign targeting the ANZ bank was as effective as the wilderness spinmeisters would have us believe. Why would a bank lend $2.5 billion to a company already $1 billion in debt? Its the same story with a JVP and foreign finance. Kraft pulp is a crowded world market, and as Jaakko Poyry (mill designer) said ‘Brazil is the hub of the world pulp market’. This market has been cornered by tropical 3rd world countries that grow wood 3 times faster than Tasmania. Gillard and Bartlett are flogging a dead horse as we speak. The agreement has loopholes big enough to drive two log trucks through side by side.