Economy
Are the ‘secret forestry talks’ illegal?
In May, Premier Bartlett convened ‘secret forest talks’ to investigate his collapsed forest industry.
Although not publicly announced, they were given extraordinary powers to restructure the Tasmanian timber industry.
What sort of a body did he set-up or did the body set itself up? Is it a Federal or a State body?
Is it both? Is it a planning body? Is it a statutory body, and if so under what legislation? Is it an advisory board?
Does it advise The Minister or even replace The Minister? Does it advise The Premier or Parliament? Does it have a budget? Does it have a time line? Is a report expected? Is an agreement expected?
If so, is it it presented to The Premier or just to the ABC? Will Sue Neales get a copy? Is it really just a think-tank of self-funded amateurs and stakeholders?
Are the participants paid with our taxes? Is it true Eric Abetz took part?
Just what is its scope and parameters? Has anybody bothered writing an agenda, synopsis, or closing date? Will a report ever be released?
As you can see Premier Bartlett has a lot of explaining to do.
Given a pulp mill is a recurring theme, is it not sadistic to further unsettle Tamar Valley residents with an open-ended talk-fest that seems unable to arrive at a conclusion?
David Bartlett MUST take responsibility for his actions. It is simply not good enough for him to declare this body at arm’s length, and then have members of his own department reassure residents they have ‘nothing to fear’ by text message.
This really is pathetic, and shows David Bartlett is a Premier with the training wheels on. Why is Bartlett’s Forestry Minister in China while his job is outsourced to unknown participants?
Why are these faceless men doing the work of highly paid Ministers and public servants?
I believe David Bartlett’s real agenda is to assist Gunns achieve FSC certification. Like the secret pipeline corridor, the secret forest talks is just further government assistance for Gunns.
I believe David Bartlett has duped The Wilderness Society and others.
If there really was ‘good faith’ in the talks, wouldn’t David Bartlett wind-back just one of his draconian laws protecting Gunns?
Now, after urging us to trust the talks, The Wilderness Society is imploring us not to believe some of the other participants, who they accuse of leaking the final report. What a joke!