Dear Bryan Green, You have two hats and neither fits properly…
Hat 1. Planning
Richard and Joan Bridge!
Four years this has been going!
How much longer does the local Council believe that their octogenarian rate paying couple, Richard and Joan Bridge, should have to contend with being asked to leave their home?
How long do you think one of our returned servicemen should have to put up with this injustice?
How much longer should this absolutely unconscionable act of political bastardry continue, do you think?
This all has to do with this so called PAL Policy (Protection of Agricultural Land). The resultant planning zonings are so heavily weighted in favour of Forestry that Protection of Agricultural Land is a completely misleading title.
Interesting that there was a judgement handed down in the Launceston Supreme Court on 10th June, which it was said in part: “Porter J considered that it was open for the Council to grant a permit, and the Board erred in determining that the Council had no power to grant the permit”.(There are 29 pages of the reasoning given by Porter J prior to handing down her decision).
The Council has claimed, according to the Sue Neales’ article in the Mercury June 17 2010, that the home was structurally sound and met building regulations.
So what is the holdup?
The Bridges are just the Symbol of an unfair and unbalanced advantage given to Forestry. There are many more titleholders badly disadvantaged across our State.
Bryan, perhaps giving you the title ‘Minister for Planning’ is also misleading, given that the mission statement for the Department of Justice says: The Agency, in partnership with others, will work towards achieving a safe, fair and sustainable Tasmanian community where the diversity and rights of individuals is respected.
Hat 2. Forestry
How is it possible for Forestry to receive such favourable treatment at the expense of the Tasmanian Taxpayer and other industries?
Supplementary Budget Estimates 2009, for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, show that there have been Grants in excess of $50m. handed to private operators working with Forestry, and nil for Agriculture or Fisheries.
Looking at just one of the recipients of our taxpayer grants, Aprin Logging, who received over $1m. $630,259.50 for ‘Traditional harvesting re-tooling through the purchase of new equipment to process smaller diameter re-growth timbers.
Then $421,688.87 for Mulcher re-forestation project including purchase of 6 mulching machines and other equipment.
Does the Tasmanian Audit Office have any record of the exact amount spent and for exactly what machinery?
This is the private company asking for funds to purchase the Triabunna Mill.
A question to Aprin. How much do you think the taxpayer should lend you and at what rate of interest, or are you just looking for another grant?
Do you have a bank?
The rest of the Mission and Vision statement from the Department of Justice says: While there are a large number of business units in the Department, performing a variety of functions, all have a common purpose, to deliver justice to the community or individuals in that community.
So Justice not only has to be done, but it has to be seen to be done.
Now add the test: What would a reasonable adult expect in the circumstances?
Bryan, you fail on both counts, so either pay attention to whatever it is your departments are doing under the guise of “this is for the good of all the people” or if you aren’t capable of working towards achieving a safe, fair and sustainable Tasmanian community where the diversity and rights of individuals are respected, then do yourself and all of us a favour by stepping away.
Barnaby Drake
June 27, 2011 at 06:04
A question to Aprin. How much do you think the taxpayer should lend you and at what rate of interest, or are you just looking for another grant?
Do you have a bank?
Please tell me which bank would lend even sixpence to anyone wanting to invest in the forestry industry? ANZ, perhaps? Gunns bankers who are owed about $650 million with a company that is currently valued at about $320 million on share price.
Normally if a company wants capital, they do a share launch, not ask the taxpayer to fork out. But of course, they have to prepare a prospectus and a profit plan to go with it, and with all the good will in the world, a ten-day-old company is not likely to make much of an impression on the market when it has only borrowed money and government grants as assets and is trading in a dying woodchip market. There have been one or two spectacular failures in this market recently, but it is only our government that seems not to understand this!
But then, when has our government ever backed a winner?
Bruce Stevens
June 27, 2011 at 09:37
Note that Porter J is actually a male rather than female. Justice David Porter was prior to the appointment of Chief Justice Ewan Crawford, considered to be a strong contender for that post. Something of a protege of former Chief Justice Peter Underwood’s apparently.
If Aprin gets that loan, there might be riots in the streets considering many regional schools more than likely face closure. The Wood/Cameron consortium’s offer to keep the woodchip mill operating in the interim, sounds like an excellent transitional arrangement. Maybe further conditions could be put on any sale agreement to that consortium, to allow the woodchip mill to continue longer term if the Forestry industry picks up. Unlikely but it might give peace of mind that Forestry possibly has some future. Woodchips form around 87% of the byproduct of sawmilling.
Pete Godfrey
June 27, 2011 at 12:05
Trevor I would suggest that both hats are in fact the same one.
It is tall, pointy and floppy, made of cloth and he wears it while sitting in the corner.
John Miller
June 28, 2011 at 16:50
Driving while under the influence of drink is of itself no great crime. But the continuation of this man in the office as a minister and deputy premier is the most damning indictment of all. Unlike Kons, he didn’t have the decency to step down and when the next election comes, he will be securely endorsed and elected by the sleepwalking crowd in the North. It doesn’t matter which segment of the media you care to peruse, politicians are on the nose and in some cases it’s justified while in others, it’s part of the Soros-Gates globalization plan spurred on by the Murdoch press. This man has no shame, no honor and no courage. He should state right now that he will not be standing at the next election. If he does, he will be successful because of the sheep. Those of us with IQs larger than our collar size will have to put up with four more years. And it’s still no use people looking wistfully at the opposition because the policies are interchangeable. No matter who governs after the next election the certainties remain: an increased cost in power, heating, water, the necessities of life and a rising interest rate.
The only question I want answered is whether he was driving his privately plated, government supplied car when picked up.
PB
June 28, 2011 at 19:40
According to the Advocate, Bryan Green drank four or five glasses of wine at the function, was driven back by his driver then “headed out” where he was apprehended by police.
His appalling lack of judgement and total disregard for the safety of the general public, combined with his previous indiscretions and hollow apology, must result in his sacking.
http://www.theadvocate.com.au/news/local/news/general/split-with-wife-not-to-blame-green/2208569.aspx
D Beechey
June 29, 2011 at 13:18
Mr Green has a ten gallon hat and a two pint head.