Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Economy

Of course, Senator Brown is wrong

image

Dear Subscriber,

Last week, I happened to catch a news item on radio where Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown was complaining that resource modelling provided by Forestry Tasmania to the signatories of the forest peace talks had not been made public.

Of course, Senator Brown is wrong, but I think it is quite understandable that the release of the modelling might have escaped his attention. It must be difficult for the leader of a political party to keep his or her finger on every single issue around the country, but I did wonder if it escaped Senator Brown’s attention, then perhaps others too might not be aware of the work we have been doing to assist ENGOs, timber processors and now the Australian and Tasmanian governments to resolve the dispute over forestry in Tasmania.

It’s important for the community to understand that land use decisions, including areas available for wood production on State forests are matters for the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian Parliament.

As a Government Business Enterprise, we will work within the parameters and constraints set by the government and ultimately by State parliament and as a GBE, we ensure that all of our activities meet our legislative, contractual, fiduciary and sustainability obligations.

As you would expect, Forestry Tasmania knows more about State forest than any other organisation. It knows the 1.5 million hectares intimately. Experience gained over 90 years, coupled with the latest scientific modelling tools enables FT to know the composition of a particular area of forest and the volumes of wood that might be recovered from that area. That information is particularly valuable to organisations and governments trying to work out how much forests can be placed in conservation reserves and how much needs to be left in wood production zones to guarantee supplies to timber processors.

We have been providing that advice to environmental groups and industry negotiators for the best part of 18 months, culminating in a major report provided to Bill Kelty (view report HERE), who had been charged with getting the ENGOs and industry groups to an agreement. This report is the one Senator Brown thought had remained secret. In fact, it was released last month, as part of the final Kelty report. We also provided a letter to Mr Kelty (view letter HERE) confirming our findings, which Mr Kelty also included in his final report.

Just to make sure everything was above board, the Australian Government commissioned Professor Jerry Vanclay to look over our shoulder and confirm the accuracy of FT’s assessment (view here HERE). It is a reflection of our professionalism that Professor Vanclay concluded:

The Reference Group can be confident that the scenarios presented by FT offer a reliable indication of resource availability, and that the scenarios are a reasonable basis for comparing options. While the underlying areas, inventory, and simulations conform to best practice, it is not possible to assert a precise long-term non-declining yield for any of the three scenarios without further specification of operational requirements (notably coupe dispersal and swift parrot requirements). Notwithstanding this limitation, the FT summaries offer a good basis for comparing scenarios.

We are now at the business end of this very long process. On August 7, the Prime Minister and the Premier of Tasmania signed the Tasmanian Forest Intergovernmental Agreement (view here HERE). The agreement contains the dual objectives of guaranteeing resource supply to timber processors and a commitment to reserving for an interim period pending verification 430,000 hectares of State forest.

To achieve this, Forestry Tasmania needs to provide the Tasmanian and Australian governments with an analysis of what will be required for it to continue to meet its contractual obligations, including by re-scheduling forest operations from within the identified 430,000 hectares to other areas of State forest.

If FT finds that such rescheduling is not possible to the extent required to meet its contractual obligations, then the IGA allows compensation to be paid to contract holders from the $7m allocated to FT to manage the additional reserves.

The difficulty is that the area nominated for informal reserve already contains about a dozen coupes where contractors are working, and there are some 87 coupes scheduled over the next 12 months. Foreseeing a potential conflict between the two objectives, the governments decided it would appoint a verification group working under the leadership of Professor Jonathon West to make a final decision or recommendation on the areas to be placed in interim reserves and the areas to be made available for wood production in order to meet the needs of timber processors.

We have already provided the following interim advice to Professor West.

A total of 497 harvesting coupes are listed of which 87 fall within the TFIA430.

A total of 124 roading coupes are listed of which 54 fall within the TFIA430.

Of the 87 harvesting coupes, 59 are critical to the supply of logs to Ta Ann (subject to verification).

There are currently 12 coupes being harvested within the TFIA430.

For the remainder of 2011 a further 29 coupes (subject to verification) will be required to meet current contractual commitments.

A total of 27 harvesting contractors (subject to verification) rely on working within the TFIA430 during the remainder of 2011.

FT has also updated the regional comparisons of average annual yield in the Final Report to Signatories (Forestry Tasmania, 6 June 2011) using the method verified by Professor Jerry Vanclay. For the updated appendices – 4a,5a and 6a – (view here HERE)

The additional column headed “Intergovernmental Agreement” shows annual yields of sawlog, peeler billets and arisings by decade between 2011 and 2050. (A copy of the Final Report (view here HERE) to Signatories for reference )

Based on this initial evaluation, FT reiterates (as advised to Bill Kelty) the view that the current reserve proposal of 430,000 hectares is inconsistent with the ability for FT to meet contractual commitments. It is likely that reserves in the order of 300,000 hectares, if located so as to minimise the area of regrowth native forest, may be compatible with resource supply obligations and sustainable forest management.

Forestry Tasmania will continue to provide quality information to inform the process. At times, the information will not fit comfortably with everyone, but we see our role as providing fearless, independent, factual advice, and to assist where possible. We also intend to be as transparent as possible. In line with our policy of making freely available all information released under Right to Information legislation. For the material released to the Member for Huon, Mr Paul Harriss (click here HERE)

I realise that this particular newsletter might be a little dry for many, but I think it is important to keep people fully informed of our role in these important discussions.

Until next time,
Bob Gordon

Managing Director
Forestry Tasmania

• Forest union holds ballot over peace deal

Tasmanian timber workers are being asked to register their support for the forest agreement to end logging in most public native forests.

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union is holding ballots at workplaces throughout the state this week.

The State and Federal Governments have finalised a $276 million agreement to compensate the timber industry for protecting 430,000 hectares of native forest.

The National President of the union’s Forestry and Furnishing division, Jane Calvert says the union’s encouraging members to support the deal.

“A union is it members, they are the ones that ultimately must have a say,” she said.

“They are the ones that are going to be affected by this inter-governmental agreement in our part of the industry.

“When you look around at the faces of the people here taking the ballot you realise just how important it is for them that this happens.”

ABC Online HERE

• Richard Colbeck: Labor-Greens won’t rule out compensation for Gunns Ltd

SENATOR THE HON RICHARD COLBECK
Senator for Tasmania
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation, Industry and Science
M E D I A R E L E A S E
17 August 2011
Labor-Greens won’t rule out compensation for Gunns Ltd

The Federal Government today failed to rule out compensation for Gunns Ltd’s commercial decision to leave the native forestry sector.

Answering on behalf of the Environment Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy deliberately avoided questions from Coalition Forestry Spokesman Senator Richard Colbeck.

Later Labor and the Greens teamed up to defeat Senator Colbeck’s motion to condemn any compensation payment to Gunns Ltd.

“Compensating Gunns Ltd should not even be considered but this Labor-Greens Government just won’t rule it out.

“In Question Time Senator Conroy refused to rule out the possibility of Gunns receiving payment as part of the Inter-Governmental Agreement signed on August 7,” Senator Colbeck said.

“And Senator Conroy refused to reveal whether the Tasmanian Government had given assurances to the Commonwealth that it would not use taxpayers funds to compensate Gunns Ltd.

“Senator Conroy also failed to rule out that the Greens had made approaches to Commonwealth Ministers to encourage support for a Gunns’ compensation package.

“Was Senator Conroy afraid of revealing that there is a Greens tail wagging this Labor dog?

“Senator Conroy’s evasive behaviour and the subsequent voting down of my motion beg the question: what do Labor and the Greens have to hide?

“Today’s events in the Senate further roused suspicions that Labor and the Greens are doing backdoor deals to lock up Tasmania’s forests at all costs.

“I find it inconceivable that the Greens would contemplate any form of payment of taxpayer funds to Gunns Ltd – what must their supporters think?

“The Coalition does not support Gunns Ltd receiving taxpayer funded compensation for exiting native forest activities because the company made this decision back in July 2010 of its own volition,” Senator Colbeck said.

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
23 Comments

23 Comments

  1. Barnaby Drake

    August 19, 2011 at 12:16 am

    19.Barnaby, further to the article letter presented by Bob Gordon featured in the Forestry Tasmania Branchline publication.
    This business of freely making available all information released under right to information legislation?

    I reckon you have two chances – Fat and Slim!

  2. Mark

    August 17, 2011 at 9:40 pm

    In the words of John Howard I remain “relaxed and comfortable” with the progress! The Liberals are making much noise but they are as aware as anyone the forest industry in Tasmania has reached a terminal stage! They are just tapping into the industry disquiet for political purposes.

    I love the way everyone now hates Gunns just as I’m starting to warm to them! FT and its management is still the main problem.

  3. Robin Halton

    August 17, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    The Forest Agreement is fast turning into a scandal now involving the CFMEU to ask members to vote on yes or no to the exiting native forests without any regard for those contractors and employees who will remain in the industry to continue to work under FT direction to supply sawlogs, billet logs and chipwood to existing mills and to honour by existing contractal arrangements!
    The Premier Lara Giddings is obviously lacking in strong leadership skills which has allowed the “Agreement” to evolve into a travesty that she is politically doing everything to appease Nicky and Cassie to remain as the Labor minority government regardless of the outcome!
    The $278M compenstaion money is now appearing to involve “bribery tactics” to break up the forest industry.
    The last thing we want is to see nasty disputes among the various groups involved within the forest industry!
    All of this being caused in the first place by involvement in the elusive SOP round table talks with the ENGO’s. whose long term objective is to eventually stop all native forest activity.
    It appears that the Premier is trying her hardest to bring about some sort of forest transition” by ignoring the facts as Bob Gordon has clearly laid out in this article.
    As I am a moderate supporter of forestry, I it find this rather disturbing that for the first time ever a State Labor government would drop its support for the States forest industry.

  4. salamander

    August 17, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    Bob Gordon likes Jonathan West because FT managed to walk all over him. Whatever Bob Gordon says, FT got away with not releasing their base data.

  5. William Boeder

    August 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    Barnaby, further to the article letter presented by Bob Gordon featured in the Forestry Tasmania Branchline publication.
    This business of freely making available all information released under right to information legislation?
    Am I to understand that this effectively means that were I to make application for information, say, “in regard to all specific wood supply aggreements with quite recent extensions added or granted to take these agreements well on further into the futures?
    Then to the new wood supply agreements and contracts signed during the last 12 months, would be provided to me by simple application? (No questions asked?”)

    Or is this in fact a misconstrued reading by me of the Bobsters comments?
    Thanks Barnaby.

    William Boeder.

  6. Barnaby Drake

    August 17, 2011 at 4:35 am

    The agreement contains the dual objectives of guaranteeing resource supply to timber processors and a commitment to reserving for an interim period pending verification 430,000 hectares of State forest.

    The additional column headed “Intergovernmental Agreement” shows annual yields of sawlog, peeler billets and arisings by decade between 2011 and 2050.

    A total of 497 harvesting coupes are listed of which 87 fall within the TFIA430.

    Of the 87 harvesting coupes, 59 are critical to the supply of logs to Ta Ann.

    Forestry Tasmania needs to provide the Tasmanian and Australian governments with an analysis of what will be required for it to continue to meet its contractual obligations, including by re-scheduling forest operations from within the identified 430,000 hectares.

    We also intend to be as transparent as possible. In line with our policy of making freely available all information released under Right to Information legislation — Until next time.

    Bob Gordon

    What more needs to be said?

  7. William Boeder

    August 17, 2011 at 1:27 am

    #13. Interesting to see Mark Poynter getting involved in Tasmania’s logging industry affairs when he has problems of his own in which he is actively down-sizing the extent of public discontent to the actions of the clear-fell brigade in Victoria.
    Currently Mark Poynter is aware that there are loud challenges to the ways of Vic Forests and of their non-caring attitude to the on-going habitat destruction of the tiny Leadbeaters Possum.
    Mark Poynter, I believe it is quite logical to suggest that a better use of one’s time would be to address or ratify one’s own difficult industry affairs, rather than jump to the support of ostensibly Tasmania’s major logging practitioner and the chosen role by their CEO as a major source of Tasmania’s discontent, by way of “this Tasmanian GBE” on displaying its fixated intentions of issuing misleading media releases and the announcement of confounding industry statements.

  8. Barnaby Drake

    August 17, 2011 at 12:04 am

    Other theories about why the CFMEU are willing to sacrifice the NF sector
    are obviously to get compensation monies, but also to payback the Australian
    Greens for pushing the Govt to abolish the Building Commission (not its full
    name) which is a thorn in the union’s side.

    Just where did this little bit of unsubstantiated Green bashing originate? These ‘theories’ expounded by Mr Poynter?
    Gunns has always controlled the CFMEU where Forestry and their own activities were concerned, and when John Gay said ‘Jump’ they all said ‘How High?’

  9. john hawkins

    August 16, 2011 at 11:16 pm

    Another little gem for Gordon is the glowing endorsement of FT in the report cited above by Gordon and written by Professor Vanclay.

    Gordon states that,

    “Just to make sure everything was above board, the Australian Government commissioned Professor Vanclay to look over our shoulder and confirm the accuracy of FT’s assesment (view Here) It is a reflection of our professionlism…”

    Sure is!!!!!

    Close inspection of the numerical sub paragraphs shows a few to be missing. WHY ?

    Page 2 Task 2 Paras 1 2 and 3.

    Page 4 Task 2 Conclusions paragraphs 1 and 2.

    I smell something amiss … which is par for the course at FT where in my view, deceit is endemic.

    Perhaps Bob Gordon would care to comment.

  10. Mark

    August 16, 2011 at 9:48 pm

    I heard Bob Gordon on ABC radio today where he admitted signing new contracts with sawmillers since October 2010. He did not see any conflict with the proposed moratorium as it didn’t exist. He now sees these contracts as part of the future resource security for the industry.

    Now to the point. I’m going to tie this thread to the article “Wailing in the Wind.” :

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/wailing-in-the-wind/

    The article’s history is an email sent across the forestry sector advertising a rally. The original email list contained many of the same names of the sawmillers who had new contracts signed with FT.

    There is a network operating with the sole intention of destroying any agreement and, as a public servant, Bob Gordon should be brought to account.

  11. Mark Poynter

    August 16, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    #6 John Hawkins

    “As you cannot work in Forestry in Tasmania without being a member of the (CFMEU) Union this provides a pretty accurate guide of forestry employee numbers”

    Is this right? My understanding is that it isn’t and that the lack of members is one reason why the CFMEU are willing to sacrifice the Tas NF sector for a pulpmill where they could have a totally unionised workforce.

    Other theories about why the CFMEU are willing to sacrifice the NF sector are obviously to get compensation monies, but also to payback the Australian Greens for pushing the Govt to abolish the Building Commission (not its full name) which is a thorn in the union’s side. Either way, it seems the CFMEU has traded away its strongly-held philosophical belief in having a NF sector for short term gain in other areas.

  12. john hayward

    August 16, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    A powerful manifesto from Bob, one that would have Munchausen himself doffing his cap in admiration.

    But how is Bob’s scientific miracle still gushing public money from a logging rate many times more intensive than anywhere else in Australia? How did Bob let himself be logged into long-term contracts under conditions that guarantee a loss, when FT is merely managing public forests for the Crown, with all the legal privileges that this entails?

    And why are most (59 of 87) of the scheduled FT coupes in the “informally reserved” HoA zone slated for a Malaysian company that supposedly is only after peeler logs?

    Bob’s creations above are all the more admirable in that he has had to bounce back from the embarrassment of losing $300,000,000 of claimed FT assets when FT’s US forestry auditor reminded them that the 1.5m ha of State Forest land didn’t belong to them, thus reducing their net assets to approximately zero.

    While Tasmania may have lost most its tallest trees , it’s still growing some of the tallest tales on the planet, thanks largely to Bob’s secret manure.

    John Hayward

  13. PB

    August 16, 2011 at 7:30 pm

    On a previous thread (Going Bush … err Bust

    http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/going-busht/

    ) I have catalogued a litany of dismal failure and misrepresentation by Forestry Tasmania which proves that it cannot be entrusted with any modelling that it produces in its attempts to influence the outcome of the verification process.

    Furthermore, it appears that Forestry Tasmania has been surreptitiously extending contracts in recent weeks, in breach of the Forest Statement of Principles, in order to take full advantage of the prescribed date of 7 August 2011 for honouring contracts for native wood supply in accordance with Clause 18 of the Intergovernmental Agreement.

    In the most brazen case, FT has extended the terms of both its Wood Supply Agreements with Ta Ann by a further 5 years to 31 December 2026 for Huon and 31 December 2027 for Smithton contrary to Clause 2.2 of the terms of the contracts which expressly specify that the terms cannot be extended prior to 2018 for Huon and 2019 for Smithton.

    This extension of terms is confirmed by FT’s Evaluation of Resource Scenarios for Signatories-Final Report 6 June 2011 which states on page 6 that “The longest current contract applies to peeler billets and continues until 2027”. This is at odds with the publicly released Agreements on FT’s website which show the agreed expiration dates as 2021 for Huon and 2022 for Smithton. And less than a month before issuing this report FT provided a list of all its wood supply agreements in response to an RTI request from Kim Booth (RTI11-5) which expressly shows the contracts expiring in 2021 and 2022 respectively and the future timeframe under which they could be extended:

    http://www.forestrytas.com.au/uploads/File/pdf/rti2011/rti11_05_booth.pdf

    I have reproduced the terms from the Huon Agreement as follows:

    2. TERM

    2.1 Subject to Clause 3.1 and this Clause 2, this Contract commences on signing and expires on 31 December 2021.

    2.2 The Purchaser may, by written notice given to Forestry Tasmania during the period between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018, extend the term of this Contract by a further five years and, if such notice is given, the term of this Contract will be deemed to be extended to expire on 31 December 2026, provided that, this Clause 2.2 will not apply to any such extended period.

    2.3 The Parties agree that they will meet during the period between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2021 to discuss whether, and may agree that, this Contract will be extended by a second term of fifteen years, with provision for a further extension of an additional five years. The parties make no representations or warranties as to what the outcome of those discussions may be.

    http://www.forestrytas.com.au/forest-management/wood-supply-agreements

    It should also be noted that the Agreements released on the FT website have been “amended to remove commercial in confidence sections” which includes the wood supply volumes making it impossible to verify if the annual 265,000 (cubic) metres supply of peeler billets specified in 17 of the Intergovernmental Agreement is legitimate.

    Disconcertingly, page 26 of FT’s 2010 Stewardship Report reveals that the sustainable level of peeler logs, which “arise” from (reducing) high quality sawlog production has never been defined and has been rapidly increasing in recent years as follows:

    2005/06 – 150,934 cubic metres
    2006/07 – 211,197 cubic metres
    2007/08 – 209,590 cubic metres
    2008/09 – 208,334 cubic metres
    2009/10 – 299,101 cubic metres

  14. lmxly

    August 16, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Actually Senator Brown is correct, and Bob Gordon is wrong. The report BG refers to

    “a major report provided to Bill Kelty (view report HERE:

    http://www.forestrytas.com.au/uploads/File/pdf/pdf2011/final_report_signatories_resource_modelling.pdf

    ), who had been charged with getting the ENGOs and industry groups to an agreement. This report is the one Senator Brown thought had remained secret. In fact, it was released last month, as part of the final Kelty report. ”

    was not actually included in Kelty’s final report. And in fact it is very hard to find on FT’s website – at least I could not, it has a dreadful ‘search’ function. So at least it is welcome to now gain access to this report; which was originally released only to signatories of the SoP, and since Senator Brown was not amongst them he presumably didn’t get it!

    Yet another example of FT misleading information. Not to mention the content of the report itself.

  15. Robin Halton

    August 16, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    Not one cm2 of State Forest into Informal Reserves to be verified for HCV by his lordship Prof Jonathon West and his team of anti forestry no hopers!
    Premier Lara Gidding and her useless Deputy Bryan Green must not under any circumstances allow any existing State Forest be subjected to this totally stupid approach just to suit a minority who only want draw media attention to themselves and stuff up the state with green idealogy.
    The two women Lara and Julia and that idiot Tony Burke involved in signing the Agreement have no idea what that have let themselves in for.
    It is time for FT, FIAT, TCA, TFF and 85% of Tasmanians to make it clear we dont want Green opportunism to destroy the economy and well being of our state.

  16. max

    August 16, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    On the radio this morning Bob Gordon was telling us that they need all the forests to maintain a reliable log supply for the saw millers. Next was Kim Booth telling us that there was enough saw logs on the wharf at Hobart, going to China to last the saw millers 10 years. If Kim is right we are being lied to and giving away our future.

  17. Jeff Williams

    August 16, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    #1 Don’t worry Barnaby, it’s still the same old Bobster! Just trying to polish the turd that is FT. He’s probably been helped and instructed by his best mate Big Red or as we like to know him “The Busted Sav”.

    The thing that really makes me smile is that the poor buggers who work for them think that FT would be OK if it wasn’t affected by this agreement. It was ruined before the agreement and it will be ruined whether it goes ahead or not. I know John Gay once said that Gunns and the forestry industry had a duty to employ people of low intelligence or they wouldn’t have jobs anywhere else. All I can say now is that if you are that stupid you shouldn’t be in charge of heavy machinery or driving on the roads! My advice to them all is take the money and run. I think that is what the secret union ballet is all about. If they don’t do this they will really be on the scrap heap.

  18. john hawkins

    August 16, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    I heard the CFMEU representative in Tasmania on the local ABC drive show yesterday afternoon state that a ballot of members would take place and that included in Tasmania approx 400 on the shop floor and 200 postal.

    As you cannot work in Forestry in Tasmania without being a member of the Union this provides a pretty accurate guide of forestry employee numbers.

    The two labour governments are giving away a total of 276 million dollars; I ask how much of this will go to CFMEU members on top of severence pay and entitlements?

    No wonder the Union backs acceptance.

    The State will still be logging over 500,000 cm of timber from native forests; it is only the unsaleable woodchips that are out of the equation.

  19. Len Fulton

    August 16, 2011 at 1:23 pm

    Does anyone know when Gunns are putting out their annual financial report? I thought it was due today or tomorrow. Can we expect a ‘delay’ while the impact of the Forest Agreement is known? Can we then expect further delays whilst that impact on Gunns’ bottom line is ‘assessed’? You betcha we can. Ad infinitum. And, of course, the ASX trading suspension will need to continue in the interim. Clever ole Greg will have that letter ready. It will just need to be dated and faxed. And how about the genius that runs FT? Will he be putting out an annual financial statement any time soon ? Is FT obliged to do that or do such niceties not apply to them?

  20. Frank Strie, TWFF

    August 16, 2011 at 11:54 am

    What a style in presenting his case!
    History will judge the management during the last quater century as unsustainable in a number of ways.
    To some in society, the presentation style that is presented as the basis of forestry for the future may sound smart almost clever.
    The term “sustainable management” as part of the obligation to the owners of the estate the public was lost.
    He can spin as much as he likes, Forestry Tasmania’s Chiefs managed the estate so effectively, that they are just about done.

    It should be fair to expect to see the original contract that was signed between Ta Ann and Forestry Tasmania.
    Was / Is there an oblication to compensate in case of changes in the supply regions due to political changes?
    Who designed the contract?
    Names and facts please.

  21. Russell

    August 16, 2011 at 11:16 am

    All that experience, knowledge, modern scientific tools and access to a free resource, and STILL you can’t manage to make a profit?

    Sorry Bob, but it’s worth a hell of a lot more left as is.

  22. Mark

    August 16, 2011 at 10:32 am

    The only reason various forestry representatives are calling for the release of Professor West’s scientific analysis is to tear it apart politically. This will play itself out over the next week. In the meantime, I’m enjoying the orchestrated media campaign, disguised as news, as we get to meet the woodworkers and others who seem to desperately need woodchips.

  23. Barnaby Drake

    August 16, 2011 at 5:20 am

    ‘As a Government Business Enterprise, we will work within the parameters and constraints set by the government and ultimately by State parliament and as a GBE, we ensure that all of our activities meet our legislative, contractual, fiduciary and sustainability obligations.’… Bob Gordon.

    Is this the same Bob Gordon who we have come to know and love so well? The same man who, I think, thinks he OWNS the forests and wants compensating for NOT cutting them down. The same man who is in charge of a GBE and not a private enterprise and is supposed to be returning a maximum profit for the Tasmanian public and Treasury? Is this the man who mistakenly added in all the trees into Forestry accounts until he was told that he shouldn’t do this as they were not his. Is this the same man who claims that all their activites are ‘sustainable’, including an annual loss of millions? Possibly the same man who thinks their activities are carbon-neutral after burning 7.2 million tonnes a year and classifying 95% of all timber as forest waste and sending it to the chipper? Is this the same man who became head of Forestry after (involvement associated with) the RPDC and now knows all 1.5 million hectares of forest intimately, with experience gained over 90 years of using modelling tools? I can’t believe that this was the same man who appears not to have honoured the moratorium imposed by the government after the SoP and apparently signed more contracts for wood supply during this period. Tell me this is untrue?, and It can’t be the same man who wants to do the same as the last incumbant and move all the ‘saved’ area boundaries to somewhere other than around the forests after receiving a mere $170 million from Mr Howard? I can’t believe he is the same man who oversaw the loss of so many forestry worker’s jobs during the last few years but not, of course, all those important people in the control functions.

    Tell me I am wrong and this is not the same man we have come to respect so much who has written the above report criticising Mr Bob Brown and outlining all the benefits of Forestry continuing along the same old path dogged paved with so many good intentions?

    I just can’t sleep at night thinking about it!

Leave a Reply

To Top