Apology to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Community

Cassy O”Connor speaking in Parliament

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Cassy O’Connor, today (Fri) offered her unreserved apology to any member of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community who took offense at her comments yesterday in relation to the proposed land deal between the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, Forestry Tasmania and FIAT (TT here).

Ms O’Connor said no offense was intended.

“When I spoke out yesterday, suggesting Forestry Tasmania was exploiting the hopes of a disadvantaged community, I was reflecting on Forestry Tasmania’s motives, rather than anyone within the Tasmanian Aboriginal community,” she said.

“I will always support proposals that genuinely empower Aboriginal people and that help to overcome more than 200 years of disadvantage.

“In my view, Aboriginal land should be returned because it is Aboriginal land, not because it suits a particular commercial interest.

“Tasmania’s Aboriginal community rightly feels more of its original lands should be returned to the Aboriginal people. They also believe the community should be able to benefit economically from those lands.

“I am quite happy to meet with Mr Mansell to discuss whether and how the Aboriginal community can benefit through the conservation outcomes in the Intergovernmental Agreement

“The return of traditional lands and the reservation of areas as National Park are not mutually exclusive. Uluru is Aboriginal land, protected for its cultural and natural values. The Bligh Government last year declared a large area on Stradbroke Island as National Park and entered into an agreement with the local Quandamooka people to own and co manage the Park.”

Ms O’Connor apologised personally to Mr Mansell as a representative of the wider Aboriginal community, earlier today.

• TA ANN CALLS FOR SUSTAINABLY HARVESTED TIMBER
Will FT Ignore Even Its Own Customer?

Kim Booth MP
Greens Forestry Spokesperson
Saturday, 3 March 2012

The Tasmanian Greens have called on Forestry Tasmania to explain whether it will agree to Ta Ann Tasmania’s request for timber sourced outside the high conservation value forest areas identified in the Forests Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).

Greens Forestry spokesperson Kim Booth MP said the admission by Forestry Tasmania CEO Bob Gordon on ABC Radio yesterday that Ta Ann had made the request was a clear indication that even Ta Ann had become fed up with Forestry’s environmental vandalism.

“Somebody needs to remind Forestry Tasmania that the customer is always right,” Mr Booth said.

“Because it now seems clear that Forestry Tasmania’s ideological obsession with destroying high conservation value forests has blinded it even to the wishes of its largest customer.”

“If Ta Ann is genuine about wanting a sustainably sourced timber product, then it will have to stand up to Forestry Tasmania and refuse to accept any more timber sourced from within the 430,000 hectares of high conservation value forests identified in the IGA.”

“Given that FT and Ta Ann now claim that they have lost 50% of their market directly as a result of customers being mislead about where the wood came from, then the reduced volumes could easily be sourced from outside the reserve areas.”

“Refusing wood from IGA reserved areas is the only way that Forestry Tasmania and Ta Ann will recover their reputation, destroyed as a consequence of misleading the market about where the product was sourced from.”

Mr Booth also called on both Forestry Tasmania and the Forestry Minister Bryan Green to explain the purpose of Mr Gordon’s recent trip to China, also confirmed on ABC Radio yesterday.

“It beggars belief that while Ta Ann is demanding a sustainable product from Forestry Tasmania, Mr Gordon is in China presumably trying to sell more native forest woodchips at below cost price, again directly undermining the market and damaging other players who do not have access to public money.”

“Gunns has already quit native logging, and now Ta Ann wants to do the same, but it appears Mr Gordon is still out there as travelling salesman for an unsaleable product.”

“Mr Gordon and the Forestry Minister Bryan Green must immediately explain the purpose of Forestry Tasmania’s trip to China and whether offers were made to sell Tasmanian native forest for either furnace fuel or woodchips, and whether the price offered was below the cost of production.”

“This would be an attempt to lock in the status quo, which is counter to the transition intent of the IGA.”

“There is absolutely no way that Tasmania can compete with low cost woodchip producers without offering it below cost, which is only possible because this rogue agency Forestry Tasmania has unfettered access to the public purse,” Mr Booth said.

• SENATOR THE HON RICHARD COLBECK

1200 forestry experts support use of native forest wood waste

The view of 12 scientists pales in significance to the expert opinion of 1200 forest specialists when it comes to support for use of native forest residues for energy generation, Coalition Forestry Spokesman Richard Colbeck said.

“As the Chief Scientist told us at Senate Estimates, the opinion of specialists in a field carries more scientific weight than a group with a scientific qualification and so it is in this case,” Senator Colbeck said.

“These 1200 experts are members of the Institute of Foresters of Australia – an organisation strongly committed to sustainable forest management, sustainable use of biodiversity, conservation and the provision of sustainable livelihoods.

“It is quite clear the overwhelming weight of science supports the use of native forest biomass for energy generation.

“The vocal minority should get in touch with the IFA and get the facts about greenhouse gas emissions, wood waste and native forests.

“These 1200 forestry experts strongly oppose the exposure draft regulations that exclude native forest biomass as an eligible renewable energy source under the Renewable Energy Target (RET), and the weight of their highly-qualified opinions cannot be under stated.

“Using wood waste for energy generation makes sense. It takes a waste product – one that emits greenhouse gas regardless – and generates energy in a way that has far less carbon emissions than fossil fuel-produced energy.

“Plantation timber residue used in this way rightly qualifies as renewable energy. It should not be different for native timber residues.

“Alarmist nonsense that qualifying native wood waste as a renewable energy source will lead to destruction of Australia’s forest is rubbish. As usual, anti-forestry elements are crying wolf and distorting the facts.

“Australia currently has strict arrangements in place that ensure our native forests are appropriately protected and managed.

“Federal Labor could put this nonsense to bed by acting on Recommendation 15 of Seeing the forest through the trees, the House of Representatives parliamentary report tabled last November. It states:

“The Committee recommends that, under any version of the RET (or similar scheme), bioenergy sourced from native forest biomass should continue to qualify as renewable energy, where it is a true waste product and it does not become a driver for the harvesting of native forest.”

“There is currently untapped potential within our forests. Without cutting down a single extra tree, Australia could generate up to 3000 gigawatt hours of energy using wood waste,” Senator Colbeck said.