Tasmanian Times

Economy

Bryan the Bashful versus the Nome King

image v. image

This is an extension of the various commentary I have made on Coupe BA388D over the past many months (John Powell, here), and emphasizes the substantive divide between what legislation and the Responsible Minister states is the role of their Forestry GBE, and what the Executive of that GBE perceives is their mandate.

On 4 June I sent the attached letter to Bob Gordon as MD of Forestry Tasmania seeking to purchase an area of State Forest which included Coupe BA 388D.

I now have received two replies to that letter one from Minister Green and one from FT. The principal content of these letters is shown below.

Minister Green letter of 8 August

“I refer to your email dated 6 July 2012 regarding your offer to purchase an area of state forest – Coupe BA388D.

Forestry Tasmania is bound by legislation to manage state forest for multiple uses, however a recent valuation process established that Forestry Tasmania does not ‘own’ Crown Land.

Under the Forestry Act 1920, it has no authority to revoke the dedication of Crown Land that has been declared state forest….”

FT letter of 17 August from Mike Farrow, Acting Managing Director

“Thank you for your letter of 4 June 2012 in which you offer to purchase 44 ha of land associated with Coupe BA388D….

Forestry Tasmania does not wish to sell the land associated with this coupe”.

It is quite apparent from the divergent replies that FT has a complete dichotomy of view to that of the Minister and indeed reality.

The Minister is absolutely correct in stating that FT has no ownership of the land in question, and thus is unable to dispose thereof.

However FT seems to believe that it”owns” the land and has an ability to determine the future disposition of such.

It is no surprise then that FT’s whole attitude to forestry management,and interaction with the public of Tasmania, has displayed the same complete arrogance, i.e. ‘this is my land and I will do with it what I want”, both in the past and indeed ongoing.

No FT, the land is owned by the people of Tasmania, and has a need to be managed sustainably and nurtured for our future generations – something that has clearly not been the case for at least the past 30 years.

Like all Tasmanians who live in the 21st century, and not the Jurassic period, I look forward to this dichotomy being swept away by the outcome of the IGA negotiations, and this historic (Indigenous and European) coupe, and many others like it, being protected as a result.

And for those who have forgotten about the potential environmental impact of FT’s arrogance and unsustainable management associated with this coupe, a couple of recent photos and a link will do no harm.

http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/the-yellow-silt-road-…-oops-waterfall/

image
Silt heading to the Liffey

image
20 cm ‘peelers’ under snow

image
Lara’s “yellow” road

Download:

Letter_to_FT.pdf

Forestry_Purchase.pdf

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

4 Comments

  1. William Boeder

    August 27, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    Comments #1. #2. #3, with the soon to be break up of Forestry Tasmania into 2 separate components, (if we are to believe the Ken Jefferies letter to its F/T employees appearing in today’s Advocate Newspaper 28-08-2012.)
    These 2 new structured component bodies should now provide much clearer regulatory compliance, and better lines of disputed demarcation.
    Among the compelling changes called for and so despairingly warranted, are for a more responsible, more accountable, more transparent, more environment conscious basis in the 2 new Management structures.

    In effect the old Forestry Tasmania Foxes will no longer have the keys to the entirety of the State’s forests, (as was formerly the distorted view of the hierarchy that rebelliously ruled supreme over the failing GBE of Forestry Tasmania.

    The advices contained in the Advocate article went on to announce that 3 current non-executive directors were to have terminated their positions on the directors board of Forestry Tasmania this past 30th June 2012, yet did in fact linger longer owing to the uncertainty of the futures of Forestry Tasmania being investigated at that precise time.
    The changes to the board of Forestry Tasmania seem to be exceedingly overdue, as there was seldom seen, barely recognizable, any show of true responsible endeavour among each of these under-performing non-accountable non-executive directors.
    I have long held the opinion that this GBE of Forestry Tasmania was no longer tenable, no longer acceptable, (being the tremendous financial burden upon the people of Tasmania,) no longer credible nor trustworthy, indeed it was in dire need of absolute revocation.
    Thus through the advices contained in the Ken Jefferies letter appearing in today’s Advocate, have finally conformed to my oft repeated suspicions held toward this now proven failed GBE of Forestry Tasmania.
    All the Tasmanian people will be anxious and keenly awaiting for further updates to this momentous conclusion and to the ultimate fate of this destructive Tasmanian government GBE.

  2. john Hayward

    August 27, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    It is obviously impossible for FT to un-designate the form of Crown land known as State Forest, which they don’t own.

    But they still have the option, with a little help from their LibLab mates, of having vast areas of it deeded to themselves as private freehold, as was done in the unilateral Land Swap.

    And they could also simply gift even bigger areas, like 570,000ha, to friends or relatives, as the Bobster contemplated not long ago.

    Explore the unique Tas opportunities!

    John Hayward

  3. David Obendorf

    August 27, 2012 at 11:34 am

    John, I feel for you dropping into the bureaurat-political rat cess-pit that constitutes the governance of Tasmania and its public forests. It is so very often that the left-hand does not know what the right-hand is doing. Thjis is a clasic example… but of course their interpretatuion would be totally difference. Of course, it would.

    This crazy logic from Bryan Green and FT can sometimes create so much confusion and mayhem that the real ‘winners’ are these all powerful gatekeepers who feel they actually ‘own’ everything John.

    I am quite honestly amazed that you received these two responses and that the GBE didn’t check with its Minister to find out what he had told you only a week earlier.

    Welcome to Taz-mania. Is the island at an ethical tipping point?

  4. Philip Lowe

    August 26, 2012 at 11:31 pm

    If all this forstry land is actualy crown land,and you can’t purchase it off anybody in Tasmania,then why don’t you rip off a quick line to the Queen(have you got the address?).It might be worth a try.

To Top