Terry Edwards
Lyndon Schneiders
[i]The war of words continues….this time Lyndon Schineiders faces off with Terry Edwards. A few careful forays attempted with the feisty provocations from Schnieders and clever blocking moves from Edwards. Outside this ring Nick McKim and Bryan Green are probably involved in a deadlier fight than what we witnessedof 7.30 Tasmania last Friday.[/i]
Airlie Ward: It’s been a long time coming and its conclusion is no certainty. The protracted forest peace negotiations have hit another snag, with key player: the Forest Industries Association, this week suspending its involvement in the talks. Another industry representative has joined them. At issue is a restructured Forestry Tasmania. This afternoon, I spoke to two of the main protagonists in the decades-long debate – Lyndon Schneiders [Melbourne] from the Wilderness Society and the Forest Industries Association, Terry Edwards [Hobart].
Terry Edwards, Lyndon Schneiders thanks very much for joining us.
Terry Edwards: It’s a pleasure, Airlie.
Lyndon Schneiders: Yeah it’s great, thanks.
Airlie Ward: First to you Terry Edwards, are you sort of picking up your bat and ball and going home if you don’t get the rules your way?
Terry Edwards: Oh no, I think that’s ahh… an unfortunate way to try and phrase it. What we’re trying to say to government is that they’ve asked us – as the signatory groups – to try and negotiate these issues out and then they’re imposing issues from the outside that upset some of the things we’re trying to do inside the room. And it’s really making the negotiations much more difficult than they need to be.
The issue on the table at the moment that’s caused this issue is a key ‘durability issue’ that the signatories have been trying to work through… and ahh… government imposing their will from the outside has simply disturbed the negotiation process to the point where we need to try to get the game absolutely clear as to who is doing what.
Airlie Ward: Lyndon Schneiders, does Terry Edwards have a point there?
Lyndon Schneiders: I thought that there was an agreement amongst us all, that at the end of the day, it was gonna have to be the governments that were gonna have to determine the future direction. And so, look I… I’m with Terry in that, you know, the negotiations have been a powerful experience – they’re good. And we support ‘em, and we’re going to stay at that negotiating table. But I do think it looks to me like FIAT has taken up the bat and the ball. And basically they’ve gone: ‘Well, governments outlined the process… ahh… we don’t like it; so we’re not comin’ back in, until we get our way’.
Airlie Ward: Terry Edwards, you’re suggesting that you were given assurances by the government that Forestry Tasmania would retain control of production forests. Who gave you that assurance?
Terry Edwards: Look, the assurance came out of the Minister’s office [Bryan Green’s office]. I’m not gaming to go into details of using people’s names…
Airlie Ward: Not the Minister himself though?
Terry Edwards: No, not the Minister himself, but someone acting on the Minister’s instruction. And we’re given a very clear indication that management control of production forests would remain with Forestry Tasmania. And as a result of that we agreed to change the terminology in the Interim Agreement [signed on 15 August 2012] that was announced about three weeks ago. We would not have signed that Interim Agreement in the form that it was, had that assurance not been provided. So we feel like ahh… to some extent we were given a ‘bum steer’.
Airlie Ward: Does it need to be Forestry Tasmania, Lyndon Schneiders; do you think a statutory authority can effectively do whatever it is that Forestry… is it, a name only thing potentially?
Lyndon Schneiders: Look, we need a forest management agency. No doubt about it. We need to ensure that industry has confidence in that agency. But we also need to understand and ensure that the community has confidence in that Agency. I think it’s a big job…. and we really need to knuckle down and work together on it.
Airlie Ward: On that note, about the community having confidence in the agency – Forestry Tasmania’s reputation in many people’s eyes is tarnished. You yourself acknowledged Terry Edwards that it does need to have a restructure. What is wrong with an independent statutory authority that would report to Parliament – there are many examples of such statutory authorities. Why does it have to be Forestry Tasmania?
Terry Edwards: Look, the key issue for us, Arlie, is that Forestry Tasmania and forestry generally in Tasmania have been subject to a lot of political interference over a long period of time. And one of the key problems we would have is any statutory authority that is subject to the day-to-day wimps of the political masters. So if that body was…(interrupted)
Airlie Ward: But the point of an independent statutory authority, there are many examples of independent statutory authorities that are responsible to Parliament, not to the Minister.
Terry Edwards: Well, that’s the case with Forestry Tasmanian of course. It has a Board of Directors that needs to report and does report to the Parliament. But the other issue is where the Minister of the day can direct a statutory authority; it cannot direct an independent statutory corporation that has fiduciary responsibilities. We need to be certain that wood supply that is delivered as a result of any agreement we reach will be able to be delivered without political interference.
Lyndon Schneiders: Look, that gets down to one of the core issue for both of the parties. But, you know, like ahh… as I’ve said previously, you know, we’re not wildly thrilled by the prospect for example – if the polls are correct, you know, it’s likely Will Hodgman will be Premier in a year’s time. We’re no thrilled with the position that he’s taken; that’s gonna rip up the agreement and start from scratch. But we’ve had faith in the negotiations and also in the… in the industry parties. That if we can land an agreement together, we’ll stand together and defend the agreement. And I feel as through… one of the reasons I’m a little bit grumpy about all this that, you know, I feel as though ahh… from FIAT’s perspective and others… ahhm… we will make a commitment to stand with them, in the same way, they’ve made a commitment to us, to stand with them. If wood supply is agreed the volumes are agreed; the size and the scale of production forests is agreed. We’re not going to be there undermining that agreement. And so the concern… and I do understand it’s a real concern from industry… and I do understand it’s a concern for the conservation groups too, because it’s been such a fraught issue. But we’re making a commitment to the industry to stand together at the end of this agreement process.
If the concern is about future political disagree… intervention; taking away production forests, interfering with wood supply, our pledge back to the industry through this process has been, we will stand there with you. And industry has pledged similar things to us around some of the issues we’re concerned about… you know, a possible change in Government. Ya, fire away…
Terry Edwards: To be fair though Lyndon, you have tried to get your protection up front through the negotiations process. I’m not going to go through the details of our negotiations through the media. But you’ve tried to protect yours up front and get them legislated at the front end of the process. If we’re subject to day to day Ministerial whim into the future, we don’t get those protections up front. And we have to have the daily battle. That’s what we can’t accept and we want to get our commitment up front as well.
Airlie Ward: On the issue of political intervention, Terry Edwards you’re blaming ahhm… Nick McKim. Nick McKim is only one cabinet minister. How could he have rolled Bryan Green?
Terry Edwards: The decision was made by cabinet as a whole. And I think quite rightly now it’s been returned initially to the cabinet sub-committee and subsequently – presumably – back to cabinet.
Lyndon Schneiders: That’s right Terry… so, so… why, why suspend involvement. You know, in terms of your concerns, you’ve got the movement I thought you wanted and that’s important for you. I understand that. So why suspend involvement from the talks?
Terry Edwards: That may have been the case Lyndon… That may have been the case, except Nick McKim then publicly stated that the Greens in cabinet under no circumstances would accept Forestry Tasmania as the manager. If that had been left as an open question, it would have given us some room to consider our position and to work it through in conjunction with the other signatories. We weren’t given that opportunity. It’s been ruled out before we start.
Lyndon Schneiders: This is the escalation you know now… what’s the point? Like what’s… what’s the point of pullin’ out?You’ve got it goin’ back to Cabinet subcommittee… whatever Nick McKim may or may not have said. It’s going back into a process. As you said cabinet is going to reconsider it. There’s the expert group that’s bein’ pulled together. I don’t… it’s still… I still reckon it’s an over-reaction, personally. I know how important it is…
Terry Edwards: That’s why we haven’t pulled out altogether Lyndon; rather we’ve given the government a reasonable timeframe in which to resolve the issue.
Airlie Ward: A timeframe, or an ultimatum?
Terry Edwards: A timeframe.
• Dr Frank Nicklason:
Forestry Tasmania (FT) carbon scientist and manager Dr Martin Moroni states that “forest management is good for the environment and the economy”.
Dr Moroni does not indicate what sort of forest management he is talking about nor does he indicate just who gets the economic benefits.
The forest management regime that FT employs is largely based clearfelling and burning of mixed, wet native State forests. Somewhere between 80 and 90% of the FT harvest has ended up as pulpwood, destined to become paper and cardboard, hardly to be considered a long term store of carbon.
FT scientists in 2000 calculated the carbon dioxide emissions associated with burning the waste after a clearfell operation in mixed, tall, wet native forest at the Warra forest research site in southern Tasmania. They found that around 700 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare were released into the atmosphere from burning above the ground waste. Carbon dioxide released from below the ground was not accounted for, nor were other greenhouse gases.
Clearfelling and burning is inherently and manifestly wasteful. Alternative , far less destructive and socially acceptable, native forest management practices have been resisted by FT.
FT has clearfelled and burnt tens of thousands of hectares of publicly owned native forest and converted these biodiverse areas into monoculture pulpwood plantations and much less diverse eucalyptus regrowth, destroying wildlife habitat, having serious detrimental effects on water catchments, scenic amenity, and social cohesion. The viability of other important Tasmanian industries has been threatened by these FT activities and those of it’s principal customer, Gunns Limited.
It surely follows that converting mixed wet native forests to much drier plantations and eucalyptus regrowth represents increased fire hazard?
FT’s activities in recent years have not resulted in contribution of royalties to State coffers, rather FT has been a substantial drain on the public purse.
I agree with Dr Moroni that use of wood from native forests, sustainably managed to make durable products, is a good way to store carbon and, further, that sustainable native forestry will have longterm financial and social benefits.
It seems that currently the broader Tasmanian community does not trust FT to manage their State forests for these greater goods.
• Hakan Ekstron, Wood Resource Quarterly:
Wood costs for the world’s pulp industry continued downward in the 2Q/12 with the biggest declines in Brazil, Russia, Australia and Europe, reports the Wood Resource Quarterly
The costs of wood fiber for many pulp mills throughout the world continued to fall in the 2Q/12 and were at their lowest levels in over a year, according to the Wood Resource Quarterly. The greatest declines were seen in Brazil, Australia, Russia, Spain and US northwest, and Eastern Canada.
Download the full article:
GTWMU_Global_pulpwood_prices_2Q_2012.pdf
• ABC Online: Chairman Miles quits FT: Forestry Tasmania’s chairman Miles Hampton has resigned over the Tasmanian Government’s restructuring plan for the state-owned company. Mr Hampton says he can no longer support the policies of the Government. He accused the government of trying to starve Forestry Tasmania of cash. Acting Premier Bryan Green wants to create a statutory authority to take control of production forests from Forestry Tasmania. It has caused two industry signatories to the forestry peace talks to walk away. More, here
• Bryan Green: Forestry Tasmania Chair stands down
Bryan Green
Acting Premier
Monday 17th Sep 2012
Forestry Tasmania Chair stands down
Acting Premier Bryan Green said today he was disappointed the incoming Chair of Forestry Tasmania Miles Hampton had decided to step down.
“Forestry Tasmania is a Government Business Enterprise and the Chair needs to be able to operate on a commercial basis with reference to Government policy,” Mr Green said.
“It is disappointing that Mr Hampton has chosen not to accept the role.”
Mr Green said the Government was committed to ensuring Forestry Tasmania was a strong and sustainable GBE.
“The Government recognises it is an extremely challenging time and we will work through the normal processes to have a stable board within Forestry Tasmania,” Mr Green said.
Mr Green said Adrian Kloeden would remain as Chair till the end of the month and that Cabinet would make a decision shortly on his replacement.
• What Miles said …
hampton.pdf
• FORESTRY TASMANIA RESTRUCTURE
Nick McKim MP
Greens Leader
Tuesday, 18 September 2012
The Tasmanian Greens today said they would continue to support the separation of Forestry Tasmania’s commercial and non-commercial functions, in line with the recommendations of the Strategic Review of Forestry Tasmania by independent consultants URS-Deloitte.
Greens Leader Nick McKim MP said the resignation of Forestry Tasmania Chairman Miles Hampton had not changed the reality that URS had found Forestry Tasmania was “unable to fulfil its obligations under the Government Business Enterprises Act 1995, to operate as a successful business”.
“It’s clear that there are some who are unhappy at the idea of restructuring Forestry Tasmania, but the status quo is simply untenable for both the industry and for taxpayers,” Mr McKim said.
“Independent consultants URS-Deloitte have recommended that Forestry Tasmania be restructured to separate its commercial from non-commercial functions, and Cabinet has approved that.”
“Mr Hampton has identified that he is not willing to implement government policy and has done the right thing by resigning.”
“If any other Forestry Tasmania directors hold a similar view they should take similar action.”
“Forestry Tasmania has a number of non commercial functions like managing reserves and fighting bushfires, which need to be maintained through the restructure.”
“At this stage the Greens are not necessarily opposed to using the contingency money to maintain Forestry Tasmania’s non-commercial obligations such as managing reserves, on the basis that it is part of implementing the restructure.”
“We have sought and been offered a briefing with Treasury officials to confirm our understanding.”
“Forestry Tasmania has always been subsidised to deliver non-commercial functions, and this arrangement has the potential to increase the accountability and transparency around where the money comes from and how it is spent.”
