Not before Christmas …

• WATCH the MLCs: HERE

• Thursday 11.30am Update: The bill is struggling as MLCs go offline, in-house: The overview has them 7-all, in which case President Sue Smith would have no option but to casting-vote it down. But Hall, Harris, Wilkinson, Goodwin, Wagner and Taylor want it to go to committee now. Mulder, Farrell and Forrest are disposed to the bill … but … with amendments … and more amendments are foreshadowed.

• … As new group announced today (Thurs) in last-ditch bid to ensure future of Tasmania’s Special Timbers value adding industry (see below) …

The legislation to halve the native timber industry and protect an extra 500,000 hectares of forest from logging is unlikely to pass through the Legislative Council before Christmas … despite heavying from Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke which included a flying visit to brief MLCs … and an extra $102 million of taxpayers’ money chucked in.

Debate resumes in the Legislative Council this morning. Already two MLCs (Farrell, Finch) have declared their support for the bill, while Vanessa Goodwin indicated she was opposed. Greg Hall has just joined her (Use the TT NEWS Dropdown men (top nav bar) to keep abreast of the votes, and breaking news).

ABC Online reported:

The State is providing about 40 per cent of the money, an extra $39.5 million, with $62.5 million from the Commonwealth.

$3.5 million to create a special council to oversee the implementation of the forest agreement and gain forest industry certification.

• 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

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Forestry sweetener $90m short of industry ask

The funding announced yesterday by Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke is at best $90 million short of the ask by signatories to the so-called forestry peace deal.
The additional funding sought by industry is detailed in the attached list.

“This is, and always has been, a dud deal for Tasmania and it just gets worse,” Senator Colbeck said.

Senator Colbeck said the proposed funding makes no allowance for the impact of this process on:

• mining;
• farming;
• fine design and furniture;
• tourism;
• honey producers;
• the craft sector;
• transport; or
• civil construction and engineering.

“The suggestion by Minister Burke that this does not impact on any other industry is absurd,” Senator Colbeck said. “Just because the forest sector said they were not negotiating on behalf of any other sector doesn’t mean they will not be impacted.

“The proposed declaration of world heritage areas and national parks is proof of that.

“The proposed deal will impact on up to 100,000ha of Tasmania’s 650,000ha of agricultural land if plantations to replace native forest are established.”

Senator Colbeck said no socio-economic modelling of this process had been completed and yet Tasmanians were being pressured into a deal to lock up 52% of the State.

“Why has the Government not done any research on the potential impacts?” Senator Colbeck said.

“There is nothing in this deal that is good for Tasmania.”

• Examiner: Deadlock looming: If it’s a tie, the matter will proceed to the committee stage when amendments will be debated. If it’s still tied at the end of that stage, President Sue Smith will most likely use her casting vote to reject the legislation.

• news.com.au: All Tassie is saying: give peace a chance

• Thursday, ABC Online: All tied up, 7-7 with MLCs to be briefed on amendments by Labor

• New group formed to ensure future of Tasmania’s Special Timbers value adding industry

Tasmania’s world renowned Specialty Timber sector comprises saw millers, craftspeople such as boat builders, furniture and instrument makers and wood turners plus retailers, gallery owners and many others.

Tasmanians are proud of this industry sector and many people have a strong connection to the beautiful products produced here. This sector employs over 2000 full time employees with 8,500 part time or hobbyists contributing tens of millions of dollars collectively to the Tasmanian economy. Most of the people employed in this industry are small business owners who have not been represented by any signatory of the Forest Peace Deal.

Unlike the broader forest industry that has suffered a downturn, the special timbers sector has mostly enjoyed strong demand for their high end niche products both in Australia and overseas.

Unfortunately the Tasmanian Forest Agreement 2012 and the process leading up to it has not taken into account the resource needs of this important industry sector. This failure has been readily admitted over and over in the IVG process and even The Premier has admitted the amount of special timbers required by the sector have not been verified as required by Clause 17 of the IGA.

The Tasmanian Special Timbers Alliance (TSTA) has been formed to address the issue of the lack of representation of the sector in the current negotiations. A steering committee has been formed and TSTA will be shortly advertising for membership to ensure that the future of the sector is ensured.

The Special Timber industry is already facing timber shortages and rising costs as a result of the IGA process. Forestry Tasmania has advised the Legislative Council that there will be acute shortages in Special Timbers as a result of this deal. For example, there is currently no Celery Top Pine available in the state for boat builders and only enough scheduled to be harvested in 2013 to supply one small business.

STSA spokesperson, Andrew Denman (a professional Tasmanian boat builder) says the TFA should not be passed in its current form as it will have a devastating effect on the sector.

“It is very disappointing that the Government has pushed this agreement through in its current form. The Premier and Resources Minister should be well aware that the special timbers industry has not been adequately provided for in this agreement so I do question whether this is a deliberate attempt to scuttle the sector on the Government’s part or whether the
Minister is not across his portfolio and has no idea of the needs of the industry.”

“The new Special Timbers production areas proposed in the Tasmanian Forest Agreement are not based on any evidence based rationale and are merely an appeasement line drawn on a map without consideration of one of our most vibrant industry sectors.”

TSTA will be lobbying the Legislative Council urging them to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the resource required for the Special Timbers sector will be adequately provided for under any agreement.

A few facts about Special Timbers and the Tasmanian Forest Agreement/IGA process

• The IGA/IVG process promised to verify the amount of timber the special timber required by industry – this has not occurred

• The Tasmanian Specialty Timber sector is not represented by any of the TFA signatories

• The Special Timber production zones have been reduced by over 60% under this agreement and there has been no modelling to see what timber is available for the sector in the remaining production areas.

• New reserves in existing special timber production zones have been made against special timbers sector advice.

• Jan Davis: TFGA CEO Article in Weekend Australian 3/12/12: Latest deal is seriously flawed

Tasmania’s private forest owners have had the forestry wars up to here. In our terms, it has been as exhausting, frustrating and seeming insoluble as the the Middle East situation.
Like everybody else, we want a permanent and lasting end to the conflict that has gone on here since wood chipping began in 1972. And, unlike most, we have a vested interest in seeing this war of attrition end.

The private forest estate comprises 1,059,000 hectares of land, which represents c15% of the state’s total land area. Some 885,000 ha is privately owned native forest (a little over 27% of the state’s native forest resource), and 201,000 ha comprises plantation forests on private land, including that owned by the industrial forestry companies. There are an estimated 1,600 private owners (mainly farmers) who collectively manage this area at no cost to the state. These private forests contribute $450 – $650 million annually to the Tasmanian economy – more than mining, more than tourism.

We have had to live with the issue day in, day out, for 40 years as the Greens and some ENGOs have built their political identity on their continuing but changing agenda for Tasmania’s forests. The continual whittling away of our ability to manage our own land and resources has taken a serious toll – emotionally, financially and physically.

The difference between us and them is not so much in intent; but in commitment. We have actual skin in the game and have been putting our own money into conservation and forest management activities, often for generations. These management regimes have resulted in maintenance of biodiversity and non-forest values, while still generating income for families and communities. In many cases, the returns from these investments have been used to enhance and improve both the environmental and economic aspects of the resource.
At present, 86,700 hectares of land owned by Tasmanian farmers is covered by voluntary binding conservation agreements, most of which have no sustainable funding. The state government predicts that will increase to 94,000 ha during the current financial year. No provision has been made for any form of compensation or even stewardship payments, the assumption seeming to be that farmers will do this out of the goodness of their hearts. As a general rule of thumb, a further of 30% of every farm is required under state regulations to be set aside for environmental purposes. That’s 40% of farm land alienated without any meaningful return – land for which farmers must pay mortgages, rates and taxes; as well as maintenance costs like fencing and pest and weed control. On top of that, under the now defunct Regional Forests Agreement, a ban on further conversion of native forest to farmland comes into force in 2015.

Many private forest owners view an integrated approach to forest management as a matter of course, where commercial utilisation is balanced with providing other non commercial values. So, in fact, they do provide community benefits at their own cost.

Yet there has been no recognition of this proud record. The Greens and the ENGOs treat farmers as if we are rapers and pillagers – despite all the evidence to the contrary. They have treated each addition to the permanent forest reserve since 1997 as another land grab, not a solution or a reconciliation.

The latest deal is seriously flawed. The participants in the intergovernmental agreement were both unelected and unaccountable to the broader community. These vested interests took two years behind closed doors to divide up the Tasmanian forests between them. Yet those who actually own forests, who have skin in the forestry game, who invest in trees, who manage forests, who protect them from wild fire, were banned from the tent, never given the chance to express their view.

In short, these ‘faceless men’ have agreed that another half a million hectares of our forests will be locked up in return for the sawlog quota being reduced by more than half; while sawmillers and forest contractors walk away from the industry (and our private forest estate resource) with federal compensation money.

The deal was rushed through the Lower House the day after it was signed. Yet, at the 11th hour, new twists continue to come to light. The Commonwealth stands to make $7 billion from Tasmania’s forests in carbon credits if they are locked up, yet has to pay less than $300 million over 15 years to Tasmania for that windfall to be realised.

The ultimate test of whether the largely independent Legislative Council should enshrine this deal in legislation is whether it delivers what it claims: peace in the forests and better environmental outcomes.

If it cannot achieve a lasting and meaningful peace, even before the legislation is passed, then it has failed. The ENGOs involved in the talks – the Wilderness Society, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Environment Tasmania – do not represent the wider, angrier environment movement that is committed to continue the fight no matter what. Those groups include Markets for Change, Still Wild Still Threatened, the Huon Valley Environment Centre, GetUp, etc.

Furthermore, emerging science does not support claims for improved environmental outcomes. Perhaps our best-known environmental scientist Tim Flannery recently said that the future for biodiversity conservation isn’t more national parks.

So, the deal will deliver neither the peace we have been promised nor improvements in environmental outcomes – and it will result in seriously detrimental economic consequences. No tick on any of the aspects of a triple bottom line outcome.

And the forest wars will continue. The target will simply move from the public estate to our private forest lands. The Greens and the ENGOs have already told us that.

The fact that this is the only deal on the table is not a good enough reason to be bullied into accepting it. We believe all Tasmanians should have an opportunity to consider what has been put on the table and give some serious and informed consideration as to how it might be improved. At the very least, our Upper House members must have time to consider the outcomes carefully before casting their votes.

We want peace and an end to the forest wars – but not at any price.

• 4.30pm Update, Thursday: Those LC wanting to have the bill passed today are moving amendments to have the bill survive and be passed with the proviso that the council gives the final approval to the protection orders of preservation of HCV forest defined under the Act. Ruth Forrest is moving that amendment as a counter to Paul Harriss’ proposal for an open-ended LC select committee for public input before the bill comes back to the council for any amendments to be added to the bill before it is voted on. Earlier Government leader Craig Farrell withdrew his motion to have the LC deal with the bill before the end of the year to satisfy the Commonwealtgh funding package and the statemenbt from Ta Ann because it was evident that motion had no support from the council. In the end: Harriss’ motion to call for an Upper Houdse inquiry was brought on at 20 minutes to 6pm … the motion was ageed to 8 (Wagner, Dean, Wilkinson, Mulder, Hall, Harris, Taylor, Goodwin) and four against (Forres, Finch, Valentine and Farrell. Apparently Gaffney did not vote