Coroner & Legal
Shock of The New Amendments
The Signatories to the Tasmanian Forests Agreement have expressed concerns over the extent of amendment to the enacting legislation in the Legislative Council.
The amendments go beyond what we had imagined and are certainly far reaching in the way in which they change the package agreed by Signatories in November of last year and which formed the basis of the Bill that was passed by the House of Assembly and has now been debated and amended in the Upper House.
It will be important for us to now carefully analyse these amendments to allow us to determine the full impacts of these amendments to the Agreement and then to deeply consider and jointly discuss our position in respect to future support for the Agreement and the Bill.
Phill Pullinger speaking on behalf of the ENGO Signatories to the Agreement said:
“We are concerned at the extent of the amendments that have been passed by the Legislative Council and there is no doubt the package is now very different to that we negotiated and agreed to after 3 years of exhaustive and comprehensive negotiations,”
Industry Signatory representative Terry Edwards said:
“We too are concerned at the extent of the changes and believe we need to take a deep breath and methodically analyse the true impact of those changes before we make a detailed response to them”
All Signatories agreed that they will meet at the earliest possible time as a group, in the same manner they have done throughout the process, to try to determine a collective position in response to the changes that now confront us.
The intent will be to determine a position that we will convey to the Government but we will do so in a mature and considered way consistent with the manner we have demonstrated throughout this difficult process.
This has been a difficult and lengthy process and we remain hopeful of an acceptable outcome for the Industry, the workers and the environment.
• The intimate conversation of the Libs’ Peter Gutwein and MLC Paul Harriss in Parliament during the TFA debate …
• David Obendorf, in Comments, HERE: The amended TFA Bill passed the Upper House at 4.30pm – 7 votes to 5. For: Finch, Armitage, Valentine, Mulder, Taylor, Gaffney, Farrell against: Wilkinson, Goodwin, Hall, Dean, Rattray.Forrest absent and paired with Harriss. [Note: The pairing was probably a token gesture and would not have changed the majority of MLCs that voted for the amended TFA bill.]
• Peter McGlone, TCT, in Comments, HERE: I got a copy of Tony Mulder’s ammendment and it is important to note that the balance of the reserves (272000 ha – or is it 322,000 ha with Halls amendment) cannot be created until two conditions are satisfied: – they must not be created prior to Oct 2014 (ie when it is expected that a Liberal state gov is in power and they will just refuse to bring forward a reserves order) and – FSC certification is obtained by Forestry Tasmania. With just one of the conditions satisfied nothing is possible. Even with these two conditions satisfied there is nothing to compell a future government to create these reserves. Where is the durability for the conservation (reserves) side? My guess is that the ‘so-called ENGOs’ will go along with this just to get the World Heritage extension areas reserved – and with Hall’s amendment it looks like this may only be 73,000 ha. When you keep saying yes to a bully, you keep getting bullied.
• David Obendorf:
Tasmania’s Upper House has passed the forest peace deal bill after re-writing it. Forest Agreement Signatories will now hold urgent talks to discuss the changes and their response to the amendments.
Terry Edwards, CEO of FIAT: ‘Some of the amendments look quite bad on the face of them. But when you actually analyse them they are nowhere near as bad as they first appear.’
Phill Pullinger, ET representative: ‘So we are deeply concerned about the workability of any agreement now. But we’re not going to rush to a judgement call on that.’
The Australian Greens leader, Senator Christine Milne is urging the State Government to reject the amendments to the Tasmanian Forest Agreement legislation. [Will the Tasmanian Greens have the same opinion?]
• CANADA: Conservation Group Withdraws From Boreal Forest Agreement With Industry. Not One Hectare Of Forest Has Been Protected In Three Years AND The Wall Street Journal has an article today about conservation organisations pulling out of the Boreal Forest Agreement with industry after no results for the past 3 years. This situation has some uncanny parallels to the Tasmanian Forest Agreement. The article is: HERE
• David Obendorf: Is FSC ‘Mission Impossible’ for Tasmania?
[i]‘FSC was being used by the negotiators as a carrot, but the Mulder amendments turned it into a stick.’[/i] – Karl Stevens
As many commentators have suggested Tasmania’s forestry management practices to gain full FSC certification will be difficult to achieve. It seems the ENGOs might be daunted at the prospect of reforming Tasmania’s poor legacy of forest management. Could it be that Mulder amendment to the Tasmanian Forest Agreement bill would be the challenge that the ENGOs had not anticipated – gaining full FSC certification for Tasmania’s forest practices?
From ABC media – 18 April 2013:
Phill Pullinger: ‘There’s been a pretty significant change in the time frame for the secure gazettal of the reserves… there is deep concern that these reserves might not be delivered.’ [No response to questions on FSC certification.]
‘The piece of legislation that was passed by the Upper House last night departed pretty dramatically in some areas from the agreement that was reached amongst the Signatories in November last year. We would not be changing anything in terms of us continuing to be in a holding pattern as far as the market place is concerned.’
Terry Edwards: ‘The core issues of the agreement are not materially affected by these amendments, what has changed is the time frame … It might just take longer. Industry did not go into this process to get large licks of money. That’s never been our intent.’
Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings on ABC radio stated Japan had made it clear to her that Tasmania had to modernise its forestry practices.
The Premier says she is yet to consider whether the changes made by the Legislative Council undermine the peace deal, yet the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, Labor MLC Craig Farrell supported all the Upper House amendments to the bill.
Craig Farrell: ‘There were times when I thought we should have just got rid of it [the TFA Bill] in December.’ [i]laughs[/i]
The Government has given the Signatories time to discuss their response to the amended TFA bill and will recall the Lower House to debate the amended bill on 30 April.
The Australian Greens Leader, Christine Milne is urging the State Government to reject the amendments to the bill.
Peter Henning is of the opinion that FSC International will not intervene in the development of Tasmania’s version of a FSC certification for its forestry practices and the stewardship of high conservation forests.
So is Forestry Tasmania, with the help of the Signatories, up for the FSC certification challenge now imposed in the amended TFA bill?
[b]From the FSC International website:[/b]
[b]FSC Controlled Wood Standard for Forest Management Enterprises (FSC-STD-30-010)[/b]
This standard specifies basic requirements applicable at the forest management unit (FMU) level for forest management enterprises to demonstrate to a company or third party certification body that wood supplied is controlled. It allows forest management enterprises to provide evidence that the wood they supply has been controlled to avoid wood that is illegally harvested, harvested in violation of traditional and civil rights, harvested in forest management units in which high conservation values are threatened by management activities, harvested in areas in which forests are being converted to plantations or non- forest use or harvested from forests in which genetically modified tress are planted.
https://ic.fsc.org/controlled-wood-standards.174.htm
[b]International FSC Principle 9: Maintenance of High Conservation Value Forests[/b]
Management activities in High Conservation Value Forests shall maintain or enhance the attributes which define such forests. Decisions regarding High Conservation Value Forests shall always be considered in the context of a precautionary approach.
Explanation: Forests with a high conservation value shall be preserved in their current state and managed in a way which overall maintains their characteristic attributes and functions.
https://ic.fsc.org/high-conservation-values.87.htm
[b]5 Steps Towards FSC Certification[/b]
[i]The path to becoming certified:[/i]
1. Contact one or several FSC accredited certification bodies. http://www.accreditation-services.com/archives/certification_bodies To give you a first estimate regarding cost and time needed the certification body will need some basic information about your operation. The certification body will provide you with information about the requirements for FSC certification.
2. You decide which certification body you would like to work with and sign an agreement with the certification body.
3. A certification audit takes place to assess your company’s qualifications for certification.
4. The data collected at the audit is the basis of the audit report based on which the certification body makes the certification decision.
5. If the certification decision is positive, you receive a FSC certificate. If the audit revealed that your operation is not yet in full compliance with FSC requirements, then you can go for further audits after you have implemented the changes suggested in the certification report.
FSC certificates are valid for five years. The FSC accredited certification body will conduct annual surveillance audits to verify your continued compliance with FSC certification requirements.
These steps are the same independent on whether you want to become forest management or chain of custody certified.
https://ic.fsc.org/5-steps-to-certification.36.htm
AND,
• ABC Mornings – transcript from Leon Compton Interview this morning 19 April 2013
Lara Giddings: “It will either fall or rise on what we’ve got.”
Lara Giddings on the amended Tasmanian Forest Agreement Bill: ‘Essentially I don’t think we are going to be seeing amendments being put forward. What we got back from the Legislative Council what has gone through an excruciatingly long and painful process… in terms of delays, debates, ahh… ask the people involved, it’s been very difficult.
The reality is the Legislative Council has given us what they believe is the right thing. We are now looking at that legislation; the Signatories are looking at that legislation. And it will either fall or rise on what we’ve got. So the Signatories have gone away to consider … is all, or are all, the amendments we’ve received in the spirit of the original agreement. And, as we work through that, that will become more and more obvious to us.’
Leon Compton: ‘Premier, let’s make this clear, it’s for the Signatories now to take or leave what the Leg. Co. have sent back. It is [b]this legislation[/b] that you’ll be putting to the Lower House in a week, and the Signatories and then your Greens colleagues … assuming the Labor Party vote for it, will need to make a decision as to whether they are in or out… on this?’
Lara Giddings: ‘Essentially that’s right. We have… really from Day 1 have said, to those Signatories: “We will back you in. We will back you in representing industry, the environmental movement and workers. And we will back in the legislation, if you agree with it.” If the Signatories walk away from it, then it’s weakened dramatically, because it requires the ongoing support of all three groups; to ensure that we do get FSC certification. To ensure that we do have environmental groups going overseas talking about the strengths of Tasmania’s forest industry.
It really does require the co-operation and acceptance of all three of those groups to really give it the strength that we want. Therefore it is critical for us to give this week for the Signatories to work their way through it. And to determine whether on not it is still within the spirit of the original agreement.’
Leon Compton: ‘But if the ENGOs say: “We can’t do this, we’re out”, then the legislation is dead and won’t even be voted on again? ’
Lara Giddings: ‘It doesn’t have the durability that it would require and the House will have to determine the future of the forest industry… because the future that, ahh…. is not looking very strong without any form of assistance and framework that we’re providing it… through this legislation.’
AND,
• Transcript snippets from the Pollie Forum today:
Cassy O’Connor: ‘Obviously we [the Tasmanian Greens] will be guided by what resolution the signatories come to in terms of the workability of the legislation, because it has quite significantly departed from the Signatories’ agreement and, ahh… we’ll see what happens when we come back into the House on the 30 of April. But, ahh… we’ll be having some discussion with the ENGOs particularly, to see what their take is on this, ahh… this amended Bill.
D-Day is coming and we will have the debate in the Lower House. … If this legislation doesn’t pass there are quite significant implications for the industry – going forward – in Tasmania. So, as a Party room, we’ll be reflecting on what the Signatories feel and we will be making our own decision about how we proceed.’
…
The markets have spoken; the markets want [i]Forest Stewardship [Council] certification[/i]; they want to know the timber they are purchasing is coming from sustainably harvested forests.’
Bec White, Labor MHA: ‘Any further amendments will complicate that [the success and durability of this Bill]. And the Premier has said that it is unlikely that Labor would support further amendments on the floor of the Parliament in the Lower House.
As a government we have a responsibility to stand up and acknowledge this issue… there have a significant number of jobs lost to this industry; we have to acknowledge that markets are changing. The markets are requiring [i]FSC certification[/i] now; they are demanding different things from our industry now and we have to adapt.’
• Forbes: Forestry Labeling War Turns Ugly As Greenpeace Bungles Logging Industry Attack
• Mulder lashes ‘crap’ TFA deal
RUMNEY independent MLC Tony Mulder has defended his actions in the forest peace deal debate, after a disgruntled pro-forestry activist published an unflattering email chain on Facebook.
In the heated exchange with well-known anti-deal campaigner Kelly Wilton, Mr Mulder said the deal was “crap” and “guaranteed to fail”.
He writes: “So let’s get some fed dollars, watch it fall over and then let the industry rebuild.”
In a later email, he explains that his intent is to demand the environmental signatories to the deal deliver on their end of the bargain before granting the asked-for 504,0000 hectares of new reserves.
“My intent is to put them to the sword,” he writes.
“If they can’t then deal off, and we never need to negotiate with them again.”
In the final email, he explained that he was trying to navigate a way through two opposing sides, and said Mrs Wilton was welcome to “spread the word”.
Mrs Wilton says she was shocked and offended by the comments, which she posed on her Facebook page “Support Tassie’s timber industry like they have supported Tassie for years” on Wednesday.
“It shows a lack of understanding or respect for what people are going through,” Mrs Wilton said.
“If he wanted the deal to fail, he should have voted against it, not played games.”
Mr Mulder was one of eight MLCs who supported the heavily amended deal in the upper house this week, after he successfully moved to delay the proclamation of reserves.
See your ad here
He acknowledged the emails, but said they were sent in response to a “very, very provocative” email sent to all MLCs in an attempt to acknowledge Mrs Wilton’s views.