David Obendorf Transcript: Vica not happy with ‘big thinker’ Bob

[b]Interview with Vica Bayley responding to criticism from Bob Brown, 7 May 2013[/b]

Leon Compton: I want to put some of the claims and criticisms of the deal that you have struck… put some of the criticisms by Bob Brown to you this morning. He says the promise was reserves; that ‘reserves’ mean ‘national parks’ and that that’s not happening out of this deal.

Vica Bayley: Well, ahh… that’s… Bob, Bob … is strictly, ahh… correct there, when he says that he has support for the Forestry Agreement but what the Legislative Council did to change the terms of that agreement and change the terms of the implementation of that agreement. Yes, as we have discussed, at length last week, they have pushed out and conditioned the delivery of many of those reserves but we do have to take a step back here and take a real-world view of the situation.

If we want new reserves in Tasmania they must pass through the Upper House, the Upper House ultimately has a say as to the creation of those reserves. So to simply saying: ‘We want it differently, we need it differently, we must be different’ … isn’t necessarily going to change the one or two votes, ahh… in the Upper House to actually support those reserves.

Leon Compton: But the criticism is that you’ve secured World Heritage listing for some of those areas, but that was a national responsibility anyway. You’ve secured World Heritage listing but nothing else out of this deal… that is the criticism.

Vica Bayley: Look, I am very happy to be criticised for securing World Heritage listings, Leon. And the simple fact is that Tony Burke [federal Environment Minister] while he made that listing – I think – could not have made that listing without the supports of his party; without the support of the Tasmania Government, indeed without the support of the logging industry which actually signed an agreement with us [the ENGOs] that the World Heritage nomination must proceed. So, to my perspective, those logging representatives should be, ahh… congratulated for having the capacity; having the courage; having the willingness to change their positions to, ahh… to let go of long-held values and beliefs and actually support our aspirations, of a World Heritage nomination aspirations, that we haven’t been able to achieve as a movement for thirty years. That’s the power of working together on this, Leon. We can push and shove and scream as hard as we want about how precious and how necessary and how, ahh… overdue these reserves are, but the Upper House at the end of the day, has the power of veto over creating those reserves.

We choose to work within the agreement framework – within the collaborative and consensus-based framework – that we’ve developed over the last three years. To keep the opportunity of those immediate reserves alive, and keep working within the framework that the Legislative Council has delivered.

Leon Compton: Ok, the criticism also was that this is a deal that won’t survive a change of Government.

Vica Bayley: Well look, that going to be up to the Liberals. Certainly, they’re… that’s the alternative government’s position at the moment… and throws a blanket of uncertainty over the entire agreement – over the reserves; over the industry-outcomes; over the jobs it protects and over the forest it protects. So that’s something for the Liberals… they have the luxury at the moment of being the Opposition… that means, they can say what they want; not actually have to bear the responsibility for doing that. If they get into government… ahh, and if they fail to implement this policy, let’s actually see what indeed… what indeed happens?

Leon Compton: Ok, and that then comes back to Bob Brown’s criticism of this deal, that there might come a point where local forest-care groups have to wave log trucks through back into areas that they hope to have been protected.

Vica Bayley: Well, I think Bob’s being very flippant there, ahh… fails to realise that Environment Tasmania and the Wilderness Society have hosted a reference group of those very same groups for the last three years where we’ve talked about the issues; discussed the problems and tried to work out ways of overcoming the challenges. That group [the Forest reference Group] overwhelmingly, ahh… endorsed us in supporting this legislation and giving it a go. They want the hope of new reserves in their areas kept alive, in the meantime their areas are protected. There is legal protection over 500,000 ha of forest where forest practices plans and forest logging rights and other rights have, ahh… have been cancelled. There is no logging in many of these areas and if we make work, then there never will be again.

I think, Bob does himself, ahh… a dis-service. You know, he’s a big figure in our movement, he’s a, ahh… ahh, you know, a big thinker, and, ahh… a very, very important person. But I think he does himself and his people a dis-service by insulting four of his own members in the Lower House to say that they can’t make their own decisions… that they are forced to make decision by environment groups. I think that is an insult on the intelligence of those people.

Leon Compton: Is it fair then to criticise him as somebody who can’t imagine an end to the forest wars. Is it fair to argue that he, and some on the other side as well, are dinosaurs when it comes to the terms of this debate?

Vica Bayley: Well, I’m not arguing that anyone is a dinosaur on… on the other side of this debate. I wouldn’t do that. What I’m hearing is that this agreement does map out, ahh… very strong outcomes for, for ahh… wilderness forests; for wild forests across Tasmania. It does deliver protection for those forests; it does deliver a restructure for that industry; it supports workers, ahh… and people through change. There is very real change going on and this will help to support those people and it offers a way forward.

If Bob thinks that we have lost our way in this debate, it is incumbent upon Bob; it is incumbent on anyone else who opposes the deal, to articulate how is he going to deliver … how exactly is he going to get those Upper House members to support the new national parks and reserves that we so desperately need in Tasmania.

[b]Country Hour ABC radio – 7 May 2013[/b]

Sally Dakis: Michael Hirst [Give it Back group] says all the original forestry agreement had ‘a pulp mill’ and a re-opening of the Triabunna woodchip mill written into it. So, has the industry given up forest access and not received some, you know… some compensation?

Vica Bayley: (pause) Look… I… I don’t agree that the original agreement had, ahh… both those things written into them. The… the real fact is the, ahh… pulp mill is, ahh… an unviable, unpopular, ahh… unsustainable and, ahhm… ahh, ahh, ahh, a project that hasn’t been properly assessed. The Triabunna chip mill was closed by Gunns – its previous owners – because it too was unviable, and has been bought by, ahh… another party that has certain conditions around, ahh… it re-opening. So that wasn’t the basis of the original agreement. The original agreement was about trying to stabilise, ahh… a collapsing timber industry, ahh… deliver comprehensive conservation outcomes for forest across Tasmania; deliver community outcomes by trying to resolve a long-running conflict and, ahh… diversify our regional economy, because the markets have already spoken. The market have moved on from native forest wood chips; from, ahh… you know, ahh… commodity native forest products and this agreement was all about trying to deliver comprehensive outcomes across the board, for Tasmania.

Sally Dakis: Let’s talk more about the point that you raised about stabilising the forest agreement. Michael Hirst suggests that banks are not valuing private forests, have you heard similar scenarios and why would that be?

Vica Bayley: Well look, I mean the markets have been for a number of years now rejecting native forest products, particularly native forest woodchips. We had a massive Japanese market for our woodchip; over 5,000,000 tonnes being exported out of Tasmania during the mid-2000s and that collapsed spectacularly. Now farmers, of all people, know if the markets don’t demand a product if it has very little worth. … The fact is native forestry hasn’t got, ahh, ahh…. a large market, particularly from a residues and a woodchip perspective. What our agreement was trying to do was to stabilise the decline of the industry before it collapsed completely; deliver a comprehensive conservation outcome; deliver some community benefits and then over time, rebuild the industry around the plantation base.

Sally Dakis: So, for private forest owners that might have an asset in a private forest, you’re rejecting the notion that it is a symptom of the forest agreement, but rather it’s about the market that was doing its thing anyway?

Vica Bayley: Well absolutely, the market had driven the collapse of the industry. The market was what brought industry to the table and wanting to talk to environmentalists. It’s the market that has been driving this change … absolutely. There’s not a single decision in, ahh… the Forest Agreement or any previous, ahhm… incarnations of this Agreement that has had a material impact on the private forestry sector. Ahh, it has all been commercial decisions, whether it be by Gunns, or by other players that has impacted on the private forest sector. Now that is an issue; private forestry and private land owners absolutely do have issues, ahh… to deal with. But they chose not to participate within this, ahh… discussion; this dialogue and this agreement process. And those issues ahh… need to be dealt with, I guess, parallel to this process.

Sally Dakis: One of the very real issues Michael Hirst talks about is the risk that environmental groups are split and the agreement won’t be able to curb further protest action … you thoughts about that issue?

Vica Bayley: Well look, the greatest threat to the, ahh… agreement holding isn’t necessarily, ahh… a split in the environment movement or protests. The simple fact is, the biggest threat is… is the Liberal Party. The alternative government in Tasmania has a policy to rip up this agreement; to throw it out and to drive us back into the conflict space … ahh,… old growth logging, subsidisation and the like. So, ahh… that is the real issue here. The Liberals have the luxury of being in Opposition. It means that they can say what they want and not actually have to deliver on it. And I guess if they become, ahh… the government, as opposed to the alternative government, you know, time will tell… what they do with this Agreement, and how durable it can be under their government.

Sally Dakis: We heard Bob Brown saying that he didn’t see that there was any pressure on him not to continue to make any action in the markets, so there is already discussion about a split in the environment movement, so that must be a risk?

Vica Bayley: Well look, there’s clearly a di… diverging opinion in the environment movement about the benefits or otherwise of the Agreement and of the problems that the Legislative Council have created by amending the legislation to the point where they are delaying certainty. You know, they’re delaying certainty around the reserves; and they delay certainty around the industry outcomes. So there’s problems for everybody here, not just from an environmental perspective.

Ahh… but the simple fact is … the reason we thought that this was worth giving-a-go was because there is no other alternative. To simply do nothing means that the industry continues to collapse – including the private forestry industry. Ahh… that forest continue to fall, that people continue to fight, and we go on for another decade arguing about forests. This legislation at least gives us a framework to fix, ahh… issues; to resolve long-standing issues; to stabilise the industry and to protect some really, really unique parts of Tasmania that are globally significant.
David Obendorf transcript of ABC interview