Jan Davis: You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere

Nobody wants to remain in a constant state of hostilities; and I am sure we all want to put the so-called forestry wars behind us. Certainly, those of us on the industry side wish it were so.

Having said that, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

We sought to do that last year when, ostracised from the so-called peace talks, we attempted to put private forestry’s point of view to state parliament over the legislation to enact the Tasmanian forestry agreement and to the then federal government when it flagged its nomination of additional Tasmanian land to the World Heritage Area.

On both counts, our pleas fell on deaf ears – with the negotiators, with Labor and the Greens and with a majority of members of the Legislative Council.

The fact that we were excluded from discussions, overlooked by the so-called peace brokers, was nothing short of insulting. The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association represents farmers who manage 880,000 ha of private forests in the state, more than a quarter of the total forest cover, yet we were to have no say in the resolution of forest conflict. Nobody could argue seriously that we didn’t have skin in the game. We did and we were ignored.

There is only one thing better than an election to establish a mandate in the public interest: that is two elections. Twice in recent months, the people of Tasmania voted with their feet and voiced their disapproval about the process we had all endured. The Coalition in Canberra and the Liberals in Hobart both have mandates to revisit the forestry agreement and the World Heritage Area extension.

Our support for these reviews is not an act of bastardry or revenge. It is a matter of equity and fair play. Every dog has its day.

The forestry agreement was always a political compromise foisted on the state by minority governments in Canberra and Hobart. there is no doubt it was the product of a flawed process.

Our view is that the legislation enabling the agreement did not reflect any of the four original principles that were outlined to the public by the signatory group at the outset of their peace talks.
It did not guarantee an end to conflict, because it could never capture all those groups whose very existence depends on continuing conflict.

It was not going to lead to the reopening of the Triabunna woodchip mill, because we know that that was never the plan of the people who bought it from Gunns.

It was not going to provide a guaranteed resource for a pulp mill, because opponents of the industry remain implacably opposed to a pulp mill.

It could not quarantine the private forest estate from the adverse impacts of the lock-down, because private forests never got a look in.

As farmers, we want to move on from the forest wars. However, we will not accept peace at any price – and the price demanded by the forestry agreement was too high for anyone who had skin in the game.

The state and federal governments now have the chance to develop more effective outcomes for both industry and the environment.

Looking to the future and developing a clear understanding of the entire industry and the full range of potential markets would be a great start – rather than trying to drive future industry structure and markets by looking in the rear vision mirror. A science-based conservation strategy based on detailed studies and expert input would deliver more sustainable ecosystem outcomes, too. There are plenty of industry analysts, scientists, ecologists, population planners and foresters even within the government who would be only too willing to assist in providing expertise and support to a new and inclusive process.

That would be a win-win outcome – and one that is well within our grasp.
TFGA CEO Jan Davis’ Tasmanian Country column today