Premier misrepresents the consequences of his own TFA actions

The Wilderness Society today corrected the Premier’s assertions about the ‘non-contentious’ nature of Tasmanian timber produced from areas established under the terms of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement (TFA), given his actions to ‘tear up’ the TFA and enable logging in TFA legislated reserves ( ABC, here ).

‘The TFA was about removing conflict and contention over forestry in Tasmania, but Mr Hodgman’s own actions, takes Tasmania backwards and reintroduces controversy, contention and uncertainty into the industry, its markets and aspirations for genuine certification,’ said Vica Bayley, spokesperson for The Wilderness Society.

‘We welcome Mr Hodgman’s admission that logging in certain forest agrees is controversial and of concern to markets, but so too is his promise to open up legislated future reserves for logging.

Environment groups have been consistent and clear that their support for industry outcomes, including FSC certification and markets, is based on implementation of the TFA, including the gazettal of the agreed reserves.

‘It is presumptuous in the extreme to claim industry outcomes from the TFA remain ‘non-contentious’ whilst axing the conservation outcomes explicit in the TFA. All signatories have been clear that this is an agreement that cannot be cherry-picked.

“Mr Hodgman has seriously misrepresented the state of play in Tasmania and ignores the consequences of his own actions. By undoing the future reserves and putting them on a pathway for logging, he is sending a shudder through timber markets and finance houses as it condemns the industry to years more uncertainty and controversy and reintroduces conflict at a time Tasmania can least afford it.

eNGOs signatories will write to the Premier seeking a meeting to personally clarify their position and initiate a constructive dialogue.

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

THREE COMMENTS ON JAN DAVIS:

• John Hawkins: Jan you never address the real issues: 1). The states Privately owned forests if they are to be logged for any form of return to the owners have to compete with the product from a heavily subsidised loss making clear fell and burn GBE Forestry Tasmania.They cannot. 2). The Forestry Tasmania product is sold at a loss only to keep people employed and receives a trucking subsidy to transport the produce of our native forests to the docks.Will your private owners receive the same taxpayer funded favour? 3). All timber sourced from Tasmania has to have FSC accreditation to be saleable on the international market.It currently is not and will never be if the TFA is torn up, ask Ta Ann. 4) …

• Andrew Denman (commenting on Jan Davis column): Couldn’t of put it better myself – well said!

• David Shepherd: As a private forest owner I have to agree with much of John Hawkins’ comments. It is not possible to compete with a government subsidised competitor in the forest industry at the moment and still make money. I do think that it may become so again or that the Government ceases to subsidise unprofitable industries as Tony Abbot promised. I have invested 500,000 in the belief that it will.

ALL COMMENTS ON JAN DAVIS’ COLUMN: HERE