*Pic: Pete Godfrey’s pic of steep slope logging … Pete says: ‘Why Forestry Tasmania is subsidised to use cable logging to clearfell steep slopes, filling the waterways with silt and compromising soil stability, is beyond me’ …
The buck stops here … Shareholder ministers Minister for Resources Guy Barnett and Treasurer Peter Gutwein, with the ultimate buck-stop, Premier Will Hodgman
Forestry Tasmania Chairman Rob De Fegely has written a letter to Peter Gutwein and Guy Barnett, outlining the steps that Forestry Tasmania have taken to reduce their costs and to make the GBE financially viable.
In the letter he states that they have reduced their funding gap from $35.5 million in 2014 down to $16.3 million for 2016.
The 2016 figure is set to rise again as apparently FT is subsidised at the moment for plantation management and for Cable Logging.
Why Forestry Tasmania is subsidised to use cable logging to clearfell steep slopes, filling the waterways with silt and compromising soil stability, is beyond me.
FT expects the funding gap to increase to $24 million when this funding dries up.
Even with the proposal to export logs from Macquarie Wharf FT will still end up needing government support to remain viable.
FT cite problems with the costs of roading and upkeep of roads as one of its major funding problems.
Even though FT gets the trees for nothing, the costs of making and maintaining roads makes it difficult for them to be viable financially.
Forestry Tasmania has reduced its workforce from 400 down to 180 but cite ongoing superannuation costs for past employees as another problem with financial viability.
They also state that they can supply the required 137,000 cubic metres of high quality sawlog from the available forests until 2027, but after that will need extra funding to establish more plantations to meet demand after that time.
Amazingly FT also concedes that its contracts are unviable. It states it receives only 50% of the price for its logs on some contracts compared to other jurisdictions. We can only assume FT means other state logging companies and private foresters.
This is a massive thing to admit to – what it means is that FT has been selling logs at only half market value; no wonder the private forest industry has been struggling to compete with FT.
Surely the Australian competition commission should be on to this. This is anti-competitive behaviour.
Mr de Fegely admits that under the current legislation – and the way FT works – it will not be financially viable.
FT is also admitting its plantation resource is basically useless. It says they have no idea if the logs will be any good and what price they may be able to get for them.
FT advocates the full sale of all its plantations to help its bottom line.
It also states that it would like the statutory requirement for 137,000 cubic metres of sawlog to be reduced to 96,000 cubic metres.
It says that if it can sell the plantations it could use that money to pay compensation to sawmillers and to peeler log customers for the reduction in supply.
What a massive statement to make. FT needs to sell plantations just to pay compensation because it has been overcutting the forests.
FT also asks the government to change the law to allow it to source logs from private forests as well as Crown land.
There is more in the letter that you can read yourself, basically it appears that FT has very little chance of ever being an economically sustainable entity.
It also cannot supply the industry needs from Crown land only. It states it needs to be allowed to buy logs from private landowners as well.
It also admits it has been selling logs at well under commercial prices.
FT knows that the government will not accept its recommendations … so offer other suggestions that may be more palatable to the minister.
– FT’s bottom line is to sell all the plantations except its pruned plantations that make up about 20,000 ha.
– It wants to use Community Service Obligation money to pay for maintenance on reserves.
– It wants to sell 6000 ha of land that it somehow owns in freehold.
– To completely exit from the export industry.
– Jack up the prices for the logs it sells by moving to a stumpage model.
– Cut back on the amount of logs it has to supply. (an admittance that the logs are not there).
– Pay more compensation to Sawmillers and Ta Ann, (admittance that the contracts should never have been signed in the first place).
It appears that Forestry Tasmania is hoping to become an information base and manager of the forests and wants private operators to take over the logging and roading at their own expense.
• Pete Godfrey has worked as a self employed electrical contractor, as a builder, as an assistant manager in a timber yard, built and ran his own portable sawmill, cut fence posts for a living, worked as a youth worker in a juvenile detention centre, been a part-time TAFE teacher. Loves Tasmania and thinks it it the most beautiful place to live. Spent much of his life surfing, bushwalking and taking notice of what is happening to the land and water. That led him to write letters, produce reports, audit forest operations and document what was happening to our waterways, airshed and land. He gets a bit passionate at times about protecting what he sees as one of the most beautiful places on Earth.
Download – read for yourself – the letter …
• Guy Barnett: Supporting skills and jobs in the forestry sector
• Geoffrey Swan in Comments: Thank you Pete Godfrey. EVERY Tasmanian needs to read the FT Letter you have enclosed … this is an appalling state of affairs … any private or shareholder business simply would not get away with any of this.
• Mike Buky in Comments: … The current model is disastrous for all. Blind Freddy can see that FT is not only dead but should be buried and cremated. How much longer will the Tasmanian population have to tolerate coughing up for an industry that is costing them so much? When is a Tasmanian government going to bite the bullet and dissolve this failing industry?
• John Hayward in Comments: What an extraordinary document to find on a website, setting out the seemingly deliberate gross mismanagement of a GBE, a kind of transfer pricing with a private sector which is supposed to be customers. How could a GBE which has lost over a billion dollars since being established in 1994 manage to sell its public forest wood at 50% the stumpage rates charged elsewhere in Tasmania? Who drafted and signed the long-term contracts for more wood than FT could sustainably supply to customers which locked FT into perennial losses? Why, if not to exonerate present FT management from complicity, was this letter made public? …
EARLIER on Tasmanian Times …
THE BOARD of Forestry Tasmania …
• ‘Our team …’
• John Hawkins in Comments: On the Hansard website I discussed in great detail the letting of loss-making contracts to Ta Ann by Rolley when CEO of Forestry Tasmania. Thankyou Andrew Wilkie MP for tabling them before Parliament: HERE … Come on de Fegely call a spade a spade and resign or are you also yet another Tasmanian crony appointment – hear nothing, say nothing, do nothing, just take our money? …
WEDNESDAY, December 14 …
• John Lawrence in Comments: … The repeated cries for FT to be wound up seem to be missing the reality that this is already happening in front of us. Go easy on Mr de Fegely, John (#14). After he authored the expert opinion report on feeding native forests into the Gunns pulp mill, prepared as part of the pulp mill IIS, I don’t think anyone takes him seriously any longer. He might be Chair of FT but it’s a nominal position with Tony (Ferrall) in charge.
• John Hayward in Comments: Before being mollified by John Lawrence’s assurance that FT is under “de facto” voluntary administration, readers should ask themselves why the VA is de facto, why the “real” administrator, Treasury boss Tony Ferrall, is not formally recognised, and why the political establishment ultimately responsible for the grotesque, bipartisan mismanagement of FT for many years is thereby enjoying the pretence of being a well-meaning bystander. There is no sign that our pollies were chastened by their disastrous attempt to bankroll a huge pulp mill with vast gifts of public resources, or that their efforts to dismantle the TFA are anything but a return to the same old racket. Mr de Fegely’s identification of gross managerial negligence may have been a hedge against possible legal culpability, but he did make it himself as a uniquely frank admission for a Tassie insider.
• Andrew Ricketts in Comments: The current poorly conceived RFA consultation process will not bring anyone closer and obviously is bereft of genuineness. It is repulsive. It is closed in mind and obviously stinks of bias. This hotly contested subject (forests and forestry) demands thorough consultation and a far reaching independent investigation now – for the overall health and wellbeing of the Tasmanian community, the industry and the natural environment, as well I suppose for the economic aspects, which I concede have a relevance too, although not my main focus.
mike seabrook
December 11, 2016 at 22:36
how much better off if people went into the forests to cut wood for their woodheaters – no subsidies required to fund non-commercial long term loss making contracts signed with cronies? – expect the hydro would have gone crook
where is the auditor general
Geoffrey Swan
December 11, 2016 at 22:36
Thank you Pete Godfrey
EVERY Tasmanian needs to read the FT Letter you have enclosed… this is an appalling state of affairs … any private or shareholder business simply would not get away with any of this.
Ted Mead
December 11, 2016 at 23:01
Thanks Pete, This rhetorical letter merely confirms what we already know, that the unviable Native Forest Industry in its current form is a terminal zombie, dead duck and a wasted space that perpetuates the ongoing financial, environmental and social destruction of this island. Somehow we will see this unaccountable Frankenstein linger and limp on at the cost of everyone. As moribund as it is, it will probably take a financial depression for the FT corporation to hit the deck.
Claire Gilmour
December 11, 2016 at 23:32
Yabba dabba doozie … what a beautiful weapon you are Pete. Good onya.
Ahh so the ‘worlds best practice’ Forestry Tasmania is/has been not so worlds best practice for longevity afterall. I’m shocked! NOT!
And what has been burnt in bushfires … and WILL BE in the future is still not mentioned!
I was a private (natural speciality timber) forest grower. FT and the governments strategies burnt it out through inappropriate clearfelling, water catchment decimation and e niten plantation introduction/growing. I want, indeed deserve compensation. It’s costing me thousands of dollars to try and clean up after the mess FT/government created, let alone extra fire risk they have created.
You want private forests now FT to help your bottom line? … well you need to get rid of the threats that endanger that. You need to be helpful and not a hindrance.
IF FT truly wants to start recognising private growers contribution, then they better start listening.
Where are you Gordon Bradbury and Frank Strie? Sounds like FT needs us … 😉
Treeger
December 11, 2016 at 23:34
Sounds like a euthanasia patient begging to die, who won’t let it and why won’t they let it?
Simon Warriner
December 11, 2016 at 23:34
perhaps FT should be paying a lot more attention to the way Fonterra and Murray Golbourn conduct their operations.
john hayward
December 12, 2016 at 00:44
What an extraordinary document to find on a website, setting out the seemingly deliberate gross mismanagement of a GBE, a kind of transfer pricing with a private sector which is supposed to be customers.
How could a GBE which has lost over a billion dollars since being established in 1994 manage to sell its public forest wood at 50% the stumpage rates charged elsewhere in Tasmania?
Who drafted and signed the long-term contracts for more wood than FT could sustainably supply to customers which locked FT into perennial losses?
Why, if not to exonerate present FT management from complicity, was this letter made public?
How could any legitimate logging operation be proposing to base their operations on native forests at a time when the UN is seeking to curtail such activities?
Does the unviability of FT’s plantation sector have anything to do with the 77,809 ha of State Forest plantation which mysteriously morphed into FT’s private freehold before being reportedly leased long-term to NewForests for a relative song?
Does the unviability of FT’s plantations have anything to do with the fact that much of it is in pulpwood species favoured by Gunns but of little value for high quality timber?
Why is Mr de Fegely at such pains to specify FT’s legislative obligations and the impossibility of achieving them under current conditions?
Are any of the p5 “social and economic” considerations” which might limit FT operations to do with logging areas previously slated for protection under the TFA?
Why is Mr de Fegely, Chairman of the FT Board, having to argue with Ministers, on p7, against the level of subsidies given to the private logging sector?
Given the large and chronic haemorrhage of public funds in Tasmania from essential services, such as health care, to an activity as environmentally destructive and financially unprofitable as forestry, a judicial inquiry should be a no-brainer.
john Hayward
Robin Charles Halton
December 12, 2016 at 01:30
I object to more plantations being established on State Forest now known as Permanent wood production Zones particularly as Tasmania does not have a Pulp Mill or any proven merchantable outlet for the timber.
Restoring the natural environment as native forest by CBS would be the best proposition, ensuring during harvesting the final crop of plantation wood, sufficient logging slash is left behind to carry a fire, then immediately aerially seed the area, monitor growth protect from wildfire and allow at least a 90 year rotation on prime wet forest eucalypt areas.
This also allows for native fauna and flora to re establish with a natural flow of forested landscape pleasing to the eye and a great way of managing forests without the continual bickering from anti forest objectors.
Mike Buky
December 12, 2016 at 07:38
The letter from Forestry Tasmania to the Minister and Treasurer admits that the GBE is an unviable industry and will remain so into the future.
The old definition of insanity, that repeating the same action and expecting a different result applies in this mismanaged industry on a daily basis.
Any normal business sending such a letter to its shareholders would mean a collapse in its share price and receivers immediately appointed. The fact is that FT have been trading while insolvent for many years and only continuing subsidy by a government that is unable to fund public services adequately has allowed it to continue operating.
Ruth Forrest stated to me that FT could not possibly go bankrupt as the superannuation payouts would be unaffordable. What a great reason to allow FT to continue operating while further increasing the superannuation costs.
But what is most damning about the letter is the admission by management that every level of the GBE is uneconomic along with badly priced contracts and sales.
The current model is disastrous for all. Blind Freddy can see that FT is not only dead but should be buried and cremated. How much longer will the Tasmanian population have to tolerate coughing up for an industry that is costing them so much? When is a Tasmanian government going to bite the bullet and dissolve this failing industry?
phill Parsons
December 12, 2016 at 07:51
WA’s government owned forestry operations also run at a loss. QLD runs at a profit, using hoop pine plantations.
FT should not be managing reserves, that is expertise in another department.
FT has been operating at giveaway prices since export woodchipping commenced. We will never see that money back.
A real business enterprise has to run at a profit over most years, it’s shareholder demand it. Its owner needs to have funds to re-invest or an asset to sell.
FT needs to be free to charge a fair market price to allow private forestry to be viable as well. The time for colonial theft and environmental vandalism are over.
john hayward
December 12, 2016 at 09:12
FT’s record is not one of ordinary incompetence. They are merely the public managers of a public resource whose profits have been unaccountably pouring into private hands for years.
This could not happen without the complicity of politicians. At one point, under the pulp mill wood supply agreement, huge areas of public forest and roading were set to be gifted to Gunns. We also discovered that State Forest land was being treated as FT assets for accounting purposes.
When that collapsed, we found that inexplicable concessions had been made to a notorious Sarawak logging concern which employs a former FT CEO.
Tasmania appears to have no legal/ethical immune system. Outside intervention is desperately needed.
John Hayward
Jack Lumber
December 12, 2016 at 11:15
No surprises
Letter sums it up . Forestry Tasmania is being stangled by its own contracts and the contraction of available areas to harvest .
Can the process just be expedited .
Just one point to correct … FT doesnt get the wood for ” free ” it has a SGRA valaution and thats why it makes losses too . Just get John Lawrence to expalin it
so now we get to see what STT does and how much influence the crown sawmillers will have on price .
Wonder what FIAT makes of the letter?
Gordon Bradbury
December 12, 2016 at 11:50
The letter shows me two things:
1) Business and politics do not mix – never have, never will;
2) The absolute confusion/lack of direction at FT. The so-called independent Board is driven entirely by the shareholder/Minister.
What a disaster!
What an absolute insult to the people of Tasmania!!
FT must be shut down ASAP. There is clearly no other option.
John Hawkins
December 12, 2016 at 12:03
On the Hansard website I discussed in great detail the letting of loss making contracts to Ta Ann by Rolley when CEO of Forestry Tasmania.
Thankyou Andrew Wilkie for tabling them before Parliament:
http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/article/forestry-tasmania-andrew-wilkie-mp-and-the-tabled-document-
The part cancellation of these contracts by Rolley in his new role as CEO of Ta Ann and the payment to Ta Ann of close to $30 million to cancel the Rolley free gift when in charge at FT is considered by many as worthy of a Royal Commission.
Why will the current board not accept that this is the principal reason why FT is bankrupt ………….the peeler billets are no longer standing as the stupid bastards at FT have cut them down and gifted these billets to their mates all at a loss.
A Royal Commission now!
Come on de Fegely call a spade a spade and resign or are you also yet another Tasmanian crony appointment – hear nothing, say nothing, do nothing, just take our money?
Peter Bright
December 12, 2016 at 12:59
John Hayward at #11 says ..
[i]”Tasmania appears to have no legal/ethical immune system. Outside intervention is desperately needed.”[/i]
That’s perfectly true, John.
It’s not within the capacity of Tasmanians to fix things here.
john lawrence
December 12, 2016 at 17:05
I’m not sure I agree with a lot of what has been said on this thread.
FT is in a period of de facto voluntary administration (VA), which started when Treasury boss Tony Ferrall was appointed to the Board in May 2015. Tony’s running the show. The others Directors are just making up the numbers.
A VA’s first job it to do a report to creditors/shareholders on the state of the company and its prospects, essentially whether it is handed back to directors as is, whether there needs to be a deal with creditors and shareholders or whether to liquidate.
The letter from FT to the shareholder ministers, setting out the realities of FT’s position which most of us knew 5 years ago, is the de facto VA report to creditors/shareholders.
Minister Barnett gave a long response in Parliament to the VA report. Linz ran the speech in full on 29th Oct:
http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/guy-barnett-and-forestry-we-are-looking-forward/
The government as shareholder responded to the VA report. The VA letter for instance recommended selling all plantations. The govt wants to hang on to some.
The government will take over the $160m in unfunded liability for instance. And so on.
The insolvency operation is progressing. When all the deals are done and assets sold, FT may be handed back to directors to run. But it will be in a much reduced form . There may be a few plantations but it will mostly be only the native forests left on the books, and no debt and most liabilities removed once the unfunded super gets transferred. The latter will only add another 2% to 3% to the government’s existing unfunded super liability.
The repeated cries for FT to be wound up seem to be missing the reality that this is already happening in front of us.
Go easy on Mr de Fegely, John (#14). After he authored the expert opinion report on feeding native forests into the Gunns pulp mill, prepared as part of the pulp mill IIS, I don’t think anyone takes him seriously any longer. He might be Chair of FT but it’s a nominal position with Tony in charge.
john hayward
December 12, 2016 at 18:25
At #7, “elsewhere in Tasmania” should be “in Australia”.
j Hayward
Pamela Rodwell
December 12, 2016 at 18:29
Forestry Tasmania’s continued
Steep Slope logging in 2016 beggars belief!
Just look what it’s done at Oldina, up behind Wynyard.
It makes me weep in frustration!
Simon Warriner
December 12, 2016 at 18:35
Peter Bright, your #15 is arguable. I strongly believe that there are sufficient intelligent and honest Tasmanians that could be formed into a government capable of fixing the Forestry cluster fuck.
The over-riding criteria for selecting such a government must be that NONE of them have any relationship, past or present, with any political party.
The trick is getting them interested in putting themselves forward as candidates for election.
spikey
December 12, 2016 at 21:14
#12 No surprises
‘Letter sums it up . Forestry Tasmania is being strangled by its own contracts and the contraction of available areas to harvest .’
Given what they’ve done with our resources so far
I’d say it was self strangulation
Like that guy who sang for INXS
But with more taxpayers money spent on publicity
To sell ‘Worlds Best Conjob’
To the people paying for it
In many more ways than one
Was it those bloody greenies who entered into contracts to gift more forests than we had to mates?
People whinging about locked-up forests
‘Contraction of resources’ Ha…get ya hand off it, like that changes a loss making scam
Remind me of kids, when they find out everything doesn’t belong to them
As their toys are taken away
And given to more responsible kids
I sense a change in the air
Wow! Has that Barnett guy been left hanging?
All aboard? Now where are those rodents scampering off to
Ted Mead
December 12, 2016 at 22:31
I was just looking at FT’s 3 Year Harvesting Plan on the GIS interactive maps.
Planned coupes essentially in every region where they shouldn’t be!
Clearfelling primitive rainforest to be replaced with what, more monocultures?
Rainforest coupes adjacent to previous clearfells that were windrowed and replanted with exotic nitens.
Of course we know it makes no economic sense, and any ecological mismanagement seems to be acordant.
It seems anyone can establish a logging enterprise now considering you can get –
• Virtually free log availability from coupes.
• Subsidised/ free transport of logs to your mill or shipping port
• Significant International export concessions through the freight equalisation scheme.
Pete has already pointed out that for every tree cut we lose money, so the Liberal/ FT solution is to cut more trees. How do we stop this economic/environmental madness??????????
john hayward
December 12, 2016 at 23:20
#14, John Hawkins. Even a crony will jump ship when the timbers look too rotten to reach safe harbour.
John Hayward
Robin Charles Halton
December 12, 2016 at 23:40
#12 Jack, its a technical issue when harvest is now so constricted to younger and younger regrowth forests now that the TFA legislation has removed the ability for FT to harvest across its range of options now that forests for future harvest are effectively held in captivity with pseudo management by Parks who are neither funded or want to be “lumbered” (excuse the pun) by extra ground coverage which they cant manage anyway.
I recently spoke with two officers of PWS, they are already under enough pressures and indicate they dont want any part of the extra burden of future forest land management.
From the technical side its all a bit to much, damned if I know what will happen for example if there is a major fire outbreak in the Southern forests till the bulk of those forests are handed back to FT to manage.
Who is going to make the decision for fire supression, for example, back in the Picton regen, which is a remote area of high qual. wet forest
Parks might say let the regen burn as are only interested in saving high altitude species not the eucalypt forests.
FT would go straight for established regen and commercial timbers and with Parks involved prevent spread into WHA sensitive zones.
Those sort of arrangement can work well for all parties involved.
The question is which agency shoulders the ultimate responsibility of fire suppression now that the objectives, which comes first, commercial stands of timber or fire sensitive reserves on these new area of ” no mans land” created by the TFA legislation.
Blurred with de facto management relationships are known at present over forestry road networks facing ruination through erosion.
Wildfire could trigger anxiety of who is effectively in charge along extensive fire fronts where tenures change from Km to Km from regen regrowth forest, old growth, rain forest, alpine forest all penciled out on maps, with little reference to coupe type demarcation which purposely chooses fire boundaries.
Jack in your professional opinion how is this mess in the field going to be ever sorted out!
Clive Stott
December 13, 2016 at 00:22
Pete I was interested where you found the 29th September redacted FT document.
It seems it came from State Growth:
http://stategrowth.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/142073/FT_Letter.pdf
Then there was this on the 26th October: http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/releases/ministerial_statement_-_forestry
Pete Godfrey
December 13, 2016 at 09:32
#24 Clive yes I got it from the Department of Carving up the State for Mates website.
I got a link via email from a friend.
Others had it, it seemed to me that more folk should know of it’s existence.
#23 Robin the reason that FT are restricted to younger and younger forests, we both know.
Under the Gunns regime the forests were plundered to be turned into woodchips. The forests were being over cut at twice the yield that would have met the 90 year rotation standard.
John Lawrence is correct … FT are already being dismantled. My guess is that they will end up just planning coupes and playing with maps. Private contractors will do all the on ground stuff. How they are going to make a go of it when FT could not even with hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies beats me.
I guess it will come down to whether the market is willing to pay for the timber. Time will tell.
Last price I knew of was around $1600 a cubic metre for sawn hardwood kiln dried.
I am guessing that it will soon be around the same price as imported Western Red Cedar which is around $5000 a cube now.
FT have not supplied the supposed legislated 137,000 cubic metres of high quality sawlog for many years, so I don’t understand why the government refuse to reduce that level.
Ted Mead
December 13, 2016 at 09:57
#23 Robin you need to get over this fire thing!
As far as FT goes It’s never been about maintaining ecology.
At the first sniff of fire FT are out there desperately trying to protect their plantations not the environment. That is exactly what happened with the Tarkine fire last summer.
As for the Picton Valley it was burnt out through natural wildfire around the 1930’s I think. It didn’t destroy the mature wet eucalypts because the understory was dense in naturally suppressive rainforest.
Probably the best aspect of these modern fires is that it restores biodiversity by destroying monocultured plantations anyway.
Unfortunately with climate change we are seeing the soil dryness too high, and the outcome is the loss of all vegetation types, so grand valleys of wet eucalypts like the Picton will be the first to go in a broad scale wildfire.
Ted Mead
December 13, 2016 at 10:06
#16 John
Yes, I think subject to your reports in the past we all can see that the insolvent FT is going through a long drawn procees of being wound up. But how long will that take, and how many years are we going to see a annual loss of $50-80 million.
Winding up FT and structuring the forest management under another name with the same drongos at the helm really isn’t going to change the bottom line of resource mismanagement.
The superannuation liability seems to hinder any moves from the government to reign it all in.
Is there any hope of some realistic form of change?
john hayward
December 13, 2016 at 10:07
Before being mollified by John Lawrence’s assurance that FT is under “de facto” voluntary administration, readers should ask themselves why the VA is de facto, why the “real” administrator, Treasury boss Tony Ferrall, is not formally recognised, and why the political establishment ultimately responsible for the grotesque, bipartisan mismanagement of FT for many years is thereby enjoying the pretence of being a well-meaning bystander.
There is no sign that our pollies were chastened by their disastrous attempt to bankroll a huge pulp mill with vast gifts of public resources, or that their efforts to dismantle the TFA are anything but a return to the same old racket.
Mr de Fegely’s identification of gross managerial negligence may have been a hedge against possible legal culpability, but he did make it himself as a uniquely frank admission for a Tassie insider.
John Hayward
Robin Charles Halton
December 13, 2016 at 10:52
I am not really sure where the Hawkins/ Wilkie consortium co exist within the current financial and technical constraints FT finds it self in.!
I have the feeling both would like to see forestry shutdown altogether, rejected as a forest manager of native forests!
Through John Lawrence’s comments we are all aware of FT’s financial constraints probably the main one of which is selling the standing forests below “market” value.
What I am interested in are Hawkins and Wilkie both of whom do not appear to support a forest industry in Tasmania anyway!
What is their plan for the provision of high quality wet forest eucalypt timber from our local forests combined with an employment regime of management and processing and business support therein.!
Mike Bolan
December 13, 2016 at 12:25
Does anyone actually know why all of this is happening? Cue bono? Why are we giving hundreds of millions to a clearly ossified industry while depleting our health services, education systems and so on?
Surely there must be a reason? Some person or group benefitting? And surely whatever the reason it is something that neither ‘party’ wants to reveal.
Anyone?
MJF
December 13, 2016 at 14:21
#30
All FT’s customers are clearly benefitting
john lawrence
December 13, 2016 at 15:06
John (#28) you’re forgetting FT is a GBE governed by the GBE Act 1995, not a corporation subject to Corporations Law.
It’s unfortunate FT wasn’t able or wasn’t willing to renegotiate the long term wood supply contracts. That’s where a formal VA under Corporation Law may have had better success.
In other respects however a formal liquidation wouldn’t be much different. I suspect the Crown is liable for unfunded super liabilities regardless. Most of the six GBEs currently operating were created from government departments. The defined benefits scheme was I think (?) closed to new members by the time FT was established.
john powell
December 13, 2016 at 15:11
All of the above leads to the question as to why the Federal and State Governments, in their right mind, would extend/renew the 20 year old RFA come the end of the “non-consultation” period on 23 December. Perhaps James Shevlin, now Executive General Manager of FT might like to respond given he was involved in the original drafting via the office of Robert Hill, then Environmental Minister, as Departmental Liaison Officer.
Oh and also ask Mr. Ian Ruscoe
Director Domestic Forest Policy, Forestry Branch
Australian Government
Department of Agriculture
[email protected]
T +61 2 6272 4225
Mike Adams
December 13, 2016 at 15:22
I’ve long suspected a small and secret safe tucked away in FT HQ.
The incoming managers of FT are carefully told about it and its importance, given the contents.
They are reminded of J. Edgar Hoover’s greeting to each new President.
‘Mr President, your secrets are safe with me.’
He found it essential in keeping his organisation well funded…
john hayward
December 13, 2016 at 16:01
#29, RC Halton. Tasmanian forestry is reportedly accounting for less than 1% of the state’s employment while its contribution to GDP would be deep in the negatives if subsidies and uncosted environmental damage were considered.
Your belief that this rapacious industry should take precedence over all other human activities in the state is not a compelling reason for expelling all Tasmanians who don’t share this curious form of narcissism.
John Hayward
spikey
December 13, 2016 at 18:18
#30
Why is it so?
A cold sock containing 10K?
A small state where the same crooks
have been in bed
with the same inbred parties
for far too long?
A complete disregard for truth, economics, science, the environment, justice, and the welfare of the general population of Tasmania and the world?
Shameless pro-active lobbiers, sly but of questionable intelligence, influencing easily led portions of the public through a saturation of local Media.
If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
Repeat after me…
Bloody lying greenies locking up our forests.
We haven’t got enough trees to chip at a loss.
The States broke.
Its all their fault.
Not because we already chipped far too many, at an unsustainable rate, in an unsustainable manner.
If only more money had been spent on Forestry, actually managing forests for the future, and attending some basic economics classes, and less on propaganda.
We might have had a sustainable timber industry that respected conservation, instead of treating it like an infectious disease, because it threatens the ‘business interests’ of a rank minority.
spikey
December 13, 2016 at 19:14
file:///C:/Users/spikey/Downloads/Uncovering the Risks of Corruption in the Forestry Sector.pdf
Jack Lumber
December 13, 2016 at 19:42
Re 23 the first thing to make sure everyone understoods is that while linked and to say otherwise would be naive , there are two parts to the FT
1 one is forest 🌳 management and while some will dispute matters , practices are acceptable and they will get FSC . Some will complain on the basis they oppose any harvesting of natural forest full stop and make grand claims of corrumption .
2 management of a forestry business . Here FT has been hogtied by the lib/lab circus but in the end they are a GBE and should have shown more backbone
So RCH with respect to #2 , I would suggest that the contracts be reviewed for any force majure options .
If there are none , force the sawmills to the table , divide and conquer . Some will take a payout and run and the 40 kgmt reduction is almost the allocation for one large mill in the Deep South .
FT Needs to walk away from any logistics and let the millers road and harvest but under supervision or full cost recovery if FT where to be a subcontractor – to be clear FT must stop all mill door operations
As to the peelers , well that’s a waiting game of a possible transition to plantation or see out the contract and see how much commitment TAT has to Tasmania.
In the end the forests will be FSC certified , stumpages will reflect market and a fair return to owners . But fear not Mead , Hawkins et al will still find something to complain about in the very same manner they say ” TCG” does
spikey
December 13, 2016 at 20:03
apologies for the incorrect link
i found it fascinating reading
with very relevant local application
https://www.interpol.int/content/download/33811/447300/version/2/file/Uncovering the Risks of Corruption in the Forestry Sector.pdf
Pete Godfrey
December 13, 2016 at 20:30
#38, Jack lets hope your best case scenario is what comes about.
To see our forests managed properly for future Tasmanians would be great.
The board of FT wanted to reduce the legislated amount of sawlog that they had to supply. Unfortunately the government have said no.
As you say FT want to end up being paper managers, they want private contractors to do all the on ground stuff.
Just wondering as you know lots about FSC.
How does this work, FT are legislated managers of all Crown Land that has forest operations on it. As such they will be the ones to hold the certification. I wonder if they will have enough staff left to actually make sure that the work is done to FSC standards.
I also wonder how the private contractors will make a living from something that has eluded FT for decades.
Time will tell I guess.
John Hawkins
December 14, 2016 at 00:24
Lumber #38
Why can you not just accept that the horse you have backed is a loser; in fact it is headed for the Knackers Yard if it can walk that far; if not it will have to be put down on site.
The horse I am trying to back is a winner that will bring home the bacon.
A profitable industry based around selective logging carried out by professional – not rank outsiders – that has flogged the poor bastard to death.
Give us a break.
Andrew Ricketts
December 14, 2016 at 01:09
I cannot envisage a social license for the ongoing liquidation of natural forests in Tasmania under an RFA and without some rights of appeal to allow the community to protect itself. FSC will likely become a pariah. I cannot see a social license eventuating in Tasmania for FSC especially on public land.
The much lauded mantra of the 80 to 90 year sawlog rotation was clearly a farce and FT now admits it cannot even make 137,000 cu. m. PA in any sane fashion, let alone the always ridiculous 300,000 of the RFA. Quite right too.
FT, including in the form of the Forestry Commission, has been subsidised on a very regular basis since about 1948. Nothing sustainable in that is there?
Since the RFA it can be shown FT is continuing with the 1980’s strategy of liquidating Tasmania’s old growth forests. Their extent was never mapped correctly in the RFA’s CAR and therefore remain for many veg communities under reserved. That has become a problem for an increasing number of fauna species, which are becoming increasingly threatened. This is beyond dispute.
What Tasmania urgently needs is a Commission of Inquiry, then, upon consideration of the findings, a genuine attempt to hold a community wide process to consider the best utility of Tasmania’s forested landscapes for their full range of uses. Perhaps the most valuable may be water! The landscape values in some places will obviously be a priority and the range of genuine callers upon the asset, including other species obviously deserves to be considered.
The squandering of Tasmania’s forests is deeply sad. The current RFA should not be renewed.
It may seem simple to resolve but not here. The reasons are explained by Eslake:
http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/saul-eslakes-tasmania-report/
Clive Stott
December 14, 2016 at 01:45
Pete thanks for the article and for that great top pic you included.
Don’t these people ever think what damage they are doing when they clearfell like that close to waterways?
I have to wonder where their brains are
Jack lumber
December 14, 2016 at 09:06
Re 41 John
Where have I Mentioned CSB ? you are so blinkered that you look for points to make that don’t exist .
We may be closer in mind if you opened yours . Comments re professionalism are as crass as my prediction you will never be happy
Adding FT to your list of obsessions without the ability to construct .
NIce to see that Some in Tasmania will see FSC as a “Pariah”
This “we know best as Tasmania is unique ” attitude about social licence is as arrogant as the attitude projected onto others In this debate for the last 39 years plus
Let it go John . Never doubted your knowledge of antiques , matters military or passion for forests how about accepting others as well .
Andrew Ricketts
December 14, 2016 at 11:50
The current poorly conceived RFA consultation process will not bring anyone closer and obviously is bereft of genuineness. It is repulsive. It is closed in mind and obviously stinks of bias.
This hotly contested subject (forests and forestry) demands thorough consultation and a far reaching independent investigation now – for the overall health and wellbeing of the Tasmanian community, the industry and the natural environment, as well I suppose for the economic aspects, which I concede have a relevance too, although not my main focus.
MJF
December 14, 2016 at 12:24
#43
Clive – how close to waterways are “they” clear-felling, how far do you think “they” should be from which watercourses and what criteria would you base that view on ?
Just curious.
john hayward
December 14, 2016 at 15:33
Donald Trump claimed he could shoot someone in the street in broad daylight without losing any support.
Rob de Fegely’s letter seems to be demonstrating that much the same standard of civic conscience and intelligence prevails in Tasmania.
John Hayward
John Hawkins
December 14, 2016 at 15:37
Lumber Tasmanians can no longer afford to let it go, six of our GBEs are bust – propped up by the state or put another way … you and me.
They are run by the mates for the mates to their own personal financial advantage.
Any proper or honourable CEO or Chairman of the Board would resign over political interference but that is the end of the gravy train.
No more fees but at least you can hold your head high and value your integrity.
The only solution to the lack of good governance in this state is to boot out the Lib/Labs at the next election and have a Royal Commission into corruption in the Forestry Industry in Tasmania.
I am too old to stand as an Independent as I have recently had major heart surgery and will be 75 next year.
We need recently retired 65 year olds with real life experience and no political ties but blessed with good CV to run this potentially wonderful state.
The Hodgman’s, Bacon’s and Groom’s et al have passed their dynastic use-by dates and should be consigned to the “Dustbin of History”.
I suggest we here on TT canvas the start of A Royal Commission Now Party. The ARCNP.
If a fish and chip shop owner from Queensland can get elected and form a national party surely we can polish the slate in Tasmania – using cleanskins rather than cronies.
Jack Lumber
December 14, 2016 at 17:42
48 concur with the “you and me” sentiment but Hawkins J , you make a meal out of the statement regarding GBE “letters of support ” and if you took some time to understand what was said ,then you would be emabarrassed by your quickness to dumb it down like the media did . Dont take my word ask Mr Lawrence or anyone else who understands how GBE work
A call for ROC is as bad as a tweet from Trump , a theatrical device to distract people
And once again if there is corruption stamp it out root and crop .
Good luck with the RCNP and like any democracy sausage ( our word of the year 2016 ) it wil be a mystery bag and most likely split under prerssure of a slight prick ( jump in now Spikey with a gut busting retort )
spikey
December 14, 2016 at 19:52
someone please tell #49
his turd has disintegrated
its a terrible mess
will never take a shine again
his glory days of lying to the people
and being a hero to a few
are gone
like our forests