Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Economy

Barnett, the Tasmanian Forestry Agreement and a possible swindle …

image

First published May 3

Minister for Resources Guy Barnett in the Sunday Examiner 30th April 2017: ‘It is important that debate is based on real facts, not on green propaganda or industry self interest …’

image

This is the original announcement of the terms of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement of 2011 created by our Forest Industry entirely out of self interest and at great cost to the Australian taxpayer.

When this $277 million dollars of Federal money was paid into Tasmania, 572,000 hectares of High Conservation Tasmanian native forest was subject to Verification for protection.

The deal was done and dusted.

Then along comes, Roll-back-World-Heritage-Listing-on-the-Great-Western-Tiers Guy Barnett and his feckless Tasmanian Liberal Party.

These Wiz–Kidz’ wish to scrap the agreement in order to create political division in an effort to win a future election.

To do this they wish to change the agreed rules of engagement and allow logging in part of the now protected area.

This poses the following important questions:

• Barnett, will you enter into negotiations to reclaim the $85 million paid to the contractors? If not Why not?

• Barnett, will you cancel the $45 million in Contractors Voluntary Exit Grants and claim the money back? If not Why not?

• Barnett, will you stop the balance of the $120,000,000 to be paid over 15 years and claim back what has already been paid in Regional Development Projects? Yes or No?

• If your party can scrap the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement will you refund:

a) All the Federal money

b) Part of the Federal money

c) None of the federal money?

• Is it fair to say that you are now in collusion with the Federal Liberals to steal the already-paid Federal money under false pretences by creating a one-sided agreement?

Yes or No

Barnett I suggest that these questions require real answers so as to prevent a possible swindle on the public purse.

We can then base the debate on real facts (your words), not political spin.

Maybe, just maybe, Uncle Erich was right to demote you on the ticket ensuring your removal from the Senate.

*John Hawkins was born and educated in England. He has lived in Tasmania for 13 years. He is the author of “Australian Silver 1800–1900” and “Thomas Cole and Victorian Clockmaking” and “The Hawkins Zoomorphic Collection” as well as “The Al Tajir Collection of Silver and Gold” and nearly 100 articles on the Australian Decorative Arts. He is a Past President and Life Member of The Australian Art & Antique Dealers Association. John has lived in Australia for 50 years and is 75 this year. In two of the world’s longest endurance marathons and in the only teams to ever complete these two events, he drove his four-in-hand team from Melbourne to Sydney in 1985 and from Sydney to Brisbane in 1988.

• Download a Chronology of the Tamar Valley Pulp mill, by Anonymous …

Tamar_Valley_Pulp_Mill_Chronology.pdf

Bob Brown confident on forest protest law win ahead of High Court hearing in Canberra

Liberals too embarrassed to back forestry report

Vica Bayley: Forestry Advisory Council growth plan makes a mockery of Hodgman plan to log reserved forests

Fuck It. Authorised by the Department of Intergenerational Theft, Canberra

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
64 Comments

64 Comments

  1. Andrew Ricketts

    May 14, 2017 at 9:43 pm

    Your perception is not correct Trevor (post #62) re the anti-logging campaign assertion.

    You are right I do not make claims about superiority of the material in terms of the end product. Happy to look at this aspect but in any case I have purchased several of the office paper products made from annual fibres and ran them though the printers and used them quite satisfactorily. They are not photographic paper. They are office paper and work fine. I prefer to use recycled paper personally but not everyone does.

    I suspect that any annual crop such as hemp has significant benefits economically and may very well be better for the environment as well as being able to grow in dryer conditions and reduce impact on native forests. Regarding wheat there is an awful lot of wheat straw burnt across the globe.

    Perhaps your comment alludes to our concerns over responsible forestry practices in Tasmania. We most assuredly have those and that includes a raft of social justice issues as well. I consider it easy to justify those concerns, do you require that?

    The paper problem is a serious one, I quote: “Worldwide consumption of wood products has risen 64% since 1961. Globally, pulp for paper, has risen from 40% in 1998, to an expected 60% over the next 50 years. The industry expects that demand to double by 2050. A company’s use of email causes an average 40% increase in paper consumption. The U.S. consumes 200,000,000 tons of wood products annually, increasing by 4% every year. U.S. paper producers consume 1 billion trees each year (735 pounds of paper for every American). U.S. at 5% of world population consumes 30% of world’s paper. Only 5% of virgin forests remain in the U.S.” http://www.hemphasis.net/Paper/paper_files/hempvtree.htm

    Tasmania continues to liquidate and diminish E ovata forest for example not for sawlog but for chip, now in the process of being Nationally listed as Critically Endangered. It is not a position of anti logging at all but one of taking some responsibility for the earth’s future.

  2. max

    May 13, 2017 at 1:48 pm

    # 59, Robin Wouldabeen, couldabeen and shouldabeen all went out the door with the avarice destruction of our forests for wood chip. Not only were the forests destroyed for wood chips, the regeneration burns that were carried out after the clear felling were a way of creating an even age plantation style forest. Forget your 90 year rotation, it’s not going to happen. Look at the supply for Ta Ann. Forestry Tasmania was never going to wait 90 years, no one can wait 90 years for any thing. 90 year rotations are a furphy a sop to the general public for the clear felling of old growth. As for forestry, native forestry is by far the better way to go, you actually mean clear felling of old growth forests is the only way left.
    As far as forestry is concerned, you and FT see no other way except clear fell old growth, pollute the world with so called regeneration burns an continue on your merry way until the only way anyone will ever see the beauty of our forests is in a picture.

  3. TGC

    May 13, 2017 at 1:17 pm

    But #60 doesn’t say if Hemp, Wheat and other annual crop fibres are currently used to make paper”
    are, in all the circumstances superior sources of the fibre for paper- #60 simply puts those forward as part of an anti-logging campaign.

  4. spikey

    May 13, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    ‘FT and the people of Tasmania have lost out by 20-35 years of bad investments dealing in what is basically pulpmill feedstock, imagine the future production native forest, farmland and protected watershed and areas of natural scrub that has been squandered during the Gunns world class pulp mill madness.’

    Hang on a moment, that funny looking guy with the glasses never mentioned that. He just blamed the greens for locking up the forests and ‘lying’ to potential purchasing parties about worlds best practice. He also painted a bright picture of just how sustainable forestry was going to be from now on.

    I can’t really get my head around an industry on its knees, screaming out for resources, that was directly responsible for unsustainably overharvesting those same resources at a loss.

    I can easily get my head around the compulsive blame shifting and creative truth.

    It’s a shame really. If I had a dollar for every Myrtle, Sassafras and Celery-top Pine I saw buried, dozed, burnt, blown over and blown up during world’s best practice heyday, I could likely have bought our government.

  5. Andrew Ricketts

    May 13, 2017 at 2:25 am

    Without getting into the whole of Post # 58’s claims it is my assertion one can indeed make paper without trees and loggers, it is done now: Hemp, Wheat and other annual crop fibres are currently used to make paper.

    In my view the world is not integrating nature and culture – at all. What evidence are you offering, because I expect I can easily provide evidence to the contrary! I think it is a good idea it is simply not occurring.

  6. Robin Charles Halton

    May 12, 2017 at 9:31 pm

    # 57 ADR Welcome to Tas Times but dont be afraid to state your name as there is no fera that you will be arrested or done away with.

    We all like having quiet and cosy little chats with each other there are those that rock the boat and some occasionally fall overboard!

    As for forestry , native forestry is by far the better way to go for the future at least for the sawmilling industry and FT can very closely replicate the natural wildfire that allows sunlight in, an ash bed and a seed source usually done by aerial sowing these days.

    As for the nitens plantations have been a disaster for investors, apart from Forico who bought out Gunns for a song I understand they will plant out the better sites to maintain a supply for chipwood export.

    FT has struggled economically with plantation management, it has significant pruned sites that require thinning to improve growth, as for a future sawlog market there may be some chances in due course but no one should place bets on the nitens for sawlog.

    Hindsight is a great recollection of mistakes of what should have been.
    And what should have been was tostick with native forestry and Tasmania would have been far better off aiming for continuation of what it was best equipped to manage, future production forests for high quality sawlog on roughly 90 year rotations and keep the Nitens disaster out of the business altogether.

    FT and the people of Tasmania have lost out by 20-35 years of bad investments dealing in what is basically pulpmill feedstock, imagine the future production native forest, farmland and protected watershed and areas of natural scrub that has been squandered during the Gunns world class pulp mill madness.

  7. Factfinder

    May 12, 2017 at 4:35 am

    This ongoing opinion exchange can do with some more complex information for consideration:

    … The intention of appropriate participation in natural process and the aim for long term sustainability are the logical consequences of a worldview that integrates culture and nature.
    In order to meet human needs while expressing this fundamental intention and aim, natural design will have to integrate into natural process by learning from natural process …

    The adaptive learning process that expresses sustainability can be coherently structured based on an understanding of complex dynamic systems as self-organizing and self-making networks within networks, systems within systems, or processes within processes.

    The Buddhist Monk and poet Thich Naht Hanh beautifully expresses such an interconnected process-oriented, participatory way of relating to natural complexity and emergence in his description of a sheet of paper and the notion of inter-being. From within a more holistic worldview and consciousness a sheet of paper turns into dynamic relationships and interdependences:

    Interbeing

    If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper. The cloud is essential for the paper to exist. If the cloud is not here the sheet of paper cannot be here either. So we can say that the cloud and the paper inter-are. “Interbeing” is a word that is not in the dictionary yet, but if we combine the prefix “inter” with the verb “to be,” we have a new verb, inter-be.

    If we look into this sheet of paper even more deeply, we can see the sunshine in it. Without sunshine, the forest cannot grow. In fact, nothing can grow without sunshine. And so, we know that the sunshine is also in this sheet of paper. The paper and the sunshine inter-are. And if we continue to look we can see the logger who cut the tree and brought it to the mill to be transformed into paper. And we see wheat. We know that the logger cannot exist without his daily bread, and therefore the wheat that became his bread is also in the sheet of paper. The logger’s father and mother are in it too. When we look in this way, we see that without all these things, this sheet of paper cannot exist.

    Looking even more deeply, we can see ourselves in this sheet of paper too. This is not difficult to see, because when we look at a sheet of paper, it is part of our perception. Your mind is in here and mine is also. So we can see that everything is in here with this sheet of paper. We cannot point out one thing that is not here — time, space, the earth, the rain, the minerals in the soil, the sunshine, the cloud, the river, the heat. Everything co-exists with this paper. That is why I think the word inter-be should be in the dictionary. “To be” is to inter-be- we cannot just be by ourselves alone. We have to inter-be with every other thing. This sheet of paper is, because everything else is.

    Suppose we try to return one of the elements to its source. Suppose we return the sunshine to the sun. Do you think that this sheet of paper would be possible? No, without sunshine nothing can be. And if we return the logger to its mother, then we have no sheet of paper either. The fact is that this sheet of paper is made up only of “non-paper” elements. And if we return these non-paper elements to their sources, then there can be no paper at all. Without non-paper elements, like mind, logger, sunshine and so on, there will be no paper. As thin as this sheet of paper is, it contains everything in the universe in it (Thich Naht Hanh, 1991, pp.95–96).

    Source: https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/understanding-complexity-a-prerequisite-for-sustainable-design-fd45990e3bd6

  8. ADR

    May 12, 2017 at 3:01 am

    How did these old growth forests survive and thrive for millions of years without clear fell and intense napalm initiated burns? They did very well without any human intervention at all.
    The intense forest burns do not replicate natural fires which can start from lightning strikes or inadvertent human activity.
    These intense burns kill the fungi and necessary biological environment in the soils that our native specialist timbers require in order to propagate.
    Part of the reason for these burns is to remove competition from pesky native species that might compromise growth of the lovely Eucalyptus Nitens.
    And then, with rainfall and runoff there is the soil loss after these intense burn events, and it would be my bet that much of our valuable soil has been washed down significant rivers and lost forever.
    I remember well the siltation of the Tamar River as it was 50 years ago compared to what it is like now.
    Unless the world wakes up to the fact that the environment must be factored into the economic equation, future generations are stuffed.

  9. max

    May 11, 2017 at 2:18 pm

    I have come to the conclusion that I have been debating with rabid flat earthers, despite all the evidence they will continue to believe the world is flat.
    (51) mjf My action plan for 2018 is to continue my fight against the flat earth mentality that prevails in your mind.
    (52) Robin. Its not a hero’s death that smoke inhalation causes, it’s one of unremitting agony. You and your ilk with your flat earth mentality will continue to inflict totally unnecessary air pollution and the resulting misery that it causes,why? I can understand FT , they are cash strapped and carrying out this unnecessary blight to save a couple of bob; what I can not understand is you.

  10. Brenda Rosser

    May 11, 2017 at 2:36 am

    I was involved today in discussions with a representative of RMS (the Alabamma Pension Fund that now owns Forest Enterprises large tracts of land plundered and put under an industrial tree monoculture regime).

    I was trying to negotiate a boundary adjustment so that this bloody awful pillage and poisoning would move itself out of the small basin-shaped topography around our house, at the very least. But no! “RMS does not sell land”, the rep said. In the same discussion he assured me that we would definitely sell our land eventually (subtext: this American multinational wants our land). He also said that the Alabamma corporation was not just interested in ‘forestry’ operations but also in holding land generally.

    It’s always been clear that the ‘forestry’ sham was about a massive Australian land grab. Corporate ownership of a third of Tasmania in perpetuity. Which, according to climatologists, will take us to about 2023 before human extinction makes these matters all irrelevant, in any case.

  11. MJF

    May 10, 2017 at 10:03 pm

    #51
    Mulching converts bulky woody residues and waste into a finer matt of material spread across the ground surface, what then ? Rake it up, remove it, spread it more evenly, just leave it ?

    If left as is, direct planting would be necessary as essentially no mineral earth is exposed therefore limiting any in situ seed germination.

    Not to mention soils becoming anaerobic until matt finally breaks down.

    The forest is not an ornamental garden bed.

    Direct planting = plantation (even with native species)scientifically.

    A collective effort will be required to recognise and call it something different but shouldn’t be insurmountable

    Any idea of costs/ha, somebody has to pay for this.

    Simple ? No

    Simple is dropping a match and standing back.

    A fraction of the ecological cost ? The ecological damage is essentially already done by the time you get to mulching.

  12. John Maddock

    May 10, 2017 at 9:53 pm

    Duncan #50

    Waste of words trying to get RCH to update his thinking on soil & carbon ecology.

    He won’t even acknowledge my often asked question about forests running on water & fungi. Sad.

    JV

  13. Robin Charles Halton

    May 10, 2017 at 9:38 pm

    #50 Duncan, you have joined the wrong mob, the anti forestry mob when you speak of no burning for regeneration of wet forest eucalypt.

    Mulching slash and direct planting, what time wasting and uneconomic rubbish!

    Clearfall, intensely burn and direct aerial seeding that is the widely accepted way!

    #48 max, you might need to speak with the Coroner in advance to secure your place in history, death due to inhalation from forestry smoke, a hero’s demise, sounds if you are looking foward to blaming someone else for your imaginary problems!

  14. mjf

    May 10, 2017 at 8:05 pm

    #49
    Quite right max. I guess I would be a lone person in my own mind.
    Your action plan for 2018 remember. I’d like to think you’re going to be proactve with this.

  15. Duncan Charles Mills

    May 10, 2017 at 6:43 pm

    Lets put the propagated lie that clearfell and burn is necessary in wet schleropphyl.

    “to every fool with a hammer, every problem looks lke a nail”

    I would suggest as a forester schooled in holocaust forestry, clearfell is your nail, along with many other foresters with inadequate ecological literacy.

    As noted by Max, other methods of regeneration are available. As simple as mulching slash and direct planting, with a fraction of the ecological costs.

    The issue is that the prevailing politico/commerce cartel want to maximise plunder of public forests and find the holocaust foresters willing accomplices.

    Robin please for all of us, update your reading on soil and carbon ecology.

  16. max

    May 10, 2017 at 4:24 pm

    #46. Robin. From your own bible- Burning is not necessary to regenerate wet forest eucalypts, at best it gives a 5 year advantage, at worst it destroys the peat moss that is necessary for the the regeneration of speciality timers. To bad for Woody. Why persist in defending Forestry Tasmania, they are destroying any future for the timber industries by turning the public against them with polluting burns, they are destroying regrowth with their pursuit to supply Ta Ann and losing money hand over fist into the bargain. There is no 90 year rotation and for good timber a longer period is needed and the only way they can continue to supply anything is to keep harvesting old growth, even blind Teddy knows that there has to be an end to old growth sooner or later, preferably sooner. As for looking like Clive that would be an honour, he is on a crusade to improve the world, the pity is you are knocking him when you should be in fact applauding his efforts, wake up … get the smoke out of your eyes.

  17. max

    May 10, 2017 at 3:47 pm

    # 42. MJF You now have me wondering how humans actually survived beyond the caveman era, all huddled around their presumably smokey fires every day cooking and warming themselves but silently killing themselves at the same time with PM ingestion. Well wonder no more, there is a type of air pollution that kills four million people a year, according to the World Health Organization, and that is the pollution caused by cooking indoors over open fires.
    The WHO estimates that 7 million people die prematurely each year due to inhaling unhealthy airborne particles, which makes indoor cooking fires the biggest culprit for these deaths.
    You are a lone person wandering around in the wilderness of your own mind, when you continue to defend unnecessary smoke pollution.

  18. MJF

    May 10, 2017 at 1:23 pm

    #44
    You’re just rambling now max. I hope you don’t drive a motor vehicle as by doing so you’re also contributing to your own demise (and mine).

    I haven’t claimed there are safe levels of smoke so that is not a point of discussion.

    You now have me wondering how humans actually survived beyond the caveman era, all huddled around their presumably smokey fires every day cooking and warming themselves but silently killing themselves at the same time with PM ingestion.

    Not to mention the colony’s indigenous population with their continuous fire sticking habits. Why did they not all die from respiratory failure instead of lead poisoning and European diseases ?

    In essence I’m saying you have choices to avoid or at least mitigate. You don’t have to do anything if you don’t want to. Those are some options I thought of but you can probably come up with others being in possession of such a creative mind.

    Please post your action plan for next year.

    #45 You make a good point philll. However prior to RFA’s what was the level of public input when annual federal permits were required to export woodchips ? I recall these renewals were largely a tick and flick exercise outside the public sphere.

  19. Robin Charles Halton

    May 10, 2017 at 10:11 am

    #43, The ash bed effect is by far the superior method of establishing wet forest eucalypts on a broad scale.

    Strips of regrowth along roadside clearings does not represent good practice for the preparation of coupes for regeneration post harvest.

    FT is responsible to regenerate a land mass and not to make roadsides look pretty as “Directors regrowth” often misguides visitors to the forests.

    Dont be such a picky old woman max, you are starting to look like Clive, both as silly old buggers!

  20. philll Parsons

    May 10, 2017 at 8:55 am

    #30. The 1997 Regional Forestry Agreement was an intergovernmental agreement meant to exclude the public from input into the political process and thus impact on woodchips exports through the Federal government’s permit process.

    Perhaps you are referring to the later Tasmanian Forest Industry Agreement which had more consultative elements but in the end was an agreement between government, industry and some environmental groups which although funded to assist adjustment in the industry is now being wound down by the current Tasmanian Lieberal government.

    The TFIA had poor consultative mechanisms, did not properly include the Tasmanian community and so was able to be undone.

    However, in that undoing the government is ensuring the demise of the very forestry industry they believe will grow from the trashing of forests.

    Next time, and there will be one, the forestry industry should be allowed to sink because it cannot change.

  21. max

    May 9, 2017 at 10:46 pm

    # 42. MjF. Have I got three people singing from the same hymn book or one person using different names. Surely there couldn’t be three people with the same fixation on destroying peoples health.
    You agree, “burning biomass is not in the best interests of the immediate populations respiratory health” but will not except that it is a act against humanity. What do you call immediate populations?
    You are not forced to inhale smoky air, you have choices. You can relocate, take an annual holiday out of the state, wear a mask or just ignore it and get on with life. If your preference is to live in Tasmania then just as everywhere else, it’s not always beer and skittles.
    Your arguments are getting sillier and sillier, there is no safe levels of smoke, smoke effects the health of every body and every animal. Don’t believe me ask any doctor. What you are saying in essence is that every man woman and child, along with all the animals should leave the state until the absurdity of burning biomass is over.

  22. max

    May 9, 2017 at 4:47 pm

    # 40 Robin
    I have no wish to be an amateur forester If I have to become brain washed, brain dead and have complete apathy for the well being of all other people. From your own book- Forestry Tasmania Native Forest Silverculture Technical bulletin No. 8
    Regeneration in wet eucalypt forests occurs only after severe disturbance such as fire. Fire, however, is not essential to seedling establishment, as removal of the understorey and many other physical effects of fire, can be achieved without fire (Gilbert 1959). For example regeneration of eucalypts is dense along roadsides which have been cleared to bare soil next to mature eucalypt forest, and regeneration will occur in logged areas when slash is not burnt .
    All is rubbish about fumes is no more than an ingrained mental disorder exercise by the anti establishment. If you really believe this then you are brain dead. Ask any doctor?
    Normal persons with medical conditions in a modern world know how to manage their conditions having to live through bush fires which are very common in Australia. Once again If you really believe this nonsense, enlighten me.

  23. MjF

    May 9, 2017 at 2:45 pm

    #39
    I would agree that “burning biomass is not in the best interests of the immediate populations respiratory health”

    I would not agree to your revised “act against humanity” which still retains illegal undertones and implies a much wider effect than actual, in my view.

    I am a long term advocate and supporter of private forestry but not always forestry on public land. There is a significant difference which is lost on most critics.

    Private forestry is standalone and exists only as long as profitability is produced. Forestry on State forest via a GBE does not rely on a profitable return nor is it self funded as we know. Silviculturally and contractually, they could be doing things differently as well.

    I do not defend burning as the exclusive method of removing biomass. I agree theoretically there are options such as mechanical mulching which could be more widely used.

    I do however challenge stupid statements when made against the industry when I see them, such as in your #29. This is trolling apparently but actually isn’t if anybody cared to check the definition.

    You are not forced to inhale smoky air, you have choices. You can relocate, take an annual holiday out of the state, wear a mask or just ignore it and get on with life. If your preference is to live in Tasmania then just as everywhere else, it’s not always beer and skittles.

    Who do you blame when the state is shrouded in smoke from genuine bushfires during the summer ?

    “Forestry” again no doubt.

    Hawkins
    Good morning to you, how is the replicated English landscape and panorama out at Chudleigh ? The Duke is about to put his feet up it seems.

  24. spikey

    May 9, 2017 at 2:06 pm

    The trolls certainly have lost their direction.
    Perhaps they are missing their turd polishing ringleader.
    As notably absent as my neighbour.

  25. Robin Charles Halton

    May 9, 2017 at 11:50 am

    max various #’s,
    One thing is for sure you would never make an amateur forester in Tasmania as you fail to accept the basic silvicultural principles of harvesting and growing on a new wet eucalypt forest based on the absolutely essential requirements for successful regeneration.

    Planned and well executed Intensive burning is the most reliable method for all lowland regeneration activities.

    All is rubbish about fumes is no more than an ingrained mental disorder exercise by the anti establishment.

    Normal persons with medical conditions in a modern world know how to manage their conditions having to live through bush fires which are very common in Australia.

  26. max

    May 9, 2017 at 2:14 am

    # 37. mJF
    Crimes against humanity are certain acts that are deliberately committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack or individual attack directed against any civilian or an identifiable part of a civilian population. What is forced inhaling of a known carcinogen, a cause of emphysema and asthma if not a crime against humanity. I will concede your point that no prosecutions would take place. I possible should have said an act against humanity, would you agree with that.
    What I fail to understand Is why you keep coming back defending the indefensible.
    When you defend the indefensible you are showing apathy and a total lack of empathy. You must have a very big axe to grind, are you personally part of this subterfuge called forestry.

  27. John Hawkins

    May 9, 2017 at 12:21 am

    It is of considered interest that we have had no comments from any Tasmanian Liberal on this potential swindle regarding the ongoing acceptance of Federal funds under false pretences.

    I can only assume that find the case made and cannot and will not defend this indefensible behaviour.

    The trolls MJF, TGC, Deadwood Harris and Fireman Halton have all gone off topic.

    Swindle or no Swindle?

    The Libs are not entitled to these Federal Funds when they welsh on the deal.

    The Liberals will only be saved from being hoisted on a petard of their only making if they fail to get the legislation through the Upper House of the Tasmanian parliament.

    They may yet bless the electorate for the ditching of Liberal lite Mulder.

  28. Mjf

    May 8, 2017 at 10:33 pm

    #36

    Whilst not totally disagreeing with you max and having empathy for your health concerns, I think your associating regen or hazard reduction burn smoke with ‘crimes against humanity’ is misguided and disrespectful to actual victims of such crimes.

    I personally have no such health concerns but not to say I won’t have in the future.

    You are clearly mocking international criminal justice by now assimilating vegetation smoke with murderous dictatorships as lead by Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Gadaffi and many others since.

    According to the International Law Commission, crimes against humanity are defined as:

    (a) Murder;
    (b) Extermination;
    (c) Torture;
    (d) Enslavement;
    (e) Persecution on political, racial, religious or ethnic grounds;
    (f) Institutionalized discrimination on racial, ethnic or religious grounds involving the violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms and resulting in seriously disadvantaging a part of the population;
    (g) Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of population;
    (h) Arbitrary imprisonment;
    (i) Forced disappearance of persons;
    (j) Rape, enforced prostitution and other forms of sexual abuse;
    (k) Other inhumane acts which severely damage physical or mental integrity, health or human dignity, such as mutilation and severe bodily harm.

    The above acts need to be committed in a systematic manner and/or on a large scale.

    Where does burning vegetation over a few select weeks out of a year fit in with the above criteria max ?

    As I previously stated your earlier observation that you would and should be locked up if you burnt some vegetation is patently ludicrous.

    But don’t listen to me, why not contact the International Criminal Court and see if you have a case for FT and TFS (the 2 main perps)to be charged and arrested ?

    I look forward to a progress report.

  29. max

    May 8, 2017 at 12:20 pm

    # 35. mJF
    Did you mean rationalise or simplified? I am not avoiding the question. The whole thrust of my argument has been that regeneration burns are not necessary, are dangerous to my health and everyone elses. We are forced to breath polluted and health destroying air. It is impossible to escape this air, there is no place except far away, to breath unpolluted air laced with 2.5 particulates. What else would you call a proven health destroying condition inflicted on the general population when it is totally uncalled for, but a crime against humanity.

  30. mJf

    May 8, 2017 at 2:30 am

    #34
    Avoiding the question with your nonsense max. What are the crimes again ? Rationale please.

  31. max

    May 7, 2017 at 11:10 pm

    #31. Dear mJF
    Is that right, as an individual and if I become a forest owner I am granted a carta blanca to commit crimes against humanity. What else is the subterfuge called a regeneration burn but a crime against humanity.

    (With what offence(s) would you be charged, convicted and gaoled ?) Apparently according to you, nothing as long as I grow trees.

  32. Mark Temby

    May 7, 2017 at 9:17 pm

    Quite a few comments off topic. I believe the article is about the repayment of public monies potentially misappropriated for political and forest industry purposes. I suppose the point of the article and allegations are too hard to defend so going off topic is preferred. For those still unsure just try and read the headline.

  33. TGC

    May 7, 2017 at 8:13 pm

    Is that public money -reported $150million- that the peak tourist body is seeking?

  34. mJF

    May 7, 2017 at 6:50 pm

    Dear max
    You as an individual could buy some forested land, log it and then conduct your own regeneration burn (with the appropriate resources) prior to reseeding it.

    You would not go to gaol which is exactly what you just said would happen in #29

    With what offence(s) would you be charged, convicted and gaoled ?

  35. Brenda Rosser

    May 7, 2017 at 4:08 am

    The Regional Forest Agreement was never a consultation process with the general public. It always represented a sell-out by self-proclaimed environmental groups.

    Its purported purpose was to present a compromise between land and forest rape and native forest conservation. But you could never negotiate with a rapist and the attempt to do so was always a sham.

  36. max

    May 7, 2017 at 3:08 am

    # 28. Robin. You will never give up trying to defend the indefensible. Forestry Tasmania is a beggar with it’s hand forever out taking from the poor, the sick and the could be intellectuals. If they wasn’t so cash strapped they could be using this so called slash for the betterment and not to the detriment of Tasmania. Shape up or ship out FT, How many coups burnt his year and how much did each coup contribute to the economy. If it was a private enterprise it would have gone under years ago, not all public enterprises make money or are expected to but they are expected to contribute.

    If you or I went around committing this subterfuge called regeneration burns we would be in goal and so we should be.

  37. Robin Charles Halton

    May 6, 2017 at 2:01 am

    # 27 Max , try selectively logging regrowth wet forest where the trees grow thickly there is little room for machinery to manouvre!

    Imagine the smashed up logging slash generated just to harvest sawlogs and peelers leaving behind an area of extreme fire hazard for a number of years till some of mass slowly decays.

    Basically its to risky from a fire protection perspective to selectively log, former thinning operations in native forests tell the same story and act as wicks causing wildfires to spread more readily.

  38. max

    May 3, 2017 at 10:40 pm

    # 25 Robin. As Forest Gump said, stupid in stupid out. How can you have a forest Industry with the present way of doing things. Sign a contract to supply gun barrel straight billets of a certain size, then select a coup to supply these hard to come by billets. To big but not sawlog size, off to the chipper, to small same deal, bent same deal. There goes our future saw logs. How many years of growth gone. How can any sane person allow the clear felling of forestries future. At least selectively log to retain some hope of a future industry. The stupidity continues, the trees that failed the test are put on log trucks that are subsidised, with millions of our dollars to cart them. Then a helicopter is hired to napalm the area. They don’t wait for the trash to dry, just chuck a enough napalm on it to create a major health hazard.
    And yes us lot are sick to death of Forestry Tasmania shitting in their own nest and wanting to shit in what’s left of our nest

  39. John Hawkins

    May 3, 2017 at 6:40 pm

    Halton

    The principal reason the TFA was signed was to stop Gunns from going bankrupt and to pay large sums of money to log truck drivers.

    Gunns went bust anyway and the log truck drivers bought new trucks.

    FT will always live off the public purse as the Ta Ann contracts are loss making and unsustainable as drawn up by your mate Rolley.

    Instead of farting about in the woodsmoke tell me where I am wrong.

    Always remember this is a free public resource sold at a loss to the maaaaaaates and we Tasmanians have to wear it.

    The current minister could not run a Chook Raffle … if he could the winner would hold all the tickets.

  40. Robin Charles Halton

    May 3, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    Most of you “lot” are not prepared to listen andcome to grips with the adverse effects of the TFA is having on FT because the increased harvest of smaller size wood to satisfy the stupidity of the TFA signatories.
    Most apart from Evan Rolley CEO of Ta Ann who shown have known better signed off not having a clue about sustainable forest management.

  41. Steve

    May 2, 2017 at 11:37 pm

    Please, please, could you find another image to head this article?!

  42. Gordon Bradbury

    May 2, 2017 at 9:30 pm

    Robin (#13) when has FT ever NOT been political? I don’t remember a time when politics was not the main game at FT.

    It’s never been run as a business.

    What other option is there?

  43. Gordon Bradbury

    May 2, 2017 at 9:04 pm

    And now we learn this from John Lawrence:

    “The Royal Hobart Hospital redevelopment funds negotiated by Andrew Wilkie, although a cash boon to the state government at the time, led to a consequent reduction in GST receipts in subsequent years. And most fortuitously the $270 million IGA receipts to restructure the forest industry was ignored when calculating our GST entitlement. We’d be broke otherwise.”

    So if we redevelop a public hospital Tasmania gets stung by the Commonwealth, but if we throw even more money at the rent-seeker forest industry its a bonus ticket!!

    No wonder we hate politicians.

  44. philll Parsons

    May 2, 2017 at 7:56 pm

    Payback commenced when FT hit Gunns for their outstanding debt. Gunns paid back FT by selling it’s Triabunnna woodchip plant. FT paid back the buyer [Wood] for supporting the Greens from business with all sorts of delays including an inconclusive inquiry.

    Who is Barnett paying back now? Surely not everybody.?

    The losers will be the people of Tasmania with the sacrifice of the natural environment with it’s suite of values, the Tourist Industry as Tasmania returns to the days of conflict and the Forests Industry as their social license in Australia and throughout the world goes up in smoke [sorry Clive] and mirrors.

    Only crazed individuals bent on revenge would continue to repeat the mistakes of the past. You cannot expect new results. Look at how Tasmania has performed since the TFIA and consider how it was before.

    Barnett’s offer of a return to the past with a debt free FT comes from a deluded man who is trying to foist an illusion on us.

    If his Bill is passed the real facts will soon emerge as the remnants of an industry die standing unlike the forests destroyed in the coming end of the armistice.

  45. Pete Godfrey

    May 2, 2017 at 7:01 pm

    #16 Robin it has been a very long time since FT managed the forests on a 90 year rotation.
    Under the past woodchipping regime of Gunns Ltd FT were cutting everything as fast as possible.
    You well know that they were sanctioning the splitting of High Quality logs to meet woodchip quotas.
    The people Guy Barnett mentions as wanting the logging to continue in the old forests are a very small minority in the industry. They represent only a few who want to utilise rare species. They are akin to ivory carvers.
    The return of the 350 thousand ha to production forest will do nothing to guarantee any sustainability. It will only stave off the inevitable collapse of sawmilling based on large old trees.
    Our forests have been plundered.
    Cutting down the last few large Celery top pines may mean that a couple of people can build boats for a few more years, but it will never be sustainable.

  46. john hayward

    May 2, 2017 at 6:46 pm

    #16, Robin Halton. Who’s going to wait ninety years for a sawlog when you can grade the trees yourself as woodchip quality, buy them for a pittance, sack most of your workforce, and come out ahead much sooner?

    Use your made-in-Tas brain!

    John Hayward

  47. TGC

    May 2, 2017 at 3:38 pm

    With only One million plus visitors to Tasmania each year- the overwhelming majority- so we are told- coming to spend time in the forests and wilderness- clearly we cannot afford to cut down any more trees or there won’t be enough left to go arround
    Then visitors- such as may still be determinbed to visit Tasmania- will have to make do with heritage buildings and coastlines and “the world’s best food”!

  48. Duncan Charles Mills

    May 2, 2017 at 1:41 pm

    Dear Mr Barnett,

    I am sorry about this photo, someone should have told you.

    Photos can be staged but it takes skill, but this is candid, it is like a personal meeting. Body language speaks to the truth, unless one is an actor of some genius or bipolar.

    This reminds me of how I felt at times in my past when I had to pose for a portrait, taken by a person I did not like, for a cause I did not believe in but was expected of me by people whose material support I felt I needed. One is asked to smile but what comes out is halfway between a grin and and grimace. A grinace perhaps. The eyes are the giveaway, they do not smile, they know the truth of the situation.

    Such experiences are powerful learning opportunities, some take them others don’t. One comes out of them, either to think of someone you love when asked to smile, and or to never ever get caught serving the web of other people’s gratification.

    To acquiesce is to carve a bit out of one’s soul, as we have seen with victims of abuse.

    Your photo explains why your oversight of our forests and related funding is so compromised and that you have allowed yourself to be compromised, you are not serving the truth.

    But there is always an opportunity to learn, and they can be breathtakingly transformative, but it takes courage.

    It looks like you and your party are at a crux. If not resolved with truth and honesty this will be a nail in the coffin of Liberal electoral prospects.

  49. Robin Charles Halton

    May 2, 2017 at 1:27 pm

    #9 Pete Godfrey, the names and their associations that you mention were left out of the conclusion of the Peace Talks process!

    That is why they are interested in advocating continuation of sustainable forest practices under FT whose timber production role was severely compromised and left politicised by the former Tasmanian Labor Government and their Green supporters.

    It is essential the 357,000 ha of State Forest be returned onto the permanent Timber Production Register to maintain a reasonable flow of larger mature regrowth eucalypt for sawlog production along with limited minor species for harvest.

    In most cases foward roading, coupe scheduling had already taken place prior to the interference by former Labor and Green politics which has limited FT’s policy for managing native forests for 90 year rotational cycles.

  50. Ted Mead

    May 2, 2017 at 12:54 pm

    #13 – “The Tas Forest Agreement 2013 legislation has politicised the forest management process for FT, virtually making it impossible for them to maintain sustainability”. – Derrrrrr!

    Sustainability of what Robin?

    Surely you are not ranting about timber supply? – FT has been overcutting, plundering, wasting, burning and permitting the splitting of Cat 1 sawlogs to be pulped and sucked into the chippers for decades, long before Ta Ann came on the scene!

    No need to try and defend FT on their economic sustainability, even the greatest of spin-doctors couldn’t and wouldn’t make an attempt at that furphy!

  51. Robin Charles Halton

    May 2, 2017 at 11:44 am

    The Liberals are basically on the right track to use the “Forests(Unlocking Production Forest) Bill 2017. The Bill would serve the interests of Tasmania. The Bill would correctly serve Tasmania’s national obligations too.

    The 356,000 ha needs to be released directly back to its former Land manager, Forestry Tasmania for the best outcome for forest management by foresters who are familiar with all aspects including and very importantly the range of fire management issues that the areas now faces after being mothballed through the politicised process falsely imposed by the ineptitude of the TFA signatories.

    Be warned the Tas Environment Association like its Green followers would prefer to stop all native forest harvesting leaving the state without forestry.

    The use of the term “HCV Forest” has been overly politicised, in fact abused to include all areas of native forests by the TEA and the Greens.
    The use of the term is a bit fanciful and loose with its application, one that Bob Brown uses regularly in his cult like speeches and appeals to his spell bound followers beliefs!

    In the meanwhile new Labor leader Rebecca White has to step up to support a sustainable industry by agreeing with the Liberals to release those areas of State Forest back to FT for Timber production management.

    Tasmanians deserve a sustainable forest industry, at present with limited resource available currently, the cutting of younger timber does not represent sustainable management as political interference resulting from the so called “Peace Talks” has taken forestry out on a tangent.

  52. Robin Charles Halton

    May 2, 2017 at 2:54 am

    Forest Minister Barnett will need to get this legislation through Leg Co otherwise with Ta Ann being given the priority for harvesting too many younger regrowth coupes for smaller sized logs in quick sucession leaving an even bigger gap in future regrowth cutting schedules for reasonable volumes of high quality sawlog.

    Moving back into those areas of older regrowth, incorrectly referred to as “Reserves”, plenty of decent sized 1934 wildfire coupes are already roaded and are in a state of readiness for previously planned harvest to extract greater volumes sizeable wood for sawlogs, providing ample logs for peelers and pulp.

    FT needs to manage the younger forests for sawlogs on a 90year rotation.

    The Tas Forest Agreement 2013 legislation has politicised the forest management process for FT, virtually making it impossible for them to maintain sustainability.

  53. Andrew Ricketts

    May 2, 2017 at 1:33 am

    The Environment Association (TEA) Inc. wishes to make the point that the places comprising the area of the 356,039 Ha is not production forest land because in part they are (not withstanding Tasmania’s 2014 legislation), in fact are a part of the NRS and in part because under the NFPS they are places with “high conservation values”. This set of areas should remain intact to form a part of the CAR Reserve System.

    It must also be said that the process of liquidating Tasmania’s high conservation value (HCV) forests has no social license and is unlikely to, at any time, be tolerated either socially or in the market place.

    As you all know forestry in Tasmania occurs under the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) of November 1997. Signed by Tasmania and the Commonwealth and subsequently revised a number of times.

    Since the start of forestry under the RFA a number of significant things have occurred. There has been a steady increase in the number of species and vegetation communities Listed on either the State List (under the Threatened Species Act) or the Commonwealth List (under the EPBC Act).

    We consider the ‘Forests (Unlocking Production Forests) Bill 2017’ would sacrifice Tasmania’s reputation and its proposition is immensely short sighted. The Bill would not serve the interests of Tasmania or Tasmanians. This Bill would not serve Tasmania’s national obligations.

  54. John Hawkins

    May 1, 2017 at 11:03 pm

    Labor under Lennon Giddings and Green were just as dangerous as the Liberals under Barnett and Harriss.

    They have all colluded with Gunns and or FT to hand over Federal Money to save Gunns from Bankruptcy.

    I detailed the whole sorry saga on Tasmanian Times in Underbelly the Suggested Grounds for a Royal Commission 16/03/2013: http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/article/underbelly-part-3-the-suggested-grounds-for-a-royal-commission/

    Miles Hampton seems to growing a backbone.

    As the former FT Supremo perhaps he could now blow the whistle on all these political no-hopers.

    Now that would be a result.

    I doubt if the Mercury or the Examiner would publish such is the entrenched power of our deadbeat pollies with their advertising rivers of gold.

    Tasmanian Times however will.

    Over to you Mr Hampton make our day!

  55. Gordon Bradbury

    May 1, 2017 at 7:36 pm

    Absolutely everyone with their hand in the cookie jar of cheap taxpayer funded public native forests is a self-interested rent seeker, bleeding the long suffering taxpayer dry.

    Barnett is telling us there is a distinction between rent seekers. I don’t see it.

    It’s all questionable activity to me

    (edited)

  56. Pete Godfrey

    May 1, 2017 at 7:00 pm

    Looking at the last two paragraphs of Guy Barnetts article is very informative.
    The industry support he cites is very interesting.
    Andrew Denman of Denman marine, a small business boat builder, who advocates using the last of Tasmanias minor species timbers in building incredibly expensive boats. (self interest)
    George Harriss (self interest) happy to back any political party that will ensure his continued supply of minor species timbers for his workshop.
    No scruples, mouthpiece for Huon Resource Development group. Otherwise known as Timber Communities Australia, previously Forest Protection Society. Astro turf group setup by Forest Industries Association to pretend they have grass roots support.
    Allan Duggan likewise, TCA member and spruiker for all things industry.
    Tony Stonjek, ex FT forester, now private forest adviser.
    Michael Kelly, small sawmiller, stood for the Liberals in Lyons. Member of Meander Valley Council.
    A couple of self interested small industry mouthpieces and this is what Barnett is saying is industry support. He should have stayed working for Eric Abetz.

  57. Chris

    May 1, 2017 at 6:32 pm

    Remove him from the ticket.

    Why Erica?

    Cos he is useless,

    How would you know?

    Well he did not do any good in the Senate and I had to demote him

    Yeah but the same could be said about you!

    But I did not hold an enquiry into Triabunna and get no result.

    I suppose, but you put him down the ticket though, thank the gods that Robson aint employed anymore.

    Yeah I know, look at the below the line votes last time even Liza beat me and she aint in the Liebrals.

    I am drawing up an order ticket for the next election and I hope that almost Christian dope does not continue to harp about the above the line scam.

    I suppose you will consult with your colleague from the norf, whats his name Questionable eh, yeah thats him the Choc Top Kid.

    He, like all the rest including Wee Willy, do as they are told.

    Whats happened to the Exclusive Brethren, are their headquarters on the East Coast along with their chief mentor?

    We will be supporting a big dam up there for washing fish and the Gutter will finance it after he buys the water mob then gives it FSC approval -Fish Scouring Certification.

    Ah we miss the Gunns and their efics!

  58. spikey

    May 1, 2017 at 5:47 pm

    Lying
    Worlds Best Practice
    When there’s nothing good going on

    The usual suspects
    The usual scapegoats
    The usual total and utter bollocks

  59. TV Resident

    May 1, 2017 at 2:49 pm

    If this type of behaviour from these so called christians is what the christian faith advocates, it doesn’t bode too well for christianity. I am glad that I am an Athiest and not a hypocrite.

  60. john hayward

    May 1, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    A few days ago Trump disclosed that former US Prez Andrew Jackson, a slave owner, had strongly opposed the American Civil War, which broke out some fifteen years after Jackson’s death,

    In a similarly bravura display of both integrity and scholarship, Guy Barnett has renounced both the TFIA and the urgent advice of the present FT chairman, Rob de Fegely to revive the traditional kleptocratic final solution to Tassie’s forests.

    Notwithstanding its terminal effect on FSC certification, and the cocked pistol it will provide for old nemesis Abetz, Guy feels his lies, the support of a small number of surviving loggers, and his extremely flexible faith, will save him.

    John Hayward

  61. John Biggs

    May 1, 2017 at 1:41 pm

    Great exposure, John. If only the Liberals’ trickery could be made more widely known.

    NB: If I was Guy Barnett I would have that ludicrous photo taken down from the Liberal website quick smart. Better to take one from behind him.

  62. Mark Temby

    May 1, 2017 at 12:24 pm

    John, Guy and Eric are Christians. Much of their voter base is Christian. They surely wouldn’t intentionally lie or steal (misappropriate, perhaps, or divert, maybe) public monies? God knows they are good!

  63. Gordon Bradbury

    May 1, 2017 at 11:42 am

    Well written John. The duplicity of the Liberal Government is astonishing. The Tasmanian Forestry Agreement has not been ripped up. It has just been deformed and mutated for political and financial gain.

    “Real facts”?? Don’t make me laugh!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top