When we moved to Tasmania over a decade ago, it was in the throes of a lawsuit by the giant Tasmanian logging company, Gunns, who were punitively suing 20 environmental activists and organisations for financial harm.
It was rather frightening to read about the emotional and financial distress of the defenders, as in the USA this kind of lawsuit (SLAPP-‘Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation’) would be rarely employed against peacefully protesting individuals who observed all law, thanks to a clear First Amendment in the USA’s Bill of Rights. It dawned on me that unlike the USA, Australia has no formal bill of rights, so freedom of speech issues can be pushed further before being thrown out by the courts.
Gunns Limited later collapsed and their famous lawsuit—where a large corporation intent on forcing huge legal fees on those who could not afford it—has been recognised as a powerful stifling of free speech, as implied by the Australian Constitution and with courts agreeing. In recent years, however, advocates for unfettered access to Tasmanian rare forest ecosystems continue to work on passing targeted legislation with the intent to create serious pain to individual peaceful protestors. This is doomed to long term failure, but with potential in the short term to silence critics and sensible thought.
For a few years after the Gunns lawsuit, there was hope of agreement on Tasmanian forests, perhaps due to the fact that more people were becoming aware of the need to preserve Tasmania’s most valuable natural resource, that which our license plate reminds us: ‘(Our) Natural State’.
The Tasmanian Forests Agreement Legislation 2013 provided hundreds of millions in compensation to the forest industry in exchange for guaranteed protection of 356,000 hectares of high conservation value forests. Then, following the release of the Forestry Tasmania’s 2015/16 annual report and a loss of $67.4 million, they announced their rebranding as Sustainable Timber Tasmania, with extensive re-jigging of coupe definitions and the claim that ‘no coupes containing Old Growth will be clearfelled’.
But look closely at recent photos published by the Bob Brown Foundation and it becomes clear that these defenders are not protesting plantations—these forests are rich with magnificent old growth, rare on this planet, and are being destroyed at a rapid rate, and will be mostly gone within our children’s time. Species that depend on the old trees are clearly heading for extinction or at best extirpation, but somehow states can decide their own rules and disregard the intent of any (weak) federal environmental laws.
Wilderness in Australia is diminishing at an alarming rate with increasing encroachment of industrial methods, yet there is no mandate for land managers to even keep track of all the wilderness we lose each year. No one really knows, though satellite photos tell the deforestation story: Australia loses nearly 500,000 hectares to deforestation and land clearing each year, close to a hectare every minute (source: Wilderness Society). Mathematical extrapolation clearly proves this as unsustainable.
The Tasmanian state logging company has a powerful propaganda message and has convinced many of their ‘sustainable nature’. Unfortunately it is not true, unless one considers that the native ecosystems virtually untouched since European settlement can be destroyed and ‘renewed’ in less than a dozen lifetimes. Worst of all, the 356,000 hectares of native forest agreed to be protected has become ‘FPP’ or Future Potential Production forest in 2020; in other words, approved and granted back to the forest industry for their endless roading into its wilderness and a systematic coupe-by-coupe system of clearfell, often replacing large patches of fire resistant rainforest with highly combustable regrowt. This is a perfect formula to quickly destroy a rainforest’s overall resistance to wide-scale fire while simultaneously destroying the larger scale contiguous bio-systems.
All this wouldn’t be so egregious if there was a significant economic benefit to Tasmanians. But when you look at the STT books, every year is a de-facto loss when it comes to forest product sales versus operational expenses.
STT does more than manage forest extractions and probably do a lot of good work in their other roles as forest managers, but their general approach to native forests (clearfell then burn huge piles of waste) is truly shameful in this day of climate change, as their practices are releasing globally valuable carbon stores in the bluntest way possible and destroying the best future long term resource for Tasmania’s economic future. Double whammy.
Tourism provides $1.1 billion to the Tasmanian economy (by contrast, less than $150 million for forest products, extracted at a loss). Wilderness is a resource and is limited on this island state; people do come for it and will do so in the future as wilderness becomes more rare on our developing planet. So please, land managers, do not destroy our public lands (and please do not privatise them either—they should remain public to benefit all who can visit without significant impact on the resource).
In this election, both the Liberals and Labor seem to be bending over backwards for strategic state division votes by abandoning any concept of the future value of Tasmania’s wilderness or in fact any sustainability issues, despite the fact that a majority of Australians (and probably most Tasmanians) want to see more movement in this direction.
The Greens have created the campaign slogan, “green your vote, or be part of the problem” in response to the conspicuous failure of the two major parties to stand up for environmental issues. What Tasmania perhaps really needs is a referendum on the comparison of two futures: one in which Tasmania’s natural beauty is preserved for future benefit, or one in which the state is smashed with wood-chipped forests, roads destroying its wilderness values, and toxic mines in exchange for a very short term gain.
Tasmanians are among the most sensible people in the world, so I think, given a clear choice, there would be overwhelming support for the environment. Too bad the major parties do not recognise this. Instead, they are propping up a dying industry with millions of taxpayer dollars each year (money that could be better spent on transition businesses that can provide longer term growth).
The May 1 election really only does provide one choice for anyone interested in preserving Tasmania’s wild places for future generations and long term economic stability: the Greens.
Sources:
https://www.sttas.com.au/sites/default/files/media/documents/fact-sheet/Fact%20Sheet%2012%20Old%20Growth%20Forests.pdf
https://www.sttas.com.au/sites/default/files/media/documents/annual-reports/STT%20Annual%20Report%202020.pdf
John Middendorf arrived here with his family through the skilled migration program as an engineer. Receiving a Master of Teaching from the University of Tasmania in 2012, he is a fully registered teacher and works in the public and Catholic sectors. He and his family moved to Tasmania because of natural values it offers, and are often dismayed by the lack of care for Tasmania’s globally unique wilderness treasures.
