Garry Stannus
Norman Baker, MP.
Dear Sir,

I’ve just read in Tasmanian Times (http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php?/weblog/article/australia-day-in-london/ ) that you intend to table an early motion in parliament regarding recent roading operations in the Upper Florentine Valley (Tasmania).

I applaud your intention. The environmental situation in Tasmania is in the balance. We still have large areas of bush, some protected, some not. We also have a government which is hand in glove with Gunns Ltd, the largest company in the state, a logging and woodchipping company.

It is sad to see, day to day, month to month, year in and year out, our bush being steadily destroyed. The lies that are told by the govt and by Gunns are repulsive yet brazen. For example, here is an extract from a Tasmanian Forestry Corporation (semi govt) publication
The Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement (TCFA) was signed on May 13, 2005 by the Australian Commonwealth Govt and the Tasmanian State Govt. It was an inter-governmental agreement, not a community agreement.

Last year the Commonwealth Department of Forestry and Fisheries produced a progress report on the implementation of the TCFA entitled: Forests for the Future : May 2007
[http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/236121/tcfa-report.pdf]

It was full of gobbledygook. Here in italics, is an extract explaining Forestry’s roading policies:
Road Infrastructure
The Tasmanian Government has committed $20 million over four years to road infrastructure.
With the additional forest reserves created under the TCFA, more roads are required to access state forest land, and implement logging strategies that meet the commitments to variable retention and reducing clear-felling while ensuring worker safety.
Forestry Tasmania has incorporated the road-building task into its capital works programme and has spent $8 million over the past two financial years to meet this objective.
A further $4 million will be invested annually over the three financial years, from 2006-2009, to complete the task.

Can I point out the oxymoron contained above:

“… more roads are required to access state forest land, and implement logging strategies that meet the commitments to variable retention and reducing clear-felling while ensuring worker safety”. !

Heading a table on page six of the report we see the 17pt bold font

This Agreement has conserved 13,800ha more forest than pledged, including 700ha more old-growth foresta*

and then the disingenuous table information in 8pt font
6460ha*
90% of Upper Florentine is in either reserves or unavailable for
timber production**

and the footnotes in 7pt font – it is these which are most interesting.

* Indicates a figure less than original election commitment for this specific area. To meet the original commitment would have had significant negative economic and social ramifications. However, with a reconfiguration of the new reserves, the total area of oldgrowth forest protected exceeds the original commitment by 700 hectares, which does not include any old-growth that will be reserved through the Forest Conservation Fund.
** These areas include formal and informal reserves plus further areas protected under Forest Practices Codes.

I don’t know how it is that you are aware of our predicament in Tasmania, trying to save true wilderness, but I thank you for your efforts and I wish you luck. You are welcome in my home.

Garry Stannus,
Liffey,
Tasmania.

PS The Forest Practices Codes referred to are actually a primer on how to log – nothing is proscribed Good forest practices are indeed canvassed within, but always the Code qualifies its recommendations with the words ‘where practical’. In no way can the Code be regarded as providing protection to our forests.