Pic: Daniel Haley
[b]Lara Giddings[/b], 19 April 2013: ‘The reality is the Legislative Council has given us what they believe is the right thing. We are now looking at that legislation; the Signatories are looking at that legislation. And it will either fall or rise on what we’ve got.’
Labor MLC [b]Craig Farrell[/b] voted for the amendments and for the amended bill to pass the Legislative Council. So did the pro-agreement MLCs [b] Rob Valentine, Kerry Finch and Mike Gaffney[/b].
When the Labor MLC voted for the [b]Tony Mulder[/b] and [b]Greg Hall[/b] amendment, it was clear that the Labor administration was going to accept the amended bill … if the Signatories accept it. Deputy Premier [b]Bryan Green[/b] was out on Thursday morning [18 April] affirming that position.
So it gets very messy – the government is waiting for advice from the Signatories. Who will blink on these amendments – the ENGOs or all the Signatories?
If the ENGOs pull out of the deal that means the Tasmanian Greens have little option but to reject the current bill or try to create an amendment that the Labor MPs in the Lower House will accept. That would see the bill going back to the Council again!
The bill will then be dead because if it is returned to the Legislative Council, a majority of MLCs are likely to ‘kill the bill’.
So what advice has the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator [b]Christine Milne[/b]? [transcript of interview 17 April 2013]
[i]Question[/i]: Should the environmental signatories walk away from the deal today?
[b]CHRISTINE MILNE[/b]: Well the environmental signatories will no doubt be looking at what the Legislative Council did overnight [17 April] and considering their position as will indeed the forest signatories. It would be very useful if both of them, the forest industry signatories and the ENGOs came out today and called on the House of Assembly to reject the Upper House amendments and send the bill straight back [to the Legislative Council]. That would be the most sensible outcome in the political agenda because that would really put the onus clearly where it belongs, on the Legislative Council.
If they pass it in its current state it is a deal that is totally inconsistent with what was agreed in the Forest Peace Agreement. Some of the provisions that they have passed demonstrate that they are not interested in a sustainable future for the logging industry. I mean to suggest that, as [b]Adriana Taylor[/b] has done, and that they have passed, that they will get further specialty timbers from areas that are reserved; to suggest as [b]Tony Mulder[/b] has done and they have agreed that you can push back 279,000 hectares for consideration in reserves way beyond a political cycle; for [b]Greg Hall[/b] and them all to agree that they are going to take areas out of the Great Western Tiers that have already been put forward by the Federal Government for World Heritage listing – what can you assume from that? Other than they want this to fail? So whether or not they pass it or they vote it down, they want failure. But let’s make it very clear that they can’t get away with this. The legislation going to go back to the Lower House and the Lower House will have to decide whether to accept the amendments or not. I’m calling on the Lower House to just say: No they are not going to accept those amendments as they are.
[i]Question[/i]: The [amendment] vote wasn’t close yesterday. Labor did not have to support the amendments; do you think that this is part of a strategy by Labor ahead of an election to try to divorce itself from the Greens and to get the environmentalists to walk away from a deal that has been so unpopular?
[b]CHRISTINE MILNE[/b]: It’s very clear that the Legislative Council wants to pretend that it did something by passing a so-called peace deal when they have completely gutted it and wrecked it. The onus really is now on the State Government in the Lower House because if the State Government is serious about upholding the provisions of the forest peace deal then it will reject the amendments of the Legislative Council. It’s as simple as that. We will see from the response of the Tasmanian Labor Government as to whether or not they’re serious about peace in the forests or whether they are engaged in the same political games that the Liberal Party is involved in. Let’s see what Lara Giddings does.
[i]Question[/i]: So the [Tasmanian] Greens in the Lower House will reject it?
[b]CHRISTINE MILNE[/b]: Well, the Greens in the Lower House have exactly the same position as the Greens nationwide and that is we want to protect high conservation value forests. We’ve been out there doing that for decades and we will continue to do it because frankly our reputation globally is about [i]Tasmania clean green and clever[/i], Tasmania’s wilderness is what we’re known for, the World Heritage Committee has called on Tasmania to nominate its high conservation value forests for World Heritage listing and that is the Greens’ position. We support the World Heritage nomination, we support the peace deal as it was negotiated, but the wrecking that has gone on by the Legislative Council is completely unacceptable.
• Phill Pullinger, Terry Edwards: Signatories Statement 23/4/2013
Signatories to the Tasmanian Forest Agreement 2012 met today to discuss the implications to the agreement of a range of amendments by the Legislative Council which depart from the peace agreement.
The discussions have been constructive in the spirit of finding a collective position on advice back to governments about the legislation and implementation of the agreement, and discussions are ongoing.
• Gravelly Beach evacuation timely reminder of pulp mill danger to public health
