On Saturday 22 June a meeting was held in Campbell Town, Tasmania. Those attending were Tasmanians deeply concerned by the damaging disunity that now characterises the state’s environmental movement.
The impetus for the gathering was the long running forests peace process, and the nature of the agreement negotiated with the forest industry by the three ‘mainstream’ ENGOs – the Wilderness Society, Environment Tasmania and the Australian Conservation Foundation (the signatory ENGOs).
Several broad ranging questions were considered, including the possibility of a more transparent, inclusive way forward for those concerned about social and environmental justice, and all aspects of environmental protection in Tasmania – the air we breathe, and the water that sustains us, as well as our forests.
The opening question for consideration was:
How did three ‘mainstream’ ENGOs come to represent broader environmental and social justice campaigns in Tasmania?
Several responses to this question were put forward, as follows:
• The three signatory ENGOs are a self-appointed power elite in the conservation movement. They are ‘envirocrats’ who have adopted the hierarchical structures and operating modes of government and industry.
• They have long-term connections with the Greens members of state parliament, and are supported by those MPs as the legitimate representatives of environmentalism in Tasmania.
• They have adopted the language of government and the bureaucracy, spinning terms such as ‘positive outcomes’, ‘sustainability’, ‘opportunity’ and ‘protection’ in order to validate their actions.
• They have fostered a cult of celebrity and charismatic leadership in the upper levels of their hierarchies. Individuals appear regularly in the media and have become synonymous with their organisations.
• Like politicians, they are attempting to read the mood of the public and tailor their campaigns accordingly. For example, they have recently noted that the forests campaign is suffering from ‘consumer fatigue’ i.e. it’s time to wind it up and move on to something more interesting.
• Like the forest industry, they have a ‘colonising’ mentality – they want to ‘own’ the forests and the land they stand on. Not legal ownership, but the right to dictate the use of the trees and the land.
• They have appropriated the social and political capital generated by grassroots activist groups, and assumed authority as the spokespeople for these groups. They have assured the government and the forest industry that their authority is genuine, as confirmed by Terry Edwards of industry group FIAT during the Leg Co select committee enquiry into the TFA earlier this year.
• They act as strict gatekeepers of information, setting agendas and deciding what is, and is not, legitimate knowledge. They maintain control by deliberately excluding dissenting voices from the circle of information. The discourse of the TFA featured regular references to those ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the tent. Those on the outside were kept firmly in their place by the insider ENGOs.
The second question under consideration was:
Why have the mainstream ENGOs failed as advocates for the environment and the community?
This question drew many diverse and well-considered responses, as follows:
• They take advantage of the activist goodwill created by the non-violent, direct action campaigns of grass roots, front line environmental groups – groups like Still Wild Still Threatened and the Huon Valley Environment Centre – but they consider the members of those groups to be ‘dispensable’ to the mainstream environmental cause. Those who cannot be groomed to join their organisations are ignored and their strategies are undermined. Further opportunities to participate are removed. They seek input from these groups, but any suggestions that do not suit their agenda are ignored, or buried if necessary.
• Their hierarchical structure, and top end decision-making practices mimic those of government and industry organisations. They have driven a wedge between themselves and grass roots activists groups, in order to secure their own position as elitist arbiters of conservation in Tasmania.
• They have routinely failed to consult their memberships when negotiating on their behalf, and the flawed, outdated constitutions under which they operate allow this lack of consultation. For example, the Wilderness Society has 40,000 plus members/regular donors, but their constitution allows only 50 members to call a general meeting and, amongst other things, vote to change the society’s management committee. Members must normally attend general meetings, including the AGM, in person in order to vote – there is no provision for proxy or postal voting in the TWS constitution. Staff can also be members and so can effectively choose their own management committee.
• As a corollary to their failure to involve members in decision-making, the signatory ENGOs have demonstrated a clear disregard for accountability and proper governance. TWS, for example, has the benefit of public benevolent institution (PBI) status, meaning that donors/members can claim a tax deduction for their donations. Donations are substantial, but there is no specific mechanism of accountability to contributors for the use of their funds.
• Most importantly, the signatory ENGOs do not have integrated environmental policy positions which include mining, water and air, as well as forestry. Their responses are ad hoc and based on expediency rather than well-formulated, well-researched policies. The environment is a marketable ‘product’ they use to shore up their power base and their funding.
The remaining three questions coalesced naturally, and were considered as one. They were:
How can local communities and activists ensure this type of appropriation and misrepresentation does not happen in the future?
Is there a better way that people and groups can work together, with the shared goals of environmental protection and social justice in Tasmania?
How do we achieve this?
These questions generated an ‘organic’ consensus response as follows:
• Activist groups and networks and concerned individuals can have diverse opinions and goals but will be stronger if they recognise and acknowledge shared ideals.
• Research and sharing of information is vital.
• Ongoing, wide scale engagement with issues confronting the environment, and society in general, is necessary. This includes engagement of young people and broadcasting local issues on a global platform.
• Employ non-violent, direct action skills, both individually and in groups. Have a positive agenda, and work according to individual and group strengths. This includes research, advocacy and support roles, as well as direct activism. Taking direct action can force change – people need to know that they are not helpless.
• Network together but retain the diversity and power of separate individuals, networks and groups. Do not allow appropriation by mainstream ENGOs.
• Recognise that the natural environment deserves our respect, and work towards that goal.
• PERSIST and lead by example. Actions speak louder than words.
*Some of the attendees at this meeting were:
Cecily A. Edwards
Anne Layton-Bennett
David Leaman
Isla MacGregor
David Obendorf
Karl Stevens
Frank Strie
Tim Thorne
This article is a summary of notes taken at the meeting.
• Richard Colbeck: So Mr Rudd, where are the ground rules for Labor’s forest slush fund?
• John Hayward, in Comments: Just heard on the news that the TFA is on the brink of collapse – http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-03/peace-progress-dire/4797570?section=tas – due largely to FT’s claim that it simply doesn’t have the trees to satisfy the huge wood allocations which it’s made, and apparently continues to make, to its various cronies, ad infinitum. On the basis of such governance in recent years, Tas just might qualify as a failed state, falling under Intl Crim Ct jurisdiction. Swallow your pride.
• ABC: Forestry peace deal progress report raises “dire” concerns
• Tim Thorne, in Comments: The part of “give it all back” that I don’t understand is “back”. To me this implies that there is a previous owner other than the people of Tasmania. Other than the indigenous community, I cannot for the life of me work out who this might be, and I am unaware of any proposal to legislate for these areas to be returned to them.
• Adam Burling, in Comments: First, i commend group of individuals like this getting together to discuss the implications of deals done by big ENGOs to create the TFA. I am sorry I could not attend. Second, I wanted to point out a few of the serious failures that are emerging from the TFA deal. In the Huon , the signatories excluded a number of world heritage valued forests from WH listing as part of push by loggers and miners. One key area is an area excised from the listing at the last minute in the wilderness forests of the Weld Valley. The area on the flanks of Camel’s Back is a karst formation which is proposed to be mined and turned into a quarry. the proposal is to blast away sides of the hill and a new road has already been pushed through untouched forests to get set it up. The latest progress report on the peace deal has exposed an industry pushing for more logging in areas supposed to be protected. Under the deal if areas like Barn Back (Denison/Weld Valley) are ‘log of last resort’ and are not slated for protection till 2022. They can be logged in the interim if industry says not enough supply. The statements in the report point to this exact outcome. Meanwhile the big ENGOs report back that they have ‘neutralised’ campaign efforts both in the markets (They have written to Ta Ann customers again backing them) and in the forests. TWS are now clearly spending time working for the loggers and not the forests.
• Sarawak Report: The Sarawak Blackout:
If you take a huge salary and brag a lot about your “Power to Grow” Sarawak, then you ought not to make multi-million dollar cock-ups.
Which is why last week’s state-wide power black out has surely left the credibility of Sarawak Energy’s Torstein Sjotveit damaged beyond resuscitation?
It has become clear that the power supply from the powerful new Bakun mega-dam faulted and tripped the inadequate existing transmission lines.
A foreseeable danger surely?
Not only did this plunge the whole of Sarawak into darkness for six hours, it blasted a hole in the epicentre of SEB’s vaunted master plan for a crash industrialisation programme.
It has been admitted that one of SCORE’s flagship projects, the Mukah Press Metal aluminium smelting plant, has been crippled by the incompetent electricity stoppage.
The core of the plant, the red hot reduction pots that use intensive amounts of electricity to separate the oar, cooled into a block of solid metal in a process that cannot be reversed. The plant is now closed for major reconstruction.
etc…
• David Obendorf, in Comments: Evan Rolley’s Ta Ann Tasmania was handed $26 milion to compensate for this unused notional annual wood supply out to 2027. So, how easy can public funds can be transferred to a private overseas-owned company? Negotiate an unsustainably high annual wood supply quota, don’t use it, and then negotiate for public compensation to buy back some of the annual wood supply in the legal contract which Mr Rolley orchestrated when he was the CEO of Forestry Tasmania. Winners are grinners…. Mr Rolley finds himself as the creator of the contract as CEO of FT in 2006 and in 2013 after the TFA the beneficiary of the compensation for Ta Ann in reducing this contract. What do we call that?
• Activist sister-in-law of former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Clare Rewcastle Brown, has been deported from Malaysia. She is the editor of Sarawak Report. She was deported by Taib Mahmud while on her way to Kuching to meet lawyers over a civil suit filed against her by Taib …
http://www.sarawakreport.org/
She is the main enemy of Taib Mahmud.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/malaysia-denies-entry-to-journalist-20130705-2pfzv.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10159557/Activist-sister-in-law-of-Gordon-Brown-deported-from-Malaysia.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gordon-browns-activist-sisterinlaw-clare-rewcastle-brown-denied-entry-to-malaysian-state-8688044.html?origin=internalSearch
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/04/activist-says-barred-from-malaysian-state/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/world/asia/malaysia-denies-entry-to-leading-opposition-journalist.html?_r=1&
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/07/04/cameron-must-%E2%80%9Craise-issue%E2%80%9D-with-najib/
WHAT IS THE REAL AGENDA BEHIND MACC INVESTIGATING TAIB?
http://www.vernonkedit.com/2013/07/what-is-real-agenda-behind-macc.html
The political rumour mill is in overdrive again and the grapevines are abundant with all sorts of theories. Words like ‘hidden hands’, ‘UMNO plot’, ‘sandiwara’ and even ‘Salah Anwar lagi’ are being touted and bandied liberally in every coffee shop and cafe throughout the country.
One thing is for sure – Taib has not spoken a single word. Very smart of him. This intensifies the mystery surrounding the very sudden and unexpected move by MACC to investigate him. But the question on everyone’s lips is WHY?
Now let’s look at this very interesting development chronologically and logically.
FACT: MACC made its announcement last week, coincidentally just after Najib had flown off on an overseas tour.
QUESTION: Who gave MACC the nod and green-light to suddenly announce that it will be investigating Taib? Or was MACC arm-twisted to do this? And why when Najib was not in the country?
POSSIBLE ANSWERS:
Scenario 1 – Najib instructed the MACC, and then quickly jumped on a plane and left the mess to sort itself out while he is away.
Scenario 2 – Someone other than Najib, taking the opportunity of Najib’s absence, arm-twisted the MACC to do this. Someone with influence and incredible power whom the MACC fears and listens to? More powerful than Najib?
WHY?
Scenario 1 (A) – Najib is trying to show the country and UMNO that he has the backbone to reform and is transforming his governance policy, and therefore assuage the fears of foreign investors and create more confidence so that the nation’s FDI increases as he goes on a tour to create more business opportunities for the nation. Perhaps a shadow-play, and after FDI’s have poured in, the MACC finds no case and closes the files?
Scenario 1 (B) – At the same time, is Najib subtly sending Taib a message – “Slow down on the corruption, Old Man, because you are making all of us look bad”?
Scenario 1 (C) – Najib could also be sending his own party a subtle message: UMNO is beholden to Taib who saved them with 22 seats, and that without Taib, BN is out of power and therefore if Najib dares to do this to Taib, what more to other members of his party? Is he telling his other UMNO friends and foes to back off and not challenge his presidency so that he won’t put MACC on them too? So Taib becomes the punching-bag for Najib – a good person with bad image for Najib to whack? Taib would, of course play along because not only is he a seasoned politician who is too smart to react but he knows it is all just one big shadow play?
Scenario 1 (D)- Or could it all be just a simple reason – to distract UMNO and the country from his own ineffectiveness, and especially from the current important FT Bill on conversion of minors which is constitutionally questionable?
Now let’s look at the other scenario.
Scenario 2 – If Najib had nothing to do with the moves by MACC against Taib, then who did? Who would have most to gain by having Taib’s balls in his hands? Who is more powerful than Najib to squeeze Taib’s balls and slowly roast them like satay? The answer as to who these hidden hands belong to is not important, but the reason as to why is.
It is no secret that Najib’s back is to the wall, and that his presidency of UMNO might be challenged at the next UMNO Convention. History repeating itself – exit Abdullah, enter Najib, exit Najib enter who? So, the person who wants Najib out would need as much support as possible to successfully oust Najib, correct?
Now Taib holds 22 seats in his hands, and allegedly billions of ringgit. Of course, none of the 22 seats from Sarawak will have any direct bearing on an internal UMNO party election. But, imagine if hundreds of millions were to exchange hands in order for the hidden hands to buy over UMNO warlords loyal to Najib? Do UMNO warlords come cheap? How many millions would it take to grease their hands to hold the daggers that will be plunged into Najib and Rosmah’s backs come the next UMNO Convention? Who would have hundreds of millions at his or her disposal to fund a coup? Who has to pay to stay out of jail?
One fact remains – both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 have one thing in common – the UMNO party elections coming up at the end of the year. Either Najib is sending a warning to his foes within UMNO to toe his line or someone is pressuring Taib to toe their line and cough up the moolah?
When Najib returns to Malaysia, the press should ask him what the latest developments are on the investigations – how and what he answers will answer our question.
For now, until we hear from Najib’s own mouth, you decide which scenario seems most plausible. What is sure is that there is never a dull moment in Malaysian politics!
• David Obendorf Transcript of State-wide Mornings with Leon Compton – 4 July 2013 ABC radio
The first TFA Durability Report delivered to Parliament
Leon Compton: TFA Durability report was delivered to Parliament yesterday – industry is not getting the supply it needs; protection is being achieved as promised; communities in regions are still struggling; the focus on research that was promised has not been achieved to this point. The question is, is that an acceptable report card?
Terry Edwards [CEO of FIAT]: There have been problems… We’re trying to turn the ‘Queen Mary’ around on a six-pence! FT confronted with structural issues particularly wood supply… the chronic problem of residues exports; an under-capacity in our ‘contractor community’ because of the way the exit packages were run earlier in the program… so we have an under-capacity to produce the wood that needed. And the funding that has been promised to FT to help them move out of the forests that are now covered by the reserves order, hasn’t been available to them until the commencement of this new budget season which is the 1st July [2013].
We have been meeting – as a signatory group – on a very regular basis, trying to work through these issues jointly, we come up with a very short-term solution on the residues issue of moving wood chips from the south of the State to the north in co-operation with FT; that’s been successful and implemented today.
It would have been easy to fudge a number of these issues; we chose not to do that, but rather tell people as it is.
[On Markets for residues] – There are markets – no doubt about that. Accessing those markets is the price those markets will pay for those products. The more it costs to get those into the market the more you lose or don’t make. The challenge is to get those products into the markets at a competitive price in the context of the World price. We have competition from Thailand and Vietnam, providing chips into China at exceptionally low prices. That’s why we have set ourselves the objective of progressively moving away from exporting woodchips – as a low quality, undifferentiated product – and moving towards downstream processing of those residues here in Tasmania for a much better quality product.
[On the sawmill access to timber issue] – It is a critical and urgent matter. Two FIAT members had to close their mills for a number of days due to a lack of wood supply. That’s been incredibly worrying for us, and their employees. It creates ongoing uncertainty that we are seeking to address. I’ve been in almost constant dialogue with FT and will be meeting them again this afternoon…. to make sure the other issues they have identified as implements to the delivery of wood are urgently addressed.
But the hardest one to address is the lack of ‘contractor capacity’. The contractors that are available and perhaps willing to do this work are those that have taken exit packages from the industry. They have the gear, the equipment & experience, and knowledge but we can’t use them… because they signed a document with the federal governmemt that says that they will not work in the native forest industry in Tasmania. We respect that, that’s the law and we won’t ask them to work for us. But it does create additional challenges in trying to enhance the existing contractor capacity.
Leon Compton: The question is: Is the buy-out of ‘contractor capacity’ making the situation worse and not better in Tasmania?
TE: That is absolutely true. And it is very much on the public record that the way the contractor exit package was run by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry [Commonwealth] was appalling; it was absolutely appalling. And that’s not me saying that; that a Select Committee of the Senate, and we are alarmed that the governance arrangements behind a program like that were so poor.
Vica Bayley [TWS Campaigner]: We’re trying to turn around a collapse of the industry … I still believe this is the best way forward, the only way forward. Given the tail-spin the industry was in; the terminal decline. It is the only way to salvage the industry, stabilise it and ultimately build it; and ultimately built it around the plantation base. We just need to know how to use it [plantation wood], how to process it and how to make products out of it and how to sell those products into the market.
Terry Edwards: Forestry Tasmania (FT) provided us with written assurances that from the 1st of July this year they had a clear expectation that they would be able to deliver the 137,000 cubic metres of high quality sawlog in accordance with the modelling that was undertaken as part of the preparation of the agreement. We need to find out this afternoon if that is effective as at now, because delivery is on a day-by-day, week-by-week, month-by-month basis are as important as the annual total. We need a constant supply of timber into the mills to keep them operating otherwise we have to stand people down, and we don’t want to do that.
Leon Compton: Is it possible that the wood supply that was promised out of this deal – in fact – can’t be delivered? Is that the truth of what we’re seeing, potentially?
Terry Edwards: We don’t believe so… there was tightness around the final number; and that’s well known and acknowledged by all the signatory groups and including FT. However, we are assured that the number is achievable. One of issues we are confronting is delay in the running of the high quality sawlog exit program and the regional saw-millers’ structural adjustment programs. They’ve been delayed because the federal government chose to tie the funding to the actual gazettal of the forest reserves – under the first tranche covered by the TFA Act. Now, that’s deferred the removal of that wood from the demand profile until October or November of this year, potentially. So FT are confronted with having to remain at an operational level of 163,000 cubic metres, instead of the 137,000 that the agreement speaks of.
Vica Bayley: There are forests in the SE, in the NE highlands, the Tarkine that are promised protection under this agreement but have to go through more of this process, ahh… to, ahh… realise the potential, and realise the gazettal of those reserves.
[Use of $100 million of regional funds; $10 million to a technology program out of the UTAS]
Terry Edwards: No calls for interested applicants to put forward a proposition for consideration under that program. $10 million announced at the ALP State Conference at Burnie last weekend. No clear criteria for running this program. The intent of the money under the original IGA and new IGA is that it would be directed to diversifying the economies of those regional communities hardest hit by the forestry downturn.There are no governance procedures in place around the way this program is run.
Vica Bayley: I don’t believe there are the grounds here to terminate the Agreement [TFA]; to wind back the legislation {TFA Act]; to take it back to square one. Because I don’t think that serves anyone’s interests. It would deal another partial fix to this problem, when we have a clear opportunity to deliver a full fix.
[On FSC, is it still in track?]
Vica Bayley: FSC is, I think, still on track. FT have set up internal, ahh… teams. They’ve set up their application process. They’ve got to go through that process, they’ve got to be assessed; they’ve got to appoint their, ahh… auditor; do the community consultation and so forth.
There was never going to be a resolution or an outcome in terms of FSC within 30 days of the Act passing, but certainly FT as far as I can see are taking the steps necessary to go through that process… andhave made commitment that they won’t be logging the future reserve land and it [FSC] will only be an application for the, ahh… timber production areas. That’s what is necessary to get into that process. So all we can do is give them the space and the support to through that process and time will tell.
Leon Compton: On much reduced supply out of Tasmania you’ll want to, fairly shortly, be delivering the wood that you think you would come out of this deal?
Terry Edwards: Absolutely Leon and from my organisation’s perspective that’s the key deliverable of the Agreement in combination with the ‘sovereign risk’ behind that. We need to ensure that FT – as expeditiously as possible; to ensure those deliveries, not only in accordance with the Agreement but in accordance with their legally binding contracts.
Leon Compton: The Liberal Party’s position is that this is a bad deal and it’s no good for the forest industry. I mean, this a deal that at the moment isn’t delivering what it said it would.
Terry Edwards: That’s a fair assessment in some ways. Again as Vica did earlier, let’s put this in a perspective about how long we’ve actually had to turn the ‘Queen Mary’ around … we’re probably in the middle of the Suez Canal and trying to turn the ‘Queen Mary’around on a six-pence. And it’s not that easy. I think it’s… all of us understand, it’s going to take time to get all of the deliverables in place. FT haven’t had the funding yet, because it’s only in this year’s budget that it become available.So they need that [money] to make the transition to the areas that are going to deliver the wood.
And in respect of the comments being made by the ahhm… Peter Gutwein {Liberal MHA], I just make one observation in respect of his comments last evening {Wednesday 3 July] on the ABC TV news, and that is, the signatories have not declared this Agreement and its outcomes at the moment – durable. In fact we weren’t asked to make any declaration on durability or no durability. What we’ve done is put together a factual report against every element of the agreement and it’s the Parliament of Tasmania that will make the judgements. And your question to Vica about the Legislative Council is apposite [to the point in that respect. We are saying to the LegCo already… ‘give the Government the opportunity to respond to the recommendations we make’. We make 10 very important recommendations in this [report] that we believe will get things back on track. If Governments respond positively to those, and they are found at pages 10 and 11 of our report, we believe that we will be able to get all this back on track… wood supply will be delivered; the reserves outcome can continue to be delivered, and in an environment where the level of protest and market disruption is probably at an all-time low, ahhm… and being countered actively by those that historically have engaged in those [protests and market disruptions] and I include my colleague sitting to my left, Mr Bayley on that. And we’ve been most appreciative of the work that the NGOs have done, particularly in the market place to counter some of the, ahh… information that’s being put there by opponents to the deal [Markets for Change, SWST, HVEC, Code Green].
Vica Bayley: And I think as well as Leon, ahhm… you know, for Mr Gutwein or the Upper House members who may be considering voting durability down on this basis… as it always has been through this process is, is, ‘What is the alternative?’. You know, what is the alternative to, ahh… ahh… working together to remedy some of these challenges that we’ve identified, so that, ahh… we do keep this Agreement on track and we can deliver. The alternative to that, as far as I can see from the alternative Government, the Liberals hasn’t been articulated. They don’t have a plan that can help fix the, the logging industry’s problem. They don’t have a …. (interrupted)
Leon Compton: At this point your plan is still struggling to deliver on what it promised; not some much on environmental outcomes, but in terms of the health of regional communities, the wood supply that was promised, capacity to do something with wood residues.
Vica Bayley: Our plan is 30 days old and had substantial delays because of the legislative process. It’s trying to turn around very deep-seated economic and social and ideological problems. And we still do believe, and I think I speak for all signatories, we still do believe it’s the best way the only way – industry outcomes, new reserves and some resolution to the conflict in Tasmania.
Leon Compton: When’s the next report due?
Terry Edwards: 12 months’ time; the Leg Co can call for a report at any time, and indeed the Lower House… but the next scheduled [durability report] is due in 12 months’ time.
• ABC: Concern about forest peace deal progress
Wednesday July 4, 2013 ABC1 News
The first progress report for the forest peace deal reveals Forestry Tasmania is failing to meet its supply contracts. [Brad Markham]
Presenter: The Success of Tasmania’s forest peace deal is being hampered by a critical shortage of wood. The first progress report for the Agreement reals FT is failing to meet its supply contracts.
Brad Markham: The implementation of Tasmania’s forest peace deal is causing headaches for sawmills. A report tabled in State parliament reveals they are not being supplied with enough wood.
Terry Edwards, CEO FIAT: That’s having a dramatic adverse impact on sawmills and needs to be remedied.
Lara Giddings Premier: They’re issues that FT will need to look at as to how we can fix that.
Brad Markham: A shortage of contractors following taxpayer funded exit programs; the ongoing residue crisis and delays in closing sawmill are being blamed.
Terry Edwards: FT are currently required to deliver much more wood product than they had planned too [163,000 cubic m instead of 137,000 cubic m annually].
Brad Markham: The peace deal became law a month ago since then more than 120,000 hectares on native forest has received World Heritage listing and there’s been one protest.
Lara Giddings Premier: This report is a very positive step forward in showing that we have moved on; that the problems of the past are dissipating.
Brad Markham: But market campaigns designed to undermine the deal have not stopped.
Peter Gutwein, Liberal Shadow Treasurer: There’s not enough wood, the market attacks have continued. This Agreement is not durable.
Paul Harriss, MLC for Huon: We have a durability report, if we were to vote on this tomorrow, we would be compelled to do nothing other than vote it down, because there are many non-complying areas of it.
Nick McKim, Tas. Greens Leader: There are uncertainties and risks in the process. But the Legislative Council has the chance to play a constructive role here.
Brad Markham: There’s mounting concern over the lack of transparency surrounding the carve up of $100 million ear-marked for regional development.
Terry Edwards: There doesn’t appear to be any guidelines or criteria that have been established.
Tania Rattray, Apsley MLC: How to applicant apply for the FTA grant funding? How many applications have been successful to date?
Brad Markham: The State and federal governments have been given until the end of next month [31 August 2013] to provide answers. Brad Markham, ABC News.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-03/concern-about-peace-deal-progress/4798040?section=tas
• Cassy O’Connor: WHA review should reinforce recognised values “There is no argument that justifies that these places are locked up, every person is entitled to visit them. The majority of public land that is locked behind boom gates in Tasmania is set aside for forestry and mining,” Ms O’Connor said.
