Upper House MP Paul Harriss has tabled a motion in State Parliament to kill off the historic forest peace deal.
Paul Harriss tabled the motion this morning, but he adjourned debate until the government details how it will fix problems with the agreement.
A progress report last month revealed a critical shortage of wood was hampering the deal’s success.
Delays in closing sawmills were blamed.
Mr Harriss has also flagged creating a second Upper House inquiry to evaluate problems in the peace deal’s implementation.
He says the second inquiry would be short and sharp, unlike a lengthy inquiry earlier this year.
The Upper House has until October to decide whether it will support a bill enabling the historic agreement.
• David Obendorf: For the Record
In the first sitting of State Parliament in over a month, MLC for Huon Mr [b]Paul Harris[/b] immediately brought on a motion to prevent the creation of new forest reserves for debate if the Government fails to address problems raised in the first report on the implementation [early July] of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement.
[b]Mr Harriss[/b] (Huon):
[i]Mr President, I give notice that tomorrow I shall move that the Tasmanian Forest Agreement Initial Proposed Reserve Order 2013 made by the Minister for Energy and Resources, published in the Gazette on Monday 1 July 2013 and tabled in the Legislative Council on 3 July 2013, pursuant to section 21 of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement Act 2013 be disallowed.
With regard that motion I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
[Granted]
I thank the Council for that indulgence. Given the sensitivity of this, and so there is no ambiguity or misunderstanding because this bold motion might be seen as just a spoiler attempt; it is not that at all. My personal explanation is this, that given the durability report tabled at an earlier time, I feel it entirely proper to give this particular notice.
It seems there are many unanswered questions at the moment as the durability report itself set out. But not just in that report.
There have been protests; there are suggestions as to lack of sawlog peeler; and importantly special species timber, which all need to be clearly determined before passage of the proposed reserves order.
The Council, in my judgement, would need to be well and properly informed before debating this motion, which I have given notice of, or indeed, as provided by the Act, withdrawal of that motion, and that is facilitated by the Act.
In terms of that personal explanation, it would not be my intention to bring on debate on the motion until many of those matters which seem to me to be unanswered at the moment are answered. And it may indeed be appropriate and proper at a later time that there is a short, sharp inquiry of some sort to determine those propositions.
I just wanted to advise the Council that it would not be my intention to bring that on next week even though I have given notice.[/i]
• Christine Milne: Labor betrays forest conservation deal “Throughout this process we’ve said money for the industry or regions should be tied to conservation outcomes so the rug couldn’t be pulled out at the last minute,” Senator Milne said. “Today, we see federal Labor’s final betrayal in their promise to ensure long-term forest conservation in Tasmania. “As always the industry has had tens of millions poured into it while the state-based conservation outcomes hang in limbo.
• Nick McKim: Rudd cuts Tasmanian forests loose “Mr Rudd and his federal Labor colleagues clearly cannot be trusted on the environment, just as they cannot be trusted to show compassion for asylum seekers or properly fund the tertiary sector.” “The opportunity still exists for the Legislative Council to vote in the best interests of Tasmania and pass the Reserve Order currently before it,” Mr McKim said.
