We have arrived at a point similar to the one in 1997 when the regional Forest Agreement between Howard and the then Liberal Premier Rundle supposedly ended all forest conservation debate by setting aside the forest for conservation and that for destruction.
The result of 24 years campaigning for forests across the nation with notable changes to the practices of exploitation. It was a process begun by Labor under Keating to take the heat out of the forest conservation issue.
Now after 7 more years political pressure caused both old parties to offer forest transition packages at the last election. The Liberal victory in Tasmania is claimed to flow from Howard’s use of division to gull workers into believing that conservation would cost jobs and so gained him 2 lower house seats in Tasmania and control of the Senate.
He has just fulfilled his dream of cementing himself further with hero status among his Tasmanian battlers attempting to prove that it was his forestry package that turned the tide. It was not the same issue that decided voter intentions in Australia’s cities.
Already Beazeley has tried to defuse the forest conservation issue by supporting Howard’s plan. His second step on winning back Howard’s battlers, middle Australia.
His first was to reject the Costello tax cuts and put forward a plan of his own. That was an attempt to differentiate his and thus Labor’s position on who should benefit from the current economic windfall.
Strangely however, he has does not have a different plan for Tasmania’s forests, he has the same one as Howard and Lennon and Gay et al, they want it to just go away so they can get on with whatever they see as important.
This is most puzzling as it appears to be the only environmental issue on which Beazeley agrees with Howard.
They differ on Kyoto and so on land clearing and mandatory renewable energy targets, Labor has criticised government dithering over the Japanese plan to resume killing humpback whales; they want more action on salinity and water conservation.
Forest conservationists hoped last election that the forest issue in Tasmanian would decide votes, the economy decided the election.
Howard has no more powder now, he cannot offer another round of areas without either loosing the support he has gained to date or having the approval of his mates. Wouldn’t it seem strange for them to give more land to conservation in a second round.
Why would battlers stick with Howard
And so why would the battlers stick with Howard, they have what they want. Beazley is offering greater tax cuts and so as long as he doesn’t go flaky on forests the belief must be Lennon will deliver the Tasmanian seats back. He may be able to do this if he can build his popularity and retain government. The current Beazley strategy.
Labor could offer to do more but would need to be assured that such a strategy will see them elected even if all the seats in Tasmania go Liberal. So it is most likely that this will remain a bipartisan issue for the two old parties. Lennon cannot change with his popularity falling.
Other environmental concerns and issues will be two years on. People will be deciding their vote on what the parties offer.
There may be a return to no party having a majority in the Senate. Voters who supported Labor may move to the Greens, Beazley’s attempt at differentiation failing to convince them that he is anything but a Blairite and the drift to a progressive party gain ground. He may gain those Howard battlers, his dollar offers too good to refuse.
The economy could tumble and with it the dreams of prince Peter. His L.A.W tax cuts turning to excrement. For those who want more reform, especially of the tax system, it is only broke when you’re not in power so a change would have to cost you nothing electorally. In opposition a proposed change has to gain you everything.
All we can expect is that in the next election Liberal will have noting to offer forest conservation. Labor may, but on current form Anthony Albanese has been hung out to dry on this one. Adasmski 1, Labor 0.
Whilst 2 and a half years remain to build the momentum around Tasmania’s forests this is not the only environmental issue exercising minds. Other forms of degradation, sustainability and the climate crisis are also attracting attention.
Labor may be able to make an offer based on the best available technology not entailing economic cost to address these other issues in an intermediate or transitional way to make themselves attractive to voters concerns about the environment.
Of course a popular upwelling of desire for forest conservation may change Labor’s position but I doubt it. They will not want to revisit the internal division or Lennon running dead.
Besides campaigning to continue to keep the plight of the high conservation value and locally significant forests before Australians some thought must be given to the implications of a bipartisan stone wall leaving a limited voter choice.
