*Pic: Guy Barnett, instigator of the inquiry …
Georgie Burgess, writing in The Examiner of Wednesday August 13th, quotes Mr Terry Edwards:
“Due to the closure of the mill timber residue can no longer be exported from the south of the state, which has already cost 11 million dollars in transport subsidies.
Mr Edwards said, when the subsidy finished, sawmills would shut and Ta Ann’s southern operation could be forced to close unless a solution was found.
The Mercury did not see fit to publish this important comment by Edwards as the CEO of the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania. He was never asked to justify this enormous subsidy, or who pays and who receives?
Terry Edwards provided no such evidence before the enquiry.
I wonder why?
The answer must be that this is extremely damaging to Forestry Tasmania and the logging industry in this state. It implies, that Forestry Tasmania is selling the finest peeler billets out of our state forests on the basis that it only becomes economic to Ta Ann if trucked at public cost to their factory. It implies that the Forestry Tasmania peeler billets are of little or no value under the contract and without a subsidy Ta Ann will close.
So Mr Barnett, if you are on a witch hunt, try finding out how much we subsidise this loss making Malaysian business that is Ta Ann and how much of the $11 million is spent to take the peeler billets to their factory.
When the free gifts cease will your government pick up the tab to keep this loss making business in Tasmania?
Yes or No?
Further how many giving evidence at this enquiry have log trucks and benefit from the subsidy?
It is these hidden under the counter deals that bring this industry into disrepute for it is – as always – we the taxpayers who bear the burden.
The size of this subsidy is now published.
What we need to know is who gets a cut and how?
A Royal Commission please!
TODAY …
• Examiner: Gunns was erratic on mill sale
• John Hawkins: The Witch Hunt Part Two
Barnett,
Further to yesterday and evidence tendered by Gordon at your public witch-hunt.
Gunns had to find $55 million by the end of June 2011.
At this time Aprin Pty Ltd had 58 ASIC charges registered against its assets from money lent to buy machinery.
On the 9 June 2011 to get out of the Aprin debt mire a cleanskin group of four companies, Fibre Plus, was formed by the directors of Aprin with a fully paid up capital of $24 in $1 shares.
The State government under Green and Giddings were to give a loan on terms unknown of $6 million of taxpayer funds to Fibre Plus and or its associates to enable them to buy the Triabunna mill.
Barnett, your enquiry in the interests of fairness, should make public the terms of this proposed loan for when all is said and done it is a Labor loan.
To provide a source of timber to work the mill Gordon, CEO of FT, was to supply Tasmania’s public forests at a subsidised loss to Fibre Plus so as to service a potential FT Chinese contract at approx $120 a DMT.
At this price the mill was economic hence the need for a supply commitment from Gordon.
The Japanese had been paying $190 DMT.
On these figures the directors of Fibre Plus could make money and the 58 outstanding lease payments on Aprin machines could be met.
Ask Aprin how many of these leases were bought out under the TFA and what happened to the equipment?
Barnett … ask around … or is this not in your remit?
If so, Gunns had a choice: a pie-in-the-sky idea funded by the taxpayer, or instant real money, cash in hand, with only days to their $55 million deadline.
Nothing fishy about that Barnett.
Hate and malice will get you nowhere in this world.
One thing is certain … Tasmanians must never elect you again.
• Bryan Green: Hidding must face Triabunna inquiry
• Terry Edwards, in comments: In response to John Hawkins … You assert that no evidence was produced to the Triabunna Inquiry in support of the subsidy payments made to the Tasmanian forest industry in respect of residues …
• Ben, in Comments: Its concerning that the Tasmanian media seem not to understand that the “evidence” being presented to this inquiry is nothing more than hearsay being given in coward’s castle under parliamentary privilege. This is not evidence as we would understand it in a legal sense, and it would not be allowed in a court of law without actual proof to back it up. So where is the proof that any of the claims made before this inquiry are actually truthful? Where is the proof that Aprin would have had access to $16 million “just days” after the mill was sold elsewhere? Is there any paperwork to show that this claim is even remotely true? Where is the proof that anyone made a truly serious offer to reopen Triabunna? Paperwork tends to exist when deals worth millions of dollars are being negotiated, so where is it? Where is the proof that any of Bob Gordon’s assertions have any merit whatsoever? Did Forestry Tasmania keep records? Why hasn’t Forestry Tasmania released a copy of the letter it sent Triabunna Investments, calling for the mill to be reopened but failing to provide a business case? While the lack of questioning about the glaring absence of concrete proof is understandable in the Liberal-dominated inquiry, why are the media playing along? Why aren’t they asking questions about proof, and whey aren’t they conveying the complete lack of proof to their audiences?
• mr t in Comments: Very well researched John Hawkins. The financial viability of Aprin and its associated companies and partners together with the real capital available at the time is directly relevant to the potential sale of the Triabunna mill to this consortium by Gunns. It would seem the offer by Ron O’Connor and his partners may have been devoid of sufficient finance to match the offer by Wood and Cameron. Secondary to this is the question of Ron O’Connor, his associated companies and assets post the TFA. Did he accept funds under the TFA? Did he liquidate his assets and, if so, to whom? Has he exited the industry? Of course, this inquiry appears as a proving ground for Mr Barnett and I suspect Paul Harriss and Eric Abetz are skulking in the orchestra pit. Alas we will never know because all good leaders in Australian politics ensure being arm’s length on all occasions unless there is an actual success.
• Richard Griggs, Jenny Weber, Adam Gregory, Nick McKim MP, Charlie Sherwin, Phil Harrington: Coalition of Tasmanians oppose the Hodgman Government’s undemocratic anti-protest bill Tasmanians will rally tomorrow to oppose the State Government’s draconian anti-protest bill that is set to be debated in the Legislative Council in the coming weeks. At the City Hall in Hobart, 20 organisations will rally Tasmania’s community together to urge the Legislative Councillors to reject the bill. WHAT: Rally WHEN: Saturday 16 August TIME: 12 NOON. WHERE: City Hall, Hobart
• What it’s all about, Briefing Note on Paul Harriss’ plans:
Briefing_Note_for_Conservation_Groups-1.docx
• Jan Davis: Tasmania’s private forest managers back inside the tent “We welcome this initiative and we look forward to working with other stakeholders to move past the old-fashioned rhetoric and create a vibrant and sustainable forest industry that once again delivers valued outcomes for all Tasmanians.” Ms Davis said. Mr Harriss has announced he will chair the advisory council with former Legislative Council president, Sue Smith, a director of the TFGA, as deputy chair.
