Sue Smith’s recent suggestion about selling FT ( ABC here ) in the hope of eliminating political interference and the waste of taxpayer’s money deserve some response.
I support Ms Smith for having the courage to challenge the political and industry orthodoxy in the great forestry debate. Fresh ideas and innovative thinking have generally been sadly absent from the forestry wars.
Firstly putting the commercial management of our public native forests into private hands is itself not a bad idea. We do the same with our mineral and fisheries resources with reasonable success and community support, so why not our forest resources? The main problem is that the idea has few if any supporters so is unlikely to become reality. Certainly FTs existing customers would strongly oppose such a move. The people who would benefit the most, the Tasmanian taxpayer, don’t have a voice in the decision.
So nice idea Sue, but just more pie-in-the-sky of which Tasmania already has a surplus.
Secondly it assumes that someone will be willing to buy the business. Given the current condition of FT and the political and social baggage of the last 30 years that seems extremely unlikely.
And if a buyer can’t be found what then? Do we continue to subsidise the forest industry or does FT get wound up? Sue Smith did not offer any ideas on what should happen in this possibility.
Again nice idea, but some fundamental assumptions went unchallenged by the ABC reporter ( ABC here ).
And finally even if a buyer did come forward would it eliminate political interference and the wasting of public money on the forest industry?
No it wouldn’t!
FT would be replaced by a private company whose objective is to maximise profits from the public native forest resource (and I have no ideological problem with that). They would do that firstly by looking to sell forest produce to the highest bidder. In all likelihood this would be export markets, so that the local sawmills and Ta Ann would be unable to compete in a competitive market and would close.
This assumes that the sale of FT was commercially unfettered and not subject to legislated market constraints. I doubt very much whether that would happen. Vested and political interest would prevent the introduction of such free-market forces into the forest industry.
Would the Tasmanian community be happy seeing public native forest logs of all qualities being exported in order to maximise commercial returns to growers? Compare this idea with our fisheries (eg. abalone) and mineral resources.
As I often say, profitable tree-growing is the only basis for a successful forest industry.
So one likely outcome of Sue Smith’s idea would be the loss of much local forest processing. Again this is just markets working as they should. As a community we accept this idea in some areas (such as fisheries and minerals) but vigorously oppose it in other areas.
And if forest markets suffer a downturn or are not sufficiently profitable then FTs successor always has the option of turning to the politicians for extra support, in the form of cash handouts and cheaper royalties. Alternatively politicians are always keen to develop relationships with business that eventually leads to a conflict of interest and/or corruption.
So the idea that “privatising” FT would eliminate political interference in the forest industry and prevent the continued wasting of taxpayers’ money is I suspect just wishful thinking.
Whilst we continue to log public native forests there will always be a political/commercial interface that will be subject to any number of corrupting influences. At the moment that interface is between FT and its customers. Privatise FT and the interface moves up a level to some poor bureaucrat in some Government department who bears the responsibility of trying to keep business and politics at arms length.
Good luck with that I say!
Sue Smith’s suggestion ultimately assumes that FT is the only problem with the forest industry and State forest policy. Clearly this is not true. Legislation, policy, political and community expectations all contribute to the fiasco that is the forest industry in Tasmania. Privatising FT would certainly initiate change but towards what end?
But as I say this is all theoretical. Privatising FT just won’t happen.
• John Hayward in Comments: Self-regulation, which FT takes such pride in, is useful only as an oxymoron. Tasmania ended up with the proportionally highest rate of native forest logging in the developed world along with possibly the lowest rate of value recovery. The logging industry was our biggest greenhouse emitter The culture hasn’t changed a bit and the cast only slightly.
• Ted Mead in Comments: Accepting change is one of humans greatest barriers albeit socially, physically or environmentally. No better example is the paradigm of the entrenched FT regime. Tasmanians inability to move forward beyond outdated burdening industries has a long and almost tyrannical history of industrial rule over conservative governments dominated by politicians with a dearth of vision and wisdom. The Hydro- electrical industry was a classic example of insatiable development through massive financial borrowings. Of which taxpayers are still repaying such debt. FT is driven with the same myopic momentum through ongoing taxpayer funding. The public polarisation and misconception that the Forest Industry is the economic backbone of the state needs to be completely dispelled before FT is likely to be wound up. Both the major parties fear that they will be blamed for what desperately needs to happen, so ultimately neither will take the initiative. As history shows we are mostly likely to be burdened with FT for a few more years until it finally dies through a long, slow and costly process to the state.
• Pete Godfrey in Comments: I agree that FT should be disbanded but do not believe that they should be able to sell their assets. As they own over 100 thousand ha of plantation land in Tasmania they should not be able to sell that land. They came by it through no good work of theirs. It was sleight of hand on the part of the Bacon/Lennon government that gifted the land to them in freehold.
There is no way that that much land should be sold just to pay debts from a rogue GBE.
• John Powell in Comments: … There is zero possibility that FSC Accreditation will occur (was not the report from SCS Global Services due in March?) and the Minister has lost control of his Independent Advisor, FT morale is rock bottom, and the meeting in Bonn in a week’s time will put an end to the Hodgman ( oops sorry Abetz/Colbeck) govt desire to rape and pillage TWWHA forests. All over red rover …. and may the Integrity Commission hearing commence immediately!
• Frank again in Comments: John Powell’s contribution #12 sounds like victory – but because it is so very real and true, it is nothing short of sad. The woodchip export was a unique opportunity for Tasmania’s forest industry in the early 1970s – but what did happen was that soon greed and short sighted visions took over the realistic, ones in a lifetime opportunity to upgrade degraded forests and by 1997 it had turned into the ‘final solution’ /Holocaust – The Final Conversion of mixed age and mixed species, naturally diverse forests into simplistic, short rotation monoculture tree crops. Names of “persons attached” to this forest holocaust could be listed here and now, but we shall see where this drama goes from here.
SUNDAY …
• Gordon Bradbury in Comments: I know I shouldn’t be surprised but I still am, at how quickly Sue Smith and Peter Skillern were cut off at the knees by Harriss et al. Just extraordinary. The Advisory Council is clearly just a smokescreen with no integrity or credibility. On second thoughts I’m not surprised at all. What else was going to happen beside that which has. It is just so ridiculously predictable. At least some small credit to Smith and Skillern for a least daring to break the mold. We wont hear from them again.
