At a time when the Tasmanian Government has a protracted budget crisis, when Gunns and its logging venture is on the brink of financial collapse, and the Australian Federal Government is offering a $276 million package to the Tasmanian logging industry to transition out of subsidy-dependent logging;  this is a time for strategic decision making.  This is a time for considering the next generation of Tasmanians.

The days of governments providing subsidies to forestry are numbered.  The writing is on the wall for multi-national/industrial hardwood forestry in Tasmania.

Despite the less than perfect negotiations, the undemocratic secrecy of the deal making, State and Federal governments’ poor grasp of change management, Tasmanians are presented with an olive branch.  The last time a middle-ground opportunity was available to the two warring sides was the 1989 Salamanca Agreement which was quickly scuttled by government.   A generation later, a considerable financial incentive and the facilitation of transition out of logging are on the table.

Irreplaceable old growth forest ecosystems are at stake, but equally at stake are rural livelihoods.  There are structural social repercussions that will last decades.  But then Tasmania’s poverty is already structural.  It has become inter-generational and Tasmanians need a transitional direction out of poverty.  While mindful of the recurring history of conflict and community polarisation, this current opportunity for change is rare and perhaps a once in a generation one at that.

In order to begin to appreciate the cultural depth of Tasmania’s ‘age-old conflict‘, at least four particular books should be read on this history:

1. ‘The South West Book: A Tasmanian Wilderness‘, compiled by Helen Gee,Janet Fenton and Greg Hodge in 1978, published by William Collins Pty Lts and The Australian Conservation Foundation [Read More]
2. Helen Gee’s 2001 book ‘For the Forests: A History of the Tasmanian Forest Campaigns‘, published by The Wilderness Society, Inc. [Read More]
3. Greg Buckman’s 2008 book ‘Tasmania’s Wilderness Battles: a history‘, published by Allen & Unwin   [Read More]
4. Anna Krien’s 2010 book ‘Into the Woods: the battle for Tasmania’s Forests‘, published by Black Ink   [Read More]

.

Perhaps as an interested outsider, a mainlander, I can consider this Tasmanian-wide conflict from a detached unencumbered perspective.  The younger generations have opportunities that their parents and ancestors never did.  Had my grandfather not died on the farm when my father was just eight years old, I may well have followed generations into sheep farming.  My grandmother with her only child left the farm to give my father the best opportunity she could.  I reflect on that opportunity and the greatly increased opportunity that my parents have provided me and my siblings.  It takes one opportunity, for others to become available and sometimes it takes generations.

While not setting out to be critical of sheep farming per se, in hindsight sheep farming in Australia over my lifetime has become low margin and commoditised (like woodchips) and many a wool grower have not experienced the anticipated opportunities flowing on from the halcyon days when Australia was built off the sheep’s back.  ‘Once a great nation-building icon, the wool business today is but a third of its size when Australia ‘rode on the sheep’s back’.  Compared to the more recent Australian Wheat Board scandal, 40 times more funds were lost in the downfall, and vastly more collateral social and economic damage was done in this country and across the globe.’   Indeed, Charles Massey’s 2011 book ‘Breaking the Sheep’s Back‘ tells the untold story of the events that led to Australia’s biggest industry disaster. [Read More].

Just as Australia’s traditional wool business has declined, so too has Australia’s traditional timber business.

‘Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in and out of favor.’

~ Robert Frost’s 1915 poem, ‘The Black Cottage’.

Woodchipping Tasmania only benefits foreign buyers, who must be laughing

.

Once island problems are recognised for what they are (internal island problems), the quicker more Tasmanian’s will recognise that the future challenges and opportunities of the island lie with industry diversification, value adding produce and services and with the world outside it.  Trading internationally directly is where Tasmania’s future prosperity lies.  Tasmania can learn much from the pure brand of ‘New Zealand’.  Much of Tasmania’s output competes in comparable industries with the output of New Zealand.

Past and current generations of Tasmanians have become familar with old growth forests and many have become complacent of their presence.  Future generations have a right to that familiarity.  

Tasmanian complacency was the root cultural cause behind the eventual extinction of the Thylacene.

Extinction is forever ~ the dark past should not curse our future

.

“Tasmania is slowly evolving towards goals we cannot now see. If we can revise our attitudes towards the land under our feet; if we can accept a role of steward and depart from the role of conqueror; if we accept the view that man and nature are inseparable parts of a unified whole – then Tasmania can be a shining beacon in a dull, uniform and largely artificial world”.

~ Olegas Truchanas, 1969

[Source: ^http://florentine.org.au/]

.

---

.

Intergovernmental Forests Agreement, 2011

.

In October 2010,  the major breakthrough in the almost century long dispute over Tasmania’s forests was reported secured in principle between the key parties, Tasmanian timber communities, forest unions, and industry, Gunns, Environment Tasmania, the Conservation Council, The Wilderness Society, Australian Conservation Foundation.   Credit is due to the two instrumental negotiators, Gunns chief executive Greg L’Estrange and forest facilitator Bill Kelty.

Tasmanian History in the making

.

The aim was to find an agreement develop a more sustainable timber industry and to end logging Tasmania’s remaining valuable native forests.  It will mean an end to logging of native forests will also protect critical habitats for Tasmanian devils and other threatened species.  A moratorium on the logging of high native forests will be phased in over three months, while maintaining essential supplies for necessary timber mill operations.

The “Tasmanian Forests Statement of Principles” were agreed to set Tasmania’s timber industry on a new path to economic opportunities through plantation-based forestry, protecting timber worker’s jobs and native forests.

.

>Read Tasmanian Forests Statement of Principles

.

 

“The forestry industry, unions and environment groups have found common ground in the interests of all Tasmanians. This will pave the way for a sustainable timber industry that protects jobs and also protects the state’s remaining unique native forests,” said Environment Tasmania’s Phill Pullinger..

.

[Source: ‘Forests: Peace in our time?’, by Andrew Darby, The Age, newspaper, 20101019, ^http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/peace-in-our-time]

.

>Read Tasmanian Forests Agreement – August 2011

>Read Larger Detailed Map

.

---

.

Tasmanian Transition from High Volume/Low to Low Volume/ High Value Add Timber –  public debate recommended

.

While not advocating industrial logging of Tasmania’s native myrtle, a refocus from high volume/low margin woodchips toward low volume / high value specialised timbercraft is a Tasmanian industry that has potential to be both commercially viable while being ecologically sustainable, if excluding old growth and so long as it is appropriately tightly controlled and monitored.

A public debate on this potential is recommended.

High value-add Electric Guitar in Tasmanian Myrtle

[Source: ^http://tasmaniantonewoods.com/guitars]

.

---

.

Further Reading:

.

‘Gunns rejects crucial financial offer’

.

[by Andrew Darby, The Age newspaper, 20110906, ^http://www.theage.com.au/national/gunns-rejects-crucial-financial-offer-20110905-1ju9j.html]

.

‘Troubled forestry company Gunns has rejected a financial offer from the Tasmanian government seen as key to the future of the state’s timber industry.  The settlement for exiting native forest logging was critical both to Gunns’s future operations and to a landmark forests peace settlement.

”The state government has been formally advised by Gunns Limited of their decision to reject our offer of commercial settlement,” a spokesman for Premier Lara Giddings said yesterday.

The settlement was needed to unlock funding for contractors squeezed by the exit from native forests in a $276 million federal-state package.  Rejection comes with Gunns into the fifth week of a stock exchange trading halt, called for the settlement negotiations, with its share price at an all-time low of 20.5¢.  The settlement, covering tens of millions of dollars, was meant to extinguish Gunns’s legal rights over native forest contracts with Forestry Tasmania.

.

---

.

.

‘Tasmanian Forests Agreement   (official announcement)’

.

 

[Source: The Australian Government, 2011, ^http://australia.gov.au/content/tasmanian-forests-agreement]

.

‘The Prime Minister and the Tasmanian Premier have announced a $276 million funding package to support the adjustment of the Tasmanian forestry industry, and to create a significant conservation benefit by reserving and protecting High Conservation Value native forest areas.  The Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement is designed to support the forest industry to progressively transition to a more sustainable and diversified footing and to build regional economic diversity and community resilience.

The agreement includes:

.

Support for workers, contractors and communities

• Up to $25 million to provide immediate employment and training support for redundant forest workers
• Intensive support through Job Services Australia and other providers relocation support for redundant forestry workers
• $15 million for transition support payments (through ForestWorks)
• $1 million over two years for mental health counselling and community well-being services (through Rural Alive and Well)
• $45 million for voluntary exits from public native forest operations for haulage, harvest and silvicultural contractors.

Tasmanian forest industry workers can call the Tasmanian Forest Support Information Line on 1800 648 075 for more information about the services and payments that may be available to them.

Protecting high conservation value forests and ensuring sustainable wood supply

• Guaranteed annual sustainable timber supply of at least 155,000 cubic metres of high quality sawlog per year and 265,000 cubic metres of peeler billets each year
• Provision for speciality timber, noting that the industry claim is 12,500 cubic metres per year, subject to verification funding to support an independent verification process
• Funding for a voluntary sawlog contract buy-back program for sawmillers wishing to exit the industry
• 430,000 hectares of native forest immediately placed into Informal Reserves
• Legislation no later than 30 June 2012 to formally protect the areas of reserve determined by the independent verification
• $43 million to implement this Agreement (including at least $5 million to support provision of information and consultation with affected communities)
• $7 million per year to support management of additional reserves.

Economic diversification

• $120 million over 15 years to fund regional development projects
• Development of a process to identify by mid 2012:
  • the impacts of forestry adjustment on affected regions, including the scope for
  • alternative sectors and jobs to support regional adjustment
  • progress in implementing Commonwealth and Tasmanian adjustment measures
  • the need for further regional development assistance
• A major research and analytical project to underpin this process.

.

---

.

‘Giddings acts to avert budget crisis’

[Source: Brand Tasmania Newsletter, March, 2011, Issue 114, ^http://www.brandtasmania.com/newsletter.php?ACT=story&issue=114&story=1]

Tasmanian Premier and Treasurer, Lara Giddings

Photo courtesy of The Hobart Mercury

.

As unemployment figures for January showed a monthly rise from 5.0 to 5.6 %, the Premier and Treasurer, Lara Giddings, foreshadowed a 3 % cut in public sector spending and warned Tasmanians to expect three tough Budgets as the State’s balance sheet is shifted back into the black.

Releasing the Mid Year Financial Report on 10 February, Ms Giddings said several 2010 elections promises would have to be scrapped in the drive to off-set an $800 million loss of revenue. She outlined the following immediate savings:

• $97.5m cancellation of equity transfers to GBEs;
• $30.9m scrapping of planned Helicopter Emergency Medical Service;
• $18.0m shelving of proposed Cosgrove Specialist Sports School;
• $ 3.8m dropping of the Events Attraction Program;
• $ 2.0m closing down the Renewable Energy Loan Fund
• $ 3.9m deferring IT projects over two years; and
• $ 2.5m cutting ministerial and parliamentary office expenditure.

“These savings will improve the Government’s financial position in the short term while longer-term structural changes are being developed and implemented,” Ms Giddings said.

She told a media conference the savings needed were the equivalent of 2,300 jobs and she could not rule out forced redundancies in the public service, nor cuts to frontline services. Unions immediately branded her as the first Labor Premier in history to announce public service sackings.

.

“I want to be open and frank with people about the problems we are facing,” Ms Giddings said.

“We are in a place where we need to see significant action to avert a crisis. This is not a crisis; this is an unsustainable situation that will lead to a crisis if action isn’t taken now.”

.

[Editor’s note:

To the contrary, a ‘crisis‘ in a governmental context is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as:

“an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending; especially : one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome <a financial crisis>“]

.

The number of people on the State Government payroll has increased 24 per cent this decade to 25,000 – almost one in every nine employed Tasmanians. Economic commentator Saul Eslake has pointed out that it costs public employees 14 per cent more a year to deliver services to each citizen, compared with their counterparts in Victoria.

So the Government expects job cuts, spending cutbacks and increased efficiency in the public service to contribute $270 million of the $420 million it hopes to save over the next four years.

Ms Giddings said it was regrettable that some worthwhile Government programs could not be continued, but strong action was needed in response to falls in GST revenue and other income in the wake of the global financial crisis. “I am determined to take the steps necessary to protect the Government’s financial position,” Ms Giddings said. “While I would prefer not to have to take some of these measures, I believe they are essential if we are to avoid sliding back into net debt.”

A Sensis Business Index released in late February reinforced the need for decisive action, Ms Giddings said. “The national downturn in retail trade is a concern the State Government shares with local retailers, as it continues to directly impact upon the State budget through reduced GST receipts.”

.

[Read More]

.

– end of article –

.

Whilst touring Tasmania’s highland country in 2009, we stopped over in the old rural town of Bothwell.

A pastoral Bothwell ~ an ode to the British countryside

looking from Barrack Hill over the River Clyde

(Photo by Editor 2009, free in Public Domain)

(click photo to enlarge, then again to enlarge again)

.

Bothwell is historically known for its colonial exploration dating back to 1806, its convict past dating back to the 1820’s, and for its soldiers’ barracks, and for its pastoral colonial heritage.

Its namesake was derived from a town in Lanarkshire, Scotland; likewise the naming of the River Clyde.

Bothwell

Situated in the Tasmanian South East Bioregion

.

Few will know of the prior Tasmanian Aboriginal heritage of the 5 bands of the traditional Tasmanian tribe (kinship group) the ‘Teen Toomle Mennenyer‘ of this highland and river region.  Many were either massacred, rounded up and put into missions, or succumbed to European diseases.  Most were dispersed from their traditional lands by 1832.  This otherwise labelled ‘Big River Tribe‘ likely due to the big river country characterising this fertile inland region; rivers of which subsequently named the Derwent, Ouse, Clyde, Shannon, Weld, Styx, Plenty, Jordan, Lake, Isis and Pine, amongst others.

Traditional Aboriginal Territories of Tasmania

.

Even fewer will know of the extensive tall Tasmanian Swamp Gum forest that for thousands for years blanketed this lush river valley, prior to it being clear-felled for timber and to make way for colonial pasture.

‘Dead Heritage’

Stump of a Tasmanian Swamp Gum (Eucalyptus regnans)

on Barrack Hill, overlooking Bothwell

 

(Photo by Editor 2009, free in Public Domain

(click photo to enlarge, then again to enlarge again)

.

‘Tasmanian Natural Heritage’

Tasmanian Swamp Gum

 

The type of  Swamp Gum forest around Bothwell

that would have greeted the colonists back in the 1820s

 

(© Photo Magi Nams)

 

Source: http://www.nams.ca/MagiBlog/tag/tasmanian-snow-gum/page/2/

.

.

Fifty kilometres down the road from Bothwell on the tourist drive, lies the old colonial town of Oatlands. The old Callington Flour Mill in the town has become a tourist attraction and has recently been restored aided by a $1.2 million grant by Australia’s Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, in 2007.

‘Tasmanian Colonial Heritage’

Oatlands’ Wind Mill

 

The 1837 landmark Callington Flour Mill, recently restored

 

(Photo by editor, September 2009, free in Public Domain)

.

 

Part of that restoration involved adding new structural posts in its interior.  The following photo is of  a rather new looking hardwood post inside the mill.  It looks like local Messmate/Stringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua), generically marketed as ‘Tasmanian Oak‘.

.

Other local timbers sold as ‘Tasmanian Oak’ are Alpine Ash (Eucalyptus delegatensis) and Swamp Gum (Eucalyptus regnans).

On Mainland Australia, Eucalytus regnans is referred to as Mountain Ash ~ once the world’s tallest tree species, once taller than the Californian Redwood.

The environmental cost of  Tasmanian Tourism

A new ten inch (wide) post inside Oatlands’ restored mill,

probably from local Messmate/Stringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua)

(Photo by editor, September 2009, free in Public Domain)

.

.

.

.

---

.

Further Reading:

.

[1]   ‘The Traditional Tasmanians‘, ^http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter52/5-Tasmania-traditional/traditional.htm [Read More]

.

– end of article –

.

Trucks Logging Tasmania

© Photo by Paul Tapp, Triabunna, Tasmania, 20110718

[Source: http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/the-triabunna-experiment]

.

‘A peace deal between Tasmania’s forestry industry and environmental lobby has been secured by a $274 million government package, raising hopes the long-running conflict is near an end.

.

‘The deal hammered out at the weekend by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Tasmanian Premier, Lara Giddings, has the full backing of industry but was criticised by green groups.
The deal ensures existing major logging contracts can be met from forests outside the protected areas but halves the key sawlog quota. The package confirms the reservation of 430,000 hectares of native forest around the state, including the Tarkine rainforests of the island’s north-west and ‘a sprinkling of mountainous coastal forests around the east coast’.

‘With the lion’s share of funds to come from the Commonwealth, the package’s big-ticket items are $85 million to workers and contractors who lose their jobs in industry restructuring, $120 million in extra regional development money for Tasmania and $43 million to implement the changes.

‘The strategically important Triabunna woodchip mill, bought by wealthy environmentalists Jan Cameron and Graeme Wood last week, is to keep operating. But its chips will need Forest Stewardship Council certification, meaning an end for the mass woodchipping of old growth that so divided Tasmania.

‘But one of the chief negotiators, Phill Pullinger of Environment Tasmania, said critical points still lay ahead in translating the weekend’s federal-state heads of agreement into a fully operational process.

‘The federal Greens leader, Bob Brown, said the agreement was a ”Labor-Labor-loggers‘‘ outcome.

”The popular expectation that a 610,000 hectare system of wild forest national parks would be established, as the loggers were bailed out of their failing industry, has been dashed.”

.

[Source: ‘$274m buys hope that bitter logging dispute is at an end‘, by Andrew Darby,  The Age newspaper, Hobart, 20110725]

Read more: ^http://www.theage.com.au/environment/conservation/tasmania-in-274m-forests-deal-20110724-1hves.html

A Forestry Tasmania Footprint

© Photo by Rob Blakers Photography, www.RobBlakers.com
http://www.water-sos.org/rob-blakers1.html

 

‘There has always been good reason to preserve Tasmania’s native old-growth forests. But two years ago the bitter, protracted conflict between loggers and conservationists took a decisive turn.

‘Scientists at the Australian National University revealed that the moist, cool forests of south-eastern Australia are the most carbon-dense environments in the natural world. They store on average more than twice the carbon per hectare than moist, tropical rainforests, which are a more familiar focus of global environmental concerns. Then in May this year, Australia’s new Climate Commission identified the preservation of these forests as critical in limiting Australia’s emissions “while the slower process of transforming energy and transport systems unfolds“.

‘Likewise, the commission estimated billions of tonnes of carbon could be sequestered from the atmosphere if logged areas were reafforested. Add to that the novel intervention of two entrepreneurs who recently paid $10 million for a Gunns sawmill – just so they could close it down – and it seems the three-decade-old impasse over Tasmania’s native forests has finally been broken.

‘This weekend’s $274 million federal government package, which puts 430,000 hectares of native forests off-limits to loggers, is a historic first step. True, the deal between environmentalists and the timber industry is a compromise and not everyone is happy. But the agreement does recognise two crucial claims: the urgent need to protect native forests from further commercial encroachment and the legitimate demand for compensation from communities that have long lived from logging. Tasmania’s small regional economy is vulnerable, which is partly why logging, and the jobs it supports, have long been such a divisive issue. Equally, the dispute has been deadlocked for want of an alternative vision.

‘Globally, forest clearing is responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. With a carbon tax coming in Australia and numerous carbon trading schemes already operating around the world, such extraordinary carbon sinks as Tasmania’s old-growth forests now have an economic value, not just an ecological one.

‘At the same time, the competitiveness of Tasmania’s woodchip industry has been declining because of the high Australian dollar and low-cost plantations elsewhere. Tasmania’s green credentials have been compromised by images of protesters chained to trunks and of magnificent, ancient trees being felled to satisfy the world’s appetite for woodchips, pulp and disposable chopsticks.

‘Australia’s smallest state should now be able to position itself favourably for the low-carbon economy of the future. That does not rule out supplying high-quality, high-value timber sourced from “certified sustainable” plantations to an environmentally discerning local and global market.’

.

[Source: ‘Old-growth valued at last‘, Sydney Morning Herald, Editorial, 20110725, p.10]

© Photo by Rob Blakers

 

.

---

.

Editor’s comment:

.

 

Government bail out of a 19th Century exploitative industry with taxpayer millions is expedient short term politics ~ throwing other people’s money at the problem.  The Labor Gillard Government has just pitched a $274 million bail out package to Forestry Tasmania and its dependents, but as usual the devil is in the detail.  That funding is stretched over ten years and is split between the Federal and Tasmanian governments.  It seems only $85 million is being made available from Gillard’s bail out in the current year.  Her press release (copy below) is unclear on this.  Moreover, while $85 million is welcome to Tasmanians, at the same time as Premier Lara Giddings announced recently, Tasmania has been denied a total of around $1.5 billion in expected GST revenue and State taxes from the Federal Government. Tasmanian revenues are being controlled by Canberra.  Canberra is treating Tasmania as a welfare state, and a welfare state is what Tasmania is becoming.

.

 

Twenty-first Century leadership for Tasmania requires triple-bottom line innovative problem solving, listening to all the people of Tasmania.

.

It is incumbent on Tasmanians themselves to strategise a long term competitive and independent vision for Tasmania’s economy and society that respects Tasmania’s natural values.  Twenty-first Century political leadership would see the national government encourage this, facilitate a transition process (and not deny GST funding) to trust and enable the island elected Tasmanian Government itself to implement the transition strategies as it sees fit. The transition process demands a quantum investment in vocational education of Tasmanians. So where is that strategy?

.

 

The crux of Tasmania’s triple bottom line problem in all this is that  ‘Tasmania’s small regional economy is vulnerable!’

.

Overhaul and nurture Tasmania’s regional employment to ‘certified sustainability’, since only then may Tasmania’s regional social and ecological systemic problems be resolved with broad community support.

.

 

 

In the editor’s view, Tasmania has sufficient natural resources, clean-green industries and innovative entrepreneurs to give New Zealand and its ‘pure’ brand image a run for its money. Tasmania’s natural and human capital just need to be tapped, nurtured and professionally marketed…globally.

.

The following extracts provide some background reading in this issue.  Readers can make up their own minds.

 

.

---

.

Background Reading:

.

 

What is the Tasmanian Government’s strategy?

.

 

Start with the lead agency, termed the ‘Tasmanian Planning Commission’

.

Well it seems its strategy is mainly about urban development.  “The current main strategic national priorities are:

• Capital city strategic planning
• Development assessment reform
• Housing affordability
• Climate change (however that is dealt with)
• Retail competition.”

 

.

What the hell is the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s terms of reference, or is there some other entity delegated to consider Tasmania’s ‘whole of island’ planning?

 

READ MORE: ^http://www.planning.tas.gov.au/the_planning_system/national_planning

 

.

---

.

…meanwhile…’Prime Minister’s press release on the future of ‘Tasmanian Forestry’, 20110724

.

 

‘Australian and Tasmanian Governments support the future of Tasmanian forestry‘, Sunday 20110724, jointly by the Prime Minister and Premier of Tasmania

[Source: ^http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/australian-and-tasmanian-governments-support-future-tasmanian-forestry]

.

 

‘Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings today announced an historic agreement on the future of forestry in Tasmania.  In the face of changing market conditions, both in Australia and around the world, it has become clear that the pressure on the Tasmanian forestry industry in its current form is not sustainable.  Today’s agreement will secure jobs, ensure a sustainable forestry industry, and achieve iconic environmental outcomes by protecting High Conservation Value forests and remaining old growth forests for future generations.The Heads of Agreement, backed by up to $276 million, will also support workers and their families affected by industry restructure.

 

Under the Heads of Agreement:

1. The Australian and Tasmanian Governments will provide up to $85 million in immediate assistance for workers and contractors who are losing their jobs and livelihoods as a result of industry restructure. This will include employee assistance, retraining and relocation support and assistance for voluntary permanent exits from native forest operations for haulage and harvest contractors (what to?);
2. Facilitate sustainable opportunities for the Tasmanian forestry sector with the Tasmanian Government guaranteeing at least 155,000 cubic metres per year in wood supply, 12,500 cubic metres per year of speciality timbers, subject to verification and 265,000 cubic metres of billets, with existing wood supply contracts to be honoured and the Australian Government to fund a voluntary exit mechanism to enable further native wood supply capacity to be retired and reserve areas increased when suitable plantation wood supply is available;
3. The Tasmanian Government will reserve and protect 430,000 hectares of native forest from within the 572,000 hectares nominated through the Statement of Principles process, and place the full 572,000 in informal reserve subject to an independent verification process of conservation values and compatibility with yearly guaranteed wood supply, led by Professor Jonathan West. The findings will determine the area of High Conservation Value forest to be reserved, with $7 million a year for their ongoing management to be provided by the Australian Government following incorporation into formal reserves;
4. $120 million in Australian Government investment over 15 years, including $20 million in 2011-12, to develop and diversify the Tasmanian economy to drive new job opportunities for Tasmanian families, including through job-creating projects (such as?) in communities affected by forestry restructure. A new ministerial advisory council to be chaired by Mr Bill Kelty AC will drive new regional development opportunities and a new place-based investment Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two governments; and
5. The Australian Government will provide $43 million to implement the Heads of Agreement including funding for a range of activities such as working with communities through the transition and provide voluntary compensable exits to sawmillers wishing to exit the native forestry industry.

.

The Heads of Agreement is consistent with the Statement of Principles agreement between environment non-government organisations, the Tasmanian forestry industry and the CFMEU, which was presented by independent facilitator Mr Bill Kelty last month.
It means the forestry industry can continue on a sustainable footing, and guarantees ongoing supply for existing businesses that are critical to supporting jobs and regional communities in Tasmania.The Australian and Tasmanian Governments thank the signatories to the Statement of Principles and Mr Kelty for their commitment and hard work.  The Statement of Principles process and the Heads of Agreement reached today creates an opportunity to move forward after decades of conflict and build a stronger future for Tasmania.Governments recognise the significant challenges faced by the industry in the face of global economic and market conditions as well as the historic opportunity provided by forestry and environmental parties coming together to agree on a framework for delivering a sustainable future for the forest industry and the environment.  We also recognise that these challenges, as well as the decision by Gunns Limited to exit from native forestry, will have significant impacts on workers, communities and the Tasmanian economy.The Governments clearly expect that following today’s historic agreement environment and industry stakeholders will end the long-running conflict over native forestry.  The Governments also expect that the Tasmanian Parliament will pass the required legislation by 30 June 2012.  The Australian and Tasmanian governments will work together to identify and support regional economic development through a partnership to create investment and jobs opportunities, particularly for regional communities..
The Australian and Tasmanian Governments will also work together to examine and identify potential opportunities from increased reserves from the Commonwealth Biodiversity Fund.  In October last year, the Tasmanian forestry industry and several environmental non-government organisations reached a Statement of Principles for protecting native forests and developing a sustainable timber industry in Tasmania.  The Australian and Tasmanian Governments appointed Mr Bill Kelty as an independent facilitator to facilitate talks on the Statement of Principles agreed to between environment non-government organisations, the CFMEU and the forestry industry in Tasmania.’

.

---

.

…meanwhile…’Independent Strategic Review of Forestry Must Examine Auditor-General’s Report’

by Kim Booth MP, Greens Member for BassKim Booth MP, Greens Forestry spokesperson, Wednesday, 20110706

[Source: ^http://mps.tas.greens.org.au/2011/07/independent-strategic-review-of-forestry-tasmania-must-examine-auditor-general%E2%80%99s-report-and-no-further-public-bail-out-without-parliaments-approval/]

.

‘The Tasmanian Greens today called on the Minister for Forests to ensure that the current independent Strategic Review into Forestry Tasmania includes the Auditor-General’s Special Report 100, Financial and economic performance of Forestry Tasmania, saying that the Report makes it clear that Forestry Tasmania is a failed business and in urgent need of restructure..

Greens Forestry spokesperson, Kim Booth MP, also called for a commitment that no further public monies will be used to bail out Forestry Tasmania from any financial difficulties without such a funding injection first coming before the Parliament.

“I have long been on the record warning the Minister that Forestry Tasmania is a rogue agency that has been unable to return a sustainable commercial rate of return for the Tasmanian public, and is in fact a drain upon the public purse,” Mr Booth said.

“As Shareholder Minister, it is incumbent on him to take responsibility for the fact that the Auditor General formed the view that whilst the ‘expectation of Forestry, and the environment in which it operates, changed fundamentally’ over the last 15 years, the ‘business and funding model did not keep pace with these changes.”

“This Report by the Auditor-General is relevant to the independent Strategic Review of Forestry Tasmania, and the Greens believe it must be formally submitted for the Review’s consideration.”

“With Forestry Tasmania crying poor and the suggestion that more public money might be required to pay their employees superannuation how will the Minister reassure Tasmanians that he will take a more active role in ensuring hard-earned public money is not thrown into the bottomless pit that is Forestry Tasmania?”

“Any further injection of public funds, to bail out this underperforming GBE, should not occur without first seeking Parliament’s approval of any conditions set upon which public money is provided,” Mr Booth said.’

.

---

.

…meanwhile…’What the community thinks of the forest peace talks’

Media release by Forestry Tasmania, 20110724.
[Source: ^http://www.forestrytas.com.au/news-room/media-releases/what-the-community-thinks-of-the-forest-peace-talks].‘Forestry Tasmania has this morning released a new opinion poll to provide negotiators with an insight into what the community expects out of the forest peace talks.Managing Director Bob Gordon said the survey conducted by respected pollster EMRS for Forestry Tasmania was to his knowledge the only attempt by any of the parties to gain a credible gauge on the community’s expectations and its results therefore could be useful as the Federal and State governments edge closer to a final agreement.

“Finding a durable long lasting agreement that embraced the community’s wishes was always going to be a challenge, and that is reflected in the survey results.  The survey found the community wants to strike a balance between environmental outcomes and jobs. When asked to nominate important outcomes, nearly two thirds mentioned protecting old growth forests while 60 per cent nominated jobs.  It also found the community overwhelmingly believed that any additional reserves should be determined by rigorous scientific analysis, while less than one in five people thought the State should simply agree to the request by environmentalists to lock up (read ‘save’) 572,000 hectares.  It is therefore reasonable to conclude that any agreement must include independent verification of the so called high conservation value forests, if it’s to win community acceptance.”

Mr Gordon said governments also had a communications challenge ahead.  “More than half of respondents did not believe they had sufficient information to make an informed decision about the peace talks.”

The EMRS survey of 600 people in late June was part of an ongoing series of tracking surveys that FT has commissioned since August 2008.  Mr Gordon said he was delighted that Forestry Tasmania’s reputation had remained strong during a period of considerable turmoil.

“FT’s rating as a good corporate citizen had slipped slightly, but 56 percent had a positive perception of FT compared to 28 per cent with a negative view.  “This particular survey indicates there has been a significant shift in community expectations since the previous survey 12 months ago. The community is becoming more concerned about employment and the economy. For example, the percentage of those wanting FT to focus on creating jobs was now at its highest level since March 2009. On the other hand, the percentage of those wanting carbon to be the highest priority had dropped from 30 per cent two years ago to just 13 per cent now.”

.

---

.

…meanwhile…’Tasmania – $111 million better off with Forestry Tasmania’

Media Release by Forestry Tasmania, 20110722
[Source: ^http://www.forestrytas.com.au/news-room/media-releases/tasmania-111-million-better-off-with-forestry-tasmania]

..

‘Forestry Tasmania has launched a new television advertising campaign highlighting the contribution made by the timber industry to rural Tasmania.The new commercial was shot in Geeveston featuring local workers earlier this week and goes to air for the first time tonight.  Forestry Tasmania’s Managing Director Bob Gordon said the commercial draws heavily on the recently released Auditor General’s report into FT’s financial and economic performance, which found Tasmania was $111 million a year better off with Forestry Tasmania operating.

“This report debunks the myth peddled by anti forestry activists that FT and the native forest industry is heavily subsidised and Tasmania would be better off without it.  “The fact is the future of many rural and regional communities would be at risk if there was a sudden halt to native forestry. Forestry is the life blood of many, many country towns in Tasmania, and already many are suffering as a result of the forestry downturn.”

Mr Gordon said the $111 million referred to by the Auditor General was conservative.

“Last year, the final value of products produced from state forest timber was $563m – and that’s in a year where forestry was dealing with its worst downturn in memory. That $563m supported in the vicinity of 3,000 full time direct jobs. There are many more workers that indirectly depend on the income from forestry – in retail, hospitality, transport and service sectors.  “It’s important to remember that the $111m is just FT’s contribution, it doesn’t include the contribution of the local sawmiller, the local contractor, veneer mills and furniture makers that rely on the wood products harvested from State forests. The full value of the timber industry is around $1.4billion.”

Mr Gordon said FT had committed $14,000 in airtime for the new commercial.

“I’m not going to apologise for spending that money on keeping the community informed and our brand healthy. Too many people depend on FT maintaining a good, strong reputation for us to become squeamish about spending dollars on advertising.”

FT will soon release the results of its latest EMRS poll, measuring corporate brand. The results show FT remains one of the most respected brands in Tasmania, remaining ahead of eight other key businesses and GBE’s.

“Community support for the work we do is still very strong, but this poll is significant because jobs are emerging as the number one issue. People still want a balance between development and the environment, but they think the balance has tipped too far in favour of green ideology, and not enough emphasis is being placed on jobs, particularly in rural and regional communities.”

.

---

.

…meanwhile…’Step forward for Tasmania’s forests’

Media release by The Wilderness Society (Tasmania), 20110725

[Source: ^http://www.wilderness.org.au/regions/tasmania/step-forward-for-tasmanias-forests]

.

After a campaign lasting more than three decades, the end is now closer than ever in the battle to protect Tasmania’s unique native forests.

With the Prime Minister and Premier Giddings finally coming to the negotiation table, the full implementation of last year’s forest agreement is now in sight.  Back in May this year, we suspended our involvement in the Tasmanian forest talks. This was due to inaction by both the Federal and Tasmanian Governments in implementing the forest agreement that was signed by environment groups and the timber industry in October 2010.  Now the two governments have finally shown the leadership we have been calling for and the implementation of the historic agreement can now begin.

“This is an important day in the history of the 30-year battle to save Tasmania’s magnificent forests,” said Wilderness Society Tasmania Campaign Manager Vica Bayley.

While the full Statement of Principles has not yet been implemented, this is a major step forward. The next steps in the process will be crucial to bringing a lasting peace in the forests.

Sunday’s signing of the Heads of Agreement between the Federal and Tasmanian Governments maps out a process to immediately protect 430,000 hectares of high-conservation value native forests, with a further 142,000 hectares set aside from logging and awaiting protection subject to verification processes.

The agreement also includes $128 million to assist logging companies and contractors to exit the industry. We will continue to work with other environment groups, unions, the timber industry and both governments to ensure all 572,000 hectares of high-conservation value native forests are protected within world heritage areas and national parks.

The proposed Tamar Valley pulp mill is not part of this latest announcement and the Wilderness Society remains opposed to its construction.

.

---

.

…meanwhile… back to the subject of Strategies for Tasmania…this is what Tasmania’s leader is focusing on:

.

‘Ministerial Statement: Tasmanian State Services Structural Reforms and Productivity Strategies’
by Lara Giddings Labor Premier of Tasmania

[Source: ^http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/hot_topics/ministerial_statement_-_tasmanian_state_service_structural_reforms_and_productivity_strategies, no date]

.

Introduction

“Mr Speaker, on the 10th of February I released the Mid-Year Financial Report.

The Report detailed the significant financial challenge we face in framing this year’s State Budget.  Since then, we have heard in the Federal Budget that Tasmania will lose a further $343 million in GST receipts.  That means we have now lost a total of around $1.5 billion in expected GST revenue and State taxes from the Forward Estimates.

Mr Speaker, we are faced with some difficult decisions to ensure we do not go back to the bad old days of the 1990s, when we had spiralling debt, and when we saw funds that should have been spent on services instead being used to pay the interest on that debt.  I am determined not to allow the State Budget to slide back into that situation.  How we will achieve that will be in next month’s Budget.

But today I want to announce some of the approaches the Government will be taking to help us to return the State’s finances to a sustainable footing while improving the productivity of the public service

In releasing the Mid Year Financial Report, I said the Government would implement a Public Sector Productivity Strategy, with the aim of achieving savings of around $200 million per annum by 2014 15.

Today I will give more detail about some of the ways we will achieve that.  Our first priority has been to look at reducing expenses that do not impact on employment, such as phones, cars, travel and the like, but of course those things alone will not be enough to reach our savings target.

In simple terms, the measures I will announce fall into two broad categories.  The first set is about making our public service more productive and more efficient  The second set is about reducing the cost of our public sector.  Both are critical if we are to restore the State Budget to a sustainable footing.  The Government’s response to our Budget challenge is not about slashing costs just for the sake of it.

It is about returning the Budget to surplus so we can continue to invest in jobs and services that will ensure Tasmania remains a great place to live.  It is about making the right decisions today so we can have a better future.

Mr Speaker, I am aware of the anxiety created in the public service by the Government’s need to find savings.

I know there are many hard working and dedicated public servants who are worried about how these changes might affect them.  It is unfortunate that this period of uncertainty has been unavoidable as we work through the issues around the Budget.  It is also disappointing that some have chosen to fill the vacuum while we were formulating our response with fear campaigns and misinformation.

In the meantime I have been discussing our approach with key stakeholders, unions, heads of agencies and my Labor and Green colleagues.  I hope to be able to allay some of the concerns that have arisen by making it clearer how we will go about making those changes.

That is one reason that I have brought this announcement forward to today rather than leaving it to Budget day next month: so that people will know more about what is happening – and what is not – sooner rather than later.

I value the contribution of our public servants, and indeed strong public services are at the very core of Labor values such as equity, fairness and helping those most in need.

Mr Speaker, I will first outline to the House some of the measures we will be taking to achieve the productivity changes I spoke about – how we will go about achieving greater flexibility and efficiency.

This approach is about making the state service more contemporary, less bureaucratic and more accountable, with a more agile and productive workforce to meet future needs of the Tasmanian community.

Once I have done that I will outline the processes we will follow to reduce our costs.  I will not be outlining the exact savings we will be making – that is an issue for next month’s budget.

But I will talk about the process we will follow to ensure employees are treated as fairly, flexibly, compassionately and openly as possible if their positions are identified as no longer being required.  The reality is that employee salaries and associated costs make up over 50% of operational expenditure, and in some Agencies this percentage is as high as 70%.  Savings in recurrent expenditure of the magnitude that we require can only be achieved through prioritising programs and achieving savings in Agency employment costs.

I have said repeatedly since I released the Mid Year Financial Report that redundancies, and particularly involuntary redundancies, would be a last resort.  The measures I announce today are consistent with that approach and will maximise the opportunity for those affected to find new jobs with minimal disruption to their lives.

But where redundancies are required these reforms will ensure affected staff are treated fairly through a clearly understood process.  Two of these measures will require legislative change but in large part they are entirely consistent with existing powers and processes

Although they will not be part of the Budget legislation, I will be asking members to agree to the necessary amendments to the Tasmanian State Service Act during the Budget session.

.

Independent State Service Review

Mr Speaker, one of the key steps we will take to address the productivity of our public sector relates to the longer term governance arrangements that should apply to State Service employment.

The State Service Act 2000 underpins all employment in the State Service and establishes governance, employment and structural arrangements for the Tasmanian State Service.

It is time to review these arrangements to guarantee the State Service remains able to meet the challenges of the future.

There are concerns about some aspects of the current arrangements including:

• The clarity of lines of authority
• Support for contemporary workforce management, which allows for flexibility to respond to service delivery, program or policy changes; and
• The number of jurisdictions involved in appeals and reviews (e.g. State Service Commissioner, Tasmanian Industrial Commission, Integrity Commission, Anti-Discrimination Commission).

Mr Speaker, these are concerns that have been raised with me in my discussions with unions, agencies and other key stakeholders and I believe we must address them if we are to make our public sector the best it can be.So today I announce that the Government will commission, through our usual procurement processes, an independent review to examine:

• Employer role responsibilities
• The State Service Commissioner role and responsibilities
• Head of Agency roles and responsibilities
• Tasmanian Industrial Relations Commission roles
• Appropriate grounds of appeal and the correct jurisdiction to determine appeals.

This review will involve consultation and discussion with all stakeholders, including staff, unions and other relevant bodies.  In addition the reviewer will be asked to provide recommendations and propose a way forward which may involve amendments to the State Service and Industrial Relations Acts.

State Service Amendment (Performance) Bill 2011

Mr Speaker, improving productivity is essential if we are to maintain a high level of service in the key front line areas – like health, emergency management and education – on which we all depend.Following consultation with agencies and key unions, the Government has determined that performance management, including dealing with underperformance, is a critical component of a Tasmanian State Service “reform agenda” to improve the efficiency and productivity of our public sector.It was also accepted that an authority is required within the legislation to enable us to assist those employees who are struggling or unable to perform the tasks required of them.  Most of us want to know if we are not performing to the expectations of our employer, and we need to be given the feedback and the opportunity to improve.It is the Government’s duty as a responsible employer to work with staff to ensure they can perform to the best of their ability, which is good for their morale and career prospects, and obviously a boost for productivity and the quality of service we provide to the public.

We have a responsibility to strengthen our performance management processes, including better training for managers, and indeed that is an issue that unions have raised with me as a way of ensuring staff are given the feedback they need and deserve.

In response, I will be introducing the State Service Amendment (Performance) Bill 2011 to amend the State Service Act 2000 to enable more active management of both performance and underperformance of state service employees.

The amendments will also provide a proper authority for the termination of those employees who after support is given are still unable to perform their duties effectively.  It is important that this legislation be introduced at this time to distinguish between this and processes involving surplus employees.

These changes are not a ‘backdoor’ way of sacking people to reduce costs.  They are about ensuring our public sector is working efficiently and effectively and providing taxpayers with value for their money.  But if at the end of the day some individuals cannot meet those expectations we need a fair and open process to work through.

The provisions of the amendment will ensure that agencies adhere to “due process” (natural justice) in cases involving termination and provide authority to the Minister administering the State Service Act to ultimately, after due process, terminate employment of under-performing employees.

.

Workforce Renewal Incentive Program

Mr Speaker, I have already announced the implementation of a Workforce Renewal Incentive Program.

This program provides an incentive (of up to $20,000) to allow staff to separate from the State Service in certain circumstances, and gives us the opportunity to gain new skills and capabilities in the workforce.

The Program will allow Agencies to renew their workforce and maintain a balanced workforce profile to meet their priority objectives.

The Workforce Renewal Incentive Program is about ensuring the State Service has the right skills profile to meet the challenges of 2011-12 and beyond.

This approach has already been successfully implemented in the Education Department, allowing us to help renew the teaching profession and provide more opportunities for graduates.

.

Vacancy management

Mr Speaker, I now want to turn to the reforms that relate to reducing the cost of our public service.

These changes go to the processes we will follow in seeking to reduce our costs, and how we will attempt to minimise the disruption to the affected individuals in the process.

It is clear that we will not be able to maintain public service employee numbers at the current levels – it’s just not sustainable.  Recognising this situation, the Government will put in place a range of measures designed to support Agencies in managing reductions in employee numbers.

As I have consistently said, redundancies will be the last resort.  And if we do have to offer redundancies, they will be targeted and limited to positions that are no longer required.  We will not be offering mass redundancies because they are too costly and they are not strategic.

Invariably when you open redundancies to anyone who wants to go you lose skills and experience that you did not want to lose.  So, if we identify that a position is no longer required the first step we will take will be to see if the person in that position can be redeployed to a vacancy within their own agency.

Each agency has already implemented internal vacancy management measures. These will ensure that each position that becomes vacant will be fully reviewed before any recruitment process is started to determine:

• If it is essential for the position to be filled;
• If the classification level of the position is appropriate; and
• If there are any surplus employees within the agency able to fill the position.

Internal agency vacancy management also encompasses other strategies such as:

• the timing of filling the vacancy;
• the ability of the position to be filled on part-time or job-sharing basis;
• natural attrition following normal separation (abolition of funded vacancies);
• restructuring within Agencies where programs or services are to be discontinued;
• reviewing the need for specific fixed term employment;
• reassignment of duties to existing employees (within the Agency);
• increased approval of leave without pay applications;
• increased approval of secondments to organisations outside the State Service (where available);
• increased use of flexible working arrangements, such as part time employment; and/ or
• workforce re-profiling and utilisation of the Workforce Renewal Incentive Program that I mentioned earlier.

.

Inter-agency vacancies

Mr Speaker, if a member of staff who is surplus to requirements cannot be redeployed within their own agency the next step will be to see if their skills can be used in another agency.

I will be issuing a Ministerial Direction that details procedures to manage inter-agency vacancies.  The Direction will ensure that there is a whole of government approach to matching surplus employees with vacancies that exist across all agencies.

It is essential that there is a consistent and coordinated approach to these strategies and the Public Sector Management Office (PSMO), within the Department of Premier and Cabinet is to be the single contact point for matching surplus employees and vacancies.

Where a Head of Agency is unable to identify suitable vacancies within the agency, he or she may recommend to the independent State Service Commissioner, who will oversee the process, that an employee be made available for redeployment in accordance with section 47 of the State Service Act 2000.

In the case of a Senior Executive Service (SES) officer, the Secretary of DPAC is advised.

Employees and officers accepted as surplus may be considered on a suitability basis for transfer to vacant state service positions in other agencies.  Assessments of suitability will be undertaken by assessment panels established by agencies for that purpose.  The purpose of a suitability assessment is to determine whether the referred employee/officer can satisfactorily carry out the duties either immediately or within a reasonable time given appropriate training and experience.

.

External placement of surplus employees

Mr Speaker, the next step if staff who are no longer required cannot be redeployed within government will be to see if we can assist them to find work externally.

The Public Sector Management Office will explore career or specific job opportunities external to the Tasmanian State Service for surplus employees and officers, including permanent and fixed term placements.  The terms and conditions of any external placement will be negotiated with the relevant parties in accordance with Section 46 of the State Service Act.

PSMO will also establish a schedule of preferred providers that may be available to assist surplus employees.  These will include, but not be limited to:

• Career Planning;
• Outplacement;
• Job search;
• Counselling (Employee Assistance Program);
• Financial management;
• Superannuation; and
• Taxation

Agencies may refer surplus employees at any time to the above support services and will, in consultation with their employees, decide the appropriate provider, type and level of advice to assist the employee.

Targeted voluntary redundancy arrangements

Mr Speaker, the Government is currently reviewing its targeted voluntary redundancy arrangements, and I would hope that these, combined with our vacancy control and redeployment measures, will help to minimise the need for any involuntary redundancies.

As I have already said, the emphasis of these arrangements will be on specific targeted redundancies within identified programs, rather than a general offer of voluntary redundancies across a range of program areas, as has been the previous approach.

This will better align our voluntary redundancy arrangements with the structural reform and productivity strategies required to meet our Budget task.

The renewed arrangements will also be designed to:

• place greater onus on Heads of Agency to consider and exhaust other options before offering voluntary redundancies;
• ensure greater emphasis on justifying the cost/benefit of voluntary redundancies before offers are made;
• improve flexibility by incentivising redundancies where other alternatives have been exhausted and early voluntary separation is both desirable and cost effective; and
• minimise the need for involuntary separations.

Changes to Section 47

Mr Speaker, currently the Tasmanian State Service Act provides for a twelve month redeployment period for employees declared as surplus under Section 47.

After much discussion within Government and Cabinet this period was considered to be too long.  The Government did consider moving to a three month period but it was agreed that this was too short to allow all options for employees to be redeployed to be explored.

As a result, the Government intends to introduce an amendment to section 47 of the State Service Act which will limit the maximum redeployment period to six-months.

Some other jurisdictions do not specify any redeployment period for surplus employees, though they do require genuine attempts to be made to redeploy surplus employees before termination occurs.

Industrial precedent and decisions in Industrial Tribunals require that an employer demonstrate that redeployment attempts have not been successful, or are not available.

A six-month period is reasonable for inter-agency and alternative strategies to be properly explored.  In some cases, particularly for an employee with highly-specialised skills and employment needs, the likelihood or otherwise of redeployment would be established well within this timeframe.

A six-month period appropriately balances redeployment requirements and the costs of continued employment.  A longer period of uncertainty also has a negative impact on the employee and the workforce generally.

.

Involuntary redundancies

Mr Speaker, once all of the options I have detailed have been exhausted the very last step we may be forced to take is involuntary redundancies.

I can inform the House that the Government will not be seeking to amend Section 44 of the State Service Act to allow for involuntary termination on economic and operational grounds.

I recognise that some stakeholders were concerned that we might have chosen this path because they feared it could lead to widespread and abrupt redundancies without the type of redeployment options and voluntary processes I have spoken about today.  This was an issue of particular concern to unions and my Labor and Greens colleagues.

Instead, if required we would seek to achieve the savings required through the existing provisions of Section 47 of the current State Service Act, which was introduced in 2000 by the Bacon Labor Government.

Section 47 provides for termination after it is has been declared that suitable redeployment has not been available through the various processes I have detailed.  Previously, it has been unclear under Section 47 whether an involuntary redundancy package should be made available after this declaration is made.

To ensure there is no longer any doubt, the Government has agreed that, should this stage be reached, after the opportunity has been given to take a voluntary redundancy or pursue redeployment options over six-months, the affected employee will be entitled to a redundancy package.

This package should reflect a balanced and reasonable approach based on the need for “fair” treatment of our employees while recognising the financial benefit that accrues through having had a guaranteed six month paid redeployment period.

The package will contain a minimum payment consistent with the Targeted Voluntary Redundancy Arrangements.  The package will also contain a ‘years of service’ payment.

The difference between the package for a ‘voluntary offer and acceptance’ and an involuntary redundancy will need to take into account the benefits that accrue to an employee who remains on redeployment for the full 26-weeks.

We will finalise the details of the involuntary redundancy entitlements following further discussion and consultation with the Unions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the current fiscal situation means the Government is no longer able to meet its budget targets, and we risk moving into an unsustainable position if action is not taken.

Improving the efficiency and productivity of the state service, and reducing our costs, are key strategies we will be implementing in the coming months.  But this is also about strengthening our public sector so it can better perform its key role – providing services to the Tasmanian community.

It is important to remember that the majority of employees will not be affected by decisions that identify programs that are no longer required.  But I am very conscious that the changes we need to make should be done fairly and openly so we can minimise concerns among staff and the impact on the affected individuals.

That is why I have detailed today the measures we will be implementing and the processes we will be following, and I will ensure that all of our public servants are made aware of what we will be doing.

And I hope that by releasing more details about the direction we will be taking we can allay some of the concerns and fears that have arisen in recent weeks, and we will continue to work with staff and unions as we work through this process.

I believe these changes will lead to a more productive and efficient public service.  They will reduce the Government’s costs at a time of financial pressure, and they will do so in a way that gives affected staff the best chance of finding alternative employment.  And for employees who find themselves in areas where the positions they occupy are no longer required, it is critical that the alternatives available to them should be fair and clear.

I believe the range of measures I have announced today will help us to achieve all of these goals as we negotiate the difficult times ahead.”

.

---

.

– end of article –

 

 

This is a Tiger Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus)
Photo courtesy of Sean McClean.

.

 

 

It is Australia’s largest carnivorous marsupial on the mainland and it has become endangered because of humans destroying its habitat, shooting it and poisoning it.

It is not a cat. Much information may be obtained online simply by typing ‘tiger quoll’ on Google.

.

---

.

.

The following extract is from the website ‘Convict Creations‘  (15-Feb-2010):

‘Tiger Quoll…the next to die’

“Without disrespecting the Koala or Kangaroo, the Tiger Quoll is one of Australia’s most interesting animals. It sort of resembles a cat except it has a pouch, bright eyes, a moist pink nose and a powerful bite. It can grow to up to 75 cm in length and weigh up to 7kg. If trained, it will even use a kitty litter tray.

The Tiger Quoll is the type of animal that tourists would love to see on their Australian safari.

Unfortunately, they are quite rare so few have ever caught a glimpse of them.
European colonisation of Australia could have been great for the Tiger Quoll. With Europeans introducing rabbits, rats and mice, the Quoll saw a drastic increase in its food source. Had the colonists warmed to them, then a mutually beneficial relationship could have formed. Farmers could have encouraged Quolls to take up residency in order to keep rodent numbers down with little fear that their livestock would be in danger. As an added bonus, by eating carrion, the Quolls would have reduced the threat of blowfly strike.

Alternatively, they could have just made pets out of the Quoll. Apparently the Quoll has all the positive characteristics of a cat or dog. According to Professor Mike Archer, Former Director of the Australian Museum, who once kept a Quoll as a pet:

“I just can’t praise these animals highly enough as companions for human beings. They have all the good features in dogs and cats, and in my experience not a single downside”.

If colonial owners had taken care of their Quolls, then both Quoll and owner would have been happy. If not, the Quoll would have just escaped and done Australia a service by cleaning up decaying meat, rabbits and other introduced vermin.

Unfortunately, colonists never formed mutually beneficial relationships with the Quoll. Instead, they introduced the cat to serve the role of pest controller. For more than a century, farmers deliberately released cats onto their properties in order to control rabbit and mice populations. Once the cats went feral, they started to compete with the Quoll for food. Although the Quoll was better adapted to Australia’s cycle of droughts, the cat’s symbiotic relationship with humans proved to be an even better environmental adaptation. If feral cats were ever wiped out in a drought, or declined for whatever reason, they still had the family home as an oasis in the desert. From the family home, they were well placed to repopulate the bush once good conditions returned.

Even worse than competition from the cat were the environmentalists’ attempts to “help” them. The use of 1080 poison has been one of the main helping strategies. When it is used to kill rabbits, it indirectly deprives Quolls of food. So much so, by killing rabbits, human deprive Quolls of even more food than is lost due to competition by cats. To compound matters, when 1080 poison is used to kill the cats and foxes competiting with Quolls, it also ends up being eaten by Quolls. In fact, Quolls are more likely to eat the poisons because they have a keen nose for carrion while the feral predators prefer fresh kills.

A very odd example of the misguided environmental policy was recently seen in in Tasmania. 1080 was first used to reduce rabbit numbers. A rumour then developed that foxes had finally established a breeding community in the island state. Even though it was just a rumour, to be on the safe side, environmentalists decided a large scale baiting regime needed to be implemented to eradicate foxes as well. On the State Government’s own data, more than 140,000 poison baits were laid. So far, there has been no evidence that foxes were actually present. There was; however, plenty of evidence of Quoll dying!

The odd wilderness protection policy caught the attention of David Obendorf, a vet with a research focus in marsupial diseases. According to Obendorf:

“Three Tasmanians have each offered $1,000 fox rewards (Tasmanian Times: “$1,000 fox reward”). All remain unclaimed despite farmers, landowners and professional shooters all knowing about them. And yet the government “guessimate” claims there are up to 400 foxes living in Tasmania … somewhere. In my opinion Tasmania’s use of 1080 poison over the last five decades – to kill browsing and grazing native herbivores – has had a significant effect on the over-population followed by the facial tumour disease-crash in devil numbers and in the widespread establishment of feral cats across the island….Ironically the state government has now ceased the use of 1080-laced carrot/apple baits on public lands to kill grazing wildlife but now uses tens of thousands of meat baits in public forests where they claim they are targeting those cryptic foxes.” (1)

The use of 1080 poison could be legitimately referred to as Australia’s dumbest environmental policy since the construction of a 1,833 km fence to “keep” rabbits out of WA. It seems that Western Australians weren’t smart enough to realise that rabbits can dig under fences. All that was required was for a single pregnant female to dig a hole and then 1,833 km of fence line would be obsolete. Perhaps WA politicians did in fact realise the folly of it all, but decided it was more to important to show they were “doing something”.

As an added bonus, “doing something” kept people in regional Australia employed. Perhaps 1080 poison is used for similar reasons. Unfortunately, “doing something” to help Quolls is really not helping them at all. It forces them into wilderness reserves where scientists can erect huge fences to keep out ferals and then make a lucrative income maintaining them. (2)

Even though the Tiger Quoll is mainland Australia’s largest native predator, Australia doesn’t have any professional sporting team named after them. In fact, they don’t really exist in public consciousness in any significant shape or form. Perhaps this is because Quolls spend their time out in the bush where they are only ever seen by rangers.
Alternatively, perhaps the name Quoll just isn’t scary enough.

Zoos – The only real industry is as a research subjects by scientists, or to provide an endangered animal story that can be used by wilderness groups to write emotive appeals asking for funding to save them.

Pest controllers – Potentially, Quolls could make great pest controllers. They could compete with cats and foxes for food, and eliminate rabbits and rats in the process. Landowners could breed them and sell them as a substitute to 1080 poison.

Pets – Sometimes scientists have made great pets out of Quolls. At present, the general public is not allowed to do likewise. The general argument is that Quolls require special care that only a scientist can give. Consequently, Australians have to reserve their abusive ownership methods for dogs and cats that simply go bush if they are unhappy with their owners.”

.

---

.

The Snowy River is a surviving stronghold of the Tiger Quoll

.

“In East Gippsland, the areas on the Errinundra Plateau, Snowy River and Tingaringy are strongholds of the Spot-tailed Quoll”. (GECO)

“The Upper Snowy River and its tributaries was the Victorian stronghold of the Tiger Quoll before (the 2003) devastating Alpine bush fires. The Tiger Quoll is believed to have lost up to 75% of an estimated population of 1,000 in the area.

Following the devastating effects of recent bush fires The Tiger, or Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) has been reclassified as nationally endangered. it is feared that the fires will have a lasting effect on the Quolls that remain.”

.

---

.

.

References:

[1]   ABC, ^http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s145805.htm
[2]   David Obendorf – ^http://www.animal-lib.org.au/news/1080–the-real-killer.htm”
[3]   ^http://www.fame.org.au/current_projects.html

.

~ article by Tigerquoll, first published on CanDoBetter.net 15-Feb-2011

Gunns’ must really be loaded to commit $2.2 billion on a pulp mill in Tasmania’s Tamar Valley.

Not many companies have that sort of money and certainly not in cash-strapped Tasy.   But with access to so much financial capital, why waste it on 20th Century logging?  Tasmania has so much economic potential using 21st Century thinking and think what a smart $2.2 billion could otherwise benefit Tasmania’s future, without 19th Century exploitation?

The money to build such a pulp mill has to come from somewhere and it appears Gunns’ may have found a financial joint venture backer in Finnish pulp giant, UPM-Kymmene Oyj.

[Source:   ‘Finnish firm UPM eyes stake in Gunns pulp mill‘, by journalist Matthew Denholm, The Australian, 20110209].

Gunns tries to claim that it’s motive is all about forestry jobs for Tasmanians.  But once UPM gets a foothold in Tasmania, check UPM’s record with jobs…

.

“In September 2008 UPM announced another cost reduction program that includes layoffs thousands of employees, and its Kajaani paper mill and Tervasaari pulp mill will be closed altogether. These will be the largest layoffs ever in Finland.

In March 2006 UPM announced a cost reduction program that includes layoffs approximately 3,600 employees, nearly 3,000 of those in Finland, and its Voikkaa paper mill in Kuusankoski was closed altogether. This was the largest single layoff ever in Finland. This is attributed[by whom?] to the worldwide overproduction of paper.

UPM announced the permanent closure of a large mill complex in Miramichi, New Brunswick on December 17 2007, citing economic pressures in the North American forest industry.”

 

[Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPM_%28company%29 ]

.

Greg L’Estrange, Gunns’ replacement CEO for John Gay since July 2009, seems to be tasked with getting the pulp mill up and running no matter what the cost, no matter what spin doctoring efforts are employed to secure government approval.  Somehow his deal making has succeeded in government fast-tracking of the assessment process.

.

On 25th November 2010, Gunns released a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange stating that the pulp mill project remained on track. This is Gunn’s ‘do-or-die‘  single corporate strategy. It has no plan B. . L’Estrange’s initial ploy was to remove the motive driving Gunns’ key enemies.  Gunns’ declared a moratorium on native forest logging across Tasmania.  It was clearly a bid to secure Forestry Standard Certification, to comply with new Japanese buyer benchmarks; rather than any noble recognition of native forest conservation values.

.

Then  L’Estrange concocted Gunn’s Forest Statement of Principles and armed with this did a secret forest peace deal late last year with local greenie groups.  L’Estrange sold it as a new greener Gunns’ “working with environment groups to create a future without conflict.”  Consistent with strategy, the ‘Tassie Talks’ deal it was all about quelling Tasmanian public dissent and he quickly branded the deal pivotal to the Tasmanian forest industry and ‘historic’.  Be seen to be green! Whatever it takes! Except environmental groups deny they have given the green light to Gunns Tamar valley pulp mill by signing the deal. There’s that greenwashing term again – ‘sustainable‘.  It’s become an abused and hollow marketing euphemism really about corporate ‘financial viability‘ in the exploitation of natural resources.  Such corporations shy from using the term ‘triple bottom line’  any more, because it is harder to promote when one is only focused on the bottom line. And there’s fresh water demand of the mill and the marine effluent it will spew, which L’Estrange has tried to allay concerns claiming new pulp bleaching  technology promises to reduced toxic outflow of chlorine dioxide by some 40%.  Despite the promise of ‘stricter controls’ an expected 64,000 tonnes of effluent will still be released by the pulp mill into Bass Strait daily.  And it won’t harm marine life?

‘At its annual general meeting in November, Gunns told shareholders that modelling work showed the mill would have no impact on marine ecosystems, but Environment Tasmania said it was still concerned about the effect of up to 51 gigalitres a year of industrial effluent being discharged into the sea.’

[Source:   ‘Promise of greener hue to pulp mill at final hour‘, 20110304]

.

Securing Gunns’ shareholder backing, L’Etrange at Gunns’ recent annual general meeting, drew a line in the sand claiming the moratorium on native forest logging (the greenie forest deal) was now conditional on the Tamar Valley pulp mill going ahead.  If the greenies want to keep Tasmania’s native forests, they must agree on the pulp mill proceeding. The ‘Tassie Talks’ deal was always a loaded gunn deal.

“We believe that the development of the Bell Bay Pulp Mill will be the centrepiece of this strategy for the modern industry in Tasmania.”

[Source:   ‘Pulp mill key, says Gunns‘, by journalist Sue Neales, 20101125]

.

Of course it’s all rather reminiscent of Gunn’s heavy-handed power playing under John Gay.  The Gunns’ Board hasing changed; only its front man.  This latest greenwashing approach is one of image rebranding and loaded deals, all the while Gunns’ pulp mill strategy remains on track. L’Estrange plays good cop while the pulp mill unswervingly looms as Tasmania’s big bad cop.

.

Tasmania’s natural heritage is Tasmania’s future… whether dead in a museum like its Thylacene or alive and precious…is ultimately an existence decision for local Tasmanians.

Tasmania’s unique Celery Top Pine

[Source: Veronica Tyquin, WARRA (long-term ecological research)

http://www.warra.com/warra/research_projects/research_project_WRA108.html]

 

.

---

.

Update News Friday 20110311:  ‘Contentious pulp mill wins federal approval’

.

Yesterday L’Estrange must have earned his executive performance bonus following Labor’s federal Environment Minister, Tony Burke, announcing government approval for the pulp mill to proceed.  L’Estrange’s comment was that the decision brought certainty for proposed investors in the pulp mill project, now estimated to cost $2.3 billion, pre-cost blowout, pre-government subsidies. (‘Contentious pulp mill wins federal approval’, SMH, 20110311)

.
Upon gaining the final three environmental permits Gunns needs for the mill, Gunns shares rose 5.88% to close at $0.63.  (Finnewsnetwork.com.au, 20110311).  Certainly a ‘sustainable’ result for L’Estrange.
Gunn’s pulp mill will perpetuate 20th Century logging across Tasmania. It will continue to make Tasmanian rural communities dependent on one industry and vulnerable to the whims of one employer – Gunns.

.
Gunns’ spin is that the mill will only use timber from plantations, capitalising on the fact that those plantations were planted as a result of clear felling destruction of Tasmania’s rare native forests.   According to The Wilderness Society, Gunns’ wood supply deal with Forestry Tasmania commits it to supplying a million tonnes a year of native forest for the next twenty years. (‘Gunns’ proposed pulp mill, The Wilderness Society, 20110310)

.

So Gunns’ ‘plantation only’ claim is false and misleading.

.

The mill will spew odorous fumes downwind through the Tamar Valley forcing thousands of residents of this rural region to breathe polluted and toxic air and contaminate local horticultural producers such as vineyards.  The mill is forecast to consume fresh water equivalent of the combined use of all water users across Northern Tasmania, according to The Wilderness Society there. (‘Gunns’ pulp mill impacts – Environment, heritage, economy and community threatened, The Wilderness Society, 20100530).

.

Gunns’ mill is still set to spill 64,000 litres of toxic chlorine, dioxins and furans a day from its chemical pulping process into the Tamar River and downstream into Bass Strait.  That it will obviously pollute the surrounding waters, kill marine wildlife, poison and permanently contaminate marine habitat, and destroy the local fishing industry; Burke has still managed to find a way to approve the bloody mill!

“I’m only doing what my requirements are under the Act. We’ve got some very specific requirements on environmental approvals. I’m delivering on that.” – Tony Burke. (‘Milne: Pulp mill approval a corrupt process’, ABC TV Lateline, 20110310)

Burke in the same week, managed to push through legislation to allow Sydney’s Barrangaroo development avoid the cost of a heavy metals clean up, while at the same time stuck to the letter of the law with his approval of Gunns’ pulp mill.  Can there be no clearer display of pro-development bias? Laws for some!
But then Burke’s bias is predicable,  given he came to the portfolio from the other side of the fence, as Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; and his quick rise from the NSW right faction.  (‘Gunns deal a shedding of responsibility, by Andrew Darby, The Age, 20110311)
According to federal Greens Senator Christine Milne responding on last night’s Lateline programme:

“There has never been a thorough and rigorous assessment (of the pulp mill) because Paul Lennon, former Premier of Tasmania together with John Gay, managed to pull it out of the proper assessment process (at State level), fast-track it through the Tasmanian Parliament…so what we have got here is a project that has been through a corrupt assessment process.”

Milne is factually correct.  There was no rigorous assessment of the Bell Bay site. The Tasmanian assessment process was corrupt, the community was denied a say, the democratic process was abused.  The mill has no social license to operate.  It is illegitimate and Gunns’ development actions are one of a corporate and political bully imposing its selfish shortsighted greed on Tasmania and Tasmanians.

.

Gunn’s Bell Bay pulp mill will not only degrade the region, but dominate the northern heart of Tasmania. On Google Earth it will show up like a festering sore poisoning a diminishing green forested Tasmania.

L’Estrange borrowed Labor’s classic dirty tactic of divide and conquer to stymie opposition and protests from Tasmanian conservation groups. His deal has seeded a split between conservationists and the Greens over the pulp mill.  He has lured local conservationists to compromise with the offer to  surrender Gunns’ contract rights to 220,000 cubic metres of native forest saw logs a year and to protect an extra 600,000ha of forests.  Even Labor’s appointed negotiator Bill Kelty has been brought in to clench a forest peace deal with select conservationists.  The Wilderness Society in Tasmania, together with Environment Tasmania and the Australian Conservation Foundation seem to be coming on board backing down on their opposition to the pulp mill.  They are now at odds with the Tasmanian Greens who are a little more savvy about the hollow politics and promises.

“It looks as though somebody wants to save some high conservation value forests, but is sacrificing the Tamar Valley to get them”, says Tamar Valley resident and mill opponent Peter Cundall.  (Greens v Greens on Gunns pulp mill, The Australian, 20110304)

Site of proposed Gunns’ pulp mill, Bell Bay, Tamar Valley

Photo:  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/10/3160890.htm

.

.

---

.

The editor agrees with the following selected comments posted in The Australian to the article ‘Greens v Greens on Gunns pulp mill, 20110304:

.

By James McMaugh’:

“The mill will never be built. The people are opposed and are right not to trust Gunns. There will be a huge outcry and mass protests blockading construction. I will travel to Tasmania and so will many others to make sure of this. The proposal is dead.

It’s about time politicians listened to the people and business should too. You cannot run roughshod over the will of the people and they don’t want this mill. Overwhelmingly they don’t. It will cost more jobs than it creates and destroy the river. No, no and no to this mill.”

.

By ‘Chris B of Australia’:

“The only acceptable outcome is NO Pulp Mill at all in Tasmania. Gunns has no credibility and has proven time and again how they cannot be trusted by the community. I personally believe there is no place for a company like Gunns in Tasmania and they should make transition plans for their workforce to move to a sustainable industry.
The environmental groups willing to compromise the values and allow Gunns to sacrifice the Tamar Valley should be ashamed of themselves. Make no mistake, the pulp mill will completely and utterly degrade the environment of the Tamar Valley and Bass Strait, no matter which form it takes.”

.

By ‘SW’:

“ Senator Milne speaks for me. Thank you, Christine, for maintaining the rage. It certainly hasn’t died down here in the Tamar Valley.”

.

By ‘Robert of Adelaide’:

“ Same old argument of lack of development, growth, jobs, high crime etc. The same attitude is taken in the case of the Brazilian Rainforest as well. Where does it stop and what will we actually be left with in 100 years? Oh, that’s right, we won’t be here, so who cares… If people want employment, go to where the jobs are in the rest of the country and the world like everyone else is doing! And while you are working in places like Sydney, London, Beijing, Tokyo and Bangkok… reflect on how wonderful development has been for these these concrete infested cities! Then maybe we can appreciate what we have here.”

.

 

.

---

.

‘Green movement outguns Gunns’  [20110311]

.

…’Gunns had gone so far as to sue an elected politician, the Greens leader, Bob Brown.

“When I got the writ,” says Brown, “I knew better than to call the lawyers. The first thing I did was to call a press conference. Within 24 hours we had a candlelight vigil for democracy, in Hobart. It was like the Prague Spring.”

Ultimately, Gunns underestimated its opposition and its decision to sue backfired spectacularly.
Far from being cowed by the suit, Marr and his colleagues ramped up an environmental campaign the likes of which had not been seen in this country – targeting the Gunns bankers and shareholders, Japanese customers and European partners – which ultimately brought the company to its knees, decimating its market value and ousting its divisive chairman, Gay.

.
..It was left to the new chief executive, Greg L’Estrange, to concede defeat last September, and promise that Gunns would get out of native forest logging altogether. Despite this week’s federal approval of the mill, and the talks over a Tassie forests peace deal, Gunns is by no means out of the woods. A long, painful process of rebuilding trust with former enemies is only beginning.

.

Gunns was once a corporate powerhouse. A series of acquisitions in 2000-01 turned it into Australia’s largest export woodchipper, and No. 1 target for the environment movement.

..’A bulked-up Gunns put the pedal to the metal. This was logging on an industrial scale. Between 2000 and 2006, working with Forestry Tasmania, Gunns clear-felled 110,966 hectares of native forest, 90 per cent of the timber being used for woodchipping and 58% of the land making way for timber plantations.

“Gunns got unlimited amounts of other people’s money and went on a clearing binge,” says Marr.

The forest was clear-felled and waste burnt off using napalm-like incendiaries. Gunns used 1080 poison bait to protect seedlings, inflicting gruesome death on untold native animals and risking the health of forest workers.

.

Whether from strength or desperation, Gunns launched its ill-fated suit. The company’s shares hit their all-time peak a month later, at $4.38, and began to slide downwards.  The story of the Gunns 20 suit, which dragged on until last year and was ultimately settled at a cost to the company of $2.8 million – including $1.3 million paid to the Wilderness Society – has been well told. Perhaps less well understood is the international backlash the case triggered.

The decision in 2008 by the new ANZ chief, Mike Smith, to refuse finance for the pulp mill, quickly followed by the other big banks, was unprecedented in this country and followed a strong online petition campaign by the Wilderness Society and the online activist group GetUp!After a decade’s lobbying, Japanese paper-makers decided in February last year not to accept Gunns wood unless it was Forest Stewardship Council- controlled.

.

Shares in Gunns are off their lows but the company’s future remains uncertain. Bob Brown says if Gunns ”doesn’t survive – and I hope it does – it will be nobody’s fault except the board’s”.

.

[Source:  ‘Green movement outguns Gunns, by Paddy Manning, Sydney Morning Herald, News Review, p 6,

 

http://www.watoday.com.au/national/green-movement-outguns-gunns-20110311-1br8m.html]

---

.

References

.

[1] ‘Contentious pulp mill wins federal approval’, by Andrew Darby and Dylan Welch, 20110311, Sydney Morning Herald,  http://www.smh.com.au/environment/contentious-pulp-mill-wins-federal-approval-20110310-1bpt4.html]

.
[2] ‘Gunns’ proposed pulp mill’, The Wilderness Society, 20110310, http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/gunns-pulp-mill
.

[3] Greens v Greens on Gunns pulp mill, by Matthew Denholm and Matthew Franklin, The Australian, 20110304, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-v-greens-on-gunns-pulp-mill/story-fn59niix-1226015622300

.

[4] http://www.finnewsnetwork.com.au/archives/finance_news_network17216.html

.

[5] Photo: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/10/3160890.htm

.

[6] http://www.watoday.com.au/national/green-movement-outguns-gunns-20110311-1br8m.html

– end of article –

Why did Gunns abandon its respected local north coast hardware business to greedily exploit Tasmania’s irreplaceable natural forests?

Gunns board’s single decision sought to selfishly exploit Tasmania to its core and will go down in Tasmania’s history as the worst for all participants and for all Tasmania and Tasmanians.  Gunns only divided a community that traditionally has sought subsistence from its valuable natural asset…because Gunns was greedy, not responsible, not acccountable to Tasmania or Tasmanians!  Now the Board says its proposed Bell Bay Pulp Mill in the Tamar Valley “is critical to any strategy for achieving a modern Tasmanian forest industry.”  [Gunns media release 25-November 2010].  High values forestry is not about woodchips to Asia.  How does woodchip commonity distinguish the Tasmanian export product?  Small selected timber for custom crafted timber furnitur, but this is not an industrial scale business model.

If Gunn’s has access to $2.5 billion to build a destructive and unwanted pulp mill, think of the lost opportunities of that $2.5 billion to other investment projects that could instead make a genuine difference to Tasmanians and their Island State.

“Even if Gunns gets its pulp mill, we will stop them selling their pulp by uthe same method we stopped them selling their woodchips. We will badger the buyers and embargo goods all the way down the product line. After a while no one will touch it.”

[Source: ‘Rod’, a valued contributor to Tasmanian Times, 5th December 2010, http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/greens-warn.-gunns-threatens.-premier-promises/]

Peter Cundall AM, a horticulturalist and television personality in Australia.

He currently lives in Tasmania’s Tamar Valley,and is prepared to defend important habitat to the point of being arrested.

Hale Peter Cundall!

Possibly the last Tasmanian Tigers [Thylacinus cynocephalus]

in Hobart Zoo 1928.

http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine

.

Any species (carnivorous or herbivorous) that was perceived as an obstruction to man’s so called “progress” was killed through either direct assault by shooting, trapping and laying poisoned baits, or by simply obliterating its habitat.

The thylacine is a classic victim of greed, false notions, irrational opposition toward native wildlife and apathetic attitudes. Thousands of these magnificent animals were killed by Tasmania’s farming community in a misguided attempt to protect alien livestock such as sheep that didn’t belong on the island in the first place.

When compared to other factors, it is unlikely that many domestic animals were actually taken by thylacines. For example, historical records show that the majority of sheep losses were in reality attributable to thieves and predation by feral domestic dogs. Indeed, loss of stock due to thylacines was probably never substantial enough to be economically significant.

In the case of Tasmania, it was unfortunately the thylacine which became the settlers’ target of blame for agricultural troubles. As has so often been the case, a wild, misunderstood species was accused of “getting in the way of development”.

Presented on the Natural Worlds website “is a gallery of twelve historical photographs which date from the late 18th to early 19th centuries. They are a poignant visual record of one of man’s most hurtful actions toward his marsupial cousins. The scenes depicted in this gallery are highly unpleasant, but they should not be forgotten.

Adult Thylacine with young

© Australian Museum

http://australianmuseum.net.au/image/Adult-Thylacine-with-young/

.

The persecution of the Thylacine is not just a terrible blight on Australian history, but indeed, that of the world at large. Like all species, this animal is a part of the natural heritage of the planet as a whole – the product of millions of years of evolution. Places which still retain populations of other endangered species would be well advised not to let a similar tragedy befall them.” [Source: C. Campbell’s Natural Worlds 2006, www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine]

.

---

.

‘Kumanjayi Tiger’

.

Aboriginal Australians hold a cultural taboo against seeing images of the deceased.

Central Australian Aboriginal peoples have traditionally used the term “Kumanjayi” to precede the name of a deceased person.

Did Australian Aboriginal peoples ever force the extinction of a species? Probably not. So the British word ‘extinction’ may probably not have an equivalent term amongst the Australian Aboriginal languages making up over 400 distinct nations that existed across Australia before the 1788 Australian Invasion.

Colonial Australians, dominated by the British, have forced the extinction of many species endemic to Australia, notably and distressingly, the Tasmanian Tiger. Cameron Campbell on his website www.naturalworlds.org provides a rare collection of historical images of the now extinct Tasmanian Tiger. This extinction is one of the most avoidable in history and so or the more tragic and condemning of colonial Australia’s culture. Campbell’s images and old videos convey a magnificently healthy top order predator fine-tuned through eons of Darwinian evolution to survive and thrive in Tasmania’s harsh wild country.

But colonist culture of the time treated the tiger misguidedly like vermin and so in primitive eyes despised it, hunted it, skinned it and ultimately exterminated it from the planet.

Australia is a unique and special island-continent and out of respect for our country, we should start respecting its natural values and embrace its traditional cultures. All of Australia’s natural fauna and flora are endemic: that is, they exist nowhere else on the planet. So how can we as supreme custodians chose to neglect, exploit and destroy this privileged closenessto such uniqueness?

With our knowledge of the existence values and of the human threats to native species, we must stop in our tracks to save the remaining species and their habitat before they are gone.

This website respects the prominence of local Aboriginal rites and advocates a name change of the Tasmanian Tiger to ‘Kumanjayi Tiger’. Should we be able to see images of it without feeling a strong sense of cultural taboo by actively persecuted to extinction? The tiger lives on now only in myth as Australia’s own proud, vibrant, healthy and uniquely Australian top order species.

If any man admires his dog, this was a magnificently wild native dog like no other.

That we killed it to extinction is an abomination.

.

© The Habitat Advocate    Public Domain

 

 

(This article was first compiled back on 20100316.  The video by Brent Melton ‘Tarkine: Saving the Last of Gondwana‘ highlights issues and threats that remain highly prevalent):

.

Tarkine Wilderness

(Photo by Des Houghton)

.

The Tarkine in north-west Tasmania contains Australia’s largest tract of temperate rainforest, and is home to more than 60 species of rare, threatened and endangered species.These include such unique animals as the Giant Freshwater Lobster – the world’s largest freshwater crustacean, and the Tasmanian Wedge Tailed Eagle – Australia’s largest Eagle, and the famous Tasmanian Devil.

However, the Tasmanian Labor Government has plans to construct a new tourist road through over 5 kilometres pristine rainforest for tourism development. The Greens want the Tarkine made a national park or world heritage wilderness area..

On 16-Mar-2010 Director Brent Melton released the free webcast video ‘Tarkine: Saving the Last of Gondwana‘ :

.

Video Source:  ^http://photopia.me/index.php/client-downloads/cat_view/15-downloads.html

.

---

.

‘Tarkine Emergency National Heritage Listing’

.

[Source:   Tarkine National Coalition:    ^http://www.tarkine.org/]

.

‘Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, has used emergency provisions under national environment law to include the Tarkine in the National Heritage List. This is a significant milestone in the campaign to protect the Tarkine, and now ensures that the Tarkine Road and any future developments will now have to be assessed against the National Heritage Listing. The boundary of the 447,000 hectare listing follows the boundary for the proposed Tarkine National Park. The fight goes on. The Tarkine Road still is not defeated, and the long term aim of a Tarkine National Park and World Heritage Area will require us to continue the campaign to ensure protection of this special place.’

.

---

.

‘Tarkine Road referred to Commonwealth’

.

‘The $23million Forestry Tasmania Tarkine Road has been referred to the Commonwealth for Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act assessment. This project will intorduce the fatal Devil facial tumor disease to this last refuge of isolated healthy Tasmanian devils.The project is critically non-compliant, and is clearly unacceptable.’

‘Forestry Tasmania’s “Tarkine Drive”- A proposal to bulldoze a new road through the heart of the Tarkine rainforest.’

.

---

.

‘Tasmanian Government Lodges its Tarkine Road Project with the Commonwealth’

.

The Tasmanian Government has lodged the Tarkine Road project with the Commonwealth for Assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

“Impact on the Tasmanian devil is considered to be potentially significant for the following reasons:

1. There is considerable potential for increased roadkill rates following completion of the road.
2. Animals with large movement ranges, low reproductive rates and low natural densities (such as devils) tend to be negatively affected by roads and traffic (Fahrig and Rytwinski 2009).
3. The increase in Arthur River crossing sites may lead to the spread of DFTD into new areas south of the Arthur River. “

– Excerpt from the Tasmanian Government’s Tarkine Road EPBC referral lodged 28 October 2009.

.

‘The public comment period has now closed.’

‘The Tasmanian government’s logging agency, Forestry Tasmania, has recently produced a proposal to carve a road right through the pristine rainforest in the heart of the Tarkine.’

‘The proposed road is clearly destructive from an environmental point of view – as, in its current form, it would involve bulldozing over twenty kilometres of new road into remote, virgin rainforest. It would also dramatically increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire, invasion from weeds and feral species, along with exacerbating myrtle wilt disease in the heart of the Tarkine Rainforest.’

‘It will also compromise the last wild refuge of disease free Tasmanian devils – a move described by scientists as condemning the Devil to exctintion in the wild. Even the government’s own report aknowledges that the road will likely introduce the facial tumor disease into this isolated healthy population.’

‘The proposal also diverts $23 million of the Tasmanian government’s money away from a strategic tourism plan for the Tarkine region towards this road proposal. The road will aim to ‘capture’ all of the tourists visiting the Tarkine region, divert them away from ugly logging operations, and direct them on a sanitised Forestry Tasmania controlled drive channelling visitors to Forestry Tasmania’s failing ‘Dismal swamp’ visitor centre. In doing so, – this road proposal would involve bulldozing several sections of road through pristine rainforest, including in globally significant rainforest reserves in the heart of the Tarkine.’

‘It is critically important that a strategic rather than piecemeal approach to public investment in the Tarkine is taken. It is also critically important that government puts public money towards infrastructure and projects that don’t harm the environment, are good value for money, and deliver benefits to the broader community. The Tarkine already has hundreds of kilometres of sealed and unsealed roads, extensive infrastructure, and extensive accessibility for tourists to world-class natural attractions. It already has several accessible and popular ‘loop’ roads showcasing its extraordinary values. However, it doesn’t have the basic signage, promotion, visitor entry points and other basic tourist infrastructure needed to really help put the region on the map.’

‘When weighed up against the dozens of exciting projects in the Tarkine region that could and should be funded – along with the desperate need for development of the most basic infrastructure such as visitor signs and entry points to the Tarkine – this would be a very poor way for government to spend taxpayers’ dollars.’

Reference Documents

Originally available at the Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts:  http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=5169

.

---

.

‘Tasmanian Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources  – Proposed Tarkine Tourist Drive’

.

Source:  Tasmanian Department of Infrastructure Energy and Resources, Originally available at: ^http://dierp.dot.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/45404/DIER_Tarkine_Tourist_Drive_Overview.pdf

.

[Read Tarkine Road Proposal]

.

---

.

‘Tarkine road plan sparks tourism row’

.

[Source:    ABC Northern Tasmania, 20090524,  ^http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/24/2579226.htm?site=northtas]

.

A Tarkine wilderness lobby group has called for reform of Forestry Tasmania and questioned the agency’s role in running tourism ventures.

Concerns about the State Government’s plan to build a $23 million tourist road through the Tarkine, in the north-west, were raised at a forum in Wynyard yesterday.

The project is expected to create 600 jobs and inject $70 million a year into the north-west economy.

But there is concern the project could impact on the Tasmanian devil and jeopardise tourism by tarnishing the Tarkine’s wilderness brand.

The Tarkine National Coalition’s spokesman Phil Pullinger says some of the $23 million should be going to local tourism ventures rather than Forestry Tasmania to build the road.

“We’ve got these tourism operators that are completely having to sink or swim on their own merits and we’ve got a government agency, which is supposed to be returning money to the taxpayer, swallowing up all of the public money,” he said.

“That is a real problem and that is what we need clear reform on.”

Forestry Tasmania’s Ken Jeffreys says it would not gain from building the road.

“Forestry Tasmania will not make a brass razoo out of this $23 million Tarkine drive, in fact it will lose access to some 650 hectares of forest that would otherwise be available for harvesting, so this is really a community service by Forestry Tasmania,” he said.

Both Opposition parties are urging the government to drop the plan.

The Greens want the Tarkine made a national park or world heritage wilderness area.’

.

---

.

 

.

‘The Federal Government last night confirmed that it had still not received any referral for the proposed Tarkine Road from Forestry Tasmania or the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources.

Greens Deputy Leader, Christine Milne says the delayed referral shows the Bartlett government is worried that a tick from the Environment Minister will be felt in poling booths at the upcoming state elections.

“It seems that Premier Bartlett is keen to delay the referral so that consideration is squashed into the Christmas, New Year holiday season in the hope that people are so distracted that they will miss the 10 day period for public consultation.”

Senator Milne called on the federal environment minister, Peter Garrett, to reject the road immediately upon receiving the application as he did with for the proposed coal port at Shoalwater Bay.

“The Tasmanian Devil is on the road to extinction and Premier Bartlett’s Tarkine vandalism will see the process accelerated. This is a test of Minister Garrett’s commitment to the protection of biodiversity and Australian species.”

“With Premier Bartlett speaking at the Press Club today he should explain to the nation’s journalist’s why he is intent on wasting $23m of tax payer’s money and risk sending the Tasmanian Devil further along the road to extinction all to support a logging industry extravaganza. Hardly clean and green Mr Bartlett.”

.