To all but the exploitation deniers, the demise of industrial logger Gunns this week was a fait accompli about a case of insular management obstinately pursuing an unsustainable business model.
Gunns plans for industrial deforestation have deservedly been condemned to civilised obsolescence like the Atlantic Slave Trade and the Fur Trade before it.
The industrial culture of taming Nature as if Man needed to compete
.
Gunns employees, contractors, suppliers, investors and lenders have all been in denial – ‘market denial‘ – a story of “corporate arrogance, complacency, denial and hubris“.
And the Tasmanian and Australian parliaments have been equally negligent in delaying the implementation of their 2011 ^TasmanianForestsIntergovernmentalAgreement to transition Tasmanians out of this dying native timber industry, as well as shunning their broader social responsibilities to dependent communities.
Gunns Pulp Mill Site
Tamar Valley, Tasmania
(an ideal job for Planet Ark to make amends)
.
They have allowed the problem to fester and to escalate. So now the inevitable crash has been all the more severe for all involved. This is a classic failure of leadership and of a parochial culture locked in 20th Century exploitism and despondently lost trying to find sustainable profit in a more complex and very different 21st Century.
A puppet passing the buck
Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings tactically softens the crash: “this does not mean that the pulp mill project itself is dead”
(famous last words in Tasmania’s Parliament, last Tuesday)
[Source: ‘Giddings: Gunns ‘not the end’ of pulp mill project’, 20120925,
^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-25/giddings-not-the-end-of-pulp-mill-project/4279564]
.
‘The story of Gunns is a parable of corporate hubris. You can, as they did, corrupt the polity, cow the media, poison public life and seek to persecute those who disagree with you. You can rape the land, exterminate protected species, exploit your workers and you can even poison your neighbours. But the naked pursuit of greed at all costs will in the end destroy your public legitimacy and thus ensure your doom. Gunns was a rogue corporation and its death was a chronicle long ago foretold. The sadness is in the legacy they leave to Tasmania—the immense damage to its people, its wildlands, and its economy.’
Ta Ann Tasmania now remains the major driver of logging operations that continue to destroy large areas of old growth and high conservation value forests in Tasmania. Ta Ann Holdings is a Malaysian-based multinational logging and timber products company.
The Ta Ann Group has a track record of rainforest destruction and human rights violations in the Malaysian state of Sarawak.
The Ta Ann Group’s operations began in 1985 when a subsidiary was granted a 257,604 acre concession to extract timber in the Kapit District, in the Malaysian state of Sarawak. In recent years the conglomerate has grown substantially to be among the top five timber groups in Sarawak. The Ta Ann Group includes many subsidiaries and is worth around $US1.6billion.
The principal activities of the Ta Ann Group are in oil palm, timber concession licenses, trading logs, and manufacturing as well as the sale of sawn timber and plywood products. Japan and Europe are the main markets for structural plywood and floor base boards produced by the company.
In January 2006, Ta Ann was welcomed to Australia’s island state of Tasmania with a golden political handshake and they have since established forestry operations to sell Tasmanian wood products to customers in Japan, China and Europe.
Ta Ann’s decision to commence operations in Tasmania was likely driven by two core objectives: they were offered hardwood by the state-owned forestry company, Forestry Tasmania, at lower rates than they could access in Malaysia or Indonesia and they needed Tasmania’s ‘clean, green’ brand to access an increasingly environmentally concerned and lucrative international market.
Ta Ann received timber from Old Growth Coupe HA045E
.
Ta Ann Tasmania has rejected timber from plantations, staked its future on continued access to timber from native forests and has actively lobbied to stall an industry-wide transition to plantation harvesting. Ta Ann has received timber from the destruction of Tasmania’s world class forests, including timber from old growth forests, forests with recognised World Heritage values, threatened species habitat and other forests that are of high conservation value.
Malaysian-owned Ta Ann does not process old growth but accepts wood from forest coupes where some old growth, or forest regarded by green groups as of high conservation value, may be harvested. This has led conservation groups to attack Ta Ann’s two Tasmanian mills as the main “driver” of the destruction of many of Tasmania’s oldest and most environmentally significant forests.
Huon Valley Environment Centre (HVEC) and Markets for Change have pursued their advocacy campaign for the protection of high conservation value forests and a rapid transition out of native forests in Tasmania. This has included actually travelling to Japan to Ta Ann’s Japanese markets. They have exposed Ta Ann’s false claims of using only plantation timber. They have exposed Ta Ann’s sourcing of timber from high conservation value forests, accused Ta Ann of lying to their Japanese markets about timber certification, and directly lobbied Ta Ann’s Japanese customers to tear up their contracts with Ta Ann and instead seek timber supply that meets high environmental standards, that which the current industry in Tasmania does not meet.
‘Ta Ann’s veneer of truth‘
[Source: Huon Valley Environment Centre]
.
So when it was discovered this week that The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) on 20th August 2012 had unilaterally written a letter to the Japanese customers to ask these customers to continue to purchase timber from Ta Ann Tasmania, naturally HVEC and Markets for Change were appalled. The letter by ACF’s Don Henry and TWS Inc.’s Lyndon Schneiders requests the Japanese customers to continue to purchase the contentious wood supply that Ta Ann Tasmania is supplying.
TWS and ACF are accused of selling out Tasmania’s native forests by secretly undermining the market campaigns of fellow conservationists in Japan and Australia. TWS and ACF are accused of “treachery” and “betrayal”.
.
Markets for Change and the Huon Valley Environment Centre yesterday expressed shock and dismay at the letter, accusing ACF and TWS of secretly undermining their campaigns, which had been blamed for some cancelled contracts.
“This is an act of treachery to the forests,” Markets for Change campaigner and former Tasmanian Greens leader Peg Putt told The Australian. “TWS and ACF never had the decency to inform us that they had done this.”
Huon Valley Environment Centre campaigner Jenny Weber said the letter, sent to Ta Ann customers on August 20, seriously undermined campaigning in Japan against the veneer maker.
“It’s unprecedented that TWS and ACF are prepared to support the forest industry and undermine not only our own campaign but that of Japanese campaigners,” Ms Weber said.
“We have felt that these organisations have worked against us in the Japanese markets, and worse still they have supported a forestry industry that is not yet sustainable, committed to a transition out of native forests, and continues to log world heritage value and high conservation value forests. A forestry industry where the biggest timber company is a Malaysian logging company with a record of displacing indigenous people and environmental desecration in their home state of Sarawak.
The letter states; “As a buyer of Tasmania forests products we continue to respectfully request that you not make any decisions that could adversely affect Tasmanian suppliers during the current negotiations that are now closer to achieving a sustainable future for the forest industries in Tasmania. Far from giving peace a chance, the letters have reduced pressure for the forestry industry to come to an agreement. There is still no final forest agreement in Tasmania and the outlook is bleak as forestry industry representatives have now suspended their participation in the talks,” Ms Weber continued.
“At best the ACF TWS letters are grossly misguided, at worst they are a capitulation to industry. In either case these peak bodies have shown they are willing to support the forestry industry and deliberately undermine our campaign in secret. They have endorsed the ongoing logging of high conservation value forests for Ta Ann and their Japanese customers by making this communication with the markets.”
“This is not a time for these environment groups to lose their way and become the green tick for an unsustainable native forest logging industry in Tasmania. This is one step too far for these groups who have been waylaid by a long drawn out process that has not delivered any conservation gains and these conservation groups are endorsing the very company that contributes to the devastation of the forests for which they are trying to secure protection,” Ms Weber concluded.
“This act is undermining the chances of achieving protection of magnificent forests in Tasmania, and also the campaigns of Tasmanian, Australian and Japanese groups who have been participating in a successful markets campaign for the past twelve months”, said Peg Putt of Markets for Change.
“We have consistently asked companies receiving Ta Ann product to call for an immediate stop to logging the conservation claim in Tasmania whilst negotiations over the future protection of these forests take place, and to refuse to take wood product coming from inside this area.
“The ACF and TWS letters are clearly designed to counteract this campaign and to appease the forest industry. They repeatedly express concern for “a sustainable future for the forest industries in Tasmania”, but not for the fate of the magnificent forests under the chainsaw. We do not believe that their members and supporters are aware of or would condone their actions” Ms Putt said.
“The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and The Wilderness Society Inc. (TWS Inc) have sent false confidence to the Japanese customers of Ta Ann. This miscommunication in the markets will increase uncertainty. The fact remains that Ta Ann is shipping high conservation value forests to Japan, and these environment groups have endorsed this controversial product in the international market,” said Jenny Weber of the Huon Valley Environment Centre.
No organisation is so big that it cannot fail. It is recent logging industry appeasement that since last month has seen Planet Ark lose its environmental credibility with many.
Planet Ark was formed in 1992 and is well known for having established ‘National Tree Day’ across Australia – ‘Australia’s largest community nature event’. Planet Ark claims to be “an environmental organisation committed to encouraging positive behaviour change… We guard our independence and reputation fiercely.” ~ Planet Ark.
Yet just last month (August 2012) Sydney-based environmental not-for-profit organisation, Planet Ark, has been found out allowing its Planet Ark logo to be used on advertisements for timber, paid for by Forest and Wood Products Australia (FWPA). It is part of a sponsorship deal in which Planet Ark gets $700,000 from the timber industry. The deal involves Planet Ark’s public endorsement in the ‘Make It Wood’ advertising campaign which promotes the increased use of certified, responsibly sourced wood as a building material, along with the organisation’s decision to join the timber industry’s certification system for wood products, called the Australian Forestry Standard (AFS).
Yet the AFS Scheme has been found to have allowed timber to be sourced from high conservation value native forests. A timber company ticked off by the AFS was last year fined for illegal logging. AFS board member, the Victorian Government’s industrial logger, VicForests, was fined more than $200,000 by the Victorian Government’s Department of Sustainability and Environment for logging over allocation. ViCforests has also lost a Supreme Court case for planning to log threatened species habitat in East Gippsland and is being taken to court this year over alleged rainforest logging.
Australian environmental groups claim that the AFS Scheme is dodgy and approves “the most appalling logging practices like we see in Indonesia and Malaysia. AFS is endorsed by the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), which has also been condemned globally for endorsing the certification of forest operations that destroy biodiversity, revoke human and community rights, and fail to undertake adequate engagement with key stakeholders.”
Reflex (copy paper) lost its Forestry Standard Certification by using native forest timber supplied by VicForests, yet retains AFS certification. The Tasmanian Government’s industroial logger, Forestry Tasmania, had its AFS certification renewed in July 2012, despite its ongoing clearfelling of high conservation forests and scorched earth practices that permanently destroy forest ecology and replace it with plantation timber, which it then calls ‘sustainable timber’.
So Planet Ark is not in good company. Planet Ark’s endorsement of AFS would seem to be contrary to Planet Ark’s key objective – ‘to protect and enhance the natural environment‘. It would be interesting to learn how FWPA answered Pkanet Ark’s Prospective Partners Questionnaire question #6:
.
‘What is the environmental advantage and rationale/justification for this partnership?‘
.
Conservationists have accused Planet Ark of having gone over to the ‘darkside’.
Sarah Rees from My Environment has said, “What in effect Planet Ark is doing today is endorsing logging in the Styx Valley (South West Tasmania). This is a very confusing message for consumers, given Planet Ark has such an important role to play in advising people on best brands and good wood.”
Greens Leader Christine Milne agrees. “What Planet Ark has done is they have undermined the rest of the environment movement by effectively trying to give some green wash to the native forest logging industry,” she said. “The AFS has no credibility at all. It was only dreamt up in response to the FSC standard and Australia couldn’t meet that standard. Next thing we knew we had this dodgy standard which no-one has any respect for.”
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon says Planet Ark’s deal with the timber industry is a conflict of interest. “There could be a perception that who pays the piper calls the tune. And when you’re getting $700,000 in donations from the industry and part of the review of the forest standard, then it raises some serious questions of a potential conflict of interest,” he said.
“The AFS scheme concerns many environmentalists. Clear felling, environmental destruction, death of native forests,” said environmentalist Jon Dee who helped found Planet Ark twenty years ago. “We believe this campaign, tied up with the forest industry, is one step too far.”
Joint founding member, Australia’s tennis great, Pat Cash, issued a statement to ABC TV’s 7.30 programme stated:
“The deal with the forest industry and the controversy around the Peter Maddison TV advert has eroded Planet Ark’s credibility as an environmental organisation. The Planet Ark board and management team should be held accountable for this decision to work with the forest industry…Planet Ark needs to return to the values that once made it such a great organisation and withdraw from their association with the AFS and the FWPA.”
The Director of environment group My Environment, Sarah Rees, says these are confronting issues for big NGOs who traditionally don’t come out against each other. “Discussions with Planet Ark with organisations including the Wilderness Society and Greenpeace over 14 months have failed to get Planet Ark to amend its attitude to the issues of clear-fell logging.
.
“Planet Ark has dug its heels in with its message that all wood is good wood and this is just not right. The role of the environmental organisations is to ethically educate the public on forestry issues but Planet Ark has muddied that message.”
The Australian Forestry Standard provides certification for logging in extensive areas of native forests across Australia, and for wood products arising from such logging.
Watch the new promotional video ‘The Facts’ right now to see what sort of assurance the standard provides to retail customers and the Australian consumer about the forest and wood products they are purchasing.
This article was initially posted by Tigerquoll 20120202 as a comment on the Tasmanian Times newspaper to an article entitled ‘Gunns’ Pulp Mill lifeline extended – community will protest‘ by Anne Layton-Bennett, Friends of The Tamar Valley (20120201).
.
The ANZ Bank publicly claims it has adopted the Equator Principles of the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC).
These are ‘voluntary standards designed by the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) to help banks identify and manage social and environmental risks associated with the direct financing of large projects‘ – i.e. Natural Resource projects like Gunns Pulp Mill.
“ANZ has voluntarily committed to fund only new projects that can be developed and operated according to sound social and environmental standards.”
~ ANZ website
ANZ Bank’s new brand represents a bank “for the people”
For the people or for its executives?
.
As at 1 Jan 2012, the IFC’s Equator Principles Performance Standard 3 ‘Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention” states that its aim is
To avoid or minimize adverse impacts on human health and the environment by avoiding or minimizing pollution from project activities.
To promote more sustainable use of resources, including energy and water.
To reduce project-related GHG emissions.
.
ANZ’s prominent project finance client, Gunns and its planned Tamar Valley Pulp Mill project seems set to fail each of these objectives in its airborne emissions and waste water. In September 2007, the ANZ was ranked the most sustainable bank globally by the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. So what is the ANZ Bank not telling the IFC?
A Gunns Woodchip Mill at Longreach, Tasmania
.
.
IFC’s Sustainability Framework – 2012 Edition:
Performance Standard 6: ‘Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources’
Clause 14: The client will not significantly convert or degrade natural habitats, unless all of the following are demonstrated:
No other viable alternatives within the region exist for development of the project on modified habitat;
Consultation has established the views of stakeholders, including Affected Communities, with respect to the extent of conversion and degradation;8 and
Any conversion or degradation is mitigated according to the mitigation hierarchy.
Clause 17: In areas of critical habitat, the client will not implement any project activities unless all of the following are demonstrated:
No other viable alternatives within the region exist for development of the project on modified or natural habitats that are not critical
The project does not lead to measurable adverse impacts on those biodiversity values for which the critical habitat was designated, and on the ecological processes supporting those biodiversity values
The project does not lead to a net reduction in the global and/or national/regional population13 of any Critically Endangered or Endangered species over a reasonable period of time;
A robust, appropriately designed, and long-term biodiversity monitoring and evaluation program is integrated into the client’s management program.
.
Back to ANZ’s website… ‘ANZ will comply with the Principles for all project finance proposals, regardless of their size, and apply the same Equator Principles standards to all projects in all countries.’ .
These people don’t think so..
Pulp Mill protest, Launceston Tasmania
A pulp mill for the people?
.
Grassroots community action group in Tasmania, Pulp the Mill Alliance, continues to oppose Gunns’ proposed Tamar Valley Pulp Mill for the following reasons:
Toxic effluent in Bass Strait
Threats to the livelihood and lifestyle of thousands of Tamar Valley residents
Fresh water usage
Possible future use of native forests
The draconian and undemocratic Section 11 of the Pulp Mill Assessment Act
Lack of an independent, transparent assessment of a “critically non-compliant” mill
Lack of public hearings and community consultation
A complete lack of integrity on Gunns’ part
.
The No Pulp Mill Alliance is undertaking a national campaign to warn the ANZ that if they renew their debt facility to Gunns Ltd then we will renew our national campaign targeting ANZ as the bank that is financing the corruptly approved, environmentally destructive, divisive, and financially risky Tamar Valley pulp mill.
‘We will be placing national advertisements, undertaking direct actions, sending letters/petitions, and anything else it takes to let ANZ know that we don’t want them to finance the Gunns’ Tamar Valley pulp mill.’
With Gunns’ share price at its lowest ever and a capital equity of only $82 million, Gunns Ltd is in serious financial trouble. It is selling everything to try and get its pulp mill built. In fact, the name Gunns Ltd could now be considered as synonymous with the Tamar Valley Pulp Mill.
Gunns has a net debt of $616 million, of which the primary financing facility – a $350 million senior debt facility – is maturing in January 2012. ANZ is the primary financing facility and thus is the Aussie Bank that keeps Gunns standing. Current site works taking place to prepare for construction of the proposed pulp mill are directly financed by the ANZ bank.
Gunns’ Chairman stated in his Annual General Meeting speech in November 2011 that Gunns Ltd is in discussion with ANZ to extend the debt with the: “objective of these discussions is to provide financing terms which facilitate the completion of the asset sale program and financial close of the Bell Bay pulp mill project.”
Gunns’ pulp mill site on the Tamar River, Tasmania
.
We demand that ANZ do not extend the debt facility for Gunns Ltd, and warn ANZ that if it does announce an extension of the debt facility, then our national campaign will result in letting its customers know worldwide that it is backing a polluting project that does not comply with the Equator Principles.’
The current ten banks committed to Gunns in a syndicated loan are gambling solely on the go ahead and profitability of the proposed Pulp Mill.
Whereas Gunns once had a reliable cash inflows stream from multiple revenue streams – plantation sales including interstate, sawmilling, and hardware earlier on, all non pulp mill assets are being treated as “non-core”.
This strategy has already shown to be poor by the fire sale desperation of these assets in order to maintain operating cash flow to remain solvent, while the myopic focus on the proposed $2.3 billion Bell Bay pulp mill drives the Gunns’ Board. Gunn’s revenue strategy is hedged on one big risky pulp mill – risky from the point of view of fickle international market demand and pulp commodity prices, mired by political controversy and considerable community opposition to the mill.
It’s equivalent to gambling all the $340 Million on the red to win on the roulette wheel.
These banks must be privy to some revenue guarantees and that is likely from ‘commercial in confidence’ assurances from the Tasmanian Labor Party. .
The following article is a selected summary of relevant information sourced from the Tasmania Times (TT) online newspaper from articles and reader comments (October 2011) concerning the revelation that Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings unnecessarily paid $34.5 million of taxpayers money to industrial logger Gunns as compensation for it exiting native forestry.
Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings (2011- )
What will be her legacy ~ accountable and faithful to the people of Tasmania?
.
The Charge:
.
Previously secret communications between Gunns and Forestry Tasmania, obtained by the Liberals under Right to Information laws, blows a massive hole in (Tasmanian Labor Premier) Lara Giddings’ claim that she had no option but to pay Gunns’ $34.5 million in compensation for exiting native forestry. (NOTE: The $34.5 million = 23m for Gunns residual rights and $11.5m to settle the dispute with FT.)
A letter, dated 18 April 2011, from Gunns Chairman Chris Newman, to Forestry Tasmania Chairman Adrian Kloeden, reveals that Gunns not only wrote to Forestry Tasmania to formally terminate their native wood supply contracts (917 and 918) in April this year, they also offered to terminate the contracts on a “full release and indemnity basis.”
In part, the letter reads: “Gunns therefore wishes to terminate CoS 917 and 918…To the extent that FT requires formal notice, please treat this letter as notice of termination under clauses 3.3(b)(i) of Cos917 and 3.3(b)(ii) of CoS918.
.
“While Gunns remains ready, willing and able to perform its contractual obligations under CoS 917 and 918 during the notice period, we consider than an immediate separation would be in the interests of Gunns, FT and the Tasmanian forestry industry generally…“I therefore propose CoS 917 and 918 be terminated on a full release and indemnity basis in respect of any and all outstanding issues.”
.
Mr Newman also offered to help Forestry Tasmania gain access into the (immoral and greedy) Chinese Woodchip Market, including introducing FT to Gunns’ customers and also offered to hand over roading infrastructure to the value of $200 million over to Forestry Tasmania.
Asian appetite for woodchips cares squat about the forest source, cares squat about the means.Tasmanians understand: Asian corporate culture is single bottom line: Personal ends justifying any eco-social means to maximise personal economic wealth!
.
.
A Tasmanian Case to Answer:
Tasmania’s traditional Coat of Arms‘Ubertas et Fidelitas’? …”fertility and faithfulness”
.
The significance of this letter cannot be under-estimated. Under the hand of Gunns’ chairman, Gunns voluntarily wrote to Forestry Tasmania to terminate its contracts ‘immediately’ on the 18th of April 2011 requesting an ‘immediate separation’ which clearly would have extinguished the Premier’s so-called “residual rights”.
This is supported by the advice of Forestry Tasmania Managing Director Bob Gordon In a subsequent Ministerial Brief dated 10 May 2011 from to Bryan Green, where Mr Gordon informs the Minister that this offer to terminate on a “full release and indemnity basis” from Gunns would “extinguish” the need to negotiate in good faith new terms of agreement for supply, the so-called “residual rights” that Ms Giddings has claimed as the reason for the $34.5 million in compensation.
.
Given this correspondence, it appears inconceivable that Lara Giddings could have been advised by the Solicitor-General that the Government was obliged to pay Gunns to extinguish the contracts. Ms Giddings now has no option but to release the Solicitor-General’s advice on the matter.
Tasmania’s Resources Minister has played down correspondence between Gunns and Forestry Tasmania, which the Opposition says raises questions about Gunns’ right to government compensation for pulling out of state forests. The Opposition obtained a letter between Gunns and FT under Freedom of Information Laws, which shows Gunns offered to terminate its contracts. Liberal spokesman Peter Gutwein says it contradicts the Premier’s argument, that she had no choice but to pay Gunns.
“The Premier now has no leg to stand on,” he said.
.
.
Community insights and informed analysis:
‘If all the above is genuine, and I can see no reason why it should not be, then the matter needs to be taken further. Much further. Lara and her “advisers” need to peruse all correspondence, memoranda and diary notes etc from Gunns in relation to their claim as to why there should be a payment to them by the taxpayers. Should there be a deliberate deception, or a deception by deliberate ommission that resulted in a serious financial advantage to Gunns then all avenues of recourse should be explored. If criminal charges are appropriate then so be it. It all would depend on the nature of the claims/submissions put forward by Gunns. There should also be cross referencing with any correspondence on the matter by Forest Tasmania. A formal investigation is surely warranted and the reason for the indecent haste in coughing up the taxpayer’s hard earned to Gunns and FT needs now to be justified.
Oh Lara. What a patsy you are. Your only contributions to the negotiations in this “complex” matter were to first publicly announce that “…we need Gunns..”, and secondly to publicly announce that you had $45 million in the “envelope” to resolve the “complex” matter. Brilliant. Just brilliant Lara.’ ~ Len Fulton (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
Woodchip stockpile – same colour as the chainsawed ancient Myrtle above
.
‘Very interesting documents. Regardless of whether you support the pulp mill or not there is something extremely fishy about this payment to gunns and all australian taxpayers should be screaming for the tabling for scrutiny of all documentation regarding the justification of this payment. Just on these produced documents and the fact that gunns had already closed down x no. of mills dismissed employees and placed triabunna on an approx. 8 week closure at the time the payment of compensation was dubious let alone some $34mil for the remaining life of the contract/s. This has a bad smell about it – now this previously “keep quiet” info is out Mr Gutwein what are you going to do about it?’ ~ Ian (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
.
‘Liberal complacence has helped foster the culture that has allowed our government to use excuses like “commercial in confidence” to not keep the public informed. So while Peter Gutwein is bouncing up and down on this issue, will he actually do anything, or remain as noticeable as a fly on the backside of an elephant? ~ Salamander (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
.
‘Very revealing letter. I’ve previously argued that, if required, the Government should be prepared to buy back Gunns timber rights. Now, it seems, there was no need to buy them back at all because they had already formally relinquished them. This sheds a very nasty light on the way the Government rushed to pay Gunns double the initial offer. It also brings up questions about the $25 million that FT were apparently owned and why the Government felt it necessary to settle this matter to “avoid expensive legal arguments”.
The expense argument always seemed spurious. When there’s $25 million in dispute, surely it’s worth thrashing the matter out in court? On the other hand, the trouble with courts is that all the facts are likely to come out. I bet the Greens are having some interesting discussions at the moment! On the one hand there’s nothing to be gained by pulling the pin on Lala, but on the other hand, how far can they afford to let their reputation be trashed before they’ll never be able to recover the ground lost?’ ~ Steve (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
‘So Mr Gutwein, what are you going to do about it?
Are you quite rightly going to demand the return of all the ill-gotten monies from Gunns Ltd and Forestry Tasmania? Are you also going to demand FT collects monies owed by Gunns Ltd to them? Are you going to demand all the IGA (Julia Gillard’s Intergoverment Agreement) monies be shared amongst everyone except these two companies as was intended?’ ~ Russell Langfield (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
.
‘This isn’t the first or the biggest apparent fraud Tasmania has seen – the land swap was far bigger and the pulp mill approval business was more blatant – but it’s still very unusual to see the LibLabs falling out on something like this. The Tas justice system was magnificent in snatching Bryan Green from disaster, but do they have they the moxie to save the government’s bacon here? I suspect that Tas Inc’s closets are too dank to support an explosion, but I hope I’m wrong.’
~ John Hayward (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
.
‘These damning documents show that the potential financial scam perpetrated upon the Australian and Tasmanian taxpayer is even worse than that stated by Peter Gutwein. Firstly, a further 10% GST has been added to the payments made to Gunns and FT increasing the amount paid in so-called settlement to $37.95M. On top of that, FT has effectively written off the $13.5M balance of the $25 million reputedly owed to it by Gunns under the ‘take or pay‘ provisions of its wood supply contracts bringing the total amount gifted by the taxpayer to at least $51.45 million.
Tasmanians must be told why, and on whose advice, was Gunns’ termination offer made on 18 April 2011 not accepted by FT and what part did the Premier and her Deputy play in this? What was the role of the Solicitor General and what were the circumstances that led to the Premier claiming the need for payment to extinguish Gunns’ “residual rights”?
What is the legal precedence and basis for the taxpayer settling a financial dispute between a private company and GBE over which the Minister has limited jurisdiction and no apparent financial control? The scale of this matter is beyond the scope of the feeble Integrity Commission and is so serious that it demands a full criminal investigation.
Finally, given that the release of this documentation has the potential to bring down the Government, the motives of the usually recalcitrant FT for being so forthcoming to the Shadow Minister for Forestry’s request are extremely suspect and demand that FT is put into administration pending the outcome of investigations.’ ~ PB (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
.
‘As per Chris Newman, Gunns ….“I will not recount Gunns’ various complaints of defective performance and non-performance by FT ….” Why? Not consistent with Gunns previously pretending the woodchip driven industry was sustainable let alone ‘worlds best practice’! Can the public see a copy of those complaints? Surely they are not all ‘commercial in confidence’.
“The reputation and marketability of Tasmanian native forest woodchip product is, and has always been directly affected by FT’s forestry management practices …” You forgot to add … and Gunns greedy easy street deal to woodchip bio diverse forests into oblivion. “FT was aware of the damage that its forestry practices were causing to the reputation of Tasmanian woodchip products …” Oh so FT’s forestry practices haven’t been a beautiful shining example afterall … I’m shocked at having been so deceived!! “Gunns therefore wishes to terminate CoS 917 and 918, noting our agreement that construction of the pulp mill did not commence by 30 November 2010.” You mean Gunns deliberately didn’t make a commencement of the mill to get out of the contract or used the companys own incompetence and failure to grab a government payout?
“Ünless a commercial resolution can be reached, I fear that these disputes will ultimately result in court proceedings.” Is that called holding the state to ransom … or bribery perhaps?
“I therefore propose that CoS 917 and 918 be terminated immediately on a full release and indemnity basis in respect of any and all outstanding issues.” So that’s what Gunns meant as per their ASX market update.
“3. Mutual release between the company and Forestry Tasmania from certain current and future claims arising out of those agreements.” “At the same time, FT will receive the benefit of a substantial infrastructure, worth in excess of $200 million, established by Gunns in anticipation of harvesting pulpwood from State Forests pursuant to CoS 917 and 918.” Is that where the touted $200 million figure for the so-called locking up of native forests originally came from? And you mean to say those native state forests being established, (albeit in reality little more than plantations) after wiping out the original diverse forests, weren’t actually being grown for future sawlogs, but indeed for nothing but pulpwood … thought so!
Bobby Gordon to embattled Bryan Green …. “It is unlikely the exchange of letters between Gunns and FT will become public.” … Why, something to hide perhaps? Obviously Labors Braddon office shredder mustn’t have been available.
“In the event that stakeholders become aware of the termination notice, Forestry Tasmania intends to release the following statement….” Is that called conspiring?
Let’s call it as it is, the $23 million for ‘residual rights’ and the Labor Gov gifting Gunns $11.5m to virtually pay itself via FT wasn’t to buy back HCV state native forests, it was hush money! Gunns are undoubtedly as successful as a trap door in a canoe. Gunns would be better off to start manufacturing butchers chopping blocks on wheels which they could pass around to their shareholders, directors, contractors, workers and political allies. Afterall, apparently they are attributing any future succusses on continuing to mobilize a self-serving carvery …
Citizens’ justice – doing away with privilege, the French way
[Source: http://www.toonpool.com/user/589/files/it_chops_383035.jpg]
.
Caught in an avalanche of their own making, Gunns have at least successfully pulped themselves …Gunns and Forestry Tasmania and indeed blokes like Bryan Green and the Tasmanian Labor Government have been treating the public like fools for far too long … just desserts is the same ridicule and contempt they have shown the state of Tasmania.’ ~ Claire Gilmour (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
.
‘Other than the pyrotechnic display contained in this letter there are other incendiary devices. Such as the Gunns Chairman admitting that “construction of the pulp mill did not commence by 30 November 2010” That’s very different from the findings of EPA director Schaap. There is also a clear accusation that FT abused its monopoly position in the Tasmanian pulp wood market.’ ~ Karl Stevens (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111003
.
‘Has Gutwein called the Federal Police? If not, why not?
His inference is that The Commonwealth, and the State of Tasmania has been defrauded and if so it is very difficult to see how the Premier and Prime Minister are not parties to the act. In the absense of that call to the police being made, Mr Gutwein is nothing but another useless mouth we are feeding for no discernable benefit. Time to piss, Peter, or get off the bloody pot.If you don’t, many of us will return to our default position which is that we are governed by a coalition of liblab with the greens used as a smoke screen.’
‘Your party’s voting record backs that view to the hilt.. On reflection I would go further: Either it is fraud and therefore conspiracy to commit fraud, or it is extortion. Either way, it has all the hallmarks of something the federal police should be investigating. Why the Feds? Aside from the obvious reason it is federal money involved. My bet is that Gutwein will do nothing substantial because the bottom line is the Libs are run by TasInc who want the mill built right or wrong by anyone because they can make a dollar out of it. They fund both wings of the liblab machine. Such is the nature of party representatives. They know what the voters want, but serve the party interests first because that is where their loyalty lies. You get what you vote for. That gaping hole in the mills risk profile has not and will not go away regardless of any of this. It just keeps getting larger.’ ~ Simon Warriner (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111004
.
‘Having also read all the FOI it is interesting to see that Gunns had already terminated the wood supply agreements and that after the 15th of October the agreements were finalised. Also the $200 million of roading and bridge assets that they told FT they would be giving them would have reverted to FT ownership after 45 days under the agreement anyway. It appears that the rush to give Gunns money was important because after the 25 th October there would have been no reason to pay them anything. The briefing docs to Bryan Green show that he was fully cognisant of the deal ending.’ ~ Pete Godfrey (a Tasmanian commenting to TT) 20111004
Federal taxpayers paid $34.5 million to Gunns to extinguish its rights to log Tasmania’s native forests without Canberra first seeking advice on whether the payment was legally required. Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke told The Weekend Australian he had not sought legal advice on whether the payments were necessary to extinguish Gunns’ contractual rights.
“I didn’t seek any advice on that,” Mr Burke said. “Legal advice on that was sought by the Tasmanian government.”
The state Liberals claim the payment was not legally required because Gunns had already voluntarily handed back the contracts to harvest 210,000 cubic metres of sawlogs each year. Tasmania’s Labor-Green government, which brokered the payment to Gunns, is refusing to release its own legal advice on the issue. However, Premier Lara Giddings insists the advice backs its stance that the payment was needed to remove Gunns’ “residual rights” over the vital contracts.
Their surrender was key to the protection of 430,000 hectares of forests under the $276 million federal-state forest peace deal signed by (Prime Minister) Julia Gillard in August (2011). However, Gunns had said it was leaving native forest logging regardless and documents obtained by the Liberals under state right-to-information laws show that on April 18 the company gave “formal . . . notice of termination” of the contracts.
Despite this, on September 15 deeds signed by the Tasmanian government granted $23 million in funds provided by Canberra to Gunns and a further $11.5 million—also federally sourced—to Forestry Tasmania. Mr Burke said yesterday the money had been provided to the Tasmanian government to “facilitate” the peace deal, also known as the Intergovernmental Agreement on Forests. Late yesterday, federal Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig and Tasmanian Deputy Premier Bryan Green announced an additional$45 million voluntary exit package for Tasmanian forestry contractors. “This package will assist eligible contractor businesses to exit the native forest harvest, haulage and silvicultural contracting sectors,” he said.
Meanwhile, Forestry Tasmania continues in earnest its wholesale massacre and incineration of Tasmanian Old Growth for woodchipping pittance
(Upper Florentine Forest old growth, photo taken 28th September 2011)
.
.
‘Minister dodging questions on Forestry handout. Mill buyers. Gunns quizzed’
The Tasmanian Greens today said the Forestry Minister Bryan Green has failed to explain to the Tasmanian people why he approved another $1.1 million in public funding to prop up the failing forestry industry. Greens Forestry spokesman Kim Booth said there’s no credibility to the Minister’s claim that the industry could afford the transportation costs to Triabunna, but somehow could not afford to go the remaining 146 kilometres to Bell Bay without receiving public subsidisation.
.
“If the woodchipping industry is so unviable that it cannot even afford to pay the cost of transporting logs 146 kilometres, it is about time that the Minister realised that the industry is just not viable,” Mr Booth said.
“The Minister must first justify then explain why he thinks woodchippers of native forests should be paid with public funds and should take priority at a time when other areas are having to do it tough by cutting services.”
“As for the question of the supposed ‘log jam,’ the question must be asked why Forestry Tasmania is causing these trees to be cut down if the operators cannot even afford to transport them to the point of sale?”
“Every other transport business in the state must survive on its own resources, and there’s no doubt that all the other struggling transport operators in Tasmania would love a handout. So why is the woodchipping industry treated so differently?”
“How many million dollars of public money will this Minister rob from the public purse and give to his industry darlings before he wakes up to the fact that public money if for public benefits like healthcare, not to prop up unviable private businesses.”
..The Tasmanian Government’s logo…’explore the possibilities’…at what cost?
A return to Tasmania’s traditional coat of arms would be very appropriate.
‘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]
‘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]
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?
…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:
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?);
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;
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;
$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
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’
‘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.”
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
“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:
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.”
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.
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.’
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.”
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.
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]
[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
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.
Road dozing into the spectacular forests of the Esperance, Southern Tasmania
This photo was taken in scheduled logging coupe EP011A last Friday.
[Source: ‘Treachery to the Forests – Secret Letters Exposed’, 20120925, ^http://taann.net/2012/09/25/treachery-to-the-forests-secret-letters-exposed/]
The industrial culture of taming Nature as if Man needed to compete
Gunns Pulp Mill Site
Tamar Valley, Tasmania
(an ideal job for Planet Ark to make amends)
A puppet passing the buck
Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings tactically softens the crash: “this does not mean that the pulp mill project itself is dead”
(famous last words in Tasmania’s Parliament, last Tuesday)
[Source: ‘Giddings: Gunns ‘not the end’ of pulp mill project’, 20120925,
^http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-25/giddings-not-the-end-of-pulp-mill-project/4279564]
Ta Ann received timber from Old Growth Coupe HA045E
Jenny Weber
‘Ta Ann’s veneer of truth‘
[Source: Huon Valley Environment Centre]
.
Markets for Change spokeswoman Peg Putt
speaks to the media outside Tasmania’s State Parliament 20120925
Photo by Loretta Johnson, The Examiner
[Source: The Examiner, Hobart, ^http://www.examiner.com.au/story/358861/green-groups-split-over-ta-ann-letter/?cs=95]
