The following article is sourced from ‘Missing peace in forest war’s coupe de grace‘ by Matthew Denholm, The Australian, 20111022,
^http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/missing-peace-in-forest-wars-coupe-de-grace/story-e6frg6z6-122617.

Forestry clearfell of old-growth in Tasmania’s Styx Valley

(Photo by Editor 20110928, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

 .

More than two months (on 7th August 2011) after the landmark deal that promised to bring peace to Tasmania’s forests the protests – and the logging – continue unabated.

Funding for the struggling timber industry under the landmark $276 million Gillard-Giddings deal is starting to trickle out, but as yet not one tree has been saved!

Conservationists concede they may end up with nothing to show for 18 months of torturous negotiations, while many in the industry are sceptical that the promised peace will ever be achieved. The key decisions – on how many and which forests will be saved – are bogged down in difficult detail and alleged recalcitrance.  Tasmania’s upper house, meanwhile, is lining up to sink the legislation needed to create the new national parks and reserves.

Environment Tasmania’s Phill Pullinger (right) with The Wilderness Society’s Vica Bayley

 .

A key conservationist and negotiator, Environment Tasmania director Phill Pullinger, concedes to Inquirer that events could conspire to see money flow to industry without one tree ever being saved.

“To be honest, it is a possibility,” says Pullinger, a Hobart doctor and former young Tasmanian of the year. “It has always been the case that the forest protection couldn’t be permanently delivered until the legislation goes through both houses of the Tasmanian parliament.”

.

That vote is a long way off, probably well into next year. The most immediate hurdle to overcome is a row over whether the state-owned Forestry Tasmania should be allowed to continue logging in 41 coupes (forest areas).  All are within 430,000ha of forests set aside for “immediate” interim protection in the Gillard-Giddings deal of August 7, known as the Forests Intergovernmental Agreement or IGA.

Forestry Tasmania insists it needs to log in these coupes, a fraction of the total area, to maintain existing contracts to timber mills. Conservationists argue Forestry Tasmania could and should reschedule logging to less ecologically significant forests.  The dispute was being sorted out by an independent rescheduling team appointed by state and federal governments. Inquirer has learned this process has gone badly for conservationists, with only seven of the 41 coupes able to be protected and five already logged. Forestry Tasmania and industry claim there simply is not time to do the rescheduling work – new roads, development of forest practices plans – necessary to shift to new areas quickly enough to meet existing timber contracts.

.

‘It is a fundamental problem that has weakened the (peace) process: you’ve got a government agency that is essentially working against the agreement. And the governments haven’t shown the stomach to pull the agency into line.’’

~ Phill Pullinger, Environment Tasmania, October 2011

Conservationists claim this should have been done months ago, given that Forestry Tasmania was asked by the state government – its owner –  to place a moratorium on logging in these forests in March.

“They (FT) have basically for 12 months now deliberately spun the wheels on that; there could easily have been a moratorium delivered six or nine months ago,” Pullinger says. “It is a fundamental problem that has weakened the (peace) process: you’ve got a government agency that is essentially working against the agreement. And the governments haven’t shown the stomach to pull the agency into line.”

Crew-cutting pristine Tasmanian wilderness

.

This is rare intemperate talk from Pullinger, normally diplomatic and restrained as he tries to keep his constituency in the peace tent and the process on track.

It’s a sign things are not going well.  Forestry Tasmania, a government business enterprise that reports to a board and is not necessary bound by ministerial direction, denies it has been dragging the chain. While it is the party with the most to lose – up to 572,000ha of native forest it manages for timber production – corporate relations manager Ken Jeffreys insists it is acting in good faith.

“Some people out there seem to think that FT has some maniacal glint in their eye and go out and harvest forests when it has no market because it has nothing better to do,” Jeffreys complains to Inquirer. “That is so far from common sense it’s hard to respond to.“

He insists Forestry Tasmania is happy to abide by the independent reschedulers’ verdict and points out that it has already rescheduled logging out of some contentious coupes.  This fight over a handful of coupes has been holding up plans under the IGA for an overall immediate interim conservation agreement between the state, Forestry Tasmania and Canberra to protect the 430,000ha. Under the IGA, this interim agreement would protect those forests while an independent verification team determines the final size and location of the new permanent reserves.

Ancient Myrtle Beech  (Nothofagus cunninghamii)

chainsawed in the Upper Florentine Valley, Tasmania

(Photo by Editor 20110928, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

.

IGA Independent Verification Team

.

The independent team, overseen by academic Jonathan West, will decide how much forest, of a larger 572,000ha nominated by green groups, is worthy of protection.  West’s team will also test industry claims about how much timber it requires to meet existing contracts. Then it must decide how much forest can be protected while providing this resource.  The job, which unrealistically is due to be completed by December 31, is the “forest wars” equivalent of deciding where exactly the boundaries of a Palestinian state should be drawn.

Conservation groups believe that most – if not all – of the 572,000ha can be protected, once a developing plantation resource is factored in.

.

Forestry Tasmania’s position

Forestry Tasmania chief,  Bob Gordon

– what IGA?  It’s logging business as usual to fill ‘orders’.

.

Forestry Tasmania stands by its modelling suggesting that no more than 300,000ha can be protected if it is to deliver on current timber contracts. Some in the industry believe only 250,000ha can be saved from the chainsaws.  Neither of the industry figures is unlikely to be enough for conservationists, but may well be too much for Tasmania’s independent-dominated upper house.  Several recent votes in the Legislative Council suggest it is opposed to the IGA and to more forest “lock-ups”.  Its refusal to pass the reserves would leave conservationists relying on a federal-state conservation agreement to protect those forests.

While such an agreement would ban logging, it is legally uncertain if Forestry Tasmania could ignore this on the basis that it conflicts with its legislative or contractual obligations.

Jeffreys insists Forestry Tasmania would abide by any final agreement, subject to being able to meet those commitments – a big out if Forestry Tasmania decided to dig in for a battle.

.

Tony Burke’s position:

.

Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke

in Tasmania’s Wielangta forest, March 2011

(Photo by Matthew Newton,  Source:  The Australian )
.

Despite the difficulties, federal Environment Minister Tony Burke remains confident he can pull off the kind of final “win-win” forest peace deal that has eluded so many of his predecessors.  He tells Inquirer the alternative is a kind of mutually assured destruction, whereby the forests continue to fall as fast as the jobs.

The number of jobs in Tasmanian forestry has halved since 2008 from 6960 to 3460, due mainly to Japanese paper-makers boycotting woodchips sourced from native forests, Gunns exiting the industry in favour of a plantation-based pulp mill and as a result of the high Australian dollar.

“If you let the markets sort this one out without a co-ordinated strategy from state and federal government … then you end up with a terrible outcome for the Tassie economy … diabolical,” Burke says.

Initially as Forests minister and more recently as Environment Minister, Burke has been involved in the process from the beginning.  The first in federal cabinet to twig to the potential to assist industry while securing a historic conservation outcome, he has repeatedly slipped quietly into Tasmania to do his own field work.

The former staffer to Graham Richardson has camped with greenies amid the giant eucalypts of the Styx Valley and toured sawmills and production forests.  When the process has looked as if it were imploding, he has intervened with all sides to keep it on track. Inspired to join the ALP by landmark conservation battles such as the Daintree and Kakadu, Burke constantly stresses his desire to also secure a good outcome for jobs and industry.

He believes the (Tasmanian)  Legislative Council will take a different view to new reserves when details are developed for a $120m federal regional development fund promised under the IGA.  That money, to revitalise timber communities and diversify the Tasmanian economy, is contingent upon state parliament passing the new reserves legislation. No reserves; no $120m.

Burke, himself a former state upper house MP (in NSW), believes this cash for regions will ultimately win over the key 12 independent MLCs.

“Those MPs will have to look in the eyes of a whole lot of their constituents who are out of work and justify their actions,” he says. “I just don’t believe when it comes to it they’ll vote this down.  This is the first time we have tried to deal with this issue with an independent process rather than a political fix. The irony this time is: can we stop politics from wrecking it, not from fixing it?”

He warns both sides will need to accept the outcome of the independent verification process. “They are honour-bound to accept the process – they created it,” he says.

This suggests Canberra will not be afraid to impose the verdict of the independent verification team if the two sides cannot embrace it – or at least an agreed variation of it. Such action may well see either side – timber or conservation – walk away.

Certainly, Pullinger won’t promise to accept the outcome if it is not embraced by both sides.

“If the independent verification group comes down and says … we are going to protect just a fraction of these forests … then – expert group or not – I don’t think anyone believes that is going to be able to deliver a lasting agreement.”

.

Editor: 

The IGA deal is a deal is a promise.   Why are Gillard and Giddings allowing Forestry Tasmania to renege on the deal by continuing to log these now protected native forests in Tasmania’s Styx Valley and southern forests.  Why are Gillard and Giddings breaking their promise to Tasmanians?

IGA interim reserves are IGA interim reserves?  The IGA offers millions in contractual compensation.  So take the compensation Bob Gordon!  You can’t have your compensation and interim reserves too!

Leave the bloody old growth alone!

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, 2011

– do I really have to honour that forest deal?

(Photo: The Examiner)

---

.

Evidence of new logging despite Tasmanian Forests Agreement

.

[Source: ‘Evidence of new logging despite Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement requires urgent government action‘, by the Australian Conservation Foundation, 20110922, ^http://www.thegreenpages.com.au/news/evidence-of-new-logging-despite-tasmanian-forests-intergovernmental-agreement-requires-urgent-government-action/]

.

Environment Tasmania, the Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation have released a report assessing the status of logging in important native forests and photographs that show new logging activity in forest reserves prescribed by the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).

“The settlement and retirement of Gunns’ native forest timber quotas has halved the demand for native forest timber from Forestry Tasmania, so there is no need or justification for logging within the forest reserve areas,” said Dr Phill Pullinger of Environment Tasmania.

“Wood supply for remaining sawmills can be provided from outside of the important native forests identified for protection,” Dr Pullinger said.

“Aerial photographs taken in late August and last week show Forestry Tasmania continues to log inside the 430,000 hectares of unique and important forests identified for immediate protection in the IGA,” said Vica Bayley of the Wilderness Society.

“In fact, our report and the new photos show Forestry Tasmania has not rescheduled logging outside this area and has even commenced logging new coupes since the IGA was signed.

“While we are encouraged to see progress on key components of the intergovernmental agreement — including the retirement of Gunns’ wood quota, funding for timber workers and contractors and the independent verification group — we have seen no progress on halting logging inside the nominated forest reserve areas,” Mr Bayley said.

“Environment groups again call on the state government to honour the agreement it has signed by directing Forestry Tasmania to declare the nominated forests as informal reserves and immediately appointing an independent expert to undertake the rescheduling,” said Denise Boyd of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

The report released today is part of environment group signatories’ ongoing commitment to implementing the IGA and will provide governments with verified, accurate information to help achieve the forest protection outcomes of the IGA. The state government must now ensure delivery of the critical plank of the IGA – forest protection.

 “We have seen no progress on halting logging inside the nominated forest reserve areas.”

~ Vica Bayley, The Wilderness Society

 

---

.

Forest protest continues in Mount Mueller Forest, Styx Valley (Tree Sit, Day 7)

.

Check out The ObserverTree protest website:

^http://observertree.org/

.

 

 

 

“The moment one definitely commits oneself, then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one’s favor all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance which no man could have dreamed would have come his way. Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.” 

~ attributed to Goethe.

Miranda – Defender of Tasmania’s Forest Heritage

at the foot of ‘The Observer Tree‘

Mount Mueller Forest, Styx Valley, Tasmania
.

One young Tasmanian woman, charged with a deep commitment to her natural island heritage, continues to be prepared to do more to protect Tasmanian old growth forests than most Tasmanians.  Miranda Gibson of Still Wild Still Threatened is certainly prepared to do more than the current (read ‘temporary‘) Premier of Tasmania Lara Giddings, and more than the current (read ‘temporary‘) Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, who have quickly turned their backs on Tasmanians to more populist party-political issues of the day.

.

Tasmania’s Forest Wars

– what the Intergovernmental Agreement is supposed to resolve.

 .

Gillard and Giddings in breach of Tasmania’s 2011 Forest Agreement

.

Tasmanians are condemning government delinquency on meeting the conservation goals contained in the Gillard Labor Government’s Forests Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) signed and promised to all Tasmanians in Launceston on 7th August 2011.

Giddings and Gillard

– hollow Labor promises

 .

IGA Clause 25 states:

.

‘The State will immediately place the 430,000 ha of native forest identified in Attachment A (other than any areas which are not State forest) from the 572,000 ha nominated by ENGOs through the Statement of Principles process, into Informal Reserves.’

.

IGA Clause 27 states:

.

‘In the event that Forestry Tasmania reports that it cannot meet contractual requirements from production resources outside the nominated 430,000 ha the Governments will undertake the following steps. First, an independent expert will be jointly appointed by the Governments to review scheduling and other relevant data and attempt to reschedule harvesting activities so as to meet the requirements of contracts and maintain the interim protection of 430,000 ha. In the event that the independent expert concludes it is impossible to achieve this, the Commonwealth will compensate the contract holder for the value of lost profits and unavoidable costs.’

.

Gillard’s fly-in to Launceston on 7th August 2011 to sign and celebrate the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement with Labor mate Giddings was not a mere plaque unveiling, it was a Tasmanian landmark agreement to provide certainty for Tasmania’s forestry industry, support local jobs and communities, and protect the state’s ancient forests.  It deserves the respect of commitment and follow through on promise.

On the one hand it has funded Forestry and its associated families hundreds of millions and with a dignified exit from logging and transition to alternate trades.  On the other hand Gillard’s Forest Agreement guarantees protection for Tasmania’s natural but threatened heritage – its most iconic ancient forests, immediately placing 430,000 hectares of iconic old growth native forest into informal reserve – the Styx, Upper Florentine, Huon, Picton and Weld Valleys and the Great Western Tiers, Tarkine and Wielangta.

.

Gillard’s promise made to the Australian people (Prime Minister Gillard’s official website):

.

‘These forests will not be accessed for harvest while verification takes place.‘.

Well, verification is still taking place.  And Bill Kelty, who brokered the deal, seems to have run to the hills.

Such a landmark State-wide agreement that promises a ‘strong foundation‘ is hollow if the leadership waddles off to be distracted  by other issue so the day, without the committed delegation of trusted lieutenants to see through on implementation.  Predecessor PM Kevin Rudd failed classically on the implementation phase of his policy – insulation being his and Garrett’s multi-million dollar incompetent legacy.

“The Australian and Tasmanian governments are taking too long to implement the intergovernmental agreement. If they can get their act together to offer contractors exit packages then they can honour the conservation agreement as well.” Greens Senator Bob Brown has said.  “Four months later not one hectare has been protected and Forestry Tasmania continues to fell these magnificent trees as fast as they can put the roads in. All up, more than 10km2 of our wild forests will be destroyed“, Greens Senator Brown said.

All political leaders, while dancing on mountains of power and influence, pragmatically realise that their time in office is temporary.  Status quo is not a characteristic of modern democratic politics.  What matters most in political careers is legacy.  Australia’s current Prime Minister Julia Gillard is starting to stare that legacy in the face as she allows Premier Lara Giddings to breaking the $276 million promise by backing Forestry Tasmania’s current logging of the 430,000 hectares of old growth forest protected under the Gillard Government’s Agreement.

.

Tasmanian Betrayal

.

Gillard and Giddings have allowed Forestry Tasmania to log the protected 430,000 hectares, ignoring the prescribed compensation requirement.  Gillard and Giddings have blatantly reneged on their core promise in the Agreement to cease logging and to protect these forests.  Gillard and Giddings have betrayed the Tasmanian and Australian people.  They have no mandate to stay in power.  Their broken promises are to be their legacies.

.

“Those who cannot work with their hearts achieve but a hollow, half-hearted success that breeds bitterness all around”  

~ Abdul Kalam, President of India (b.1931)

 

Styx Valley Giants being massacred by State logger ‘Forestry Tasmania’

.

Tasmania sells itself as ‘the natural state’. But there is a gap between rhetoric and reality as logging of old-growth forests continues – to international dismay.

“And they have these big logs, and you just know they are coming from old-growth forests…I don’t think I could take living there and seeing them every day knowing (the trees) are going mostly to woodchips.”  ~ Larraine Herrick or Tumbarumba, Snowy Mountains, New South Wales.

But the Styx has been, and (is continuing) to be, logged by the timber industry in a state in which questions have been repeatedly raised about whether cronyism, corruption and deception underlie the management of forests.  Only discovered in 2002, El Grande was a Eucalyptus regnans with a 19-metre circumference. Last autumn (2003), it was killed when a regeneration burn went wrong.  Its demise helped fuel a midwinter protest that drew more than 2000 people to the Styx Valley. There, The Wilderness Society and Greenpeace began a tree-sit, 65 metres up a threatened giant eucalypt called Gandalf Staff.

.

[Source: ‘Tasmania: seeing the wood but not the trees‘, by Melissa Fyfe and Andrew Darby, The Age Newspaper, 20040313, ^http://www.theage.com.au/news/science/tasmania-seeing-the-wood-but-not-the-trees/2004/03/13/1078594604573.html]

.

‘El Grande’

Australia’s largest tree burned to death in 2003 by Forestry Tasmania’s incompetence

.

 

Tasmanian forests activist organisation Still Wild Still Threatened have called on the Federal and State governments to honour a $276 million forest deal made on 7th August 2011.

“This deal has already seen $35 million delivered to Forestry Tasmania and Gunns Ltd. without protecting a single tree” said Still Wild Still Threatened spokesperson Ali Alishah.

“It is clear that by backing Forestry Tasmania’s destructive practices within the identified 430,000 ha area of high conservation value native forest, the State and Federal Governments are in direct violation of Clauses 25 and 27 of their own Inter Governmental Agreement.” said Mr. Alishah.

.

---

.

.

The Observer Tree

Miranda Gibson on top of  The Observer Tree

Totally committed to Tasmanian Forests,

unlike Gillard and Giddings hollow words.

.

Still Wild Still Threatened have this week launched a new tool in the fight to protect Tasmania’s forests today, unveiling the ‘ObserverTree‘, a 17-storey high tree sit and media centre equipped with the technology to record footage of logging operations and stream these images live to the world via the internet.

The Observer Tree is located in the Styx Forest below Mt Mueller, in Tasmania’s western wilderness, part of the 430,000 ha of forest that was supposed to receive immediate protection under the federal-state agreement on forests (the IGA). The Observer Tree is situated at the head of a section of Styx Forest currently targeted for logging by Forestry Tasmania.

 

‘Observer Tree’ location

^http://observertree.org/2011/12/15/observertree-on-google-maps/

.

Teacher, author and forest activist, Miranda Gibson, has vowed to occupy the tree-platform continuously, until real protection is secured for Tasmania’s forests. Ms Gibson will maintain a daily blog and upload video updates during her stay in the tree, documenting the struggle to protect Tasmania’s forests to concerned people all over the globe.

‘We have used the internet to connect this spectacular patch of threatened Tasmanian forest to the world. The Observer Tree will transmit images and information about the value of the thousands of hectares of forest that remain threatened if Julia Gillard does not keep her word. People across Australia and the globe will have the opportunity to view bear witness to the wasteful destruction of these forests and hear from the people fighting to protect them,’ said Ms Gibson.

For the first time their actual logging will be broadcast live internationally via the web.

Website:    ^http://www.observertree.org
Facebook:  ^http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/ObserverTree/152795598158969

Download Google Earth  (93MB):    GoTo: ^http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/

.

Google Earth’s satellite image of the Observer Tree in dense old-growth, adjacent to Forestry Tasmania’s fresh logging road

(click photo to enlarge)

.

Close up image

(click photo to enlarge)

 .

---

.

Monday:  Forestry Tasmania attacks the Styx Forest  

.

On Monday 12th December 2011, State forest ‘nazi logger’, Forestry Tasmania, under the command of District Officer (Gauführer) Steve Whitely, rolled in its contracted ‘ecodeath-squad’ into the western end of the magnificent Styx Valley.  The targeted forest area is situated at the base of Tasmania’s prominent and wild Mt Mueller on the border of the World Heritage Area.  It is situated about 25 km west of the infamous logging town of Maydena.

Directing the logging – Forestry Tasmania’s Steve Whiteley

[Source: Southern Cross Television, 20111214]

.

In true forest nazi style, Forestry Tasmania’s targeted forest area is branded as coupe ‘TN 044B‘.

Logging Nazi in and destroying the Styx Valley Forest

Monday 12th December 2011, in direct breach of Prime Minister Gillard’s Forest Agreement.

.

This ‘Madill’ feller buncher was getting well stuck into the Styx Valley last Monday morning just below the Observer Tree.  The hydraulic arm clamps onto the trunk of the tree while a cutting mechanism severs the tree at the stump. The machine then lifts the tree, lowers the tree into a horizontal position, and drops the tree on a bunch of logs piled on the ground.  The industrial machinery has all the efficiency of a Nazi death factory.

.

.

Foresty Tasmania is operating in direct contradiction of IGA Clauses 25 and 27.  The coupes within the 430,000 ha of high conservation value forest are not to be logged under any condition.  The IGA prescribes that relevant customers and contractors are to be granted compensation and million have been set aside for this purpose.  Foresty Tasmania under Gauführer Steve Whitely is out of control.  He is driving ecological apocalypse in Tasmania’s southern forests. He has become a Walter E. Kurtz.

Walter E. Kurtz – unhinged, his methods unsound.

 .

 

Trucks Logging Tasmania

© Photo by Paul Tapp, Triabunna, Tasmania, 20110718

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

.

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

A Forestry Tasmania Footprint

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

© Photo by Rob Blakers

 

.

---

.

Editor’s comment:

.

 

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

.

 

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

.

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

.

 

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

.

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

.

 

 

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

.

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

 

.

---

.

Background Reading:

.

 

What is the Tasmanian Government’s strategy?

.

 

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

.

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

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

 

.

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

 

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

 

.

---

.

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

.

 

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

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

.

 

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

 

Under the Heads of Agreement:

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

.

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

.

---

.

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

---

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

---

.

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

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

..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

---

.

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

Media release by The Wilderness Society (Tasmania), 20110725

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

---

.

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

.

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

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

.

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Independent State Service Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Service Amendment (Performance) Bill 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Workforce Renewal Incentive Program

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

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

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

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

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

.

Vacancy management

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internal agency vacancy management also encompasses other strategies such as:

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

.

Inter-agency vacancies

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

External placement of surplus employees

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

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

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

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

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

Targeted voluntary redundancy arrangements

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

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

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

The renewed arrangements will also be designed to:

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

Changes to Section 47

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Involuntary redundancies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

---

.

– end of article –