“Today I think of the Wedge-tailed Eagle that I watched fly above my tree, whose habitat was once under threat and is now protected and of the Tasmanian Devils who lived in the forest 60 metres below my platform who can now raise their young in peace.”
Tasmania’s Farmhouse Creek Conservation Blockade of 1982: the people’s forest stance against industrial ecocide. Moral courage in the face of adversity – it resonates with the robust spirit of our brave young people. Lest we forget our young folk’s personal exposure to Corporate Logger Bully Violence, personal sacrifice and its haunting trauma.
[Source: ‘For the Forests – A history of the Tasmanian Forests Campaigns’, 2001, book by Helen Gee and Janet Fenton, The Wilderness Society, Hobart, Tasmania]
.
From 2001:
.
<< In a world in which the tropical forests are disappearing and oldgrowth forests are threatened everywhere, global biodiversity is declining at an alarming rate. Australia can no longer afford to destroy oldgrowth forests. They are a priceless resource. Few of our tall forests of any type remain in pristine condition,and particularly where they have not been degraded they should be protected. The practice of destroying oldgrowth forests in order to replace it with plantations is criminal vandalism. Plantations should only be established on already degraded land.
Tasmania has the tallest forests in the Southern Hemisphere, some of the greatest areas of pristine temporate Gondwanan rainforest found anywhere on Earth, and some of the world’s oldest trees. This makes it a Mecca for tourists as forests disappear elsewhere. Because Tasmania is the State with the most forest – 40% of area forested – and because the quite erroneous view prevails that forests regenerate completely after clearfelling, a shameful attitude to forest conservation exists at the highest level in bureaucracies.
The Island is being torn apart by the woodchip-at-any-cost mentality. The forests are being sold off at a loss. The royalties paid by private companies fall far short of covering the cost of forest management, regrowth and infrastructure. Job losses attributable to woodchipping were estimated at 4,000 by 1995 – refuting the contention that the industry is good for employment. The Government, for sake of keeping a few foresters in work for a few years does not have the fortitude to stop the destruction. >>
<< Gondwanan forest, in its complex rainforest and wet scherophyll expression, does not regenerate to form its original mixture. The complex web of life that it comprises, the extraordinary antiquity and grandeur of its thousands-of-years-old giant components, and the untold interactions betwen its macroscopic and microscopic plant and animal species and soil biota, make it a living entity – ‘a surviving dinosaur deserving of complete protection’.
Over 70% of forests logged are clearfelled in Tasmania, destroying habitats and most of the wildlife they support. Replacement plantations and regenerated areas cannot provide the range of habitats or the biota. Over 90% of the timber extracted from natural forests is woodchipped and only five percent ends up as sawn timber. (An estimated five million cuibic metres of woodchips a year are sold, mainly to Japan). The common practice of burning ‘waste’ in felled coupes, a scorched earth policy, results in total slaughter of small animals and organisms, many of which are little known or understood. >>
Dark Forces RegroupingWill Hodgman’s 20th Century ignorant wrath ..against everything naturally Tasmanian
.
<< Even at the start of a new millenium, logging operations are penetrating into more of the untouched valleys. Forests of World Heritage value are being destroyed and the integrity of the World Heritage protected areas themselves is being compromised. The damaging effect of logging operations, and particularly the clearfelling, on streams and on the hydrology of catchments, and on soils, is never taken into account and is a serious consequence. The brave people who have spoken out, risked their lives and faced arrest at peaceful direct actions around the Island, need your support. Every Australian who appreciates the heritage values of our forests and wants future generations to experience them, can learn what is at stake here and support the campaigns that are ongoing. >>
~ Mary E White DSc
[Source: Forward by Mary E White in book by Helen Gee (b.1950) and Janet Fenton: ‘For the Forests – A history of the Tasmanian Forests Campaigns’, 2001, published by The Wilderness Society, Hobart, Tasmania]
.
.
Further Reading:
.
[1] Helen Gee’s 2001 book ‘For the Forests: A History of the Tasmanian Forest Campaigns‘, (with Janet Fenton) published by The Wilderness Society, Inc. [^Read More]
.
‘Oral history of the Tasmanian forest campaigns. Compilation of over 100 interviews of artists and activists, politicians and environmentalists such as Senator Bob Brown and Alec Marr, Campaign Director of the Wilderness Society. Chronicles strategies, protest marches, and achievements of campaigns. Foreword by palaeobotanist Mary E White. Copiously illustrated, includes appendices, maps, chronology, bibliography and index. Author is a Tasmanian writer and environmentalist, writer of ‘The South West Book: A Tasmanian Wilderness’.’
<< When Dr Mary White moved to the Manning Valley (New South Wales mid-north coast) back in 2003, the area acquired a true visionary and pioneer in the world of Paleobotany and environmental conservation.
Dr White has an amazing career that spans over five decades and two southern continents, is an accomplished and award winning palaeobotanist, lecturer and over the last 20 years author of several award winning books on the evolution of the Australian continent and its ecosystems. She is a passionate conservationist, was named a Member (AM) in the General Division of the Order of Australia for service to botany as a researcher through promotion of increased understanding and awareness of the natural world and just a few weeks ago was awarded the Lifetime Conservation Award from Australian Geographic.>>
.
Interviewer: You came to Australia in 1955. Tell us about your first encounter with Australian plant life.
Dr White: We docked at Fremantle and had three days to wait until we came to Sydney, so we hired a car and went to look at the sand plains and wildflowers. I was amazed at how the composition of the flora was just slightly different from what I had been finding in South Africa.
I had this questioning feeling; how had I travelled thousands of miles across the ocean to get here and yet I could recognise at a family level everything growing around me. It was the same kind of ecosystem I had just come from. So, I suddenly was confronted with the concept of Gondwana and believed it totally.
.
Interviewer:What prompted you to purchase Falls Retreat at Johns River at the base of Middle Brother in 2003?
Dr White: I wanted somewhere I could covenant the land to maintain biodiversity and develop as an environmental education centre. It is in a wonderful part of the world and well worth protecting. Since we’ve done all the plant, animal, bird, bat and frog lists and what not, we have realised that the biodiversity here is much, much richer than we ever thought it was going to be. We have even found a couple of rare and endangered frogs.
I am now very much into climate change and have a very important message to send, which is hopefully what I have been concentrating on doing and intend to do for the rest of my life. I decided a long time ago I was going to die at a 107, so I have a few good years left in me yet – so be warned! >>
.
Dr Mary White – Paleobotanist, curator, author (b.1926 in then Southern Rhodesia)
.
<<..original ecosystems must be preserved because they are complete and have all the interconnections. “Ultimately you need to understand that this is a living planet and it behaves like a huge super organism, and that everything is interconnected and interrelated.”>>
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.
.
The Wilderness Society says Australian Paper cannot meet environmental standards. The manufacturer of Reflex paper has lost part of its international environmental certification, after withdrawing from an audit of its wood supplies.
The Forest Stewardship Council was auditing Australian Paper, to check that the wood used to make Reflex paper is not sourced from high conservation value forests.
Luke Chamberlain from the Wilderness Society says the company withdrew from the process, because it cannot meet environmental standards.
“The makers of Reflex paper get their wood from the Victorian State Government native forest logging arm VicForests,” he said.
“VicForests log in endangered species habitat. They log old growth forests in East Gippsland and the central highlands”
Australian Paper says its products are not sourced from high conservations value forests threatened by logging.
Shaun Scallan from Australian Paper says they withdrew because the audit process changed while it was underway.
“We pulled out because of a change in the definition of part of the standard late in the piece, which did not allow us enough time to then satisfy that changed definition,” he said.
.
.
Meanwhile the same Shaun Scallan of Australian Paper just the day prior on Monday 22 August 2011 posts his media release:
.
‘Australian Paper retains FSC Chain of Custody Certification’…?
‘Australian Paper has successfully retained Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Chain of Custody certification (FSC-C002059) in its latest audit. Auditor Rainforest Alliance confirmed that under the certification Australian Paper may continue to produce FSC-certified product based on sourcing of material from FSC-certified operations and recycled content, as allowed under the FSC rules for Mixed and Recycled product.
.
“We are pleased to have retained our FSC Chain of Custody certification,” Australian Paper CEO Mr Jim Henneberry said.
“Australian Paper has held Chain of Custody certification since 2006. However, we have decided to remove the Controlled Wood component from our certification at this time as there has been uncertainty around the interpretation of key elements of the standards.”
.
“Advice received by Rainforest Alliance from FSC International around the interpretation of the Standard was received after the physical audit had been completed. This left insufficient time for us to address and so we elected to withdraw Controlled Wood from our certification.” Mr Henneberry said.
.
Australian Paper remains committed to ensuring that fibre supplies come from internationally recognised, third party certified sources and also regards the Australian Forestry Standard and PEFC as benchmark certifications under this policy. The majority of wood supplied to Australian Paper is certified to the Australian Forestry Standard.
.
“We are also continuing to consult with a wide range of stakeholders as part of our Future Fibre Strategy review,” Mr Henneberry said.
“It is vital that we achieve the best balance between the environment, the health of regional communities and our ongoing competitiveness. We look forward to sharing outcomes from this review in due course.”
.
.
Meanwhile, we have the boss of Nippon Paper (the Japanese company that owns the misnomer ‘Australian Paper’) declaring Nippon Paper is going gang-busters to become a top global pulp and paper company…(at any cost?)
‘Since I was appointed president of Nippon Paper Group, Inc. in 2008, I have been pursuing “growth-oriented management.” This means exploring every possibility with a consistently positive stance, actively seizing opportunities, achieving the growth needed to become one of the top pulp and paper companies worldwide, as set out in the Group Vision 2015, and developing corporate value that meets the expectations of all stakeholders.’ ~ President of Nippon Paper Group, Yoshio Haga. [Source: ^http://www.np-g.com/e/about/president.html]
.
.
Meanwhile, the stated Charter of Nippon Paper Group includes:
.
‘6. Active involvement with environmental issues assures that…’
.
‘We shall promote afforestation projects, to create and make effective use of sustainable forest resources.’
‘We shall promote energy conservation, the use of wastepaper and other measures to effectively use resources that are limited in quantity.’
‘We shall manage and reduce all types of discharge and waste generated in the course of corporate activities.’
‘We shall research and develop manufacturing technologies, and products and services that are in harmony with the environment.’
Editor: It is suspicious when a Japanese company is more than content to log and irrevocably destroy another country’s old growth forests, while Japan’s own old growth forests around Mt Fuji remain sacrosanct.
‘In spite of the abundant natural resources, logging is not commonly practiced in the forests of Japan. Japan Forests are venerated and protected since they provide essential soil cover and help in water conservation. All Species are encouraged to grow in the Forests in Japan , from the broad-leaved deciduous to the evergreen coniferous types. There are also many forests which grow near volcanic areas, destroyed and then rejuvenated every time an eruption occurs. The Aokigahara Forest at the base of Mount Fuji is one such forest. Locals as well as tourist camp, trek and hike through these dense forests of Japan to explore their unusual natural beauty.
‘Some Japan Forests are designated as Sacred Forests . These forests generally contain an ancient religious Shrine, usually worshiping the Shinto religion and are protected from trespassing and destruction. These forest shrines are still venerated as national treasures.
.
Some of the sacred forests in Japan are-
The Forest of the Yahiko Jinja has many trees like the Cedar, Cypress and Oaks. The Shrine has a sacred Chinquapin tree as well.
The Forest of Atsuta Jinja is an important Shinto Shrine, housing one the three important Shinto relics – the holy sword of Kusanagi-no-tsurugi. The forest has evergreens like the Japanese Camellia Sakaki, camphor trees, Ilex and Japanese Honeysuckle.
The Forest of Kashima Jingu has over 800 species of trees like varieties of Cedar, Fir and Oak. The Kashima Jingu is an important shrine of the Kanto Area. The forest has been designated as a Wildlife Protection area for the rare birds in the region.
The Forest of Shimogamo Jinja covers over 495 hectares and has many different species of deciduous trees like the Zelkova, the Elm and the Hackberry. The Shrine itself has 53 buildings which have been designated as National Heritage Architecture.
The Forest of the Kirishima Jingu covers and area of 887 hectares. Located near the Mount Kirishima Volcano, the forest has been destroyed and then recovered for over 60 times.
The Forest of the Kasuga Taisha is home to the beautiful podocarpus Nagi. The forest also contains many species of evergreens and shrubs. Trees like the Kasuga, the Andromeda and the Ichii also grow there. People from all over Japan visit the venerated shrine in the quarterly pilgrimages.‘
Ethics question for Yoshio Haga (President of Nippon Paper Group):
What moral right do the Japanese have to consider their own native old growth Aokigahara Forest more sacred than Australia’s sacred native old growth forests such as those across East Gippland?
Stump of Brown Mountain’s sacred 600 year old Mountain Ash old growth tree.
It was logged by VicForests in November 2008 for Nippon Paper’s Reflex Paper.
.
.
In light of VicForests recent civil prosecution in the Victorian Supreme Court, Nippon Paper Group’s association with VicForests calls into question the reputation of Nippon Paper Group and its brand Reflex Paper:
.
‘VicForests has been stopped from harvesting certain coupes in the Brown Mountain forest in East Gippsland containing old growth forest
– habitat for rare and threatened species – until the completion of steps implementing the precautionary principle.’
.
.
.
‘Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests – The precautionary principle in action’
‘The Victorian Supreme Court decision in Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests firmly embeds the approach to the precautionary principle laid down in Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (2006).’
‘The case makes it clear that the precautionary principle can be the subject of an enforceable obligation.’
‘The case also makes it clear that the precautionary principle applies both at the strategic and operational stages of a project or undertaking.’
‘The fact that VicForests complied with its forestry approvals was not enough to satisfy the Court that it had met its obligations with regard to the precautionary principle.’
.
‘In Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests [2010] VSC 335 conservation group Environment East Gippsland (EEG) won a landmark injunction against VicForests, a state-owned timber business with responsibility for commercial timber harvesting in Victoria’s state forests.
VicForests has been stopped from harvesting certain coupes in the Brown Mountain forest in East Gippsland containing old growth forest – habitat for rare and threatened species – until the completion of steps implementing the precautionary principle.
In this case, Justice Osborn of the Supreme Court of Victoria undertook a thorough analysis of the application of the precautionary principle in the context of a detailed legislative regime aimed at balancing biodiversity protection and commercial timber harvesting. The case embeds the approach to the precautionary principle laid down by Chief Justice Preston of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, in Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) 67 NSWLR 256.’
.
The lead-up to the litigation
.
‘The Brown Mountain forests in Victoria’s East Gippsland contain old growth forests and provide habitat for rare and threatened species such as the Powerful Owl, the Spotted-tailed Quoll (mainland Australia’s largest marsupial carnivore) and the Long-footed Potoroo. However, these areas are also amongst the most productive timber harvesting forests in Victoria and play a crucial role in Victoria’s sustainable timber industry.
In 2006, the Victorian State Government committed to increasing the conservation parks and reserves within the broader Brown Mountain area. Nevertheless, in 2008 commercial logging in the Brown Mountain area began.
After numerous studies of the area indicated the presence of important threatened and rare species, EEG requested the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Gavin Jennings, to make an interim conservation order to conserve critical habitat of the endangered Long-footed Potoroo, Spot-tailed Quoll, Sooty Owl, Powerful Owl and Orbost Spiny Crayfish at Brown Mountain. The Minister did not grant a conservation order, but instead increased the conservation area surrounding Brown Mountain.
Having failed to obtain undertakings from VicForests that it would not proceed to log the Brown Mountain coupes, EEG sought interlocutory injunctive relief. An interlocutory injunction restraining logging was granted by Justice Forrest on 14 September 2009 (see our article Environmental litigation heats up with some significant wins for public interest litigants in our 2 October 2010 edition of Environment Matters ), pending the outcome of the full proceedings before Justice Osborn in the Supreme Court of Victoria.’
.
The legislative regime
.
‘Logging of state forests in Victoria is regulated by a complex scheme of legislation, codes of practice, management plans and procedures, described by Osborn J as “labyrinthine”. The principal legislation includes the Forests Act 1958 (Vic) (Forests Act), Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 (Vic) (SFT Act), Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic) and Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 (Vic).’
.
Responsibilities for timber harvesting and forestry management
.
‘VicForests is a state-owned corporation, established in 2004 to undertake the harvesting of timber in Victoria’s state forests. The Secretary to the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) has overarching responsibility for managing state forests and timber harvesting within forests under the Forests Act.’
.
Legal challenge
.
‘EEG sought an injunction restraining VicForests from harvesting four coupes at Brown Mountain containing old growth forest. It also sought declarations that timber harvesting within the coupes by VicForests in accordance with the current forestry regime would be unlawful.
EEG argued that the current conservation measures for the Brown Mountain coupes did not meet the requirements of the regulatory system, which addresses the preservation of conservation values and in particular the protection of endangered species. EEG also argued that VicForests had failed to implement the precautionary principle.
VicForests took issue with EEG’s standing to sue. Further, it denied the presence of a number of endangered species and argued that the logging of the Brown Mountain coupes would take place under a legislative framework that adequately protects endangered species and would, therefore, be lawful. It also argued that it was DSE’s responsibility to stipulate any further requirements for habitat protection in accordance with the regulatory regime.’
.
EEG’s standing
.
‘Following the settled High Court authority that standing to bring such proceedings depends on the plaintiff’s “special interest” in the subject matter of the litigation (Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (2000) 200 CLR 591), Osborn J was satisfied that EEG had a relevant “special interest” because:
EEG uses the coupes to a greater degree than the general public (for example, the group has a “Valley of the Giants Old Growth Forests Walk” through the affected coupes);
EEG’s predecessor was involved in the consultative process for the formulation of the applicable forest management plan; and
the government has previously recognised EEG’s status as a body representing this sector of the public interest.’
.
The precautionary principle [Ed: once again]
.
‘The VicForests case firmly embeds in Australian environmental jurisprudence the approach to the precautionary principle laid down by Chief Justice Preston of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, in Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) 67 NSWLR 256 (Telstra). Justice Osborn’s decision in VicForests is the first Supreme Court application of the Telstra principles.
The precautionary principle is integrated throughout the Victorian forestry regime’s many instruments.
Following Preston CJ’s two-fold test in Telstra, Osborn J stressedthat the precautionary principle is a test of common sense. There must be:
a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage; and
scientific uncertainty as to the environmental damage.
Justice Osborn stated:
Once both of these conditions or thresholds are satisfied, a precautionary measure may be taken to avert the anticipated threat of environmental damage, but it should be proportionate … [The] degree of precaution appropriate will depend on the combined effect of the seriousness of the threat and the degree of uncertainty.
It is a “wherever practicable” test.
In practice, this meant that once the two-fold test was satisfied by EEG, VicForests had the onus of proving that the threat posed by logging the coupes did not exist or was negligible. Because it could not do this, the question then became:
whether the threat was able to be addressed by adaptive management measures (in this case the requirement for surveys and management zone reviews); and
whether the measure alleged to be required (here the permanent injunction against logging the coupes) was proportionate to the threat in issue.
Justice Osborn carefully examined the legislative regime and held that it is not intended that VicForests only apply the precautionary principle at the strategic planning stage:
VicForests is specifically required to apply it [the precautionary principle] having regard to the results of monitoring and research as they come to light during operations. … The requirements of the precautionary principle fall to be considered in the light of the whole of the evidence bearing on these matters as it now is and not as it was at the time VicForests completed planning.
Justice Osborn stressed, however, that the precautionary principle sits within a wider statutory regime that takes into account principles of sustainable development.
He held that unless VicForests complied with the requirements of the applicable Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act Statements and with conditions stated in the relevant allocation order (under the Forests Act) and the Timber Release Plan (under the SFT Act), logging at Brown Mountain would be unlawful.
This meant that VicForests could not rely on its current approvals to log the coupes because DSE had not, for example, changed zonings in the coupes to reflect the presence of threatened species. VicForests had an ongoing, active duty to apply the precautionary principle, which included responding to new information as it became available.
Importantly, Osborn J stressed that the precautionary principle canbe the subject of an enforceable obligation.’
.
Outcome
.
‘Justice Osborn ordered that VicForests stop harvesting until various measures had been completed to respond to the detection of endangered species and to implement a precautionary approach with respect to their potential extinction. The required measures included:
creating or amending special management zones, special protection zones and retained habitat areas to protect the Long-footed Potoroo, Greater Gliders and Yellow-bellied Gliders (as relevant);
undertaking further surveys for the Giant Burrowing Frog, Large Brown Tree Frog and Spotted-tailed Quoll; and
completing a current review of the Powerful Owl and Sooty Owl Management Areas,
to the satisfaction of the Director, Biodiversity Policy and Programs, DSE.
The difficulty for the Court in formulating its orders was that the power to act on the evidence of rare and endangered species and implement the required legislative and policy changes lies not with VicForests, against whom the injunction was sought, but with DSE.
Justice Osborn overcame this difficulty by stopping VicForests from logging until certain actions are undertaken, these actions being DSE responsibilities. VicForests had maintained throughout proceedings that it would comply with any changes to the regulatory regime made by DSE, and this was accepted by the Court.
.
Significance of the decision
.
This case firmly embeds the approach to the precautionary principle laid down by Chief Justice Preston in Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council (2006) 67 NSWLR 256.
Justice Osborn’s decision makes it clear that:
The precautionary principle canbe the subject of an enforceable obligation.
Parties having an obligation to apply the precautionary principle cannot demonstrate compliance with the principle solely through departmental approval of their actions or relevant approvals under the regulatory regime; the precautionary principle is an active obligation that applies throughout operations, requiring parties to respond to new information as it arises.
The precautionary principle applies throughout all stages of operation, not just the strategic planning (or approvals) stage.
The decision has broader implications because:
The precautionary principle is embedded in many other statutory regimes in Victoria and around Australia, apart from the Victorian legislative regime for forestry and the protection of endangered species. The decision has implications for any statutory regime in which the principle is enshrined.
Although VicForest is a state-owned enterprise operating within a highly regulated environment, there is scope for the decision to be applied to other types of entities operating within industries where the precautionary principle is relevant.
Furthermore, a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria has strong precedent value, and is likely to be adopted by the Supreme Courts of other States, and perhaps even higher courts or courts with federal jurisdiction.
.
Action points
.
Parties under an obligation to apply the precautionary principle need to be aware that:
to implement the precautionary principle as per the principles laid down in Telstra, parties need to ask:
is there a real threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment?
if yes, is it attended by a lack of full scientific certainty (in the sense of material uncertainty)?
if yes, is the threat non-existent or negligible?
if no, is the threat able to be addressed by adaptive management and is the measure alleged to be required proportionate to the threat in issue?
the principle must be applied at both the strategic decision making stage of a project, and throughout the operational stage; and
it may not be sufficient to simply obtain and comply with project approvals – parties need to proactively respond to new information as it arises throughout the operational stage.’
‘Paperlinx will take a $600 million hit on its half year results and the future of its Tasmanian operations is under review after last night unveiling the partial sale of its Australian papermaking business.
Japan’s Nippon Paper Group will buy most of Australian Paper, which includes the Maryvale pulp mill in Gippsland, for more than $700 million, including taking on attached debt and a three-year profit share agreement.
Money from the sale, expected to be completed in June, will go to reducing PaperlinX’s debt burden to about $340 million…’
[Editor: So Paperlinx was in debt to the Australian Tax Office by over a billion dollars? How can Australia’s pulp industry be profitable then?]
.
[3]Australian Paper Watch website (providing information about the logging of Victoria’s forests to make paper products such as Reflex by Nippon Paper and their ‘subsidiary’ Australian Paper), ^http://www.australianpaper.forests.org.au/
‘Australian Paper has a long history in the La Trobe Valley in Gippsland, Victoria, dating back to 1937 when established. Today, the Mill is Australia’s largest integrated pulp and paper operation. In response to global paper trends and changing consumer expectations for our products, Australian Paper (Nippon Paper subsidiary) embarked on a major upgrade of the Maryvale Pulp Mill in 2006 which was completed in December 2008. With an investment of $350 million, the upgrade significantly expanded the Mill’s production of bleached pulp capacity and delivered a range of safety, health and environmental benefits.’
‘Conservationists have held up timber workers in a fiercely contested area of native forest on Melbourne’s fringe for nearly a month, chaining themselves to bulldozers and climbing trees scheduled for logging.
The protest, which has led to at least 10 arrests, is expected to reach a climax today as activists and local residents march into the logging coupe outside Toolangi in Victoria’s central highlands.
Protest organisers claim they have evidence the coupe is home to the endangered Leadbeaters Possum, which scientists say is under threat after Black Saturday bushfires wiped out up to half its habitat. But the Department of Sustainability and Environment says there has been no sign of live possums. Department spokeswoman Kim Payne said one tree in the coupe had hollows that showed evidence of possum use. That tree would be left standing, but the coupe did not meet the legal criteria of prime possum habitat and could otherwise be logged.
Sarah Rees, director of Healesville-based group My Environment, said it was cruel to think a possum could be protected by retaining a single tree while taking away the forest around it. She said logging was hurting central highlands communities.
.
”Tourism based on the state forest is far more important to the local economy than forestry and the two cannot co-exist,” she said.
The conflict over the Toolangi State Forest was the focus of a public meeting in the area late last week when logging opponents verbally clashed with forestry workers, who accused the activists of restraint of trade. One contractor said he had lost about $80,000 due to the protests.
David Walsh, spokesman for state commercial timber agency VicForests, said the Toolangi protests had cost forest workers significant time. Only about a quarter of the 19-hectare coupe had been harvested. He said gates raised to ensure public safety had been damaged. ”VicForests believes these are legal harvesting operations which comply with the detailed legislative framework governing native timber harvesting in Victoria,” he said.‘
.
Editor: The legal doctrine of ‘restraint of trade’ sought to be applied in the commercial exploitation and destruction of old growth forests, is an invalid excuse. It is a contemptible euphemism for a ‘right to rape’ old growth ecology that is being contrived by commercial lawyers profiting from the exploiters ~ a case of the morally bankrupt collaborating with the damned.
The following article was initially published by The Wilderness Society (NSW) on its website 20110729. Reproduced with permission from The Wilderness Society (NSW):
A dying river near Broken Hill, NSW (not so long ago)
is visited by Chris Daley, the Wilderness Society rivers campaigner.
Photo by Dean Sewell
.
Despite common perceptions, the problems facing the Murray-Darling Basin are not confined to rural communities, and their social implications are extensive.
Adelaide, for example, relies on the Murray-Darling to provide around 55% of its drinking water. In fact, more than four million people depend on the Basin for water. But the future of the Murray-Darling and its communities are under threat from over-extraction of water, salinity and climate change. The Basin supports diverse communities that have grown up on the river, and who consider it to be central to their way of life. Locals see the river as extremely important from a social point of view, as Barney Stephens from the Darling River Action Group pointed out.
“The lakes and the Darling River and the Anabranch are basically Broken Hill’s recreation. People think of recreation as something that’s maybe not essential, but when you look at an isolated town like Broken Hill, if you take the lakes away and the rivers away it’s like taking the beaches away from Sydney.”
Dr. James Pittock, Programme Leader of Australian and United States Climate, Energy and Water at the US Studies Centre, Australian National University, agrees that returning water to the Basin is socially and economically important.
.
Multiple Benefits
.
“The water in the Murray-Darling Basin provides lots of different benefits for people, and many of those benefits are gained from leaving water in the river, in terms of providing habitat for fish right through to the Lower Lakes and Coorong near the sea where [there are] massive fishing industries, both commercial and recreational”, said Pittock.
Both men also point to the cultural significance of the river to aboriginal people that have lived by the river for thousands of years. “Most of them [in the Broken Hill area] were Paakantji, which means ‘river people’, and the river is just essential to them,” said Stephens.
While irrigators have argued that the Basin Plan has the potential to damage rural communities, Dr. James Pittock says the social consequences of not returning health to the river will be far worse.
“If this Basin Plan isn’t implemented well, that is if the reform isn’t substantial in quickly reallocating a lot of water from agriculture to the environment, we risk another crisis in a few years time.”
.
Best chance in a generation
.
“We will be back to this public dispute over water allocation…and eventually industry will be forced to cut back to sustainable levels. Now the question for the industry is, do you want to do that now, and do it with some certainty so that rural communities can get on with planning a more sustainable future? Or alternatively, if this opportunity for reform is fudged in some political compromise, do you really want to live with the uncertainty of repeating the exercise every five to ten years when the next drought hits?”
Right now, the Government and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) have a responsibility to rectify these problems once and for all in the development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. To do so, they must commit to buying back 7,600 gigalitres of water to be returned to the system. This was the scenario identified in the MDBA’s Guide to the proposed Basin Plan as carrying the least risk of irreversible damage to the river system.
The Wilderness Society is urging the Australian Government to spend the $10 billion of taxpayers’ money allocated to save the Basin wisely, or give the Australian public their money back. Responsible and scientifically based action to ensure the sustainability of the Basin will help to build stronger, more diverse rural communities.
Menindee Lakes —inlet to Lake Cawndilla during drought in 2003
(MDBC Annual Report 2003-04, Photo: L. Palmer)
.
.
.
Further Reading:
.
[1] Jamie Pittock BSc. Hons (Monash), PhD (ANU) is ‘Director of International Programs for the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance, Program Leader, Australia and United States – Climate, Energy and Water, US Studies Centre and ANU Water Initiative. Jamie Pittock is Director of International Programs for the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary Water Governance. His current work includes developing research programs that link Australian and southern African expertise to improve management of river basins, green water and agriculture. He is also Program Leader for the Australia and United States – Climate, Energy and Water project of the US Studies Centre and ANU Water Initiative. [Read More].
[5] ‘Living Murray, Dying Darling – the year our fish died and Broken Hill cried,’ speech by Joe Flynn, Managing Director, Australian Inland at the Murray Darling Association Annual Conference in Renmark, South Australia 20040902. [Read More]
The following article was initially published by The Wilderness Society (NSW) on its website 20110809. Reproduced with permission from The Wilderness Society (NSW):
.
Economists say water buybacks can save the Murray-Darling River
A senior economist at The Australian National University (ANU) says that subsidising water infrastructure will not deliver the volumes of water needed to return the Murray-Darling River system to health.
Professor Quentin Grafton from the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the ANU says that despite the Australian Government making commitments to spending $5.8 billion on infrastructure designed to increase water efficiency, this will have little impact on increasing flows through the ailing system.
“That’s probably going to get the government about 500 gigalitres. So to put that in perspective, that’s a fraction of the sorts of numbers we need in terms of volumes for the rivers“, said Prof. Grafton.
“By contrast, if we were to purchase water entitlements from willing sellers, we can get the volumes that we need”.
.
Water Buyback a Sound Approach
.
The Productivity Commission has supported this view, calling for some of the money allocated to infrastructure to be redirected to other initiatives, including water buybacks from willing sellers and support for affected communities.
“A general conclusion is that purchasing water from willing sellers is a sound approach to meeting the Australian Government’s commitment to obtain additional water for the environment. Indeed, it should be the preferred method for recovering water, taking precedence over subsidising investment in water saving infrastructure“, concluded the Commission.
While big irrigation companies continue their scare campaign saying that water buybacks will have a negative economic impact on the agricultural industry, a model proposed by Prof. Grafton concluded that irrigators would be adequately compensated.
“If the $8.9 billion currently budgeted for water reform were spent in a cost effective manner on the purchase of water entitlements rights from willing sellers, and with no arbitrary restrictions on water trade, the Australian government would be able to increase environmental flows by at least 4,000 gigalitres per year, fully compensate irrigators for reduced extractions, and have funds left over.”
This is a much better alternative than committing massive financial resources to infrastructure that will not save the Murray-Darling River.
Far from being unpopular with many farmers, recent tenders for water buybacks have been oversubscribed, with the majority of sellers only parting with a portion of their entitlements and using the capital raised to improve efficiency or diversify their businesses.
The Australian Government needs to spend the $10 billion of taxpayers’ money allocated to save the river system wisely and ensure the rivers flow, or give the Australian people their money back.
With the health of the rivers and the communities that rely on them at stake, we need economically responsible action that ensures that the rivers keep flowing whilst building stronger, more economically diverse and sustainable rural communities.
Prof. Grafton concluded that, “Unless we spend most of the money on the buying of the water entitlements, we won’t have sufficient flows for the rivers, and that’s a critical point. Because otherwise, we’ll end up spending billions and billions of dollars, we won’t get sufficient volumes for the rivers so we’ll have the problem we’ve gone through in the last few years come back again.”
“The communities will continue to be in a trouble because they won’t get the support that they need, and we’ll end up in a few years time with lots of concrete channels but no water”.
“I rise to speak to the motion to take note of the response of the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, representing the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, to a question relating to the Murray-Darling river system. Today we had yet another report released on the health of the Murray.
It should come as no surprise, to those of us in particular who have been watching the Murray, that it finds that only one of 23 river valleys of the Murray that were examined had good ecosystem health. Two had moderate ecosystem health. All the rest-that is 20-had poor or very poor ecosystem health. This comes on the back of the report that was released yesterday-well, it was not released; it was leak-released.
On ABC radio the CEO of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Wendy Craik, said that the report had not ‘not been released‘; it just had not been released. That report, which had not been released but was not leaked, showed that scientists have said to the government that the Coorong has six months left. They have a six-month window of opportunity, and what is the ministerial council’s response? ‘Oh, we’ll commission some more work into that.’ That just happens to then be available in November. The window of opportunity to fix the Coorong, or to go to some measure to try to remediate the Coorong, closes in October.
.
The report that came out today shows yet again what a parlous state our Murray-Darling river system is in. And what is the government doing about it? Yes, it is buying some water and it is investing in fixing up infrastructure, but on a very ad hoc basis. It is like fiddling while Rome burns-‘We’ll set a new cap; we’ll put in place an authority, at some stage once we get the legislation back in, that will develop a plan for two years.’ But guess what? That plan does not come into effect until 2019. And the reason for that is that the federal government refuses to require New South Wales and Victoria to bring their water sharing plans into line with the basin, into line with the sustainable cap.
That means we will have a lovely plan, we will have planned very well, while the river is dying-because, unless we can curb water use and put into place sustainable water use in the extremely near future, we are going to be watching the river die. We will have a great plan but we will have no water to put back into the river because we are not requiring the states to implement any changes to their plans until 2019. That means no action until 2019, aside from what the government might be able to buy back from willing sellers. It does not do anything about addressing, with a systematic and strategic approach, long-term land use in the Murray-Darling Basin. It does not address what we think is going to be sustainable, not only in trying to address a severely degraded system but also in the face of climate change.
.
The CSIRO reports that are gradually being released as the work is done in each catchment-excellent work, I should say-are showing, as Senator Wong correctly pointed out, that the catchments are facing very severe consequences from the impact of climate change. We have over-allocated all the systems in the Murray-Darling system and we need to be addressing that now, not leaving it for some time off in the future.
.
Some of the ways that we can start addressing the issues around the Coorong now are to start looking at releasing water from the Meningie Lakes, to start looking at accessing some of the water that is currently held in storage in northern New South Wales and to start talking to farmers about loaning water-which, I would suggest, could be repaid with some benefits to the farmers into the future. But one of the issues that I understand is complicating matters there is the control of the New South Wales government over water in the Meningie Lakes. They control the water under 460 gigalitres, and the Commonwealth then gets to have a say in anything above, I think, 660 gigalitres. Guess what? If the level is kept below 660 gigalitres, where the Commonwealth get to have a say, it is all up to New South Wales.
So New South Wales can theoretically keep allocating water from that storage to maintain a level below the amount that the Commonwealth gets to have a say in. And guess what? There is no water to release to the Murray and into the Coorong lakes. If we cannot solve this issue in the Commonwealth’s brave new world of management of the Murray-Darling Basin, there is no hope. We are absolutely in a crisis situation in the Coorong, and yet the Commonwealth is still sitting on its hands and cannot, it appears, get that water from New South Wales and actually do something to save their own icon.”
‘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.”
Chainsaw-wielding loggers of VicForests are set to target old growth Mountain Ash near Sylvia Creek in the Central Highlands, to Melbourne’s north, east of Kinglake. That an inferno that was Black Saturday in February 2009 ripped through forests in the area around Narbethong, Toolangi and Kinglake matters squat to these woodchip mercenaries.
The Burned Area Emergency Response Report (BAER) commissioned by the Brumby Government after the 2009 bushfires recommended preserving refuge areas such as those in Toolangi for biodiversity recovery.
That the targeted forests have become isolated islands of habitat to rare wildlife matters squat to them. That the forests are home to Victoria’s endangered and disappearing Leadbeater’s possum, the Spotted-Tail Quoll, the Sooty Owl, and Baw Baw frog are but collateral damage to these bastards. “Over half the Leadbeater’s Possum’s forest habitat was destroyed in the Black Saturday bushfires, so every last bit that survives is incredibly precious, and essential to this tiny animals’ survival,” said spokesperson for local group ‘My Environment’ Sarah Rees.
“The criteria the government is using to identify Leadbeater’s Possum habitat are too conservative. We’re talking about Victoria’s wildlife emblem, we should be making sure they multiply and flourish, not simply cling on to the edge of survival.”
VicForests old growth logging is all for a quick buck from woodchip sales to make Reflex Paper. They would sell their daughters for less.
“DSE has confirmed the logging coupe contains old growth trees, even though VicForests and Government Minister Louise Asher insisted last week that it was not old growth forest,” said Wilderness Society forest campaigner Luke Chamberlain.
Tigerquoll
Suggan Buggan
Snowy River Region
Victoria 3885
Australia
Golden Bandicoot is under threat of extinction in The Kimberley.
.
“Australia has the worst extinction record for mammals of all countries in the world (Johnson 2007), and has international obligations (Convention on Biological Diversity 2006) and national commitments (Commonwealth of Australia 1999) to avoid species extinctions. Meeting these obligations will require effective and ongoing conservation management.”
[Source: Priority threat management to protect Kimberley wildlife, p47,CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Feb 2011, Australia]
.
.
.
At 6am on 1st June 1990, I started my prepared and serviced HT Holden outside my father’s place in Melbourne and executed my planned drive mission across to Adelaide then up the Centre to Kununurra in the East Kimberley. I was 26; I had saved up. I was on a mission to get my commercial helicopter license and to work in cattle mustering in the Kimberley in the process to ‘get my hours up’.
The Kimberley was a very hot and steamy; a world away from temperate urban Melbourne.
Well, after some months and growing up in a remote landscape, I did achieve my license with Golden West Helicopters, then did some mustering. I took risks, recalling pivot turns over isolated beaches and I learnt a lot…what city kids should.
Some memories that will remain with me (until my memory doesn’t) are the waking to East Kimberley bird calls from the pilot shack at the red dusty caravan park down the road from Kununurra Airport. When building my cross-county and low-level endorsement hours up, I will never forget flying the R22 low over wild rivers full of long lizards (crocs), or slowly navigating the thick mist at 50 foot AGL at dawn, or flying free over the wide rugged red rock landscape, or finding the eagles nest on a remote hill miles off in some north westerly direction from Kununurra. My memory of the Kimberley is of a wild special place, like Emma Gorge and the amazing remote drive to Wyndham – so isolated – so free. But it is the unique bird calls that recur in my memory of the magic natural tropical home of The Kimberley.
So when I now later learn that the Kimberley and its scarce wildlife are under threat, I have no hesitation posting the following article to advocate the urgency of the Kimberley’s wildlife conservation.
The Kimberley is indeed like nowhere else!
~ Editor
.
.
According to the findings of a current ecological study and report published in February 2011 by the CSIRO and The Wilderness Society:
“up to 45 native species in the Kimberley region will die out within 20 years if no action is taken”.
.
The report found that the two most destructive threats to survival of native species are:
Feral cats
Frequent large scale fire regimes (deliberate or neglected)
.
It has called for an immediate cash injection of $95 million to save wildlife like the Golden Bandicoot, the Scaly-tailed Possum and the Monjon Rock Wallaby from extinction. Even with the current $20 million per year spent on Kimberley conservation the region is still set to lose some 31 native animals, according to the report.
The report is a culmination of collaborative ecological research and workshops was undertaking across the Kimberley region by scientists with the CSIRO’s Ecosystem Sciences, along with The Wilderness Society, Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Fenner School of Environment and Society (ANU), and The Ecology Centre at the University of Queensland. Its authors from these organisations include Josie Carwardine, Trudy O’connor, Sarah Legge, Brendan Mackey, Hugh Possingham and Tara Martin. Regrettably, the only contributing organisations permanently based in the Kimberley appear to be the Kimberley Land Council and Environs Kimberley. Perhaps this is half the problem; the other half being ye ol’ lack of political will, because surely Australia has plenty of taxpayer funds in circulation.
If ever the ecological precautionary approach principle was a vital precondition of human actions, the Kimberley is the place where it most applies. The recurring theme throughout the report is the lack of comprehensive survey data from the region. Ecologically, the Kimberley is grossly data deficient. Consequently, humans know not what they do, nor what the impact of what they do is, nor how close the thirty odd threatened and endangered native animals are to regional extinction.
The Scaly-tailed Possum (Wyulda) , Monjon Rock Wallaby and the Cave-dwelling Frog are thought to be uniquely endemic to the region, so if they are wiped out from the Kimberley, as a species they will become globally extinct, like the Tasmanian Tiger (Thylacene) and the Dodo.
Wyulda, or Scaly-tailed Possum (Wyulda squamicaudata)
endemic to the Kimberley, and highly sensitive to bushfires
.
Due to human encroachment and habitat destruction across northern Australia and the ferals and destructive practices they have brought with them, the still mainly wild Kimberley remains the last survival refuge for many of Australia native at-risk species.
Native vertebrate fauna of the Kimberley like the Northern Quoll, Golden-backed Tree-Rat, Golden Bandicoot, Gouldian Finch, Spotted Tree Monitor, Western Chestnut Mouse, and Stripe-faced Dunnart are at serious risk of extinction.
.
Priority Threat Management Actions for The Kimberley
1. Combined management of fire and introduced herbivores! – feral donkeys, cattle, horses, pigs
2. Eradication, control, quarantine of weeds! – rubber vine, gamba grass, mesquite, passionfruit
3. Control of introduced predators! (particularly feral cats)
.
“The single most cost-effective management action would be to reduce the impacts from feral cats (at $500,000 per bioregion per year) with a combination of education, research and the cessation of dingo Baiting.” [p.6-7]
.
While anticipated to have low feasibility of success, the feasibility has not been started nor tested.
“The next most cost-effective action is to manage fire and introduced herbivores (at $2–7 million per bioregion per year); this action is highly feasible and, if implemented effectively, would generate large improvements in probabilities of persistence for almost all wildlife species.” [p.6-7]
.
Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus)
Native to the Kimberley, but seriously at risk from feral cats and bushfires
.
.
Natural Integrity and (Human) Threats
.
.
Threats to The Kimberley from ‘Bushfire Management’
.
“Frequent, extensive and very hot fires in the Kimberley affect its ecosystems in several ways. They change the structure and composition of vegetation, endangering some species of plants and removing important wildlife habitat refugia. They also leave the ground unprotected from the heavy monsoonal rains, causing soil erosion and later stream sedimentation.”
Inappropriate fire regimes pose a threat to biodiversity in the Kimberley and across northern Australia (e.g. Bowman et al. 2001; Russell-Smith et al. 2003). Historically, Indigenous people managed fire throughout the region, which included fine scale prescribed burning across a variety of vegetation types and around important cultural and food resource sites, such as rainforest patches. This most likely resulted in a mosaic of burnt and unburnt vegetation and provided buffers against unplanned wildfires around critical biodiversity refuges (Environmental Protection Authority 2006).
These fire patterns have been replaced in the past few decades with one that is increasingly dominated by extensive and intense mid to late dry season fires. As a consequence, the mean age (and variance) of the vegetation has declined (Legge et al. 2010).
Altered fire regimes interacting with other degrading processes, especially over-grazing, have led to structural and floristic change in vegetation, declines in vegetation cover and critical resources such as tree hollows. They are also associated with increased soil erosion after heavy rains (doubled erosion rates have been recorded in similar situations in the Top End of the Northern Territory (Townsend and Douglas 2000), leading to increased sedimentation in stream beds. These changes have severe negative impacts on native flora and fauna (Vigilante and Bowman 2004; Legge et al. 2008). Extensive flat savanna areas are more vulnerable to large intense fires, as there are fewer inflammable refugia such as rocky areas.
Without appropriate management, the impacts of fire are likely to increase as the region is predicted to become even more fire prone with ongoing climate change (Dunlop and Brown 2008)”. [pp.11-12]
“Invasion by feral predators has contributed to range reductions and population declines of many native animals in Australia; small to medium sized mammals have been particularly affected. The primary feral predator in the Kimberley is the domestic cat. Cats have possibly been present in the region since the 1880s and were established by the 1920s (Abbott 2002).
The number of cats occurring in the Kimberley is unknown due to difficulties in survey, although a radio-tracking study at Mornington Wildlife Sanctuary suggests there is one individual per 3 km², each eating 5–12 native vertebrates daily. If this population density of cats occurred throughout the region there would be over 100,000 individuals present, consuming at least 500,000 native animals every day (Legge unpublished data).
There is some evidence that dingoes, as a top predator, can help control the negative effects of smaller predators like foxes and cats (Glen et al. 2007; Johnson and VanDerWal 2009; Letnic et al. 2010; Kennedy et al. 2011). The regular baiting of dingoes is therefore likely to exacerbate the problem of introduced feral predators (Wallach et al. 2010).” [pp.13-14]
“The Kimberley is a national priority in this effort to avoid further extinctions due to its intact suite of wildlife species, including many endemics, and its role as a refuge for an increasing list of species that are declining or have been lost in other areas of northern Australia.” [p.47]
.
.
Further Reading on Kimberley Conservation:
.
[1] Carwardine J, O’Connor T, Legge S, Mackey B, Possingham HP and Martin TG (2011), Priority threat management to protect Kimberley wildlife , CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, CSIRO Australia, Brisbane, and The Wilderness Society, (76 pages), ISBN 978 0 643 10306 1, http://www.csiro.au/resources/Kimberley-Wildlife-Threat-Management.html
In Tasmania, pristine remains defenceless
Tasmania’s Farmhouse Creek Conservation Blockade of 1982: the people’s forest stance against industrial ecocide. Moral courage in the face of adversity – it resonates with the robust spirit of our brave young people. Lest we forget our young folk’s personal exposure to Corporate Logger Bully Violence, personal sacrifice and its haunting trauma.
Dark Forces Regrouping
Will Hodgman’s 20th Century ignorant wrath
..against everything naturally Tasmanian
Dr Mary White – Paleobotanist, curator, author
(b.1926 in then Southern Rhodesia)
