FOREST DEAL - 10 REASONS WHY THE DEAL IS BAD FOR TASMANIA

1.

There is no need economic rationale for it. While there is no doubt that
the forest industry in under pressure from the high dollar and sluggish markets in some areas, shutting the industry down is not the answer. The Government didn’t move to shut down the dairy industry a few years ago when it faced a tough market; now it’s booming.

2.

It turns our forest industry into a cottage industry. The deal more than
cuts the $1.4b forestry industry in half, from 300,000m3 of high quality sawlog to jut 137,000m3 of high quality sawlog.

3.

It will cost further jobs. Signatory Terry Edwards has confirmed that
the deal will cost further jobs[1] (but the Government refuses to say exactly how many jobs this is).

4.

It won’t deliver the promised peace. Environmentalists have stated that
they aren’t bound by the deal and will continue to protest and campaign against forestry.[2]

5.

The Greens have “reserved their rights.” By absenting themselves from
Cabinet, the Greens aren’t bound by cabinet solidarity and are free to continue campaigning against the industry, including Ta Ann.

6.

Written guarantees of supply in the Intergovernmental Agreement have been trashed.
i) ii) IGA promise of 155,000m3 trashed, now 137,000m3; No legislative supply guarantee for Ta Ann, despite previous promises[3];

[1]

“There will still be more job losses on top of those already gone during the process” Terry Edwards, ABC Leon Compton 22/11/12 [2] The Tasmanian Conservation Trust, Bob Brown, Jenny Webber (Huon Valley Environment Centre), Peg Putt (Markets for Change), Miranda Gibson (Observer Tree) have all indicated that they will continue campaigning [3] “it is the State Government’s intention to legislate for the provision of 265,000 cubic metres of peeler billets” (Lara Giddings, media release, 29/8/12

iii)

12,500m3 of speciality timbers not delivered. The deal’s 37,954ha available will cut supply by 60%, and non-blackwood species by 80%.

7.

It was supposed to deliver a Pulp Mill, but hasn’t. Environment
groups, including the Wilderness Society, have confirmed they continue to oppose the mill.[4]

8.

It was meant to facilitate the re-opening of the Triabunna mill, but hasn’t. The Triabunna mill remains shut.

9.

The compensation for shutting down half our forest industry is pitiful.
In 2004 Labor rightly rejected Mark Latham’s almost identical policy which had $800m in compensation, more than twice as much as now on offer.

10.

It dramatically increases bushfire risk. While the amount of land in
reserves has increased by eight percent to 52 percent, the resources available to properly manage it and fight fire have been drastically cut, with massive reductions in the number of regional volunteers and their equipment.

[4]

“We stand with the community in opposing that project [pulp mill]” – Vica Bayley, Wilderness Society, Examiner, 23/11/12.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful