#13.  Maybe the unicorns they were riding ran out of clean energy...

Rainbow farts lose their sparkle pretty quickly... and I imagine unicorns are not renewable... 

#12.  I went to a political forum last night, (Thursday, June 30), with election candidates on stage, held at Rosny College on Hobart's Eastern Shore, organised by The Wilderness Society....

OK, you knew I had mischief on my mind...

Only three candidates fronted, which may indicate the popularity of the organisers... but I do have to commend Labor's John Short for stepping into the breach, and Rob Manson from the Renewable Energy Party. The other one present was Nick McKim, Greens candidate for the senate, but of course he was among friends....

As soon as I walked in the door, I encountered Vica Bayley, State Campaign Director for The Wilderness Society, an old foe, together with a bunch of his friends and fellow organisers of the event. Vica was Master of Ceremonies for the event.

He said in a loud voice, loud enough for others beyond the immediate group to hear: "I hope you are not going to try to disrupt our event here this evening."

Well...!!! That was a red rag, for sure...

I replied in an equally forthright voice: "That's pretty amazing coming from someone like you, who has disrupted so many of our forestry work sites over the years! You have got to be bloody joking!"

The temerity of the bloody little prick...

the first photo is one I took last night with my phone... I sat in the front row. I didn't read their pamphlets, printed on glossy paper, but I did sit there making a paper jet... McKim had his eye on me all night, I bet he thought I was going to launch it at him while he was speaking... 

I didn't clap very much, and at the end I asked him from the floor, what did he have in mind with those Contingency Coupes that didn't have any trees in them... he didn't answer, and I offered an observation on his level of honesty and integrity... I don't think he enjoyed it very much... I reckon more of us should challenge their dishonesty, and lack of integrity more often....

#11.  The Greens, the ENGO's, and the Bob Brown Foundation all want and expect yet more extension of the TWWHA, (Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area), and they have been trying to raise it as part of the election campaign. They are specifying the area as being all of the 477,000 hectares listed in the rescinded Tasmanian Forest Agreement as possible future reserve lands, and which includes areas known as the Tarkine.

Well, sorry, but it does not work like that.

An election does not give a mandate for such a thing, and nor should it.

If anything further is to be added to the already extensive TWWHA, then there are a series of steps that must be gone through. The area was previously suggested by the green groups, but it was comprehensively rejected.

The only election result that would help their cause would be if there was a hung parliament, and one where Labor could form government, but only with the support of the Greens and possibly others, and they would also need the Greens to have the balance of power in the Senate. They would then have to wait for the outcome of the next Tasmanian state election, which is not due until 2018, where they would also need a Labor minority government, but with Greens support helping them to 13 seats, or more. They would then be able to again fiddle the requirements, causing the area to fist be placed on the Register of the National Estate, and then be nominated for World Heritage assessment.
That was what they talked Labor into last time, and they would be looking to try it on again.

However, it is unlikely to happen again, even if the election scenario came about as described. This is the case for a number of reasons. Firstly, state Labor lost in the biggest landslide in its history as a result of the previous stunt, having lost support of not only timber workers in the regions, but many others in the community. Tasmanian Labor has since done a major re-write of policy, and has come out strongly in support of the timber industry, and the Special Timbers sector in particular. The Tasmanian Legislative Council remains extremely annoyed at how it was treated, how it was misled, and how it was lied to. It is not going to fall for the same tricks again. Federal Labor also lost seats in Tasmania, and as of the time of writing, only has one in the House of Reps., Julie Collins. Tasmanian Labor is unlikely to agree to handing over powers to the federal government, and that would only be to a federal Labor government, on matters dealing with the environment, and land use. The Tasmanian Legislative Council is extremely unlikely to agree to such a move, as would the current Tasmanian Liberal government.

Given that the polls are suggesting a narrow coalition victory, there is unlikely to be another TWWHA extension proposal being considered any time soon.

That is as it should be, as the area has had extensive degradation, and is subject to many active mineral leases. It is one of the most complex and highly mineralogical areas in the country, and any reserve proposal that would automatically exclude any mineral exploration or development would be highly contested. As well as minerals, it remains an area of crucial interest to the Special Timbers sector, although Forestry Tasmania is not interested in managing much of it for timber production, especially as it is seeking FSC Certification.

Those proposing further TWWHA extensions need to be conscious of the fact that if they trigger community backlash, they are not doing the concept of World Heritage any favours, and if they are trying to use World Heritage as a weapon against the timber industry, they are risking that industry organising against them, and criticising the way their work is conducted. There certainly is a case for examining the suggestions of scandal, corruption, influence and deceit that pervade the 2013 decision. I believe wrong-doing and inappropriate behaviour can be traced all the way to the top of the World Heritage Committee and the World Heritage Centre in Paris, as well as all through the federal Department of the Environment, and through the behaviour and performance of a significant number of academics, as well as among consultants in the private sector.

I remain incredibly disappointed at how difficult it has been to get the mainstream media to look closely at the allegations myself and my colleagues have been making about the 2013 stunt, and how much it disadvantaged Tasmania, and how dishonest and corrupt it was. We have a growing mountain of evidence, and an almost-complete picture from FOI requests, interviews, phone calls, and public document searches. So many journalists are so useless, and so many of them are running here and there like black ants, and are still not producing quality journalism and frequently what they are producing is poorly researched, half-arsed rubbish. That might be about to change, the latest guy seems a bit more promising. It really is something that the ABC's Four Corners program should spend a few months researching. The result would be up there with their blockbusters, as some of it is more strange than fiction, and has all the ingredients... The following graphic seems an apt way to conclude...

#10.  Has Vica Bayley still got his Magic Pencil?

Who is Vica Bayley?  He is the Tasmanian Campaign Director for The Wilderness Society.

We were all led to believe that the process for determining Areas of High Conservation Value Forest was a highly scientific and technical process, and best left to qualified experts who have widely established credibility and experience. Apparently not so!

During the negotiations surrounding the Tasmanian Forest Agreement, a lot of arguing and not much compromise was all we got from the ENGO's, especially from Environment Tasmania and The Wilderness Society. For TWS, Vica was joined by his national counterpart, Lindon Schneiders, (see #3).  They dragged things out as long as they could, and while it suited them, but when it started to turn against them, and it appeared there might not be enough time to legislation or a World Heritage extension nomination sorted in time, they started applying pressure. One of the industry negotiators described to me how one day Vica Bayley grabbed a pencil, and started re-drawing lines on some of the maps on the negotiating table... apparently that is how scientific the process was! All this talk of polygons, score charts, criteria, what happened to that...???

And what about those Contingency Coupes? Remember them? They were supposed to be the areas the ENGO's were prepared to give back to help make up on-going sustainable supply of our unique and valuable Special Timbers, and up to at least the level of supply promised in the Tasmanian Forest Agreement.... But wait...!!! Some of them didn't even have any trees in them! Some of them had been harvested in recent years, some as recently as 2010, and re-sown with Eucalypt! Even if some of them did have ST in them, they sure don't now! In fact, even if there was ST seed in the soil, there wouldn't be any trees (apart from Blackwood, if any are present), mature to saw log size for at least 200 years! Celery-top Pine would take at least 400 years, and other species even longer. Some of those Contingency Coupes featured Buttongrass Plain, rocky outcrops, mine tailing dams, and low level scrub, but certainly not viable Special Timbers forests. Some, as I said, had neat lines drawn around existing coupes that had already been harvested. Initially the maps provided were no use, but eventually we were able to get better GIS data, and we were able to overlay them on Google Earth imagery. Here is one such Contingency Coupe, WE25S, out near Lake Gordon:

Here is a video clip we made of a site visit to that coupe:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRKbOSlT24E&feature=youtu.be

Further images and information can be seen here:  https://www.facebook.com/TasmanianSpecialTimbersAlliance/?fref=ts

And by the way, as my Facebook Memories feed reminded me, Vica and others were in Bonn exactly one year ago today, probably telling some of the massive lies the have become famous for telling at venues all around the planet... It was the meeting of the World Heritage Committee, at which the Reactive Monitoring Mission was established, which visited Tasmania in November, 2015, and for which the report was issued in March, 2016, bearing yet more evidence of corruption and undue influence that pervades the WHC, IUCN and other UN bodies.

How must it feel to be regarded by some as belonging to organisations that are deliberately dishonest, and to be peddling dubious and corrupt information and influence?

#9.  Did Greens Senator Nick McKim mislead the Tasmanian parliament in his former role? Is he
fit to continue in public office?

These are questions that are exercising my mind. I have my own opinions, and those are what I am expressing here...

Nick McKim is a former member of the House of Assembly in the parliament of Tasmania. He left his seat in the Tasmanian parliament last year in order to contest the casual vacancy in the Senate created by the retirement of Tasmanian senator and Greens leader Christine Milne. After 10.5 months in that seat, he now faces the double-dissolution election. He is second on the Greens ticket, and I am hoping they don't get two quotas, even after preferences, or however the new senate system works...

I reckon he is a petulant little upstart, and I would love to see him out on his arse.

So what did I mean, did he mislead the Tasmanian parliament?

I'm having a look back through the records, but I reckon Nick knew all about the push to lock up as much of Tasmania's production forests as possible, through all the means the activists took, all of whom were known to him. Many of Nick's colleagues and associates were involved in the activities of The Wilderness Society, Environment Tasmania and the Greens organise and promote the extension of the TWWHA, (Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area), and to use it as a weapon against the timber industry.

He knew the role his former leaders Brown and Milne played in the 2007 and 2008 actions to extend the TWWHA, and how it was rejected, with the Reactive Monitoring Mission of 2008 claiming the forestry areas to the east were being well managed, and there was no need to extend the area. He knew Christine Milne was an International Vice-President of the IUCN, one of the principle advoisory bodies to the World Heritage Committee, and how susceptible it was (and still is) to the influence and pressure from ENGO's. He knew the opportunities that the round of elections in 2010 presented, and how the Greens and ENGO's were keen to take advantage of them. He knew the details of the "deal" that had been done between Brown, Milne, and Prime Minister Gillard, even more than the rest of us know, despite our attempts to get access to the documents through FOI requests. He knew about the Statement of Principles activities as it unfolded, and I reckon he knew all about the manoeuvrings that set up the Independent Verification Group, and how loaded it was with heavily conflicted people, but strangely none of them declared a conflict of interest!

The term "Independent" was bandied around, and was even in the name, and it was certainly in the Terms of Reference. I reckon Nick Mckim was certainly aware of the background of Professor Jonathan West, and that before going off to Harvard for 17 years, he was a one-time National Director of The Wilderness Society.  See link:  http://welovetasmania.com/Is_Jonathan_West_Independent.html

I reckon he was probably aware of several of the other academics that West brought into the IVG team, as well as other subsequent contractors and their backgrounds and past activities. He would have been aware of the work some of them did under contract and under joint funding arrangements with such organisations as The Wilderness Society. He was certainly aware of The Green Carbon Report, and how it was being used. For Nick McKim to then sit in the Tasmanian parliament and maintain the charade that the work of the IVG and the ENGO's was fair, unbiased and not conflicted,
and that the process for advancing the TWWHA extension nomination was fair and proper for me amounts to misleading the Tasmanian parliament, even if by omission, or failing to speak up. He allowed deception to occur, while knowing it was wrong.

The dubious Tasmanian Forest Agreement was rushed through the Tasmanian House of Assembly in November, 2012, but the Tasmanian Legislative Council (Upper House) refused to accept it, and in December 2012 convened a Select Committee of Inquiry, which unusually sat during January of 2013. Unknown to most, but probably not to McKim, his old friend Geoff Law was working away in the downstairs office from Brown and Milne's senate office in Hobart during December and January, feverishly preparing the TWWHA extension proposal.

Tony Burke was stalking the corridors of the Tasmanian parliament on the last sitting day of the Select Committee on Friday, January 25, 2013, and when asked by Legislative Councillors what he was going to do with respect to the TWWHA extension idea, he said he didn't know, it was a difficult decision, etc etc, but a short time later a media release indicated he had agreed to a massive extension! It wasn't clear exactly what was in the proposal, and useful scale maps were not provided. Subsequent attempts to get better maps and more information were refused, and ultimately took the intervention of the state Ombudsman. Only a few weeks before the TFA bill came before the Tasmanian parliament we discovered that much of what had previously been though available to the timber industry under the TFA was actually in the TWWHA extension proposal, and it was too late to change it under the way the World Heritage Committee agenda works. It reduced our Special Timbers Zone to 35,000 hectares from 98,000 hectares, and reduced the sustainable annual harvest, as defined by the Special Timbers Strategy of 2010, to well below that promised in the Tasmanian Forest Agreement, and Nick McKim was well aware of that consequence by the time the Bill returned from the Legislative Council to the House of Assembly in late April, 2013.

Nick McKim has gone back on positions he supported in the TFA, and does so on the basis that the TFA legislation has been torn up. Sure, it has been replaced by different legislation brought in by the Liberals and the change of government, but the TFA was technically dead before that. It was dead because it could not meet its "Durability" requirements on timber supply. It did not meet it's first durability Report, but was waved through in order to get Commonwealth compensation funds flowing, and it was on track to fail its second when the state election intervened. He has gone back on his word because he said the proposed future reserves are not going to be delivered. Well, you cannot take one half of a deal without giving over the commitments in the other half!

McKim claims to support Special Timbers, and the artists and craftspeople who depend upon them, but he clearly does not, and his party certainly does not, as Victorian Greens Senator Janet Rice pointed out, (see #7).

Now McKim and his cronies are pushing for political endorsement of World Heritage listing for the so-called Tarkine, and claiming 447,000 hectares. This is not on! It did not pass scrutiny last time, and it will fail again, especially if it is subjected to the regular and proper process of assessment. Besides, the area has far too much highly prospective mineral leases, and areas of Special Timbers proposed for sensitive light-touch harvesting under the new Special Timbers Management Plan, which is still in the course of preparation.

So what do you reckon? Am I right in my opinion of believing Nick McKim is unfit for office, and should not be returned to the Senate?

#8.

Can we use the Brexit example as a way of extracting ourselves from that dishonest, deceitful, corrupt, tax-sucking monster that goes under the name of the World Heritage Committee, when really all it happens to be is a travelling cocktail party that meets once a year, and votes on things it's delegates have no idea about, and which follows advisory bodies that are riven with corruption and political and ENGO influence to surreal dimensions, ... and...

can we get our forests back...??? 

#7.  A message to Greens senator Janet Rice, and some links to read...

... as well as being poorly advised, and extremely unhelpful. It is a good thing you will not be able to implement them.

Here is a link to a video of a debate held in Canberra on Wednesday, June 1, 2016, staged by AFPA, the Australian Forest Products Association:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do9UCXzCgAE

Others on the panel included current Parliamentary Secretary for Forests, Liberal Senator Anne Ruston, and Labor's Shadow Minister for Forests, Joel Fitzgibbon.

Janet, what you said on that occasion would wreck the Australian timber industry, which has a turnover of around $20 billion annually, and which employs over 120,000 people directly in full-time equivalent positions, and which contributes many more jobs in downstream processing and manufacturing. You should also note that this country still has a trade deficit in timber of around $2 billion annually, and some of that timber coming in is probably stained with the blood of the Orang Utan.... it certainly wouldn't come from forests as well managed as ours!

Does the term perverse environmental outcome mean anything to you?

You are also pushing for a Great Forest National Park in Victoria, and are party to the claim that the timber in that region would be worth more standing, and included in carbon accounting. What rubbish!  In fact, here is a claim that counters that, and it is much more credible:

http://ausfpa.com.au/media-releases/report-reveals-the-true-value-of-the-sustainable-native-forest-industry/

For pity's sake, electorate of Australia, spare us from this nonsense...!

#6. Hi Jacqui Lambie, can you remind us of how you support the timber industry, and jobs in regional Tasmania and other states, and what you think of the Greens and their policies?

cheers,
George

#5.  Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten should both re-allocate their candidates for Environment Minister. 

It is too late to do this before the election now, but both should do it soon after, no matter who wins, or can form a government.

The reason both leaders should do this is that the current candidates for Environment Minister are unsuitable for the role, and both have compromised themselves, in my opinion.

Greg Hunt, Liberal, Member for Flinders, Victoria              Mark Butler, Labor, Member for Port       current Minister for the Environment                                    Adelaide, Shadow Minister, Environment

I reckon both are too soft, and both have been captured by the environment movement, and the selfish fundamentalist parasites that manipulate the myriad groups under that banner.

They should cease to regard that cabal as their primary constituents. In fact, the portfolio should be re-named, and the member nominated should be known as the Minister for Environmental Management. From that point forward, the portfolio should be managed differently, and the federal department re-arranged to ensure the primacy of properly conducted science and genuinely peer-reviewed assessment, and to removed conflicted individuals from critical areas of influence.

Greg Hunt is the current Environment Minister, and Mark Butler is his immediate predecessor under the last days of the Gillard-Rudd former Labor government.

Both Greg Hunt and Mark Butler have caved in to pressure from the Greens and the ENGO's, (environment non-government organisations). Greg Hunt and his Tasmanian counterpart recently and hastily agreed to accept all the recommendations of the report (March, 2016) of the UN's World Heritage Reactive Monitoring Mission to Tasmania that took place in November, 2016, without consulting with affected stakeholders in the Tasmanian timber industry, nor even with some of his colleagues in the Tasmanian Legislative Council, (Upper House), whose electorates were affected.  I believe this was done in response to a larger game that was in play. I believe the federal government was so worried about the Great Barrier Reef being declared "World Heritage in Danger" that they offered to buckle on their earlier position on access to Special Timbers for limited single-stem selective logging in appropriate areas within the 2013 extension of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area in exchange for them going a bit easier on Australia over the reef. They were backing away from their earlier position on their own Draft Management Plan, even though it was for areas where the underlying land tenure had not changed, and where it appeared to satisfy even the strict provisions of the IUCN and World Heritage Centre's own guidelines on managing World Heritage and managing resources and tourism. If this is the case, it is a disgraceful way to treat an industry and it's people, and especially an arts-based activity that has such iconic social, cultural and heritage status, and such status within the tourism and visitor experience as the Special Timbers product design and manufacturing sector. We believe this sector would qualify for recognition under another UN Convention, and that is the one on Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage.

Mark Butler took over from Tony Burke, who is one that well and truly sold the Tasmanian timber industry down the river, and caused a massive portion of the remaining Special Timbers Zone to be locked up. Tony Burke has been a member of The Wilderness Society since his mid teens, well before becoming a member of the Labor party. His partisanship and past form and behaviour has made him a hated figure throughout the timber industry, and I believe was a significant contributing factor to why the Tasmanian Labor government lost office in 2014 in the biggest landslide in its history. It seems as though Tony has continued as a mentor to Mark, and they have been seen and photographed in Tasmania's expropriated forests, and seemed warmly regarded by their new and old friends from the anti-forestry brigade. The following image is in the Styx forest, around the time the subsequent government was trying to get some of our forests back. Apart from Burke and Butler, those present included the national and state directors of The Wilderness Society, Lyndon Schneiders and Vica Bayley respectively, as well as other well-known activists, including Warwick Jordan. Jenny McAllister, formerly of LEAN, now a senator, was with them in the front row. How do you think this went down with timber industry people?

 

Vica Bayley, TWS Tasmania in foreground, WHA proposal writer Geoff Law in red jacket.

Labor in Tasmania currently has seven seats in a 25-seat lower house, when prior to 2010 it had a majority. There are five members in five electorates making up the house. The Liberals currently have 15 and the Greens three. The far north west seat of Braddon currently has four Liberals, one Labor, (Opposition Leader Bryan Green), and no Greens. This is an unnatural result for that seat, as the timber industry has a major presence there, and strong worker support. Tasmania now has only one member in the House of Representatives, Julie Collins, (Franklin), as support for Labor federally collapsed as well in 2013.

As I have said elsewhere, Labor has become an urban party. Sadly, though, the urban political landscape has become one where Labor is battling to hold its traditional seats against strong campaigns by the Greens, and this is dragging campaigning resources away from fighting for marginal LNP-held seats in the regions. If Labor were to make a decent pitch to regain the support of workers from the timber industry and other resource-based industries in the regions, such as mining, fishing, agriculture, it could pinch seats off the coalition, but it would have to stand up strongly against the greens to do so, and it would have to sound convincing. AFPA (Australian Forest Products Association) has identified 12 marginal seats (ie. held by less than 5%) around the regions where the timber industry is significant, and the majority are held by the coalition. Hello...???

I believe a robust stand of support for a decent, well-managed timber industry would reward Labor, and it would not necessarily drive voters towards the Liberals or Nationals....

They've done it...! The Greens have come out with a pressure point for the election campaign, and it deserves to be strenuously resisted.... See the following link:

http://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/greens-want-tarkine-to-join-tasmanias-wilderness-world-heritage-area/news-story/ab05be889826500e3b3d5a8c670a5de8

This area has already been assessed (2013) for inclusion on the Register of the National Estate, and apart from a narrow strip along the coast, it did not stack up. It is diabolical now for the Greens to be pushing political pressure over appropriate process.

We saw how the 2013 TWWHA extension was characterised by bullying, dishonesty, misrepresentation, academic fraud, bodged peer review, failure to declare conflict of interest, transgression of existing statutes by political manipulation, denial of consultation, denial of natural justice, and flagrant abuse of proper process and protocol, and we don't want to go through any of that again! In that instance we saw many areas added to the TWWHA that do not have the validity to be there. They devalue its currency.

It is completely inappropriate to propose that all 447,000 hectares become added to WHA, and to attempt to use that stunt as a weapon against the mining and timber industries. There are some areas of the so-called Tarkine that will never be touched, and conventional timber harvesting involving CBS will not be applied. Instead, some areas will be available for low-impact single-stem selection for Special Timbers, with low annual volumes and no regeneration burning. This will be completely within the requirements of the EPBC Act, and the new Special Timbers Management Plan.

It is important for Tasmania and the taxpayers of Australia that this area is spared from the tax-sucking monster that dubious World Heritage Areas have become.

#3: Green groups flexing their muscles, major parties remain silent

One of the major objectives of this blog is to get the major parties to declare, during the course of the election campaign, whether and how they will stand up against the policies and agendas of the Greens and the ENGO's, particularly as they relate to the timber industry.

A recent article in The Australian gives an indication of how powerful these ENGO's are in terms of numbers, with the big four, (TWS, ACF, WWF and Greenpeace), having 1.5 million members between them. What the article didn't say is that the combined annual revenue raised by these groups is more than $80 million, from donations, membership subscriptions and other sources. You can create a lot of impact with that kind of money! These groups have the Greens in their pockets.

Both major parties are keen to attract Greens preferences, and neither wants to upset them. However, unless the major parties spell it out, how can you trust them in government, especially if there is a hung parliament, and either party would have to accommodate them to establish and maintain government?

I want to see both parties declare their timber industry policies in detail, and for both to state they will not support any further lock-ups of forest in a manner that prevents any form of timber harvesting. They must declare they will oppose National Park and World Heritage Area establishment or extension if it is proposed in the manner of being a weapon against the timber industry. Our forests of course have to be managed carefully and properly, and in accordance with the requirements of the EPBC Act, but that does not mean timber harvesting should be abandoned completely or permanently. The best management practices ensure sustainable supply through careful management and regeneration.

I want to see a government declare its policies, and stick to them, even if it means being in minority on the floor of the House. If both major parties get back to bi-partisan support for the timber industry, the destructive green fundamentalism can be of little or no impact. If Greens members bring down a government, so bit it, and may the consequences be on their heads. If a government sticks to its principles, the community will support and return them.

See The Australian article, here, and if it doesn't scare you, it should...

 Coalition of environment groups demands legal overall

·      THE AUSTRALIAN

·      MAY 18, 2016 12:00AM

·      SAVE

·      PRINT

·         Graham Lloyd

Environment Editor

Sydney

Wilderness Society national campaign manager Lyndon Schneiders says ‘we need streamlined laws with clear objectives and real teeth’. Picture: Hollie Adams

A grand coalition of environment groups claiming 1.5 million ­members has entered the federal election campaign with a blueprint to reform environment laws.

Proposed laws would allow the federal government to override the states on land-clearing and end state-based regional forest agreements. The groups claim the new system would reduce ­litigation and provide greater ­certainty for business.

Wilderness Society national campaign manager Lyndon Schneiders said existing laws ­“create a mass of paperwork that drives business mad”. “We need streamlined laws with clear objectives and real teeth,” he said.

The blueprint is at odds with Coalition policy, which calls for a one-stop shop to delegate federal environment decision-making to the states. The reform agenda laid out by 42 environment groups under the Places You Love banner aims to make the federal government the key decision-maker.

But most decisions would be taken away from government and given to an independent national authority which would act as regulator, planner and adviser.

Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt and opposition spokesman Mark Butler have been briefed on the plan and challenged to commit to a timetable for its ­introduction. Both are to appear at the National Press Club today to debate environment policies.

Under the blueprint, within 30 days of being sworn in, the new government would convene a taskforce to commence development of a new environment act and an independent environment authority. The taskforce would be given a year to develop recommendations, with legislation to be introduced in 2018.

Mr Schneiders said it was time for “a new consensus to ... protect the ­environment effectively and with the minimum of bureaucracy”. “The government’s attempt to hand-pass responsibility ... to the states has failed,” he said.

The four key elements of the blueprint are: a new commonwealth environment act within two years; expanding the scope of federal oversight of environmental matters; creating an independent national authority similar to the US Federal Environment Agency; and enshrining accountability, integrity and transparency in decision-making and access to information.

Labor has already ruled out giving environmental decision-making powers to the states. Mr Hunt has remained committed to the one-stop shop despite legislation being blocked in the Senate. The environment groups involved in the blueprint include WWF Australia, Australian Conservation Foundation, Wilderness Society and Greenpeace.

#2:  The Greens and The Wilderness Society.

Both the Greens and The Wilderness Society emerged in Tasmania in the 1970's out of the protest movement against the flooding of Lake Pedder in South West Tasmania for creation of the Gordon/Pedder hydro-electric scheme. Both have evolved in close association, but there are important distinctions between them in what they choose to do, and what they are able to do.

I don't like either, and feel they are both driven by people in key positions who are selfish, narcissistic, misanthropic, malicious and fundamentalist in nature. I find it interesting to look at the behaviour of former Greens leaders both while in office, and how they have conducted themselves since leaving office. The parliamentary Greens have to observe externally imposed codes of conduct for elected members, while internally their rules and means of operating have evolved partly along idealistic lines, and partly to suit the aspirations of those in controlling positions. The Wilderness Society (TWS) has had fewer leaders, and less restrictions on its scope of operation, and is, I believe, far less democratic as an organisation. TWS expanded rapidly under the leadership of Alec Marr, but was very militant. Marr was deposed during a bitter internal dispute spanning 2009-2010, being replaced by Lyndon Scneiders.

A general overview of the Greens can be seen here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Greens  and of TWS here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wilderness_Society_(Australia)

After the No Dams campaign, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Dam_controversy had been decided, a number of people who came together during the process realized that being full-time activists was fun, and when combined with fund-raising activities pouring in to established organisations, it could provide job opportunities that were more lucrative and more enjoyable than real or conventional jobs. The sharpest among them seized those for themselves, and farmed many others as volunteers, and sought ever more contributions and donations, and even requests for their organisations to be beneficiaries of wills. In more recent years both the Greens and TWS have sought and received large donations from high personal wealth individuals, and have used them to pursue their agendas, which have included subverting the policies and programs of democratically elected governments.

Information we cannot obtain is the detail of agreements made between previous Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Greens senators Bob Brown and Christine Milne, but I believe they were made under duress, and with threats to bring down her government. I suppose we will have to wait for the thirty-year rule on cabinet documents, unless someone leaks something...

I know this following cartoon relates to the carbon price issue, but it could easily apply to how the timber industry was dealt with...

 

Welcome to my Blog, the diary of a conflicted Labor voter.

It is Tuesday, May 24 and the second day of the third week of the 2016 Australian federal election campaign, and I am taking what is for me a significant step, and that is to publish some comments and reasons as to why I am feeling such a conflicted ALP member, and to try and influence the debate, and most of all, to try and extract some solid commitments that can't easily be denied or transgressed after the election result. 

I have grave fears about what would happen, especially to my industry, the timber industry, if there were to be a hung parliament, or a government where Labor is effectively in minority, and can only govern at the behest of the Greens.

This has happened before, in fact it is what happened in the round of elections in 2010. 

In March of 2010 the Tasmanian state election returned a hung parliament, as the 25-member House of Assembly returned 10 Liberal, 10 Labor and 5 Greens. After weeks of stalemate, the incumbent Labor Premier David Bartlett formed a government with an arrangement with the Greens, which included two Greens members serving in government as cabinet ministers. 

A few months later the federal government under Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard lost majority in its own right, and only continued with the support of Independents and new Greens member Adam Bandt. It was a triple-whammy, as the Greens also won the balance of power in the Senate. This led to the Greens pursuing their own agenda, and causing Labor to not only abandon some of the policies they took into the elections, but to completely reverse them! Nowhere was this more stark than in the timber industry, and the area I am most closely associated. 

Labor has previously held all five seats in the House of Representatives, but by the wipe-out of 2013 had lost all but one, and at the state level the previously popular and successful Labor team lost government in 2014 in the biggest landslide in its history. Much of this was caused by the impact and fall-out from the 2010 results and their consequences. There are important lessons from the period 2010 -2013, and they should not be forgotten, but there is also a lot of detail about exactly what did happen during that period that has not come out, and it would be a significant scandal if it did. 

Neither of the major parties seem to want to discuss the timber industry, or other resource-based industries to what I feel is any level of adequacy. That is a shame. Labor seems to have become an urban party, and in some areas it is in a tight battle to hold seats against the Greens, and some are high profile seats. What about workers in rural areas, and in resource-based industries? The Liberals do have some marginal seats in areas where the timber industry is significant, but what is Labor doing to try and make up the difference to win them? 

The Liberals have been in government long enough to own the situation, even if some of it wasn't of their making. We have seen World Heritage Area extension used inappropriately in Tasmania as a weapon against the timber industry, but the current state government did compile a Draft Management Plan in accordance with the policies it took to the 2014 state election. This prompted green groups to bring about a visit by a Reactive Monitoring Mission from the World Heritage Centre in November 2015, and a subsequent report in March 2016. The response by Liberal state and federal environment ministers has been disappointing to say the least, and causes us to wonder if there hasn't been some higher level dealing along the lines of:  "if we cave in on the Tasmanian forests, will you go a bit easier on us over the Great Barrier Reef?" Well! If that is what happened, it is no way to treat a major resource-based industry in Tasmania. 

Meanwhile, combined environment groups have been flexing their muscles, claiming to represent 1.5 million members, and about $80 million between them collected annually in subscriptions and donations. How can any industry defend itself against that?

So, what do I want to hear? I want to hear some rock-solid commitments by both Labor and the Liberals on support for the timber industry, both for regenerated native forests and plantations, both in the public forest sector and the freehold sector, and I certainly want to hear support for the Special Timbers sector in Tasmania's native forests. I want to hear clear opposition to that stupid Great Forest National Park nonsense in Victoria. Rather, I want to see support for the forests being managed carefully and properly for multiple use, which includes conservation, recreation, bio-diversity and resource access and use for income generation.

An issue I am keen to publicise is just how dishonest, deceitful, malicious and destructive the Greens and their supporters in the ENGO's (environmental non-government organisations) can be, especially The Wilderness Society. The recent history of this needs to be brought out. Unfortunately it is not a new development. Some of  the same individuals have been engaging in this for decades. The more recent behaviour of some past Greens leaders has been damaging and disgraceful.

A little about me: I am a furniture designer and manufacturer in southern Tasmania, using Tasmania's unique Special Timbers. I have been self-employed as such since 1982. I have been a Labor voter since 1974, and an active party member since 1996, although after the Tasmanian Forest Agreement debacle and the corrupt and dishonest Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area extension of 2013, I could not bring myself to vote Labor in the state election of 2014. I could not stomach the bullshit that was on offer. On that occasion I voted Liberal for the first and only time in my life. 

Two weeks after that election, party memberships came up for renewal, and I mulled over what to do. I decided to renew, and put my efforts into correcting what I saw was the policy mistakes in timber industry policy, and I have to say I am pleased with the way the state branch has responded. I am much less certain now about where the federal party is at, and what it might do if Labor and the Greens have more seats than the LNP if counted together. It is these questions to which I am seeking public commitments by the parties before election day. You can imagine how conflicted I felt when a senior timber industry figure said this to me recently:  "The best thing you could do to help the timber industry is to ensure Labor does not get elected federally." So how do I vote? I really want to see a Labor government, one that sticks up for workers, one that will preserve Medicare, invest properly in education, and end the torture of indefinite and unspecified detention of asylum seekers, but does it have to be at the fate of certain and further destruction of my industry? My own vote might not mean much, but I am keen to raise the debate as widely as possible.... Please help this along by tagging and sharing.

Coming up:  Deceit, dishonesty, duplicity, bullying, and significant and undeclared conflict of interest in the process that led to the Tasmanian Forest Agreement and the 2013 extension to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area by Minor Boundary Modification; perverse environmental outcomes from misguided Green policies; and how an enlightened, well-managed timber industry can help achieve objectives in a carbon-conscious future.

In the meantime, check out a couple of links:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/234874919/207339341-My-Furniture-in-Glass-and-Timber

https://www.scribd.com/doc/305966160/Why-Timber