#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