#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?