cheers,
George
Sunday, 26 June 2016
#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?
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....
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....
Tuesday, 21 June 2016
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
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.
Sunday, 29 May 2016
#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
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
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.
Saturday, 28 May 2016
#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...
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...
Monday, 23 May 2016
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:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)