Tasmania’s forests: pushing a Greens’ vision onto unwilling locals

It also heard from several tourism experts who asserted that more forested national parks is unlikely to translate into more tourism thereby debunking a key plank of the ENGO and Greens' rationale for closing the timber industry.

Tasmania's native forest timber sector could be resurrected to operate in perpetuity given a return to better economic conditions; the maintenance of some significant wood chipping capacity to deal with sawmilling waste; and some new markets for low value wood produced as a by-product of sawlog harvesting. The industry was working to achieve these outcomes, but has been largely thwarted by back-room chicanery orchestrated by the Greens.

Firstly, the Australian Government's Clean Energy legislation, developed to facilitate the introduction of a carbon tax, included a Greens-inspired clause to prevent the use of native forest waste for biomass energy generation.

This appears to have been deliberately aimed at preventing Forestry Tasmania from undertaking planned trialling of a process which could have delivered significant emissions cuts by off-setting demand for coal-fired energy with 'green' renewable energy. This seems to be a case of the Greens 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'.

Secondly, it is difficult to believe that the Greens were not party to the 11^th hour decision by Gunns in early July to suddenly reject an industry-bid for the purchase of their Triabunna woodchip mill so as to sell it for 40% less to a consortium of two 'green' multi-millionaires who plan to turn the site into a tourism hub.

Given that Gunns needs the 'peace deal' to go through in order to secure compensation for relinquishing their native forest logging rights, and that the deal requires the support of the participating ENGOs representing the interests of the Greens, this was a win-win for them and created another substantial hurdle to prevent the prospect of an ongoing native timber industry.

Thirdly, it seems that backroom deals between the Greens and Labor were implicit in the signing of the Intergovernmental Agreement last month which pledged taxpayer funding to support the implementation of the 'peace deal'.

This is exemplified by the appointment of former Harvard Professor Jonathon West to oversee the verification of the conservation status of some 430,000 hectares of proposed new forested parks and reserves despite him lacking any technical qualifications in this area.

Indeed, Professor West is a former Director of the Wilderness Society, who reportedly oversaw the forest protests and misinformation campaigns of 1986/87 which largely kicked-off the era of enduring forest conflict. It seems that elements of the Intergovernmental Agreement were altered specifically due to advice he provided to Julia Gillard so as to placate Greens' concerns that it may have otherwise allowed timber harvesting to continue in some areas.

Such is the zeal with which the Federal Labor Government has embraced the notion of a 'peace deal', that it seems likely that closing Tasmania's native timber industry sits alongside a carbon price and same-sex marriage as must-have elements of the agreement hammered out by Julia Gillard to secure Greens support for her Government in the aftermath of the last Federal Election.

Meanwhile, local opposition to the 'peace deal' has hardened considerably in response to the findings of the Parliamentary inquiry, and as revelations about the conduct of the Greens have become known and as the realisation that the 'peace talks' will not actually deliver anything positive has become more widely appreciated.

Those now opposing it include former participants in the 'peace deal' process – the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania; as well as the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, and the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Timber Communities Australia are formally withholding support pending clarifications, but it seems that a large slice of their membership are increasingly opposed to it.