What it’s all about: Forestry Tasmania’s arrogant trashing of Aboriginal and settler history
In Tasmanian T imes on Thursday, February 9, the following article was posted by Phil Pullinger, Vica Bayley and Lindsay Hesketh: Forestry Tasmania increases logging in IGA protected areas
It said in part: A report released today by environment groups reveals that since Forestry Tasmania was paid $12.5 million to stop logging in the 572,000 hectares of forests being assessed for protection, the agency has shown no letup in the rate of logging inside these forests.
My personal experience as per below supports entirely that the posting is factually correct, at least in my limited experience as follows:-
On 1 February I sent the following to Dr Dianne Snowden of Heritage Tasmania, copied to Minister Green and The Premier:
Thank you for polite response Dianne.
I know politicians and political appointees do not like to answer hypotheticals…but…..this is not a hypothetical…..
But what if the Works were ... “otherwise than in accordance with forest practices as defined in the Forest Practices Act 1985.”’
And the reason I ask this is as per:
1. A response I gave on TT, below:-
I suspect the best evidence of the presence of the Green and Gold Frog rests with the CFPO,FT, and DPIPWE, who have WMV recordings of their calls on the coupe. If Lindsay allows I will send for future attachment. But let me include this statement from the good CFPO, via email from Jo Field (FPO) on the 13 of Sept 2010.
” I do not doubt that the Green and Gold Frog may be present on your property, but according to our frog expert, your recording only contains the Brown Tree Frog”
RTI of a later date shows that this frog expert (it was actually two frog experts in the first email from the CFPO on this subject)was sitting at a desk in Hobart looking at the Natural Values Atlas which did not record the G&G Frog for that area(oh and by the way neither the Devil or the Spotted Quoll appeared on the Atlas desktop and I have proved that they exist).
So here is my property some 60 metres away at the nearest point from a coupe with sedentary water, Class 4 streams, and up to 2.5 metres of rainfall every year, with G&G calls in the incidental gutter on Highland Lakes Road on the Western side of the coupe, and the CFPO says ”nup no G&G frogs here”
As they say in “The Castle” ..In your Dreams!
A breach of the FPC = Absolutely!
2. Sent to Forestry Tasmania on 30 January and copied to the Managing Director/CEO
“I reference the email exchange of 2010 attached.
Given the substantive uncertainty generated herein and noting that Kim Booth asked the Minister a question without notice on 23 November that relates to this uncertaiinty I would ask if your “Specialists” have resolved this issue in their latest round of assessments and if so please detail that resolution.
I have also attached a summary of the DPIPWE camera shoot conducted during 2010 that show the existence of devils on the coupe that are FREE OF FACIAL TUMOUR DISEASE>
Please outline how this fact has been recognized in the NEW FPP.”
A breach of the FPC = Absolutely!
So Ms Chairman, we have documented breaches of the FPC with respect to this coupe, (there are many more but I will not bore you); we have a CFPO (and a CEO of FT) who refuse to admit such despite RTI evidence to the contrary, so how do you now apply Part 1 (3) Works (d) of the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 ?
I received this reply from the Premier’s Office on 2 February (not my typing mistakes by the way)
The Premier has asked me to acknowledge and thank you for your emailof 1 February2012.
Ms Giddings has noted your comments and forwarded your email to her colleague, Hon Bryan Green MP, for attention.
On 8 February I sent the following email exchange to Minister Green, copied to the Premier and Dr Dianne Snowden.
I can only assume that neither you or the Premier have ANY control over Forestry Tasmania (despite being the responsible shareholding Ministers) and they are basically running the show in your absence. See the email trail below about the date for recommencing roading on BA388D using myonly access road.
It is now 77 days since our meeting, and the question in Parliament by Kim Booth, on 23 November and you have done NOTHING!!!!
Is there anyone out there with a semblance of accountability and responsibility!!!
And how do you collectively plan to respond to Bob Brown’s question in the Senate yesterday about WHA areas and the activities of FT adjacent to them, in contravention of the IGA and the Verification Process, which in summary says:-
“There are some 18 coupes totalling over 800ha that are being logged, have been logged or are due for logging in the areas the government claims have been protected,” Senator Brown said.
“Some of these coupes are within just 1km of the World Heritage Area, which contrasts with the picture the government paints of a secure shield buffering the area from the impacts of logging”.
Coupe BA388D is not within one kilometre of a World Heritage Area. It directly abuts the Liffey Falls WHA along both the southern and eastern sides = a conjoined contact distance of some 1.25 kilometres.
All of Dr Snowden, The FT CEO, the Minister, the Premier, and Minister Burke are aware of this fact.
To: peter.bird@; peter.rowlands; peter.williams@
Subject: Coupe BA 388D
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 19:53:06 +1000
I note that your email of 3 February suggested that:-
“We intend to recommence the road construction midway through next week. At this stage I am not able to confirm when harvesting and log truck movements will commence”.
I would note the following from the original FPP of July 2010 - the FPP quite clearly states that “In damp or wet conditions, avoid using machinery or trucks on the new formation”.
I note that on Sunday evening my property had circa 30mm of rain and today some 12mm fell. The conditions on my property are boggy but I suspect that on the coupe 60 metres away, according to the CFPO it is drier than a ....you fill in the metaphor.
If you decide to progress with your roading activities during this week then yet again you will be in breach of the FPC, the FPP for the Coupe and the Forestry Act 1985, and photographs will confirm this as per the attached.
Oh and by the way there are couple of emails that neither you or the Bobster or the Minister or the Premier have deigned to answer!!
I sent a further email to the Minister, copied to The Premier and Dr Dianne Snowden on 9 February to update status as per below:-
“FT have bulldozers working on the coupe this morning.
Thanks for your assistance Bryan!!!!”
I received this email from the Premiers Office late today in response
Dear Mr Powell
On behalf of Tasmanian Premier, Hon Lara Giddings MP, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your email of 8 February2012.
Your correspondence will be brought to the Premier’s attention.
In summary: -
• the Minister has now had 78 days to respond to my concerns expressed on 23 November and I have heard nothing from him
• FT has completely ignored that the Minister (and The Premier) were supposedly reviewing the circumstances of BA 388D since my meeting on 23 November, and they are fully aware of all of those communications
• They have now intruded on the coupe via my only access road placing my wife at risk of two traffic on a narrow winding road
• FT and the FPA have allowed breaches of the FPC to occur in the past, and their presence on the coupe today (Thursday) (after some 45 mm of rain in the past week, with more predicted to come) maintains those ongoing breaches
• FT has commenced activities that pursuant to the Bob Brown question in the Senate breaches the IGA with seemingly the complete approval of the Premier, the Minister and Dr Snowden.
• It is interesting that on the 2 Feb the Premier passed the issue on to the Minister and refused to accept any accountability
• On 9 February, perhaps The Premier’s most sanguine advisor, has brought to her attention that the Minister has done nothing, and continues to do nothing, and she may now have to accept the accountabilityand courage to act immediately and make a suitable direction to FT to cease activities, which as the Responsible Minister, she has an ability to so direct.