An exercise in futility if ever there was oneBy MARK TEMBYDr Alison Bleaney's critique Dr Bleaney states, "The most significant omissions from DPIWE's response are...any post 1996 water testing result in the Georges River catchment, despite documented contamination of waterways in 1994 with simazine." This statement typifies the industry deregulation that occurred in concert with the Regional Forest Agreement. The Regional Forest Agreement delivered on a whole of industry wish list. It was not limited to slicing and dicing public lands for vested interests. The forest industry also required the legal framework to rapidly move forward. This framework included: * Increased investment through publicly funded tax concessions. Despite decades of warnings about agricultural schemes and failures to gain favourable tax rulings for tea tree and avocado plantations the Federal government delivered the right investment climate. It makes a mockery of the National Party bleating of an internationally level playing field. This represents as much a subsidy as held by any American sugar cane farm or French dairy or beef producer. * Forestry activity within any rural land zoning is a "permitted use" and exempt from local planning laws and appeal processes. This is multiplied in its effect when local councils across Tasmania are so lax in updating their planning schemes. Compensation for the loss of agricultural income is provided within the Good Neighbour Agreement. It was negotiated with the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association but does not have legislative or regulatory standing. It does not provide compensation for property devaluation. * No standards or regulatory controls on water, soil and air pollutants. It can be seen scientific testing was, at best, not encouraged or, at worst, actively discouraged. It is now almost a decade since the introduction of the RFA. What industry defining scientific program (results, recommendations or implementation) has been aimed at the wildlife, autumn burns or waterways? * Exemptions for the killing of wildlife and threatened species. The principal aim is the conversion of native forests into plantations.There is only the accountant's view animals will survive. On a world scale the Tasmanian Devil inhabits this tiny corner alone. It's demise coincided with the RFA. * Few regulatory controls on log truck movements beyond those applying to the general public. Noise pollution and hours of duty are just two issues awaiting resolution. * The Forest Practices Code and Plans do not enjoy the status of law. They are frameworks for management only. The Forest Practices Board and Tribunal are there to oversee a deregulated environment. An exercise in futility if ever there was one. A government's role is to provide guidance and unity to a society. Where behaviour needs to be modified, laws are enacted and regulated. If an industry across a state of Australia has been deregulated to such an extent then I fail to see a job for a forest scientist beyond perpetuating an argument long enough for a few more hectares to be clearfelled. When the major parties enter negotiations on Tasmanian forests in the upcoming Federal election, they need to look beyond the conservation values of the Weld, the Styx, the Blue Tier and the Tarkine. They need to look at the regulatory framework that allows the Tasmanian woodchip industry to desecrate and divide this island. It is time to modify behaviour. Mark Temby likes to observe behaviours and their motivators ... "Certainly most people seem to think that mastery is statesmanship, and they have no compunction about inflicting upon others what in their own community they regard as neither just nor beneficial if applied to themselves. They themselves ask for just government among themselves; but in the treatment of others they do not worry at all about what measures are just." and, RAPID RESPONSE EMAIL: What do you think? Tuesday, August 17, 2004 |