Mr Browne – another point

You said: “he makes the unfounded assertion that forestry operations are more highly regulated than other land use activities”

Is there a Code of Practice for Farming? Do farmers ploughing paddocks, spraying weeds, harvesting crops etc have to comply with an approved operational plan that meets the requirements of this Code? Do outside people come onto farming properties to monitor farming operations to ensure they comply with this operational plan? I’m not especially knocking farmers, but I’m pretty sure the answer to these questions is NO.

So asserting that forestry operations are more highly regulated is hardly unfounded

Mr Browne
You said: “Tasmania’s so called “regulation” of the forest industry is self regulation”

This view encapsulates a lack of trust in a whole profession to do their job. It is an attack on the integrity of people who love forests, are highly knowledgeable about them, and specifically trained in their management. This includes those such as myself who have 3 to 5+ years of university training in forest science. Essentially, they stand accused of intentionally wrecking the environment - but why would they?

Its basis is a conspiracy theory about corruption and conflicts of interest which is an affront to all concerned. This is founded on decades of environmental activism which has lumped foresters and the timber industry together into a so-called “forest industry”. In reality, they are separate entities who have always had an adversarial relationship typical of a situation where one group (foresters) plans and regulates the activities of another (timber industry and its contractors).

In the public forests where the forest debate is centred, foresters are employed by the government to regulate a private industry. Where is the conflict of interest?

Admittedly, the situation is more clouded on private lands where the industry employs its own foresters to manage its own operations. But these operations must still comply with government regulations such as the Code and its requirements, and industry-foresters operate under a licence issued by the government to meet this obligation. In addition there are overriding environmental audits by a government authority, while certified timber companies must meet another layer of auditing.

Of course, those who are philosophically opposed to timber production simply dismiss this as corruption and call for reform.

If we can’t trust those who are trained in the job who do we trust? Oh let’s see, perhaps activists and scientists associated with the environmental movement can regulate forestry operations. This would be akin to convicted criminals regulating the judicial system. In both cases, the would-be regulators are philosophically opposed to the very existence of what they are regulating. Hardly sensible, yet this seems to be what forestry critics are advocating.

Mr Browne - one final point before I go and watch the footy
You said: Ïf Poynter had paid attention to the public debate ...... he would be aware that accounting and economics have been major components of thät debate"

Of course they are, but I would contend that this is another area riven with conspiracy theories and speculation by people (usually acting on behalf of environmental activism) who may well have qualifications in these areas but have little understanding of the industry they are dealing with.

Just as law has various branches such as corporate, family or criminal; an economic degree does not immediately confer expertise in every branch of the field. Forest economics is a particular branch of this field.

Amongst those who have specialised in this area, there is just one vocal ANU resource economist who has worked virtually as an anti-logging activist since the early 1990's. Indeed, she was once referred to as the äcademic spokesperson of the no-native-forest-logging clique of the environmental movement". As expected her pronouncements have been heavily influenced by her underlying philosophy and have been regarded as being highly contentious by other forest economists.

Those academics with economic or accounting qualifications amongst those who sighed the open letter gave no indication that they have any special knowledge in the forestry sphere.

The "Greens" Political Party nearly all Academic's negotiated a Preference deal with the ALP to stop 'Cool Burning'in our Nations Forests (1981 I think) This decision culminated with the death of 147 People and the Crucifixion of the Victorian Fire Brigade Captain who will exit with No Entitlements ! How so ? The most essential tool for controlling Fire in Eucalyptus forests was removed from his war chest by a bunch of Academics who now declare that nothing would have saved those people on that extreme day . Pure Crap if there was no significant under-story eg; dead or dying undergrowth , shrubs and forest detritus and the Eucalyptus thinned properly (Sensible Commercial forests produce healthy trees) the heat needed to force the oil out of the leaf canopy would have not been available this is interesting to watch the sequence is: burning under-story , dark colored gas visible above Crown , crown leaves start to burn , sparks from crown ignite eucy oil gas above crown . Other considerations are Burrawongs and other Palm like shrubbery these plants burn at extremely high temperature and make the forests future regrowth long term due to soil destruction .
Kick the Academics out of the Forests , manage the Forests like a tree Farmer would , healthy well managed Forests are not Dangerous but are deserving of our respect .

Mark Poynter’s article “Crossing the line from academia to activism” http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10279 questioned the appropriateness of academics publishing an open letter on a key electoral issue just four days before the Tasmanian election. Whilst it questioned the role of academics and the use of authority of their titles in political activism, it was not about reducing freedom of speech or censorship.

Now one of the non academic signatories to the open letter in Mr Roland Browne, a Legal Practitioner of Hobart has responded, yet failed to state his involvement with the letter. This involvement includes being the co-author of a key reference used by the academics. He fails to state that much of the open letter relies upon claims he made at a 2002 conference of the Tasmanian Environment Defenders office (EDO) is his capacity as its Chair.

Despite not declaring these affiliations the author then justifies the academics’ open letter by claiming “the public debate is skewed by the enormous resources of the institutional players of the forestry industry”

Yet the EDO has been a prominent participant in the debate, with EDOs being largely funded by the Commonwealth Attorney General's Department. Tom Baxter, EDO committee member and open letter signatory, was identified by the internet activist organisation Get Up as the organiser of this open letter.

Get Up hosted a ‘public forum’ and paid for a full page advertisement of this open letter as part of a $140,000 advertising campaign for the Tasmanian election. The advertisement was also linked to Environment Tasmania and Our Common Ground’s massively resourced campaigns that were designed to influence the outcome of the Tasmania election.
The ability to spend $140,000 on prime time TV advertising and full page newspaper advertisement, reflects the strength of the financial resources of the green lobby, with the Canberra Times ( 19 Dec 09) indentifying that just four of Australia's biggest environment groups spent more than $70million last financial year.

Perhaps the last paragraph of the article should read: the public debate was skewed by the enormous resources of the green activist industry.

The feigned concern from a lawyer about "self-regulation" is a bit rich. The lega profession doesn't have much of a ttrack record in Tasmania - witness failed mortgage schemes in the 90s. I declare my interest as a former Board member on the Forest Practices Board. I also point readers to a paper by Cashore et al of Yale University which placed the Tasmanian forest practices system in the top three in the world.

Foresters are professional people with a high level of training. Just as any other profession they are trained to manage forests for a sustainable future. While ever humans utilise forest products including timber, paper and other non timber forest products then foresters will be required. Indeed some of the foremost conservationists and managers of national parks around the world have come from the ranks of professional foresters.

As National President of the Institute of Foresters of Australia I can assure Mr Browne that our organisation's resources are quite limited. We rely entirely on mamber subscriptions from a base of about 1300 people. We certainly do not tag along with everything the "industry" advocates. Just as the legal profession is not in agreement all the time.