And as for the ecological integrity of both policy instruments, it remains a fact of history that when Australia decided to embark on a policy of forest expansion they did so with a framework that deliberately excluded the form of forest establishment [assisted native regrowth] that;
1. Produces the best biodiversity values,
2. Expands the area of existing fragmented forest habitat to make it more ecologically viable,
3. Does so at the lowest cost to the public purse,
4. Uses skills, equipment, knowledge and labour that are already present on most farms, and
5. Had the capacity to achieve the area and volume targets in a much shorter period.

Instead, they opted for the option that was;
1. Most favourable to urban absentee investors and the tax avoidance industry,
2. Most favourable to the green movement who don’t even own suitable land, let alone establish forest on it, and
3. Most likely to alienate the huge majority of farmers who already had native forest on their properties.

But don’t let the facts get in the way of your comfortable delusions, Mr Pike. Best go back to the promoters and get them to give you another bull$hit rev-up about what a great job you are doing to save the planet. Your kids might believe it but it doesn’t cut any mustard around here.

In most cases native regrowth forests are established by use of the farmers own labour. In many cases it is more a case of withholding normal pasture maintenance so existing seedlings can get established. In others, it involves excluding stock in a wet year so seedlings will survive.

None of these methods involve a call on the tax pie like MIS forests do. In fact, when a farmer foregoes income by excluding stock he actually reduces his capacity to earn a tax deduction because his income is lower.

Now I have heard some extraordinarily self serving casuistry in my time but your suggestion that every farmer, regardless of his income level, has equal “access” to the tax act takes the cake.

2. Your suggestion that “anyone can invest”, is a continuation of your previous casuistry. The whole economics of MIS is dependent on the investor needing a large deduction to reduce the portion of his income that is in the high marginal tax bracket. There may be the odd bogan in lower tax brackets that can be stooged into the scam but they are the exception.

Your guff about the 2020 vision might fool the mug punters, matey, but I was the Chairman of a Regional Plantation Committee, took part in the formation of two others, and was on the national executive of Australian Forest Growers. I was there, Freddy, so spare us the crap.

Prior to the introduction of tax subsidies for the capital costs of forest establishment, the act of planting trees to establish forests was an activity that was normally only undertaken by the ignorant.

Even on bare sites, foresters with a scrap of nous knew to first plant widely spaced trees of the desired species and then allow their seedlings to spread over the entire site. Thereby producing a native forest on previously cleared land.

In the early 90’s the greens colluded with some of the stupider bureaucrats and the plant nursery industry to manipulate the market to benefit their own interests. And they came up with the 2020 vision that was based on the moronic belief that the only way to establish a forest was to plant one. The result of this is that instead of gaining 3 million hectares of new native regrowth (free range) forest with a mosaic of the original species, that wildlife actually want to live in, we are getting miles of booring clonal monocultures (battery forests) that provide only a fraction of the biodiversity value but at a huge cost to the revenue base.

I was there at the start. Garbage went in and garbage is now comming out.

See http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/239/plantations-2020%27s-myopic-vision

3. The family farmers who own native forest must compete in a marketplace against plantation wood. That plantation wood grower has already had almost half of his capital outlay returned to him/her in year 1 of a 25 to 30 year project. The native forest owner must carry all of the capital cost through to harvest.

And if you seriously think that doesn’t constitute a discriminatory effect then I can only conclude that your claim to be a real farmer is somewhat dubious.

The tax advantages enjoyed by MIS schemes may well be “available” to other farmers but this mostly in theory rather than reality.

The advantages of MIS schemes are only available to people with an existing high income that is in the high marginal tax bracket. And it is only available to those who do not directly take part in the planting, tending or harvesting of trees.

When I plant or regenerate a hectare of forest the major inputs are my own labour for which I get no tax deduction and therefore no immediate refund or reduced tax liability. So my forest must carry forward the full cost of establishment at compound interest until the harvest date.

Your MIS scheme, on the other hand, involves cash outflows to third parties which are tax deductible and result in a substantial tax refund or substantially reduced tax liability. So those investors in the 48% tax bracket get an immediate benefit, courtesy of the tax base, of 48% of their initial investment. So only 52% of their investment needs to be carried forward at compound interest to harvest date.

The entire concept of deductibility for forest establishment was originally put in place under the assumption that the forestry operation was an on-going concern with a continuous annual outlay for the regeneration or replacement of areas that had been harvested that year. And in those circumstances it was clear that replanting and regeneration were “normal and necessary” attributes of the use which could be classified as expenses that were not of a “capital nature”.

The MIS schemes have abused this principle to gain deductibility for initial forest establishment that is clearly of a capital nature. The only way a normal farmer could enjoy those advantages would be by investing in cash rather than by personal exertion, and in someone else’s forest, on someone else’s farm. They cannot gain anywhere near the same tax treatment for their own actions on their own land.

And it follows that it is the tax pie that is heavily subsidising the MIS scheme in a way that provides a major competetive advantage to MIS forest products to the marketplace detriment of normal farming operations.

This is not mere opinion, it is fact. I trained as an accountant and have operated on both sides of this issue and know exactly where the money for jam is to be found. We have a tax act that actively discriminates against family farms in favour of mostly urban absentee tax avoiders.

It’s not an argument about equity and comparisons of which group’s shit stinks less. It’s about whether the sector seems to need ongoing support against climate issues.

- of course being a democracy maybe we should put EC assistance to a vote? But I reckon it’s in your interest not to.

Remember I’m on your side.

Talk about losing the plot.

And what about urban public transport? This sector has been continually dependent on massive subsidies for many decades so, on Luke’s logic, we should scrap that too?

Well, no. You see, these ecotrogs only ever want to apply the principles of economic darwinism to farmers who happen to own land that the greens would like to confiscate.

So out comes the same old sleazy double standard where the urban punters get to ride to work on their hopelessly subsidised train or bus to their hopelessly subsidised departmental job with their 3rd generation basket case mates while demanding ruthless “make it or break it” policies in the bush.

Same old, same old.