There were elections in Tasmania and South Australia yesterday.
Despite help from a San Francisco based environmental group, and an expectation that they would win more seats at the election, the Tasmanian Greens look like they have lost one of their four seats and suffered a 3 percent swing against them.
Green’s leader Peg Putt claims they didn’t do so well because the whole world was against them, at least,
“We have had the might of big business, union bosses, Labor, Liberals and more directed against us,” she said to a chorus of boos in the tally room.”
It is not often you have both big business and union bosses against the one party?
According to The Age,
“Big environmental issues failed to bite with the electorate. In Bass, home of the state’s controversial $1.5 billion pulp mill, the Green MP Kim Booth looked like losing his seat, and an independent anti-mill campaigner, Les Rochester, polled dismally. The re-appearance of the former federal MP for Bass, Michelle O’Byrne, in Lyons, proved a trump card for Labor.”
I recieved the following note from David Vernon just before the election. His family recently sold a property at Recherche Bay which had been the focus of campaigning by The Tasmanian Greens and Wilderness Society,
“Following the recent sale of my family’s property at Recherche Bay, I wish to make some aspects of the sale clear for all people of Tasmania.
* My brother and I did not wish to sell our property. I feel that we had been forced into making that decision by what I regarded as constant threats of protest action.
* I understand and appreciate that the site is a very precious piece of land, however the advice we received, and my understanding from our ownership and use of the land, was that it was not pristine.
* We were attempting to manage it appropriately after taking advice, taking into consideration the many aspects of its historical significance so that it could continue to be valued by ourselves and all Australians.
* Our Forest Practices Plan was scrupulously developed to enable sustainable use and proper, sensitive management into the future.
* Many people worked tirelessly to ensure that our rights, wishes and goals could be achieved. To Darren, Greg, Wilkie, Brett, Denise, Gloria, Handy, Barry, Alan, Katy and Terry and many others our heartfelt thanks for your professionalism, guidance, support and friendship during this most stressful time.
* My family has been attacked for the past 4 years, all the while for complying with Local, State and Federal requirements.
* We met, and we are advised in many cases we exceeded, every requirement of Local, State and National legislation, yet we believe that we were the subject of adverse media comment, from State and Federal Green politicians, members of the Wilderness Society and Recherche Bay Protection Group; who have acted, in my view, on the basis that it was ok to extinguish our rights as landowners and our family’s future business opportunity without just compensation.
* Our land was subjected to trespass. We had to endure public comments misrepresenting the truth as known to us, and our families being publicly vilified by protesters, with the threat of public demonstration against us with what I saw as untruthful propaganda.
* In the end I saw a future that I didn’t wish to subject my family to. I saw a future of possible physical disruption and damage to machinery and our business to the point that it would be impossible for us to continue. Therefore, I believe under duress, we reluctantly agreed to sell our private property at the best available price.
* The Greens and the Wilderness Society have developed a process that has, in our case worn down the strongest of landowners.
* Those protesting do not, in my view sufficiently or appropriately respect the rights of Tasmanian landowners, or allow diversity of thought or beliefs in relation to the use and appropriate management of forests of Tasmania.”
And yet again they have not done so well at the ballot box.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This is hilarious and good news at the same time. It’s not often you get business and the union movement on the same side against one party. What a talent they have. Bob Brown is going to have less of a smile on his face come Monday.
Bob Brown whines that Tasmanian politics is not transparent or accountable but how transparent and accountable is the Wilderness Society, ACF, Greenpeace, PETA and the myriad of other naysayers that lend support to the Greens?
David Vernon’s letter makes me grind my teeth in rage. Apart from killing his children, there is nothing more cruel than driving a man from his land and if there’s anything that justifies “nonviolent direct action” against The Tasmanian Greens and Wilderness Society, this is it. Appropriate measures would include whatever it takes to drive these contemptible cretins (nonviolently of course) from their homes, offices and squats.
Yours in anger,
Schiller.
Quote from the Oz.
“Despite coming into the poll looking like we could gain more seats, we just couldn’t come back over the top of the negative fear and smear campaign that was run against us from so many quarters,” she said. “Perhaps we need to take another look at the fact that negative campaigning has become the norm in Australian politics and that other parties are using that to drive where the electorate goes.”
Does this mean The Greens are going to give up scaremongering and exaggeration themselves? I think not.
David
Congratulations to all the candidates who eventually make it through to a seat in the complicated Hare Clarke counting for the Tasmanian State Election. Its democracy working at its best, despite the apparently rough campaigns prior to last Saturday. I have every faith in the elector’s choice under this system.
Good work Michelle O’Byrne and Paul Lennon.
Jennifer’s selection of tit bits is curious though. I read the full report in the age and was quite satisfied with their report yesterday. Today as a former AD, I should be most disappointed by results in SA but I am delighted by the extraordinary anti pokies vote in their upper house. That’s our democracy too! But it’s more about Phil’s thread
After a Google on David Vernon, Recherche Bay 2006 I conclude David’s family and their big part in this little bit of Tasmanian history deserves another place on this blog. By ignoring all the Bob Brown comments on the issue I could say good work Dick and Pip but I reckon this is the time to say I feel more for the Vernons in their move away from a fine piece of the state.
I prefer the official report on this site and photo of the three big men involved in the deal. TWS and the TCA etc. are left right out of the picture as they should be.
http://www.premier.tas.gov.au/photos/feb06/recherche/index.html
Can David and his family write more on their relationship with this land and its trees?
I missed this last Friday: http://www.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=33099
Hard to take the brown out of Green;
+++++++++++++++++++++
Recherche Bay land owner ‘forced to sell’
Thursday, 16 March 2006. 11:27 (AEDT)
Recherche Bay … land owner David Vernon says dealings have left a bitter taste.
One of the former owners of land at Recherche Bay in southern Tasmania is warning other land owners to be vigilant about claims made on their properties.
David Vernon says he feels that he was forced into selling the land that was earmarked for selective logging.
In a newspaper advertisement, he said he and his brother did not want to sell but were forced to by what he regarded as constant threats of protest action.
He says the decision to sell was made easier only with the State Government involvement, and that of businessman Dick Smith.
Mr Vernon says his dealings with environmental groups has left a bitter taste.
“Protests and postcards that they circulated, they put door hangers out around Tasmania to advertise their protest rallies,” he said.
“They were protesting on the road lying down there, they were trying to use any possible influence that they could to undermine what was perfectly legal forestry activities.”
Mr Vernon says, in all, it has been a trying time for his family.
“Well I certainly hope that nobody else in Tasmania ever has to put up with the nonsense we that we’ve had to endure for the last four years,” he said.
The Vernons sold their land to the Tasmanian Land Conservancy for more than $2 million.
The Australian Greens leader Bob Brown believes there will be many more land buybacks like Recherche Bay if the Greens do well in Saturday’s election.
Senator Brown says whatever Mr Vernon’s views are now, the sale is a winner for Tasmania.
“The jobs that are going to come out of the presentation of Recherche Bay for the rest of the world and the pride Tasmania is going to get out of that immeasurably enriching to Tasmania’s future,” he said.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Vernons tilt at Greens: $1500 paid for advert
By SUE NEALES
16mar06
THE battle to save the historic Recherche Bay peninsula in southern Tasmania has blasted into the political arena with claims by landowner David Vernon that he was forced and harassed into selling the family property.
Mr Vernon has placed a $1500 advertisement in today’s Mercury warning landowners that their property rights are under threat from the Tasmanian Greens.
He says he and his brother, Robert, were forced against their wishes to sell their 140ha family property at Recherche Bay where French explorers landed in 1792 and 1793 at a low and unjust price.
Federal Greens leader Bob Brown and Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon negotiated a deal early in February to pay the Vernons $2.21m for their property.
The deal was mostly funded by a donation and quasi-loan package from Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith, which has seen the land now transferred to the non-profit Tasmanian Land Conservancy group.
“If you think that the Greens are a positive influence on Tasmania’s political system, then I believe you are wrong,” David Vernon’s advertisement reads. “Their efforts at undermining our rights at Recherche Bay are a clear example of that; please don’t let what happened to our family at Recherche Bay happen to any other Tasmanian landowner ever again.”
Mr Vernon said he was not trying to tell people how to vote, just making clear something he wanted to say.
Key complaints of Mr Vernon are that the constant threat of protest action forced his family into the sale, and at a price which was grossly undervalued.
He said that while the family had acted legally and in accordance with all necessary forestry law at all times, they had been publicly vilified and effectively had their property rights extinguished by the Greens, the media, the Wilderness Society and some state and federal politicians.
The Vernons had approval to log timber from their property, the bulk of which was contracted to be bought by timber giant Gunns as woodchips.
Dr Brown said the Vernons had set the sale price at $2.3m three years ago.
On Friday night, the Greens leader told the ABC’s Stateline program that her campaign had completely dealt with and had exposed the ‘negative’ claims against them. She described her campaign as the ‘best ever’ and was confident of winning five if not six seats of the 25 member House of Assembly. She stated confidently that the ‘negative’ campaign would have to affect. The transcript will be available at http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2006/s1594445.htm ; however the ABC appears to be in no hurry to publish her words.
As Jennifer points out, just a day and a bit later the greens are blaming a campaign against them of smear, dirty tricks, and negativity as the cause of their defeat.
Perhaps their spin doctors believe that if you can’t be seen as a ‘winner’ it is better to be a ‘victim’ than a loser destroyed by your own ‘best ever’ campaign.
Let’s look at the ‘dirt’ used against the greens.
First there was the dirty tricks unit alleged to be in the Premier’s office that sent out a copy of the Greens political donations return 2003(available in pdf from http://fadar.aec.gov.au/arwDefault.asp?SubmissionID=5&MainFrameURL=arwParty%2Easp%3FSubmissionID%3D5%26ClientID%3D348 ).
This showed that of the $296,301.64 raised in political donations only $ 2,000 (less than 1% was identified. The release of this publicly available information came after the greens raised the issue of political donations and had demanded openness and transparency.
The second bit of ‘dirt’ was a number of advertisements and brochures properly authorized identifying the name and address of the advertiser that accurately stated their policies in relation to non environmental issues. The brochures whilst warning voters did nothing more than promote the official policies of the greens.
The third negativity was a group of Tasmanians that put together TV and newspaper advertisements calling on voters to deliver stable majority government for a better future. The newspaper adverts featured the names, faces and opinions of a dozen Tasmanians for all walks of life, the TV advertisements used actors to portray the same message. The use of actors and professional voice-over is not uncommon in advertising. This was in contrast to Greens leader Peg Putt’s demand to be Deputy Premier and her threats to block supply if her demands were not met if the greens held the balance of power.
The final bit of ‘negativity’ was an advertisement and brochure showing how a forest grows back after clear felling, burning and sewing with seed. The vibrant forest pictured was a positive image of a forest reborn. It was in response to Wilderness Society advertisements that claimed destruction in our forests.
The Greens in Tasmania and the Democrats in SA received the support of Bob Phelps, the Director of GeneEthics Network based on their (negative) stance on GM crops.
State elections: GeneEthics Network says Greens the best for farmers
Australia
Friday, 17 March 2006
The Greens have won the endorsement of the GeneEthics Network in the run up to the South Australian and Tasmanian elections.
It says the Greens, followed by the Democrats in SA, easily outscore the major parties because of their “detailed policies” blocking the adoption of genetically modified crops.
The voters (farmers) didn’t listen though or maybe Bob Phelps is only spruiking to the already converted feral tree huggers.
The Vernons story gives rise to a new term ‘Greenmail’.
It is like blackmail, only Greenmail seeks Green outcomes with the end justifying the means.
When you have Bob Brown and others threatening to hold the biggest demonstrations since the Franklin, continued denigration through the media and community events (such as the Salamanca Markets), blockades being planned, etc – and then say to the Vernon’s, what about selling and making the whole thing go away – I call that Greenmail.
The Vernon’s received about $2 million – and have lost a family asset, inheritance; as well they could be liable to pay capital gains (probably over $500,000). All to appease an individual’s ego that thrives on conflict and the media.
When Bob Brown talks about the community, he means himself and his fellow greens. When he talks about a great social outcome, he is talking about selfish outcomes. And finally, when he talks about fair outcomes, he is talking about reaping the benefits from a greenmail campaign.
Tasmanians have had the pleasant outcome of stable government, an opposition party that improved its standing and a drop in the Green vote. The continued work done at all community levels in the forest industry is slowly coming to fruition. People, I hope, are seeing the evidence that we are protecting a vast area of our forest and the rest is in good stewardship.
Gunns Ltd new pulp mill will now have the opportunity to face the planning tests. Those of us who have experienced the RPDC process know that they are thorough and prepared to give the little bloke a good go – some of us think that opponents of a project actually get too good a go, but the painstaking approach ensures the outcome is normally good for the community. For example the Basslink process saw a bipolar link rather than the original “earth return”.
The Tasmanian electorate was faced with a choice – believe the Green scare campaign about pulp mills or trust the major parties. The result shows that the silent majority are still prepared to have the government provide the leadership the State needs.
I hope that future elections will see more voters return to the major parties fold so that we can be sure that the noisy, disruptive minorities are relegated to the footnote in history they truely deserve.
Green’s party leader Peg Putt was defiant in defeat; whilst accusing her opposition of using “shadowy forces” and claiming that the Greens were victim of “smear and “misleading facts” she concedes her only error “was that we were determined to remain positive and not indulge in negativity”.
Now that “negative campaigning has become the norm in Australian politics” she has vowed to “be more hard-nosed about how we do our campaigning”.
Ms Putt claimed that Tasmania had an “entrenched culture of bullying and cronyism” and confirmed this by vowing to do “what it takes” to achieve Green policy aims.
Whilst Ms Putt is slow to accept any responsibility for the loss of Green seats she was quick to point out that the Greens “are the values party”
Ms Putt outlined key policy issues those “on forests, on water, on global warming and on pokies.”
The election result also means that leader Peg Putt will lose the right to have a government chauffeur-driven limousine at her disposal, and a number of research and administrative staff.
It also dashes Ms Putt’s ambition to be deputy leader in a minority government, ironically a position now being filled by former Infrastructure and Forests Minister Bryan Green.
My first post on the Vernon’s story was censored by the Blog Keeper yesterday.
In this post I described the circumstances of the sale of this property as involving coersion, intimidation and misrepresentation to which I expressed my deep offense.
Such duress, perpetrated by a person or corporation in trade or commerce would draw the full sanction of the Trade Practices Act and amount to criminal conspiracy on the part of third parties.
I also made statements to the effect that no-one, be they individual, company or community can be allowed to enjoy any benefit from dealings that involve this character, scale and intensity of duress.
In a hypothetical sense, I expressed my view that, in all conscience, I would be unable to report a fire bug who might destroy this piece of forest that had been falsely described as “pristine” to aid in its forced sale.
This had been construed by the Blog Keeper as an inducement to persons to carry out an illegal act, to destroy the former Vernon’s forest. Other wording made it clear that this was not the case. The situation was likened to that of any other person who may, for example, have declined to report a drug offense that they had become aware of. But the post was censored anyway.
Accordingly, I exercise my right to religious freedom and pray to God that he might smite this accursed forest with fire and pestilence so that all shall know that none shall profit from the wages of sin.
Why doesn’t the Tasmanian Government give Bob Brown a smart green uniform, and appoint him as Inspector General of Forests, with a bicycle as non-polluting official transport? This would give him something useful to do, and leave him too out of breath to deliver homilies. To avoid shameful consumption, his reports should be written in mud, on recycled paper, with a sharp stick. Come to think of it, extend his inspectorate to the whole of Australia.
Davey, would a litter borne by a large, yet to be nominated, number of adoring supporters, be better than a smart new bike? It would make a quite dashing site, adorned with shiny curtains and fringes of golden tassles, jogging along in the sunshine. I am concerned about Uncle Bob being out of breath because life would lose it’s balance if I wasn’t exposed to his homilies. He looks rather gaunt to me and I think we should worry more about his health too, what, with the weight of the world and all that.
I do appreciate your rage Ian, but sometimes all I can do is make fun of the situation to keep my blood pressure at a safe level.
I once saw a car sticker in Tassie, it went something like this,
‘If it moves – shoot it, if it doesn’t – chop it down, if its green – piss on it’.
It looks like a few of you will be smiling over that one, to the sound of a banjo.
Specifically about the Vernons block, they did bloody well out of that sale, largely due to the logging road that opened up the value of the wood on the property. While there’s ill feelings, they’re now millionaires and their land will hopefully be protected in-perpetuity as a fundamental part of the bay. Its what a good slice of the Australian and world community wanted.
Which takes me to another point. The international importance of what we have in Tasmania. Its a unique island, and there’s people hellbent on doing what they can to make it less so, and for what??
The chap who would like to see Vernon’s block destroyed come hell or high water, fire or brimstone; mr. Bitter, i’m sure you’d like a copy of that bumper sticker, and i’m quite sure you’d think god would be backing you up all the way.
One intrinsic difference I see between those who would conserve and those who’d rather not is that they do what they do from concern for the planet and future generations, not themselves. Rabid opponents have money at the top of the list and an overwhelmingly short-sighted, angry view of the world. Thats the crux of it, you just don’t get nature, you have no connection with it, and be assured, you’re the poorer as a result.
Let us assume that the Recherche Bay site has considerable value from historical, aesthetic and ecological viewpoints (some may argue). There will be other such sites in Australia.
People’s property rights are invaded for mining, gas pipelines, power lines, roads, dams, and tunnels (recently north side of Brisbane with new airport tunnel).
In principle, what would be a reasonable process for Australian society to negotiate with the owner of such a resource as Recherche Bay. My view would be that the Vernon family should be able to stay on the property in perpetuity. They would receive a more than adequate compensation for protection of the resource. They would become custodians, able to enjoy the property as always, but relinquish their rights for major development. That is if they agreed.
Or would Ian suggest that there are absolutely no circumstances whereby a landholder should be forced to sell or accommodate interference?
There will be more Recherche Bays – will society collectively do better next time?
Offered constructively with a view to the future
A few quick points about Recherche Bay, the forest in question is regrowth from past havisting, the Vernon family had in place via their Forest Practices Plan formal reserves to more than protect the range of conservation values on their land. Odd as it may seem that level of protection has now been removed with the sale of the land.
Now back to the subject of this blog Tassie’s election
It is my view that the greens view democracy as a totally annoying thing because it alows people to make a choice!
The Greens have not taken any responsibility, nor acknowledge their policies may be wrong. It is all because those Christians and business crashed the party and dragged people to the voting booths and made them vote against the Greens. Shame on those voters.
I have sympathy for the Greens, I mean, how can anyone develop a welfare based economy if business keeps operating and employing people? As for those Christians – everyone knows that our society is being undermined by promoting families, understanding, compassion and harmony.
So it is obvious that this State’s welfare based economy potential is undermined by the Tasmanian democratic system.
And Blackwood drags out the Banjo line as his badge of ignorance. I am a third generation native forest regenerator on a property that had been previously cleared under compulsion of forfeiture of land title if it was not cleared.
My rite-of-passage from ‘infant’ to ‘contributive farm lad’ was to spend my first day out working with my father, planting trees. It was 1959 and the only way we could get native seedlings was to collect the seed ourselves and grow our own. We still have the homemade sheetmetal grow tubes and these days we cannot tell which part of the forest was planted and which was regenerated. It is just a family forest, just like the Vernons had. So kindly crawl back into your cliche furnished suburban hole, Blackwood.
You are right, Phil, when you said, “People’s property rights are invaded for mining, gas pipelines, power lines, roads, dams, and tunnels (recently north side of Brisbane with new airport tunnel)”. And landowners cannot fail to contrast the resumption with just compensation meted out to urbankind in Brisbane with the sleazy back-door resumptions that are routinely forced on rural landowners.
I have absolutely no problem with compulsory acquisition by the state but it must be for “just causes”, not whims or based on lies, and only with “just compensation”, not bullshit funding for departmental budgets masquerading as “compensation and restructuring packages”.
And for the first 90 years since federation it was assumed that both the Commonwealth, and each of the States as subordinate entities that automatically assume the same obligations of the Commonwealth, were subject to these constraints. But over the past decade the spivs have had a crack at interpreting their own powers in a manner that has enabled them to bluff their way out of these core elements of the social contract. And in doing so have squandered their right to govern.
But the Vernon’s situation is not a compulsory acquisition by the state, it is not for a just cause, and the introduction of duress to the circumstances of the sale is prejudicial to determining just compensation. It is quite outside the legal norms.
For a start, the only reason the family entered into the sale agreement was the fact that they were victims of a criminal conspiracy. I do not have the Tasmanian Criminal Code at hand but what the Vernons were subjected to was what Section 543 (other conspiracies) of the Qld Criminal Code Act 1899, identifies as;
543 (1) any person who conspires with another to effect any of the purposes following, that is to say,
(c) to prevent or obstruct the free and lawful disposition of any property [including trees] by the owner thereof for its fair value; or
(d) to injure any person in the person’s trade or profession; or
(e) to prevent or obstruct, by means of any act or acts which if done by an individual person would constitute an offence on the persons part, the free and lawful exercise by any person of the person’s trade, profession, or occupation;
is guilty of a misdemeanor and liable to imprisonment for 3 years.
And this criminal conspiracy amounted to a totally unreasonjable and excessive level of duress which has breached our most respected principles of fair trading and consumer protection.
And for this reason it must be said that any questions of historical relevance are dwarfed by the gross injustice meted out to the Vernons. And I hope that a rain of bad luck and misfortune falls on this property over the comming years that not a single tree is left standing on it. Because a community that looks the other way in the face of this kind of injustice deserves nothing better than to live in a vile industrial slum.
In my opinion the Vernons may have remedies available to them under either the Trade Practices Act 1974 or the Tasmanian fair trading legislation.
Come on Blackwood, what about the bumper sticker “Shoot ferals”, did you think that one is about feral animals?
But the tired old comments about banjos are really only the same as “shoot ferals”; just a bit of mindless fun with a nasty edge.
Your concluding paragraph is, from my perspective, making arguments that could be reflected back to you. Have you considered the environmental implications of preserving more of our forests at the expense of consuming forests in other countries? What is the optimum balance between growing our own wood versus importing other people’s wood? At what point do we achieve the greatest net environmental benefit, or the least environmental net loss? My biggest concern about this debate is that preserving more of our forests, even ones that white-skinned foresters grew, from any human impact is effectively exporting our environmental impact to other countries.
Perhaps those you characterise as short sighted and angry may be looking further ahead than you, despite the fact that they are angry. Maybe nature needs to be considered on the wider scale, beyond one’s own immediate surrounds? And why the anger? Most opposition to forestry is, at its core, self indulgence dressed up with a thin veneer good intentions. Why should foresters have to accept unemployment simply to accomodate other people’s petty self indulgence? How about a greater emphasis on the good intentions?
Phil, there seems to be a lot of comment about, such as Timber Jack’s, that the forest in question is regrowth. Therefore the ecology and aesthetics of the site are the result of harvesting followed by regeneration. So preventing the next rotation of harvesting on the grounds of ecology or aesthetics seems like a self-defeating argument.
The site has historical significance, but (a) was this feature of the site under threat by the proposed management plan and (b) is this feature alone sufficient reason for the landholders to be treated as they were? I think there is a large difference between an argument that “landholders should not have to accomodate any outside influence under any circumstances” on one hand, and “landholders who own land with some historical significance should be obliged to forego their rights to use their land” on the other. Your idea of some form of negotiated custodianship compromise may have been worth exploring, but it became a political game in the end. Winning was the objective, not preserving or protecting anything.
Ian – my list of resumptive activities was not urban exclusive. Dams, gas and water pipelines are often more rural.
Boxer thanks for your comments. My point is – can we learn from this situation and not repeat this tawdry episode next time. One might say – well that’s simple – “just tell greenies to bugger off” – but I don’t think it is that simple. I think there should be an enforced code of conduct for these sort of negotiations and retention of the original owners on the property is highly desirable.
Ecological values, aesthetic values, historical values, commercial values; they’re all descriptive of that which belongs to the landholder.
As the public interest in privately-owned values grows, so too do alternate land-use economies. If the broader public interest desires conservation of any of these privately-owned values, then what considerations will be put to the landholder, bearing in mind that any strategy that seeks to seperate the values from their owner with even a modicum of compulsion is theft.
Perhaps, Neil, land will have to be purchased by those who want to control the use of the land in question. Some of this takes place now as land conservancy funds doesn’t it?.
Will those who wish to control a piece of land put their money where their mouth is? Or will they simpy expect the tax payer to fund their every whim and fancy? Which hospital should we close to buy this piece of real estate? And which school should we close to fund it’s management? Do we accept Visa card?
Boxer, the landholder should be extended the same courtesy. If an external interest seeks control of aspects of the land, how determined are they to acquire control of the land through purchase (without duress)?
In the Daintree, conservation values have been held so highly that the local government has introduced planning scheme amendements that compulsorily expropriate development rights including the right to build a dwelling. Disenfranchised property owners have been left with few options. If they cannot legally build a dwelling house, they can accept the losses or disregard the law and build illegally. The latter option is softened by the number of unauthorised dwellings that already exist without consequence.
Undeterred, Council has a motion on the table to address: “Current unlawful residents/owners in the green zones be allowed to remain subject to the following:
• Sell their land for inclusion in a conservation regime (EPA, ARF, DRF);
• Lease it back (from government to current owner‐occupant) for an amount equivalent to the rates for as long as the occupant chooses to live there;
• Upgraded buildings to meet standards but with limited expansion opportunities;
• Full rehabilitation of the site once it is vacated;
• Current owner‐occupant to be compensated for existing onsite infrastructure when they vacate (buildings roads, clearings etc).”
Having taken the unprecedented step to compulsorily expropriate the existing-use-right to establsih a dwelling house on privately-owned lands, the Council is now proposing to reinstate these removed rights on the condition that the land is sold into public ownership and then leased for the extent of the occupancy.
That is, conservation is important, but not as important as public ownership.
Never mind that public ownership is valued higher than conservation, when it comes to the reiteration of the private-owners right to the very same priority, a reciprocal policy applies.
Boxer,
Roger Underwood and I have speculated as to which erudite, pre-Cambrian forester lurks under your cape of invisibility. We promise not to tell Kieran M., Mark B., Beth S., Paul L., or the Consternation Commission of WA.
P.S. To complete the tableau, give Bob Brown a green Robin Hood hat, with a large, trailing feather, of course. Might the grave Ms. Kerry Nettles, or the vibrant Rachel Siewert, play the part of Maid Marion?
Sorry folks but you are all missing a very important fact regarding the Vernon’s land at Recherche Bay.
From the outset it was always their intention to PROTECT all the conservation values contained on their land and this was done and the conservation reserves was formalised via the Forest Practices Plan (which is a legal document)
Also these reserves were at the Vernon’s cost (productive land forgone) but even thought they did every thing and more that was required of them it was never going to be enough for the Greens, they wanted it all but also to milk the issue for every thing politically they could.
And I will bet any thing that if the truth was to be known Brown really didn’t want the sale. No more issue to milk he wanted it to be raging during the Tassie election.
Boxer & Timberjack: We don’t know the age or quality of that regrowth timber on private land at Recherche Bay or who wanted it for processing. My guess is it was quite ordinary forest in Tasmanian terms but I know it is working at the extremity of all logging when it is right out to sea down south today.
The problem I see here is the rate of cut over and I guess that is driven by the woodchip part of the industry not the timber. Apologies to the Vernons who were carrying on with a Tasmanian timber tradition.
Ian is not the only one to see changing values. Boxer, Timberjack, Basil and Cinders may be a bit young to appreciate this next bit. In my youth there was a working bullock team resting in the front yard of the Alder Bros property up the road every other month on my way to the local Area School.
Alders were a big tough family and apart from the school boys they all worked out in the bush or on their farm. On Friday afternoon they always ran their last load of logs to town early just after the school bus dropped me home. All the brothers were in their truck or sitting on their pile of logs with their yelping dogs waving battered felt hats to me as they passed on their way to Blackwell’s mill and the pub. Later on they trooped in to the country dance at our Memorial Hall where their mum and sisters were minding supper.
Alders with their team picked through our forests after the war and Blackwell’s mill had the best hardwood timber in the region. Over the steep creek gully from Alders farm is the last of those native forests in our district on private land. This lot and the public forest next door were condemned by the state for woodchip while still young during the 80’s but another farmer was still picking logs for his tractor mill and leaving the rest almost up to the time it was nearly all cleared.
This was the period when Ratferty’s Rules still prevailed on private and public land in regards to timber and is the reason our RFA process became a national necessity. Any timber was just a byproduct of woodchip operations as local waste wood pulping became less significant to the new resource owners and agents, but only if someone was allowed to look in.
Blackwood’s symbolism above started as a desperate attack on the very successful “No Dams” campaign using yellow triangles that began in part before the Greens were invented. The giant map of Tasmania carried on a pole through the streets of Melbourne by a frogman as a protest against exploitation of Tasmania’s SW somehow got inverted.
‘If it moves – shoot it, if it doesn’t – chop it down, if its green – piss on it’ is hardly an advertisement by any self respecting group expecting to manage our forests.
You are dead right Timber Jack. And there would hardly be a single farmer in Australia who would not cheer when the place goes up like a bomb.
The fact that the primary use for the harvest was for chiplog makes it clear that it was regrowth. Government foresters may occasionaly miss sight of the odd quality sawlog as it goes to the chipper but it would be a very rare farmer who knowingly did the same.
So the place may have had heritage value, it may have had ecolgical values, but the crimes that led to their separation from the family that had preserved those values for (correct me if wrong) 90 years or more have negated any of those values.
It is nothing more than a crime scene now. It has been trashed by criminal scum who had no place in either their minds nor hearts for balance. And may the hand of God speed the day when the wider community makes the link between gross injustice and the burned out wasteland they so richly deserve.
Davey, my cloak is one of those Tolkienian things the elves used to dispense to hobbits to whom they took a liking. Trade secret how that all works, but there’s some funny things live in them thar hills. I like the feather angle.
Ian – I’m very troubled by your tone. It’s the exact same tone used by fathers who kill their children in custody battles. So two wrongs make a right? Suggest that this tone only confirms in the minds of urban dwellers that you guys are out of control. It’s the same as the well known Bilbies and dynamite story. Further suggest if it does go “up” the balance of opinion will have shifted against your case. Submitted most respectfully.
You’re right bugger (could you try another name, I had trouble calling you that) bullock teams went out before I came in.
As an aside, I remember talking to a greenie mate (yeah, I’ll talk to almost anyone) about the landings you find out in the supposedly pristine bush. Cuttings and causeways constructed with shovel and wheelbarrow, and the pulley anchor post still standing alongside the position of the old tramway. The use of steam winches to pull logs up onto the rail wagons, and sometimes even snig the logs out of the bush instead of the horse or bullock teams. They used the horses to drag the cable out to the logs, apparently. The piles of old horse shoes you occasionally find and the scars in the trees where the horse yards were built. The old snig tracks that have waves formed in the track where the front of the logs used to alternately drive into the ground and then rise up over the mound that was created. Like corrugations on the scale of metres instead of centimetres
I was working with a guy in the bush one day when we found a stump that his father had branded sometime just after the war. We had been talking about how his Dad had been a faller in the bush we were walking through, stopped to look at the top of an old stump, as you do, and there was the brand, still legible. It was moving to watch the son’s reaction 50 years later.
So much of the bush is really a product of human activity: some people can read it like a history book. After bullshitting on like this for a while to my greenie mate (refer to mention above to pick up the train of thought), he became enthralled by the historical aspect of the forest. His opposition to forestry was temporarily overwhelmed by his interest in people. There’s really not much difference between us all. We’re arguing about simple misunderstandings most of the time.
Boxer
If any one has ever hit the nail on the head true and square it is you, all very well said. Your closing sentence captures says it all.
PS The Vernon’s land was first logged around mid 1890’to about 1912 then around 1936 the bush was burnt in a pretty big wild fire.
Don’t worry it’s a good quality tall e.oblique regrowth the present day harvest was to be selective, at the start the greens said they was only apposed to it being clear falled, so the Vernon’s choose to have a selective operation, but the greens just dismissed this concession and continued to campaign against them.
I think some call it moving the goal posts but I call it trying to play the game with not even being allowed to get onto the ground
Bugger
Forgot to say that, havn’t seen any where in Tas the sticker you refered to (and not sure if I would want to any way)
The bumber stickers in tas that timber folk oftern have is either NO DAM GREENS or just NO GREENS but the TWO I like are HUG A LOGGER and Logger AND PROUD
Boxer; there are many more stories from the bush, some are about disrespect and violence like the one my uncles told me when their dozer fuel dump in the swamp was all shot up with a 303. Another one, with me at the center when the hunting men came out of the bush and found my playground with an old one pot stationary engine.
Mum called me in because these guys wanted something. She made them a cup of tea on a promise the guns stayed outside our kitchen. When dad came back from builders school he jumped back on his push bike and rode back to town on the far side of that bush and was still gone at night.
Before the war my dad was a chainman in a remote forest survey team, during the war he was a PT instructor, like me with one lazy eye and left behind but he was as big as a bull and could put a rolled truck back on its wheels on his own. I never forgot Mum’s patience and cool that day. It helped me later in dealing with other men in their games of arson, guns and sabotage. Over the years I made submissions to others studying events.
Proper operations in forests and Green politics give me no concern. That bush around our rented homestead was regrowth too and I rediscovered the old cuttings where the horse drawn tramway was. Moore & Quiggin’s was a big operation in its day, so was Blackwells. But readers here must note, natural regrowth takes many years to mature to old timber standards. Our young and eager foresters have a lot to learn yet and they can’t grow forests the way they were by slash and burn alone.
Fear not though, the old timers were clever enough to leave us our heritage in detail on B& W. These dense timber forests by the sea are long gone but the pictures illustrate so well what we had before wood chipping became the norm. Zoom in.
http://eheritage.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/Search/Search.asp?SUBJECT=sawmills
Lets have a look at the French journals of their visit to the North East Penisula of Recherche Bay in 1792.
First they wanted to repair their boats, make charcoal for their kitchen and check the local area for resources. They cut down trees, sawed the logs, repaired the wooden boats and not only made charcoal but fueled a forge. The botanists examined the trees and recorded their suitability for timber.
Their gardner cleared the scrub and planted one perhaps two gardens and planted European vegetables in the hope of returning for resupply and to feed the natives.
We might speculate on their raction when they returned in 1793 to find the first bit of land clearing recorded in Auatralia had failed and the European plants were dead or dying. Perhaps they were surprised when they eventually met the aboriginals that year in an area that is now the Southport Lagoon Coservation Area (Public land), as the aborigimals not only pointed out bush tucker but ate a lunch consisting of crayfish, abolone and other shell fish. No need for the cabbage.
Just on the regrowth status of the forest, the convict coal miners 30 odd years later used the timber, so too the whaling industry. Then the sawmillers at the start of the 19th century. The forest was regenerated during the massive bushfires in the early 1920s, however there is still some older forest, still some shoed stumps, still the old sawmill sites and tramways.
The failed garden and the timber harvesting are the only recorded French activities on the private land,(even today their exact location has not been confirmed) all other French sites are on crown land land or their location just speculation
This land, it could be argued is the birth place of timber harvesting in Australia, it appears ironic that it could be bought to stop that harvesting.
But such is political power.
The greens reaction to their loss at the election seems to confirm George Orwell observation:
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. [. . .] Power it not a means, it is an end.”
Behind this other mill operated by Blackwells is a pair of masts that probably belong to the last Bass Strait schooner to regularly cross the sand bar at high tide with a cargo of sawn timber for Melbourne. I used to see this big sailing vessel avoiding Marine Board charges as it anchored between high tides in the mouth of the Camp Creek by the merchant Stutterd’s original timber home with an attic under an extremely steep gable roof. I don’t recall any snow build up so close to the beach.
The bullock team shown is down below the Bottom Pub but I think our Alder Bros used the Top Pub which is much closer to Blackwell’s larger mill back in town. By chance my mainland BV home c1974 is built from hardwood timber cut and dressed in another large Tasmanian sawmill along the Coast at Sulphur Creek.
http://eheritage.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/Search/Search.asp?SUBJECT=sawmills
http://eheritage.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/Search/Search.asp?SUBJECT=rivers
The sad thing is these locally owned enterprises, The forests, the sawmills and their timber, the fishing fleet and the fish, the walk to work jobs as we knew them are all gone from that area today.
The new Vestas narcelle factory and the old Lactos cheese business are foreign owned. The French and other European countries like the Japanese remain most interested in our natural resources.
The real irony in this whole sad story is that this regrowth will only have any chance of growing to be large stems if a heavy selective harvest takes place. This is the only way to provide the space that will be needed by the 50 odd trees that would occupy each hectare on maturity.
If the reports in this trail are correct, and the place is regen from massive fires in the 1920’s then the place is overstocked with trees. And without a selective harvest, these trees will need to expend all their growth potential on a fight to the death with their neighbours. They will all spend their time slowly strangling each other, keeping all of them in a weakened condition and more prone to disease.
Oh yes, and one more thing, in this weakened state from excessive competition, the excessive tree numbers will pump the ground dryer between rainfall events, and greatly expand the window for destructive wildfires. I guess one could say that the Lord, does, indeed, move in mysterious ways.
Ian Mott is dead right on this one, but what is the critical phase in any natural regrowth for another severely cleansing crop fire?
Left alone Ian these vigorous forests will in time naturally select certain taller trees to go on to greater heights but only with the debris of their fellows as they become the next layer of nutrients on the forest floor. The decay and recycle process takes many decades though. Expect too there will be a number of natural thinnings at different ages. If we take too much wood all that can’t happen.
Plantations will only ever be plantations. These crops at a juvenile to semi mature stage are the greatest risk apart from rich dry grass lands in all Australian bushfires. I guess the Lord can’t help us in our greed.
Boxer,
Aha! So you talk to elves, hobbits and greenies? We will have to open a dossier on you, probably with a big red sticker. Being a friendly fellow, I tried talking to some greenies once, about bushfire, and its history. Although some were of fairly normal appearance, when I delved into their minds, I recoiled from a startling mix of dogma and fantasy. Rather like talking to a Mormon on the doorstep. Personally, I love fantasy, but its no way to manage bushfire, nor the natural environment, nor a government department – unless you live in Narnia, or Salt Lake City. But then, you know all that.
Bugger
I find it interesting that you would call the desire to grow a crop to provide employment and personal income for the grower as “greed”
To me it’s being part of community. Could I ask do you have a job or income and why? but I guess that’s ok it’s every one else that is greedy.
And I’m proud to be greedy
TJ first you tell me yours then I’l tell you mine. Bet mine takes the longest hey.
Timber Jack I reckon you’re off the mark with your question about greed. I don’t reckon that’s what bugger was saying at all.
Methinks that bugger might be some sage old bugger who has actual experience in the systems of dispute and perhaps is giving us the wisdom of that experience from a less partisan perspective. He seems a fearless bugger. IHMO of course.
There is one thing that the green movement fail to understand that the survival of our state depends on having a balance of malty national Company’s and small family owned Sawmilling timber companies that need sawlog out of regrowth and old growth forests, this side of the industry seams to be missed out of the this blown out forestry debate by all media and the greens.
You can not cut quality timber products out of plantation timber its just not viable. There is no reason we have to lock up all old growth forest it should be managed by selectively logging by cleaning out the dying timber for wood chip leaving small sawlogs and hydro poles and very large historical trees to grow and taking the medium to large sawlogs for green and dry timber products, That’s smart forestry.
Thanks CNW estate