The Tasmanian Greens today said that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s appalling decision to means test the federal rooftop solar rebate increases pressure on the state government to use this year’s State Budget to improve electricity feed-in tariffs and create state-based rebates for energy efficiency measures and solar hot water systems.

Greens Shadow Climate Change Spokesperson Nick McKim MP said that increasing the rate of feed-in tariffs, which are paid to households that sell electricity back into the grid, would encourage faster uptake of distributed generation systems in Tasmania and help reduce Tasmania’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr McKim said that other states are taking the lead in this area, with only Tasmania and Queensland not providing a rebate for solar hot water systems, and Victoria recently announcing a feed-in tariff of 60c per kilowatt hour, while Tasmania’s is languishing at under 20c per kilowatt hour.

“The state government is doing nothing to encourage Tasmanians to install solar systems and use less power, and if Paul Lennon wants to be taken seriously on climate change he is going to have act, and act fast,” Mr McKim said.

“Any failure to address these issues in the upcoming state budget will expose Paul Lennon’s supposed conversion on climate change as just another failed makeover.”

“Although there are flaws in the net metering model used by state governments in Australia it is important that the state government at least takes the first step by subsidising a feed-in tariff that is much higher than the retail price on which it is currently based in Tasmania.”

Mr McKim said that increasing feed-in tariffs is not a matter for energy retailers such as Aurora Energy to address independently, but something on which governments need to take the lead.

“The state government needs to step in with a financial package which would allow energy retailers to pay a more appropriate rate for electricity fed into the grid by households with distributed generation systems like photovoltaics.”

The Tasmanian Greens today issued an initial response to the decision by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to grant a carrier licence to Basslink Telecom, welcoming the decision but cautioning that the development did not guarantee an acceptable resolution to the high cost of data transmission across Bass Strait.

Greens Deputy Leader and ICT spokesperson Nick McKim MP said that there is still no guarantee that the Basslink fibre will be commercialised by the end of this year, and said that a duopoly across Bass Strait may not deliver the necessary parity with national prices.

“This is an encouraging development, but there is still a lot of water to go under the bridge before the mess created by the state government has been untangled,” Mr McKim said.

“There is still significant uncertainty about how Basslink Telecom intends to utilise Tasmania’s land based fibre network which Aurora now has the responsibility to commercialise, and where this development leaves the $2m per annum which the state government is committed to paying the owners of Basslink for doing nothing.”

“We have heard many times before that this issue is close to resolution, and I will not be cracking the champagne until we at least have parity with national prices.”

“Basslink undercutting Telstra’s Bass Strait backhaul prices by just 5 or 10% is not an acceptable outcome, and the onus still rests with the state government to deliver an appropriate result.”

Mr McKim maintained that the state government’s decision to allow Hydro Tasmania to sign the initial Telecommunications Contract, which commits the taxpayer to an indexed $2m payment to the owners of the Basslink fibre, is responsible for many of the delays to date.

The Tasmanian Greens today said that the Glamorgan-Spring Bay Council was clearly incapable of managing the Triabunna wharf, that has been closed due to the substructure being condemned, and that instead either the Tasmanian Ports Corporation (TasPorts), or Marine and Safety Tasmania (MAST) should be handed responsibility for what is a strategically important piece of state infrastructure as it is critical that the wharf be repaired, or replaced, as a matter of urgency.

Greens Member for Lyons, Tim Morris MP, said that it is most unusual for a local council to be responsible for the maintenance of such infrastructure, whereas both TasPorts and MAST do maintain other similar wharf and jetty facilities around the state, with TasPorts responsible for operating the Strahan and Stanley wharves. which is comparable to the Triabunna facility as it mainly caters to tourism and fishing users.

Mr Morris also pointed out that the Triabunna wharf is located on Crown Land, which again makes its ongoing maintenance and management more logically placed with either TasPorts or MAST.

“The Glamorgan-Spring Bay Council has known for years that the Triabunna wharf was deteriorating and despite their best efforts has been incapable of keeping it operational, so it is probably time to hand the responsibility for this facility to an organisation that has both the expertise and financial capacity to restore the wharf to operational order and manage it in a safe manner such as TasPorts or MAST,” Mr Morris said.

“For example, TasPorts operates the Strahan wharf which, similar to Triabunna, is utilised predominantly by tourism and fishing operators.”

“The Mayor has rightly said that the Council’s current focus is on improving the water situation within the municipality and therefore do not have the funds to fix the wharf and are reliant on funding from the state government to enable the necessary repairs to be made.”

“The Triabunna wharf is important for maintaining employment in the fishing and tourism industries on the east coast and needs to be repaired or replaced as a matter of urgency, before these jobs are lost to the area.”

“Most other major wharves in Tasmania are operated by TasPorts, while most jetties and smaller facilities are operated by MAST and it is unusual for a council to have responsibility for such a facility when they have neither management expertise or the financial capacity to look after the wharf properly.”

“The State government must intervene and offer to redesignate the responsibility for the Triabunna wharf to either TasPorts or MAST as a matter of urgency, and reassure the local community that they will not lose this integral facility,” Mr Morris said.

The Tasmanian Greens today called for a ban on the herbicide Atrazine in Tasmania following the release of a new study from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), which revealed that "significant effects on human placental cells" occur after exposure to as little as 20 parts per billion (ppb) of Atrazine which is half the Australian Drinking Water Guideline limit of 40ppb Atrazine.[1]

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) recently reviewed Atrazine and found that it was safe for continued registration and use in Australia, however at the time the APVMA also stated that should "…new lines of research generate legitimate areas of concern, the APVMA will initiate a new review."[2]

Greens Shadow Forestry and Water Spokesperson Tim Morris MP said that the APVMA must re-review Atrazine given that this UCSF Study has completely contradicted the APVMA findings in such a significant manner, and following the revelation that senior UCSF study author Professor Holly Ingraham believes that Australia’s current Drinking Water Guideline of 40ppb Atrazine is "worrying".[3]

"This study from UCSF is the first to identify the full effects of Atrazine on human cells, so we must take note of its worrying findings regarding the feminisation of juveniles and the disruption of human placental cells, and ban Atrazine from Tasmania until it can be proven safe for use around humans," said Mr Morris.[4]

"Since 2001 there have been 246 instances of noxious chemicals detected in Tasmania’s waterways, the Lennon government has failed to publish 130 of these positive results, and Simazine and Atrazine which are both from the controversial Triazine family of herbicides made up 92 of the 130 unpublished test results."

"There are serious questions about whether the Lennon government is deliberately withholding its water testing results and this study from UCSF now confirms that Premier Lennon is risking the health of Tasmanians, and the future health of their children and grandchildren, by allowing Atrazine to be sprayed across Tasmania and then seemingly deliberately failing to publish the related water contamination findings."

"The UCSF study results are extremely troubling for those Tasmanians living anywhere near forestry plantations or private forestry activities, or drawing their drinking water from rural catchments, where Atrazine is still the herbicide of choice for private forestry operators, and where this disrupting herbicide still regularly shows up in drinking water contamination tests."

"While the Greens are aware that Forestry Tasmania has ceased using Atrazine, and that private forestry users are now the main users of this noxious chemical, Forestry Tasmania still uses Simazine which is from the same triazine family of chemicals as Atrazine and which we also believe to be harmful to human health," concluded Mr Morris.

________________________________________

For Further Information:

UCSF Study "The Herbicide Atrazine Activates Endocrine Gene Networks via Non-Steroidal NR5A Nuclear Receptors in Fish and Mammalian Cells" http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002117

UCSF News Report: “Common herbicide disrupts human hormone activity in cell studies” http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/releases/200805064/

[1] The Australian, 15 May 2008, Matthew Denholm, "Alarm at weed-kill chemical in water"

[2] APVMA, 1 May 2008, "APVMA concludes its review of atrazine," http://www.apvma.gov.au/media/mr0802/shtml

[3] The Australian, 15 May 2008, Matthew Denholm, "Alarm at weed-kill chemical in water"

[4] UCSF News Service, Wallace Ravven, 6 May 2008, "Common herbicide disrupts human hormone activity in cell studies," http://pub.ucsf.edu/newsservices/releases/200805064/

The Tasmanian Greens today rejected the claim by the Minister for Crown Lands, Mr David Llewellyn that the proper processes are being followed in relation to a proposal for a commercial development on Crown Land foreshore at St Helens, saying that the site in question is already leased to the Council and therefore if that lease was to be foregone, it should revert back to the State.

Greens Member for Lyons, Tim Morris MP, said that a development proposal is being considered by the government whilst the crown land in question is, and has been, leased by the Break O’Day Council, and pointed out that if the Council does not wish to continue that lease then they should hand the lease back to the State government and then the government can give everyone an equal chance to apply to lease the land, not just one developer, which is why there are concerns in the local community that a secret deal is underway.

 “Mr Llewellyn has confirmed that a developer is in discussions with the government, seeking the green light to put a Development Application to the council, so perhaps he can also enlighten the community as to what the proposed development is and why no one else at this stage has the opportunity to put forward an alternative proposal, or to indicate that the present use is the most appropriate,” Mr Morris said.

“Mr Llewellyn must also answer the following question. How can a developer apply to lease a piece of Crown Land that is leased by someone else for public purposes without a decision having been made to discontinue that use and vacate the existing lease?”

 “It was not difficult to work out that a development is being contemplated, all that was required was a look back at the published Council agenda for last September where item 17.1 states ‘APPLICATION FOR CROWN LEASE ST HELENS FORESHORE JOHN HORTLE OF ECOAST HOMES PTY LTD (COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE)’ and in the minutes of the October meeting under the Mayor’s communications ‘St Helens — Meeting with John Hortle, Proposed Georges Bay Foreshore’.”

“With the matter again coming to closed council this week, and concerned constituents contacting me it was apparent that serious discussions must have been continuing and that they must now be involving the state government, so it is now high time for Mr Llewellyn to stop trying to shoot the messenger, accept that this very unusual situation naturally is of concern to St Helens’ residents, and provide a full explanation,” Mr Morris said.

The Tasmanian Greens today are critical that the Rudd government has dropped the ball on climate change in their first Budget, saying that this now puts the onus on the Lennon government to deliver serious change in this area in line with the Premier’s claim to have seen the light on this most important challenge to our future.

Greens Opposition Leader and Shadow Treasury spokesperson Peg Putt MP said that funding of a PET scanner for the RHH is welcome after Greens Senator Christine Milne exposed funding problems and created momentum for this vital equipment, but were critical that pensioners and people with disabilities were still missing out.

The Greens also want to know why the forest industry is being showered with yet more public funds, reportedly $20 million, of which $8 million turns out to be for climate change adjustment, querying that this is any more than continued public subsidy to an industry that is yet to admit that logging native forests contributes to climate change.

“In this time of rapidly approaching climate emergency the Rudd government have failed to rethink Budget priorities to combat this serious challenge in a meaningful and timely way, this is not just a disappointment but is seriously worrying because it means it will be even longer before major change away from a carbon based economy takes place,” Ms Putt said.

“It beggars belief that investment in major new renewable energy generation missed out whilst unproven clean coal technology that other countries are bailing out of got the dollars, clearly the coal industry is being allowed to dictate the Rudd government’s course of action.”

“In Tasmania the impact of means testing subsidies for solar photo voltaics which will put off the very people who could actually have afforded to invest will be compounded by the utter lack of state-based subsidies, making a Lennon government Budget initiative on solar subsidies imperative.”

“Because Rudd has dropped the ball so badly on climate change the onus is now on the Lennon government to invest in energy efficiency, subsidies for renewable energy including household installation, rail not road, and more public transport, yet Treasurer Michael Aird is indicating that he thinks Rudd delivered a good Labor Budget and this does not auger well for getting the prompt targeted action we need to tackle climate change.”

“We don’t understand why the forest industry is being showered with more cash, allegedly to assist them on climate change when they won’t even admit that current native forest logging and burning regimes contribute massively to the problem, we fear it would be too much to hope that this will be to secure forests into the future for carbon capture as an alternative to logging.”

“What is this money to be spent on, or is it just another pretext for continued public subsidy, given that the detail reveals that only $8 million of the $20 million is for climate change research.”

“There are things to be grateful for such as the PET scanner at the RHH which will be a real boon to cancer patients and has been a personal campaign of Greens Senator Christine Milne.”

“Similarly, abolishing the controversial refugee Temporary Protection Visa Scheme is a welcome breakthrough, and one that the Greens have long advocated.”

“It seems that genuine battlers, pensioners and people with disabilities, have missed out on what they really needed,” Ms Putt concluded.

The Tasmanian Greens today responded to the Treasurer’s announcement that plans for an ambulance levy are on hold until next financial year, saying that proper consultation with key bodies and the community prior to decisions on ambulance funding were vital to a good outcome, but that there is no evidence the government had learned this lesson, nor that they would prioritise ambulances for public funding ahead of taxpayer support for Gunns pulp mill.

Greens Opposition Leader and Shadow Health spokesperson Peg Putt MP called for a guarantee of increased ambulance funding in the upcoming State Budget and said that the Lennon government had made a mess of the whole issue since it announced plans for an across the board charge in last year’s State Budget, a plan that had proved deeply unpopular and completely unworkable — as could have been predicted from day one.

“The government has been forced back to the drawing board over ambulance funding because they were too arrogant to talk things through with the relevant bodies and the community before they came up with their unpopular and unworkable ambulance charge, and are now running into trouble about how to apply a levy,” Ms Putt said.

“The big picture question is, why would you levy taxpayers additional money to pay for such a vital service as ambulances, yet give away taxpayers money by the $millions to support Gunns unpopular private pulp mill development?”

“The Treasurer may have backed off his plans to impose an ambulance levy in the upcoming State Budget, but he must also assure Tasmanians that he will direct the necessary additional resources into ambulance services nonetheless.”

“The much vaunted Health Plan depends on better patient transport, including putting more into the ambulance service.”

“The north west is experiencing compounding problems with ambulance service provision, yet the need is exacerbated by the decision that ICU will not operate at the Mersey campus.”

“This government must learn the lesson from its year long ambulance debacle, which is that being prepared to consult properly at the outset saves a lot of time and angst in the long run,” Ms Putt concluded.

The Tasmanian Greens today welcomed Anglicare Tasmania’s evaluation of the Private Rental Support Scheme (PRSS) and called on the Lennon Labor government to commit to the continuation of the PRSS beyond June 30 this year. 

Greens Shadow Housing spokesperson Tim Morris MP congratulated Anglicare for their evaluation which found that the PRSS has helped large numbers of Tasmanians remain in private rental accommodation, which in turn has reduced the pressure on Tasmania’s lengthy public housing waiting list.

“The Tasmanian State budget will be released on June 12, but the PRSS is scheduled to cease on June 30 — if the Lennon government waits until Budget day to announce its decision on the PRSS, recipients will have less than three weeks to plan their future accommodation which is not enough time, especially if the government chooses to not continue funding the Scheme which would effectively cancel it,” said Mr Morris.

“Tasmanians deserve certainty when it comes to ongoing accommodation support and I am calling on the Lennon government to commit immediately to the continuation of the PRSS, or else to take responsibility as large numbers of Tasmanians are thrown out onto the streets.”

“Anglicare is showing up the lack of commitment in this area from the Lennon government which seems to prefer to make announcements about housing affordability, while doing nothing concrete to actually assist those suffering from rental stress or homelessness.”

“The Premier cannot blame the Federal Rudd government for the escalating housing crisis, in both the public and private sectors, and nor can Mr Lennon just rely on the Federal Budget to fix the problem on its own but must take on the responsibility to act wherever possible.”

“The question mark hanging over the PRSS can be resolved, there is a solution, and the Lennon government must commit now to continuing the scheme’s funding.”

“The Legislative Council recently released the comprehensive Report into Housing Affordability in Tasmania (April 2008) but despite the Lennon government undertaking to consider the report’s findings we have heard nothing since and are still waiting for the Minister’s response,” concluded Mr Morris.

The Tasmanian Greens today called on the Premier to explain his failure to respond to bodies representing port users, explain his government’s plans and planning parameters for Hobart’s commercial port, including Macquarie wharf, and to make a commitment to full community involvement in determining future options, in the context of fears that planning discussions for the railyards site have revealed that the working docks may be closed in favour of gentrification.

Greens Opposition Leader and Member for Denison, Peg Putt MP, said that the deep water working port was a well regarded feature of the waterfront by Hobartians who take pride in this heritage, considerable effort had gone into promoting Hobart as a port for Antarctic resupply and cruise ship visits, and wants to know why Tasports has been left out of the loop over areas under their control.

The Greens are concerned that the Premier has apparently gone to ground over the future of the port and are worried that secret plans may have been hatched by the Lennon government, flowing from their determination of the new hospital site and decision to locate a new transport hub at Brighton.

“The future of Hobart’s waterfront is well known to be of great concern, even more so when the prospect of effectively closing the working deep water port appears to have traction within government and the Premier is failing to respond to port user groups, and it is just not on to try and dump pre-conceived notions about gentrifying the area onto businesses reliant on the port and onto the community,” Ms Putt said.

“Is it that the Lennon government have assumed that the construction of a transport hub at Brighton and designation of the railyards as the site for the new hospital will close Hobart as a working port, something that has never been made explicit and is unacceptable.”

“It is imperative that the people get a say at the outset about the future of our port, not the usual Lennon government version of consultation which is to tell people what will happen, and the Premier has to explain right now what his government’s thinking is on this very important matter and why Tasports have not been included in discussions over the future of areas currently under their control.”

“Why is the Premier in the bunker over this one?”

“Is there more Lennon secrecy in play here, and have any developers been in discussions with government about Macquarie wharf, for example?”

“Nothing is surer than that the people of Hobart will not want a plastic fantastic version of Darling Harbour, and that we need a thorough ranging community discussion about the future of the Hobart port before it is stampeded as the knock on effect of other government decisions.”

“Much effort has gone into promoting Hobart as a port for Antarctic resupply, with China and Russia showing interest in using the port to support their scientific shipping, and we also expect to continue to attract cruise ships.”

“The working port is integral to the character and heritage of Hobart, so more than lip service must be paid to this,’ Ms Putt concluded.

The Tasmanian Greens today called on the Minister for Crown Lands, Mr Llewellyn, to come clean with the community about the ‘process’ that exists in Tasmania for developers who target Crown Land, following the revelation that the Lennon government is in the process of doing a deal with a developer over public land on the foreshore at the St Helens Esplanade before there being any public notification that a local foreshore playground is being targeted.

Greens Member for Lyons, Tim Morris MP, said that while there is a process for applying to lease Crown Land for development it is presumed that such applications must fit with the appropriate zoning determinations, but this particular secret deal is of grave concern because it appears to be in breach of the playground site’s recreational zoning classification.

Mr Morris also revealed that there already is a large crown lease, already zoned commercial available for purchase nearby, and has called on both the Break O’ Day Council and the Minister to reject the developer’s request for access to the playground on the grounds that there is other land available that is zoned appropriately.

“It appears that under this Labor government developers are able to select a piece of public land, no matter its tenure or zoning, and then secretly get the thumbs-up from the Minister and the local council, prior to any public notification which only happens effectively after a decision has been made,” Mr Morris said.

“The Minister for Crown Lands, Mr Llewellyn, and the Break O’Day Council have been exposed after the Greens revealed yesterday revealed that the council is tonight going to discuss in closed council a proposal for a commercial development on land zoned for public recreation on the Esplanade foreshore at St Helens.”

“Additional to this, the Greens have since learned that there is a large crown lease, already zoned commercial available for purchase nearby, so it is totally inappropriate for any developers to target land that is zoned and used for recreation in this way.”

 “It is now incumbent upon both the Council and the Minister to say clearly that the answer to the developer’s request is a loud “NO”, you cannot access this parcel of public land, because there is another site that is both available and zoned appropriately.”

“Are we seeing in St Helens another Ralphs Bay-style process, where a developer selects a prime foreshore site on public land and then is able to have secret negotiations and get some sort of pre-approval from the Minister, and even the local council, prior to having any obligation to make their intentions publicly known?”

“This secretive process regarding access to Crown Land results, once the proposal is made public, in the presumption being in the favour of the developer, and the community is virtually ‘dared’ to raise concerns, and it is high time that presumption is challenged especially when it comes to access to public assets.”

“The public land along the coast of Tasmania should not be for sale or for commercial development, unless it is zoned for commercial use and the Minister should make a public statement to that effect, after all we have been through an extensive Crown Lands Assessment and Classification (CLAC) process and I am sure that this land was not identified for selling or development to benefit a private operator,” Mr Morris said.

Further Information: Link to an advertisement for nearby land that is available

http://www.robertsre.com.au/cgi-bin/clients/robre/profile.cgi?gid=23278&search=1&region=2&searchid=5&ForRent=0&proptype=&pcid=0&lower=0&upper=0&lowerr=0&upperr=0&arealowersqm=0&areauppersqm=0&type=ForSale&propertyid=1707613

 

The Tasmanian Greens today called on the Minister for Crown Lands, David Llewellyn, to either confirm or rule out that there is a secret deal being done between the Government, Break O’Day Council and a local developer to hand over parts of the Crown Land on St Helens foreshore for commercial development.

Greens Member for Lyons, Tim Morris MP, said that rumours were rife in the St Helens area that the Government was in discussions with the Break O’Day Council and a private developer about the possible construction of a large commercial development just north of the boat ramp on the Esplanade, ever since surveyors were seen working in the area.

Mr Morris also said that the Break O Day Council Agenda for Monday’s meeting lists for discussion under the Closed Council Meeting section, “Crown Land Lease, St Helen’s Foreshore”.

 “I call upon Mr Llewellyn, the Minister for Crown Lands, to clarify whether or not the government is in discussions with anyone about a change of use for the crown land foreshore at St Helens, and if so to immediately disclose to the public the nature of those negotiations,” Mr Morris said.

“It would be totally inappropriate for any development to occur on the Esplanade foreshore without there being an explicit change to the Planning Scheme, following extensive public consultation and without a specific development proposal in existence;to do anything else will reek of a special deal for another Labor mate.”

“I have already submitted an FOI request for information, but hope the Minister can make an unequivocal statement that his government will not allow developers to pick sites that take their fancy on public land and then have the government enter into secret negotiations for them to alienate it for commercial development.”

 “Of further interest is the fact that the Break O Day Council agenda for Monday night (tomorrow) there is listed for discussion as part of a closed meeting, “Crown Lease St Helens Foreshore, Georges Bay (COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE)”, and there is increasing community concern that this item relates to the rumours about the government having done a secret deal over public land north of the boat ramp on the Esplanade.”

“The St Helens community deserve straight answers about whether this significant piece of Crown Land is about to be handed over to private developers, instead of being informed of the outcome as a fait accompli, and they deserve to know what is going on before tomorrow’s closed Council meeting,” Mr Morris said.

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Agenda Item from Break O’Day Council meeting on the 12 May 2008 and a Link to the Agenda

Pursuant to Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005 that Council move into Closed Council.

05/08.18.0 CLOSED COUNCIL

05/08.18.1 Questions on Notice — Clr D Clement — Crown Lease St Helens Foreshore, Georges Bay (COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE) — Closed Council Item Pursuant To Section 15(2)F Of The Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005

05/08.18.2 St Helens Foreshore - Closed Council Item Pursuant To Section 15(2)H

Of The Local Government (Meeting Procedures) Regulations 2005

http://www.bodc.tas.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Council_Agenda_12_May_2008_Public.pdf

The Tasmanian Greens today said that a State government submission to the Federal government, which fails to mention the possibility of commercialising the Basslink fibre optic cable, demonstrates the lack of a Cabinet strategy to deliver broadband services in Tasmania, and is a tacit admission that government bungling has lead to a situation in which it is extremely unlikely that the basslink fibre will be commercialised unless the government steps in with extra funding.

Greens Deputy Leader and Shadow ICT Spokesperson Nick McKim MP said that the submission to the National Broadband Network Panel of Experts, which was signed on behalf of DPAC Secretary Evan Rolley on 28 March 2008, also admits to major problems in broadband services in Tasmania.

Mr McKim said that the submission made admissions including:

“…the backhaul cost structure [across Bass Strait] prevents national ISPs from being able to profitably offer their national internet package deals in this State.”;

“…the Tasmanian government announced State-owned utility Aurora Energy as our strategic partner to commercialise this [state government fibre optic] network on the strength of their commitment to lower wholesale backhaul prices [across Bass Strait] …”;

“However, contestable backhaul across Bass Strait is critical to the success of this strategy [commercializing the state government fibre optic network]”;

“The key telecommunications challenge facing Tasmania is a lack of infrastructure competition and from this lack of a commercial incentive to provide nationally available broadband services in Tasmania. The incumbent currently has a monopoly on backhaul access across Bass Strait and on fixed line telecommunications infrastructure within Tasmania. Market quotes over the past two years indicate that the cost of capacity via the incumbent’s infrastructure from Hobart-to-Melbourne is about five times higher than from Melbourne to Adelaide and up to 10 times the rate between Melbourne and Sydney.”

 

“The submission acknowledges the massive problems which have Tasmania languishing at the bottom of every national measure of connectivity, and its failure to propose the commercialisation of the Basslink fibre is an admission that the government has completely bungled the contract negotiations with CitySpring.”

“Tasmanian businesses and online communities deserve answers, and Treasurer Michael Aird must now emerge and explain exactly what the contractual situation is with CitySpring, and why the Basslink fibre has not been lit.”

“It has become blindingly obvious that Tasmania needs a Minister for ICT to drive strategic thinking and government focus on this crucial issue.”

Mr McKim also labelled Premier Paul Lennon’s assertion that Tasmanian needed federal government assistance to provide data transmission competition across Bass Strait as ‘absolute rubbish’.

“The Premier has pulled out the old ‘blame the Feds’ line in an attempt to divert the debate away from the incompetence of his government, but all he’s done is make a complete fool of himself.”

“If Mr Lennon knew what he was talking about he would realise that any fibre laid across Bass Strait under the Federal government’s NBN process will not be available for many years at best, and will likely also require significant state government investment.”

“It’s frankly embarrassing that Tasmania has a Premier who is more concerned with pulping our forests than 21st century technology like broadband.” 

The Tasmanian Greens today said that the response to their Department of Justice Freedom of Information request for all documentation relating to the magistrate candidate selection process, that precipitated the downfall of ex-Deputy Premier Steve Kons, has revealed that the Department has failed to retain a copy of the Cabinet brief relating to the appointment of Simon Cooper a magistrate, despite receiving confirmation that the Department had drawn up such a document.

Greens Shadow Justice spokesperson Nick McKim MP, who submitted the FoI request on the 8th of April this year, said that he hoped that the document had not been destroyed to protect the government from political embarrassment, and demanded that the Government explain why it was not retained by the agency.

“It is extraordinary that the original Cabinet Brief to note the appointment of Mr Cooper should not be available from the Department responsible for its drafting, and this revelation raises serious questions,” Mr McKim said.

“This is a disturbing twist to the Shreddergate saga, to discover under our FoI request that the Justice Department, which was responsible for drafting the Cabinet brief noting the intention to appoint Mr Cooper as Magistrate no longer exists in their records.”

Mr McKim said that the response to the Greens’ FoI response contains a background briefing note that confirms that the Justice Department had drawn up the Cabinet Brief regarding Mr Cooper and the magistrate position, but the briefing paper then goes on to say that the ‘…Brief in relation to Mr Cooper was not retained by the agency’.[1]

“So it now seems that not only did the ex-Attorney General Steve Kons seek to destroy the hard-copy in his possession at the time, but that the Justice Department also destroyed its copy or copies.”

“Why did the Justice Department not retain the original Cabinet brief in relation to Mr Cooper, was the Department requested or instructed to remove such files, and is it standard departmental practice to alter historical records in this manner?”

“This latest twist in the Shreddergate saga makes Mr Kons’ excuse that he had merely changed his mind over his preferred magistrate appointee look more and more feeble, and instead increases concern that political interference was behind the sudden withdrawal of Mr Cooper’s appointment.”

“The FoI Background Briefing Note also makes it clear that the Cooper Cabinet Brief was drafted by the Department ‘in early August’ but then was required to prepare a new Cabinet Brief nominating Mr Glenn Hay which was signed by the Attorney on the 8th of August — and we have yet to receive from Mr Kons a satisfactory explanation as to what happened to cause him to change his mind in such a short and hurried manner.”

Mr McKim also said that the Greens are currently exploring appeal options as well as whether this failure to retain documentation breaches the Archives Act 1983.

[1] Briefing Note from the Justice Department Secretary to the Attorney General, 8 April 2008;pg 2.

The Tasmanian Greens today called upon the Minister for Infrastructure, Mr Lennon to guarantee that the Fingal rail line will remain open and to get his head out of the sand and do something to stop Pacific National continuing to close the Tasmanian rail operations train by train.

Greens Shadow Infrastructure spokesperson Tim Morris MP said that last year Pacific National stopped carting coal to Boyer, despite the opportunity to get a back load of coal from the Kimbolton mine and now it is possible that the Railton contract may be lost;forcing the already over loaded roads to become even more crowded and dangerous, whilst the railway rots.

 “It is a clear failure of the Lennon Labor Government that it is not proactive;it either gets a commitment from Pacific National or finds another operator who does actually want to run trains in Tasmania,” Mr Morris said.

“The Department of Infrastructure seems to be continuing with its lazy approach by claiming it is just a commercial decision for the companies involved, when it is actually a key strategic decision for the state government about minimising the heavy freight on our roads and maximising the use of the very under utilised rail network.”

“It is time that the Infrastructure Minister came to grips with the fact that he is supposed to be looking after the states infrastructure instead of spending his time running around the country trying to get a football team in the AFL;he has a Sports Minister for that job.”

“Empty coal wagons are already sitting at Conara because this Government was not proactive in ensuring the Boyer contract was continued causing a significant increase of trucks on the Boyer Road, Midlands and Esk Highways and if more wagons are piling up at Conara it will be a monument to the Lennon Labor Governments ineptitude,” Mr Morris said.

The Tasmanian Greens today released leaked documents that formed part of Bell Bay Power’s 2006 proposal to the Lennon State government, before Labor decided to sell-off the power station, which reveal that the government had before them a proposal to transform the station to become a stand alone viable sustainable generator competing in the National Energy Market (NEM), and which would also have remained in public hands.

Greens Shadow Energy spokesperson and Member for Bass Kim Booth MP said today that the leaked documents, which form a 22-page power point summary of Bell Bay Power’s business case, revealed another sorry saga of deception and incompetence by the Lennon government, and which raises serious questions about the motives behind the sale of Bell Bay Power Station, as well as the true net benefit to Hydro Tasmania that was received.

Mr Booth also called on the government to explain serious discrepancies between the information contained in the documents and statements made in the Parliament by the then Energy Minister, David Llewellyn, regarding the cost of the pipe line capacity.

“These leaked documents that summarise Bell Bay Power’s Business Case that they presented to the Labor government in August of 2006, reveal yet again a sorry saga of government incompetence when it comes to secure the best energy options for Tasmania, as well as revealing the extent Labor will go to misinform the public about the decisions they make,” Mr Booth said.

“The Lennon government sold the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Bell Bay power station last year to Alinta, claiming a sale price of $120 million which included $90 million for the pipe line capacity agreement. At the time, Energy Minister David Llewellyn told parliament that, ‘the net benefit of the sale to Hydro Tasmania is $120&nbsp;million.&nbsp;Alinta will provide an up-front cash payment of $30&nbsp;million, and will purchase the assets and site. The pipeline capacity agreement between Hydro Tasmania and Alinta, which secured long-term gas supply for the power station, will also be terminated early, saving Hydro Tasmania $90&nbsp;million’,”[1]

“However this leaked document tells an entirely different story, revealing that Hydro Tasmania had already written off the pipeline capacity agreement to zero in its accounts (see slides 4 and 7), a fact that raises the possibility that Energy Minister Llewellyn misled the Parliament over the true net benefit of the sale of Bell bay Power Station.”

“The document also reveals that the Lennon government ignored advice to create a stand alone SOC (State Owned Company) that would have retained public ownership of the power station while delivering approximate Earnings Before Interest d Tax (EBIT) of over $32 million (see slide 15), as well as “[r]emoving revenue leakage from State electricity businesses to interstate entities’.” (see slide 16).

“The Greens were the only party to vote against the privatisation of the Bell Bay Power Station and raised the issue of the low return to the taxpayer, noting the fact that Hydro were still obliged to pay around $56 million for the three newly purchased gas turbines which went with the sale.”

“This effectively meant that the government gave away Bell Bay Power for a net loss of $16 million plus as yet undisclosed costs of de contamination of the site.”

&nbsp;“The leaked documents reveal that the Lennon Labor government acted against advice that would have seen the public retain control of its energy generation assets and earn between $16 and $20 million per year profit that could have gone into investment in renewable energy projects, concessions on electricity tariffs or gone back into health and education.”

“The documents also show that under this proposal the power stations was to “become a stand alone viable sustainable generator competing in the NEM.” (see slide 22)

“Bell Bay Power station was ruthlessly slaughtered on the altar of privatisation by Lennon Labor who turned their back on the projected $16 to $20 million profits per annum available under public ownership.” (see Slide 15)

“Bell Bay Power is strategically important in our generation mix and it beggars belief that the government would give away a valuable public asset when advice showed that retention in public ownership was a viable and profitable alternative that met all Nation Competition requirements.”

‘Lennon’s Basslink gamble has saddled Tasmania with a $92 million dollar per year cable rent and now we discover, by leaked documents, that this incompetent and unaccountable government has torn up a massive $16 to $20 million projected profit per year that could have gone to other public projects.”

“Lennon Labor has axed a valuable plum tree that would have yielded fruit for generations to come and must now come clean with the truth about the reasons why they sold it in the first place.”

“The government has some serious explaining to do to answer the discrepancies between what Parliament was told at the time Bell Bay station was sold, and the details contained in this documentation.”

“Did Labor get bedazzled by the prospect of quick cash, so they convinced themselves to sell of a public asset that could now be assisting Tasmania as it faces an energy shortage?”

“It appears that at the time Labor was too keen to spend money promoting ill-advised projects such as the pulp mill, and racecourses that is was too quick to tear up public assets at fire-sale prices,” Mr Booth said.

Background Information: Relevant quotations from Hansard:

[The proposed sale of the Bell Bay Power Station represented] ‘the best possible scenario that could have been anticipated by the Government,’ [David Llewellyn, Hansard, Wednesday 18 April 2007, Part 2, “HYDRO-ELECTRIC CORPORATION ACT 1995 - SALE OF BELL BAY POWER STATION”]

“the net benefit of the sale to Hydro Tasmania is $120&nbsp;million.&nbsp;Alinta will provide an up-front cash payment of $30&nbsp;million, and will purchase the assets and site.&nbsp;The pipeline capacity agreement between Hydro Tasmania and Alinta, which secured long-term gas supply for the power station, will also be terminated early, saving Hydro Tasmania $90&nbsp;million.&nbsp;[David Llewellyn, Hansard, Wednesday 18 April 2007, Part 2, “HYDRO-ELECTRIC CORPORATION ACT 1995 - SALE OF BELL BAY POWER STATION”]

[1] David Llewellyn, Hansard, Wednesday 18 April 2007, Part 2, “HYDRO-ELECTRIC CORPORATION ACT 1995 - SALE OF BELL BAY POWER STATION”

The Tasmanian Greens today said that the ‘deafening silence’ from Treasurer Michael Aird on the government’s failure to commercialise the Basslink fibre optic cable is an acknowledgement that the government’s incompetence has failed consumers of broadband services in Tasmania.

Greens Deputy Leader and Shadow ICT spokesperson Nick McKim MP also said that the state government should follow the lead of the Rudd federal government and many other states and create the position of Minister for Broadband and Information and Communications Technology (ICT).

“The government’s failure to provide competition in data transmission across Bass Strait is disadvantaging Tasmanian business and online communities, and Treasurer Michael Aird is treating these people with contempt by failing to engage with the issue.”

“Given the importance of broadband to Tasmania’s social and economic future, Mr Aird must come clean and explain how the current debacle was allowed to occur, and release some specific timelines for resolving the issue.”

Mr McKim said that the Federal government and most state governments have Ministers for ICT, and Tasmania is suffering due to the lack of focus on these issues resulting from the government’s failure to understand the importance of broadband to Tasmania’s future.

“If Tasmania had a Minister for ICT the government would have someone responsible for developing strategy and implementing programs, but Tasmania unfortunately is lagging behind in this crucial area.”

“Victoria even has a Broadband office of Broadband Access, something that Tasmania’s consumers of online services can only dream about,” Mr McKim said.

The Tasmanian Greens have made a submission to the Tarkine Tourism Management plan recommending that World Heritage listing and National Park protection of natural and cultural values is vital to securing recognition of this northwest treasure and promoting the area to tourists.

Greens Opposition Leader and Shadow spokesperson on Tourism, Parks and Heritage Peg Putt MP also believes that an adventure tourism focus, along the lines of New Zealand’s Queenstown, and including mountain bike riding, wild water rafting, bushwalking and surfing, with an allied northwest training facility for guides is the key to differentiating the area from other nature-based experiences elsewhere in Tasmania.

The Greens also highlighted the potential for tourism focussed on the significant aboriginal heritage sites and ongoing cultural traditions, under the control of the indigenous community, whilst stressing that unacceptable destruction of important cultural sites is ongoing under current management.

“The Tarkine has outstanding natural and cultural values that will attract people from around the world, but this really relies on achieving World Heritage status that is so highly sought after in other countries, and validates that the values are genuinely superb and not just advertising spin, “ Ms Putt said.

“There is a fabulous opportunity to make the Tarkine a focus for adventure tourism, including mountain bike riding, wild water rafting, bushwalking and surfing, which is low impact yet can be differentiated from the other natural areas in Tasmania, and linked to training for guides that we hope can be supplied via the northwest campus of the University of Tasmania.”

“Closure of the failed Western Explorer road, otherwise known as the Road to Nowhere, and it’s rehabilitation to a lengthy walking and cycling track fits the adventure tourism model and would begin to restrain the ongoing degradation of natural and cultural values that the road has brought, the most recent instance being the enormous damaging wildfire started from this road.”

“Aboriginal heritage sites created over many thousands of years prior to European incursion in the Tarkine, and the name itself paying homage to the Tarkiner people, could be part of respectful cultural tourism conducted by the indigenous community themselves, but better protection of significant sites including middens, hut depressions and petroglyphs is urgently needed.”

“To underpin tourism opportunities we must upgrade our protection and management of the Tarkine’s natural and cultural values, many of which are being progressively eroded, put money into much better resourcing of Parks and Wildlife in the area, and recognise that mining the area for tourist dollars without first protecting the values would be a recipe for yet more degrading exploitation.”

“The costly roading plans of Forestry Tasmania would further destroy wilderness values, bulldoze through sensitive myrtle rainforest, and capture scarce tourism infrastructure dollars to the disadvantage of other operators and their plans, so we can’t support that,” Ms Putt concluded.

A Submission To The

Tarkine Tourism Master Plan

Presented By

Peg Putt MP

Leader of the Tasmanian Greens

Spokesperson for Tourism, Parks and Heritage

May 2008

Tarkine Tourism Master Plan

This submission focuses on the Cradle Coast Authority’s Tarkine Tourism Master Plan (‘the Plan’) and their intention for the region to be established as Tasmania’s next nature-based tourism icon.

1. The Tasmanian Greens Recommendation: - World Heritage nomination and the establishment of a National Park

The World Heritage nomination and establishment of a Tarkine National Park is the way for the area to get on the map for tourists and to protect its unique natural and cultural values. The cachet of World Heritage recognition is not well understood within Tasmania, but internationally this is a highly sought after and well regarded designation. This would be a huge positive step for the area and its attractiveness to visitors.

&nbsp;

Tourism development has to be planned and administered with these values paramount, not with the primary objective of mining the area for tourist dollars, which puts exploitation above genuine sustainability on the planning and administrative hierarchy.

&nbsp;

Despite the numerous reserves that already exist in the Tarkine area, these only offer inadequate protection. In particular, the Savage River reserve and Arthur/Pieman Protected Area allow for 4WD and mining activities. These areas must be incorporated with the rest of the Tarkine into a National Park to ensure the protection of natural and cultural values.

&nbsp;

The Tasmanian Greens are dismayed that the Plan singled out the issue of World Heritage nomination as a negative and also failed to mention a National Park proposal for the area. Both World Heritage listing and full protection as a National Park will provide the most appropriate level of protection for the natural values of the Tarkine, also enhancing the value of tourism to the area.

&nbsp;

Furthermore, the Plan fails to recommend one authority to administer the Tarkine. This is necessary to ensure that the Tarkine is managed properly, but also to ensure that responsibility is met to tackle the interrelated issues of access and degradation of the area. Unregulated access through off-road vehicle use has damaged many of the Aboriginal sites in coastal areas, and cattle grazing is also a major problem that is degrading the natural values of the area. Both forestry and mining operations are allowed under conflicting management objectives, but this is a major issue that needs to be sorted out.

&nbsp;

The Plan also fails to indicate the funding that will be required of governments to provide the background services and infrastructure necessary to the development of the Tarkine as a tourist destination, including funding for on-ground management of natural and cultural values. This expectation must be made explicit.

&nbsp;

The Tarkine has potential to boost the northwest economy, which is further support to the campaign which wants to see it protected. However, any plan for the area must place the Tarkine’s natural and cultural values as a priority, in addition to appropriate and proper management, funding and a planning process that engages in an open dialogue with all stakeholders.

&nbsp;

2. Concerns over cultural and natural heritage

The Tasmanian Greens believe that any management system for the Tarkine needs to provide enduring protection for the both the natural and cultural values (both Aboriginal and European) of the area. Plans for tourism should be framed within an explicit recognition of management plans and adherence to restraints applied to ensure protection and longevity of the values. Previous extensive reports on the Tarkine ought to have been considered.

&nbsp;

The Tarkine is home to 56 endangered and threatened species, including the Tasmanian Devil (it is one of the only areas in Tasmania completely free from the Tasmanian Devil Facial Tumour Disease), the Wedge-Tailed Eagle, the Swift Parrot and the Giant Freshwater Crayfish (the largest freshwater crayfish in the world).

&nbsp;

The Tarkine has international significance, as such contiguous areas of temperate rainforests are extremely rare. The Tarkine contains populations of important species remnants with links to the Gondwana period, which are significant in understanding the evolution of both Tasmanian and Australian flora and fauna. The Tarkine contains a mosaic of vegetation communities including dry sclerophyll forests, coastal vegetation, wetlands and buttongrass communities. The Tarkine is also home to many species that grow at the limit of their range, such as Huon Pine.

&nbsp;

The size and natural values of the Tarkine make it an ideal refuge for these plants and animals.

&nbsp;

The recommendation of Indigenous tourism is welcome, but this must be accompanied by a genuine commitment by all levels of government to recognise and protect Indigenous heritage sites regardless of their tourism potential, and to recognise the Tarkiner people as the previous inhabitants of the area.1 Aboriginal sites, such as shell middens, hut depressions, and petroglyphs, are surviving historical records of Indigenous activities in the area in the millennia prior to European settlement and are therefore irreplaceable. The number and significance of these Aboriginal sites are of particular importance to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community.

&nbsp;

It should be recognised that cultural values and practices of indigenous Tasmanians are a continuing, living legacy, including in the Tarkine. Thus the involvement of the community in promoting and interpreting culture and its relationship to this country is paramount.

&nbsp;

Any recommendations for tourism ventures incorporating interpretations of Aboriginal sites must therefore involve the Aboriginal communities in both the ownership and management of these areas, whilst also ensuring protection of the area. Therefore, the Tasmanian Greens are concerned by such recommendations which call for commercial opportunities for ATV tours of Sandy Cape including the interpretation of Aboriginal sites, if these have the potential to damage these significant archaeological sites, and are not conducted under the strict supervision of the Aboriginal community.2

&nbsp;

The Tasmanian Greens agree with the proposals to encourage historic tourism ventures in the towns bordering the Tarkine. This also ties in with the development of accommodation in these areas. Remnants of the area’s use as an important mining centre in the late nineteenth century include the townships of Waratah, Balfour and Corinna.

&nbsp;1 Tarkine Master Plan for public comment, March 2008, 4.2 The Basis for the Tarkine Tourism Master Plan: Guiding Principles, p 13.

2 Tarkine Master Plan for public comment, March 2008, 8.4 Four wheel driving: Recommendations, p 44.

&nbsp;3 Tarkine Master Plan for public comment, March 2008, 8.4 Four wheel driving: Recommendations, p 44.

3. Adventure Tourism

The Tasmanian Greens believe minimal impact adventure tourism could be the unique angle, adopted to attract tourists in numbers, by differentiating the Tarkine from the rest of Tasmania in terms of added value to the nature-based product.

&nbsp;

The Tarkine could thus become an adventure tourism destination, such as Queenstown in New Zealand, specialising in minimal-impact activities such as mountain bike-riding, white water rafting, bushwalking and surfing, without compromising the natural and cultural values of the area.

&nbsp;

In addition, training for employment in the nearby adventure tourism industry could be developed in association with the University of Tasmania’s northwest campus.

&nbsp;

4. Recreational activities

&nbsp;

The Tasmanian Greens are supportive of low-impact activities such as walking, cycling and kayaking in the Tarkine, but are concerned that the Tarkine Tourism Master Plan doesn’t call for a regulation of vehicle use in the Tarkine.

&nbsp;

The Tasmanian Greens see the use of All Terrain Vehicles (or quad bikes) in the Tarkine as a serious threat to the natural values and indigenous heritage sites within the Tarkine area, and also as a threat to the authenticity of the tourism offering as a ‘wilderness experience’. It is disappointing that the Plan has failed to tackle the issue of trail bike and quad bike use in an area with recognised wilderness values, instead including ATV use as part of the tourism framework. Whilst the Tasmanian Greens do not support ATV use on a general scale throughout the Tarkine, it is possible that land north of the Arthur River could be put aside for such a purpose. As this area of land has previously been logged and is therefore already degraded, and is also not on the coast, so allowing controlled ATV use would not detract from the natural values of the greater Tarkine area.

&nbsp;

Similarly, the Tasmanian Greens do not support the recommendation to increase 4WD opportunities in the Meredith range area or in coastal areas, as we believe this will further increase erosion and degradation of the natural values of the area and also sites of key archaeological significance.3

&nbsp;

There are a multitude great short bushwalks already available, many close to existing perimeter roads, and multi-day walks which already exist at a basic level and could be further developed. However, any recommendation to develop the Tarkine as a sustainable tourism destination by increasing bushwalking must be accompanied by a corresponding increase in funding to the Parks &amp;Wildlife Service, to employ additional on-ground staff (including rangers and track workers) to provide assistance and information to walkers and to manage the tracks.

&nbsp;

4 Tarkine Master Plan for public comment, March 2008, 5.2 Major Gaps: Accommodation, p 22.

5 Tarkine Master Plan for public comment, March 2008, 7.4 Corridors, pp 35-37.

6 Tarkine Master Plan for public comment, March 2008, 5.2 Major Gaps: Corridors p 21.

7 Tarkine Master Plan for public comment, March 2008, 4.3 The Tarkine Brand, p 15.

5. Accommodation

The Tasmanian Greens recommend that accommodation should be low-impact, and restricted to land parcels around the edges of the Tarkine, to ensure that the Tarkine is a well-managed destination. The Tasmanian Greens do not agree that eco-lodges or cabins should be established in the remote settings of the Tarkine, as has been recommended by the Tarkine Tourism Master Plan.4 Rather, we support the provision of accommodation in nearby townships and in areas adjacent to reserves to protect the natural values and the visitor experience, and to boost the economies of these surrounding towns.

6. Roads and Access to the Tarkine

The Tasmanian Greens are opposed to any further roading and sealing of roads in the Tarkine area. Whilst access to, and enjoyment of, our wild places by ordinary citizens is important, we believe that this should not be done to the detriment of the natural and cultural values of these areas. This is particularly true for the Tarkine, which already has plenty of great tourist drives and lookouts on its fringes, and many possibilities for access into the remote areas by foot.

&nbsp;

Roads into remote areas provide access points for disease, weeds and feral pests to enter otherwise pristine tracts of land. The Tasmanian Greens thus recommend that further road upgrades should be focused on the edges of the Tarkine, to minimise environmental impact by human activities, rather than further developing the Western Explorer, South Arthur Forest Drive and Savage River corridor as primary road corridors in core wilderness areas, as has been proposed by the Tarkine Tourism Master Plan5.

&nbsp;

Another danger of expanding the road network through the Tarkine wilderness is the increased risk of wildfire. A fire recently lit from the Western Explorer road burnt out of control for days and destroyed 18,000 hectares of wilderness, threatening Australia’s largest intact temperate rainforest. Such a fire only occurred because of human presence in this remote area. Further road access not only has the potential to harm the outstanding conservation values of the area, but also increases the fire risk to humans by encouraging access to remote areas of land.

&nbsp;

The Tasmanian Greens cannot support the statement in the Tarkine Tourism Master Plan which claims that the “Western Explorer has the potential to be one of the great self drives in Tasmania.”6 Rather than proposing alternatives for the future of the ‘Road to Nowhere’, it is disappointing that the Tarkine Tourism Master Plan relies on the upgrading of this road to ensure economic benefits from tourism in the Tarkine by providing ‘accessible wilderness’ (an oxymoron in itself).7 Where is the analysis of the inflated claims made for this controversial road when it was bulldozed through the wilderness against strong opposition, including many arrests? It has not lived up to these claims at all. The Tasmanian Greens instead call for the closure of the Western Explorer road and recommend that it be rehabilitated for use as a walking and cycling track.

&nbsp;

Forestry Tasmania’s proposed loop road, announced last December is unacceptable and strongly opposed. This road aims to connect Myalla Road near Meunna through untouched&nbsp;areas of land to roads in the South Arthur Forests and then onto Arthur River on the West Coast by sealing 117km of existing roads and constructing 7km of new roading. This proposal further threatens the wilderness values of the area, by pushing in a road and allowing vehicular access to remote and previously untouched parts of the Tarkine. It would impinge on sensitive myrtle rainforest, and is obviously planned to give a false impression to tourists of a relatively untouched area by diverting them from experiencing the plunder carried out via existing logging roads. The $19.4 million price tag would capture the vast bulk of tourism funding for Forestry Tasmania’s perverse plans to conduct business as usual and also try to hoodwink tourists, disadvantaging other tourism operators in the process.

&nbsp;

The Tasmanian Greens believe that the Savage River pipeline area should remain off limits to vehicles, as any impact from vehicular access has the potential to damage the fragile myrtle rainforests. Myrtle wilt, a disease caused by a fungus, is a major threat to these areas and is caused by localised disturbances, such as logging, roading or thinning of nearby trees. The value of retaining intact this special area of temperate rainforest without roading incursion must be recognised.

&nbsp;

With regards to fly-in helicopters experiences, the Tasmanian Greens are concerned that remotely located landing sites or helipads within the Tarkine and flights into these places would degrade the wilderness values and visitor experience.

&nbsp;

The Tarkine Tourism Master Plan also fails to be aware of the risk of increased roadkill through the sealing of roads. It is important to draw attention to the fact that this has already happened with the Arthur River road, where speed limits are neither adhered to nor policed in a routine manner. Information on the increased levels of roadkill on this road is available from the Tasmanian Conservation Trust.

&nbsp;

7. The Tarkine Tourism Master Plan — other deficiencies of approach

&nbsp;

The Tarkine Tourism Master Plan does not include maps of the area, to illustrate and provide a reference point for the various roads, villages, rivers, etc that are mentioned, and to also understand the various recommendations and objectives of the Plan.

&nbsp;

The Plan also avoids seeing access to the area from the south, i.e. from the townships of Tullah and Zeehan. It instead focuses on access via the Western Explorer and the South Arthur Forest Drive.

&nbsp;

The time frame for community and stakeholder response by 30th of April with the completion of the Plan by the end of June isn’t enough time for considered and dedicated discussions with stakeholders and community. In addition, the Tarkine Tourism Master Plan was apparently developed solely with people and groups within the immediate local vicinity of the Tarkine. This must be regarded then as very preliminary. Input and perspectives from Tasmania-wide, national and international stakeholders need to be researched and incorporated into the Tarkine Tourism Master Plan.

&nbsp;

The Tasmanian Greens today described the State government’s release of a Consultation Paper on the Implementation of Regulatory Control for Aerial Spraying and Ground Spraying of Agricultural Chemical Products April 2008, as an admission that the so-called controls employed so far have been woefully inadequate.

Greens Shadow Primary Industries spokesperson Kim Booth MP said that the Consultation Paper’s indication that mandatory prior notification for both aerial and ground spraying, reporting of chemical usage, exclusion zones, and legislated maximum limits is vindication for those in the community who have been raising concerns for many years, but also warned that while the report may recognise the serious nature of such outstanding issues, the proposed solutions may not be sufficient.

“The review and now the release of the Aerial and Ground Spraying of Agricultural Chemical Products Consultation paper is a vindication of those in the community who have been ridiculed and ignored for years, whenever they raised concerns about chemical contamination resulting from spraying, and the proposed new regulatory regime is an admission that the current system has been a failure,” Mr Booth said.

“We have been calling for years to there to be mandatory prior notification for both aerial and ground spraying, for there to be mandatory buffer and exclusion zones, and recognition of the economic impacts upon organic farms so it is very significant to see these concerns validated by their inclusion in the Consultation paper.”

“Similarly the need for it to be compulsory for information to be kept and all records to be made within one day after the day on which spraying operation was carried out, is something that should have been in place years ago.”

“The Greens will be assessing closely the proposals contained in the Aerial and Ground Spraying of Agricultural Chemical Products Consultation paper, to ensure that the proposed changes address all necessary concerns, and that they go far enough to address these long outstanding concerns, and we urge members of the community to do likewise” Mr Booth said.

The Greens reiterated their call for Chemical Trespass legislation, as the proposed changes to the Aerial and Ground Spraying regulations will only address one aspect of the community’s chemical contamination concerns.

The Tasmanian Greens today criticised the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) for seeking to codify the appalling and unnecessary practice of burning forest residues rather than banning them outright as would be the responsible thing to do, on public health, environmental and climate change grounds, saying that any moves to do will in fact legitimise the annual forestry burns season.

Greens Shadow Native Forest logging spokesperson Tim Morris MP said that Tasmanians have just been through the worst pollution event of the year where the forest industry has poisoned the air for weeks on end and it is bitterly disappointing that the Forest Practices Authority’s response is just to seek to codify, and further entrench, the practice instead of applying pressure to the industry to end this unnecessary and irresponsible activity.

“It is abundantly clear that the forest industry does not operate by the reasonable rules that every other industry and individual has to abide by;no other industry would be allowed to spew millions of tonnes of noxious chemical pollutants into the sky is a period of a few weeks when the weather can be relied upon to disperse the pollutant over every city and settlement across the island,” Mr Morris said.

“The community has been expressing its outrage over these annual pollution events for years, yet finally when the FPA realises that it can’t get away with not doing anything, it still buckles in the industry’s favour.”

“Any move to ‘codify’ this outdated polluting practice will in effect only serve to legitimise them, which is not going to help one iota the many Tasmanians outraged over the annual burns regime.”

“The state has made it illegal for individuals on domestic blocks to have a smoke plume longer than 5 meters, and has banned back yard burning because of the environmental and health risks that are known the arise, but completely ignores the massive pollution and climate changing chemical release by the noxious forest industry.”

“The response of the supposedly independent Forest Practices Industry to the appalling scenes of the past few weeks is to move to codify and entrench the burning of forest residues instead of doing the right thing and banning this polluting practice.”

“Even the Forest Practices Code as it stands states ‘Care should be taken to ensure that emissions of smoke, dust or noise from forest operations do not cause serious or material environmental harm under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994’, yet we know that the burns are resulting in hospital help being sought, and the release of millions of tones of pollutants into the atmosphere, yet it is all apparently fine with the Lennon Labor Government, with no action taken under the Code or our Environment Management and Pollution Control Act.”

“Tasmanians deserve better, they deserve clean air and they deserve knowing that one industry does not have carte blanche when it comes to polluting our atmosphere with impunity,” Mr Morris said.

The Tasmanian Greens today welcomed Hydro Tasmania’s decision to conduct joint trials of BioPower Systems’ Biowave technology on King Island and its Biostream tidal-current system on Flinders Island, and called on the Lennon Government to acknowledge the leading role of renewable energies in drought-proofing Tasmania’s energy supplies.

Greens Shadow Energy spokesperson Kim Booth MP said renewable energy from sources such as wave, tidal, wind and solar represent much better value for money in Tasmania than the wasteful Basslink cable which will cost the state billions over its 20-year lifespan.

“Hydro Tasmania’s decision to re-focus on renewable energies is to be applauded and the Greens welcome the decision to conduct joint trials of the new Biowave technology with King Island, and the Biostream tidal-current system with Flinders Island,” said Mr Booth.

“This type of exploration of renewable energy sources is exactly the type of initiative the Greens have been arguing would be a much more worthwhile investment of public monies than is the current wasteful $92 million per year that Hydro is paying for the Basslink facility fee.”

“Basslink has been an expensive diversion to the development and implementation of renewable energy sources that will truly drought-proof Tasmania’s energy supplies.”

“We look forward to seeing the results of the BioPower Systems’ trials with King and Flinders Islands, and hope that it does herald a new era which sees Tasmania at the cutting edge of renewable energy innovation,” Mr Booth said.