BY KAMALA EMANUEL
HOBART — The Tasmanian Labor government and Forestry Tasmania are facing a crisis of credibility. In October, former state forest auditor Bill Manning told a Senate inquiry about illegal practices, corruption, "bonuses" paid to Forestry Tasmania executives for maximising forest clearing and "clear-felling out of control" in the state. Since then, the government has resorted to character assassination to deflect the criticism.
Manning, who had worked in the industry for 32 years, claimed "the implementation of the regional forest agreement (RFA) and the federal government plantation program 2020 Vision have led, first, to the weakening of the Forest Practices Code by making a lie of the claim that it is world's best practice;
"Secondly, to corruption of forest management in Tasmania such that there is no enforcement of this weakened code of forest practice and no silvicultural [tree cultivation] outcome other than the clear felling of native forest for the establishment of exotic introduced plantation species;
"Thirdly, to the RFA and 2020 Vision manipulating the development of an internal auditing system which has led to the misleading of the Tasmanian parliament;
"Fourthly, to the decimation of habitat for endangered species in Tasmania"; and,
"Finally, to a culture within the Tasmanian forestry industry of bullying, cronyism, secrecy and lies."
In a 2.5 hour presentation, he went on to detail damning evidence to support his claims.
From 1990 to 2002, Manning was an employee of the Forest Practices Board, a supposedly independent statutory body charged with overseeing the Forest Practices Act. He explained that the Forest Practices Code is nothing but a guideline for industry self-regulation. As an example of its failings, Manning explained scientific evidence that indicated a 30-metre reserve was needed alongside streams, in order to protect rare and threatened species and water quality. Despite this, the reserve space has been falling. The 2000 Forest Practices Code allows reserves as small as two metres for some kinds of streams.
The code becomes legally binding only when drawn up, by Forestry Tasmania employees or private forestry workers, into a "forest practices plan" for the management of specific areas of forest.
Manning alleged that "hopelessly compromised" forestry officials "lead to forest practices plans that are drawn up to maximise the area of land to be logged and that ensure the maximum volume of woodchips. This is not in the interest of long-term, sustainable silviculture."
He outlined the practice of approvals in which the Forest Practices Board receive only the cover page of the report before giving approval, making "illegal alteration of plans after the event" "relatively easy".
Manning presented evidence that, contrary to advice from the solicitor-general that retrospective approval of illegal actions didn't make them right, the chief forest practices officer Graham Wilkinson had on one occasion written, "Instruct the district forester to amend the plan to allow the breach".
Prior to auditing Forestry Tasmania, Manning had been responsible for monitoring private forestry practices and had carried out numerous successful prosecutions for breaches. He recounted being "horrified" when he moved into monitoring Forestry Tasmania, which he had assumed would operate with higher standards.
When he issued Forestry Tasmania with a "section 41 ticket" — in effect a warning — Wilkinson wrote in a note, "Instruct Bill not to issue notices". Manning's authority to issue warnings and prepare prosecutions was then stripped from him by then chair of the Forest Practices Board and an executive director of Forestry Tasmania Ken Felton.
Manning concluded that "the Forest Practices Board is not independent of the forest industry" and is "hopelessly compromised by being dominated by members of the industry". Arguing that it fails to enforce the code, he said instead it "delivers what the industry wants, which is the wholesale clear-felling of native forests for conversion to plantation".
Manning noted that "Forestry Tasmania has never been prosecuted for any alleged offence under the Forest Practices Act... despite my reporting to the Chief Forest Practices Officer of nearly 100 separate serious alleged breaches from my auditing between 1999 and 2002."
Manning also claimed the auditing system was "designed to mislead" — even serious ecological damage could still result in a high rating. In addition, when he audited the Murchison and Bass districts in 1999 and 2000, his results "reflected very badly on Forestry Tasmania and were altered under the instruction of the chief forest practices officer". Manning was subsequently "relieved of [his] duties as auditor." To Manning's knowledge, none of the auditors who reported on the Forest Practices Board "have any qualifications in environmental auditing."
Manning charged that not only is "the wholesale destruction of native forests" occurring "in many cases in areas which are unique in the world for their flora and fauna", but that "the chief forest practices officer has instructed the zoologist of the Forest Practices Board to delay reports of alleged breaches [until the time for prosecution would expire] to allow logging activity to go ahead".
Claiming "there are many foresters who would like to do the right thing but are too afraid to do anything", Manning pointed to his own treatment by the board as a "stark warning" to others. Manning outlined his attempts to take the documentation to the state attorney-general and Ombudsman. After holding onto the documents for six months, the then attorney-general Peter Patmore forwarded them to Manning's then employer — whose "only action... was to remove [him] from [his] role". The Ombudsman refused to investigate.
Manning's evidence was given in public only after an aborted attempt by the Senate committee, opposed by Greens senator Bob Brown, to force him to give his evidence "in camera". That hearing, in Launceston on August 6, had been suspended owing to protests by members of the public objecting to being removed from the public hearing.
Following the public hearing, Forestry Practices Board chair Kim Evans circulated a letter claiming the board had "not yet had an opportunity to reply" to Manning's allegations, despite the fact that the Senate committee hearing the inquiry had requested its representatives attend. He claimed primary industries minister and deputy premier Paul Lennon had decided for political reasons that he should not attend — whereas Lennon had advised the Senate committee the representatives would be "unavailable" owing to prior engagements.
State government spokespeople have also tried to make out that Manning's allegations were a Green "put-up" job by a disgruntled employee, challenging him to make his claims outside the protection of parliamentary privilege — ignoring the fact that he had tried to use the formal mechanisms but was restricted as a state employee from making public comments. He had only attended the hearings as a witness after being subpoenaed.
On October 29, the Liberals joined the state Labor government to vote down a Greens motion for a commission of inquiry into the conduct and administration of the forestry industry in Tasmania.
From Green Left Weekly, December 3, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.