Dr WOODRUFF – On the question that you’ve asked many times who does forestry better than Tasmania, I think one obvious answer to that is any one of the more than 1500 jurisdictions in 83 countries that have managed to achieve Forest Stewardship Certification (FSC). Tasmania has not done that. In fact, Forestry Tasmania has twice tried and failed to get FSC. The reason for that has been their continued logging of swift parrot habitat. You can laugh, but that was the evidence that was provided from the certifiers at the last attempt of Forestry Tasmania.
You’ve mentioned our certification and not compromising certifications that Forestry Tasmania has now or would seek to achieve into the future regarding the 39,000 hectares of additional high‑conservation value forests you’re trying to go into. Can you tell me whether you’ve had conversations with Forestry Tasmania about the impact? I see from their website that despite having failed twice, they are still working towards FSC certification and they are clear that, in their words, it will give them access to key markets and it will add stakeholder confidence that they’re managing forests appropriately. Do you recognise the threat to Forestry Tasmania getting FSC if you went into these additional 39,000 hectares? What has that company told you?
Mr ABETZ – First of all, the countries to which you refer that have gained FSC certification, there have been questions in the past as to how FSC certification has been achieved. I would invite you to ask the question, out of all those countries you mentioned, how many of them have 50 per cent plus of their land mass in reserves and World Heritage areas?
Dr WOODRUFF – Are you changing the goalposts?
Mr ABETZ – No. They’re the goalposts that I would encourage you to consider. A certification, if it can be obtained, is clearly something that is on the mind of Sustainable Timber Tasmania. If that wasn’t on our mind – let’s be clear, I recall it was on page 55 of the Strong Plan on the potential parcels et cetera – that, ‘There is no negative impact on Sustainable Timber Tasmania’s current and future certification’. That’s about as clear as it gets. That is part of the consideration that is in the melting pot.
Dr WOODRUFF – On 29 February, when it was announced via media release that your government was going to do this if it was re-elected, it said that the parcels of land ‘have already been selected’. Not, ‘We’re in conversations and having roundtables talking about which ones we might go into’. They have already been selected. Was that media release incorrect? Or are you being dishonest with the committee in saying that you haven’t decided on the areas of land that will be selected, and if you have, then can you tell us which ones they are?
Mr ABETZ – No area has been selected. There were potential areas that are being considered, subject to the caveats that I outlined before. I can read them out to you again, which indicates that the community, inadequate reserves, certification, cultural aspect, all those things are being considered and they will be looked at one by one.
Dr WOODRUFF – It said that you had already done that. You’re not being honest now.
Mr ABETZ – I don’t reflect on your honesty and integrity –
Dr WOODRUFF – I’m reflecting on your government’s in that press release.
CHAIR – Order.
Mr ABETZ – as you are so willing to do to everybody else, and I would just encourage you to watch your language in that regard.
Dr WOODRUFF – I can’t help it if we’re the ones who are being honest with Tasmanians.
CHAIR – Order.
Mr ABETZ – You can have a civil disagreement without labelling each other as honest or dishonest.
Dr WOODRUFF – This is not a joke.
CHAIR – Order. Mr Garland has the call.
Dr WOODRUFF – This is about public land. Either you’ve got it or you haven’t got it, and you shouldn’t change it and be dishonest with Tasmanians.
