The Victorian Government’s “Timber Industry Strategy” was announced in April, but nobody noticed.
Victoria’s native forests are about to be carved up and basic planning rules trashed. Forty eight submissions and a couple of “forums” later, the plan is a done deal. The “Timber Industry Strategy” is a travesty of democratic process masquerading as public consultation. But these are mere peccadillos compared to the report’s Orwellian debasement of the English language.
“Working forests” mimic “working families”. Forest “harvesting” will be “socially and environmentally sustainable”, “world class”, “best practice”, “secure”, “competitive and productive”. “Economic value” will be “maximised”, “management” will be “streamlined”, “robust, enforceable and scientific”, “efficient and transparent”.
“Unnecessary” planning regulation will be removed, “indigenous participation” will be a “key goal”, “understanding and managing climate change” will be a “priority”.
A complete spin cycle in only 500 words.
Many words are strangely missing from the nine-page overview: woodchip, biodiversity, waste, windrow, pristine, extinction, monoculture, tourism, managed investment scheme, erosion, contamination and pollution, to name but a few.
Stripped of camouflage, the plan is simple. The phrase “Forest Biosecurity Framework” means that the state gives native forests to woodchippers in 20-year contracts. The meaning of “biosecurity” is inverted. The woodchippers have secured the forest.
One meeting each was allowed for “industry” and “community stakeholders”. Neither “side” was allowed to attend the other’s meeting.
Bureaucrats from the Department of Primary Industry controlled both, limiting attendance to those who had made submissions.
Twenty people turned up to the “community round table forum”. There was no forum, no community, no table and it wasn’t round. Just three suits fielding questions.
The venue was a tacky tourist hotel within strolling distance of DPI HQ. Lukewarm coffee dribbled from an urn. A great slab of rocky road was on offer.
Stroppy local government officials, who had trekked long distances, stared vacantly. Even slick professional environmentalists were no match for the deft DPI trio, who handballed tough questions to each other. The DPI tag-team never raised a sweat.
How did they do it? I took notes. First, the tall, commanding senior suit stood the entire time. His two sidekicks sprawled on chairs, one on either side. The self-designated boss was polite, but brooked no opposition.
Questions were endlessly repeated because they were not answered. But the way they were not answered was a joy to behold. Here are some samples (Hollowmen producers please see me later)
“The messaging in the policy needs clarifying.”
“That is consistent with our own messaging.”
“That is an issue we have in hand …”
“I know where you’re coming from …”
“I’ll take that on notice.”
“I don’t disagree with that.”
“We have to look at this holistically.”
“I’m not sure the heat is in the sustainability debate as it was 20 years ago.”
“My colleague is more familiar with this matter.”
“I’ll pass this question to my colleague.”
“Your point is understood.”
“I’m not sidelining the issue.”
“The question you raise is in the mix.”
“(Our report) doesn’t capture all of this.”
“It’s our intent to capture that.”
“There’s a range of views of how that’s characterised.”
(Asked why the word “woodchip” was absent from the report) “It is mentioned, but not quite with that word.”
“Be assured that this issue will be considered.”
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the CBD, the CEO of the Victorian Association of Forest Industries proclaimed that “our industry works in the forest, our industry protects the forest, our industry knows the forest.”
Planning control will be removed from local government. Residents, farmers and businesses adversely affected by plantations and logging of public forests lose all rights. Plantations can be put virtually anywhere “as of right”.
The rednecks have won. And no one noticed.
DPI is caught in a perfect storm of policy contradiction. The hardheads of DPI probably don’t believe in global warming, but it doesn’t matter because the government does. Though DPI’s mission is to make the environment safe for ruthless extraction, it is forced to mouth green platitudes.
Arggh government lip-service to these things makes me so angry!! This has links to Bernard Keane’s article today about politicians on the telly and how they never really say anything of value. I say we devise some means of punishment for all those who engage in “non-speak”. I don’t know quite how it would work. Can we set up some kind of online national shame file? Can we prevent people from having airtime/printspace unless they speak honestly? It’s pathetic and meaningless and such a huge waste of time. We have to get past communicating only in sound bites and platitudes. People have to get good at debate again.
Poor fellow my country and we have the temerity to lecture Indonesia and Papua New Guinea on their forests policy. So why am I not surprised? What an embarrassment we are and lacking in anything resembling democratic principles.
Public consultation!! Don’t make me laugh. This is Australia.
To quote the (NSW) RTA recently, re. protests about gouging a 4 lane highway through the Blue Mountain villages for B-doubles, “you can have your say, but not your way.” Talk is less than cheap, it’s worth SFA. It doesn’t really matter all that much for whom one votes because the government always gets in, and then begins repaying their big donors.
I didn’t mention that it took me five hours driving, round trip, to attend this farce. Others travelled further.
Government departments have other ways of killing communication. Once upon a time, letters were written and put on file. Evidence was preserved. Letters had to be replied to, even if the reply was evasive. Now, email the DSE etc. and you’ll get an email reply asking for your phone number. They don’t want to put anything in writing, ever. They’ll discuss things over the phone- so there’s no record.
Emails of course can be deleted. The paperless office has sinister implications.