We are writing to alert you to the need for your government to increase the various subsidies and favours for the logging industry in the coming budget period, and to advise of the ongoing need for you to plan for further increases in subsequent periods.
As you know, logging can only grow as an industry if a supply of suitable land is made available to us. Given that the most desirable land is currently under food production, it has only made sense for us to expand into the food production sector. The PAL Act is working brilliantly to push farmers off their land by preventing development and thus lowering land values, thereby placing it within reach of our industry. Nevertheless things are still moving slower than we’d like. To remain internationally competitive we need more income and, due to the long growth cycle of trees, we need to compensate by accepting the money up front.
We have carried out our share of the bargain with the pulp mill proposal, and set the context for substantial increases in cash flow for its beneficiaries (i.e. trickle down economics).
There has been collateral damage to other industries like tourism, but you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs!
The state government has defined trees as an agricultural crop and therefore suitable for Tasmania’s best soils. Federal MIS plantation schemes have funded our efforts at the rate of $9,000 per ha as an upfront payment.
But, at the end of the day, logging is a commercial industry that must grow and, given the nature of international competition in the high volume/low value wood commodity markets, must continue to rely on the existing subsidies and other arrangements and; of course, add to those arrangements to allow for increases in the costs of living.
Given the massive contribution to the state’s economy by the logging industry, and its enormous job rich future, we believe that an increase is well overdue. Rather than the piffling amount of $800 million over 20 years proposed by those Round Table boofheads, we're proposing $3 billion over 20 years to form a minimum, perhaps with double 'balloon' payments under agreed 'outcome' conditions, perhaps connected to clearance rates.
I remain, yours...
3 comments:
How did you people get hold of the body of that letter?
It's not supposed to be a public document you morons!
What you do, you think of a better f**king explanation and you publish that you dickheads!
You must be too low down the ladder but HEAR THIS. All public information like forestry web sites have to be approved by me and FT.
GET IT??
Chips is right for publishing. Current subsidies for the forest industry isn't the issue here, it is the need for more subsidies to create more jobs. If it only costs $450 million in subsidies to generate 170 odd jobs for a Tasmanian pulp mill then surely this demonstrates the need to put more in. No matter which way you look at it, subsidies for the forest industry will generate jobs. I mean, stick in another $400 million and we get over 300 jobs! $800 million from the tax payer for over 300 jobs. Tasmania can and will be sustainable!
$2.35 million per job.
Sounds reasonable!
Might ring John and ask for one of these jobs, I'll settle for $1 million per year, Gunns can pocket the rest.
Post a Comment