Forest Products Industry

Tasmanian farmers have reacted with anger and disbelief at the Federal Government’s decision to allow 22,000 hectares of prime dairy and beef country in the state’s north-east to be transformed into a pine plantation. Source: Timberbiz Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers last week announced the approval of the sale of Tasmania’s largest farm, Rushy Lagoon, to UK-based forestry investor Gresham House. The 22,000-hectare property will be converted from an agricultural estate into a $142 million pine plantation and carbon project. The Australian Forest Products Association has welcomed the sale, saying the plantation project will expand Australia’s sovereign capability in sustainable timber production. However, TasFarmers President Nathan Cox said the decision was a betrayal of Tasmanian agriculture and a breaking of the social contract between government and the Australian people by greenlighting the use of taxpayer money against Australian farmers. “This is a disgraceful outcome for Tasmania and for Australian food security,” Mr Cox said. He said the Federal Government had broken its covenant with the Australian people by agreeing to turn productive farmland into a monoculture pine plantation “so a foreign investment fund can tick a carbon abatement box”. Tasmanian Forest Products Association Chief Executive Officer Nick Steel said while there has been public debate surrounding the transaction and the Foreign Investment Review Board process, the conversation also provides an opportunity to recognise that agriculture and forestry are not mutually exclusive industries. “Tasmania’s future prosperity is dependent on evidence-based land use decisions that recognised the strengths of both industries,” Mr Steel said. “Agriculture and forestry are not competing land uses they are complementary industries that have successfully coexisted across Tasmania for generations.” “Farmers make practical decisions every day based on soil capability, rainfall, topography, market conditions and the long-term sustainability of their businesses. In many cases, integrating forestry into farming operations provides additional income, strengthens business resilience and ensures land is used according to its natural capability.” Mr Steel said the guiding principle should remain simple: the right tree, in the right place, at the right scale. “Highly productive agricultural land should continue producing food and fibre, with suitable areas supporting forestry without compromising agricultural output,” he said. “That balanced approach delivers multiple benefits, including regional employment, investment certainty, environmental outcomes and diversified income streams for landholders.” As a renewable industry, forestry also plays an increasingly important role in supplying sustainable timber products to meet growing demand for low-emissions building materials. “Our forestry sector is built on renewal where forests are grown, harvested and regrown, supporting a renewable biodegradable resource that’s increasingly important as markets shift toward lower emissions materials,” Mr Steel said. “The discussion surrounding Rushy Lagoon reinforced the need for balanced and informed land use policy. “A strong future for regional Tasmania depends on recognising that agriculture and forestry can coexist successfully. They operate side by side, supporting regional communities, creating jobs and contributing to the state’s long-term prosperity,” Mr Steel said. Rushy Lagoon, together with the neighbouring East Wyambi, spans almost 22,000 hectares between Gladstone and Musselroe Bay and has run dairy and beef cattle at a capacity of around 85,000 DSE, supported by 1,170 hectares of developed irrigation and more than 12,500 megalitres of water entitlements. Gresham House’s reported offer of more than $100 million sits well above TasFarmers’ own estimate of the property’s $70–80 million market value, a gap the organisation says points squarely to government-backed financing tilting the paddock in favour of a foreign buyer using everyday Australians ‘ money. “We have real, unanswered questions about why funding was committed to this deal before the sale and why a foreign forestry fund could outbid every Australian farmer at the table,” Mr Cox said. “The treasurer’s excuse relating to the classification of farmland holds no water, as highly productive dairies have operated on Rushy for many years; any good farmer knows that cannot happen on poor or second-rate land. These comments are a smoke screen for his poor decision-making. “TasFarmers has raised the glaring conflict at the heart of this process: the Clean Energy Finance Corporation stands to benefit financially from carbon plantations like this one, and a CEFC director sits on the very Foreign Investment Review Board that was supposed to assess it independently. Tasmanian farmers cannot compete against their own government. “Our community survey found 99 per cent of respondents opposed this sale. Dorset Council has warned it creates an unfair playing field for local farmers and puts regional dairy pick-up runs and beef processing jobs at risk. Coalition members from Senator Colbeck to Senator Askew to Shadow Agriculture Minister Darren Chester have all raised the alarm. The only people who seem untroubled by any of this are the ones who signed off on it.” Mr Cox said TasFarmers would now demand the public release of the full FIRB assessment and financing arrangements behind the sale, and called on the Government to explain what safeguards, if any, were applied. “Tasmanian farmers deserve transparency, not a sneaky decision snuck out the back door during the winter recess. We will be pursuing this through every avenue available, including calling for a parliamentary inquiry into how a foreign carbon-forestry fund was allowed to outbid Australian farmers for our largest and most productive farm.” “TasFarmers and local interested parties and politicians have reached out over and over again to our federal Agricultural Minister, FIRB, and the Treasurer only to be stonewalled by meaningless responses. “For something that is so important, these responses and today’s announcement demonstrate the Treasurer did not have the national interest at heart, and that ideology drove this decision”.

The post Tasmanian farmers unhappy with Rushy Lagoon decision appeared first on Timberbiz.