News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Forestry bill may fell Bob Brown 

Forestry bill may fell Bob Brown

09 Jun, 2009 06:50 AM
UNLESS Greens leader Bob Brown finds almost a quarter of a million dollars in the next three weeks he will be out of the Senate.

Senator Brown has received a bill for a court action over logging in Tasmania's forests. Forestry Tasmania lawyers have threatened to push him into bankruptcy if he does not send a $239,368.52 cheque by June 29.

Yesterday Senator Brown said he had $10,000 cash to his name, and little chance of selling remaining property by the due date.

He has already raised more than $600,000 in costs for the case that was lost in the High Court. "I don't have the money," he said.

He said he would be "exploring all avenues to pay this bill on time", and would see his bankers next week.

"The loggers would love to see me unseated," Senator Brown said.

"I intend to pay, one way or another."

Greens supporters are also being urged to make donations and Senator Brown has held two exhibitions of his photographs to raise funds.

He needs to find the money to save his political career.

Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, told Senator Brown last week that the constitution ensured "you would be disqualified from further service in the Senate and your place in the Senate would become vacant" if he were to be declared bankrupt or insolvent.

Senator Brown's strife began with a victory in 2006.

He went to the Federal Court to claim that logging in Tasmania's Wielangta Forest threatened the endangered wedge-tailed eagle, the swift parrot and the Wielangta stag beetle.

The Federal Court's Justice Shane came down on Senator Brown's side, requiring logging to be halted. The ruling, hailed by environmentalists, had implications for logging across Australia because it held that regional forest agreements were subject to overriding environmental protection legislation.

However, the environmentalists' celebrations turned out to be short-lived.

Within three months, Forestry Tasmania appealed to the Full Federal Court, and the Howard and Tasmanian governments intervened on behalf of Forestry Tasmania.

Then Prime Minister John Howard and Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon, in response to the initial Wielangta judgement, agreed at about the same time to amend the Tasmanian Regional Forests Agreement.

The section in which the state agreed to protect endangered species from logging was rewritten.

In November 2007, the Full Federal Court overturned the earlier decision. In effect, it found that Regional Forests Agreements gave no guarantee that the environment, including endangered species, would not suffer because of logging.

The moratorium on logging the Wielangta forest, in Tasmania's south-east, no longer applied. Senator Brown was ordered to pay costs.

Last year the High Court, in a two-one decision, refused Senator Brown's attempt to appeal against the ruling.

Two weeks ago, Senator Brown received a letter from Forest Tasmania's lawyers demanding $239,368.53.

The lawyers said that if the money did not arrive from Senator Brown by June 29, there would be a further interest bill of $2,830.99, which would rise by $69.04 a day thereafter.

The letter also said Forestry Tasmania reserved its right to issue "relevant notices or petitions under the Bankruptcy Act".

Logging has not yet resumed in the Wielangta forest, although roads have been prepared and contractors sought.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1



RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
It's a strange world - Tasmania's abolishing its Dept of Environment, and now Bob Brown in danger of being pushed out of Parliament by saddling him with a crushing debt, created by a stroke of Howard's and Lennon's pen. This is how they do things down in my apple isle - the banana state of the south.
Posted by Garry Stannus, 9/06/2009 9:54:21 AM
We do not need you, pack your bags and turn out the lights, Bob.
Posted by Pedro, 9/06/2009 10:12:18 AM
Hmmn, $240,000 works out to about $10 from every person who actually voted for him. I bet he doesn't get it. A green who is actually held responsible for the consequences of his actions, I love it.
Posted by Ian Mott, 9/06/2009 1:22:20 PM
If you had your way Bob, we would have no farmers or industry. The sooner you go Bob, the better off all Australia will be and I hope it is tomorrow!
Posted by Slacky, 9/06/2009 5:17:24 PM
Bob Brown's green turns to red!!!!
Posted by N. O. Mule Sing, 10/06/2009 5:49:06 AM
THe best thing that could ever happen!
Posted by tigerdicky, 10/06/2009 9:45:07 AM
No Slacky, if Bob had his way we would have no red-necked farmers who believe it is their divine right to trash the land. The majority of farmers would still be out there working the land sustainably and Australia would become known in international markets as a preferred supplier of produce for the right reasons.
Posted by bruce, 10/06/2009 10:08:48 AM
Thank goodness we have a Senator who tries, despite all the odds, to keep the absolute rednecks honest. This is another legacy of the anti environment government which was voted out quite decisively. I want a decent Australia left for my grandchildren thank you very much.
Posted by Maybalene, 10/06/2009 10:29:43 AM
Is it just me, or does this reek like a John Grisham novel of gross corporation involvement in politics? I don't really mind what Bob stands for in this instance - this just isn't how we should be playing politics. Howard had no right to intervene with a court's due process. I am literally disgusted and ashamed at our prior government on this issue. I also agree with Bruce - agriculture has no need to fear Bob and his passion to see our environment remain for the generations to come - as we all hope to achieve who live and work the land - that is our lifeblood and what keeps us all fed. We in ag sell ourselves to the Australian public as being the cleanest and greenest producers in the world so we should keep up the great job at being just that!
Posted by Disgusted, 10/06/2009 10:47:10 AM
This is hardly a new development, and Bob will definetely not be martyred. He has been haggling about the size of the payout since January 2008, and just could not get the discount he was asking for. Forestry Tasmania had enough and called in their dues. Now the war cry about losing his mandate is used to emphatically pass the hat around. Predictably, it will be filled to the brim.
Posted by deadwood, 10/06/2009 1:30:30 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown.
Greens Leader Senator Bob Brown.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
08 June, 2009
04 June, 2009
POLL
Q: Should the Senate reject the federal Government's proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) legislation?

Yes, reject it: the Senate should vote against the legislation passed last week by the House of Representatives.
(62.7%)

No, vote for it: the legislation should be passed by the Senate.
(11.6%)

Postpone it: Senate should wait till after Copenhagen Summit.
(25.7%)

Total Votes: 723
Poll Date: 08 June, 2009

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural Small Farms Expo
 
Freedom Tanks
 
Irwin HunterIrwin Hunter
 
MON0152
 
WA Merino Magazine
 
IRRIGATION CONFERENCE 2010
 
FBG
 
photo gallery


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...