Tasmanians go to the polls on March the 15th with many predicting the Liberal Party will assume government.
(Transcript from World News Radio)
Premier Lara Giddings ended the Labor Party's power-sharing agreement with the Greens in January after almost four years of coalition and is now seeking support from the electorate for Labor to govern in its own right.
At 7.6 per cent, Tasmania has the highest unemployment rate in the country and that rate more than doubles for the state's youth.
A traditional battle ground for the debate over how Tasmania can develop more jobs has been the state's forests and specifically proposals to expand logging and develop pulp mills.
But an unprecedented attempt by the Federal Government to have World Heritage forest boundaries reduced in the state have united usually sworn enemies to unite against it.
(Click on audio tab to listen to this item)
The federal Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, describes the request as a "minor boundary modification", but a chorus of opponents to it say it could lead to a collapse in the peace between foresters and conservationists in Tasmania and in turn threaten jobs in the state.
The Australian Government's request for the United Nations to reduce the boundary of World Heritage-listed forests in Tasmania has attracted criticism, both from interests who like to cut trees down and those who like to protect them.
It's an unusual alliance of groups that fear the greater cost of returning Tasmania to the forest battles that occurred before the Tasmanian Forest Agreement came into place.
For decades, Tasmania's forests have been a battleground between industry that saw worth in their trees as timber and woodchips and conservationists who saw their value in environmental and tourism contributions to the state and planet.
The battles included ongoing protests, scuffles, court cases and often arrests, but late in 2012, fueding parties signed the Tasmanian Forest Agreement.
That agreement promised to support contractors and workers within the forestry industry who are feeling economic hardship, provide certainty over areas that could be harvested and secured areas for conservation.
"None of it perfect. No-one completely happy about any of it, but it did ... I'll say this about it, it was beginning to work. So for a start, it ended one of our problems down in Tassie (Tasmania), which was that ongoing conflict, devastating conflict over forest use. And secondly, it was starting to restore certainty to the industry and therefore for jobs and for workers. "
Jane Calvert is national president of the forestry and furnishing products division of the CFMEU, the union that represents forestry workers.
She's taken on the unusual role of opposing Environment Minister Greg Hunt's request for the United Nations to remove 70,000 hectares of Tasmanian forest from the World Heritage listing, which would have made it available for forestry.
"People should remember, and Greg Hunt should remember, that there's still ongoing work being done. Now if it all falls apart that goes out the window so we go back to what. We go back to conflict, uncertainty. With uncertainty, of course, as you know, as the listeners know, there won't be investment and then, not only won't there be investment for new jobs and new operations, but there may well be a contraction and collapse of some of the existing ones, if not a lot of the existing operators and that would be such a lost opportunity."
But Greg Hunt has told the ABC, it was a mistake to include the areas in the World Heritage listing.
"Well this is a minor boundary adjustment. What happened last year, there was a minor boundary adjustment to add these areas. We're retaining 100 of 170-thousand hectares with all the parks, all the great forests, all the reserves so I think the problem was in the process last year."
The CFMEU's Jane Calvert, however, is concerned removal of the areas from the World Heritage listing could threaten the fragile peace package that's been manifested in the Tasmanian Forest Agreement.
"As a package, you start to pull one bit apart and the rest comes apart and so I think our members made some hard decisions all the way through these negotiations because they couldn't see any alternative and there still isn't an alternative to the T-F-A package. It's the only thing on the horizon that's got a chance of settling the conflict, restoring the certainty and this is really important, giving the Tasmanian timber product a real unique market advantage, both nationally and globally and I think that's the real golden egg about this."
The Forest Industries Association of Tasmania chief executive, Terry Edwards, wasn't available for comment.
But he's been reported previously as opposing any changes to the World Heritage boundaries because timber supplied under the Tasmanian Forest Agreement is uncontested by environmentalists and so more marketable.
Conservation group the Wilderness Society says it was a collapse in the market for Tasmanian timber products that led to the agreement.
The Society's Tasmanian campaign manager, Vica Bayley, says national and international markets don't want to buy wood that comes from areas that are claimed to be of high conservation value.
He says the forest agreement has helped give certainty to the market and consequently, workers within the industry.
"One of the reasons why the international market rejected our woodchips and our forest products was because it was coming from high conservation value forests that were hotly contested by conservationists. These forests have now been listed as World Heritage. That's the highest level of global protection that can ever be afforded to any kind of landscape and Mr Hunt wants to strip it of that recognition so that he can log it again. The reality is the market doesn't want this wood. They didn't want it before it was World Heritage listed and they certainly wouldn't want it now it has been World Heritage listed. Who on Earth would want to put World Heritage floor boards on their floor or World Heritage paper through their photocopier?"
Vica Bayley says the areas Environment Minister Greg Hunt wants withdrawn from the World Heritage listing are not degraded forests.
Instead, he argues, they are intact forest.
"To open up World Heritage listed forests for logging is nothing short of an international embarrassment that will be incredibly difficult to prosecute through the World Heritage committee and will certainly plunge Tasmania back into the depths of conflict when so many people have worked very hard to create a new future for the Tasmanian timber industry, for the jobs that are working in it and indeed for other industries that rely on protecting our forests."
Australian Greens leader and Tasmanian Senator Christine Milne says the government's request to the World Heritage Committee is a world first, and not one for Australia to be proud of.
"Right around the world countries really clammer and scramble to get their places listed as World Heritage because it's so prestigious, it gives a real boost to their tourism and it sends a strong message about the environmental integrity of their nation. I have never known a situation where a government has actually asked to remove an iconic area from World Heritage listing in order to destroy it. It will shock the World Heritage committee, it'll shock the world."
But Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt has told the A-B-C what needs to be protected will be.
"All the great forests protected forever. All of the former parks, protected forever. All of the reserves protected forever. Only those areas which had been degraded and damaged, of which there are 117 of them, which many, many, many people feel should never have been added are those which are being reconsidered."
UNESCO is due to hand down its decision on the Federal Government's request in June.
What impact that has on a newly-elected Tasmanian government remains to be seen.
