He claims there is far less. I say there is far more. It is a fact that 78 per cent of the public forest estate is in one type of reserve or another, which leaves approx. 486,000ha for production.

It is a fact that, the private estate has somewhere in excess of one million ha. available for production, both these figures include a combined plantation estate of 310,000 ha. However, added to the formal reservations we then have the significant added restrictions applied by the Forest Practices Authority, which focuses on environmental outcomes, with little or no reference to social and economic impacts.

The Act under which they operate demands that they do so. As has been said many times before, no other jurisdiction on the planet that even comes close to the percentage of land currently reserved in Tasmania.

This is not a figure that should be celebrated, but rather one that should give us all pause for thought, one that clearly demonstrates that there has been a lack of sensible balance in the debate that surrounds reservations. No one suggests that we should not reserve environmentally important areas, however we need to do so in a structured and balanced way.

We need to take into account the environmental, social and economic impacts. We need to have a clear understanding of what we are reserving and why.

By any measure the emphasis that we have seen around environment above all else will, over the next two decades, be replaced by a very real concern about our ability to produce enough food to feed the growing global population. The idea that one element of our world should dominate at the expense of all else is by any measure perverse, and shows a lack of understanding about the world in which we all live.

I would argue that our world needs a lot less short-term thinking, and more thought about what is best for us all as a global community; and a clear understanding of the future challenges that we all face, both in terms of climate change and a rapidly growing global population.

IN REGARDS to the possibility of the North-East railway being used as a rail trail, there are arguments for and against. There are those who say that the line should be kept and used for tourist train trips. This sounds fine in theory, but who would pay for the maintenance of this long length of railway. The only way this line could be commercially viable would be if a timber processing facility in this area required large quantities of timber to be sent by rail, which probably won’t happen given the large amount of opposition that has been demonstrated against such projects.

As for it being used for a rail trail, we have been told that it would be very costly to remove all the tracks. Why? Rails and sleepers are a valuable resource. Offer them free, or at a nominal cost and they would be swamped by offers from companies or contractors. Of course there would have to be some sort of indemnity clause against accidents or damage incurred while doing this. Or can’t this be made to work in this age of litigation where, it seems, no one is prepared to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

I RECEIVED the Australia Post Stamp Bulletin showing its Christmas stamps, but no $1 Christmas stamp. Has Australia Post and its extremely high paid executives got so little imagination that it cannot think that like me, many people write a letter with their Christmas card and therefore would appreciate $1 Christmas stamp?