It is a move that perhaps seemed like a political winner, but an unlikely alliance of key industry players and environmentalists are united in opposition to the plan.

One of the biggest concerns raised by politicians, industry and environmentalists is a return to the “forestry wars”.

Under the proposed legislation, the Labor-Green Tasmanian Forest Agreement will be overturned, which was a key Liberal policy during the last election campaign.

Among the issues raised by opponents is the risk to Forest Stewardship Council certification, which could be in jeopardy if the contentious forests, including parts of Bruny Island, Wielangta, Derby and the Tarkine, are unlocked.

In a bid to safeguard Forestry Tasmania’s application for certification, the government said it would not manage or harvest any of the 356,000 hectares. Instead, they would be leased to private companies.

The Forestry (Unlocking Production Forests) Bill 2017 passed through the lower house in March, and was set to be debated in the upper house last week. However, it was taken off the agenda at the last minute.

Resources Minister Guy Barnett announced the bill in February, saying it would reduce red tape, grow the industry and save jobs.

As the weeks passed and it became clear that everyone was not on board, he added the legislation would mean the government could stop subsidising Forestry Tasmania to the tune of $25 million a year.

"Our legislation will end the subsidies by making available for harvest trees formerly locked up under the job-destroying Labor-Green forest deal - trees which can be harvested more economically (without subsidies) than up to one-quarter of those in the existing production forest.

“The only other way to end the subsidies is to reduce the amount of trees harvested by around a quarter, costing up to 700 jobs, which is something we simply won't countenance."

When asked if anyone outside his own party was on his side, Mr Barnett listed a number of individual timber businesses and groups. 

“Legislative Council briefings demonstrated strong support for the bill.”

Opposition resources spokesman David Llewellyn said Labor supported the forest industry but had “reservations” with the bill in its current form.

“Extensive consultation has given rise to clear concerns that the government’s approach will lead to a return to forest conflict,” he said.

“Labor is committed to the pursuit of FSC certification for forests managed by Forestry Tasmania in order to facilitate market access and sustainable growth for the industry.”

Mr Llewellyn said his party had an alternative idea for the forest industry. “While Forestry Tasmania has determined 25 per cent of its coupes are uncommercial, Labor believes private sector operators should be given the opportunity to access the land.

“In this way, it may be possible to continue to satisfy the legislative requirement to deliver 137,000 cubic metres of high quality sawlogs in partnership with the private sector without the need to reopen contentious areas.”

Greens leader Cassy O’Connor said the bill’s 356,000 hectares of forests were high conservation value and were set aside for protection because of their environmental significance under the now defunct Tasmanian Forest Agreement.

“The Liberals are desperate to restart the forest wars in Tasmania, but they are on the wrong side of history. The industry needs to get out of high conservation native forest, and that is what the sensible heads in the industry want to do. 

“It is perverse that the Liberals would act against the interests of the industry and of the environment.

“An ever growing number of visitors flock to Tasmania to experience this island's natural beauty. The Liberals' logging plan is a threat to the visitor economy and Tasmania's brand.”

The Tasmanian Sawmillers Association is the latest industry body to oppose the bill in its current form.

It comes after the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania announced its unwillingness to support the legislation last month.

FIAT chief executive Terry Edwards said it would “create unnecessary sovereign risk in log supply and problems in our markets, and a return to the forestry wars”.

“The clear fact is that, whilst Mr Barnett talks up the unlocking of 357,000 hectares of future potential production forest, Forestry Tasmania in the GBE estimates process made clear there is only approximately 64,000 hectares of production forest and an additional 20,000 hectares of special species timbers zone.

“Why then [is] the government intent on seeking to take on a massive fight over 357,000 hectares when the vast bulk of that area (273,000 hectares) is not suitable for production forestry?”

Environmentalists

Wilderness Society spokesman Vica Bayley said the bill was a political move aimed at dividing Tasmanians and setting up a false “jobs versus environment” debate.

“The government is absolutely exposed on this with no credible support for their legislation and everybody acknowledges that it’s politically motivated and is going to take Tasmania backwards.

“It’s increasingly clear that the government is motivated by politics of division and it’s encouraging to see the Tasmanian community rally together against that.”

The Wilderness Society wants to see the legislation voted down in the upper house, but Mr Bayley said that wouldn’t enough.

“Tasmania spent last year celebrating our national parks and reserve network, and it’s really clear that what will take Tasmania forward is not reversing these reserves so they can be logged by an industry that doesn’t want them, but actually moving to protect them as new national parks and reserves.”