"Spurt" a drip under pressure.

Good for a laugh but in today's society we are informed by a massive number of "experts". In accepting information from experts, the public deserves to know their background, qualifications and affiliations.

For published scientific reports and documents to reasonably inform government policy, authors need to declare conflicts of interests and institutions need to ensure that those conflicts of interests do not influence the outcomes of "independent" research.

This imperative was highlighted when The Examiner reported on March 1, on a University of Tasmania Review into the publication of a flawed study that inexplicably linked forestry operations and bushfire severity.

Suffice to say it had to be withdrawn but not before it had been submitted to the Bushfires Royal Commission. The review was described by one of the authors as a "witch hunt" - suggesting no remorse.

As a result of the review, the University of Tasmania will require academic staff to undergo training on the importance of research integrity and the disclosure of conflicts of interest. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The flawed paper was not finalised until April 7 last year when it was submitted for publication.

However, before then one of the authors and an editor of the edition of the scientific journal in which the flawed article was published appeared on ABC radio on February 12 last year to discuss the flawed findings that burn-offs and logging in old growth can intensify fires. Discussion of this new research was presented in conjunction with the green/left think tank The Australia Institute which with a new lobby group known as the "Tasmanian Independent Science Council" (don't you love the names they give themselves) hosted a fire forum addressed by the same author and editor.

The Australia Institute then published nationally an open letter signed by "experts" including two of the authors of the UTAS paper in late February 2020 with a supplementary briefing note co-authored by two of the three authors of the flawed forest fire paper. The "Tasmanian Independent Science Council" even wrote to all Tasmanian Members of Parliament.

In a seemingly co-ordinated publicity campaign, Greens leader Cassy O'Connor told State Parliament on the March 3 last year of one of the scientists who had been undertaking work at the University of Tasmania into "the increased risk of bushfire that is associated with native forest logging".

The Greens leader claimed this scientist was working through Forestry Watch; another lobby group opposed to Sustainable Timber Tasmania.

Their web page claims association with the Bob Brown Foundation and the Tree Projects, with many links to protests and invasions of forestry work sites. The Tree Projects is a collaboration of one of the UTAS authors and her tree-climbing photographer partner, whose images regularly appear on the environmentalists' website.

Yet none of these links were declared.

The Tree Projects and Forestry Watch have a long history of collaborating with the Bob Brown Foundation and The Australia Institute's executive director and deputy were senior advisers to then-Senator Brown when leader of the Greens.

Failure to declare such glaring conflicts of interest is given as an example of a breach of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research code that the University of Tasmania claims to follow.

But not knowing such glaring conflicts, the reader and general public are short-changed into thinking that the advice is "independent". The failure to declare such glaring conflicts of interest repeat the flaws in the "independent" verification of the competing claims of environmentalists and the forest industry for the Tasmanian Forest Agreement established in 2011.

The panel was headed by a former National Director the Wilderness Society and included a consultant on world heritage values engaged by that society as well as two previously employed forest campaigners.

There was even an "expert' from the green/left Australia Institute!

None of them declared a conflict of interest when "verifying' the claims of the environmental groups led by the Wilderness Society. It is vitally important that all conflicts of interests are declared and that experts are in fact independent from potentially predetermined political agendas.

For the record, I declare I am a Liberal senator who seeks to advance Tasmania's interests and I declare my interest as a strong supporter of families and workers who depend our state's $100 million world-class sustainable forest sector.