Tax-pack not as bad as it appears

June 24, 1992
Issue 

Tax-pack not as bad as it appears

By Robert Byrne

A glance at page three of "Tax Pack 92" reveals that it was printed on paper "from managed plantation and native forests, 100% Australian content". This would seem rather alarming. How many native trees were consumed to produce the 8.1 million packs?

When I rang the Australian Taxation Office, I was told by one Frank Fulop that priority had been attached to Australian content rather than to recycled paper, which would have had to be imported. Better to use the Aussie product which, as the Forest Industries ad on page 89 of the pack says, is made from a resource which has "the innate ability to recover".

I'd already written an article on the subject for Green Left when I got a phone call from Fulop the next day. This time, it was a completely different story: the tax pack was made from 100% plantation trees! Whew! My view of the Tax Pack went from major environmental disaster to shining example within 24 hours. But it seems a bit funny: if they had done such a good job, why didn't they make the most of it in their page three blurb?

Fulop said the office had meant to say "native forest plantation stock" instead of "native forests". It was just a typo. He gave the following information: cover — plantation pine from Wesley Vale, Tasmania; forms — plantation pine from Mary Vale mill, Victoria; text (96 pages) — 90% plantation pine plus 10% native tree plantation from the Boyer Mill, Tasmania.

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.