Peter Rutherford, Secretary, South East Timber Association, Media Release, 21 November 2021

The Sydney Morning Herald, the Age and other outlets published an article regarding a freedom of information (FOI) request lodged by the South East Timber Association on 28 April 2021. The initial request was for emails and letters between Professor David Lindenmayer and 17 journalists and 4 other parties.

The request was refused, as the ANU identified at least 2,200 documents that appeared to fall within the parameters of the SETA request. The request was refined to include four journalists and three other parties. The request was again refused for practical reasons, as more than 500 documents, with a conservative estimate of 1,600 pages had been identified.

After reducing the request to cover two journalists from the Fairfax print media, being Miki Perkins and Mike Foley, the request was accepted. This matter has not been finalised, as the full content of the 28 emails released under this request had been redacted (blanked out). Consequently, an appeal has been lodged with the Information Commissioner.

As Secretary of SETA, I (Peter Rutherford) lodged the FOI request on behalf of the association. I ticked the box, which allowed the ANU to disclose my identity to the third parties, named in the FOI request.

It is flattering that the named journalists and Professor Lindenmayer are so overwhelmed by the FOI request that they have made a national news story. As every single exchange between the Professor and the journalists has been redacted, what is the point of the story? Is it intended to send a message to anyone considering submitting a future FOI that they will be pilloried if they mess with a favoured media source?

The allegation made by Professor Lindenmayer that the FOI was a process that was trying to “shoot the messenger” is the type of outrage that is used by activist NGOs to hit back at any individual or organisation that dares question what they say or do, so SETA members have not been surprised by his reaction.

Why was the Professor so shocked to be a subject of the SETA FOI request? Was he not aware, that as an employee of the ANU, SETA has a legal right to lodge FOI requests, naming scientists of interest?

The statement by an anonymous ANU spokesperson that “We would be deeply concerned if external forces were attempting to gag our researchers from speaking to the media, especially if it was motivated by a disagreement with the research or scholarly ideas produced by our experts,” also appears to be an overdramatic reaction to the SETA FOI request.

Many SETA members and supporters do have disagreements with some of the opinions Professor Lindenmayer puts forward when promoting his research findings, particularly in relation to fire and timber harvesting.

Nobel laureate and ANU vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt has publicly stated “ANU researchers’ ideas needed to be subject to robust scrutiny.” He also said “In this age of misinformation, it is also vital that we have a press that upholds the free exchange of ideas, respectful debate, and most importantly, an unbiased reporting of fact, observations and knowledge.”

Given the reaction of Professor Lindenmayer and the ANU, it would seem the vice-chancellor’s views may not be widely supported within the university.

Among other things, the SETA FOI request was seeking to understand whether the journalists ever question any elements of the Professor Lindenmayer’s research findings, or just blindly accept every statement made by him. Samples of some of the emails released by the ANU are attached.

Despite the journalists knowing who had made the FOI request, they made no meaningful attempt to contact me. It would seem it is easier for a journalist to make a news story that suits their view and the views of their close confidant, if they don’t seek the views of a potentially disrupting party. Is giving balance to a story a lost art?

Australian Rural & Regional News has previously approached Professor Lindenmayer with regard to the bushfires and logging debate here on ARR.News but has not yet received a response.

ARR.News has again sought the Professor’s response and would welcome his response to this article and on the important questions raised in the bushfires, logging, burns and forest management debate on ARR.News.

ARR.News has also sought and would welcome the response of the journalists mentioned in this article.