The Regional Forest Agreement's literature claims that the process will assist in Australia achieving ecological sustainability of its forests and reserving 15% of pre 1750 forest cover across a forest's geographic range and be committed to effective community involvement.
However outcomes of the process have been seriously criticised in areas where RFA's have been completed and are still in process.
We insist that the the RFA's do not deserve legal status because there is considerable public dissatisfaction with the outcomes and the process is flawed. The Gippsland RFA is a case in point. In this region, the Victorian Government is attempting to exclude the Strzelecki State Forest from the process. The Strzelecki State Forest is a significant state forest, a mix of wet sclerophyll and cool temperate rainforest. It is a remnant forest area, held dear by the Strzelecki communities. It is also heavily utilised for timber production - one could say in an unsustainable fashion. We would like to table a paper called 'Expected Log Yield of the Strzelecki state hardwood Plantations', which outlines how the 15 year hardwood sawlog commitment will be impossible to meet.
At the introductory RFA meeting in Yarram on May 18 1998, the majority of 80 people present were horrified to discover that on the RFA map displayed, the Strzelecki State Forest had been coloured purple - which meant it was earmarked for plantation purposes. After a lengthy and fiery debate, the RFA team pronounced that they would investigate the matter and inform the public of the forest's status in the RFA. This has not yet occurred.
We wish to table a folder of letters which show a continuing dialogue between members of the South Gippsland community with State and Federal Government Ministers and RFA staff. They highlight the often contradictory messages which individuals have received concerning the status of the Strzelecki State Forest in the RFA process.
Here are some examples:
A December 18 1997 Letter from Richard Rawson, NRE states that:
'Future examination of the Strzelecki's under the RFA process may well identify additional areas for consideration as part of a reserves system under the reserve criteria....'
This is supported by a letter from Environment Australia, (Rhondda Dickson) to Ms J Meyer which says:
'You may be aware that the Commonwealth and Victoria have recently commenced the development of a RFA for the Gippsland region of Victoria which includes the Strzelecki Ranges..... The Interim Forest Agreement applies to all native forest but does not apply to plantations.'
These two letters are contradicted by a letter from Mrs Tehan, which states:
'The VPC vested lands and the lands leased to Australian Paper Plantations will not be included in the land to be considered in the Gippsland RFA.'
Peter Ryan (MLA for Gippsland South) states in a letter dated May 5 1998:
'There has been no compromise of the RFA process in that the intention was always to the effect that plantation land be exempted' yet he acknowledges in the same letter that the VPC have at least 18,000 ha. of native forest and native vegetation in the Strzelecki State Forest - which according to Mrs Tehan's letter above is not included in the RFA.
Mrs Tehan does not and should not stand for the entire RFA process.
Key sentences have been highlighted, but you may find other parts of the letters of interest.
The seven final documents (letters to and from NRE and the RFA) are evidence of the difficulty we have had in obtaining basic statistical information needed to write reports etc. for this public process. There has still been no reply from the RFA team on the answers to the letter entitled QUESTIONS FOR RFA - submitted to the RFA team on October 16 1998 at a meeting hosted by Mr. Dougall Morrison (DPI) and Ian Miles (Vic. RFA). Neither has the RFA team responded to our submission "A Proposal for a 30,000 ha. National Park in the Strzelecki State Forest".
In conclusion, we urge you to reject this legislation. The RFA's do not deserve legal status. The Strzelecki communities are being alienated from this process by having their forest corporatised without consultation, privatised while the forest's status in the RFA is still uncertain, and all this while there is strong community support for the creation of a 30,000 ha. National Park in this very forest. A petition of 5,400 signatures, collected in 2 weeks, was tabled in Parliament in the Autumn session.
We also wish to table a copy of the National Park Proposal; some flyers, which provide a brief but useful outline of the history and current status of the Strzelecki State Forest; 48 A3 sheets of newspaper articles dealing with concerns for the Strzelecki State Forest and the National Park proposal; and a selection of letters supporting the National Park proposal from individuals, community groups and environment bodies such as Environment Victoria and the Victorian National Parks Association.
Thank you
Yours sincerely
Kim Devenish and Julie Constable.
[3.28 p.m.]
ANDERSON, Dr Rod, Forest Campaign Coordinator, Environment Australia
CONSTABLE, Ms Julie Marie (Private capacity)
DEVENISH, Mr Kim David (Private capacity)
POPPINS, Mr John Francis, Member, Amcor Green Shareholders Group, Environment Victoria
TIPLER, Mr Christopher John, Member, The Otway Ranges Environment Network
CHAIRóWelcome. Are you all familiar with the situation with regard to parliamentary privilege and in
camera hearings? These hearings are covered by parliamentary privilege. I have a five-page document here
which you may read. It says that you have the protection of parliamentary privilege but you also have
responsibilities, as if you were in the Senate. If you wish to give any of your evidence in private or in
confidence you may ask to do so. However, if you do give such evidence, then the committee can at a later
date, if it believes it is in the public interest, release some or all of that information. But it would not do that
without consulting with the individual who has given that information.
I now invite you all to state in what capacity you appear before the committee. We will begin with Mr
Tipler.
Mr TipleróI am representing the Otway Ranges Environment Network. I should briefly mention that OREN
is an incorporated body, a large network of individuals and groups centred on the Otway forests, with a natural
interest in conserving native forests. The activities of OREN involve research, campaigning and, in some cases,
direct action.
Dr AndersonóI am a forest campaigner at Environment Victoria. Environment Victoria is the old
Conservation Council of Victoria. We represent from 90 to 100 local and regional conservation groups across
Victoria. I am here to put Environment Victoriaís opinion about this legislation.
CHAIRóAre you representing a federal organisation as well?
Dr AndersonóThe conservation councils in each state are all linked, so there is a conservation council in
New South Wales, Western Australia, et cetera; and we all communicate.
Mr PoppinsóI am an engineer in specialist computer applications in manufacturing. My early involvement
in the forest stems from bushwalking and orienteering map making. I have a farm in the Strzeleckis. I am
involved in the regional and local landcare groupsóLand for Wildlife, and Waterwatch. I am a shareholder
in a large range of Australian companies, and some of my comments will stem from experience in the
formation of a green shareholders group for Amcor.
Ms ConstableóKim Devenish has stepped out for a moment. I am a resident of South Gippsland. I am not
in a group as such but I have co-written with Kim Devenish and Allan Staundering a proposal for a 30,000-
hectare national park in the Strzelecki state forest, a proposal which has been backed by the South Gippsland
Conservation Group. I am in Waterwatch down there and I am here to talk about the Strzeleckis.
CHAIRóWe are one witness short but, bearing in mind that we have only one hour, I will invite one of
you to lead off in terms of your submission.
Mr TipleróI will start. OREN made a written submission to this committee on January 20. We will be
tabling a further submission today and we have 10 copies of that. I would like briefly to speak to both the
original submission and to the supplementary points that I wish to make today, which will be given to you
in writing today.
The OREN position is that the basic premise on which the proposed legislative changes rest is incorrect.
We understand that premise to be that RFAs provide for ongoing protection of environmental and heritage
values and for the ecologically sustainable use of native forests outside of the reserve system. We do not
believe that the evidence supports the assumption that that is right. In our original submission, we presented
a number of arguments which we thought went to the point about the actual results of logging over the past
eight or nine years.
We also assert that the Commonwealth, in stepping back from total control of native forests in Victoria, is
effectively ceding 100 per cent control to the state government and to the DNRE, an organisation that exhibits
very little genuine understanding of forest ecology and that has demonstrated by its own actions that it cannot
be trusted to manage the forests in an ecologically sustainable way. In our judgment, that would be a tragic
outcome of this legislation.
In our earlier submission to you we focused on three issues: the strong evidence that we have obtained under
freedom of information that there has been consistent overlogging in forest management areas in Victoria, well
above legislated sustainable yield maximums; the fact that the industry has become overwhelmingly pulpwood
driven in this decade; and the fact that forest quality is deteriorating and other very important values are not
being respected, as an outcome of widespread clear-felling of forests. I would like to elaborate on those matters
for a few moments.
I am not sure of the extent to which the senators have read our original submission, but I think you will
be aware that under the forest act there are legislated sustainable maximum yields specified for sawlogs for
each forest management area. They are calculated on a cumulative basis over 15 years, and that period started,
arguably, in either 1989 or 1991 and runs through to 2003. The department is required to operate within those
legislative yields.
We have recently obtained, under freedom of information, very accurate data on logging volumes by grade
of log and by forest management area, for the entire period of the 1990s. If the DNRE is not prepared to give
that data to you, we can give it to you. It demonstrates that there has been, in our judgment, in a number of
forest management areas consistent overlogging, well above sustainable yields. We gave you evidence in
relation to East Gippsland but we could just as easily have chosen Wodonga, where there is an outrageous
example of logging well in excess of legislative yields and over a long period of time.
It is very difficult indeed to manage the forest sensibly when the major log component, residual logs, is not
subject to any legislative control and where the boundary between sawlogs and residual logs can be, and is,
managed on a very flexible basis. In the case of East Gippsland, for example, you only have to make an
assumption that a very small proportion of D-grade logs are reclassified as residual logs, to get to the situation
where there has been massive overlogging in East Gippsland. And that is true of a number of other areas.
We would say to you that, other things being equal, under RFAs and under state government administration,
the continuing breach of legislative yields is a very likely prospect. It is common knowledge in the industry
today that D-grade logs, usually the largest category of sawlog, are regarded quite wrongly as pulpwood. We
point out to you that this is happening under the auspices of an RFA and that in fact it is a very serious
offence, if indeed it is occurring.
We also wish to point out that the concept of sustainable yield which the DNRE uses has got nothing
whatever to do with ecological sustainability; it is an economic concept. Looking at the DNREís own forecast
for East Gippsland, for example, under a logging regime where they are logging what they call mature and
overmature trees, they are expecting a very significant reduction in the average age of the forest in the area
classified as a general management zone.
Let me give you an example. In 1996 when the analysis was done, 64 per cent of the forest available for
harvesting was more than 100 years old. This is forecast to reduce in 20 years time to 11 per cent and in 40
years time to zero. In 40 years time, 95 per cent of the available forest will be less than 60 years old. In our
judgment, that is a recipe for ecological disaster, involving a fundamental change in the structure of the
forestówhich no sensible management regime should contemplate.
I would also like to make the point that the DNRE analysis makes no provision at all for nutrient loss. We
know that up to 60 per cent of important nutrients for eucalypts are contained in the stem wood and in the
branches which are lost through clear-felling. Notwithstanding that, there is no inclusion of that factor in
sustainable yield calculationsówhich, again, are part of the RFA process.
On the general subject of the DNREís sensitivity to ecological matters, we would argue that the DNRE does
not seem to understand the importance of the cycle of growth and decay in sustaining a healthy forest. This
week the minister, Marie Tehan, responded quite angrily to criticism of very low woodchip royalties. Her
response was that the prices were low because the stuff was debris, basically branches and disfigured timber
that had no other use.
People who are ecologically aware understand that the concept of debris or waste has no place in nature.
It is an irrelevant concept. The forest exists and renews itself through a cycle of growing to old age, through
death and old trees falling to the ground to renew and provide life for younger trees. Yet, in the widespread
cycle which is being practised throughout Victoria, that principle is being completely disregarded, without
any consideration being given to nutrients. If any of you are farmers, if you cut hay off your paddocks for
five years in a row without fertilising the paddocks, you know what your soil will be like at the end of those
five years. Yet that is what we are doing with the forests in Victoria.
I would like to touch briefly on water catchments and the clear evidence that logging in water catchments
is a mistake. There is strong scientific evidence now that this should not be occurring, yet we have had great
difficulty convincing the DNRE to take any interest in this matter at all. We have tabled a letter from Gerard
OíNeill, a senior officer of the DNRE, which evidences that.
The final point I would make is that the DNRE has demonstrated a willingness to ignore the provisions of
the flora and fauna guarantee act. Right now, logging is going on in a coupe called Garveys Track in the
Otways, and that involves logging into rainforest gullies which run right down to the Cumberland river system.
The Cumberland is a very important river, a wild river that contains species of unique and endangered fish.
It was only when OREN protested very vigorously over this matter and took direct action at the coupe that
the DNRE decided to redraw the boundaries of the coupe and not log down into the gullies. We are saying
to you that it is only through constant pressure that this department will observe proper consideration of the
environment.
In conclusion, OREN asks one simple question. How can we be confident that Victoriaís forests will enjoy
any measure of protection from exploitation under RFAs if the organisation governing them has complete
freedom to avoid any production constraints, by reclassifying good timber as residual or pulp? If that
organisationóthe DNREódemonstrates a preparedness to ignore legislated yield maximums and a lack of
any genuine understanding of, or interest in, forest ecology, OREN would ask this committee, in this light,
whether it is appropriate for the Commonwealth government to relinquish the only remaining constraints on
the DNRE. It is our view that the Commonwealth needs to go forwards and not backwards.
CHAIRóThank you. Mr Devenish, in what capacity do you appear before the committee? Are you
representing an organisation, or yourself?
Mr DevenishóMyself. Julie and I are representing our interests in the Strzelecki state forest.
CHAIRóSo you are appearing as an individual. Thank you.
Dr AndersonóI am representing Environment Victoria. I preface my remarks by saying that these comments
from Environment Victoria are general comments, because Environment Victoria withdrew from the RFA
process in 1997 because we were appalled by the nature of the process and also by the outcomes of the East
Gippsland Regional Forest Agreementóin so far as those outcomes delivered very little, if anything, for the
conservation of forests.
Environment Victoria is saying, in essence, that the Regional Forest Agreements Bill should be rejected
because it is based on a range of major false assumptions. Firstly, the whole RFA process is based on
something as fundamentally wrong as a very poor definition of forests. Australia has only five per cent native
forest cover, much of it degraded, and has lost around 60 per cent since colonisation. However, the current
definition promoted by the Commonwealth includes woodlands and plantations. Nobody who has ever seen
and loved a forest would confuse it with the relatively sparse cover of a woodland. That defies commonsense.
Worse still, the inclusion of plantations adds insult to past grievous injury. A plantation is not a forest; it
is a monoculture designed for felling on very short rotationsóan agricultural crop. Forests, by comparison,
are home to most of Australiaís terrestrial biodiversity. Only those who see forests as a resource to be mined
could include plantations in the definition and thereby wrongly and artificially inflate the percentage cover
of Australia by forests.
This leads to the second major false assumption, that forests will regenerate after short rotation clear-felling.
Clear-felling has for many years been the only significant method of logging practised in Australia. Increasingly
short rotation times, driven by unrealistically high so-called sustainable yield figures for logging, mean that
what regenerates is not a forest. It is something of much less biodiversity, akin to a plantation. The habitat
for arboreal species, in particular, takes about 200 years to develop. Such species cannot return in the 50- to
80-year rotations associated with the clear-felling method.
The tendency to replace forests with plantations is exaggerated by replanting with monoculturesófor
example, the shining gum replanting in East Gippsland. Thus the regional forest agreement process supports
short rotation clear-felling, turning our native forests inexorably into plantations. Clear-felling native forests
on short rotations is a totally inappropriate approach to obtaining timber or wood fibre in the continent with
the least native forest cover.
This leads me to the third major assumption, that existing forest reserves are sufficient to protect
environmental values and biodiversity. In Victoria and Tasmania at least, regional forest agreements already
signed have given virtually nothing of significance to be reserved. Despite reams of government propaganda
about the many thousands of hectares added to protection, most of these have been tiny bits and pieces that
could not be logged anyway and that certainly do not provide secure habitat for threatened speciesógiven
the tiny size of the areas and their tenuous security against future logging. Existing reserves are often of
inadequate size and are specially shaped, allowing edge effects that further threaten speciesí survival.
I commend to the committee Professor Harry Recherís work which critiques the further assumptions built
into the JANIS criteria on the size of areas to be reserved. I understand that Professor Recher has put a
submission in but was caught up in field work in the forests of New South Wales and somehow or other could
not get a flight to be here, which I greatly regret. I commend his work to you because I am sure his submission
will mention these aspects.
The fourth and overarching wrong assumption which really damns this legislation is that the regional forest
agreement process has been done well. Not only is this based on bad definitions and an acceptance of
ecologically disastrous logging methods, but the process itself is seriously flawed. I think we have heard quite
a lot of evidence of this already, so I will summarise it.
There have been inadequate surveys of threatened species, masked by dubious statistical techniquesófor
example, DNREís stratification model, which uses very small amounts of recent survey data to produce glossy
and impressive looking maps. There have been errors in map scaling and creation of imaginary threatened
species, to protect forest of low conservation value, while felling old-growth forestsówith known threatened
speciesóthat the industry is more interested in.
The final wrong assumption behind this legislation is that, in switching off Commonwealth laws and virtually
handing control over forest protection to the states, our remaining old forests will be adequately protected.
The state government record on forest protection suggests that this is a very wrong assumption indeed and
that this legislation is a serious abrogation of Commonwealth responsibility for the environment. So
Environment Victoria urges the Senate to reject this very irresponsible and environmentally disastrous piece
of legislation.
CHAIRóThank you. Mr Poppins, do you wish to add anything? I would ask that people keep things
moving.
Mr PoppinsóThank you. Bills Digest No. 50 states the intentions of the RFA legislation to be the removal
of the Commonwealth environmental assessment, national heritage and world heritage legislative requirements
over regions covered by RFAs and, secondly, the requirement for the Commonwealth to pay compensation
if it intervenes to protect the environment in an area covered by a RFA.
In the case of the first intention, this country federated its colonies nearly 100 years ago. It seems an
extraordinary step backwards to be reverting to a colonial approach to the management of our forests. The
legislation regarding compensation appears to leave any future government a poison pill, if and when it has
to reassess sustainable yieldsóa very poor approach.
I wish to comment briefly on two wider issues. The Commonwealth reversion to colonies is the first, and
the globalisation and the level playing field is the second. I will use my involvement as an Amcor shareholder
to illustrate this. As a shareholder, I hope for Amcor to do well. I have, however, some concerns about some
of the aspects of its business. It is one of Australiaís largest timber users. At a meeting between Amcor
management and the Amcor Green Shareholders Group, we were told that paper from Indonesia faces a five
per cent tariff in Australia. Paper from Australia sent to Indonesia faces tariffs from 25 per cent to 40 per cent.
Indonesiaís forest practices and labour relations are notable as being amongst the worst in our region. The
work force is exploited. The forests are being raped and pillaged. I have been working in Singapore in a cloud
of smoke. Indonesiaís gain is short-term enrichment for a few cronies and generals. The long-term future for
their environment and people is very grim.
In the early 1990s when I started looking for degraded rural land for improvement, Amcor was promoting
the concept of cooperative plantation arrangements. I checked the suitability of several areas with them and
took an informative bus tour that they ran. Amcorís promotion of the concept vanished at about the time of
the change of government in Victoria. It would seem, as a wider issue, that the Commonwealth maintenance
of such low tariffs on a one-way basis is ensuring that local manufacturers who are not doing wellómy Amcor
shareholding is not exactly a staróare driven to desperate measures to compete. They must pay the minimum
for raw materials. They are, in effect, being reduced to lowest common denominator methods and behaviour
to compete with very poor overseas practices.
There is a widespread belief that much degraded, unsuitable and salt-affected land would be best returned
to timber plantation. But the returns are too low to make such plantations as attractive for investment as they
need to be. Under current access and pricing arrangements, it is clearly cheaper for Amcor to exploit native
forest for as long as it can. We are ensuring poor results for Amcor and poor results for the environment and
for employment by promoting high volumes, low costs and low tariffs. Amcor has lots of plantation but is
saving them for later. Private plantation owners, at the same time, have difficulty in achieving viable prices.
It is noteworthy that Amcor considered it necessary in the 1998 financial year to make political donations
of $300,000 to the Liberal Party and $50,000 to Labor. My questions to the chairman regarding the need for
this large expenditure from shareholdersí funds and the benefits sought and obtained from it have been
unsatisfactorily answered. Such bribes should not be necessary if it were not for the unilateral low tariffs
forcing the industry.
In relation to the fitness of Victoriaís government organisations to take over the environment responsibility,
I deal with the DNRE on a number of fronts, particularly in connection with Landcare. I am particularly
interested in the regional weed control programs, and I know a lot of people involved in their researchó
scientific support and field staff.
These staff have been retrenched, demotivated, muzzled and offered jobs they can only refuse, or they leave
in disgust because recommendations are ignored and reports are rewritten. Such legislation as you mentionóthe
flora and fauna guarantee actóis also ignored. Weed inspection and control staff are greatly reduced. Financial
constraints limit their ability to even patrol their areas. I notice increasing problems in our own area and the
Otways.
The Victorian government has now commissioned a study of the flora and fauna guarantee act in the light
of competition policy. This strikes fear into my heart. The reverse can well be argued that competition policy
should be examined in the light of the two environmental acts, as competition policy provides for no input
on behalf of the species and ecosystems that do not have representatives in parliaments or on the boards of
large companies in proportion to their importance to our grandchildrenís survival.
When a recent court case found that logging was being illegally conducted too close to a river in East
Gippsland, the Victorian government changed the laws applying, with retrospective effect, to reduce the
standards applicable. This can only be described as corrupt. The other problem here in Victoria is the gradual
closure of freedom of information access. It is becoming more and more difficult for us as citizens to find
out what our government is doing in our own name and with our own taxpayersí money.
We face increasing competition, even in the wet areas of West Gippsland, for water resources. It is well
established that water retention and reservoir top up from new-growth re-establishing forest is considerably
below that of old-growth. The Thomson catchment now provides half of Melbourneís water. Melbourne is
demanding more and more; the irrigators of West and South Gippsland are demanding more and more.
Environmental flows are increasingly difficult to maintain in the rivers in summer, yet we have open access
in the upper Thomson. We have had considerable logging in the upper Thomson in spite of the expert
recommendations of two successive committees appointed to look at the relative value of the water lost versus
the logging. The water was worth much more.
We have also suffered terrible drought followed by enormous flooding in East Gippsland, which looked like
a moonscape last year. It is also a process aggravated by the extent of deforestation; I can quote a number
of figures in this regard. The Geelong Otway area is suffering substantial water shortages. The main reservoirs
are almost empty and yet logging proceeds apace in their catchments, as you mentioned. Salinity is a problem
in our catchment as well; trees are an important element in bringing this under control. Accordingly, we need
to use our forests for the most necessary purposes and those which result in the most added value.
Export woodchipping would appear to be a large tonnage operation which brings us the least added value.
If royalties can be raised, it will presumably die of its own volition, enabling companies like Amcor a wider
range of access in a less intensive way. We would hope that RFA legislation is revised and considerably
improved in the interests of establishing a more viable long-term industry and results.
Ms ConstableóKim Devenish and I have already submitted a three-page written submission, which you
should already have, but I am going to talk on some of it in a little more detail. Rod has already outlined the
flawed process; Chris, the unsustainability; and John, some of the environmental problems. I am going to look
a little more at the community input. I agree with everybody that the RFAs do not deserve legal status because
there is considerable public dissatisfaction with the process and the outcomes, and that the process in itself
is flawed.
The Gippsland RFA is a case in point. In this region the Victorian government is attempting to exclude the
Strzelecki State Forest from the process. The Strzelecki State Forest is a significant state forest. It is a mix
of wet sclerophyll and cool temperate rainforestóa beautiful and steep place. It is also a remnant forest area,
held dear by the Strzelecki communities. It is also heavily utilised for timber production; one could almost
say in an unsustainable fashion.
We would like to table a paper called Expected log yield of the Strzelecki state hardwood plantations, which
outlines how the 15-year hardwood sawlog commitment to Planthard will be impossible to meet. Kim can go
into more detail on that, if you would like. Planthard is a sawmill that was established in Morwell 1 years
ago.
At the introductory RFA meeting in Yarram on 18 May 1998, the majority of 80 people present were
horrified to discover that on the RFA map that was displayed for public view the Strzelecki State Forest had
been coloured purple. This meant it was earmarked for plantation purposes. After a lengthy and fiery debate,
the RFA team pronounced that they would investigate the matter and inform the public of the forestís status
in the RFA. This still has not occurred.
We wish to table also a folder of letters which show a continuing dialogue between members of the South
Gippsland community with state and federal government ministers and RFA staff. They highlight the often
contradictory messages which individuals have received concerning the status of the Strzelecki State Forest
in the RFA process. I will just give you a few examples and then table the whole folder.
A 18 December 1997 letter from Richard Rawson of NRE states:
Future examination of the Strzeleckiís under the RFA process may well identify additional areas for consideration as part
of a reserves system under the reserve criteria ...
This is supported by a letter from Environment Australia, Rhondda Dickson to Ms J. Meyer, another resident
of South Gippsland, which says:
You may be aware that the Commonwealth and Victoria have recently commenced the development of a RFA for the
Gippsland region of Victoria which includes the Strzelecki Ranges . . . The Interim Forest Agreement applies to all native
forest but does not apply to plantations.
These two letters are contradicted by a letter from Mrs Tehan, which states:
The VPC vested lands and the lands leased to Australian Paper Plantations will not be included in the land to be considered
in the Gippsland RFA.
Peter Ryan, MLA for Gippsland South states in a letter dated 5 May 1998:
There has been no compromise of the RFA process in that the intention was always to the effect that plantation land be
exempted.
Yet, he acknowledges in the same letter that the Victorian Plantation Corporation has at least 18,000 hectares
of native forest and native vegetation in the Strzelecki State Forest which, according to Mrs Tehanís letter
cited above, is not included in the RFA. It is hard to see how there has been no compromise. Mrs Tehan does
not and should not stand for the entire RFA process but, as you can see, the South Gippsland community is
a little confused.
In this folder of letters I have highlighted the key lines that refer to the RFA process for your convenience.
The seven final documentsóletters to and from NRE and the RFAóare evidence of the difficulty we have
had in obtaining basic statistical information needed to write reports for this public process. There has still
been no reply from the RFA team on the answers to the letter entitled, ëQuestions for the RFAí submitted on
16 October 1998 at a meeting hosted by Mr Dougall Morrison from the DPI, and Ian Miles from the Victorian
RFA. Neither has the RFA team responded to our submission, A proposal for a 30,000 ha. national park in
the Strzelecki State Forest, which was submitted in July last year.
In conclusion, I urge you to reject this legislation. The RFAs do not deserve legal status. The Strzelecki
communities are being alienated from the process by having their forests corporatised without consultation
and privatised while the forestís status in the RFA is still uncertain. All this while there is strong community
support for the creation of a 30,000 hectare national park.
A petition of 5,400 signatures, collected in only two weeks, was tabled in parliament in the last autumn
session. We also wish to table the following: a copy of the national park proposal which gives you more details
of this beautiful forestóthe flora and fauna and its historyósome fliers which provide a short but useful
outline of this forest; 48 A3 sheets of newspaper articles showing residentsí concerns about the forest, the RFA
process and their support for the national park; and a bundle of letters also showing support for the national
park from individuals, community groups, the Victorian National Parks Association, Environment Victoria,
the Society for Growing Australian Plants, et cetera. Thank you.
CHAIRóThank you very much. Mr Devenish, do you have anything you would like to add?
Mr DevenishóYes, just a little. If you would not mind, I would like to put you in the picture with some
maps.
CHAIRóCertainly.
Mr DevenishóThe Strzelecki State Forest was not always exempted from the Regional Forest Agreement
process. It used to be included. In fact, there is a 30,000 hectare area which was made a deferred forest area,
which is what the Regional Forest Agreements did; they made temporary reserves pending the outcome of
the RFA. That map is No. 5. I have numbered them. It is on the other side, and it is No. 5. That is the
Regional Forest Agreement deferred forest area. The light grey area is the deferred area; the dark grey is the
existing reserves.
Map No. 4 is the Land Conservation Councilís map of the Strzeleckis. The dark area you see is the hardwood
zone. The light area you see is the softwood zone, that is, the plantation areas to the south. The diagonal striped
areas are the areas leased to Amcor.
All of it has been exempted. It happened in 1996, I think. It was an agreement between Mr Kennett and
Mr Keating to exempt it because it was vested or leased, not because it was plantation. It was just assumed
that it was plantation because it had been given to the two big plantation companies in Victoria, but in fact
half of it is not. Most of the non-plantation land is in this hardwood zone.
The story was that they were trying to round off the borders and they could not possibly separate the
plantations from the native forest. We know better. We live down there, and it is not the way it is. In fact,
the hardwood zone, the area that was vested in the Victorian Plantation Corporation, was 27,000 hectares. By
their reckoning, only 7,000 of it is hardwood plantation. It is not plantation bush that is impossible to separate.
In fact, it is quite easy to separate. The native bush is in a continuous mass. It forms the basis of our national
park proposal.
The Strzelecki started behind the eight ball. It started with a lack of reserves. In Victoria, 47.3 per cent of
public land is formally reserved and 37 per cent of forest is reserved. I am not talking about the CAR reserves.
I am talking about ordinary reserves. Fourteen per cent of forest in Victoria is on private land and two per
cent of public land in Victoria is under plantation.
In 1998, 1.6 per cent of public forest in Victoria was privatised. If you compare it with the Strzeleckis, eight
per cent of public land is formally reserved, 5.4 per cent of forest is reserved and 33 per cent of forest isprivately owned, it belongs to Amcor and is just north of the Strzelecki State Forest. I am assuming you know
where I am talking about? It is South Gippsland. It is south-east of here.
CHAIRóI know you are talking about Victoria. We will work that out. Donít worry about it.
Mr DevenishóIt is almost a twin to Wilsons Promontory. Wilsons Promontory is a mountain. It is almost
an island, with a little isthmus called Yanakie that connects it to the mainland. Wilsons Promontory and the
Strzelecki ranges are just like twin mountain ranges.
CHAIRóCan you sum up fairly quickly? We only have 20 minutes for questions.
Mr DevenishóYes, I have nearly finished. Thirty per cent of the Strzelecki State Forest was converted to
plantation, which is massive really. In Victoria, only two per cent of public land was converted. Plantations
were supposed to ease the pressure on native forests. But, as well as providing all this plantation timberó
softwood and hardwoodóthe native forest is being hit harder and harder. The man from Baw Baw who sat
here before us was spot-on when he said that the main problem was overcommitment. Everyone I speak to
speaks of an accelerated rate of logging. Any area where there are logs available is being hammered.
I hoped that the RFA process would slow down the rate of logging, and it has not. We have been told for
a long time that one per cent of available state forests is taken per year. The East Gippsland RFA was
complete, and what was their recommendation in order to be sustainable? They said, ëWeíll take two per cent
per year,í which means a 50-year rotation rate. The difference between one and two per cent is quite big. If
you take one per cent, then that is a 100-year rotation rate, on average.
As far as the commitment from the Strzelecki hardwood plantations goes, it is totally off the scale. They
have committed 100,000 cubic metres of sawlogs per year, for 15 years, to one sawmill in Morwell. They have
refused all the small sawmillsóthey are not getting any. It is just this one sawmill in Morwell. And they are
supposed to be getting 100,000 cubic metres of sawlogs entirely from the Strzelecki hardwood plantationsó
7,000 hectares. All of Victoria provides 900,000 cubic metres of sawlogs, so the little Strzeleckis are supposed
to be providing more than 10 per cent of that for the next 15 years.
The studies say that in fact 90 per cent of hardwood plantations are chip logs and that the total volume
available at the momentóthat is everything over the age of 20óadds up to 700,000 cubic metres. There are
not even 100,000 cubic metres of sawlogs. It cannot be supplied for one year, let alone 15. This
overcommitment will have to come from native forests. I think the Victoria government know it and I think
the Victorian government have exempted the Strzelecki State Forest because it is impossible to even pretend
that it is sustainable. That is all I have got to say. Thank you.
CHAIRóThank you very much.
Senator FORSHAWóWe have heard today from a number of groups, and yours is the most recent, which
have forcefully put that this legislation should be rejectedóthey were your words. The evidence that has been
given to us, with respect to Tasmania and now Victoria, has been that the RFA process has, in your view,
been totally unsatisfactory. Indeed, you have gone further than that and heavily condemned it. I am not trying
to be pedantic here, but our function, in large part, is to determine whether or not this legislation should go
forward as it is, be amended or whatever. But, for instance, in New South Wales there have been agreements
negotitated recently, on the North Coast, where both sidesóif I can use that termóor all the stakeholders have
been complimentary about the outcome.
Interjectors laughingó
Senator FORSHAWóI was waiting for a reaction, because I would like to read you what the Wilderness
Society said about that process and I challenge anyone to deny that this is what the Wilderness Society
spokesperson said about the New South Wales outcome. I am just looking for the quotation and I will read
it in a minute. Both the Wilderness Society and the forest industry association strongly applauded the New
South Wales government and the bipartisan approach that was involved in reaching the North Coast
agreements.
InterjectoróAre you speaking on behalf of the Wilderness Society?
Senator FORSHAWóWould you mind just being quiet. That was a statement made by a spokesperson
for the Wilderness Society. It is on the record. People may want to disagree with that, but those are the facts.
If that is the situation, at least in one state, why should we not pass this legislation, if only in respect of the
RFAs that have been negotiated at the moment and accepted by all the parties? In other words, what is it about
this legislation that is bad?
Ms ConstableóIt asked for effective community participation.
Senator FORSHAWóHave you read the legislation?
Dr AndersonóYes, we have certainly read the legislation.
Senator FORSHAWóArenít your arguments about the RFA, the agreement, not the legislation?
Dr AndersonóYes, but you have done the same as the legislation has done: you have just made an
assumption that the RFA process is an okay process. In New South Wales I think there is some acceptance
that the process itself was fairly rigorous and gone through quite carefully by conservation groups and other
stakeholders, but then at the end, for political reasons, the outcome was very bad: a lot of what was seen to
be coming out of the process never came out of the process. And that seems to be the best that has occurred
so far in Australia. But to say that that process represents the process in the other states and therefore the
process in the other states is okay, and therefore this legislation is all right to go ahead, is just not an
acceptable assumption.
Senator FORSHAWóLet me read the quote that I referred to and then I will ask another question. This
is a quote from Felicity Wade and it was in a media release put out by the New South Wales Wilderness
Society on 30 September:
The Wilderness Society is not renowned for giving governments unwarranted praise. But Pam Allan and Bob Carrís
wilderness effort last week was flipping amazing. Wins for the environment like this are few and far between and must
be celebrated with appropriate pomp and appreciation.
I understand that what we are hearing throughout this inquiry is a lot of criticism about the outcome of the
process and indeed the process itselfópeople saying, ëWe werenít included,í or ëWe thought the whole thing
was a sham and we walked out.í But the legislation that we are looking at is framework legislation. How are
we going to fix the problems that you see about the RFA process by just abandoning the federal legislation?
Mr TipleróCan I comment, Senator?
Senator FORSHAWóYes. Do you understand the point I am getting at? Your problem is not with the
legislation; your problem is with the outcomes of the participants involved in the RFA process.
Ms ConstableóBut if you deny it legal status, you are showing that you have heard that there is a lot of
public dissatisfaction. Something has to earn legal status; it should not just get it and then try and fix it up
later.
Senator FORSHAWóWe can do thatóI accept that. That is an option open to us. But what do we do then?
What is your alternative if we just abandon this legislation?
Mr TipleróI cannot speak for New South Wales. My understanding is that the process in that state was
a very different process to the one that was entered into in Victoria. You have used the expression ëa bipartisan
approach.í What I have learned over two years of involvementórather reluctant involvementóin forest matters,
which started when I acquired a farming property in the Otways and started to come to understand what was
going on, is that it is almost impossible to have an even-handed or bipartisan approach with the Victorian
government.
I have to say to you in all honesty that the attitude is high-handed; it is harsh. If you are not for them, you
are against them. It is impossible to have a dialogue. It is very hard to understand why these people are so
aligned to the interests of the timber industry and the woodchipping industry, but it is a fact.
What we are saying to you is that, given that fact, for the Commonwealth to withdraw the remaining federal
controls would lead to very bad outcomes in Victoria. That may not be the case in New South Wales. You
may well have a different government with a different regime, but right here you do not have that.
Senator FORSHAWóSo what you are putting to us is that the position of the Commonwealth government
at least should be that they should continue to utilise the controls such as those under the woodchip export
licensing arrangements?
Ms ConstableóYes.
Senator FORSHAWóI can now appreciate that point of view, but what is still a matter of concern for us
is that people went through a lot of angst to develop a framework process called, ëLetís negotiate RFAs with
all stakeholders.í If people walk away from that nowówhich is what appears to me to be the position being
put by a large number of groupsóthen we may well end up in a worse position than we were in before we
started out on this process with the National Forest Policy Statement, and so on.
Mr TipleróThere is too much wrong here; there is too much smoke in the kitchen. I believe that the
Commonwealth has a vital role to play in ensuring that we correct the process in this state and get it back
on track, so that we can get an ecologically sustainable approach to managing forests.
Nobody is in opposition to the concept of an agreement, but, given the process at the moment and the way
in which the forests will be managed, if that process is extended to other forest areasóas it is, for example,
in the west of Victoria covering the Otways and so onówe will see what is already going on in the Otways
sanctioned, which is the destruction of the forests. Eighty-seven per cent of the forests are pulped. That is the
bottom line. Eighty-seven per cent of the Otway forests ends up as pulp. That was never the intention of the
RFA process. We are simply saying to you that there is a need for the Commonwealth to hang in there for
a bit longer until we can get a better arrangement in this state.
Dr AndersonóYou are not seeking the abolition of the RFA?
Mr TipleróRFA to me simply means ëagreementí. I would accept that there is a need for some sensible
agreement to cover the management of forests in this state. We do not have that basis at the moment. It does
not exist.
Dr AndersonóThere was initial enthusiasm among conservation groups for the RFA process. It seemed
at the outset to be a reasonable process, but the process has been abused. It has been a terrible process here
in Victoria. The process in New South Wales was quite different. New South Wales had conservation
stakeholders on the steering committee, had a say in the terms of reference and had access to information in
GIS computers. We had none of this. So to rely on the process in New South Wales to validate this legislation,
or to lend support for this legislation, is quite unreasonable.
I want to add that Senator Forshawís quote from the Wildness Society was in September, before the New
South Wales RFA was signed. The RFA was signed in November. I think you would find that after the RFA
was signed and after the political concessions had been made, despite a reasonable process, the Wilderness
Societyís position was completely different on the outcomes of that RFA.
Senator FORSHAWóI am aware that they were critical, but what I was trying to get at was that there
has been acknowledgmentówithin New South Wales at leastóthat the process, particularly the lengthy
assessment process that was undertaken, was a good one compared with Victoria and Tasmania.
Dr AndersonóYes, but the process was shafted in the end.
Senator McGAURANóI have just a couple of points of clarification. Did you mention that there was
logging going on in the water catchment areas?
Mr PoppinsóYes, in the upper Thomson catchments, for example, and there were very concerning indica-tions
of reinterest in the closed catchments of the OíShannassy and other areas. That is perhaps drawing a
longbow; it is supposition. But the Victorian government has just called for valuation of Victoriaís water re-sources,
and one aspect of that valuation could involve the valuation of the timber in those catchments.
We have been very fortunate in Victoria that our forefathers had the foresight to set aside those catchments
and they have been undisturbed. They are, at this stage, the last refuge of a number of rare animals, particularly
the Leadbeaterís possum, for example.
Senator McGAURANóWouldnít you have to concede that at the very least, over the last 15 years, of all
the areas in Australia the East Gippsland area has been the most trawled over, studied and scientifically
reported upon area in Australia. It is full of political debate and public consultation?
Dr AndersonóNo, I most certainly would not admit to that, because the DNRE used in East Gippslandó
just as I did in the central highlandsóa stratification model which is a method of statistics which uses a very
small number of recent surveys to average sightings for threatened species over very large areas and produce
large glossy maps. So, if East Gippsland is the best that they could do, heaven help the forests in the rest of
the RFA areas.
Mr TipleróI will add to that very briefly. If you look at what is intended in East Gippsland, in the area
earmarked as ëgeneral management zoneí, which is some 300,000 hectares of forest, they are forecasting under
the management regime which is in place now that the average age of the forest will collapse dramatically
through clear-felling. It will go down. As I said earlier, there will be no trees over 100 years of age and two-thirds
of the forest will be less than 60 years of age.
There is one important environmental aspect that you hear DNRE people talk about almost as a mantra. They
talk about ëhabitatí trees. Habitat trees are old trees. You get them out of ancient trees which die and simply
stand there with holes in them. You do not get habitat trees in a young plantation. It is almost impossible to
imagine what we expect wildlife to do, living in a plantation of trees that does not resemble a natural forest.
That is what we are actually contemplating, if they maintain the current logging regime in East Gippsland.
CHAIRóI have a point of clarification, but we are going to have to keep moving, because our next witness
has to leave at 5.30 to get back to Tasmania. I can understand your argument in saying the RFA process is
flawed, but I do not see how you can then conclude that either passing this legislation or not passing it is going
to make any difference whatsoever to what has gone before us. It is really a different process.
I particularly want to pick up what Mr Tipler said earlier on, that in fact by passing this legislation, the
Commonwealth was abrogating its responsibility. I wrote those words down. I would say that, by passing this
legislation, the Commonwealth was accepting its responsibility for resource security, which would share the
responsibility between the state and the Commonwealth. It would make the states per se more likely to take
up a particular issue if they knew that some of the responsibility in terms of financial legal action would fall
back on the Commonwealth. Under the current situation, as I understand it, it falls on the states.
I just do not understand your argument. Whether this is passed or not will not make any difference
whatsoever to the issues that you raise. That is a different issue and a different political debate, and something
which I can accept might have to be addressed. It was Mr Tipler who made the comment.
Dr AndersonóMy answer to that is that this legislation hands enormous power to the states, because RFAs
are not being reviewed for 20 years and such small reviews as there are in the meantime are not even being
done.
CHAIRóIsnít that the current legislation?
Mr PoppinsóNo, our current code of forest practice specifies review every 10 years, and even that is a
long horizon.
Dr AndersonóAgain, the code of forest practice is just done by the states, so you are handing control for
a long period of time to the state governments. My only other comment, which is a very general commentóI
do not understand this; I guess I am asking youóis that I do not see how you can separate this legislation
from the RFA process. If you are legislating a bad process, if you are legislating a process which has seen
disastrous results and unsupported results in several states of Australia alreadyólet alone the ones that are
about to be rushed through in Victoria, for exampleóI do not see how you can separate responsibility away
from legislation that validates that process.
Senator FORSHAWóIsnít the interpretation that the Commonwealth just does not sign off on the RFAs.
If it can be shown that what the state government and what the industry has done is bad, then isnít one way
of handling itóand I am putting a proposition to you; I am not suggestingó
Senator BROWNóThe Commonwealth has signed off on East Gippsland.
Senator FORSHAWóOkay, I take your point. But isnít that the way that that could be dealt with? In other
words, that is a political issue as distinct from a legislative one. That is what I am trying to get at.
Mr DevenishóIt might be worth avoiding committing to something that might be a liability and might be
very expensiveóthe idea of reimbursing industry if you want to make more reserves and things like that. The
public want more reserves. More reserves will occur. It will be more costly to have it built into the legislation
that you have to reimburse industry as a result. Industry has been downsizing; it downsizes by two per cent
a year, even though logging harvesting has been going up. So I think that the whole idea of resource security
is only fair if there is an equal amount of environmental security.
Senator WOODLEYóI will address my question to Mr Poppins, because he may resolve for me an
interesting question I have had on mind ever since I have been reading the debate that has been going on in
the media in Victoria between the Premier and other people about the nature of the woodchip industry. You
say in your submission that there was overlogging well above legislated maximums and sustainable yields and
a massive increase in pulpwood productioní. Thenómaybe you can spell this out for meóyou say:
...in addition, it is clear from the charts that Sawlogs are being deliberately reclassified as Residual logs.
This is the issue of timber which has been felled and then reclassified instead of being classified as sawlogs.
I notice that Mr Kennett seemed to interpret that as: the only timber which is being taken for woodchipping
is timber which was lying on the forest floor for many years, apparently. That is his interpretation of that, but
that is not what it means at all.
Mr TipleróCan I answer that?
Senator WOODLEYóI would rather Mr Poppins answered that because it was in his submission.
Mr TipleróNo, it was in our submissionóthe OREN submission.
Senator WOODLEYóI am sorry, Mr Tipler. I am misrepresenting you.
Mr TipleróThank you. It is pretty simple actually. When they clear-fell a forest, they knock everything
down. What you find is that a percentage of the trees that they knock down are classified as sawlog. The
balance are supposed to be classified as ëresidual logí. ëResidualí, by definition, equals ëpulpí. The sawlogs
are classified B-plus, C or D in accordance with their quality. The legislation, schedule 3 of the forest act,
provides a list of sustainable yields in relation to all of the sawlog stuff. It is completely silent on the question
of residual log. It is quite obviousóeven a fool can seeóthat, if you want to get more timber, particularly
if you want to get more pulp, you can, if you are not honest, simply classify something which is supposed
to be a D grade sawlog as a residual log.
There is enormous evidence that this is what is happening. First of all, if you look at the graphsówe
presented you with some graphsóyou can see that the D grade logs are going down like this, and the residual
logs are going up like that. There has been a massive growth in residual volumeómuch more than sawlogs.
There are only three possible explanations. One explanation is that they have changed their way of measuring
it so that, in the first instance, they were not measuring the residual and now they are. That is not the case,
because they have been reporting on residual and sawlog now for a decade and nobody has announced a
change in the measurement system. The second possible reason is that the forest has magically changed its
quality in a very short period of time. That clearly has not happened. It has the capacity to happen over a long
period of time, but it will not happen in the space of a few years. The only other possible explanation is that
logs which should have been sawlog are being reclassified as residual or pulp.
We know and the industry knowsóthere is widespread evidenceóthat that is what is happening, and the
reason it is happening is that the market for sawn timber, particularly low quality hardwood sawn timber, is
flat. It is very poor. There is very little market for it. There is a tremendous incentive to maintain cash flow
by turning those logs into pulp for which, if you are lucky, you get $80 a tonne, which is the export price.
That is what is happening.
The problem with that is that that is against the law. I have to say to you that that is a criminal activity.
That concerns us fundamentally because, when you have this grey boundary between residual and sawlog and
when you have absolutely no controls on residual volumes, it is a free-for-all, and that is what is happening
at the moment.
Senator WOODLEYóThat concerns me greatly, but it sounds to me as though that is the same process
that Senator Murphy was describing to us as happening in Tasmania as well.
Mr TipleróThat I do not know.
Senator BROWNóI want to congratulate you on your presentation. The Strzelecki National Park proposal
is a good one, because it brings everything together and it is easy to see what you want to achieve there. I
wish you success with it.
Following up on Senator Forshawís comments from the Wilderness Society, I have got here a Decemberó
that is, two months lateróassessment of Bob Carrís decision, which was in the wake of the full announcement
which said:
It is a disaster. Premier Carr will go down in historyónot as the Premier who saved the old growth and wilderness forests,
but as the Premier who guaranteed their destruction.
I would ask that the full text of this be put into Hansard.
Senator FORSHAWóThere are 191 new national parks. What do you want, Bob?
Senator BROWNóLet us not misrepresent a community group that is not here to defend themselves. I ask
that it be incorporated.
CHAIRóWe will deal with the incorporation in a while.
Senator BROWNóYou will have to leave it to my good offices, those of you who are listening, to argue
that it get into Hansard. We will see.
CHAIRóI have nothing against it. We just have to proceed, because we have other witnesses to hear.
Senator BROWNóBecause it is in the ministerís second reading speech and because it is in every statement
about this that ëwe have reached ecologically sustainable loggingí, I just want each of you to say whether the
logging that you see occurring in the Otways or in East Gippsland ecologically sustainable.
Mr TipleróI am happy to go first. In ORENís judgment, it is not. With the fundamental change in the age
structure of the forest, with the preferred method of silviculture being clear-felling, with the impact of all of
that on environmental values and the impact on water catchmentsóthere are so many factors here, Senator
Brownówe believe that if you take them all together we are heading long term for disaster, because we are
overlogging almost everywhere.
Senator BROWNóThank you. Is there anybody here who believes it is ecologically sustainable? I mean
informed witnesses before the committee. It says also that this is a recipe for peace in the forest in our time.
Would any of you as witnesses like to say to the committee that the Regional Forest Agreements that you are
seeing produced will produce peace in our forests in our time?
Mr TipleróI can respond in relation to the Otways. All I can say, based on very direct experience is that,
if a RFA is put in place in the western region which resembles the sorts of RFAs that we have now in other
areas, then you will simply see open war.
Senator BROWNóThank you. Would anybody else like to comment on that?
Senator McGAURANóI would.
Senator BROWNóNo.
Senator McGAURANóBut it is on that matter. You asked if anyone else wanted to comment. This is a
comment as well as a question. You invited others to comment. Has there been any other area in Australia
more studied than East Gippsland and more referred to the public than East Gippsland?
Mr TipleróI do not know, but I can give you a very crude response, if you like. I think the Nazis analysed
the destruction of Jews to death when they built all the camp ovens, but it did not make it right.
Senator FORSHAWóI seem to recall that they declared war as well.
CHAIRóI thank Mr Tipler, Mr Anderson, Mr Poppins, Mr Devenish and Ms Julie Constable for appearing
before us today. We will now included Senator Brownís incorporation. Is it the wish of the committee that
the document be incorporated in the transcript of evidence? There being no objection, it is so ordered.