Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment (East Gippsland) Bill 2009Tuesday, November 24, 2009 Second Reading I am pleased to rise to lead the debate for the opposition on the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment (East Gippsland) Bill 2009. I am very pleased to say at the outset that the coalition will be supporting this bill. It is always slightly unexpected when this government fulfils an election commitment, but we cannot get too excited about this one because this bill is only a partial fulfilment of the legislative aspects of the promise. One of the things I want to raise is the commitment to the other parts of the promise and making sure that it happens. While we have some reservations, the opposition believes that the government is committed to deliver on its promise, and we hope that will happen. I would also like to note that in 2006 the Liberal Party committed to the protection of additional old-growth forest in East Gippsland. The coalition supports the appropriate protection and expansion of our current parks and reserves. However, it is important that local communities and local businesses are engaged in the process. This engagement is particularly important in East Gippsland to ensure a viable and sustainable forestry industry, and this needs to happen hand-in-hand with the expansion of the parks. The government says there will be no net job losses to the timber industry as a result of this legislation. The coalition will be steadfast in its efforts to ensure that this government stays true to that very important commitment. While this bill will enhance parks and reserves right across different parts of Victoria, its most significant impact will be felt in East Gippsland. As we all know, Gippsland is home to some of our most breathtakingly beautiful landscapes, forests and parks, and I have spent many happy times enjoying them. The main purpose of this bill is to amend the National Parks Act 1975 and the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 to permanently protect an additional area of East Gippsland forest of approximately 45 000 hectares. It is important to note that there is an additional 4000 hectares to the 2006 government commitment, which stated that 41 000 hectares of state forest would be added to the conservation reserve system in East Gippsland. By expanding the parks and reserves in East Gippsland, additional areas will now be protected in the Croajingolong, Errinundra and Snowy River national parks. The establishment of a link between the Errinundra and the Snowy River national parks will create a continuous expanse of parkland. Clause 15 of the bill creates the Tara Range Park, taking in old-growth forests from the Tara Range and lower Snowy River. As Tara Range is actually going to be classified as another park, deer hunting by stalking will be permitted in the area. In addition, 12 new or expanded nature conservation reserves will be created under the Crown Land Reserves Act. Included in this will be the Goolengook block. As part of this redesign, the new and expanded conservation reserves aim to represent a wide range of old-growth forests, including both wet and dry forests. One criterion in determining the boundaries has been that the proposed reserves include at least 50 per cent old-growth forest. As a result, in this legislation forests that contain, for example, only 30 per cent growth are excluded from conservation. I will return to that a little further on in my speech. The second aspect of the bill relates to additional land that will be added to eight other parks across Victoria. This legislation promises to enhance the parks system across other parts of Victoria. It will add 2400 hectares to eight other parks including the Alpine, Brisbane Ranges, Grampians, Greater Bendigo, Great Otway and St Arnaud Range parks, the Lerderderg State Park and the Otway Forest Park. The additional hectares extend throughout Victoria and add significant ecological or cultural value to the parks and to local communities. While the coalition will be supporting the bill, we maintain some reservations, as are flagged. I would like to talk through them and to quote from some of the groups represented who have an interest in the bill, first of all in terms of timber jobs. This has been an important aspect from the perspective of both the government and the coalition. There is no doubting that our forest industry in East Gippsland is critically important to the Victorian economy. Each year the East Gippsland local government area records approximate forestry turnover of more than $120 million and provides livelihood for many in the eastern part of our state. As I mentioned, there has been a commitment from the government that this legislation will not hinder the access to timber resources or result in any job losses to the timber industry. The government promised this in its 2006 election commitment, and the minister promised it again in his second-reading speech. In fulfilling this commitment the government has said it will make available 136 000 cubic metres per annum for timber production. To achieve the timber volumes, some land previously classified as special protection zones will now be transferred to a general management zone and therefore will be made accessible for timber production. The coalition is very concerned that as yet the government has failed to do the work to confirm the new special protection zones and general management zone land boundaries. Until that is done we have reservations about the veracity of the promise to make the timber available. While detailed work has been done to identify the boundaries of the parks to fulfil the government's election commitment, there has not been a commensurate amount of work done to fulfil the second part of the election commitment -- that is, to ensure sufficient resources to ensure no net loss of jobs. This was confirmed during our bill briefing. Very clearly that work has not yet been done and still needs to commence. This reservation is not limited simply to this side of the house. Timber Communities Australia has expressed its concerns, and I quote:
It believes:
Along similar lines, the East Gippsland Forest Management Cooperative, made up of 12 harvest and 15 haulage contractors, says it is concerned that the government is undermining local industries in East Gippsland. It believes that the tender process of government-owned VicForests (VF) has forced contractors either to accept government-funded packages or to obtain a short-term position if they wish to remain in the industry. I quote from the cooperative:
The cooperative went on to say:
Unfortunately, all of this has come from a government that continually claims to protect and invest in sustainable local industries. In addition to the commitment of resources, the government has also agreed to make a $1 million contribution towards a small log line to extend the range of timber able to be processed. We know the full cost of a small log line is approximately $6 million, so the $1 million is actually a small contribution to that overall cost. We have been given the government's assurance that the resources will be available for this new line. It is critical that they have the resources to ensure the ongoing viability of jobs in the area. However, currently it is unclear how this part of the promise will be fulfilled as there is no easily identifiable company interested in putting the log line in place. In the briefing process we asked for further information from the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, but unfortunately he was unable to provide any further information about how progress is going in relation to that small log line. In terms of managing the overall process, in 2007 the government established an industry transition task force (ITT) with the aim of addressing the concerns of the timber industry and local communities. The ITT's final recommendations were reflected in an agreement between the government, timber industries and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. This was a respected process, and I have to say one that gave the industry much comfort both through the process and now with the bill. We have been assured repeatedly by the government that this bill and the associated commitments meet the terms of the ITT agreement which has been very important to all the parties. It would be good to hear in the debate in this house, but particularly in the other house, the minister's commitment to deliver on all aspects of the ITT agreement, not only on the parks aspect, which is the subject of the legislation we are debating today, but also on the non-legislative elements of the ITT agreement and, most importantly as I have said repeatedly, on the no net loss of jobs. Unfortunately the government has chosen to keep the ITT agreement and the final recommendations hidden. In the briefing we asked for a copy of the agreement from the minister, but we were refused access to the document because we were told it is cabinet in confidence. We have talked to the industry, and it has said that as long as we are getting assurances from the government that those commitments and the ITT agreements are being delivered, then it has confidence in the bill. Unfortunately we cannot see the agreement to know whether that is the case. It is important also to talk a little bit about the government's attempts at consultation in relation to the Goolengook block, which unfortunately turned out to be nothing but a farce -- a hollow attempt at engaging voters in an election year. After requesting that the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC) undertake an investigation of the Goolengook Forest management block in 2005, Labor withdrew the request in December 2006, less than one month after being elected. During this time the VEAC collected a lot of submissions, and people went to a lot of effort to make known their views on the Goolengook block. They held community forums and commenced an investigation, only for it to be quashed by the government. It was disinterested in the views and advice of those affected by any changes made to the Goolengook block. Timber Communities Australia has stated:
It is unfortunate that the process was not completed and instead was stopped very much as a result of what happened. As I said, it was stopped only one month after this government was re-elected. It is also important to get the perspective of the environmental groups because I have received a number of representations from environmental groups which are disappointed with aspects of this legislation. Among these are the Wilderness Society, Friends of the Earth, the Victorian Rainforest Network, the Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA) and the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF). Primarily they are disappointed that the legislation does not go far enough and that it fails to accurately reflect the government's 2006 election policy which committed to immediately protecting all significant last stands of old-growth forest. Of particular concern to the environmental groups is the exclusion of Ferntree Creek and Big River, which were proposed for protection in the government's 2006 commitment. A joint media release by the ACF, the VNPA and the Wilderness Society states: Even old-growth forests such as Ferntree Creek and Big River, which were originally promised protection, have now been removed from the proposed reserve system. And half the forests allocated for protection by the government are actually already in reserves. The whole thing just does not make sense. The government's response to this broken promise was that the Ferntree Creek and Big River forest types were already represented by other protected areas. They also claimed that the forests would be difficult to appropriately manage and that some of the more mature trees located in the forest would be needed to fulfil the government's commitment towards ensuring its resource commitments to the timber industry. However, to quote a statement issued by the ACF, the VNPA and the Wilderness Society:
A conservation and campaign manager to the Victorian National Parks Association stated that: With little of our old-growth forest left, this announcement leaves many old-growth areas exposed to the logging industry and tragically many of these areas will be felled in the coming months. Environment East Gippsland described this legislation, and I quote -- please excuse the language -- as 'another attempt by the government to put polish on a turd'. Many of the key environment groups are also disappointed that other forests which are under threat due to logging, such as Brown Mountain, Stony Creek and Bungywarr, were not included in the government's planned conservation reserves. While many of the forests include some old growth, the government has had a number of criteria for redesigning the new and expanded conservation reserves in East Gippsland. I think it is important to outline what those criteria were. They are as follows: one, to maximise the inclusion of the best examples of significant old-growth forest stands; two, to maximise connectivity of the proposed reserves with existing conservation reserves; three, to maximise practical management and operational boundaries; four, to minimise inclusion of strategic fuel-reduction burning corridors; five, the old-growth forest should be at least 50 per cent of the area of the proposed reserves; six, to minimise the impact on approved timber harvesting coupes. There are very important issues about the decision making in relation to the criteria by which the boundaries of these national parks were determined. The final and seventh criteria is that representation of different old-growth forest types, wet forest and dry forest, are taken into account. The resulting boundaries are a reflection of the commitment to 41 000 hectares, no net loss of jobs and the criteria which I have just outlined. The community wants to understand the basis on which these boundaries have been put in place, and this information will be very helpful to them in understanding the logic behind the bill. Having said that, it is important to understand that the passage of this bill will ensure that 97 per cent of old-growth forest is totally protected in East Gippsland. Another area of concern, and one that we consistently see in many aspects of how this government performs, is the total lack of consultation other than through the ITT process. I would like to thank the department and the minister's office for their willingness to provide us with a briefing on this bill. During this briefing it was made abundantly clear that the government's attempt to undergo consultation on this legislation has been narrow and limited at its best. As I have said, the ITT was consultation, but the outcomes of that have not been circulated more broadly. We are disappointed but not surprised that despite this bill being on the government's agenda for many years -- as we know, it was a 2006 election promise -- there was a lack of consultation prior to the bill's second reading with key groups such as the Victorian Association of Forest Industries, which is a key group, one would have thought, when it comes to the consideration of these issues. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union did not have further consultation in relation to the form the bill took. Affected councils had not heard from the government in relation to this matter, as was the case for others affected by this legislation, such as tour operators, other licence-holders and groups such as the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria. In fact today I was contacted by the Minerals Council of Australia about the failure of the government to undertake any consultation with such an important group. It is consistent with the performance of the government that we see again and again a failure to engage with broader groups that are affected by the legislation that this government introduces. I would like to spend just a few minutes on this government's incredibly poor record in managing our national and state parks and other public land. One of the things we consistently hear from the opposition in debates on public land and the creation of new parks is our great level of concern about the failure of the government to effectively manage this land. We have heard many members in the past reflecting widespread concern right across the community when they lament that this government is the neighbour that nobody wants. To be specific, it is the neighbour from hell. It is the neighbour that allows weeds to proliferate and grass to grow 5 or 6 feet tall, the neighbour that has allowed many of our parks to be overrun by vermin or feral animals and the neighbour that keeps the threat of bushfires at our doorstep through its failure to control the build-up of fuel. The failure of the government to undertake appropriate prescribed burns over the past decade is a classic example of its failure to appropriately manage public land. Our precious forests and parklands certainly need protection. They need to be protected as well from this government's mismanagement and failure to adequately maintain and care for our bushlands. Simply locking up our forests is not the solution to the protection and sustainability of our environment. Good environmental outcomes can be achieved only with an injection of resources and with sound management. While we support this bill and want to further add to our protected public lands, we seek a commitment from this government that the expansion of our parks and reserves will be matched by adequate investment to ensure our parks are satisfactorily protected. Having said this, I want to reiterate that the coalition will be supporting this bill. The bill partially fulfils an election commitment made about East Gippsland's parks. The Liberal Party also went to the 2006 election with a commitment to protect additional old-growth forest in East Gippsland. As a result of the ITT process the timber industry has signed off on the arrangements. I reiterate that we will monitor very closely the implementation of the non-legislative parts of the government's commitments. We seek assurances from the minister that there will be no net loss of jobs or resources from the timber industry, that the review of the special purpose zones will be quickly under way and that appropriate land is reclassified as general management zones so that the timber industry will have some confidence about which land will be available for it to undertake its business. We will steadfastly hold this government to account on all its commitments to ensure greater environmental sustainability and support for our forest industries. We support this bill, but there are commitments the government is still to make. We seek those assurances from the government and the minister to make sure of their commitment to protect our national parks and to ensure that the timber industries and communities are sustained for the future. With those comments, I commend the bill to the house.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| [ Copyright Mary Wooldridge © 2009 | Privacy | Disclaimer | Website by Peter Wiseman | Admin ] |
