Otway Ranges Environment Network

 

 

Print This Page

Victorian Parliament Hansard 2004

 


Victorian Parliament Hansard
5 October 2004, page 593.
Timber industry: Regional Forest Agreements

Mr RYAN (Leader of The Nationals) -- My question is to the Premier. Is the government going to honour the remaining regional forest agreements in Victoria, or is it going to destroy the timber industry, just as Mark Latham proposes to destroy it in Tasmania?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) -- I thank the Leader of The Nationals for his question. I indicate to this house that the policy referred to by the Leader of The Nationals -- the policy announced by the Leader of the federal Labor Party, Mark Latham, when he said he would have a scientific examination of the future of the regional forest agreement and a significant compensation package -- is something that I support.

I indicate to the Leader of The Nationals that when we came to office we had an unsustainable position in our forests whereby there were contracts signed up for timber which was not there. We had to face up to the science and to what was there to provide for those contracts. As a consequence we had to reduce logging in Victoria by some 30 per cent across the board. We have done that with Our Forests Our Future. We have raised compensation of about $80 million for communities, for workers in the industry and for companies in the industry, and that compensation has been completed -- and completed successfully. We now have a much more honest, open and transparent system in our forests here in Victoria. We took action to cancel one of our regional forest agreements here in Victoria, which I committed to at the last election when I committed to creating a new national park in the Otway Ranges. We know the National Party is opposed to the new national park; we think the Liberal Party is opposed to it.

Mr Ryan -- On a point of order, Speaker, the Premier is debating the question. He should at least say that he is after the Greens preferences, just like Mark Latham is in Tasmania!

The SPEAKER -- Order! I believe the Leader of The Nationals is debating the issue! The Premier, to continue.

Mr BRACKS -- In relation to the regional forest agreements, we cancelled the agreement associated with the Otway National Park, and we are proceeding with the national park through a reference to the Victorian Environmental Assessment Committee. It is interesting to note that we know the National Party is opposed to that national park but we are not sure about the Liberal Party. What we do know is that the local federal member for Corangamite, who said he was opposed to the national park, is now running at 250 miles an hour to say he is in favour of it! It is interesting to see how he wants to get on board with a good environmental policy from our government. We know where the National Party stands: it is opposed to it, and we know it has a different view to us. We are not sure where the Liberal Party is, but we are committed to a much better, transparent process in our forests and committed to a new national park for the Otway Ranges.

SUSTAINABLE FORESTS (TIMBER) BILL
House ASSEMBLY
Activity Second Reading
Members HONEYWOOD
Date 2 June 2004, Page 59

Mr PLOWMAN - Under the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC) proposal for the Otways a large parcel of land has been designated as forest park. The only restriction on forest parks that does not apply to state forests is that there be no logging. Clearly any further VEAC proposal could almost certainly lead to a reduction in logs right across the state, and that could happen anywhere. It is a real concern for the industry.

For it to support this bill the opposition needs the transitional arrangements sorted out. It needs allocation orders based on regional forest agreements and for the government and VicForests to give an assurance that allocation orders will be for a period of 10 to 20 years. There is also the need to give an assurance to contractors who provide the service to this industry and to those communities who rely on these industries that there will be stability and an assurance that logs will be able to be harvested in the future as they have in the past.

Mr INGRAM (Gippsland East) - The government at the last election destroyed the confidence in my community for the regional forest agreement (RFA) process. The government's political decision to remove timber harvesting from the Otways had a devastating impact on my communities. Although we are a long way from the Otways, the mills that remain after the OFOF reductions have gone through a period of uncertainty and instability. They say that a government can turn around at election time and for the winning of a few marginal seats make changes that will have a long-term implication. This has happened throughout the history of the industry.

I have previously mentioned decisions that were made to create national parks as part of the Snowy River National Park. The 60 000 cubic metres of ash resource on a sustainable rotation which was set down in that national park was removed from the industry but without taking the mills out. A large amount of timber resources has been put in national parks; that is why we had a problem with the Our Forests, Our Future (OFOF), and we needed reductions. Should the national park have been declared? It probably should as it is one of the greatest areas set aside, but you need to make sure that those impacts are addressed.

The bill sets out ecological sustainable development issues. A few years ago, before I was a member of Parliament, I went to Papua-New Guinea on a holiday. I went a couple of years in a row to a beautiful spot in the jungle in West New Britain. There was a logging operation there and not one tree stood for 20 kilometres around their loading ramp. To get the trees onto the ships, they pushed 20 hectares of hillside over a coral reef to make a landing.

I witnessed that first hand. That happened in an area that has 9 to 10-metres of rainfall a year - yet, that is our competition. It is not sustainable logging. By comparison with what happens in Victoria, it is a totally different scenario. We have a good quality sustainable timber industry in Victoria. I would like to keep it that way.


Mr PLOWMAN (Benambra) - Clause 18 deals with the review of allocation of timber resources. Clause 18(2) reads:

The Minister may review the allocation of timber resources at any time if -

(a) the Minister considers that there has been a significant variation, as a result of fire, disease or other natural causes -

such as a disaster. I can understand that that is very sensible, but then clause 18(2)(b) says:

there has been any significant increase or reduction in the land base which is zoned as available for timber harvesting.

I remind the house that the Victorian Environment Assessment Council's report on the Otways declared a big area of that area of the Otways as a forest park and in so doing change the zoning of that area of land. The one thing that changed was it denied the opportunity - and it is the only thing it did - to log that area. That being the case, I suggest that this leaves the door wide open for any other area in the state that is currently a state forest or a state park to be declared a forest park, which therefore automatically takes it out from being available for logging. Then the minister can review the allocation of resources at any time which means the whole of the allocation of logging right across Victoria can be changed and reduced because a government might at any stage change the zoning from either state forest or state park to forest park. This is very significant, and I would like the minister to comment on it.

Mr INGRAM (Gippsland East) - Clause 18(1) says:

The Minister must review the allocation of timber resources every 5 years.

Some concern has been expressed particularly about clause 18(2)(b), that the land base which is zoned available for timber harvesting can be reduced, as we have seen with the proposals put forward under the Otways changes. That gives the industry an enormous amount of concern. I understand that is the process of Parliament, but the timber industry over the years has seen significant reductions to the area available to it. Every time that happens there is ultimately an impact on the resource available. The industry is keen to get some kind of commitment from the minister on how this would go and how they would be consulted on these issues.

The other issue is the change as a result of fire and disease. I understand why that clause is there, and it needs to be there. I have recently seen the effect of the 2003 fires.

The issue is, though, if we managed the fires in our forests better, we would not have the devastation caused by the summer fires. That is something the minister does need to carefully consider when allocating the resources, because it is clear that these intense fires are a natural occurrence and if the resources were put in at the right time, we would not have the devastation of intense fires.

The issue is to make sure the proper management of the forests in relation to fire will not be levied against the timber industry, because that is an ecological management issue which should be levied against the state.

Dr SYKES (Benalla) - In a similar vein I seek clarification in relation to clause 18(2)(c), which says:

The Minister may review the allocation of timber resources at any time if -

(c) the Minister considers that there has been any other event or matter which has a significant impact on timber resources in State forests ...

The question the industry has put to me is: does any other event or matter which has a significant impact on the timber resources mean a state election? They raised the point that the last state election had a huge impact on the timber resource considering that the Bracks government decided to phase out harvesting in the Otways. The question is: what sort of security does this provide for the timber industry in the future?

Mr THWAITES (Minister for Environment) - In relation to the member for Benalla's issue, which relates to clause 18(2)(c), I point out that clause 20(3) in fact has a period of 10 years for the amendment or variation to be introduced. That clause means that if the minister makes an amendment under clause 18(2)(c), which reduces timber resources allocated to VicForests, then the amendment or variation must provide for a period of 10 years, or a lesser period if it is agreed by VicForests, over which the reduction can be implemented. That gives a rolling security of supply for the industry, so that there has to be under subclause (1) a review every five years, or under paragraph (c) there can be a review in certain circumstances. But the implementation of that is to be done over a period of 10 years which ensures that the industry is protected and that there is a security of supply given there.

The member for Benambra raised his concern in relation to clause 18(2)(b).

He particularly raised the issue of the Otways and once again he demonstrated that he opposes the decision to have an Otways National Park.

Mr Plowman - I did not say that. I think it was an extraordinary decision, but I certainly did not say that.

Mr THWAITES - The member for Benambra does not oppose it but he thinks it is an extraordinary decision. I would like to hear from the opposition a consistent view on the Otways. I would like to hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the spokesman on the environment, whether he supports the Otways National Park.

Mr Honeywood - On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I believe you have been sitting in the chamber for some time and would have heard the previous Acting Speaker, on a point of order from the minister at the table, stop me from referring to one issue that was not mentioned in this bill. There is no mention of the Otways in this bill. The minister can carry on all he likes about a national park where no timber harvesting is required, but that is totally extraneous to the legislation before us.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nardella) - Order! What is the point of order?

Mr Honeywood - My point of order is that on relevance the minister should not be heard. He is not relating to the bill, and the previous Acting Speaker stopped me from referring to something that was not in the bill. The Otways National Park is not in the bill and there is no timber harvesting allowed in the Otways.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Nardella) - Order! I have heard enough on the point of order. There is no point of order. The minister was responding. I heard the contribution from the honourable member for Benambra who raised the issue of the Otways. The minister was responding to the honourable member for Benambra, and that is in order.

Mr THWAITES - We would be very interested to hear from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on whether the opposition supports the Otways National Park, because that has been a public process and there will continue to be a public process under the Victorian Environment Assessment Council. That public process allows all parties to have their input into the recommendations before there is any change in zoning.

It is totally appropriate for that to be a factor to be taken into account in reviewing the allocation of timber resources.

I am very proud of the fact that this government has initiated a process through the Victorian Environment Assessment Council to have an Otway Ranges national park. Tonight I call upon the opposition, if it is honest, to make a clear statement to the house of its position, otherwise the people of Geelong and the Otways region will be left with the conclusion, after the comments of the member for Benambra, that it opposes this park.

Otway Ranges national park: establishment
House ASSEMBLY
Activity Questions without Notice
Members CRUTCHFIELD; BRACKS
Date 26 May 2004, Page 1460

Otway Ranges national park: establishment

Mr CRUTCHFIELD (South Barwon) - My question is to the Premier. Given the government's longstanding commitment to the creation of a world-class national park stretching from Anglesea to the Otways, can the Premier advise the house of the progress towards this historic goal and the challenges that have been overcome to ensure this outcome?

Mr BRACKS (Premier) - I thank the member for South Barwon for his question and for his continued and persistent support for the establishment of a protected national park in the Otways. I congratulate him for his advocacy in that area.

A significant step forward was taken today in the ultimate proclaiming of a new, extensive, world-class national park in the Otway Ranges.

Today the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council has released its draft boundaries for such a national park. Those boundaries will mean that the park will consist of some 98 205 hectares, which is almost nine times the existing Otway National Park. It will be a very extensive park which will extend all the way from Anglesea to past Cape Otway, with extensive tracts of land in between. It will be a continuous park. As well as the protected national park it will include a new category of forest park, which will have recreational uses, including four-wheel driving, fishing and the collection of wood and other areas as well.

These draft drawings of the boundaries will now be up for public display until July, when a final report will be commissioned after that public input has been considered.

The final report of the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council will go to the Minister for Environment, who is also the Deputy Premier, by September. I was very pleased to be with the Minister for Environment this morning in taking the next important step in proclaiming this world-class national park for Victoria, as referred to in the question asked by the member for South Barwon.

If you look at the national parks that have been proclaimed, you see more national parks have been proclaimed under this government than under any other government in Victoria's history.

Mr Honeywood interjected.

Mr BRACKS - The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is interjecting across the table, and it is worth noting that his interjection shows that he and his opposition stand for opposition to the Otway Ranges national park. The alternative government - -

Mr Mulder interjected.

The SPEAKER - Order!

I warn the member for Polwarth, and I remind him that it is customary in this house to cease interjecting when the Speaker is on his or, as in this case, her feet. I also remind the member for Polwarth about what is parliamentary language, and I warn him about his language in this house. I ask him to cease interjecting.

Mr BRACKS - We have a clear divide across the house on this matter. The government stands for a newly proclaimed Otway Ranges national park, which will be nine times the size of the existing national park. It will be a continuous park which will extend right across from Anglesea to Cape Otway. The alternative government, if it ever comes to power in this state, would not go ahead with it; it would allow logging to continue, and we would not have this national park in the future because it stands against the proclaiming of this park.

Mr Perton - On a point of order, Speaker, the Premier is debating the question, and I ask you to bring him back to order.

The SPEAKER - Order! I do not believe the Premier at this stage is debating the question. He was explaining to us the steps that were undertaken to establish - -

Mr Haermeyer interjected.

The SPEAKER - Order! The Minister for Police and Emergency Services will not interject in that manner. The Premier was explaining to us the steps that were undertaken to establish the Anglesea national park.

Honourable members interjecting.

The SPEAKER - Order! I again ask members to show courtesy to each other in allowing members to be heard in this house.

Mr Honeywood - On a new point of order, Speaker, I refer to your rulings yesterday about government members attempting to make up policy on behalf of this side of the house. The Premier was launching into policy making for and on behalf of another party. I ask you, Speaker, to bring him back to government administration and government policy rather than inventing some policy on behalf of our side.

Mr BRACKS - On the point of order, Speaker, I was simply pointing out that there is a difference between the government and opposition parties on this matter. I was enunciating the government's policy, which is to proclaim this national park. I was not attributing any new policy to the opposition.

I understood that the existing policy position - unless it has changed it - was to oppose an Otway Ranges national park.

The SPEAKER - Order! I do not uphold the point of order at this stage. The question to the Premier was what challenges have been overcome to ensure this outcome. The Premier was explaining to the house that a number of matters were taken into account when the Victorian government came to this decision.

Mr BRACKS - The other matter that was taken into account is the need to reduce logging in the Otways area to allow for this national park to be commissioned in the future. We had significant success immediately in paying out a licence, which now means that logging has been reduced by some 25 per cent in the Otways region. As the licence will have expired by 2008 when this new national park is proclaimed, there will no longer be any logging in the Otways region.

We have overcome those obstacles in achieving this aim, and we will overcome further obstacles. This is going to be a great boon for Victoria. Something like 2.5 million people visit the Otways region, including the Great Ocean Road, each year. What they will now have is a continuous national park that will be a great ecotourism benefit for our state. It will attract interstate and overseas tourists, it will be good for the Victorian economy and that region, and of course it will be great for the environment. We will see this area, which includes coastal forests and temperate rainforests, preserved for all time to come. The only obstacle that may be faced is if the other side of the house gets into government, because clearly it will continue the logging and continue to oppose this national park.

 
   
  relevant links
 

Don't know the meaning of a word? Check the glossary.

  Copyright