- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 8 June 2006
Native Vegetation Act 2003: Disallowance of Native Vegetation Amendment (Private Native Forestry) Regulation 2006
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 8 of 61
| Next Item »
NATIVE VEGETATION ACT 2003: DISALLOWANCE OF NATIVE VEGETATION AMENDMENT (PRIVATE NATIVE FORESTRY) REGULATION 2006
Page: 875
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing orders the question is: That the motion proceed as business of the House.
Question put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 22
Mr Breen
Ms Burnswoods
Mr Catanzariti
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Cohen
Mr Costa
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Donnelly | Ms Fazio
Ms Griffin
Ms Hale
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Robertson | Mr Roozendaal
Ms Sharpe
Mr Tsang
Dr Wong
Tellers,
Mr Primrose
Mr West |
Noes, 15
Mr Brown
Mr Clarke
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay | Mr Lynn
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce | Mr Ryan
Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin |
Pair
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion by Mr Ian Cohen agreed to:
That the matter proceed forthwith.
Mr IAN COHEN [11.20 a.m.]: I move:
That under section 41 of the Interpretation Act 1987 this House disallows the Native Vegetation Amendment (Private Native Forestry) Regulation 2006 published in Government Gazette No. 74, dated 2 June 2006, page 3933, and tabled in this House on 6 June 2006.
The Government needed to amend the native vegetation regulation by 1 June to allow private native forestry to continue operating under the old rules in the absence of a code of practice because the current regulation only allowed that to occur until 1 June. The regulation, gazetted on 2 June, seeks to extend the period under which private native forestry can continue unchecked until October. The regulation should be disallowed. Until a private native forestry code of practice is introduced, the Native Vegetation Act should apply as it does to other forms of land clearing. More than four million hectares of forests and woodlands on private land in New South Wales can be logged or clear-felled without any meaningful environmental controls. Approximately 30 per cent of all timber logged in New South Wales is sourced from private land. Logging has been exempt under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 and has not required any assessment or Government approval prior to logging, except for a small subset of logging events on protected lands that require approvals.
When the New South Wales Government introduced the Native Vegetation Act 2003, it committed to introducing a private logging code of practice in New South Wales—a promise that was repeated in the recent native vegetation regulation 2005. However, at this stage the New South Wales Government has failed to deliver. It is now more than two years since the passing of the Native Vegetation Act and there are still no controls on private logging. It is time to close this loophole under the Native Vegetation Act. Farmers have to go through a vigorous process to clear native vegetation, and loggers should now have to do the same until a proper private native forestry code of practice is introduced. Why should loggers be any different? There must be equity between farmers and loggers. Advice from regional conservation groups is that the current levels of private land logging are extremely high, the mills are full of logs, and panic logging appears to be taking place before the rules are brought in. Logging companies are doorknocking rural landholders to gain access to forests on private land. It has been well recognised for several decades that logging of rainforest and old growth has a significant environmental impact.
It is now almost a quarter of a century since Neville Wran closed down rainforest logging on public land. He made this decision because it was well known even then that rainforest should not be logged because of its outstanding diversity and conservation significance, and its sensitivity to disturbance and very long recovery times. New South Wales Government maps show that more than 500,000 hectares of old-growth forest and 100,000 hectares of rainforest on private land are available for logging on the eastern seaboard of New South Wales. There are also extensive areas of poorly reserved ecosystems and ecosystems that are rare, endangered or vulnerable, particularly in agricultural regions. In mature and regrowth forests, private land logging is removing most of the last remaining big trees. Many hollow-dependent animals will not be able to inhabit the forests of the future. Rainforest logging continues with a vengeance on private land, hidden from sight—the vast majority of the population unaware that it is still allowed.
Logging can occur in large areas of rainforest on private land without any wildlife surveys whatsoever, and without any notification to any public authority. Peak and regional environment groups were appalled by the news that the private native forestry code would be delayed yet again. It undermines the Government's commitment. Regulation of private logging is 10 years overdue. Recent investigations by the environment movement have shown that intensive logging of rainforest, old-growth forests, riparian vegetation and threatened species habitats is commonplace on private land in New South Wales. Uncontrolled logging is having a severe environmental impact. It is completely unacceptable for such a destructive industry to go unregulated. Furthermore, the failure to regulate private logging continues to undermine the entire thrust of the New South Wales Government's native vegetation reforms. It is a massive loophole that will continue to allow high conservation value vegetation to be cleared without any assessment or approval, and it makes a mockery of Government commitments to end broadscale land clearing. The exemption is also a loophole for land clearing, which allows forests to be cleared under the guise of logging, and then converted to agriculture, sub-divided or sold off for development.
The failure by the New South Wales Government to regulate private logging is a major structural loophole in its new native vegetation reforms. The proposed draft code of practice has glaring flaws and major failings. The delivery of a strong regulation for private logging over the next two months is a key issue for the New South Wales environment movement and the Greens. We are absolutely opposed to any further delay. I will give three examples of logging on private land to illustrate the environmental destruction that is occurring under the current loopholes. The first is logging on private land near Dorrigo. The block contains 40 hectares, or 100 acres, of rainforest that was mapped by the New South Wales Government as part of the comprehensive regional assessment process in 1998. Logging has taken place within mapped rainforest. Advice and photos obtained by the North East Forest Alliance [NEFA] indicate that the block contains extensive areas of warm temperate rainforest with towering, old-growth brush box emergents. The logging that is taking place is very intensive. NEFA has seen evidence of rainforest logs stacked up on log dumps—coachwood appears to be the predominant rainforest species being logged and average old-growth brush box stump sizes of 1.5m. NEFA reports no habitat tree retention, poorly constructed roads, no erosion mitigation measures and extensive soil disturbance.
No surveys for threatened species have ever been conducted on the block. However, within a three-kilometre radius there are known occurrences of at least 12 threatened fauna species. Therefore, the block is likely to be a threatened species hot spot, given its outstanding habitat values. Threatened fauna species that have been recorded in the vicinity include old-growth dependent species such as the yellow-bellied glider, sooty owl and powerful owl, and rainforest species such as the rose-crowned fruit dove, red-legged pademelon and wompoo fruit dove. Other threatened fauna that have been recorded include the vulnerable sphagnum frog, square-tailed kite, glossy black cockatoo, koala, eastern long-eared bat and long-nosed potoroo. The block is mapped as a key wildlife habitat, and part of a major regional corridor by the Department of Environment and conservation key habitats and corridors project. It was also identified as part of a centre of endemism for wet forest fauna by the comprehensive regional assessment process.
Logging on private land in the Riverina is used to produce low-value products, mostly sleepers, which produce very poor economic returns. Almost all of the timber goes to Victoria for use as railway sleepers, landscape sleepers or firewood. Victoria is effectively cashing in on the New South Wales Government's failure to regulate private logging in New South Wales, while the people of New South Wales cop the severe environmental impact long into the future. The great majority of river red gum is used to produce low value products, without any value adding and therefore very poor financial returns. The annual volume of river red gum that is being logged in New South Wales is 237,900 cubic metres, which includes 134,900 cubic metres of sawlogs and salvage, and 103,000 cubic metres of residue, which includes firewood. Approximately half of this volume is being logged on private land, amounting to a total of 111,500 cubic metres per annum. Almost all red gum logged on private land is undertaken by mobile sawmills.
Only one permanent mill in New South Wales uses private timber. Most of the red gum timber logged on private land in New South Wales does not contribute to the New South Wales economy, but instead goes to Victoria or South Australia where it is used predominantly for railway sleepers and landscape sleepers. A stand of large, old mugga ironbark trees have just been logged on private land west of Armidale—approx 30 ironbarks in total. Mugga ironbark is a known habitat for the nationally endangered regent honeyeater. The trees are part of one of the recognised key sites for the conservation of this species in New South Wales. One tree was more than 1.3 metres in diameter at base, which, being a slow growing ironbark, indicates that it would be many hundreds of years old. The mugga ironbark is important to the honeyeater because it provides abundant nectar at crucial times of the year when other food sources are scarce. Local bird enthusiasts have been working with landholders to raise awareness of the importance of ironbark for the regent honeyeater. Some landholders in the area have planted ironbarks but the New South Wales Government still has no rules to prevent them from being logged, even when they are a habitat for a nationally endangered species.
I call on the Government to disallow this regulation and make private native forestry subject to the same rules as those applying to farmers and other landholders under the Native Vegetation Act until a code of practice is introduced. The code should be implemented as a matter of priority. I also call on the Government to permanently protect high conservation value forests and woodlands, including mapped rainforest and old growth, waterways, wildlife corridors and rare endangered and vulnerable plant communities. Preserve the last giants—the last remaining trees and logs that are so important for the future survival of hundreds of birds, gliders, possums and reptiles. Save our threatened species. Protect the habitat of threatened species that are harmed by logging or firewood collection, such as the koala, squirrel glider and barking owl. I commend the motion to the House.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Natural Resources, Minister for Primary Industries, and Minister for Mineral Resources) [11.30 a.m.]: The Government opposes the motion moved by Mr Ian Cohen. We have to be very careful with a motion of this type. One could listen to the emotional pleas by the honourable member in relation to certain sections of timber activity across the State, but inherent in what he is suggesting is a great deal of social and economic disconnection for our regional communities. The Government fully appreciates the importance of forestry on private land as a major resource for the native hardwood timber industry. It is also an important source of farm income. The industry based on this resource is estimated to contribute over $95 million per annum to the New South Wales economy.
The wood sourced from private forests directly employs more than 1,800 people in rural New South Wales. It supplies 50 per cent of the timber that is used by the native forest timber industry. It is part of the State's second-largest and most decentralised secondary industry. Nearly every rural town has at least one sawmill. If the motion moved by Mr Ian Cohen is passed, it will stop in excess of 80 per cent of private native forest activity overnight, and will stop the activity of the remaining forests, which are those on State protected land, within three to 12 months. It will have further downstream effects on the economy of New South Wales, in particular in rural New South Wales. Not only will 1,800 people lose their jobs, but the viability of sawmills that have a mixture of private and Crown logs will be put at risk, endangering more workers and small businesses. This in turn will result in higher prices for sawn native timber.
Timber will need to be either imported or sourced from interstate suppliers, thus increasing the cost of home building in an already depressed market. In many instances, it will also have a downstream negative effect by necessitating the importation of hardwood timbers from countries that do not have anywhere near the regulatory framework that Australia has to protect the environment. There would be a global downside if the motion moved by Mr Ian Cohen is passed. At a time of deepening drought in New South Wales, a further $18 million per annum will be taken from the pockets of farmers and rural landholders who use a private native forestry [PNF] as a source of income.
The Government is not gratuitously delaying the introduction of a PNF code. We are working intensively with stakeholders—environmentalists, industry and agencies—to get a good result for the environment and for the practitioners of PNF and reliant businesses. We will not rush the code through for a second-rate result. We are taking a diversity of views into account. Some people are opposed to the code, and we are working through that. We recognise the importance of PNF to many regional areas. I hope that members opposite share my views about its value. At the same time the Government recognises the importance of protecting the vast biodiversity and habitat values that are provided by private forests, particularly rainforests and old-growth forests.
The New South Wales Government has protected high conservation value forests through the creation of national parks. Since 1995 the New South Wales Labor Government has added more than two million hectares to national parks and reserves, bringing the total to more than six million hectares. The Native Vegetation Act 2003 provides for forestry activities on private land while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are put in place in respect of the environment. However, private native forestry is not uncontrolled and is currently subject to a number of additional legislative requirements including the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the Fisheries Management Act 1994, the Rivers and Foreshore Improvement Act 1948, the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 14—Coastal Wetlands, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 26—Littoral Rainforests, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44—Koala Habitat Protection, and the Environment and Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The clearing of native vegetation on State protected land requires an additional approval under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997. The development concept processed under part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is applied to the clearing of State protected land. Such approval is based on the interim best operating standards for private forest harvesting. When the code is introduced, in the majority of cases private native forestry activities will be provided for and regulated through the preparation of a property vegetation plan [PVP] under a private native forestry code of practice. A draft code of practice for private native forestry is being prepared and will be adopted under a regulation made under the Native Vegetation Act 2003.
The code will set out silvicultural requirements to ensure sustainable production from healthy forests in the long term. It will also afford appropriate protection measures for rainforests and old-growth forests. The majority of rainforests and significant areas of old-growth forests are listed as endangered ecological communities under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and, as a consequence, are protected anyway. Unlike previous forestry decisions, the Crown does not own these forests. They are owned by farmers, many of whom are fourth and fifth generation owners and managers of their forests. The code of practice will be a significant step forward for the private native forestry industry, the community and the environment. It will provide industry planning and investment certainty through 15-year consents, with important safeguards for the environment.
For many operators this will be the first time that they have been required to obtain an approval. Under the previous legislation the clearing of native vegetation in a native forest in the course of its being selectively logged on a sustainable basis or managed for forestry purposes generally did not require consent. An important exception to this general exemption is that forestry on State protected land required consent, and still requires consent. When consent is given, conditions are imposed on the operations to protect the environment. To smooth the transition to the new framework the Government has worked intensively with stakeholders to develop a code of practice for private native forestry. This code will set the conditions for granting a property vegetation plan for PNF operations. It will ensure that the industry will be able to operate with minimal disruption and it will ensure that the industry will be able to operate in a sustainable manner.
Until the code is finalised, through the Native Vegetation Regulation 2005 the Government has allowed a transitional period in which forestry operations may occur under the old exemption. It was intended that the code would be completed within six months of the commencement of the Native Vegetation Regulation 2005. This has proved to be ambitious, and a further four months is required to complete the code. Given the diversity of views of the stakeholders and the community—and the very motion we are discussing is evidence of that—the Government is committed to developing a balanced code that protects industry and the environment. For that reason, the Government opposes the motion. The Native Vegetation Amendment (Private Native Forestry) Regulation 2006, which is the subject of the motion for disallowance that has been moved by Mr Ian Cohen, allows an extension of time for the Government to consult with stakeholders and undertake further public consultation before the code takes effect.
The Government is committed to developing arrangements in consultation with farmers, landholders, the timber industry and environmental organisations. I am carefully considering the issue of private native forestry to help to secure a sustainable private forest timber industry while protecting the environment. The net effect of Mr Ian Cohen's motion for disallowance will be to make private native forestry activity illegal. That will endanger the livelihood of many landholders, workers and businesses. This motion is another example of carelessness with the livelihoods of many thousands of workers across New South Wales, particularly in regional New South Wales.
The Native Vegetation Amendment (Private Native Forestry) Regulation 2006, which commenced on 2 June 2006, seeks to extend the transition period by extending the period in which clearing of native vegetation for private native forestry operations may be carried out, under the exemption that was in place under previous legislation. That period is extended to 1 October 2006. This reasonable proposal is intended to provide ongoing certainty for the industry while the final details of how the industry will operate sustainably into the future are resolved. The Government will not be held hostage by a motion such as this to put forward an incomplete code that has not been fully assessed by stakeholders, that does not contain a balanced representation of stakeholder views and that does not protect the environment, community and industry needs. I urge honourable members to oppose the motion for disallowance moved by Mr Ian Cohen.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [11.40 a.m.]: I support the motion. I am very concerned that the Government is doing exactly what it always does. Basically, it does not take a broad view of a situation, and it believes that the sky will fall if the regulation is immediately disallowed. The Government always speaks of a crisis point, of thousands of jobs to be lost, and so on. In Tasmania old-growth forests are logged, and I do not believe that that is in any way sustainable. Trees that have grown for hundreds of years are being chopped down for woodchips, and New South Wales gets a tiny percentage of the value of those trees in chipboard. For every wool suit that is made the farmer whose sheep grew the wool gets 1 per cent of the value of the suit, and the rest goes to someone else, generally not in Australia because most suits are made overseas.
Woodchipping is a low value way of using our trees. The world is running out of hardwood and as a result wood is very valuable. Some time ago my wife was keen to buy a bedhead. We went to a furniture manufacturer whom I had met socially. He made the bedhead from the stump of a tree that grew on a steep slope. It had been chopped off very high because the machine could not cut lower. He chopped off the stump at an angle to obtain the wood. The longest piece was just on six feet, the length of a bed. From that stump, wood products to the value of $7,000 were made. We are throwing away our trees for a song, when even the stumps can be intelligently used in furniture making. Has the Government done anything to value-add to high quality furniture or other manufacturing? With all the talk about diminishing forests, has the Government done anything about it? Did the Minister for Natural Resources mention it in his speech? No, he did not.
We heard the same story of a crisis, that people will lose their jobs, and so on. Inherently there are two environmental standards: one for State forests and one for private forests. And if a forest is not environmentally good enough, tough! Basically, the Government is saying that it does not like having just one environmental standard when two standards can be applied. The Minister said that other countries have worse standards, that our standards are a little better, so it is better to chop down Australian trees rather than Malaysian, Indonesian or Papuan trees. Be that as it may, New South Wales rivers are in a mess, our environment is in a mess and our endangered species are seriously threatened, so we should start doing the right thing at home.
If the disallowance is not agreed to, we revert to the status quo. Each new regulation replaces an existing regulation, so the idea of reverting to the status quo is not the end of the world as suggested by the Government. In terms of value-adding to our hardwoods, on which very little has been done, the Government needs a wake-up call. Again, the Minister did not mention that. He believes that trees should either be chopped down for woodchips or not chopped down at all. Those are the two options the Government always offers. Given the slow growth of hardwood, the idea that the industry is sustainable is severely bent. The price of hardwood is rising because there is a world shortage, and it will run out very soon. I declare an interest. I have shares in a softwood plantation, but I do not believe that is relevant to this matter, which is about hardwood.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.44 a.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party does not support the disallowance motion. We respect private ownership. We cannot expand draconian legislation affecting private property, as happened with the native vegetation legislation that is hurting farmers across the State who are doing the best they can to care for their property as good environmentalists and good farmers. They are still in trouble because of the way that the legislation has been interpreted. We do not want to see any more draconian legislation introduced into this House at the urging of the Greens.
Mr IAN COHEN [11.45 a.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members who participated in this debate, rushed as it was at this stage of the parliamentary sitting. Historically in this House I have voiced my concerns and I am ready again to raise issues about native forest logging, particularly rain forest logging in New South Wales. Private native forestry is uncontrolled. At the 1982 Labor State Convention a former premier of this State said:
If I am to be remembered for anything by future generations, it is the fact that we saved the rain forests of New South Wales.
That was Premier Wran speaking at a time when it was appropriate to make such statements. The New South Wales Labor governments under Premier Wran and Premier Carr were responsible for saving significant areas of rain forests and old-growth forests in New South Wales. However, despite assurances and the quietening down of a very strong campaign, supported by a massive number of people in the community who are hardened conservationists, today on private land in New South Wales rain forests, coachwood and other species are being logged. As the Minister for Natural Resources said, rain forests in this State cannot be logged in a sustainable manner. The rain forests regenerate very slowly. When they are logged, we do not end up with a replacement rain forest.
The highest rate of loss of threatened and endangered species in the world is happening in New South Wales. This State is no Third World country in which people who are desperate to survive are deemed to be allowed to go into a rain forest. This is New South Wales, Australia. It is incumbent on the Government, if it allows logging on private lands, to require that such logging be conducted sustainably and only to the same extent as on public land. However, that is not the case in New South Wales today. The Government cannot have it both ways.
In the past I have supported the restructuring of the industry. The Greens have voted in this House for the allocation of millions of dollars, as suggested by the Government in various rounds of forest protection discussions, to support the workers in the industry so the restructuring can occur. The Greens are on the record as supporting that. We want intelligent, reasonable restructuring so that sustainability can occur in all aspects of the industry. The statement of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile fits well with the content of some of his circulars. He respects the rights of people to do what they like on private land, and this society is very much based on ownership of private land. But the huge majority of people in this State treat their private land with respect in accordance with the laws of the State.
Many people want to develop their land in various ways and to change or modify their environment, and when they do so they respect the laws regarding native vegetation and forest clearing. Developers along the coast have to observe certain laws and go through significant processes before their development is approved and goes ahead. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile said that, somehow, private land ownership gave people the right to destroy the very fabric of our environment.
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: He didn't say that, Ian.
Mr IAN COHEN: Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile did say that.
The Hon. Greg Donnelly: That is rubbish.
Mr IAN COHEN: I heard Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile refer to the right of people to use private land as they saw fit. Some rights are overridden by the laws of this State—laws to which we have to refer whenever we undertake any form of development. I heard Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile say that and I stand by that statement. It is interesting to see the extreme Right in the Government working with the extreme religious Right in this House for some old-fashioned biblical concept—the right to use one's land as one sees fit. That concept is a little outdated. The Government must take into account the pictures that have been taken—
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: You are a socialist.
Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. He called me a socialist because I want to maintain balance and diversity in this State. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is so bereft of argument that he comes up with the old shibboleth of a conservationist being a socialist.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: The red green party.
Mr IAN COHEN: That is about the fifteenth time that creative comment has been made in this House. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile should say that to the 70 per cent of people who want to save the rainforests of this State. He should say that to the massive number of conservationists who want to protect the tiny remnants—and I am talking about 3 per cent—of rainforest and old-growth forest. We have an irreplaceable heritage. The Government must consider implementing the same level of protection that has been implemented for some time in relation to forestry logging processes on public land.
This motion is nothing more than that. I have not made any radical statements. I stand in this House of great conservatism and cop vilification with a sense of pride. Government members should live by their own rules in all areas of this State. They should not make a mockery of this issue. On the one, hand they claim to be great conservationists and, on the other hand, they are allowing unregulated logging of rainforests in this State. I am sure they will say what great conservationist they are in the lead-up to the next election. That is not good enough. The Government has to act now. I thank all honourable members for contributing to debate on this disallowance motion and commend it to the House.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 4
 | Ms Hale
Ms Rhiannon
Tellers,
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Cohen | |
Noes, 28
Mr Breen
Mr Brown
Ms Burnswoods
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Mr Donnelly
Ms Fazio
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher | Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Ms Griffin
Mr Lynn
Mr Macdonald
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Mr Pearce | Ms Robertson
Mr Ryan
Ms Sharpe
Mr Tsang
Mr West
Dr Wong
Tellers,
Mr Harwin
Mr Primrose |
Question resolved in the negative.
Motion negatived.
Pursuant to sessional orders business interrupted.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:32 : Update this page