Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, together with the Hansardrecord of proceedings and documents presented to the committee and move that the report be printed.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I am pleased to speak today on the findings of the inquiry into the Abbott government's plan to delist 74,000 hectares of wilderness forest from the World Heritage area in my home state of Tasmania. I would like to thank everyone who took the time to make a submission, especially those who appeared before the committee. I would also like to thank the secretariat for their time, effort and wise advice, especially environment and communications committee secretary, Christine McDonald, and research officer Sophie Power.

My home state of Tasmania has been dogged by deep divisions over seemingly irreconcilable aims of protecting the environment and supporting forestry for decades. But 2012 saw an important and very welcome change in the landscape. The timber processors agreed, the environmental groups agreed, the unions agreed, the forest contractors agreed, the community agreed and the industry agreed: the division simply could not continue.

With the unflagging brokerage of members of both state and federal Labor governments, an agreement was designed and all parties finally agreed to work together in good faith on a long lasting plan to heal the generations-old rifts over logging in our forests.

In November 2012, these divisions came to an end with the historic signing of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement by 11 key stakeholder group representatives. This agreement laid out the path for a sustainable industry—one that could co-exist in harmony with greater protection for significant areas of native forest. It is hard to overstate what a significant event this was for Tasmania. Finally, there was peace. The protests stopped. The 'forest wars', as we all came to know them, were over.

Since then Tasmanian timber businesses have been reporting that certainty is returning, confidence is growing and business is looking good. But in September last year, that certainty was destroyed when the Abbott government announced its plan to excise 75,000 hectares of Tasmanian World Heritage listed forests which had only been added the previous year as a key part of the forest peace deal.

Importantly, the 2013 World Heritage area increase was also supported by the World Heritage Committee, which had repeatedly requested heritage protection for more of Tasmania's native forests. The Abbott government relied on three justifications for their action—all of which were found by the inquiry to be short-sighted, if not blatantly untrue. Firstly, they assert the area they want to delist is degraded and not worthy of protection.

During hearings, witnesses described these claims as 'incorrect', 'grossly overstated' and 'blatantly misleading, if not downright dishonest'. Again and again, witnesses asserted the vast majority of the 74,000 hectares is in no way degraded. Many argue that more than 90 per cent of the excision area has high conservation values and has not been logged.

We also heard the amount of plantation is negligible or around eight to 10 hectares of the 74,000 hectares proposed for excision. Tellingly, Department of the Environment representatives agreed when questioned that only four per cent of the area could be described as heavily disturbed.

In this context, it is not surprising that the government did not include specific information in their submission to the World Heritage Committee as there is simply no evidence that they could call on to back up their claims. It is true: small pockets of this type were included in the initial World Heritage area but for very sensible reasons of ecological connectivity and contiguous boundaries which are entirely consistent with World Heritage practice.

The second reason put forward by the Abbott government to remove areas from the World Heritage area was to 'deliver economic and social outcomes and invigorate the forestry industry.' Sadly, and more than a little ironically, it is this government's cavalier excision plan that is likely to do more damage to the forestry industry than they can possibly imagine.

We have heard in media reports comments from timber businesses, industry groups, unions and workers that they wanted the peace deal retained and that to rip it up could plunge Tasmania back into the dark old days of the so-called forest wars. Not only that but this would place a pall over the entire Tasmanian timber industry by threatening vital certification from the Forest Stewardship Council.

During the inquiry the committee heard again and again that customers simply will not buy wood that comes with such a bitter legacy. As one witness pointed out:

… there is nothing more certain to scare customers away from Tasmanian forest products than the delisting of areas that are currently in the Tasmanian wilderness World Heritage area and the starting up of logging there. That is going to send an appalling message internationally to the markets who are looking for … controversy-free timber.

The government also mentioned the specialty timbers industry, which is concerned the forest peace deal unfairly affected them. And of course, nobody wants to see specialty timbers lose out. However, the committee heard evidence from one of the key signatories that there are ways for this industry to be accommodated without placing the peace deal in jeopardy. As a result, the committee recommends the government undertake the specialty timbers management plan to determine the best way of meeting the needs of this very important industry without delisting tens of thousands of hectares of pristine wilderness.

The final main reason the government had used to justify the excision was an allegation that the 2013 extension was rushed and its outcome invalid. And, yet again, the government do not have facts on their side. Under questioning from the committee, the environment department itself described the 2013 independent verification process as 'extremely detailed' and 'thorough'. The committee also heard from many witnesses that the five months process included input from multiple independent experts and included detailed mapping and peer review.

One member of the Independent Verification Group, Professor Brendan Mackey, told the committee that the IVG undertook 'the most comprehensive, regional-scaled environment and heritage forest evaluation ever undertaken in Australia'. This stands in stark contrast to the process undertaken for the 2014 delisting, where the environment department were given only a few weeks to prepare the dossier for the World Heritage Committee.

Many submitters and submissions expressed shock at the scant nature of the Abbott government's submission. Witnesses pointed out that 'No statistics or maps pertaining to the 'logged/degraded areas' are provided. No arguments of substance are advanced. Key issues are ignored. No back-up materials in the form of references, illustrations or appendices are provided.'

When questioned, departmental representatives admitted that not only had they not undertaken independent scientific or heritage expert peer review as they had in 2013 but they had not even visited the site to determine the truth of the government's claim.

Similarly, there was no community consultation and the department did not even have access to Forestry Tasmania's maps. In fact, they were relying ironically on exactly the same data that convinced the World Heritage Committee of the outstanding universal value of the land in 2013. This makes it awkward and highly embarrassing for the government to ask the World Heritage Committee to use exactly the same data to come to exactly the opposite conclusion in 2014.

So not only is the Abbott government's plan completely devoid of substantial justification, not only does it threaten Tasmania's economic future, not only does it cast a dark shadow over our tourism industry but it also threatens Australia's international reputation. In hearings a witness voiced his concerns that:

... a proposal as threadbare and lacking in factual information and as oblivious to World Heritage values as the proposal before it this time will bring Australia into disrepute at that international level.

Similarly, the Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices submitted that the 2014 proposal 'may be construed as insulting' because 'the clear implication would be that the Australian Government believes the Committee got it wrong in 2013'. Others pointed to the excision as a breach of Australia's international treaty obligations, especially the World Heritage Convention, which requires Australia to protect the cultural and natural heritage within its territory.

In light of all this evidence the committee had little choice but to recommend that the government immediately withdraw its application to the World Heritage Committee. The 2013 process was a thorough and important process to provide World Heritage listing to an area that not only possesses— (Time expired)

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the recommendations that the environment committee of the Australian Senate has made—namely, that the government withdraw its proposal to excise 74,000 hectares from the Tasmanian World Heritage Wilderness Area and withdraw that submission from consideration by the World Heritage Committee; and, secondly, that the Australian government act in accordance with what the World Heritage Committee has previously asked, and that is that the money and the work be undertaken to assess the cultural values of the area that was extended in 2013.

I wholeheartedly endorse those and I thank the 114 people who made submissions to the inquiry and the 9,000 people who sent emails in support of a position that said they supported the World Heritage Committee's decision to expand the boundary in 2013 and rejected any idea that it would be excised. I stand here today to also thank the chair of the committee, Senator Lin Thorp, and also the secretariat, who did an outstanding job in assessing the submissions and working on the report.

What came out of this report was what we already knew, and that is that after many years of the World Heritage Committee asking the Australian government as a state party to the World Heritage Convention to include the forests of Tasmania—the outstanding universal values provided by those forests, the glacial history of Tasmania, the cultural history of Tasmania, the karst systems—in the World Heritage area. The reason they were never put in in the first place was purely because the logging industry wanted to log those high-conservation-value forests. I can tell you that, Acting Deputy President Bernardi, because I was in the Tasmanian parliament at the time. It was 1989 when the expanded World Heritage area was being negotiated. It was the then Labor Premier, Michael Field, and the then member for Lyons, David Llewellyn, who intervened to prevent the forests being included. The then federal minister, Graham Richardson, would have included them at the time, but the state Labor Party refused. What they did was draw the most ridiculous boundary, the eastern boundary, that looked like dogs teeth. They drew the boundary to make sure that they excluded the brilliant and beautiful forested valleys of the rivers as they went along the eastern boundary and across the Great Western Tiers. That is why the forests were excluded in the first place—not because of any doubt about their World Heritage values but because the logging industry wanted to log them.

So this has been a campaign to have these forests listed as World Heritage for more than the last 25 years. I can tell you that there was widespread celebration when the World Heritage Committee in 2013 accepted the boundary extension that included the forests, the karst systems but also actually made the boundary a sensible, rational boundary for management of the World Heritage area. The World Heritage Committee new when it accepted the boundary that there was some areas of degraded forest within it, but a very small area, and asked that the Australian government restore those areas, as is the obligation of a state party under the World Heritage Convention.

The point is that the extended area did not just include outstanding forests but indeed the values of those forests. As Dr Peter Hitchcock explained to the committee, the tall eucalypt forests in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area should not be seen as simply patches of different pieces of forest disjunct; they are in fact part of a continuum up the eastern boundary which takes in the full altitudinal range from near sea level at the bay to more than 1,000 metres in the Upper Derwent. It is a corridor of forest and you simply cannot take out pieces without having a serious impact on the integrity of those values. And that is what was being proposed by the Abbott government.

Furthermore, the submissions also indicated—and one in particular from Dr Kevin Kiernan—that the areas proposed for delisting contained numerous important attributes and values that make important contributions to the integrity of the outstanding universal values which make up the World Heritage area. It is not just the very important tall important eucalypt forests, because they have been front and centre of the whole exercise, but a range of other important features such as karst, caves, glacial features, threatened species and threatened communities.

So what the committee established is that the evidence is overwhelming. There was an independent verification group who recommended to the Australian government areas to be included—that was peer-reviewed. Compare that with the decision of the Australian government to excise the 74,000 hectares. And what I can tell you about that was that the area to be excised is based on no consultation outside the department and no peer review. It is based on saying that the degraded areas actually detract from the outstanding universal values. The World Heritage Committee knew that they were there. In fact, taking out these areas will compromise some of the outstanding universal values of the area—not just forested but also karst systems, for example.

As to the objections from the adjoining landholders and communities, that is ridiculous. For the overwhelmingly large area of boundary, the neighbour is Forestry Tasmania, and it supported the expanded boundary. On several occasions, the department was asked to identify these adjoining owners, and it has been unable to do so to date. So the objections from adjoining landholders seem to be an interesting assertion without evidence.

On social and economic reasons, you do not destroy areas of outstanding universal value because you want to log the areas. That is now the blatant and obvious conclusion to make. The department gave evidence to say that following the election, they got a directive from cabinet to deliver a political outcome, a political promise in an election campaign. It has nothing to do with the World Heritage values of the area. It was a total con that was put forward by the federal government. The reason for doing so was to try to win seats in the federal election and the Tasmanian state election. It was all about domestic politics and nothing to do with outstanding universal values, as was concluded by this report. There was virtually no evidence provided. Most of the protagonists did not appear before the Senate committee, because they do not have the evidence. The department actually gave that evidence itself by saying that the assertion that the 74,000 hectares was degraded is wrong. In fact, only four per cent of the 74,000 hectares would come into that category. The department gave that evidence and what it shows is that the whole proposition is highly political.

My final point in regard to this is to urge the World Heritage Committee to understand that the Senate committee charged with investigating this has found that the government has no case for excision and has asked the government to withdraw it, recognising that what the government has done is purely political, came from political operatives and has no support in terms of science or World Heritage.

Finally, this cannot be allowed to proceed because it will set a precedent globally at the World Heritage Committee level. This precedent would suggest that any country, at a change of government, can seek to destroy a World Heritage area in order to log it, mine it, put a resort on it or do whatever they want to do—and that is unacceptable. I urge the World Heritage Committee to see this for what it is. As we have demonstrated with this report, it is political and it should be thrown out and not even given further consideration.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make a contribution to the report presented by the Environment and Communications References Committee. My first point is to refute what Senator Milne has just put before the chamber. It needs to be remembered that the Greens are an anti-forest industry party. Their primary objective is to destroy the forest industry in Tasmania. That has been proven by their actions over a long period of time. It surprises me that the Labor Party have not learned their lesson and continue to align themselves with the Greens political party in this report.

Despite the accusations of Senator Milne, we know that this whole process was a political process. This whole extension was a political process put in place by former minister Tony Burke, who walked into the Tasmanian Legislative Council and said, 'I don't know whether I will actually go ahead with an application for an extension', and walked out the door to a press conference where he announced it. This was one of the most dishonest acts of this whole dishonest process, this whole sham forest deal process that was inflicted on the people of Tasmania by the Greens and the Labor Party. This was the politicisation of a corporate deal that was done behind the doors between the Greens and Gunns, and then put into a political process and imposed on the people of Tasmania. It is an absolute disgrace.

Senator Milne talks about the lack of science around this process. But let us remember that the Greens are an anti-science party; they are an anti-industry party; they are an anti-people party. So let us remember those things to start with. Let us look at the real science around this. The wilderness report done in Tasmania by the Tasmanian government in 2003 does not include these areas. In 2008, the World Heritage Commission came out here on a special mission in response to allegations by the Greens that forest activities outside the then wilderness World Heritage boundaries were diminishing that wilderness. They said that these areas did not need to be included and that the forestry activities were not diminishing the values.

Now the Greens say that those areas that they were then claiming had been destroyed by forestry activities should now be included because they have wilderness World Heritage values. They cannot have it both ways. They always try to have it both ways. They said when the forests were being logged that they were being destroyed forever. Now they are saying that they can be repaired. How are they going to repair them? Using exactly the same methods that the forest industry would have used to regenerate them. The hypocrisy that we see in the arguments is quite astounding.

The World Heritage Commission should take note of the reasonable submission that has been put in by the Australian government. It should take note of the dissenting report in respect of this submission, because it is well founded. It is well founded on their own facts and information.

Debate interrupted.