Senator Brian Greig
Portfolio: Forestry
| Dated: 11 Mar 2002
Location: Parliament House - Canberra
|
Senator Brian Greig speaks to Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2002 - Second Reading |
Senator GREIG (Western Australia) (12.46 p.m.) —We return again to the question of the Regional Forest Agreement, which threatened to raise its ugly head towards the end of the last sitting prior to the election. It was made clear then that both the government and opposition were keen to pursue it and pass it in the New Year and, regrettably, that is likely to happen in the coming days, if not today. But I want to note particularly that when His Excellency Dr Hollingworth officially opened parliament only a matter of weeks ago, he said in his address to the Senate and to senators and members assembled here that one of the things that the third Howard Ministry was keen to do was to address the issue of salinity. I was struck at the time that, at that very moment, at the opening of parliament, when the government was announcing its keenness to address salinity, it was also ensuring that it wanted to progress and pass legislation which significantly contributes to it—that is, the destruction of our native and old-growth forests.
I think salinity is set to be one of the most devastating problems that rural and regional areas around Australia have ever encountered. While the problem may itself be mostly in these regional areas, the effects of salinity and of subsequent soil degradation— either directly or indirectly related to it— affect all of us. If left unaddressed, salinity affected areas in the south and western regions of Australia—that is, excluding Queensland—will increase from 5.7 million hectares to a staggering estimated 17 million hectares within the next 50 years. In my home state of Western Australia, some 630,000 hectares is currently salt affected. At this rate, it is set to rise to around two million hectares over the next 50 years. This means that, in time, more than one-third of my home state's wheatbelt area will be salt affected.
The federal government has acknowledged this situation by including salinity control as an election issue. A recent parliamentary brief on combating salinity confirms that policies aimed at salinity need to be comprehensive and address other degradation issues such as soil erosion, water quality and biodiversity loss, in concert with salinity. In part, this brief says:
When salt stored in soils and/or ground water is mobilised by extra water provided by human activities such as land clearing or irrigation, the resulting rising water tables can bring the salt to the surface causing land salinisation or be discharged into water courses raising river salinities.
The briefing goes on:
Land clearing has had a major impact on dryland salinity. Controls on land clearing are seen as a mechanism to not only protect biodiversity but to prevent the spread of dryland salinity.
The Commonwealth government has obviously realised this and, in response, has called on the Queensland government to implement land clearing controls. Yet, despite this clear and well documented connection between land clearing, soil degradation and salinity, the very first bill that the Commonwealth introduces into the new parliament is this one, designed clearly to commit our native forests to logging. In 1998, the West Australian state government, then under the reign of Premier Richard Court, confirmed that both the Department of Conservation and Land Management, CALM, and the water authority, `had clearly established, by their respective research, that there was a relationship between logging and salinity in the forests of the south-west of the state.' In 1999, a standing committee report on ecologically sustainable development showed that the Environmental Protection Authority, EPA, found:
...the WA community was worried about the increased intensity of harvesting in the jarrah-marri forest because of the potential salinity impacts.
The report goes on to note that the EPA identified the major issue of concern from over 4,000 submissions on the issue was:
... increased intensity of harvesting in the jarrah-marri forest with potential salinity and other impacts.
The findings of this report, in the chapter relating specifically to salinity, provide clear reasons why the Commonwealth is negligent in leaving the decisions relating to forest management to the states. Among the findings is the clear disregard by the WA state government of EPA recommendations and assessments about logging practices in salt risk zones, and clear conflicts of interest between CALM in conservation and resource utilisation. Yet, instead of immediately stopping wood chipping in all native forests and calling for an immediate end to logging in old-growth and high conservation value native forests, the Commonwealth government has again introduced the Regional Forest Agreement which guarantees access to native forests for logging, while protecting specific areas of wilderness and old growth forests in reserves.
I take this opportunity to remind the Senate of the Democrats dissenting report coming out of the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiry into the RFA Bill 1998. We said:
1. The RFA process fails to resolve one of the most long running and contentious issues facing the nation
2. The RFA process fails to deliver on jobs for impoverished and vulnerable rural areas
3. The RFA process unfairly discriminates against the plantation industry
4. The RFA process will destroy many areas of native forests including old growth areas and fails to protect Australia's biodiversity contrary to an international agreement
5. The RFA process discriminates unfairly against other important cultural values and social and economic benefits provided for by native forest areas
6. The RFA process will be mostly controlled by State governments who have vested or financial short term interests in the outcomes thereby leading to positions of conflict of interest
The RFA process raises constitutional issues and poses potential legal and financial difficulties on the Commonwealth and the taxpayer.
That situation remains unchanged, as does the Democrats resolve to oppose this bill. Mr Acting Deputy President, as you may be aware, previous Premier Richard Court's coalition government lost the last election in my home state, and the Labor Party based its entire campaign around the protection and preservation of old-growth forests if it won government—and it did win government. But, despite the state Labor Party winning on that promise of ending logging in old-growth forests, we now find that the federal Labor Party is pledging its support to the Howard government's RFA legislation, which will result in massive subsidies to logging companies which destroy Australia's old-growth forests.
If this legislation is successful here in this place, it will mean that the state RFAs will be legally binding. This raises serious questions about the process through which the state RFAs have been devised. For example, only after the Western Australian RFA was signed by all parties was it revealed that one-third of the reserve system—which, of course, was meant to be old-growth and high conservation value forests—comprised rubbish tips, gravel pits, weeds, a water storage tank and a cleared catchment area. The then Court government's pre-RFA hard-sell advertising campaign claimed that the agreement would protect more than a million hectares of forests from logging—but, of course, there would be no need to log sand dunes, swamps and rocky outcrops. One area described as old-growth forest was later revealed to be 700 hectares of cleared farmland on Agriculture WA's Mount Barker research station. This grossly inadequate forest reserve system only increased public concerns over logging of our native forests and served to further undermine public confidence in the entire RFA process.
This bill is nothing more, I think, than a ticket for the Commonwealth to abdicate its responsibility to the states for the care and protection of our old-growth and native forests. Western Australia's RFA bears witness to the appalling situation that can arise when hard fought-for environmental safeguards are ignored. Parliament cannot continue to ignore public opinion by passing this bill. RFAs are designed to seal the fate of forests for some 20 years. Given how precious little old-growth forest is left, it is amazing that such a far-reaching and important environmental decision can be taken so flippantly. The future of the industry, of the forests and of future generations deserve a much more carefully considered approach. But, when it comes to forests, the government moves in mysterious ways. Mr Wilson Tuckey, until recently minister for forests, has steadfastly refused to release Commonwealth funding that has been specifically set aside for the restructuring of timber towns in Western Australia. Of the $15 million that has been earmarked for the restructuring of WA timber towns, only $136,000 has thus far been spent—and this is outrageous.
Our old-growth forests are worth much more to the community, to the state, to the country and, indeed, to the world if they are left standing. The spectacle of an ancient forest far outweighs the short-term financial gain of letting it go and cutting it down. In closing I would like to quote from a memo received today—I think it was sent to all parliamentarians, including me—from the Wilderness Society. In it they have summarised in 10-point fashion the key reasons, with which I concur, why this legislation should be opposed. The Wilderness Society argues, and the Democrats agree that:
1. Forest types identified under Tasmanian RFA as requiring 100 per cent reservation are being cleared for plantation establishment.
2. Areas in Victoria and Tasmania identified as being part of the RFA forest reserve system have not been reserved and have instead been logged. This is grounds for the Commonwealth to terminate an RFA.
3. The Tasmanian RFA is being subverted to allow the highest proportional rate of land clearing in Australia, using Commonwealth money! Up to 640,000 hectares of native forest may be permanently cleared in Tasmania under arrangements which directly subvert the intention of the RFA.
4. The RFAs have not provided the promised job security, hundreds of jobs have been lost from this unsustainable industry.
5. In Victoria and Tasmania the total hectares logged and total hectares clearfelled has increased each year following the signing of the RFAs. These increases have never been subjected to any form of environmental assessment. Europe has abandoned clearfelling on the grounds that it is unsustainable and the practice is being phased out in North America for the same reason.
6. Victoria, NSW and Tasmania continue to violate the pre-cautionary principle by logging irreplaceable old growth forests.
7. Export woodchip production has increased by 30%.
8. Post RFA projects which would further increase the amount of forest logged each year (for charcoal production and electricity generation) are exempt from environmental assessment.
9. The native forest logging industry is the only industry in Australia exempt from Commonwealth environmental requirements (the EPBC Act). This is yet another example of the anticompetitive arrangements available to this cosseted industry to the disadvantage of the largely private sector reafforestation and plantation based alternatives.
10. The RFA Bill does not provide the native forest logging industry with resource security. Victoria is poised to dramatically reduce the amount of sawlogs available to the logging industry because levels approved by the Commonwealth under five Victorian RFAs have recently been found to be unsustainable.
In closing, I reiterate the Australian Democrats vehement objection to any logging of old growth forests and our great passion for preserving them rather than destroying them. We oppose this legislation.
|
|
