170. Summary of Report of the Senate Committee of Enquiry in the Regional Forest Agreements

Hearings Melkbourne 1,2/2/99, evening hearing 16/2/99 in Canberra.

Thnaks submitters, and Bills Digest by Parliamentary Library Inf. Service.

National Forest Policy Statement. Conservation, Wood Production and Industry Development, Integrated and Coordinated Decision Making & Management, Private Native Forests, Plantations, Water Supply and Catchment Management, Tourism and other economic and social opportunities , Employment, workforce education and training, Public awareness, education and involvement, Research and development, International responsibilities.

Statements from Commonwealth Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Wilson Tuckey, Mr Peter Yuile, First Assistant Secretary, Fisheries and Forestry Industries Division, Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, NAFI, Harris-Daishowa (HAD), Forest Industries Federation of WA, Forest Protection Society (FPS),
 
 

RFAs and confidence in the forest estate, comments from Tasmanian State Office of the Forest Protection Society, Minister Tuckey, Southern Tablelands NSW Branch of the Friends of the Earth, Native Forest Network, Southern Hemisphere, Mr Robert Pearce (for RFAs), Professor Harry Recher (critical of JANIS), Alan McMahon (scientific assessments incomplete), Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia,
 
 

Terminal of RFAs. Environmental Defenders Office in Tasmania (critical), Forest Protection Society (on security), Senator Shayne Murphy (security), Mr Paul Lennon, Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure, Energy and

Resources in Tasmania (security), Mr Geoff Law of Tasmania, Ms Patricia Townsend of the WA State Office of the Forest Protection Society, Busselton-Dunsborough Environment Centre in Western Australia (critical), Ms Judith Clarke stressed the importance of plantations to the creation of employment, Keith Kessell of Bunnings Forest Products.

RFAs and compensation. Conservation Council of Western Australia, Amcor Green Shareholders Strategy Committee, National Council of Women of Australia (critical), NAFI, FPS, Forest Industries Federation of WA, Allen Grant, Assistant Secretary, Forest Assessment Branch of the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Review of RFAs. WA Forest Alliance recommended "a judicial review of all RFAs in place" , Aboriginal Legal Service of WA (ALSWA) (critical on review), Dr Ian Crawford of WA (critical on monitoring), Heather Whitelk (critical on science & scrutiny), North Forest Products (concern over proposed amendment),

Review of RFAs - Committee view. 4.46 The Committee considers that an annual review of the operations of RFA'sRFAs during the first 5 years of operation should be made public. 4.47 To make the process of review of RFA operations more transparent, and more available to the public, the Committee recommends that annual reports of the operation of RFAs for the first 5 years of the period of an RFA be tabled in the Parliament to allow both public and Parliamentary scrutiny of RFA operations.
 
 

Freedom from other Acts. Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and its related administrative procedures, and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. Tasmanian State Office of the Forest Protection Society, Boral Timber, WA Forest Alliance, Aboriginal Legal Service of WA, Otway Ranges Environment Network,

Freedom from export controls. NAFI, Forest Industries Federation of WA, Friends of the Earth branch in the Southern Tablelands of NSW.

Transfer of powers to States. Forest Campaign Group, Christopher Tipler of the Otway Ranges Environment Network, Aboriginal Legal Service of WA, Allen Grant of the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Interaction of Commonwealth and State environmental legislation.
 
 

Support for the Bill. Forestry Committee of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, Queensland Timber Board, Emeritus Professor E P Bachelard of the Australian National University, Forest Protection Society, Forest Industries Association of Tasmania, Tasmanian State Office of the Forest Protection Society, Dr Ross Florence of the Australian National University.

Social and economic importance of RFAs. Dr Ross Florence, Senator Shayne Murphy, Ian Whyte, Chief Executive of the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania.

Benefits of the Bill. Tasmanian State Office of the Forest Protection Society, Harris-Daishowa.

Public benefit. National Association of Forest Industries, Mr Whyte of the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania, Wide Bay Branch of the Forest Protection Society.

Victoria. Victorian Association of Forest Industries. Tasmania. Minister Paul Lennon.

Support Bill with amendments. Tasmanian branch of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) (Needs industry delveloment plan, Priority for local user over exports), Wood and Paper Industry Council proposed to give voice to local producers.
 
 

Mr Corr's opinion (dated

February 1998), a submission from Mr Corr which addressed the Bill, in light of his

February 1998 opinion, an opinion prepared for the National Association of Forest

Industries Limited by Mr Pat Brazil, AO, (dated April 1998) on Mr Corr's 1998 opinion, an

opinion prepared for the Committee by the Office of General Counsel in the Commonwealth

Attorney-General's Department (dated 12 February 1999). In addition, the Committee heard

evidence from Mr Corr, Mr Brazil and the author of the Attorney-General's opinion to the

Committee, Mr G Witynski, at its hearing on 16 February 1999.Mr Corr reached

10 conclusions in respect of the Tasmanian RFA. They are:
 
 

1.The Agreement is a statement of intent only and has no legal effect.

2.The Agreement cannot bind Parliament or fetter the exercise of executive power.

3.The Agreement cannot override any statutory obligations contained in legislation.

4.In particular, the Australian Heritage Commission is still obliged to carry out its statutory functions regardless of any statements or implications contained in the Agreement.

5.The declarations in the Agreement that the obligations of the Commonwealth under the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 have been met are of no legal effect.

6.The Export Control (Hardwood Wood Chips) (1996) Regulations and the Export Control (Regional forest Agreements) (1997) Regulations are invalid to the extent that they attempt to incorporate material contrary to the provisions of section 49A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

7.Any scheme of arrangement, either under primary legislation or regulation, which provides for a discriminatory regime between one State and another is inconsistent with section 99 of the Constitution and, therefore, invalid to the extent that they do so.

8.The Export Control (Hardwood Wood Chips) (1996) Regulations and the Export Control (Regional Forest Agreements) (1997) Regulations and the Tasmanian RFA are such an agreement and are consequently invalid.

9.Part 4 of the Export Control (Hardwood Wood Chips) (1996) Regulations is invalid.

10.The Export Control (Regional Forest Agreements) (1997) Regulations are invalid.

Mr Brazil reaches the following conclusions:

1.As to the view in particular that, as Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) were not in force or in existence at the time the Export Control (Hardwood Wood Chips) (1996) Regulations (the 1996 Regulations) and the Export Control (Regional Forest Agreements) (1997) Regulations (the 1997 Regulations) were promulgated, the exemption from export wood chip licences contained in those Regulations does not apply to exports from the areas covered by RFAs - This view is misconceived and wrong.

2.As to the view that the unfettering of wood chip exports in places where an RFA applies is unconstitutional because it "discriminates" between one State and another in matters of trade contrary to Section 99 of the Constitution - The Opinion concedes that a contrary view can be argued. Also, it does not consider a number of other matters that would have to be dealt with in making a successful constitutional challenge.

3.As to the view that the Tasmanian RFA is only a statement of intent with no legal effect - This is partially but not wholly correct.

4.As to the view that the Tasmanian RFA cannot bind either current governments or future governments - This is clearly wrong, so far as the RFA is intended to be binding, but supporting legislation on some aspects would be desirable.

5.As to the view that Federal environment laws, including the Australian Heritage Commission, Endangered Species, and Environment Protection Acts still apply despite contrary statements in the RFA - The RFA could not, and did not, disapply them. The complaint in the Corr Opinion is really about decisions under those Acts that are referred to in the RFA. Those decisions stand unless and until they are successfully challenged.

Opinion of the Office of General Counsel, Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department.

Elizabeth Ingham, East Gippsland, , (It is my submission that the laws of this country were broken, and deliberately so, in order to avoid a reduction in clear-felling.) Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries - Australia (refuation of Ingham's view. Relevant case still before courts (Randwick City Council and Woollahra Municipal Council v Minister for the Environment and Minister for Transport and Regional Development [1998] 1376 FCA (3 November 1998)(an appeal has been lodged in the Randwick City Council case against the judgment of Finn J and is due to be heard on 18 February by the Full Federal Court).
 
 
 
 

Enactment of the Bill is essential to resource security and environmental protection regimes. The Committee concludes that the RFA Bill should be passed by the Senate unamended.

Future review and scrutiny of RFAs. The Committee concludes that annual reports on the operation of RFAs for the first 5 operational years of the period of each RFA be tabled in the Parliament.

Wood and Paper Industry Council. Committee recommends setting up the council to facilitate better forest management and developing value adding industry.
 
 

Recommendations

The Committee recommends that the RFA Bill should be passed unamended by the Senate.

The Committee recommends that annual reports of the operation of RFAs for the first 5 years of the period of an RFA be tabled in the Parliament.

The Committee recommends the Government establish the Wood and Paper Industry Council.

The Committee recommends that, after each RFA is completed and signed by the Prime Minister and respective State Premier, or their nominee, that the RFA be tabled in the Commonwealth Parliament.

The Committee recommends that the Government request the Australian Bureau of Statistics in compiling its annual survey of employment to compile comprehensive employment information for each RFA region regarding the number of people employed directly and indirectly in the following categories:

natural forest areas

plantation forest areas (public and private)

tourism industry

service industry

other industries operating within each RFA region.
 
 

Senator Winston Crane Chairman 25 February, 1999
 
 

Minority Report Senators Forshaw, O'Brien and Murphy.

The Opposition Senators on the Committee do not concur with all the conclusions and recommendations in the Committee's report on the Bill.

Opposition Senators intend presenting a detailed minority report to the Senate on the Bill which will address the following issues

a) the adequacy of the current mechanisms to allow the Parliament to address and review the adequacy of future Regional Forest Agreements

b) the need to ensure that any removal or exemption of RFA areas from the protection of current Commonwealth environmental and heritage legislation by the Bill only occur with proper regard to the quality and protection afforded by individual RFAs

c) the need for the Bill and RFA's to comply with the principles and commitments of the National Forest Policy Statement and the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy

d) the need to establish a wood and paper industry council
 
 

Dissenting Report Senators Woodley and Bartlett.

The Democrats particular concerns with the Regional Forests Agreements process and legislation can be summarised as follows:

1.The RFA process fails to resolve one of the most long running and contentious issues to face 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.

7.The RFA process raises constitutional issues and poses potential legal and financial difficulties on the Commonwealth and the taxpayer
 
 

Conclusions

It has unfortunately become clear that the Government has focussed on propping up a declining industry while inhibiting a growing plantation industry. The RFA legislation will:-

Fail to prevent job losses in the favoured sector

Inhibit jobs growth in other sectors

Destroy areas of ecological importance

Discriminate unfairly against other industries and values

Limit a developing industry sector

Provide complex legal uncertainty

Entrench RFA agreements that are flawed

Expose the commonwealth to potentially unlimited and in some cases unjustified

compensation

Fail miserably in its stated goal of implementing the NFPS

Fail miserably in resolving community, political and industry conflict over

Australia's native forests.

Fail miserably in embracing the aspirations of Indigenous people from areas under

an RFA

Misdirect government subsidies to prop up a flawed process
 
 

Recommendations
 
 

That for all of the reasons listed the Democrats believe the RFA legislation is not ready for parliament at this stage. The legislation should be set aside until a genuine RFA process has been negotiated and until legal inconsistencies are evaluated and resolved.

The Democrats cannot support this legislation at this time with so much uncertainty attached to it , with its destructive job effects, its destructive effects on valuable native forest areas, its drain on the public purse and the potential for open ended compensation claims, and the unusual protection of decision making from review or scrutiny for extraordinary periods.

We further recommend that in any new deliberations on RFA's Governments note the positive contribution made by the WA Forest Alliance who submitted an alternative way the RFA process should operate [31]. Governments would be well advised to examine this closely as we believe it is a genuine, positive, and comprehensive contribution that would avoid many of the serious problems about the bill raised in the committee and public process.

The Democrats would support a full references committee inquiry into the Australia's forests and view favourably Senator Shayne Murphy's terms of reference as an appropriate starting point for committee negotiations.

Should RFA legislation ever be passed by the Senate the Democrats believe each RFA be laid before both Houses of Parliament and made a disallowable instrument.

We further recommend that when the process is re-examined and when RFA legislation is put before Parliament that this bill not be subject to any exemptions from any commonwealth environment legislation under any circumstances.

Signed Senator John Woodley Member

Senator Andrew Bartlett Participating Member 24 February, 1999
 
 

Dissenting Report Senator Brown.

It is really the demands of the overseas pulp and paper companies that are ruling the show. Yes, I know you do not like to hear this, but we have got to call a spade a spade, and I do not think this committee should be giving precedence to the profit margins of overseas pulp and paper companies at the expense of the Australian environment. It is a deceptive gain. There is clearly some collusion between the woodchip industry and the government, and I just wonder why we keep rolling out the red carpet and licking the Asian pulp and paper companies in order to do this.
 
 

This whole RFA process is really a devil in a dinner suit, and I think people who are actually looking at this and are going to make the decision to continue this RFA bill—it is just corrupt. It just has to be swindlers and mercenaries; that's all I can say. It is a sham. It has got to be slammed through quick smart. You wonder why that is happening as well. And when you look at who fills the coffers of the political parties who are really making these decisions, well, you have to wonder also what other secret deals and incestuous links there are. (Evidence, Jill Redwood, prize-winning environmentalist)
 
 

This Bill and the Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) which it understraps are based on eight demonstrably wrong assertions. These are –

1.RFAs will create jobs

2.RFAs will bring peace in our time to the forests

3.RFAs usher in ecologically sustainable logging

4.RFAs mean security for conservation

5.RFAs serve Aboriginal interests

6.RFAs are visionary

7.RFAs have no prudent or feasible alternative

8.RFAs are in the public interest
 
 

1. Jobs have been lost where RFAs have been implemented

Evidence to the Committee showed Australia's volume of wood production (including from plantations) increasing over the last decade, while thousands of jobs have been lost.

Since Prime Minister Howard signed the Tasmanian RFA in November 1997, at least 240 industry workers have lost their jobs. The Burnie pulp mill was closed and AMCOR, instead of using Tasmanian woodchips, has begun importing its wood fibre from Indonesia. The ships bringing in Indonesian woodchip pulp berth alongside the ships exporting Tasmanian native forest woodchips and plantation logs (that is, jobs) to Japan.

Millions of tonnes of sawlog-quality wood which are needed to assure downstream processing for Australia's future in job-rich industries such as furniture-making, boat-building , housing and crafts, have been exported, and continue to be exported, as woodchips.

Australia's largest woodchip installation, North's mill at Hampshire south of Burnie, employs 10 operators to supervise its computers. Against the wishes of Burnie City Council, North (the biggest woodchipping multinational in the southern hemisphere) is installing a third woodchip mountain on the Burnie docks. The second mountain is fine rainforest woodchips -- an export sanctioned by the RFA but which Australia had banned until this decade.

…There are some people making some very large and lucrative profits out of the woodchip industry. Whilst the RFA has been negotiated in Tasmania, it was a sawmill driven industry with woodchips as a residue by-product. It is no longer the case. Tasmania is now a woodchip driven industry with some sawlog as a by-product. (Evidence, Mike Grey, CFMEU).

In Western Australia, jarrah is being exported as woodchips to Saudi Arabia for use as charcoal in a silicone smelter. In the case of the marri forest, arguably the most beautiful timber, out of 457 000 cubic metres 99 percent ended up as woodchips, 0.4 percent structural timber and 0.04 percent value-added sawntimber (Evidence, Peter Robertson, WA Forest Alliance).
 
 

The RFAs have ignored plantations and focused almost exclusively on the job-shedding native forest industry, 60% of which is turned into woodchips for export.

The RFAs make no requirement of anyone to create downstream processing or jobs in Australia.

2. Far from peace in the forests, the RFAs have been followed by demonstrations and bitter opposition

Business consultant, Mr Chris Tipler, representing the Otway Ranges Environment Network in Victoria, was asked whether the Regional Forest Agreements will produce peace in our forests in our time. He replied -- I can respond in relation to the Otways. All I can say, based on very direct experience is that, if a RFA is put in place in the western region which resembles the sorts of RFAs that we have now in other areas, then you will simply see open war.

This sentiment was echoed by every environmental group before the Committee. Forest protests are occurring in all states where RFAs have been implemented or are being drawn up. Hundreds of citizens have been arrested. The RFAs are giving rise to bitter ongoing community hostility because they implement the logging companies' wishes, against the popular Australian aspiration to protect natural forests. All opinion polls show that a majority of Australians oppose woodchipping of the nation's remaining wild forests. The most recent polls in Western Australia show this majority increasing.

That the Committee, having advertised its inquiry just three days before Christmas with a closing date of 22 January 1999, nevertheless received 371 submissions, overwhelmingly opposed to the Bill, is further evidence of the strength of community frustration and anger.

Even on its own terms, the Bill fails to deliver the `certainty' sought by industry. Legal advice to the Committee failed to rule out the real potential for challenges from logging, mining or environmental interests on the grounds that the Bill breaches section 99 of the Constitution by giving a preference to corporations trading in one state over another (Evidence, Mr Corr, Mr Brazil; written advice from the Australian Government Solicitor dated 12 February and 24 February 1999).

Instead of solving Australia's long-running dispute over the wild forests, the RFAs will compound and prolong it.

3. Far from ecologically sustainable forestry, RFAs allow for unreasonably destructive logging practices

Against graphically contrary evidence, no industry witness was able to show the committee that RFA logging is ecologically sustainable. With a single exception, no industry witness, including Tasmania's Deputy Premier Paul Lennon, could define either a 'natural forest ecosystem' or the word 'sustainable'. Yet ecological sustainability is a basic claim made by the Prime Minister, Premiers and woodchip industry advocates for the RFAs. Evidence to the committee shows these claims to be fraudulent.

Photographic evidence showed Tasmanian forests, which should otherwise be nominated and protected for their World Heritage values, being cut down, burnt by aerial incendiaries leaving no living leaf or limb, and then baited with 1080 poison to kill stray marsupials from adjacent remainder forests.

Those who claim these processes to be ecologically sustainable are deliberately co-opting language to deceive the public. This Committee ought not be emulating that deception.

4. RFAs have not given security for conservation

The evidence before this Committee demonstrated clear failure of the Commonwealth to protect even the forests the Prime Minister assured Australians would be safe when he signed the several RFAs so far agreed.

In Tasmania, the National Forest Policy targets for protecting very tall forests and rare forests were not met by the RFAs. Tens of thousands of hectares of old growth forest are being cleared for plantations, also contrary to the National Forest Policy Statement and to any notion of `sustainability'.

In Victoria's East Gippsland, Central Highlands and Otway Ranges, logging is proceeding at rates far in excess of the 'sustainable yield' legislated by the Victorian government and inferred by the RFA (Evidence, Otway Ranges Environment Network). In the Central Highlands, the RFA has been signed, logging is proceeding apace, but the mapping of myrtle beech and southern sassafras forests, mixed with eucalypts (cool temperate mixed forest) will not be done before the year 2000 – the whole ecosystem is missing from the reserve system (Evidence, Alan McMahon).

The WA Environment Protection Authority has catalogued how the Department of Conservation and Land Management is breaching or failing to comply with a whole series of ministerial conditions set under the Environment Protection Act. Jarrah is being over-logged by 100 percent (Evidence, Peter Robertson).

In both East Gippsland and Tasmania thousands of hectares of forests designated as protected have either been logged or transferred from fully protected status to logging or mining zones.

Extensive parts of the Heritage River protected area along the Goolengook River (East Gippsland) were logged after Mr Howard signed the RFA in February 1997. The Supreme Court of Victoria found the action unlawful. The Kennett Government legislated to remove, retrospectively, the logged area and further parts of these protected Goolengook forests from protection so that they can be logged.

Hundreds of hectares of high conservation value forests in the Great Western Tiers of Tasmania have, since the Prime Minister signed the RFA, been re-allocated to woodchipping.

The Committee was not afforded any evidence that the Prime Minister or other Commonwealth Ministers were consulted about the states' reallocation of forests from conservation to logging, let alone evidence that there was any opposition from Canberra.

On the other hand, in no case has an area set aside for logging been reassigned for protection. There is, of course, no mechanism in this legislation to compensate for the loss of environmental amenity. Nor is there any substantial assurance that this process of infringement of RFAs against the conservation interest will not continue: there is no limit to it.

5. RFAs are short-sighted

The RFAs foreclose on the future. Worldwide, there is great concern about the rapid erosion of the planet's environmental amenity. In the 1990s thousands of eminent scientists and economists, including scores of Nobel Laureates, have warned that strong government action is needed if life on Earth, including the human experience, is to be assured. The preservation of remaining wild forests is a primary concern.

In all Australia's RFA areas, this Bill over-rides or abolishes Commonwealth laws essential for the nation to meet those concerns. At the behest of the woodchip corporations, it straitjackets the national government's ability to protect forests in the public interest.

The Bill removes Commonwealth powers for the protection of forest environments, the listing of world heritage forests and the protection of national estate forests for the next 20 years.

The Committee was given no assessment of opportunity lost, for either economic, employment or environmental values, through logging of Australia's wild forests.

One example encompassing all of these factors is the global greenhouse effect. Australia has been heavily criticised for its reticence to reduce greenhouse gas pollution in line with other nations.

An emerging ecological option in this global dilemma is trading in carbon credits. The Committee was given timely warning that the perception that tree-planting is the best measure is wrong. The amount of carbon stored in a forest is roughly proportional to the square of the average diameter of its trees. So old growth forests are at a premium. In fact, the government's own figures show that less than one percent of Australia's wood based carbon is in plantations, over 99 percent is in native forests. Yet despite an estimated starting value of $20-$50 per tonne for forest carbon store, these forests are being sold to woodchippers now for an average $13-$14 per tonne in Tasmania, and as little as nine cents per tonne in East Gippsland.

Under the Bill the Commonwealth's action to preserve tall forests as an immensely valuable and tradeable carbon-store commodity is hog-tied. Such action is likely and will involve billions of dollars penalty through compensation to a handful of woodchip and logging corporations. Yet, those corporations have not paid one red cent for the forests.

6. RFAs ignore Indigenous interests

Our interests have just been totally ignored. There will be no tangible outcomes to our community, whether it is employment, social, economic or whatever—even spiritual at this stage. We go to our land now and it is almost a mourning process. You go to your land and you see the destruction which has occurred. Rather than it being a cultural activity that you are going out to protect, to see, to do certain cultural things, in

fact you find yourself going up to the land to basically cry—that is the truth of the matter—because of the destruction and the raping of the land which is going on in Tasmania day by day. I hope this committee can somehow take stock of what is going on behind the scenes at Kooparoona Niara. I think if you really have the opportunity to get out to the land and see the destruction of the land, you might have a clearer understanding. (Evidence, Darlene Mansell, Deloraine Aboriginal Cultural Association. Ms Mansell was arrested in 1998 for peacefully protesting against woodchipping of forests in Kooparoona Niara (the Great Western Tiers)).

Indigenous people's submissions highlighted a lack of consultation with them.

Representatives from Western Australia and Tasmania criticised this legislation which ensures compensation for logging interests if forests targeted for logging are to be protected in the future. They expressed dismay that, on the other hand, there is no provision for compensation to Indigenous people, let alone the right to intercede against forest mismanagement. The Commonwealth is abandoning its duty to protect Indigenous

interests.

The RFAs, in essence, give the land rights to the woodchippers.

7. The RFAs have prudent and feasible alternatives

The committee was shown that Australia has sufficient plantations to provide all of its wood needs for domestic processing, including woodchips.

Plantations, together with recycling, already account for 75% of wood and fibre input to the Australian wood products industry. In other words, our wood and wood products industry is not a native forest based industry any more; it is a plantation industry.

Remarkably, plantations were all but ignored by the RFA process – not one Western Australian RFA option presented for community consultation included the plantation resource; the Eden (NSW) options presented for public consultation ignored the softwood plantation estate. In Tasmania the entire softwood plantation sawntimber industry was omitted from the RFA options presented to the public – that includes Tasmania's two largest sawmills! (Evidence, Ms Judith Clark, ANU).
 
 

The Ministers responsible for the legislation should have prepared an environmental impact statement listing all prudent and feasible alternatives. They failed to do so. This omission is negligent if not illegal (Evidence, Ms Liz Ingham).

8. The Bill is against the public interest

Evidence to the Committee from both sides revealed a compensatory bias to the loggers which is directly contrary to the Australian public interest.
 
 

The Commonwealth will be obliged to pay compensation to logging and mining corporations for any forests protected in future and the states will be required by law to undertake the legal action on behalf of the corporations to obtain that compensation.

There is no compensation provision for tourist operators or other small business interests, for Indigenous peoples, for local government or communities, for deleterious impacts on the quantity or quality of water coming out of catchments, for neighbours (such as organic farmers affected by chemicals from adjacent plantations) or for sawmill workers put out of a job by illegal downgrading of sawlogs to woodchips.

Furthermore, the Bill gives the nine as yet unfinished RFAs legal force, sight unseen. There is no requirement that RFAs be made public although the Bill gives them the force of law.

There is no requirement that the States abide by their own laws; if they breach an RFA, as Tasmania and Victoria have already done by failing to meet conservation commitments, the Commonwealth has no effective sanction.

This Bill is so biased to industry, as against the wider public interest, it is hard to believe that the woodchip and mining corporations have not had a major hand in devising it, against the public interest, from the outset. (Political donations by woodchip companies in 1997/98 are listed in attachment 1.)

Recommendations
 

That an honest appraisal of both sides of the evidence before the Committee — not just the loggers' self-interest – be made.
 

That the Prime Minister and his government accept responsibility for the nation's forest and wildlife heritage, not shed it.
 

That the donations of the logging industry to the Coalition and Labor Party be treated as having influence.
 

That the Australian nation's clear desire to save its remnant wild forests from further destruction be granted.
 

That the `prudent and feasible' alternative of a world class plantation-based industry be adopted.
 

That this Bill be opposed.
 

Senator Bob Brown Australian Greens Senator for Tasmania Thursday, 25 February 1999