Wednesday, 9 March 2022

Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms D’AMBROSIO:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:49): It is a pleasure to rise on my first bill as Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change on the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022, but I rise on this particular bill with a heavy heart—with a very heavy heart—because I look around the chamber and I see colleagues who have spoken to me about the impacts of this government’s decisions in this industry, the policy decisions this government has taken and the impacts those decisions are having on industry, on businesses, on flow-on businesses and on their families, and it breaks your heart. It breaks your heart to know what the government promised, how they broke their promises and the impacts that is having on some of the townships and families around Victoria—the real impacts.

In my mind the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change is killing the harvesting industry by stealth. The Premier stood up and set out a policy agenda with a 2030 date attached to it and committed to the community that current levels of harvesting would be maintained to 2024. That is not what is happening, that is not what the minister is doing and that is not what this bill will allow the minister to do and what industry knows the minister will do with those powers, because today industry is 50 per cent down—50 per cent down. We are at the start of 2022, and it is 50 per cent down. By the end of the year it will be 75 per cent down. So while the Premier stood up and gave a commitment for 2024, we know today in fact industry is 50 per cent down and by the end of the year will be 75 per cent down. There will not be an industry next year, in 2023. That is the result of this minister’s actions by stealth. Her behaviour has been cruel to industry towns and their families.

When this bill was first introduced the one word that stuck out and the one word that the government has repeated—and we will hear it all day from government speakers—was certainty: ‘The purpose of this bill has been to provide certainty’. I am sure it is in the top line of every government speaker’s talking points. Well, we heard that word last year, didn’t we, when there was an overhaul of the timber code. What did the government say? What did the government say was the reason behind that? Certainty. What is the reason for this bill? Certainty. What is the reasoning behind the review of the code currently underway? I will let you guess. Does anyone want to have a guess? Certainty. So three times in 12 months the government has said to the community, ‘We are doing things in this space to provide certainty’. Well, at the absolute least this minister is incompetent—at the absolute least. How can you possibly take action three times in the same space in 12 months and come back again and again to provide certainty? There is no certainty. You do not have to go very far and you do not have to talk to much of the community or industry in this sector before you will hear the word ‘uncertainty’. We know that we cannot trust the government to provide certainty, because they have not, over and over and over again.

So we know that there is currently a 50 per cent reduction. We also know that supply is 50 per cent down. We also know that the remaining supply is partly propped up by other states. Other states are propping up our supply. We know that roughly 75 per cent of the approved coupes on the timber release plan are subject to court injunction. Can you imagine that, 75 per cent? Can you imagine if any industry had three-quarters of their activity shut down effectively by injunction?

We know that that is the government behaving by stealth because they have not fixed it—they have not done anything about it. We also know that there are 10 contractors currently out of work as a result of a court injunction, affecting up to 80 jobs. These are families—each one of those jobs is part of a family—so an effect on 80 people is an effect on hundreds. There are two sawmills that are currently standing down employees or reducing staff, and by May there will be three more. Australian Paper has 1000 employees. How will they be by August—those 1000 employees—when they have no supply? By August, will they be able to operate? All of these numbers, all of these facts, should all go back to reminding us that we are talking about people, we are talking about jobs, we are talking about businesses, and all of these people were promised a continuance to 2024 with a 2030 end date. Well, the facts say otherwise.

I will turn to this bill specifically. The government will tell you that the purpose of the bill is to expand their head of power to make certain guidance around the code, and the expanded head of power will enable the incorporation of documents:

… to confer a discretionary authority on the Minister … and leave any matter or thing to be from time to time, approved, determined, dispensed with or regulated by the Minister or the Secretary.

I will get to what that actually means a little later.

There is no doubt that we all care about the 7.8 million hectares of public native forests. I am sure every person in this place does. I know I do. 95.5 per cent of it is locked up, and another 5 per cent is on an 80-year rotation for harvesting. What has happened over time is that environmentalists have used a grey area of law to shut down the industry, to shut down harvesting. It is not a claim that I make on my own; it is a statement that the government has recognised. Numerous ministers have acknowledged that that is what is happening—a grey area of the law is being used as an environmental tactic. Those are not my words; those are the government’s words.

Knowing that we face a grey area of law that is being used in a particular way, instead of doing something about it, instead of providing industry and communities with certainty to live up to the commitment they made, the government has done nothing, and now they introduce a bill and powers that nobody trusts them with—enormous powers. In a private briefing late last year—limited because this bill has had limited consultation or industry debate—the government described these new powers as enabling the:

… development of Compliance Standards that specifically set out how the timber industry can meet its obligations …

and the establishment of:

… a legal presumption that operations complying with the guidance outlined in a Compliance Standard will have met the requirements of the Precautionary Principle.

And I will define that a little bit later.

So in short the standards will give, in the government’s interpretation, industry guidance on what measures can be taken that will comply with the precautionary principle, that is:

The timber harvester can either comply with the standard, or it can apply alternative measures to meet the requirements of the precautionary principle, as is currently the case.

If the timber harvester acts in accordance with the compliance standard, it will be deemed to be compliant with the precautionary principle requirements of the Code.

If the timber harvester does not act in accordance with the compliance standard, the question of whether the timber harvester has acted in accordance with the precautionary principle requirements of the Code can be investigated …

For background, and I touched on it earlier, the precautionary principle is a grey area of law. It makes a contribution to sustainable use of natural resources by requiring their use to be, amongst other things, prudent, and that was the underlying definition in Telstra v. Hornsby. As the department has set out, the precautionary principle is a rule of environmental prudence that concerns the management of environmental risks where there is uncertainty in order that human actions are calculated or designed to prevent or avoid actual degradation to the environment associated with such risks. Precaution requires decisions, actions or conduct that may have adverse environmental consequences to be properly informed and subsequent responses to be properly calibrated to risk and what is and is not known. It is a grey area of law—a grey area of law that is being used tactically. I mentioned earlier Telstra v. Hornsby, and in application I will note a further judgement describing that the principle as a need to take precautionary measures is triggered by the satisfaction of two conditions, precedents or thresholds: a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage and scientific uncertainty as to the environmental damage.

The reason I have set out the concept, apart from to give background to the grey, is to also make clear the balance between protection—which I am sure everybody in this place cares about, I am sure that industry cares about and I am sure that communities care about and the broader community cares about—and workability. Mark Poynter, who was an architect of the code, made clear what he meant when writing a code to take into account that balance, and if I can quote from him:

… the Code is designed to enable practical and economically workable timber production in a way that minimises its environmental impacts … the Code is a workable compromise between the needs of conservation and the practicalities of cost-effectively producing timber.

He uses the word ‘compromise’, but I think we can say ‘balance’ is equally appropriate in that context. His view, if I can go further, is that now the code is being seen by some, including at a political level:

… as a potential vehicle for ending timber production rather than enabling it.

Well, that is what is happening; industry will not be operating next year. It is clear that the potential vehicle for ending timber production rather than enabling it is the case. It is what is happening. It is what is happening on the ground.

So what are the problems with the bill in general terms? Well, it is a short bill, because what it does is it gives the minister endless power. It is a very short bill that says, ‘The minister can have lots of power’. As environmental groups have described it, it is a God power. That was quite a neat little description—a God power. In short, there is no scope around the power, no scope at all. There is no scope around how the power is used. There is no scope around the power at all. That is concerning. That should concern every member in this place—that a minister has asked the Parliament for power with no scope—and we know that what the minister is asking for in receiving that power is that they can, as they have asked for, have the power to provide guidance to industry.

Well, what would you do if you were asking for power at that level, of that broadness, in that way? You would provide some certainty around how you will consult with the community, how you will consult with industry. Well, the minister has refused to do that. There is no guarantee and there is no assurance that consultation will take place, that engagement will occur. In fact effectively the minister has simply said, ‘Trust me’. Well, I do not think anyone does. I do not and, sadly, neither does industry. In fact industry has gone to the minister and said, ‘We need certainty, and we are willing to consider what you are asking for on the basis that you give us some assurance that when you are asking for this much power we will be included in future discussions, included in consultation, and that we will be part of a process’—things that Labor spent a lot of time pontificating on but in this case not delivering. And what has the minister said to industry: ‘I’m not going to do it. I’m not going to provide that to you. We’re putting a bill to this Parliament that is going to give me a lot of power, and you just have to trust us to provide that keyword we talked about earlier, certainty’—another measure seeking to provide certainty.

And further, not only has industry gone to the government seeking some guarantee of engagement, I think one other thing that strikes most people when looking at this bill is the lack of any check or balance. There is no check and balance. There are no in-built mechanisms for reviewing how the minister uses what the environmental groups describe as the God power. It is a short bill that gives the minister extraordinary power, guarantees no consultation in its use and application and has no check or balance after the use of that power. And throughout the last week, when the government briefed me as the incoming shadow on this bill, I said to their office, ‘In good faith, these are the three issues that I immediately see. Would you mind raising those with the minister? These are the issues that are being raised with me’. It is not unreasonable to provide some certainty to an industry and a sector that is in so much pain—something; provide a couple of sentences. I put the offer to read those responses into Hansard for the minister. Now, that does not happen too often. I offered the opportunity to read those responses on those three issues into Hansard, and I would have read them word for word. Guess what? Nothing.

Those three issues have not been addressed. Those three issues that are being raised by industry with government privately are also not being addressed privately. Is there any wonder that the sector looks on and says, ‘I don’t trust. I don’t trust’. If in private conversations the government is not willing to provide any scope around the use of power or any certainty around engagement while so many businesses are on their knees, is there any wonder that they have a lack of trust? It is only fair and reasonable that there is a lack of trust. And again I say on record: my offer to the government was genuine, and I would have provided those responses. I would have read them into Hansard in full. Disappointingly that offer was rebuffed.

I referred earlier to Mark Poynter, who was one of the designers or architects of the original code. If I can read in his concerns:

The obvious problem with the Bill is that it would give the Minister discretionary power to make changes to the Code … potentially on a whim—perhaps politically motivated to appease forestry critics. This is a problem because the Code’s … provisions have been carefully determined based on a mix of science and decades of overseas and Australian field observations, the operational practicalities for workable timber production, and a recognition that forestry operations are restricted to a minor portion of the forest estate that is designated for that purpose and is therefore not meant to harbor pristine environmental values.

I think when you hear those words from Mr Poynter it is difficult not to go back to the point that I raised earlier—that of balance. The minister is asking for power that can be misused—it can be misused—at a time when industry is almost shut down. Seventy-five per cent of approved coupes on the release plan are subject to court injunction—75 per cent. Is it any wonder that industry is looking at what the government is proposing and saying, ‘Well, do we really want a minister to have power to so disproportionately affect that balance?’.

In this place we will not oppose the bill on the basis that industry does need constraint on litigation. They are desperate for a constraint on litigation. They are desperate for certainty.

On that basis the coalition will not oppose this bill in this place, but I can assure you it is not because there is overwhelming trust in the minister and the minister’s use of this short bill with lots of power. In fact it is because when you weigh up the uncertainty, when you weigh up the effect on industry, when you weigh up what people are going through—what families, local townships and people are going through—you need to weigh that up against the hope that something will go right for them, that the government will do the right thing. It is sad to say that when you talk to people in this sector what they say over and over again is, ‘I don’t think I have any hope left’. I have been struck by how many people have said that to me: ‘I don’t have hope’. They are hoping that the minister will do the right thing and not use this power in an ideological way. As I said, in this place we will not oppose the bill.

So I say to the minister, in summary, the three issues that have been raised over and over again are on scope of power, on use of power and on the unbridled, as environmental groups refer to, God power. They are a real concern, and it is only reasonable that the minister publicly address those concerns. Providing a talking point I had not even raised when I raised my concerns about the three issues, the minister’s advice was that one of the government backbenchers would respond to those issues. That is not worth anything, frankly. That is worth nothing. That is worth absolutely nothing. So I say to the government: the least the government could do is provide people with certainty. That is the least the government could do. They could take those little talking points that they are circulating to the backbench and put them on the record in the minister’s own name to give a community and an industry and people who are doing it so tough the certainty they deserve. That is not too much to ask of this government.

Ms GREEN (Yan Yean) (12:18): I take great pleasure in joining the debate on the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022. I have got to say I am really not surprised that the opposition did not seem to allow the member for Brighton to go on ABC radio to articulate their policy yesterday—they instead rolled out Mr Davis from another place to stumble about—given he has just made a presentation to this house for 29 minutes and 20 seconds which I think he could have made in about 5 minutes. He sounded like he was on Mogadon he was so slow. If you do a word count, it was probably worth a speech of 4 or 5 minutes. And what I heard from the member for Brighton was that his final and concluding beef was that the minister’s office would not write his speaking points for him. I mean, goodness me—I mean, seriously. He had a bash at having a crack at our backbench when he was having a sook-up that the minister’s office would not write his speaking points for him. Well, we can tell that he is the new Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change, and I say with great confidence that he will never be the minister for environment if that was evidence of what he would be like. The reason why we are here is that we are fixing the mess. This is the Leader of The Nationals’ code of practice, which was rushed through before the 2014 election, and it is riddled with errors. We have all these court cases occurring, and we are actually trying to fix it, and we are acting to fix it.

The member for Brighton verballed the minister by saying she has not met with industry. In fact she met yesterday with the Victorian Forest Products Association and the CFMMEU, and the Australian Forest Contractors Association have also been briefed by the minister’s office and the department. It was simply offensive for him also to say that this minister is killing this industry by stealth. That is simply offensive. We as a government—

Mr Walsh interjected.

Ms GREEN: You will get your turn. You had your turn as minister, Leader of The Nationals.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Yan Yean, through the Chair.

Ms GREEN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I expect that the Leader of The Nationals will speak later in this debate when he gets the call. We remain committed to delivering the Victorian Forestry Plan. We absolutely remain committed to that. There were a few things that I agreed with in the member for Brighton’s contribution. It took him long enough to get to the point of saying that they were not opposing this bill, but we did not hear a whole lot of what he would do instead. He said he is not opposing it, but who would have known with that contribution? But one of the things he did say was that due to legal action VicForests contractors with contracts are stood down, but what he did not say is that all Victorian contractors with current contracts are paid while they are stood down.

We have brought this bill into the house so that we can actually reduce that uncertainty. The intent of this bill is to provide certainty to the forestry industry about how to comply with the precautionary principle in the Code of Practice for Timber Production. By definition the precautionary principle has an element of uncertainty about it. It is a broad requirement, and its application changes based on the circumstances. So the question before us is: what is the intention of the precautionary principle and who should define it and give definitive guidance on it to industry? At the moment the courts are being asked to do that, and that is a slow, expensive, uncertain process for all involved. We need to change that. The government has a clear intention for how the precautionary principle should be exercised, and we have sought to clarify it through a recent amendment to the code of practice which clearly indicates that the historical legal interpretation, the so-called brown mountain standard, is the correct interpretation. We now seek to further clarify that view through detailed compliance standards that spell out in more operational terms how to correctly apply this important part of our environmental regulations, and it is right that we do that.

Where there is such significant uncertainty about a critical environmental regulation it makes sense that the government be the one to provide more detail, more guidance and more certainty, and this is what we will do, and it will simply reinforce the pre-existing standards and intentions but assist all parties to understand precisely how that operates in the real world. The member for Brighton in his contribution was saying that the precautionary principle is a God power. It is not a God power. It is constrained by the code, which will come after this bill, and the government cannot change the code without mandatory consultation, and it is also disallowable by Parliament, so that fear that he was speaking about is not a fear that has any validity.

Heads of power like the one in this bill are common in regulatory frameworks. They are not a God power. They are very common, and they are found in other acts including the Accident Towing Services Act 2007, the Bus Safety Act 2009, the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017, the Dairy Act 2000, the Dangerous Goods Act 1985, the Essential Services Commission Act 2001, the Seafood Safety Act 2003, the Therapeutic Goods (Victoria) Act 2010, the Meat Industry Act 1993, and I could go on with many others. So this is a well-accepted and understood approach to legislation, but maybe the junior woodchuck, the new environment shadow minister, is not aware of this.

The code of practice will outline the circumstances for when these powers enabled by the bill can be used, and this head of power is required to create the compliance standards framework. Without it, government cannot provide certainty to the industry about how to comply with the precautionary principle. Should the bill pass, the government will make a code amendment to set up the compliance standards framework. This code amendment will be subject to all the usual public consultation, parliamentary tabling and, as I mentioned before, disallowance requirements of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, which I would have thought the member for Brighton would be aware of.

The code amendments will determine the scope of the compliance standard. The standard can be amended from time to time to respond to changing environmental circumstances, but only within the bounds of the code amendment. Should government wish to change the scope of compliance standards in the future, the code would need to be amended and further mandatory public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny would be required. Similarly, the discretionary authority of the minister or the Secretary of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning enabled by the bill will only apply to the extent authorised by the code. Amendments to the code are required to enable the discretionary authority, which again will be subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. This is substantial oversight by this place—as it should be—and it mandates consultation.

So I think what we have heard from the member for Brighton, the shadow minister for environment, again, as I said at the outset, really shows why the opposition would not let him speak on ABC radio yesterday morning. The biggest threat to our forests and to the industry being able to continue is the lack of a climate change policy by their federal counterparts, and as we have seen, they do not have one themselves. Mr Davis yesterday said to Ali Moore that if she wanted to reference their climate policy she should just look at their record in Parliament, their voting record—I mean, seriously. If for their voting record you have to refer to a 29-minute-and-20-second contribution that was really like a 90-second statement dragged out to almost half an hour, that is not how you should conduct yourself with public policy. I am proud that we have a minister at the table, the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, who has always been clear on government policy and about implementing government policy. We are about supporting this industry, as we have detailed, and I commend this bill to the house.

Mr WALSH (Murray Plains) (12:28): I rise to make a contribution on the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022. The word ‘certainty’ has been talked about a lot in the debate so far on this legislation. I think the one certainty in the world is that I do not believe the Australian Labor Party would ever put the member for Yan Yean on radio, either, to explain anything to the people of Victoria.

Members interjecting.

Mr WALSH: Well, you give, you take. That is the way it works.

Can I place on the record the Liberal and National parties’ support for the sustainable timber industry in Victoria and commend all the people that work in that industry for the fortitude they have shown in continuing to provide timber for this state despite a very hostile Andrews Labor government that is doing everything in its power to actually close this sector down earlier than the 2030 date that has been publicly announced. There is a crisis in timber supply in this state and in this nation, and we do not have to go back further to see it than the issues around at the start of the summer fruit and grape season. There were no pallets in this state because there was no native timber to actually make pallets. I went out to Dormit, one of the pallet manufacturers out in Dandenong, and they could not get timber to make pallets in this state. It nearly brought our supply chains to a halt because there was not enough timber to make pallets in this state. If we look at the issues in the housing industry, some say, ‘Well, you don’t use the native timber industry in building a house’. Well, you do. The frames may be made from softwood, but for the flooring, the window frames, the doorways, the stairways—our great native timber industry is used there to make the homes that we live in.

We are importing millions and millions and millions of dollars of timber into this state because we do not have a government that will set the framework to enable the timber that we need to be harvested. Australian Sustainable Hardwoods, ASH, a business that the Andrews government half own—they bought half this business a number of years ago—as I understand it have actually purchased a timber mill in Tasmania now and are bringing timber across Bass Strait to make sure they have enough product to manufacture here in Victoria as well as importing timber from South-East Asia and from the USA. It is alleged by those in the industry that the Andrews government actually loaned additional money to ASH to go and buy a timber mill in Tasmania because on one hand they are flat out trying to close down the industry here but they are supporting one of the businesses here that they half own to go and get timber out of another state to supply here into the future.

One of the great things about our native timber industry is that it is actually one of the excellent carbon stores into the future. If we are talking about climate change, how we need to store carbon better into the future, it is the native timber industry that can be a significant carbon store into the future. When trees reach a maturity where they are not storing much more carbon they can be harvested, and that carbon is locked up in the products that are produced, then new trees are planted and more carbon is stored. For every tree that is cut down in Victoria or harvested in Victoria a new tree is planted; there is no net loss of timber through harvesting here in Victoria.

One of the things that was talked about a lot, as I said, was certainty for the industry. What the industry needs is certainty against protesters going into logging coupes—going into workplaces and disrupting those workplaces—and causing a significant OH&S issue. They are workplaces. They need to be protected as workplaces so that protesters do not put spikes into trees that then mean that someone can be seriously injured when they hit those spikes with a machine, so they do not damage the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of machinery that are in a logging coupe, which they do when they go in there, and for the loss of income that happens to the logging crews because they have to be stood down, because it takes literally days for Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning officers or for police to get there and move—

A member interjected.

Mr WALSH: It is true, it is true. There are authorised officers that should be doing that and protecting the workers there and protecting their livelihoods into the future. If someone in Melbourne had their business invaded and they had to stand down, there would be something done about it by this government, but because it is the timber industry and the Andrews government want to make it as hard as possible for that industry and just hope they go away before the 2030 date, they are not protecting them when it comes to their workplaces.

In the second-reading speech the minister mentioned the issues around fire and the precautionary principle that if habitat is destroyed by fire, that puts more pressure on logging coupes to be kept to protect threatened species into the future. If the Andrews government were serious about that particular issue, they would honour the recommendations of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. The government has walked away from the recommendations of the bushfires royal commission—the 2009 royal commission. If you go back to the Stretton 1939 royal commission, it had very similar recommendations as well, and that is actually about prescribed burns, precautionary burns, making sure the risk of fire is not as great into the future.

One of the things that our side of politics, the Liberal and National parties, is committed to doing is working with our Indigenous communities around the firestick program to make sure you actually work with the landscape when you do prescribed burns—to make sure you have white smoke instead of black smoke, as Uncle Dave Wandin would say when we met with Uncle Dave and talked about this. It is about how you work with the environment to reduce the fuel loads, not doing great big burns that actually cause more harm in the long term, because once those burns actually get into the canopy, they are counterproductive for what you want to achieve.

So we are committed to working with our Indigenous community and working within the environment to make sure we actually reduce the fuel loads into the future so we help reduce that risk of megafires, protect habitat and protect timber for harvesting into the future. If the minister was serious, that is something that they would do, rather than just putting their hands up and saying, ‘We’ve got to shut everything down because there’s been a bushfire’ into the future. It is actually going back to those Black Saturday royal commission recommendations and making sure those targets are met, rather than not doing it at all.

I suppose the last thing I want to touch on in my contribution is this issue of the fact that this bill effectively gives unfettered power to the minister or the secretary for what may be incorporated into the code in the future. If you go to the Weekly Times article of 9 February that talks about the stacking of the forestry policy and regulatory roles within the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning with Labor Party aligned people, particularly one role there that is still being fulfilled by someone who is now the Labor Party candidate for Preston, I think you will find that the industry is rather cynical when it comes to how this legislation has been drafted and what this legislation will be used for in the future. There are views in the industry that this legislation has been effectively designed by Labor Party members and operatives within the department, to be implemented by the same people, to put the industry at a disadvantage to make it harder for the industry to operate into the future so that it will actually do what the government really wants it to do, and that is just go away and not be there and not have to be closed down in 2030. If you go to that article, it talks about when IBAC released their report into corruption and integrity, which found an increased number of public servants were concerned about political interference, responding with comments such as:

‘Government appears to be making decisions that are not in the interest of the state, but rather their political careers.’

‘Bad or inconsistent decisions get made because of political pressure.’

I think if you look at this legislation, if you are a cynic—

Ms Green interjected.

Mr WALSH: There seems to be an echo in this place. But what the industry would say, with the way those positions in both the departments are filled by Labor Party operatives, is that this legislation was designed by those people to give the minister and to give the secretary unfettered power to make it harder for the industry into the future, when the industry actually needs certainty, particularly certainty around protection from demonstrators, rather than political interference. I will finish off with a quote from Brett Robin, who is a timber operator:

I thought the Labor Party stood up for workers, but it’s not so.

I end on that note that the Labor Party is not standing up for workers. If you look at what Michael O’Connor from the union movement says, this government is not actually supporting the industry at all and not supporting jobs in regional Victoria, and this legislation will just make it harder into the future.

Mr MAAS (Narre Warren South) (12:39): It gives me great pleasure to rise and to make a contribution to the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022, and please, National Party—please, please—do not talk to us about what we do for workers and what we do to protect—

Mr Walsh interjected.

Mr MAAS: No, absolutely we do, and don’t you worry about Mr O’Connor.

Mr Walsh interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of The Nationals!

Mr MAAS: Listen to you. The member for Brighton could not even stand to be in the same chamber.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Narre Warren South, through the Chair.

Mr MAAS: This government protects workers, this government protects forests and this government does it so that it protects the standards and creates rights as well, and that is exactly what this legislation is about. It is not about creating a headline and then not being able to deliver because the Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change has not bothered to confer with the Leader of the National Party. It is certainly not about that.

What it is about is building on the tremendous achievements that the Andrews Labor government has done in this area. Quite frankly if the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change was a rock star, I think she would be sitting pretty well up at the top of the charts, because she has been quite prolific over the time that she has been in that role over the last seven-and-a-bit years.

What has been delivered? Well, we have delivered major reform of the Environment Protection Authority Victoria through the Environment Protection Act 2017 and the Environment Protection Amendment Act 2018. We banned cattle grazing in the Alpine and River Red Gum national parks in 2015 and banned fracking in Victoria, securing agricultural productivity and a strong, healthy environment into the future.

Mr Newbury interjected.

Mr MAAS: Well, the member for Brighton did provide context. This is a debate, and I will provide context. We have also removed the power to grant 99-year leases over national and other parks under the National Parks Amendment (Prohibiting Cattle Grazing) Act 2015 and delivered the Climate Change Act 2017, a world-leading legislative foundation to manage climate change risks, maximise the opportunities that arise from decisive action and drive our transition to a climate-resilient community and economy with net zero emissions by 2050.

This government also added parts of the Anglesea Heath to the Great Otway National Park in 2017—internationally recognised heathland that supports a quarter of Victoria’s plant species and provides habitat for 29 mammal species and over 100 native bird species. An additional part of Anglesea Heath was added to the Great Otway National Park by the Parks and Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. You can only get those sorts of changes when you have a vision—a vision for Victoria that, as I said, creates rights-based avenues, puts those to a standard and makes things fairer for all Victorians.

Should this bill pass, the government will make a code amendment to set up the compliance standards framework. This code amendment will be subject to all the usual public consultation, parliamentary tabling and disallowance requirements of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987. The code amendment will determine the scope of the compliance standard. The standard can be amended from time to time to respond to changing environmental circumstances but only within the bounds of the code amendment. Should government wish to change the scope of compliance standards in the future, the code would need to be amended, and further mandatory public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny will be required. Similarly, the discretionary authority of the minister or the Secretary of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) enabled by the bill will only apply to the extent authorised by the code. Amendments to the code are required to enable the discretionary authority, which again will be subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny—this is a substantial oversight by this place—and mandatory consultation as well.

In terms of transparency, clause 3(3) inserts a requirement for notice of any amendment to a document incorporated by the code of practice to be published by the Government Gazette before it is taken to have been amended for the purpose of the code—that is, any amendment to an incorporated document is not taken to have effect until the required notice is published in the Government Gazette.

Clause 4 of the bill will insert additional publication requirements to section 38 of the act. New subsection (2) requires:

An amended document, standard, rule, specification or method … that is applied, adopted or incorporated by a Code of Practice …

to be:

published on the Internet site of the Department.

New subsection (3) requires an approval, determination, dispensation or regulation by the minister or the secretary under new section 31(4) of the principal act to be published:

… on the Internet site of the Department as soon as practicable after its making …

Review of course is also important, and in terms of that DELWP will also be undertaking a comprehensive review of the code by the end of 2023 as required under the regional forest agreements. All stakeholders will be able to have their say on the code of practice, which will include the new elements of the code that will be created if this bill is passed. This includes the forestry industry.

In terms of consultation on the compliance standard, the conservation regulator already conducts a wide range of consultation with stakeholders, including the content of their guidance for the regulation of timber harvesting. The conservation regulator will ensure that appropriate consultation is undertaken for proposed amendments to compliance standards.

There are some nine forestry-related cases that are currently before the courts, and many relate to this precautionary principle commenced by environmental NGOs against VicForests. The legal action shows that there is a need to get the balance right—to get that clarity regarding the interpretation of the principle. The Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022, should it pass, will ultimately enable the conservation regulator to create compliance standards and give guidance to VicForests on how to comply with that precautionary principle.

The reform will likely reduce third-party litigation by providing greater certainty on what constitutes compliance with the precautionary principle clauses within the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2014. The bill goes ahead and amends the power to make codes of practice under the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, and hopefully once the bill has passed the government will then consult on an amendment to the code of practice to enable the compliance standards framework. Once this amendment has been gazetted, government will consult on a compliance standard or standards to fully realise the reform. Compliance standards are expected to be in place by mid-2022. Compliance standards themselves will not change the precautionary principle or reduce any environmental standards in the code of practice or related documents. The bill is directly relevant to electorates in eastern Victoria but will be of interest to other regional electorates as well.

So on that note, this bill is a good bill. It continues the great tradition that this government has of protecting our conservation forests and also of giving certainty to those third-party litigators. The bill will improve timber harvesting regulation in the state by enabling the regulator to clarify the intended operation of the code, giving greater certainty to the Victorian timber industry while also maintaining environmental standards. It is a clear and enforceable regulatory framework, and it is absolutely vital for our environment, for the industry and for forestry workers as well. I commend the bill to the house, and I wish it a speedy passage.

Mr BLACKWOOD (Narracan) (12:49): I was going to say it is with pleasure that I stand to speak on this bill, but it is with quite a bit of trepidation that I stand to speak on this bill, given the performance of the current Labor government to date and its lack of concern for the industry.

The government’s previous speakers were the member for Narre Warren South and the member for Yan Yean. It concerns me greatly that they did not really go at any stage to the issue of what is really happening right now in the forests. Right now in sawmills, right now in supply chains down the line here in Melbourne, workers are being stood down and workers are having hours reduced because of a lack of supply, and this could have all been avoided. All of this could have been avoided if this had been acted on sooner. We knew this was coming. The Greens are never going to go away. They are going to keep making allegations and taking on litigation not based on facts but based on misinformation, which is going to tie the industry up in the courts, and that is what we are seeing.

The Labor government have had plenty of time to address this, heaps of time. The minister at the table, the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change, has had heaps of time but done nothing—done nothing. This bill has basically been sold by the government as another attempt to solve the litigation issues that have been confronting the native forest timber industry now for many years. A review of the code of forest practice was conducted and completed last year by the minister, and the subsequent recommendations were supposed to stop third-party litigation by green activists back then. It failed, and now we are being told that this legislation will allow the minister or the Secretary of the Department of Land, Water and Planning to make unilateral decisions that will protect the rights of VicForests to undertake timber harvesting as long as it meets the requirements of the code of practice, including the precautionary principle—two actions or two controls that VicForests have been abiding by all of the time, two actions and two controls that are being complied with on the forest floor by the workers, the experienced workers in the bush. And yet this government continues to ignore this fact. The precautionary principle—I will speak more about that a little bit later, because that is very important in terms of this debate.

The Labor government have made a commitment to the Greens and indeed to all Victorians that they will transition out of native forests by 2030. I do not support that, and neither do the coalition. We will reverse that decision when we come to government in November this year. The Premier promised to maintain the industry at 2019 production levels until 2024–25, when a gradual reduction in harvesting would commence. The minister at the table and her department have done nothing but allow the Premier’s commitment to industry to be undermined. Why haven’t they provided immunity from third-party litigation for VicForests, the same as they apply to the Victorian EPA? I think I know why. The minister and her department continue to take advice from radical green activists. They refuse to go to genuine forest scientists for advice based on years of experience and backed by genuine and tangible outcomes in the forest.

The minister at the table even appointed Sarah Rees to the advisory committee of the Office of the Conservation Regulator. Sarah has a history of radical green activism and is a promoter of the great forest national park and a director of My Environment, which still owes the Victorian taxpayer $1.25 million. No science, no background, no understanding of the way industry is actually regulated—she influences people with lies and misrepresentation and slanderous accusations about VicForests and timber workers. The minister at the table is advised directly by Lindsay Rayner, a long-time Labor activist and adviser to Gavin Jennings, who promised the Greens prior to last election that he would shut the industry down in return for their preferences. The minister at the table and her department continue to take advice from David Lindenmayer, who publishes papers on forest science without peer review that contain misleading information that is deliberately engineered to support his own green activism. Is it any wonder the hardworking timber workers and their families feel completely betrayed by the Premier—a Premier who claims to be about jobs, jobs and more jobs? Perhaps he is just as big a fraud as Rees, Lindenmayer and Rayner.

For some time it has been in the public arena that the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, supports sustainable native forest harvesting for its role in mitigating climate change. Why won’t the Andrews government, its department and its minister accept genuine science? Because this is all about politics, not science. Hardworking timber families are expendable when this government is determined to hold power at whatever cost.

I go to Mark Poynter, and some of his comments have been touched on by previous speakers. Mark was one of the original architects of the code of forest practice. He outlines in this paper his concerns with this current bill. I wonder if the minister has spoken to Mark Poynter, one of the original architects of this code of forest practice, which the minister is now tampering with. But no, she would not. She would not go to Mark Poynter.

Ms D’Ambrosio: The one that has 3000 mistakes.

Mr BLACKWOOD: So you are saying the original code of forest practice had 3000 mistakes in it? That just shows you how dumb you are.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Narracan, through the Chair.

Mr BLACKWOOD: Through the Chair. Okay.

So getting back to Mark Poynter on the precautionary principle, he said:

The speech’s mention of the ‘precautionary principle’ clause in the Code is disingenuous because it neglects to mention that the Code applies only to a very minor portion of the state’s 7.8 million hectares of public forest. Therefore timber production operations that are subject to the Code are of such a proportionally minor scale, that there is virtually no chance of them creating a threat of ‘serious or irreversible environmental damage’ that justifies invoking the precautionary principle. Similarly, the excuse that the 2019–20 bushfires have created ‘scientific uncertainty about the ability of species to recover’ is largely disingenuous. Forests have been recovering from similar major fire events since European settlement—indeed the ash regrowth forest which comprises the State’s primary timber resource is the product of the huge 1939 bushfires. The distinguishing feature of the 2019–20 bushfires was its extent and, notwithstanding that parts of East Gippsland were intensively burnt, it has been noted by fire experts that the worst days experienced in that fire season were not as bad as in other most notable fire seasons.

So here is the man who was the architect of the original code of forest practice. He understands the precautionary principle and how it should be applied, and yet this government refuses to engage with him. He also said:

The original Code was written as a set of state-wide broad minimum standards of environmental protection during timber production. By necessity it retained a lot of flexibility in wording to account for the reality that, for example, particular requirements for wet forests in the Central Highlands may be far more onerous than what is necessary to protect environmental values in flat red gum forests and woodlands in northern Victoria. The detailed prescriptions needed to implement these standards were contained in associated regional documents that were more attuned to particular local forests.

So we had sets of prescriptions that applied to each region of our public native forest estate specifically designed to take into account the characteristics of each of those regions.

In terms of the discretionary power, and I will quote from Mark Poynter again:

The obvious problem with the Bill is that it would give the Minister discretionary power to make changes to the Code (now incorporating the—

management standards and procedures—

MSPs) potentially on a whim—perhaps politically motivated to appease forestry critics.

Surprise, surprise!

This is a problem because the Code’s … provisions have been carefully determined based on a mix of science and decades of overseas and Australian field observations, the operational practicalities for workable timber production, and a recognition that forestry operations are restricted to a minor portion of the forest estate that is designated for that purpose and is therefore not meant to harbour pristine environmental values.

In closing, I would like to remind the house that at this very time 95.5 per cent of our native forest estate is locked up in parks and reserves, never to be harvested. Most of this area is set aside to protect all the values that need to be protected. That leaves just 4.5 per cent of our native forest estate available for timber production and other uses. Timber is harvested on an 80-year rotation. Not one species of animal has become extinct because of timber harvesting. Timber harvesting and threatened species have coexisted for well over 100 years.

Ms HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (12:59): Obviously I will have only a very short time to make a few comments on the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022 prior to the lunchbreak. Needless to say, we on this side of the house completely repudiate many of the ridiculous arguments that have been put by the opposition and the member for Narracan. Of course as a Labor government, our beliefs and our responsibilities are that we need to protect the environment as well as being mindful of the impacts on jobs and the livelihoods of working people. Climate change, as we can see right at the moment, is having a devastating effect—

Sitting suspended 1.00 pm until 2.02 pm.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.