Wednesday, 9 March 2022

Bills

Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Mr HAMER (Box Hill) (14:43): It is a delight to rise to speak on the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022. I want to thank the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change for bringing this short but important bill into the Parliament for debate this week. The overall proposal of the bill will enable a code of practice to apply, adopt or incorporate any matter contained in any document, standard, rule, specification or method as amended from time to time and enable a code to confer a discretionary authority on the minister or secretary and leave any matter or thing to be from time to time approved, determined, dispensed with or regulated by the minister or the secretary.

It is really important I guess in terms of understanding the context and the objectives of this bill being brought to the Parliament at this point in time to really look at quite a number of court cases that have arisen in relation to various community groups and various environment groups that have launched legal action against VicForests. I understand that there are about nine legal actions currently pending. In fact there was one that started this week, and I was actually, just prior to the lunchbreak, watching some of the proceedings and just trying to understand how some of this is actually translating into the real world.

It is creating a degree of uncertainty for the role that VicForests have and their remit to continue on their use of and management of Victorian forests. The changes in this bill, in allowing these codes of practice to be developed, will create a lot more certainty in that area. This will help reduce the third-party litigation that we are seeing at the moment. It is important to remember that the existence of the precautionary principle is already embedded within the code of practice and is a requirement that VicForests needs to follow. That appears to be where the primary bone of contention is in terms of how that is actually defined and how it is actually applied in terms of how VicForests run their business and manage their coupes and their forestry work. So the codes of practice will not change the precautionary principle or will not reduce any of the environmental standards, but they will provide guidance as to how the precautionary principle is to be interpreted and how VicForests are to comply with the precautionary principle.

I think it is important to see this in the overall context of the Victorian Forestry Plan. Clearly this has been a work that the Victorian government and particularly the minister have worked on for many, many years with a great many different stakeholders, and the stakeholders are very varied and do not always have mutual interests. It is terrific to acknowledge the work of the minister in being able to—I would not say bring the parties together—land a solution that really moves us forward. It really is a historic plan When it was announced—I think it was back in 2019—it did extend some existing timber supply agreements until 2024, then step down the native timber supply, which would end in 2030. A key part of that forest plan that was announced in 2019 was about immediately ceasing the logging in remaining old-growth forests and also putting aside significant funding, $120 million at that time, to support the industry and particularly support the timber workers in that industry.

It also built on an earlier budget commitment in the 2017–18 budget that invested $110 million to establish timber plantations in the Latrobe Valley to support the long-term sustainability of Victoria’s timber industry. In my previous role I did have the opportunity to travel particularly to the south-west of Victoria and to Gippsland, working very closely with the freight industry—and timber is a big part of that industry—just seeing also how much of that transition was already occurring and the investment that was going into plantation timber. I know that a big part of that is the transition for the Australian Paper mill, the owners of that and the workers there to ensure that they have a sustainable future that can continue to provide a livelihood and an industry down in the Latrobe Valley. There are many similar industries that I know that are based in south-west Victoria that are dependent on and rely on a sustainable timber industry.

I do want to also just touch on a theme that was brought up by the member for Yan Yean. I am still talking in terms of the broader government’s achievements in terms of environmental policy. They are really too numerous to mention, but I think the headline is about the net zero emissions by 2050 and putting in emission targets through till 2050. I did notice that, as the member for Yan Yean commented, there was some commentary this week about the opposition also adopting that policy and referencing their commitment to that policy through their voting record—not necessarily through the statements that they have made in the Parliament but just looking at their voting record. I did have the chance to look at some of the legislation that has passed through this Parliament, just even in my time, and I do want to draw the attention—

Ms McLeish: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, the member on his feet seems to have drifted quite considerably from the bill. The bill is about, essentially, forestry, and he has moved quite from that.

Ms Spence: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, as the member has stated, he is reflecting on comments that have been made in the debate previously by other members. He is clearly well within the debate to continue as he has been.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Connolly): If the member for Eildon could resume her seat. We have already spoken on the point of order. On the point of order, the member is being relevant to the bill at hand.

Mr HAMER: As I was saying, this issue has been canvassed in this particular debate in relation to where we stand on environmental matters and where each party stands. I did want to flag just even one example, which is the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Amendment Bill 2019, which was again talking about the environmental record of both parties. That was not voted down—it was passed in the Council—but it was not voted for by the opposition.

Ms SANDELL (Melbourne) (14:53): Today I am speaking of course on the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022. It is probably not going to be much of a surprise, what I have to say, to anyone in this chamber, but unfortunately despite some of the knots that particularly Labor MPs have tied themselves into trying to explain the intricacies of this bill, at the end of the day this bill is quite simple. It is unfortunately another move by this Victorian Labor government to make logging in Victoria’s precious native forests easier. That is the fact at the end of the day, so it will be no surprise probably to anyone in this chamber that the Greens and I will not be supporting the bill.

Plain and simple, the bill is about changing the laws so that logging can take place in areas where it is currently illegal to log. That is why we have this bill before us. It is about making illegal logging legal. Of course that comes at the cost of our biodiversity, our wildlife, our water and our wellbeing. The purpose of the bill is to stop the many court cases that have been brought by dedicated community groups, which are currently halting logging in the habitat of threatened species, including the greater glider, the sooty owl and the Leadbeater’s possum. Over recent years community groups have brought several cases to the courts to protect forests and to protect the creatures that call them home. These court cases have been based on something that exists in our current forest laws, and that is the precautionary principle. It is actually in the law. In fact it is at the core of environmental law.

Essentially what the precautionary principle does is it says that where an action could cause harm, if there is uncertainty, the best approach in that case is to proceed with caution. So, for example, where logging could adversely harm a threatened species, like the greater glider, the sooty owl or the smoky mouse that we have in Victoria, that is on the brink of extinction, where logging could reasonably be seen to adversely impact those threatened species, that logging should not occur. That is what the precautionary principle is. So you would think that a government would actually look at that and take on the precautionary principle and say, ‘Yes, we need to protect our threatened species, and logging shouldn’t go ahead if it’s going to threaten them further’. But instead of doing that, instead of taking on board the principle, instead of taking on board the advice that the courts have handed down, instead of protecting forests, what this Labor government has done in response to these court cases is decided to change the law to water down the precautionary principle and essentially overwrite it with a new law.

People have heard me. I am a bit like a broken record in this place when it comes to talking about how our logging affects our native forests and how it just does not make any sense, but I am here. We have got another bill before us, so I will do it again. There is extensive peer-reviewed evidence from our top scientists that says logging is bad for the climate, logging makes fires worse, logging in our native forests is driving extinction and in fact it costs Victorian taxpayers money every single year. Yet for some reason this government seems to continue on with the destruction regardless, largely due to the influence of vested interests.

The explanations that we have been provided on this bill are quite wordy and complex and, dare I say, probably designed to confuse, but essentially what the bill does at the end of the day is give new powers to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and the minister to decide what logging is legal. It does this by giving a power to create a new compliance standard for how duties like the precautionary principle apply. Now, the Labor government’s rationale for creating this new power is that the application of the precautionary principle needs clarity. They are saying it is unclear, but actually the courts have already provided that clarity through quite a number of cases now. We have that. It is just that the logging industry and their mates in Labor do not like what the courts have decided, so instead of taking on that advice of the courts, Labor are giving themselves the power to write their own version of this clarity, a version which will allow a maximum amount of logging.

So essentially my understanding is what will be able to happen is that VicForests, our state-owned logging company, which loses money, writes up a plan for how they want to log and how they think they will meet the precautionary principle, then they get that plan signed off by the minister and that is that. It cannot then be challenged; it cannot go to court, even if the logging plan actually in practice does significant harm to our threatened species.

Forest conservationists, the Greens and community groups that I have spoken to are very worried that these plans will be written for VicForests in a way that lessens protection for threatened species and essentially overrules what the courts have said about the precautionary principle. I have to say there is really no other reason why the government would need to introduce this bill if not to weaken the precautionary principle and allow more logging in sensitive areas that are currently illegal to log in. Unfortunately it is just another action in a list of poor environmental decisions this government has taken recently, which is quite disappointing, because I think a lot of good has also been done by this government, but when it comes to the environment we are seeing quite a number of decisions that simply do not make any sense. For example, last week I was incredibly upset to see the Labor government again announce their support for another season of duck slaughter.

In 2017 Labor allowed duck shooting despite research showing duck numbers were in serious decline. In 2018–19 Labor allowed duck shooting despite prolonged drought and duck numbers still being in decline. In 2020 Labor allowed duck shooting despite catastrophic fires that killed and displaced 3 billion animals.

In 2021, last year, Labor allowed duck shooting even when the rest of the state was in lockdown. And this year, in 2022, Labor has just announced an extended duck-shooting season, the longest since 2018. This is a practice that is horrific and should have no place in Victoria. It is another example of how we are seeing threatened species, native animals, native ecosystems and habitats not being valued and in fact vested interests and industry taking precedence over the things that sustain us. I think that history will judge this period of time, when MPs knew the risks yet enabled more destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity right when we are facing ecological and climate collapse. I think history will judge this period of time and those decisions very poorly.

So again I would implore MPs in this place, no matter what side of politics they are on, to think very hard before they vote for this bill and to vote against it. If you care about our threatened species, if you care about our biodiversity, if you care about the ecosystems that sustain us, it is your vote that will make a difference. This is the critical time for our ecosystems, and I think it would be good to think about what side of history you would like to be on.

Ms EDWARDS (Bendigo West) (15:01): It is my pleasure to rise to make a contribution to this very important bill before us today, the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022. I note that, as per normal, the Greens political party would like to see an end to logging right now, and if we were in a perfect world, well, maybe that might happen. But they have never, ever given consideration to how we would transition without the logging industry. They have never given any consideration to how we would plan or how they would plan, and they have never given any indication of what support there would be for workers or communities, unlike the Labor government and the Andrews Labor government, who have in place a plan. That is of course the Victorian Forestry Plan, and it goes to the heart of what some of the members on the other side have been referring to in the debate today. We developed the Victorian Forestry Plan to ensure that there would be a long-term and sustainable future for Victoria’s forestry industry and for the many workers who rely on it. This is a historic plan, and it involves Victorian forests extending existing timber supply agreements until 2024, after which native timber supply will be stepped down before ending in 2030.

We also said that logging in remaining old-growth forests would cease immediately. In 2019 $120 million was set aside to ensure the industry was fully supported, backing long-term sustainable jobs and giving local workers confidence about their future. The plan includes the largest environmental protection policy in the state’s history, with immediate protections for the iconic greater glider—a wonderful species that many of us know—native fauna and Victoria’s remaining old-growth forests. Under the plan 90 000 hectares of Victoria’s remaining rare and precious old-growth forest aged up to 600 years old would be protected immediately. In the 2017–18 state budget the Victorian government, the Andrews Labor government, invested a record $110 million to establish timber plantations in the Latrobe Valley to support the long-term sustainability of Victoria’s timber industry. It is about balance.

The Minister for Agriculture in 2021 announced new support for the timber industry, supporting workers and communities to adjust to the phase-out of native timber harvesting by 2030, and an additional $100 million was announced for measures including increased redundancy payments, opt-out packages, relocation support and training programs. This boosted the government’s support to more than $200 million. The Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change announced a $14 million environmental package that included funding to establish best practice procedures for the long-term management of regenerated timber harvesting coupes and their reintegration into the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s broader active management of state forests. We also committed to strengthening the conservation regulator with new infringement powers for anyone breaching the code of practice, bringing its powers in line with other Victorian regulators.

Through this agreement the Andrews Labor government has modernised Victoria’s regional forest agreements to support jobs and improve the long-term management of Victoria’s forests. Of course due to the devastating 2019–20 bushfires this clause was triggered, and both the commonwealth and the Victorian government together established an independent panel to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of the fires and identify if future remedial actions needed to be taken. And this bill goes to specifics around codes of practice et cetera.

But I did want to just touch on the Black Summer fires, because I think at the heart of all of this is conservation, maintenance and future mitigation around climate change and how to prevent the destruction that was caused by those fires. In the Black Summer fires more than 24 million hectares were burned, directly causing 33 deaths and almost 450 more from smoke inhalation. They were unprecedented. There were some questions about whether the Black Summer fires were really worse than the conflagrations that we saw in the Black Friday fires of 1939, but research has clearly shown that these fires were far from normal. A recent study found that the annual area burned by fires across Australia’s forests has been increasing by about 48 000 hectares per year over the last three decades, and after five years that would be roughly the size of the entire Australian Capital Territory. The fire season is growing. It is moving out of spring and summer into autumn and into winter, and these trends are almost entirely due to Australia’s increasing severe fire weather and are consistent with predicted human-induced climate change. It is only this government that has a zero net emissions target for 2050.

I just wanted to mention also some comments that were made by the Leader of The Nationals in his contribution. He mentioned that for every tree that was logged in our coupes a tree was replaced, and that may very well be, but the reality is that if we are facing climate change, we are seeing the destruction of our forests by huge bushfires, and those trees do not regenerate and do not regrow. We are losing thousands and thousands of trees through bushfire alone, not to mention flood, of course. It is frightening in its complexity, but it is also something that can be mitigated.

In relation to this bill, we know that there is a shortage of timber. We know that, and that is purely through the issues that we have in the Supreme Court. But we also know that the significance of this bill and why it has been brought to this house is to ultimately enable the conservation regulator to create compliance standards, and that will give guidance to VicForests on how to comply with the precautionary principle, which has been discussed by many members in this house, and I will not go into that detail. But this reform, this legislation, will reduce that third-party litigation and will provide greater certainty on what constitutes compliance with the precautionary principle, particularly the precautionary principle clauses within the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2014.

Compliance standards are expected to be in place by mid-2022, and they will not change the precautionary principle or reduce any environmental standards in the code of practice or related documents, despite what the Greens political party may say. And while this bill is directly relevant to electorates in eastern Victoria, it is also of interest to other regional areas of Victoria. Just in relation to my own electorate, in the short time I have left, I want to mention our Bendigo state forests, which are also at risk of significant bushfire, Bendigo being surrounded by forests.

We are indeed fortunate to be surrounded by ironbark forests and woodlands that boast a huge array of plants and animals as well as Indigenous and European cultural heritage sites. We as a city—Bendigo—and indeed other towns in my electorate, such as Castlemaine, were built off the back of the forests and they supplied so many resources to our local industries historically. They provided employment and helped many Bendigo residents, the City of Bendigo and surrounding districts to become thriving metropolitan cities, but many changes of course have occurred over the decades and evidence of the different uses can still be found throughout the forests surrounding Bendigo. But what is important to note is that it is not just about timber for use, it is also about conservation of our forests. Our forests are so important to the health and wellbeing of our communities and of individuals, and it is important that we ensure that they are maintained and that there is mitigation against climate change within those forests.

Bendigo state forests are home to the Dja Dja Wurrung people, the Jaara Jaara country, and they roamed the Bendigo region for thousands of years. I also note that the Leader of The Nationals mentioned fire mitigation strategies, and we are looking at that.

Ms McLEISH (Eildon) (15:11): I am actually pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022, and I would like to think that this is an area that I know quite a lot about. I certainly think that those in Labor have tied themselves in knots trying to explain this. They have no understanding about the importance of sustainable forest harvesting with climate change and that in fact after the bushfires trees do regrow. I think my electorate is one that is testimony to that. You can see how clearly and thickly the bush has regrown. It is very dense forest now, and you can see after 12 or 13 years that this is very much the case. The bill before us, I understand, is based on changes that have been suggested as a result of legal advice from the Victorian Government Solicitor, because there were some issues sitting there in the background.

I want to talk about forestry first of all. Forestry is a legitimate industry. It is an important industry and, as has been said, it is not just important to eastern Victoria, which I think is in the Labor Party handbook because a few people have said that. It is also important not just in my electorate or other regions but also in many areas in the city where there are downstream businesses that rely on forestry. People have stairs and floorboards and furniture that rely on forestry. We do not want to be importing everything and we do not want softwood for everything, so native hardwood forestry has a strong place in Victoria.

We have 7.8 million hectares, of which 3.1 million is within the scope of state forests on public land. Of that there are three trees in 10 000 that are harvested, or 0.03 per cent. As I have said, pine is not an alternative to hardwood—softwood is not an alternative. It can do certain things but not everything. This sector has been absolutely beaten and it is weary from the fights that they have had to have, not just the fights with protesters and activists but also fights they have had with the government about the lack of certainty. One of the things the bill does talk about—and speakers have mentioned it and the second-reading speech mentions it—is providing greater certainty for the industry, because at the moment this industry is being closed down by stealth. It is body blow after body blow. The industry really needs to be supported, and if this bill is able to support it, that is not a bad thing.

What I want to mention first of all is the IPCC’s position on forestry. If you are not familiar with the IPCC, it is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and that is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change. Their special report Climate Change and Land, which is very readily available, in chapter 6 at page 191, clearly outlines the benefits of forestry to climate change—sustainable harvesting. We are not talking about deforestation, because as has been said with forests in Victoria, once they have been harvested they are replanted, and I have seen those successfully replanted coupes and I have seen those that have not been as successful, where contractors have gone in and replanted trees by hand.

With the deer problem, they have actually put guards around those trees to make sure that they have the best chance, so they are being replaced. But it is important for the chamber to understand that sustainable forestry has benefits for the environment in terms of carbon capture, as younger trees absorb more carbon than older trees. As I have said, reforestation is not deforestation, which sees forests chopped down and cleared for good. That is not what happens. They are replanted, and those younger trees as they grow absorb greater carbon. But also the IPCC’s report says that using carbon in long-lived products such as wood for construction can store carbon for up to a century, so there is a big myth out there about climate change and how forestry is bad for climate. In fact sustainable harvesting, which is what we practice, is actually a good thing.

Now, about the bill: this gives powers that are unprecedented to the minister or the minister’s agent. On this side of the house we are worried that those might not be used for good. The Greens are clearly worried that they are going to be used against the activists—and if that is the case, that is not a bad thing, and I feel some relief knowing that the forestry alliance, who contacted me, and I know many of those green activist groups, are concerned about this bill, and if they are concerned, well, maybe it is actually heading in the right direction.

The rationale here is that the increased powers will allow the minister or their agent to more clearly set out precautionary behaviours, which in theory should reduce legal disputes. The code of practice has been around since the 1980s, and the current one that we have been working on is from Minister Smith in 2014. The code of practice, which is referred to consistently throughout the bill—and in fact that is the core of the bill—is designed to enable practically and economically workable timber production in such a way that the environmental impacts are minimised. There is no doubt that harvesting is tough on the environment but, as I have said before, trees regrow and our forest coupes are revegetated. Also the bill has the ability to incorporate, and this is a direct quote:

… any matter contained in any document, standard, rule, specification or method as amended from time to time …

So they are rolling a whole bunch of different things that can be rolled into the code of practice, and this can be updated in a timely manner and without public consultation, which is perhaps a little bit of a concern for me.

The precautionary principle is about taking precautions to protect the biodiversity while we have sustainable harvesting. Things that are important there are the selection of the coupes, the streams, carving out—this is not designed to prevent harvesting at all, which is what the activists think. It is designed to look after and work with the biodiversity to conserve those elements at the same time as undertaking harvesting activities. The code of practice includes that mandatory action to apply the precautionary principle to all timber harvesting activities.

Now, we have a lot of challenges in the sector. There is closure by stealth. There has been a lack of support. But it is really crunch time for the Premier here—and I think this is what has really jolted this minister and the bill into action here—because the Premier promised supply at 2019 levels, and that supply for 2024 is now in jeopardy. There are a bunch of reasons for that. We have activism. Now, this activism is on the ground and in the court. On the ground you might get your protesters holding up signs and things like that, but you also get them wearing dark clothing running in and out of coupes while people are trying to do their harvesting operations, and that is extremely dangerous for the harvester and for the protester and is extremely stressful. That behaviour is just unfair. We have also 75 per cent of coupes on the timber release plan subject to court action injunctions and this puts contractors out of work—10 contractors, 80 jobs. This is what is happening: the Greens, the activists, are consistently going to court to try and get an injunction to prevent harvesting from happening. Typically what happens is they do not win. In fact in the vast majority of cases they do not win, but they are not very good at paying their bills either, and so they are not acting honestly or with integrity.

The timber shortages at the moment are critical. Supply and production are down by 50 per cent. We have got sawmills standing down staff and more to follow. Australian Paper could run out of supply by August. And this is critical for so many downstream businesses. It is critical for the mills. It is critical for the wholesalers and for the retailers. And where is the evidence for this? Well, we know that there are empty shelves. You only have to go into Bunnings, any local hardware store. You can see that—

A member interjected.

Ms McLEISH: Mitre 10, absolutely. You know, small communities are often based around the smaller hardware stores such as Mitre 10—and Yenckens in my electorate. The cost of housing, the raw materials, has increased by 60 per cent. Included in this is timber. You can talk to the builders; they will tell you about this critical supply.

Now, I think one of the things that people have said is that this is a concern to those in eastern Victoria and perhaps the regions. Let me tell you: there are many, many businesses in inner-city suburbs. In the seats of Brunswick and Melbourne there are many, many businesses reliant on timber, as there are in Bayswater, Richmond, Geelong, Narre Warren North, Narre Warren South and Carrum. They have large numbers of businesses that rely on timber. Mordialloc is another one. And I am sure, Acting Speaker Blandthorn, that Pascoe Vale has businesses that rely on timber as well.

Now, we must balance conserving biodiversity and meeting the needs of the industry. This is a legitimate industry. It needs government support. Now, hope is not a strategy, but I do hope that this does provide greater clarity and support for the timber industry, both for the workers on the ground and in the mills and for the downstream businesses, because they need that support.

Ms SULEYMAN (St Albans) (15:21): I too rise to contribute and speak on the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022, and I echo the sentiments on this side of the house in relation to this bill. We are deeply passionate about the Victorian environment and also conserving it for the future generations to come. We know that it is only Labor governments that deliver meaningful outcomes and wins for local communities, in particular when it comes to the environment. Like no others in Victoria’s history, our forests are deeply valued—sensitive ecosystems, some of which are found nowhere else on this earth. They are a home for extraordinary biodiversity and wildlife and a refuge from climate change. They support important regional economic outcomes for tourism and are a resource for a timber.

It is absolutely essential and important that we get this right. There are always competing uses for our forests. This is a critical resource, and it effectively needs to be well managed. With the appropriate guidance provided to timber harvesters, we can get this right. The Andrews government is committed to delivering the Victorian Forestry Plan, and we have seen our commitment in the last few years when it comes to this space. So it is not just this bill; there has been an important and mammoth investment when it comes to this space. We are phasing out native timber harvesting by 2030, importantly delivering our plan to the timber workers and also caring for our environment—and the Conservation Regulator, which needs certainty.

Current cases, as we have heard, in the Victorian courts continue to be something that has created, unfortunately, a little bit of uncertainty about the application of the precautionary principle. The principle applies when there is any threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage. The application of the principle is mandatory and even more important after the Black Summer bushfires and recent events that we have seen.

The bill will enable a compliance standard to be created to give guidance to VicForests as to how to comply with these principles, giving certainty about when action is required. The compliance standards will be developed by the Conservation Regulator, who will undertake consultation with industry and of course stakeholders, including environmental NGOs.

Our government has always looked to reform forest management and procedures, and we have seen that in the last few years, as I said, not only with investment in this space but also by making a number of amendments and consulting on variations to the code and fixing up further previous errors in the agreements. We will undertake a comprehensive review of the code by December 2023.

As required under our modernised regional forest agreements it is our government that has committed over $200 million to support workers and the industry to transition, and that has been absolutely critical for the local economy. It is our government that has introduced the Office of the Conservation Regulator, a dedicated oversight function to ensure that environmental projections are in step with law and of course community expectations. This bill builds on the strong track record on this side of the house of protecting Victoria’s natural environment and, most importantly, supporting the industry.

Our government developed the Victorian Forestry Plan to ensure long-term sustainability for Victoria’s forestry industry and the Victorian workers who rely on it and depend on it. The historic plan involved VicForests extending existing timber supply agreements until 2024, after which our native timber supply will be stepped down before ending in 2030. Logging in remaining old-growth forests ceased immediately, and in 2019, $120 million was set aside to ensure the industry was fully supported, backing long-term sustainable jobs and giving local workers confidence about the future. The plan includes the largest environmental protection policy in the state’s history, with immediate protections for the iconic greater glider species, native fauna and Victoria’s remaining old-growth forest. Under the plan 90 000 hectares of Victoria’s remaining rare and precious old forest, aged up to 600 years old, was protected immediately.

In the 2017–18 state budget the Victorian government invested another record $110 million to establish timber plantations in the Latrobe Valley to support the long-term sustainability of Victoria’s timber industry. The Victorian Environmental Assessment Council is currently undertaking a scientific assessment of immediate protection areas in Mirboo North and the Strathbogie Ranges, and later in 2022 the VEAC will commence its assessment of the Central Highlands and East Gippsland IPAs—and that is really important.

We have continued to strengthen the Victorian Forestry Plan, and as I said, in December 2021 we made important announcements, with our minister announcing new support for the timber industry, supporting workers and communities to transition and to phase out of native timber harvesting by our goal of 2030. In addition to that, $100 million of measures were announced, including increased redundancy packages, opt-out packages, relocation support and training programs—and that is really important: training so that workers can transition to other sectors, and that has been really successful. This commitment and the continued commitment boosted government support to more than $200 million alone, and further our minister announced a $14 million environmental package that included funding to establish best practice procedures for long-term management of the timber harvesting sector and of course reintegration of this important sector. So we have made it very clear that this government is committed to strengthening and, most importantly, making sure that our incredible forests and conservation areas continue to be the pride of state, and this bill is about providing guidance and certainty to the industry.

The Andrews Labor government will always put the right measures in place to support the environment, support workers and support local communities. That is also part of us making sure that our beautiful forests are protected areas that are here for many, many more decades to come, keeping them vibrant, safe and alive for future generations of our community in this state to enjoy. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms VALLENCE (Evelyn) (15:30): I rise today to speak on the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022. It is such an odd thing to hear the contributions from the Labor members of the house who, in relation to this bill, talk about protecting the environment and supporting workers, yet this Labor government, the Andrews Labor government, has done nothing but try to cut down workers in the timber industry. That is all they have been doing, that is what they are determined to do and it is wrong.

At the outset I want to again put on record my support for the timber harvesting industry, the sustainable native timber industry, an industry that produces products from locally grown timber, the jobs and the careers that this industry creates and of course the communities that this industry sustains. Now, the Liberals and Nationals coalition is the only party in this Parliament that supports the timber industry. Particularly I want to talk as well about the public service workers who work through VicForests, who are facing a very uncertain future because of the actions of this Andrews Labor government, which does not care about the workers in this industry, these public service workers. I want to refer to the forest industry contractors, who do a tremendous job to support this sustainable industry but are also there in times of emergency. When we have bushfires or severe storms it is these contractors that use their equipment and volunteer their time and their services to support communities at their most vulnerable moments with their equipment. Of course all are small family businesses, typically, through the supply chain that supports this vital, sustainable industry.

This industry faces an increasingly hostile Andrews Labor government that has done nothing to support these workers and support this industry, time and time again wanting to cut down these workers and cut down these country towns whose very survival depends on this industry. The Labor government have such contempt for this industry and these timber workers that they do not even have the decency to consult with the industry, to consult with the sector, on this bill that has been brought for debate—

Ms Green interjected.

Ms VALLENCE: I will refer to the member for Yan Yean in a moment, who made a contribution earlier. They have done nothing to consult on this particular bill. We heard from the member for Yan Yean in her contribution earlier. She actually confirmed that fact. In her contribution she said that it was only yesterday that the Victorian Forest Products Association and the forestry division of the CFMEU were met with on this bill—just yesterday. We are debating this bill today. This bill has been introduced into this Parliament already. So that consultation did not occur before this bill came to the Parliament, and it just goes to show how this Andrews Labor government rides roughshod over these people—over these workers and over these communities. It is disgraceful.

With the introduction of this bill, yet another bill that seems to tinker at the edges, tinker with bits and pieces to do with the forest industry and the potential future of the forest industry in Victoria, the industry is rightly concerned. They are rightly concerned that this Labor government, the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change—obviously the timber industry hating minister for the environment—and the Labor-stacked department, as reported in the Weekly Times, would rather see the death of a sustainable industry in Victoria.

This very narrow bill gives significantly more power to the minister and the Secretary of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, gives them essentially unfettered power to potentially make changes to where timber harvesting can occur and potentially deviate from the provisions within the broadly consulted on Code of Practice for Timber Production 2014. That is why I speak on this bill with much trepidation. The Victorian Liberal-Nationals may seek to revisit this and seek to make some amendments in the upper house potentially, but to have a Code of Practice for Timber Production that has been broadly consulted on—there have been submissions made by the public, by the industry, by people from the sector to get to that point—and for the Labor government to say, ‘Oh, but they were just syntax errors’; 3000 changes is not just a few spelling errors amended. They made some changes that were designed to provide certainty to the industry, but what this bill does is give more and unfettered power to the minister and the secretary in a Labor-stacked department to provide less certainty for this industry. That does nothing for jobs and nothing for workers.

I also want to say that the Labor members of Parliament will try to pull the wool over Victorians’ eyes in relation to how this bill and what they are doing with regard to the timber industry is good for the environment. What the Labor government fail to tell you, of course, is that once they have killed off this vital and sustainable local industry, people will still need timber. Victorians will still need timber in construction, including in government social housing, for example, in level crossing removal infrastructure works. Victorians will still need timber. If this government is so determined to kill off the timber industry in Victoria, we will still need to get it from somewhere, and what the Labor government is failing to tell Victorians and to be candid with Victorians about is where that is going to come from. It is going to be imported. It is going to be imported from other forests in other countries. We have the most sustainable industry here in Victoria, but this government will be importing that and allowing Victorians to import that from less sustainable, not environmentally friendly forests, such as in Borneo. This I do not think is a good outcome, but this is the outcome and the legacy that this Andrews Labor government will leave.

The Labor government would rather kill off this industry and import from overseas. They talk about protecting the environment, but our timber industry is so crucial and critical to the emissions reduction targets and our collective agreement, our collective approach, to climate change and reducing our emissions. The timber industry is so vitally important to that. Of course we know that the IPCC supports native timber industries as a key pillar for tackling climate change, so it just beggars belief that the Andrews Labor government wants to kill off our own industry, because it is so crucial.

I have met people in the forest sector—from VicForests and forest contractors—and they actually care a lot about the environment. They are environmentalists. They care about it. I was up in a coupe in the Toolangi forest, neighbouring my electorate, just recently, and you would not know that there is logging. It does not seem like there is logging. There is certainly not wholesale logging. They do this very strategically in small parts of the area. They are very careful about which trees they harvest, and they are very, very concerned about the protection of native flora and fauna as they do that. These people are actually caring for and managing these forests sustainably. They are doing that together and hand in hand with First Nations people, who know that if these forests are not managed, this will become sick country. The Andrews Labor government likes to talk large about including Indigenous people, including First Nations people, but it is the First Nations people, particularly in my community, who want to see these forests managed well. They like the work of VicForests and the forest contracting industry because they know that if that does not happen, if it is let go, this country will become sick. That again will be another devastating legacy of this Andrews Labor government—who say they care about the environment, but I think they do not. It makes absolutely no sense that they want to degrade and kill off this really important industry.

I also want to refer to the VicForests annual report 2020–21 and one of the concerns, obviously, that this extremely important industry that employs lots of Victorians and contributes very well to the Victorian economy—again my mind boggles as to why this government wants to kill off that industry and hurt these workers and put them out of work. They have had a tough time because they have had a tough time with significant legal proceedings. VicForests in their report say that they have had unprecedented volume of third-party litigation, and that is in terms of a supposed breach of the code of conduct. But we know that all they need is certainty and support, and the Liberals and Nationals will support them.

Ms WARD (Eltham) (15:41): That was an interesting contribution by the member in that I am understanding that the opposition are not opposing this bill yet there seem to be so many challenges that that member has got with the bill. I do not know whether we are finding ourselves in another communication challenge within the opposition where they are just not quite sure what their policies are, just like we have seen with climate change. I am not sure whether this is a challenge that they are having, but it is very difficult to follow the line of argument when it is really not consistent.

Mr Fregon interjected.

Ms WARD: No. No conviction at all, member for Mount Waverley. What I find incredibly interesting about the opposition’s contribution is that there is this ongoing trope—

Ms Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member is using her opportunity to debate this very important bill to attack—

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Blandthorn): Order! Sorry, I cannot hear the member for Lowan.

Ms Kealy: The member for Eltham is using this opportunity to debate this very important bill, the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022, to attack the opposition. Now, I know it has been a broad-ranging debate, but I ask that she actually stick to the bill and, rather than try to attack the opposition, focus on what is in front of us today.

Mr Fregon: On the point of order, Acting Speaker, I think the member was reflecting on the previous member’s contribution and that is relevant.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Blandthorn): Thank you, member for Mount Waverley. Yes, I believe the member was reflecting on the previous contribution. It was directly relevant to the debate at hand, but I ask the member to keep her contribution on the bill. Thank you.

Ms WARD: In the previous member’s contribution, there was a strong focus around trying to divide people and talk about division within the industry, and this is a similar trope that comes from the opposition, which is to continue to divide communities, continue to divide opinion, and not actually discuss the policies at hand or in fact even indeed come up with their own policies. It is just about sowing dissent and constructing narratives that often do not have a lot of basis in reality or fact.

Ms Vallence: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, if we are talking about policies, the Liberals and Nationals are the only parties that have a policy to support the native timber industry.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Blandthorn): Member for Evelyn, you are out of order. There is no point of order.

Ms WARD: Thank you, and we do see from those opposite that whenever anybody on this side of the house, particularly my colleague and good friend the member for Yan Yean, gets up to actually debate what has been said in this chamber around legislation, there are endless points of order that have no basis in the rules of this house but are just there to waste time and to interrupt speakers. It is quite a juvenile way of engaging in debate in this chamber.

Ms Kealy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Eltham is complaining about the number of points of order and that she is being unfairly prejudiced. Rather than talking about those matters I suggest that she reverts back to the bill and speaks—

Members interjecting.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Blandthorn): Order! I cannot hear the member for Lowan.

Ms Kealy: I ask you to direct the member for Eltham to return to the bill. It is very narrow. It is only seven pages, the bill. I am sure there is enough that she can talk to in the content of the bill rather than debating whether there should be points of order or not raised by the opposition.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Blandthorn): Thank you, I have heard enough on the point of order. I would ask that the member keep her comments to the bill at hand.

Ms WARD: Thank you, Acting Speaker, and as you have just heard, often the points of order that do come from those opposite are actually not points of order—however.

The bill allows for the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2014 to establish a compliance standards framework. I would have thought that within the industry there would be huge support from those opposite to actually want a code of conduct, to have some really clear distinctive parameters within which to work, so that we can continue to have a discussion and work through policy that is directly relevant to the timber industry and the preservation of jobs within that industry.

Through recent legal action that we have seen in this state we can see that there is a need for clarity regarding the interpretation of the Code of Practice for Timber Production. This is not something that has just magically appeared. This is not a vanity project. This is something that the government has been working on, and I applaud the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change for the leadership that she has shown across her portfolio and her willingness to engage in ways to help this industry continue to be sustainable in terms of employment as well as their logging practices. If we did have a rational conversation with those opposite about this issue, we would be able indeed to explore this further, but we do not have that rational discussion from those opposite. There is no real discussion around how we can have sustainable logging and how we can have sustainable jobs within the industry. Instead it is just around scare tactics and trying to divide communities and fester anger, because we know and we have seen time and time again—in fact the time that I have been in this chamber—that the only way that they see they can achieve electoral success is through creating anger, fomenting anger, developing anger. They have tried and failed repeatedly in the seven years that I have been here, and they will keep going.

We know the compliance standards—

Ms Vallence: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, again on relevance, can I just ask you to perhaps get the member to comply with your previous ruling. The member is referring to the opposition as seeking to divide and attack. This is a government that is doing everything to kill off this industry and to take away the jobs and cut down these timber workers—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Blandthorn): Thank you, member for Evelyn. A point of order is not an opportunity to further litigate the debate. This has been a broad-ranging debate, and the member is addressing both your previous contribution and others that have been made in the house. I am sure she will continue to remain consistent with the bill.

Ms WARD: Thank you, Acting Speaker. We do see this desire to silence people from that side, to interrupt their contributions and to stop them from actually bringing forward their own argument. If the member would just have patience and allow more than three sentences to get out before calling points of order, she might understand the thread of my narrative and what it is that I am contributing here today.

As I was saying before I was interrupted, compliance standards will be developed by the conservation regulator and recommended to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning secretary for decision. The standards will give the industry and community certainty as to what actions can be taken to comply. This is exactly what this industry is seeking, and that is what we need for these communities as well. They need certainty, and it is through the legislative framework that we can continue to create that certainty and develop stronger certainty for them.

We are consulting on further variations of the code, fixing up errors created by those opposite. So it is quite ironic when we again still have this fear campaign happening from those opposite in their contributions when there are errors that have been made by them in past legislation that we need to work on and fix. It would be really helpful if in this place there could actually be constructive conversation around this from the other side, where we could talk through what is the best way forward and how we can help support these industries and these workers who need all the support and help that they can get. It is only the party that cares about workers and that represents workers who will ensure that this happens.

We have developed a Victorian Forestry Plan which will ensure environmental protections but also plan for jobs. Under the plan we have ended logging in old-growth forests. We have put in place a plan to end native timber logging by 2030, and we are setting aside $120 million to support industry and help transition jobs because we want our regional communities to thrive. We want them to have the jobs in which they feel respected and valued. This is what this government will achieve. Where those opposite leave those communities behind and where they fail those communities is by instilling fear in those communities. Instead of working with people, they instil fear, and that does nothing to help those communities whatsoever. This is continually the way that they go about their business, which is nothing short of shameful.

We have protected over 90 000 hectares of old-growth forest, 96 000 hectares of forest was immediately exempt from logging through immediate protection areas and we are planting 500 000 new trees in Melbourne’s west. So we are taking really consistent, concise, proper action to help look after the industry as much as we can as well as recognising the need to preserve our old-growth forests and to protect timber.

We have announced $6 million to build a 10-kilometre predator-proof fence at Wilson’s Prom, which is fantastic news, and I am sorry that I cannot continue to talk about this, because this is excellent policy for Wilsons Promontory.

Mr T BULL (Gippsland East) (15:51): It is a pleasure to rise on the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022. I will start off by saying, as has been reflected by our earlier speakers, we will not be opposing this bill in the Assembly but we will be reserving our position in the upper house to address some of the areas of concern that I want to outline here.

A key part of this bill, as we have heard, is to give the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change and the departmental secretary discretionary powers under the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2014, which would make those decisions legally binding. This is concerning to us, and I want to take up why. It would be good to have this level of discretion if we could get some guarantees that it would clear the obstacles and the hurdles that are currently confronting our timber industry around court injunctions on coupes and the like that put hardworking, honest timber families out of their lawful work. But it has got the potential to be used to, I guess, further impede the sector—to be used the other way.

I want to make a few comments about going back to the code of practice for timber harvesting and timber production and the basis and the ethos for it. Now, it was established acknowledging that the timber industry has environmental impacts—we chop trees down—absolutely it does. It has environmental impacts, but the code was put in place to ensure that this did not occur in areas of high sensitivity. It is about enabling a practical and economically viable industry to undertake what it does, at the same time minimising the environmental impacts. It is a really sensible, balanced compromise. That is what it is.

The concern that we have in giving the minister or the secretary these discretionary powers is that rulings may be biased—have the potential to be biased—towards the environmental sector and make it more difficult for the industry to prevail, and everybody knows the challenges that they have got at the moment. The problem is that with this timber code of practice that was established to give some clarity and some certainty to the timber industry we have some who want to use it as a tool to impact the timber industry, which was not its intention. It should be an enabling code of practice. These additional powers have the extension to be that—to be problematic to the timber industry.

We have heard some commentary, including in the second-reading speech, that the bushfires of 2019–20 created irreversible damage, and that could be something that the minister or the departmental secretary uses to use their discretionary powers. The fires that we had in 2019–20 I know a little bit about. I lived through them. We have had worse plenty of times before. We have had worse than that plenty of times before, and it is a fact that our landscape has been recovering from these types of events for a very long time. So to say it has caused irreversible damage makes the suggestion that it has not happened before. It has, and the bush has recovered.

Now, the irony that I find with all this is that we have a government that will not control fuel loads in the bush. We could see this coming. The locals forecast the 2019–20 fires a couple of years before, as soon as we got a hot summer and lightning strikes. We have got a government that does not control fuel loads in the bush, allows record fuel loads to build up, and then is giving itself legislation where it can invoke measures to impact the timber industry as a result of their mismanagement of the bush. It is a vicious circle of total mismanagement.

I want to talk about the timber harvesting itself and the footprint of the timber harvesting. We have the Greens that come in and stand up in here, and you would think we were bulldozing the entire country. The timber industry operates in 6 per cent of our state forests. In 6 per cent of our bush, the timber industry operates. Of that 6 per cent—now, just get your head around this—per annum 0.04 per cent is harvested. The 6 per cent is harvested on an 80-year rotation, and they want to come in here and jump up and down about all the destruction it is causing and horrible things. It is an absolutely minuscule amount that we are harvesting, and on top of that it is worth remembering—and one thing we do agree on on both sides of the chamber here is—no old growth is logged. What we need to do as a Parliament is accept that there are some environmental impacts from logging. There are, but it is an absolutely minuscule area, and it supports an industry that is important not only to the Victorian economy. We have got organisations like Planet Ark, for instance, running around, and their slogan at the moment is ‘Do the world some good, build it with wood’. Do the world some good, build it with wood, from Planet Ark.

So we have got one of the most highly regulated timber industries in the world here in this state. We have got Planet Ark telling us to build with timber because it is one of the most environmentally sustainable building products. We have got a government over here that is shutting it down—shutting it down—and the government over here cannot tell me when we are shutting down our native hardwood timber industry to go to plantation. No-one on this side of the chamber can tell me where the plantations of hardwood are to replace it in 2030. Consumer demand for this product is going up because timber captures carbon, timber is sustainable, timber is renewable, and we have got this government closing it down saying we are going to replace it with plantation. Where is the plantation timber? Well, hardwood takes 30 years to mature at the earliest time, 30 to 50 years, so if we are transitioning out of hardwood by 2030 those plantations should be sitting here somewhere in Victoria that are 20 years old now. But they are not there. There is no foresight. We are talking about 0.04 per cent per annum of our bush. This is just a circus.

You have got the Greens who come in here and say, quoting studies, that the timber industry worsens the fire risk. They are selective in what they quote. The University of Tasmania also released a study after the 2019–20 fires to say timber harvesting has no impact on the severity of fire impact, but do we hear the member for Melbourne getting up and talking about the University of Tasmania report? No. I actually sat down and had a cup of tea with one of the Greens about 18 months ago in this place to try and get—

Mr D O’Brien interjected.

Mr T BULL: No, I did. I did because I thought I would try and get the rationale behind their stance on the timber industry, and when I asked some of these questions—we are highly regulated, it is a good building product, it captures carbon, it is renewable and it is sustainable—I could not get any answers. They had no answers. I am not sure about that. But they want to get up here when they get their 90 seconds or they want to stand up in here when they get on a bill and they want to talk about possums and all that sort of stuff—and we do need to protect the bush. We do, but the timber harvesting code of practice has identified the areas where there are minimal environmental impacts. The member for Melbourne stood up in here before and said this could be used to allow logging in illegal areas. What a load of rubbish. It will allow logging in areas that have been identified for logging—potentially, if it is not used the other way around. But my concern sits with the fact that these discretionary powers are going to sit with a government that wants to ban the sector, so my concern is that they will use it, dare I say, for evil rather than good, because they want to get rid of the timber industry. And where are we going to get our timber from when they get rid of our native Victorian hardwood? The Greens will be standing out the front—

Business interrupted under sessional orders.