Wednesday, 1 May 2024

Sustainable Forests (Timber) Repeal Bill 2024

Statement of compatibility

Steve DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh – Minister for Environment, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Outdoor Recreation) (11:22): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Repeal Bill 2024:

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Repeal Bill 2024 (the Bill).

In my opinion, the Bill, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this Statement.

Overview of the Bill

The Bill supports the Victorian Government’s commitment to end commercial native timber harvesting and makes the necessary legislative amendments to repeal the framework that authorised commercial native timber harvesting in Victorian state forests under the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 (SFT Act). The Bill will:

• Abolish VicForests and transfer its property, rights and liabilities to the Crown;

• Repeal the SFT Act to remove the framework under that Act that enabled commercial native timber harvesting operations in Victorian state forests;

• Insert an offence provision into the Forests Act 1958 (Forests Act) that prohibits the cut and take of timber in state forests for the primary purpose of sale;

• Insert key compliance and enforcement tools from the SFT Act into the Forests Act to support a graduated enforcement framework for unauthorised native timber harvesting in state forests;

• Align the penalties for various Forests Act offences with the higher penalties for equivalent offences in the SFT Act;

• Insert into the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 (CFL Act) provisions from the SFT Act that relate to sustainable forest management and are expected to remain relevant after commercial native timber harvesting ends; and

• Insert a regulation-making power into the Forests Act that enables regulations to be made to establish matters that the Minister must consider before deciding to issue licences and permits relating to forest produce.

Human rights issues

By repealing the SFT Act and abolishing VicForests, the Bill formally ends commercial native timber harvesting in Victorian state forests under the SFT Act. In so doing, the Bill supports the protection of Victoria’s natural environment, including native habitat, flora and fauna.

While the Bill does not directly impact Traditional Owners, they have significant rights and interests in Victorian forests. Accordingly, by protecting state forests from native timber harvesting, the Bill is compatible with the cultural rights of Traditional Owners under s 19(2) of the Charter, which includes the maintenance of their distinct spiritual, material and economic relationship with the land and waters and other resources with which they have a connection under traditional laws and customs.

While the Bill repeals the SFT Act and the framework that enabled commercial harvesting of native forests under that Act, elements of the enforcement and compliance mechanisms in the SFT Act are maintained, such as enforceable undertakings and the compulsory production of documents, where they pre-dated the repeal of the Act.

The Bill also amends the Forests Act to insert compliance mechanisms from the SFT Act, including the power for authorised officers to issue directions, suspension notices, and require the production of documents. The Bill also extends the current power in the Forests Act to seize items where there are reasonable grounds to believe that they may be about to be used in the commission of an offence against the Forests Act.

New offences for the cut and take of timber in state forests for the purpose of sale which aims to prevent unauthorised commercial timber harvesting, and for the contravention of a production notice and provision of false or misleading information have been added to the Forests Act. Existing Forests Act offences have had their penalties increased to bring them into line with the equivalent penalties in the SFT Act. In the case of the offences of ‘hinder or obstruct’ or ‘threaten or abuse’ an authorised officer, a term of imprisonment has been added.

The following rights are relevant to the Bill:

• Right to freedom from forced work (s 11)

• Privacy and reputation (s 13)

• Freedom of expression (s 15)

• Property (s 20)

• Presumption of innocence (s 25(1))

• Protection from self-incrimination (s 25(2)(k))

Right to freedom from forced work

Section 11 of the Charter provides that a person must not be held in slavery or servitude, or made to perform forced or compulsory labour. ‘Forced or compulsory labour’ does not include court-ordered community work as a condition of release from detention, work or service required because of an emergency threatening the Victorian community or a part of that community, or work or service that forms part of normal civil obligations.

Directions and suspension notices

Clause 21 of the Bill inserts new s 57NA into the Forests Act, which allows an authorised officer to give a direction to a licence holder or their representative, in respect of the conduct of certain activities permitted by the licence, namely the thinning, cutting or removal of timber from State forests. Clause 21 then inserts new s 57NB into the Forests Act which empowers an authorised officer to issue a notice to a licence holder or their representative to suspend the activity if there has been a failure to comply with a direction issued under new s 57NA, and if the continuation of the activity would cause imminent environmental damage or pose a serious risk to safety. New s 57ND provides that a suspension notice may also include directions regarding the measures to be taken to remedy any damage, risk, matter or activity to which the notice relates.

The compulsion to undertake an activity or to ‘do’ something as required by a direction in new s 57NA, or a direction contained in a suspension notice, may interfere with the right to freedom from forced work, specifically the prohibition on compulsory labour in s 11(2) of the Charter. I am of the view, however, that the right is not engaged as any work required by a direction issued by an authorised officer would fall within the scope of the exception to the prohibition in s 11(3) of the Charter, namely work or service that ‘forms part of normal civil obligations,’ as the directions can only be given to licence or permit holders (or those acting on their behalf) who are engaging in a regulated activity and have voluntarily assumed associated responsibilities and obligations. Additionally, the directions serve a preventative or remedial purpose, being to stop, mitigate or remedy environmental damage or safety risks.

If the exception in s 11(3) does not in fact apply, and the right is engaged, I am of the view that it is not limited by these provisions. New s 57ND allows an authorised officer to offer a person to whom a direction is issued in a suspension notice, a choice of ways in which to remedy the damage, risk, matter or activity, so that the person is not necessarily compelled to undertake work in a specific way. Even where a direction does compel a person to undertake specific work or labour such that the right may be limited, I am of the view that any limit is reasonable and proportionate to the legitimate aims of protecting Victorian State forests from unauthorised native timber harvesting and environmental degradation more generally, as well as ensuring the safety of those that may work within them.

I have also considered whether the directions and suspension notice schemes interfere with the right to privacy and the right to a fair hearing. I am of the view that the right to privacy is not limited, as the directions will fall outside of a person’s private sphere and therefore the scope of the right, and where suspension notices prevent a person from working and forming relationships at work, such that the right may be interfered with, the interference is minimal, and is not arbitrary, as it is in accordance with a law that is proportionate to a legitimate purpose. The fair hearing right will not be limited by the suspension notice mechanism because procedural fairness safeguards have been included in the Bill, with new s 57NC requiring that the suspension notice include reasons for the decision, and new s 57NG providing a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court against a suspension notice. On appeal, the Magistrates’ Court must inquire into the circumstances relating to the notice, and may affirm, modify or cancel the notice.

Accordingly, I am satisfied these provisions are compatible with the Charter.

Right to privacy and reputation

Section 13(a) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with. An interference will be lawful if it is permitted by a law which is precise and appropriately circumscribed, and will be arbitrary only if it is capricious, unpredictable, unjust or unreasonable, in the sense of being disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought.

Section 13(b) of the Charter provides that a person has the right not to have their reputation unlawfully attacked. An ‘attack’ on reputation will be lawful if it is permitted by an appropriately circumscribed law.

Production of documents

Clause 14 of the Bill is a savings provision that maintains the validity of a production notice for documents and its associated compliance requirements under Part 8B of the SFT Act, where such production notice was in force prior to the repeal of the SFT Act.

Clause 22 of the Bill inserts a similar compulsory production mechanism into the Forests Act with new s 75A empowering an authorised officer to issue a production notice requiring the production of a document pursuant to a production order issued by a Magistrate under new s 75B. New s 75E outlines an authorised officer’s powers on production of the document, including to inspect, make copies or take extracts, or to retain the document for various purposes outlined in new s 75G(3).

The production of documents provisions to be inserted into the Forests Act may interfere with the right to privacy, given they can compel the production of documents that may contain personal or sensitive information. However, in my view, any resulting interference will be lawful and not arbitrary, for the following reasons.

First, any interference in a person’s private sphere will be limited by the scope of the powers, which only require production of documents relevant to monitoring compliance with the Forests Act (for example to prevent unauthorised native timber harvesting), and are therefore less likely to contain private or sensitive information, such as health information.

Secondly, the production of documents framework serves the important purpose of ensuring compliance with the Forests Act, including preventing the unauthorised harvesting of native forests. Additionally, the production of documents is subject to judicial oversight by the Magistrates’ Court, which is a key safeguard in ensuring that any interference with privacy by the requirement to produce documents is reasonable and proportionate.

Further safeguards embedded in the Bill include new s 75F which requires that an authorised officer provide a receipt for any documents that are retained, and new s 75G which requires return of any documents within 30 days or as soon as the purpose for retention of the document no longer exists.

Finally, the production of documents under the changes to the Forests Act is subject to a range of confidentiality and information sharing restrictions in the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 in relation to how private information is collected, handled and disclosed. These requirements impose additional safeguards to ensure that personal information collected through a document the subject of a production notice is dealt with appropriately.

I therefore consider that the production of documents provisions in the Bill are compatible with the right to privacy.

Requirement to provide name and address

Clause 23 of the Bill increases the penalties for offences in s 95A(3) and (5) of the Forests Act, which relate respectively to the requirement to provide a person’s name and address to an authorised officer upon request, and to provide proof of that name and address if requested. While these requirements may interfere with the privacy right, I am of the view they do not limit it. The offences themselves are not new, and the increase in penalties is from 5 to 20 penalty units. As such, the Bill simply brings the penalties into line with the penalties in the similar offence provisions in the SFT Act.

The requirement to provide name and address details to an authorised officer is also not an arbitrary or unlawful infringement of privacy; the requirement and related offences for noncompliance seek to ensure the enforcement of the Forests Act which has the important purpose of, among other things, mitigating environmental harm to Victorian state forests from threats such as unauthorised native timber harvesting. It is a necessary pre-requisite for the proper discharge of monitoring and enforcement powers that a person’s identity can be ascertained and verified. The legislation is proportionate to this aim and is precise and accessible and therefore not arbitrary. Accordingly, I consider that clause 23 is compatible with the right to privacy.

Publication of failure to comply with court orders

Clause 13 is a savings provision that maintains the validity of enforceable undertakings made under the SFT Act, which includes the power to publicise a failure to comply with a court order in respect of an enforceable undertaking. Clause 22 inserts new s 75M into the Forests Act, which allows for the enforcement of an undertaking given to the Secretary pursuant to new s 75L, by a person who has allegedly contravened s 96AA(1A) of the Forests Act as amended, that is they have cut, removed etc timber in a State forest for the primary purpose of sale or processing and sale. New s 75M allows the Secretary to apply to the Magistrates’ Court for an order to enforce an undertaking if they consider that a person has contravened the terms of an undertaking, and a failure by that person to then comply with the court order may be publicised (new s 75M(5)(b)). New subsections (6) and (7) also allow for contempt of court proceedings to be initiated against a person who has contravened a court order, and if a contempt finding is made against them, their failure to comply with the order may also be publicised.

While publication of a person’s failure to comply with a court order may interfere with the right to privacy (including the right not to have one’s reputation unlawfully attacked under s 13(b) of the Charter), in my view there would be no limitation of this right, as the publication of the contravention of the court order that might constitute an ‘attack on reputation’ is pursuant to a properly circumscribed law, following appropriate judicial oversight of the person’s non-compliance with an enforceable undertaking. Further, the law aims to protect Victorian native forests and the publication of non-compliance with relevant court orders is necessary and proportionate to fulfil this important purpose.

Right to freedom of expression

Section 15(2) of the Charter provides that every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. However, section 15(3) provides that special duties and responsibilities attach to this right, which may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputations of others, or for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

Offence to ‘hinder or obstruct’ or ‘threaten or abuse’ authorised officer

Clause 26 of the Bill increases the penalty in the Forests Act for the offence of ‘hinder or obstruct authorised officer’. The penalty units have been doubled from 60 to 120 and a term of 12 months imprisonment has been added.

Similarly, clause 27 increases the penalty for the offence of ‘threaten or abuse authorised officer’ in the Forests Act to 120 penalty units or 12 months imprisonment.

The increase in penalties for these offences, in particular the addition of a term of imprisonment, might be considered to amount to an increased interference with freedom of expression, in particular, the right to impart ideas or engage in expression of political beliefs. However, this right is qualified in that it may be subject to restrictions that protect public order, health and safety or the rights of others. In this case, the Bill brings the relevant penalties into line with the equivalent offences in the SFT Act, and seeks to protect authorised officers from abuse or violence, and allows them to undertake their roles safely. This serves the broader purpose of managing and protecting state forests.

Right to property

Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with law. This right requires that powers which authorise the deprivation of property are conferred by legislation or common law, are confined and structured rather than unclear, are accessible to the public, and are formulated precisely.

Production of documents

As outlined above, clauses 14 and 22 relate to the power of authorised officers to compel the production of documents in certain circumstances. Clause 22 for example, inserts new s 75E into the Forests Act pertaining to an authorised officer’s powers upon production of documents. New s 75E(c) allows an authorised officer to retain a document or part of a document for as long as is reasonably necessary to fulfil the purpose for which it is required. This risks interfering with property rights under the Charter.

However, I am of the view that the right is not limited, because the production of documents powers are conferred on authorised officers by legislation that is properly and precisely formulated, and which represents an important compliance and enforcement mechanism in respect of the Forests Act, to protect Victorian state forests, particularly from unauthorised native timber harvesting. The legislation contains safeguards, including that reasonable steps must be taken to provide a receipt for retained documents within 30 days (new s 75F) and that documents must be returned within 30 days, or as soon as the purpose for which it was retained no longer exists (new s 75G). Where an authorised officer cannot return a document after taking reasonable steps to do so, the document is forfeited to the Crown (new s 75H).

Accordingly, I consider that the Bill is compatible with the right to property under s 20 of the Charter.

Power to seize items

Clause 24 of the Bill amends the current power in the Forests Act of an authorised officer to seize items. The amendment gives an authorised officer the additional power to seize any item they believe on reasonable grounds is about to be used to commit an offence against that Act or its regulations. Previously an authorised officer had the power to seize an item they believed had been or was being used to commit an offence against the Act.

The power to seize items may infringe property rights under s 20 of the Charter, however, clause 24 merely extends a power to seize items that is already in force, and the power to seize items is conferred by precise legislation that contains various safeguards. Current s 95F of the Forests Act requires an authorised officer to provide a receipt for seized items, and current s 95G pertains to their return, while current s 95H provides for the recovery of, or compensation for, the seized item, where it has not been returned, and proceedings for an offence under the Act have not been instituted, or the person has been found not guilty for such an offence.

Accordingly, the seizure power that is amended by the Bill is ‘in accordance with law’ and in my view does not interfere with the property right under s 20 of the Charter.

Right to be presumed innocent

Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. The right is relevant where a statutory provision shifts the burden of proof onto an accused in a criminal proceeding, so that the accused is required to prove matters to establish, or raise evidence to suggest, that they are not guilty of an offence.

Offences to contravene production notice and to provide false and misleading information

Clause 22 in the Bill inserts new ss 75I and 75J in the Forests Act, which create offences that contain a ‘reasonable excuse’ exception. The offences respectively are to contravene a production notice, and to provide false or misleading information in response to a production notice. The ‘reasonable excuse’ exception risks placing an evidential burden on the accused which may interfere with the Charter right to be presumed innocent.

By creating a ‘reasonable excuse’ exception, these offences place an evidential burden on the accused, in that they require the accused to raise evidence of a reasonable excuse. However, in doing so, this offence does not transfer the legal burden of proof. Once the accused has pointed to evidence of a reasonable excuse, which will ordinarily be peculiarly within their knowledge, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove the essential elements of the offence. I do not consider that an evidential onus of this kind limits the right to be presumed innocent.

Right against self-incrimination

Section 25(2)(k) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence is entitled not to be compelled to testify against themselves or to confess guilt. This right is at least as broad as the common law privilege against self-incrimination. It applies to protect a charged person against the admission in subsequent criminal proceedings of incriminatory material obtained under compulsion, regardless of whether the information was obtained prior to or subsequent to the charge being laid.

Production of documents

As outlined above, clauses 14 and 22 pertain to the power of authorised officers to compel the production of documents from a person in certain circumstances, most relevantly where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that that the person has contravened the Forests Act. The compulsory production of documents may interfere with the right against self-incrimination, as a person might be forced to provide documents to an authorised officer, that might contain incriminating material.

At common law, the High Court has held that the protection accorded to pre-existing documents is considerably weaker than that accorded to oral testimony or to documents that are brought into existence to comply with a request for information. The compulsion to produce pre-existing documents that speak for themselves is in strong contrast to testimonial oral or written evidence that is brought into existence as a direct response to questions. Accordingly, any protection afforded to documentary material by the privilege is limited in scope and not as fundamental to the nature of the right as the protection against the requirement that verbal answers be provided.

Importantly, new s 75K of the Forests Act inserted by clause 22 of the Bill states that protection from self-incrimination is a sufficient reason for a ‘reasonable excuse’ defence for the relevant offences in clause 22 of the Bill, such as for contravention of a production order or providing false or misleading information in response to a production notice. Accordingly, a person may decline to provide documents or give information where doing so would tend to incriminate them.

In view of the protection against self-incrimination offered by new s 75K and given the limited protection afforded to pre-existing documents such as those that might be subject to the production of documents powers in the Bill, and the safeguards referenced above, including the oversight of the powers by the Magistrates Court, I am of the view that the right to self-incrimination is not limited by clauses 14 and 22 of the Bill.

Steve Dimopoulos MP

Minister for Environment

Second reading

Steve DIMOPOULOS (Oakleigh – Minister for Environment, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Major Events, Minister for Outdoor Recreation) (11:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.

Incorporated speech as follows:

The purpose of this Bill is to make immediate priority reforms to implement via legislation the government’s decision to end commercial native timber harvesting in State forests in 2024. The Bill will repeal the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004, abolish VicForests and preserve important tools currently under that Act for regulating and managing activities in State forests in other legislation.

Victoria’s State forests are important to Victorians from all walks of life. The connection that Victoria’s Traditional Owners and Aboriginal communities have with Country and cultural landscapes – including Victoria’s forests – is core to their culture and wellbeing. Our forests are vital for biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation, provide tourism and recreational opportunities for Victorians to use and enjoy the great outdoors, support local jobs and industries, and have spiritual and cultural value for many communities.

In recent years, Victoria’s timber industry has been impacted by repeated bushfires and court decisions limiting the supply available to harvest. To bring certainty to the sector, in May last year the government decided to accelerate plans to end commercial native timber harvesting in State forests from 2030 to 1 January 2024.

This change creates significant opportunities to maintain resilient, healthy forests, advance Traditional Owner self-determination in land and fire management, and achieve environmentally sensitive economic development and employment from Victoria’s forest estate.

The government acknowledges the strong commitment and pride of local communities and businesses maintaining healthy forests and keeping Victorian communities safe from bushfires as part of native timber harvesting and forest management operations.

The government released an expanded and expedited transition support package for workers, their families and businesses to support the rapid transition away from native timber harvesting. The government has invested over $1.2 billion in the forestry industry, management and transition. This includes plantation investment, targeted business and worker support and active forest management.

I recognise the impact the decision to end commercial native timber harvesting has had on VicForests’ employees and the regional communities where timber harvesting has been prominent. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the significant contribution and dedication of VicForests employees to the management of our native forests for over 20 years.

This Bill will remove the framework under the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 that permitted large scale commercial native timber harvesting in State forests. The Bill will abolish VicForests, the State body that managed the harvest, sale and regeneration of timber resources in State forests on behalf of the State. The amendments made by this Bill will also bring across important tools for regulating and managing activities in State forests, such as compliance and enforcement activities and public reporting on forest health, into other legislation. These tools will be preserved to support the ongoing protection and sustainable management of State forests for all Victorians.

This legislative reform will be followed by consideration of further reforms for the management of forests, including through work currently underway to renew public land legislation.

I turn now to the key features of the Bill.

Repeal of the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 and abolition of VicForests

This Bill will repeal the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 to remove the framework under that Act that permits commercial native timber harvesting in State forests. This Bill will also abolish VicForests in legislation and transfer its property, rights and liabilities to the Crown.

VicForests was established in 2003 as a public body under the State Owned Enterprises Act 1992 to manage the harvest, sale and regrowing of native timber in State forests on behalf of the Victorian Government. Over time, additional functions were added to VicForests’ remit, such as resource modelling, research and development, community forestry, and road and infrastructure maintenance.

Given the decision to end commercial native timber harvesting on 1 January this year, VicForests’ primary function to manage commercial native timber harvesting on behalf of the State is no longer required.

Other important forest management functions that VicForests delivered previously, including forest management planning, spatial mapping, seed collection and forest regeneration, will continue to be critical for Victoria’s future forest management. These important functions are being integrated into the Victorian Government’s broader forest and fire management program and will be delivered by the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action from 1 July 2024.

In addition to repealing the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004, the Bill provides that the Allocation Order made under that Act will cease to have effect. The Allocation Order vests property in allocated timber to VicForests and allows it to harvest that timber. This is how VicForests is given the right to access timber in State forests to carry out commercial timber harvesting and associated activities. Through this Bill, property in timber currently vested in VicForests via the Allocation Order will be revested in the Crown.

Removing the Timber Harvesting Safety Zone scheme

Timber Harvesting Safety Zones were inserted in the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 in 2014 for the purposes of increasing public safety and reducing disruptions to lawful timber harvesting operations by unlawful protest activities.

These provisions will be repealed as they are no longer required with the end of large-scale commercial native timber harvesting and the diminished public safety risks from the use of heavy machinery. There is no longer a need to use these zones to exclude the public from timber harvesting operations.

Retention of forest management tools

This Bill retains provisions of the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 that remain useful for sustainable forest management. Those provisions will be transferred into the Conservation Forests and Lands Act 1987.

The Bill retains provisions for the development of criteria and indicators to assess the condition of all Victorian forests. It also retains provisions for reporting on those indicators and for those reports to be audited. Those provisions underpin Victoria’s scientifically robust, and transparent forest monitoring and information reporting. They facilitate the Government’s ability to report on the state of Victoria’s forests in both the State and National State of the Forest Reports. Retaining these tools will continue important public monitoring and reporting on the health of our forests.

The Bill will also retain the ability for the Minister for Environment in consultation with the Minister for Agriculture to create a fit for purpose Sustainability Charter in the future. This Charter would outline objectives for the sustainability of forests.

New regulation-making power for licences under the Forests Act 1958

Victoria’s forests make an important contribution to local jobs and industries. They are also central to many Victorian Traditional Owners aspirations for self-determination on Country. Section 52 of the Forests Act ‍1958 allows relevant Ministers to issue permits and licences for activities in State forests. Those licences can be issued to support a broad range of activities including cutting and removing timber. However, they are also issued to support access to a range of other forest products, including grass trees, eucalyptus leaves, soil and rock. They also support important seed collection for revegetation purposes and forest research activities.

The Bill will insert a new regulation-making power into the Forests Act 1958. That power will enable regulations to be made setting out matters that must be considered by the relevant Minister before deciding to grant a licence or permit under section 52. Those criteria can be directed toward managing the scale and impact of activities authorised by a section 52 licence. We will also work with Victorian Traditional Owners to ensure cultural values are appropriately managed. Broader environmental legislation and subordinate instruments will continue to apply to provide environmental protections alongside the new proposed regulations, including the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) and the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2014 (Victoria).

Regulating unauthorised commercial timber harvesting

This Bill will introduce a new offence provision into the Forests Act 1958 directed to the unauthorised commercial cut and take of timber from State forests. That offence will carry strong penalties to appropriately deter and punish the unauthorised cut and take of timber for the purpose of sale and financial gain.

The unauthorised taking of timber is the single largest category of offending observed across public land in Victoria – often in the form of the unauthorised take of firewood. It is expected that systematic and repeated unauthorised removal of timber from State forests for financial gain will continue in the future. There is currently no provision in the Forests Act 1958 directed to the unauthorised take of timber for the purpose of sale, outside domestic firewood collection areas. This Bill will address that gap, and effectively deter and punish the unauthorised commercial take of timber from State forests to protect Victoria’s natural environment.

This reform will give the Victorian community confidence that there are appropriate safeguards in place to deter unauthorised activities in State forests, and that there are meaningful consequences for breaking the rules commensurate to the potential environmental harm.

Retaining compliance and enforcement tools

The Bill will transfer a range of important regulatory and compliance tools from the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 to the Forests Act 1958.

The tools to be retained include enforceable undertakings, which provide a collaborative mechanism to address non-compliance with the offence for the unauthorised cut and take of timber for the purpose of sale. Directions and suspension notices will also be retained, which can support a reduction of environmental harm where licences are issued for the cut and removal of timber in State forests. These tools support a graduated enforcement model that allows the regulator to respond proactively and proportionally depending on the risk of environmental harm.

This Bill also aligns the penalties for certain offences relating to the powers of authorised officers in the Forests Act 1958 with the penalties in the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004. Authorised Officers can be investigating unauthorised native timber harvesting in remote locations and possibly in threatening situations. The availability of higher penalties is essential to provide for the safety of officers and deter non-compliant behaviour by offenders. It brings the Forests Act 1958 penalties into alignment with other land and environmental legislation.

I commend the Bill to the house.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (11:23): I move:

That debate be adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned for two weeks. Debate adjourned until Wednesday 15 May.