Thursday, 24 March 2022

Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Ms TIERNEY:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:38): Can I put on record, on behalf of the Liberals and The Nationals, that we support our sustainable native timber industry. We will continue to support our sustainable native timber industry, and when we are elected on 26 November this year we will ensure that it is sustainable and it is retained and that the government’s shocking policy to ban this fantastic industry will be out the door forever.

What the Victorian environment minister, a string of agriculture ministers and the Andrews government have done to our public forests and our native forest industry is nothing short of scandalous, appalling, disrespectful and ignorant of science. If the government’s policy, as the minister’s second-reading speech claims in this bill, is to provide more clarity and protections for the native timber industry, she would have embedded into this bill the closure of the loopholes that are enabling third-party litigators—green lawfare—to take coupes to court to have them injuncted.

She would have closed it. Indeed in a short period of time I will move amendments on behalf of The Nationals and the Liberals to close this loophole, and I ask for the house’s investigation of those amendments and support of those amendments. Minister D’Ambrosio should have laid before this house such clauses in this bill—parts to this bill that would see this vexatious litigation no longer able to terrorise the lives of our native timber industry workers and staff, curtail the terrible crisis that we have in terms of timber and wood supply and stop these vexatious litigations. It is absolutely terrible what we have seen.

Over the past seven years Labor has walked away from its obligation to actively manage our forests. If there was one thing I heard throughout the inquiry into ecosystem decline in Victoria, something the Greens brought to this house, it was scientists over and over again—real scientists—talking about the need for a landscape-wide assessment of threatened species and active management of our forests, and that means forests under wood production and forests that are locked in land reserves and national parks. But through the government’s poor policy and mismanagement of threats such as mega bushfires and weeds and predators we have seen our beautiful environment actually be under more threat than it was when The Nationals and Liberals left this state to the hands of the Andrews government. What we also know is that there are many talented people, talented staff and talented scientists that work in the agencies, in the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and in VicForests, who are constantly frustrated and constantly thwarted from doing proper work and their good role. We also see the fact that over 51 per cent of the staff from DELWP—remember DELWP looks at the environment—are situated in the CBD of Melbourne. How can you have properly managed forest and landscape when you have overwhelmingly got your staff having think tanks in the centre of Melbourne rather than having boots on the ground? I congratulate those staff who work so very hard in the right vein.

The quantum of footprint: let us look at what the actual forestry industry has—the footprint in this state. We have approximately 7.5 million hectares of public land estate—forests and the like—and 94 per cent of that is locked up. It is locked up in forest reserves. It is locked up in national parks. It is locked up—94 per cent of this forest reserve. Of that there is 6 per cent available for harvesting and regeneration, for harvesting and replanting. On an annual basis that is 0.04 per cent, or four in 10 000 trees that are harvested and then replanted under the auspices of the business arm of the government called VicForests—and I will go into that shortly. VicForests has statutory requirements up to its eyeballs. It has significant requirements in legislation under which it operates.

The other thing that is important to note is that trees since time immemorial have been carbon sinks. They take in carbon dioxide. We talk about the importance of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the air. They take in carbon dioxide, and they trap it in their wood, in their structure. Indeed the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in about 2019 states:

… a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit.

It is no shock to those who understand forestry, or at least a portion thereof—those who live in the bush, those who work in this area—that trees capturing carbon and storing carbon in some of the most fabulous wood products is a positive for the environment. It is run, as I said, by VicForests, and it has multiple, we will say, layers of requirements and regulation. One of them happens to be the Code of Practice for Timber Production, and it has had a revamp, we will say, in recent times. Deb Kerr, the CEO of VFPA, the Victorian Forest Products Association, said this of regional forest agreements—that is, agreements between the federal government and the state government:

Regional forest agreements (RFA’s) are the means … to bolster protections for Victoria’s unique forest biodiversity and threatened species, and they govern commercial forestry on public and private lands.

Now, as I said, there are multiple layers. That quote came out of the minority report that The Nationals and the Liberals put forward at the end of the Environment and Planning Committee inquiry into the decline in ecosystems.

We have a timber code of production, the management standards and procedures for timber harvesting, timber release plans, allocation orders; we have special protection zones, buffers, special exclusion zones. They are all set in place to ensure that the right balance is struck between conservation of biodiversity values and sustainable timber production. This is the ideal. There should be that balance—noting that, as I said, 94 per cent of the forest estate in this state is never going to be touched for timber production.

Victorians have certainly seen under Daniel Andrews and Minister D’Ambrosio an open season on timber harvesters, on timber contractors, on mill workers and on their business arm, VicForests. We have seen the systematic destruction of the industry at the hands of the minister. I remember very clearly that it was in November 2019 that the plan came down that they would shut down the industry and bring on this somehow magical Victorian Forestry Plan. If you go out anywhere in Gippsland, in East Gippsland, in the Central Highlands—anywhere where we have timber production and our timber towns—and you say that word, people will say it is a swear word; people will see it as a flawed failure to replace the native timber industry and compensate industry workers. They know, like we on this side understand, that plantation timber has an absolute place in this state. It has been around for a long time and it will continue to serve this state, but plantation timber will never replace native timber. It will not do that work.

Indeed, back in about 2017 the then Minister for Agriculture announced $110 million to create this change and form new plantations. We know that there is still no new net plantation land—no plantation seedlings, trees in the ground, on new land. They might have replaced some, but there is no new net land. So some years down the track—we are now in 2022, five years down the track—there are no new net trees in the ground to replace native timber. It is not going to happen.

Recently Geoff Dyke from the CFMEU, at our Latrobe Valley parliamentary inquiry—this is a public document on the parliamentary website—said:

I think it is a disgrace to shut down the timber industry … We have—

in his words—

7.1 million hectares of native forest, we have got some of the best timber in the world, and we are importing timber and we are going to put timber workers out of work.

We know that Michael O’Connor of the CFMEU has been rallying against the Labor Party on this issue—

Mr Finn: For years.

Ms BATH: Absolutely, for years, and we have been in lockstep on that. What we also know is that the government very attentively listens and even has the chief of staff having coffee in the upstairs dining room in Parliament House with various groups, with various—we will call them—scientists and lobbyists. But do they talk to the other side? Do they talk to Forestry Australia? There are professionals. There are professors of science. And are they talking to them? I do not think so.

Now, in anticipation of some of the comments the Greens might make in this debate, the last VicForests annual report says that VicForests spent $5.5 million fighting court cases against green lawfare litigators—$5.5 million. ‘VicForests made a loss’, they will say. They will come out—I can absolutely read minds—and say that VicForests made a loss of $4.9 million. Simple mathematics will tell you if you had not spent $5.5 million defending an industry that is acting lawfully against these third-party lawfare litigators then you would have made a profit. It is always disingenuous when we hear part of the truth, not all of the truth.

I note too the minority report from that inquiry into declining ecosystems, and I will quote it:

VicForest has not had a single prosecution of illegal harvest operations upheld against it in the past three years as evidenced in Ms Pulford’s answers to questions in parliament in relation to the debate on the Forest Legislation Amendment (Compliance and Enforcement) Bill 2019 …

in this house. Indeed I think it was Mr Rich-Phillips who was prosecuting those questions, and Ms Pulford said:

So in 2019–20 investigations completed by the conservation regulator—

a couple of other words in between—

… no prosecutions.

For 2020–21 there were … no prosecutions.

Environmental groups have not been successful in any litigation case. Some of the court injunctions that they are seeking to put up kind of defy logic. I went to East Gippsland. Behind Forestec there are two coupes, and these litigators thought it was wise to shut down these two coupes. One was called Lior, and one was called Tiger. These coupes are provided by VicForests to the TAFE sector, to TAFE Gippsland. The trainer has won awards on how to train safety, how to a fell a tree safely for people doing the work and also for those around in cases of fire. They train first responders. They train participants how to spot threatened species or species of any form. They train them to look for habitat. This group decided that it was a sensible idea to shut down the training coupes. These are the sorts of mind-blowingly crazy things that are happening in our state system because these groups are being enabled to seek court injunctions and take these issues to court. VicForests in that case had to scramble to find some alternate coupes.

If you go out into the regions, into Gippsland, there will be people who know people who work in VicForests, and indeed I do too. Some of the work they are doing about species surveys is in the middle of the night on long transits across the hills and the mountains. They do an amazing job, and I respect the work that they do. Others will feel frustrated with VicForests. Well, on my gather, VicForests feel frustrated with VicForests because they are being tied in knots by the Andrews government.

VicForests has not stayed still. From my understanding, from when I came in about seven years ago, they have been evolving models. They are looking to improve their practices. They have evolved to an adaptive harvesting model. They certainly, as I alluded to, upskill their staff to assess coupes. Contractors work with highly skilled machinery and operations who are contracted to VicForests. They check for habitat. You look on their iPads and you see lines and squiggles making sure that they stay away from the buffer and exclusion zones. It is a high-tech industry, and people take it seriously. Indeed one of the Meyers—I think it was Brad Meyer—only recently on 3AW, when someone was challenging him about litigation and locking up and threatened species, said threatened species like the greater glider are never out of his mind. He watches for them every part of the day. Also VicForests is still certified in terms of the Responsible Wood certification scheme.

In the context of this code of practice, the background of this code is that it was developed, I believe, probably about 40 years ago now, in the 1980s. A key part of this code is in the context that it was prepared with the recognition that timber production has an undeniable environmental impact but that it occurs in designated areas that are not expected to be pristine bastions of conservation value. The code is designed to enable practical and economical workable timber production in a way that minimises its environmental impacts. As such the code is a workable compromise between the needs of conservation—very important—and the practicalities of cost-effective production of timber. If the government starts to pull and push the code over time, a code skewed towards conservation by aiming to totally prevent environmental impacts will upset this balance and eventually make timber production unworkable or unviable, and really that is what we are seeing come to fruition at the moment. We are seeing that it is being twisted and contorted.

Looking to the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022, it is a fairly slim bill, and it has two main functions. One is that the code will now ‘apply, adopt or incorporate any matter contained in any document, standard, rule, specification or method’. And two, the code will now bestow discretionary authority on the minister or the secretary of the department and ‘leave any matter or thing to be from time to time approved, determined, dispensed with or regulated by the minister or the secretary’. So in effect it is giving more power to the minister.

The bill’s intent is to provide clarity for all groups around the precautionary principle, and I believe particularly the timber industry has been calling for more clarity. Whether this is achieved in this bill or not needs to be seen. The application of the precautionary principle means that if there is a threat—this is the background of it—of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental damage. The minister’s second-reading speech mentions the precautionary principle clause in the code. However, it neglects to mention that the code applies, as we have said before, to a very minor proportion of the state’s 7.8 million hectares of public forest. Therefore the timber production operations that are subject to this code are of such a proportionally minor scale—an important scale, but minor—that there is virtually no chance of them creating a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage that justifies invoking the precautionary principle. The mooted addition of compliance standards into the code could be used therefore to protect VicForests and used in a court by a judge during that litigation. They need clarity, and we have seen in the past where indeed some judges have actually been quite frustrated in their discussion around a case where the government is providing court cases as a means of understanding, rather than providing that real clarity in the code.

Some of our concerns are in relation to whether the bill will actually achieve the aim it sets out to achieve. The establishment in legislation and common law makes it very clear that environmental protection hinges on this precautionary principle, but by its nature it is quite vague. The bill empowers the government to have effective discretionary authority in terms of binding guidance. What the bill lacks is any limit to power and any requirement to consult or review in relation to these measures or these new powers. While the government’s intentions are reasonable, the bill as it stands does not address the constant threat of litigation that VicForests has been subjected to.

We on this side—in particular the new Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Mr James Newbury; the timber man, by name and nature, who is about to retire and who we have great respect for, Gary Blackwood; and the shadow for forestry, Mr Peter Walsh—regularly speak to the Victorian Forest Products Association; AFCA, the Australian Forest Contractors Association; AFPA, the Australian Forest Products Association; Forestry Australia, which has a wealth of knowledge and respected knowledge; and others, like Timber Towns Victoria. There is a quote that I would like to read in in relation to the Victorian Forest Products Association, and I will just find that quote. It says:

The Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022 comes into the Legislative Council … The bill gives the Minister for the Environment … unfettered … power … What it does not address is third-party litigation against the government’s own harvesting company …

This is Deb Kerr, and I thank her for that.

Opposition amendments circulated by Ms BATH pursuant to standing orders.

Ms BATH: Our amendments provide the clarity that Victorians need and the industry deserves. It provides that clarity. Indeed these are based on the New South Wales Forestry Act 2012 in relation to third parties. I will just make mention of them. I will move them in the committee stage, but I will read them now: ‘offence proceedings must not be taken by a person who is not authorised to take offence proceedings by this section’. In effect that is those that have authority to do so, the power to do so—the minister, and we know that the Office of the Conservation Regulator has oversight and broad-reaching powers. Those people that have the ability to do so should and can bring any cases forward for litigation. Those green lawfare people who exist in Victoria should not have that option. That is the basis for our amendments.

In summing up, this state is in a timber crisis. There is no doubt about it. There is a timber shortage for pallets. There is a timber shortage for construction materials across the state. We have a shortage in value-added high-end products. Indeed, in my electorate in Eastern Victoria Region, ASH, Australian Sustainable Hardwoods, are doing an amazing job. They are seeking to re-create themselves and find new ways, but eventually when there is no timber from our Victorian forests, then our whole system will diminish. It will diminish it and cost jobs. It is already causing huge mental stress on the people in the industry, on the workers and forest contractors who are being locked out. I have had many conversations with people, forest contractors, who are scared that green lawfare people will jump out—I think they are called Black Wallaby Forest Action—from behind a tree and will actually injure or maim somebody. They are absolutely at frazzle point and in mental anguish that this government is not protecting them further.

In effect what this government is wanting to do is just shut it down, unless these amendments go through and we stop this, we shut this loophole, so that where there needs to be litigation it is done by those authorised to do so. There has not been a successful case. There has not been a case that has gone through the courts, meaning that our forestry industry is one of the best in the world. It sticks to the law, it has people who care to do the right thing and they are getting attacked time and time again. The Nationals and the Liberals are pleased to foreshadow these amendments that will go through in the committee of the whole. We feel that the government needs to stand and support the industry but also support common sense around this. If there is a need, it can be done through authorised officers, and to date there has never been a successful litigation by these third-party activists.

Mr HAYES (Southern Metropolitan) (15:07): I welcome anything that allows for greater ministerial and departmental oversight of VicForests. The minister has assured me that this bill, if passed, will not make it more difficult for environmental groups to take legal action against VicForests, and I very much hope that that is the case, because VicForests must be held accountable to the law and to this Parliament. Some of the problems with its past practices and behaviour have been well documented, so I do indeed hope that this bill will allow for greater ministerial and departmental oversight of this organisation without limiting the rights of concerned parties to pursue legal remedies.

While I support an ethical and accountable forest timber harvesting industry, we need to rapidly move to plantation timber harvesting. Last year in the Environment and Planning Committee inquiry into ecosystem decline we heard the many concerns expressed by a number of witnesses around the serious damage being done to our ecosystem and endangered species by current native forest timber harvesting practices. Something of great significance which I believe underlies the many problems which beset this industry is our lack of tariffs on imported timber, which could be used to protect our local industry. There are many reasons why we should be discouraging the importation of certain forest timbers, which are often harvested—and often illegally harvested—in a manner which is having astoundingly harmful effects on the world’s climate and ecology.

The only way our local timber industry can compete with cheap imported timber is to clear-fell whole areas of forest, young trees and old, and to use a good part of that harvest for woodchips, pulp and fibre, a lot of which is exported. This is not the selective harvesting we could encourage, which would give our forests a chance to exist as a habitat for all in a sustainable manner. Mr Tom Crook of the East Gippsland Conservation Management Network gave the following evidence to the committee:

It is supposed to be a sawlog industry, and there are certainly sawlogs coming out of the industry, but in terms of the revenue, the industry is extremely reliant on the revenue from the residual component or from the woodchipping part of it. So if you remove that, which you would if you went to a selective-based model and you did not have all those other trees lying around that were not going to get turned into floorboards, then the industry would struggle to be economically viable. … we are competing with countries who have invested more heavily in technology to make all sorts of dimensions of woods—laminated veneers and glulam and … those technologies. We are competing with them, and with free trade agreements that will not let us impose tariffs to provide a market incentive to buy local products, then it is very difficult for our industry to compete without the revenue from … pulp and fibre.

In November 2019 the Victorian government announced that 90 000 hectares of Victoria’s remaining old-growth forest—note, old-growth—would be protected immediately. The Premier said the industry was not sustainable in the medium and long term. However, when this commitment was examined there was one important proviso. This was that trees would have to be assessed prior to logging. The Victorian National Parks Association has raised serious concerns about this assessment process, especially the field assessments, which are conducted by VicForests or contractors. That of course is very concerning given VicForests’ questionable record on conservation matters. The association in a paper released in December 2020 said:

… many large and old trees—the most common defining characteristic of old-growth forest—are not protected in Victoria.

Consequently, as a result of current government policies, neither old-growth trees nor old-growth forests are properly protected in Victoria. While the Victorian Government has made big announcements about old-growth, there are major flaws in old-growth assessment methods and large tree protection.

We urgently need to protect the old-growth estate, rather than creating new technical loopholes to allow its continued logging.

Mr Crook of the East Gippsland Conservation Management Network also told the Environment and Planning Committee that:

… where a tree was 80 to 120 years old—

a very old tree—

it would have been classified as a mature tree and therein not counted as regrowth.

He said:

The goalposts have been moved …

…

… on what is classified as a mature tree—

which has allowed—

… greater access to those areas which would have been excluded under the old-growth definition previously.

It is obvious that the area of forestry is a particularly sensitive area for this government, and it is obvious because, as the Weekly Times reported on 9 February 2022:

… long-term Labor loyalists have been appointed to key forestry policy and regulation roles within the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions and Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.

Only recently this house passed a motion put by Mr Somyurek which made mention of ALP activists stacked in the Victorian public service. This is completely contrary to the traditions of the Westminster system and, I would submit, contrary to the interests of the Victorian public. Are Victorian forests being administered in the interests of the environment and the Victorian people, or are they being administered in the political interests of the Australian Labor Party and the current government?

Whatever the answers are to these fascinating questions, the need to end native timber harvesting and transition to plantation timber is extremely urgent. It should have been done decades ago or at least started on a broad-scale basis ages ago, especially if we continue down the unsustainable path of running an economy based on high population growth and the construction of housing which inevitably follows to accommodate these ever-growing numbers of people. Where is all the timber for this continual construction boom supposed to come from without destroying more of our environment? Part of the answer, I believe, is for the government to work much more closely with the private sector and landowners.

The Environment and Planning Committee inquiry into ecosystem decline also heard some great evidence from the Otway Agroforestry Network about the work they are doing with farmers to grow more trees for harvest on their properties. Mr Andrew Stewart from the network told the committee that planting trees on farms helps increase biodiversity, and an incentive for farmers to plant these trees was to use some of them for harvest timber. I believe the government needs to be working much more closely with groups like this to see how their success can be extended all across Victoria. Mr Rowan Reid from the network told the committee:

… as landholders, family farmers are going to be interested in a whole range of different things, but production has clearly got to be part of that scenario to make the farm viable—and there is no reason why conservation could not also be a driver of profit through the use of native species as well … The Otway Agroforestry Network uses a farmer education program that we have developed and run around the world now—the Australian master tree grower program. We are really about informing and improving farmer decision-making about conservation initiatives. Just for our example, there are our two farms, but in our vicinity the majority of the farmers are now planting trees for some mixture of conservation and profit on their property—and the majority are funding these plantings themselves.

Of course, the profit Mr Reid refers to comes from the harvesting of that timber. A bigger emphasis by the government on involving landholders in growing timber for profit and better biodiversity outcomes would be a good idea. There need to be more partnerships with private landholders as we move away from native timber harvesting of our old-growth forests.

In conclusion I am supporting this bill because I accept the government’s assurances that this bill will not reduce the ability of environmental groups to seek legal remedies for improper environmental practices, and I do take this matter very seriously. I expect the assurances I have received to be the case in practice and support the greater oversight and accountability of the VicForests organisation.

Ms TAYLOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:16:466:): I am pleased to speak on the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022. I certainly commend the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change for bringing forward this bill and the Minister for Agriculture for her support as well. The Andrews Labor government is committed to delivering the Victorian Forestry Plan, with the phase-out of native timber harvesting to occur by 2030.

In December last year—and I think it is really important to note this for the chamber, although it should be broadly known as well—the Minister for Agriculture announced an additional $100 million for the plan, boosting government support to over $200 million. The further funding announced by the minister will support workers, communities and businesses with opt-out packages and increased redundancy packages, because when an industry needs to transition—I heard that word mentioned before, and we are very serious about this—Labor governments support workers. Workers need support from their government, and they also need certainty—I also heard that word in the chamber, and I am going to speak to that point in some detail. Certainty is what this bill will help deliver. We are introducing this bill to provide greater certainty to the forestry industry about how to comply with the precautionary principle in the Code of Practice for Timber Production. It is the first step of three to realise this reform.

Should the bill pass there will need to be a subsequent code amendment and then the development of the compliance standard, which will provide guidance relating to the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is an internationally well-understood concept that was adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In 2021 our government confirmed our intent for the precautionary principle to be in the Code of Practice for Timber Production, following a case heard in the Federal Court and appealed to the High Court of Australia. In the 2021 amendment to the code of practice the government confirmed that the precautionary principle meant that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

Further, government included a note stating that the historical interpretation of the precautionary principle, the so-called Brown Mountain standard, was the correct interpretation. I am being very careful because I understand how significant these matters are that we are discussing today, so that is why I am being really careful in enunciating these elements of the debate. The note states:

It is intended by this definition and section 2.2.2.2 that the precautionary principle and its application in section 2.2.2.2 be understood as it was by Osborn J in Environment East Gippsland Incv VicForests [2010] VSC 335 (in relation to the precautionary principle as it appeared in the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2007).

We clarified our intent and restored certainty. The use of the precautionary principle is important in the aftermath of disasters such as the 2019–20 bushfires. In the wake of such a disaster there is often less clarity in the scientific information about the impacts on the environment than we would like, so caution must be used when undertaking timber harvesting. This is why the precautionary principle has an element of uncertainty about it—it is a broad requirement, and its application changes based on the circumstances. Given this uncertainty our courts are currently being asked to consider the appropriate application of the principle in our state forests. There are currently eight forestry cases before the courts, with five of these cases relating to the precautionary principle. The resolution of those cases will take a lot of time and cost a lot of money, and that is not ideal. But more importantly, these cases do not seem to be providing the sort of clarity that would help all parties. One recent case related to the precautionary principle went all the way to the High Court, and yet there are still new cases trying to get clarity about the application of the precautionary principle in the current context. This is bad for everyone involved.

Rather than let this process drag on potentially indefinitely, our government believe that it is our role to provide guidance on how to comply with this broad requirement, which is why we have introduced this bill into the Parliament with the intention of having compliance standards in place by midyear. Compliance standards will provide guidance on how to comply via a voluntary standard that VicForests can agree to. VicForests can continue to demonstrate their compliance with the precautionary principle in ways they have done to date. This reform is simply a new way that VicForests can demonstrate their compliance by following guidance developed by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.

Let me be clear, because there has been politicking by the opposition and, I have to say, the Greens on this matter: this bill and the subsequent changes that will allow government to provide guidance will not change the environmental standards in the code of practice. There will not be higher standards or lower standards of protection—there cannot be. This legislation does not give the minister the power to change the standards within the code of practice. It will simply reinforce the pre-existing standards and intentions, and should VicForests and its contractors comply with this guidance, we expect that there will be a reduction of litigation in the courts.

Whilst government is looking to reduce litigation in our courts, I am flabbergasted that the opposition are trying to move an amendment that will likely lead to an avalanche of court challenges. The opposition well know that there are not current provisions in the act relating to third parties. Third-party forest litigation in Victoria is being made not under legislation but under the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Third parties rely on their rights under common law in Australia, as persons affected by native timber harvesting, to bring these proceedings. Neither the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 or the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 contain explicit third-party rights which could be limited, so it is obvious that they are not grasping how our regional forest agreements work and the real risk of undermining our RFAs. If the RFAs are void, regulation of forestry reverts to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, an act that contains third-party rights.

Now, I note that the opposition circulated their amendments this morning. I did not think it was possible, but they are even more poorly drafted than I could have imagined. Their amendments refer to criminal matters. Cases in the courts are civil matters. The proposed amendments would have no effect on third-party litigation about breaches of the code, which would still continue as civil cases before the Supreme Court. The most efficient and effective way to reduce third-party litigation is to ensure that the law is clear, and that is exactly what we are doing. It does appear to be rather flippant by those opposite on this matter when the reality is it has such serious potential consequences. I hope that that is abundantly clear in the chamber.

In the time that I have left I would now like to address some of the commentary that there has been about the head of power contained in the bill being a ‘God power’. Let me just be really frank about this. This is ridiculous. As everyone in this place knows, heads of power like the one before us today are very common in regulatory frameworks and are found in a long list of acts. My colleague the member for Yan Yean in the Legislative Assembly listed a number of these acts in her contribution in that place, and it actually would be very worthwhile for those listening to refer back to Hansard if they would like a list of the acts. The subsequent amendment to the code of practice will outline when these powers can be used. I did from the outset talk about the various stages we are going through with these reforms. I should say the minister and secretary of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning will be constrained by the code amendment, and it is redundant without the enabling code change.

There has also been commentary about needing a sunset or review clause for this head of power. Firstly, without the head of power there are no compliance standards and there is no greater certainty for industry, and I am pretty sure those opposite do not want to create even more uncertainty for forestry workers in our state. Secondly, there is already a review mechanism in place that will consider how this code amendment is being used. It is called the comprehensive code review, and it is required to be completed by December 2023, as agreed to with the commonwealth government under our regional forest agreements. So I would be very surprised if those opposite want to duplicate an already-existing process, adding more bureaucratic red tape to a reform designed to provide certainty to the forestry industry. The comprehensive code review will include public consultation, with all stakeholders being able to have their say. Public consultation will also be undertaken on the subsequent code amendment to enable the compliance standards framework should this bill pass the Parliament.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:31): This bill represents a continuation of Labor’s war on the native timber industry. At the outset I would like to commend the speech made by my colleague Ms Bath, who very effectively articulated many of the issues and many of the concerns which the native timber industry has in this state as a consequence of the policies of this government over the last six or seven years, which have seen the native timber industry and the people who work in it demonised for the sake of inner-city votes. We have seen the native timber industry, particularly in Gippsland, sold out by this government for green votes in Brunswick. That is the raw politics of this issue for this government. Those communities, those families and those workers in Gippsland are expendable, because this government wants to claw back green preferences and green votes in the inner city—and Michael O’Connor of the CFMEU has said as much. The fact that a leader of a trade union heavily associated with the Labor Party is willing to call this out because of the demonisation of those workers by this government is so significant.

We have seen this government treat the industry and treat VicForests, as the state’s operator in the industry, with absolute contempt. We have seen it time and time again. We have seen the government seek to starve the industry of timber and seek to frustrate VicForests’ capacity to have access to timber. We have seen the government seek to undermine VicForests’ capacity to undertake the duties it is charged with under its enabling legislation. As members of this Parliament would know, VicForests is established under the State Owned Enterprises Act 1992. It is an act which allows for the gazetting of entities as state-owned enterprises, and in this instance, as with most entities under the SOE, VicForests is an entity responsible to the minister and responsible to the Treasurer. Now, the fact that this government and this portfolio minister may not like VicForests and what it does does not give the minister the authority to undermine it. The Parliament has established the State Owned Enterprises Act, VicForests has been gazetted as an entity under the SOE and the government and the minister have an obligation to ensure that that entity, VicForests, can carry out its duties in accordance with the enabling act and the directions set down in the gazette when it was first established in 2003.

It is bordering on corruption for the government to seek to undermine a state entity because it does not like what it does. We have seen that in a number of ways. We have seen it in the restriction of the availability of timber, we have seen it in the government being willing to stand by and tacitly endorse green lawfare against VicForests and the native timber industry and we have seen it in the minister effectively directing VicForests not to recover damages which had been awarded to it by the Supreme Court because it does not suit the government for VicForests to do that, despite it having the legal entitlement to do it and frankly the legal responsibility to recover those costs as a debt owed to a state-owned enterprise.

We have seen over the life of the government this government demonising workers in the native timber industry and seeking to damage and undermine the state’s own forestry operator in VicForests simply to suit its own political directive and political narrative. So you can understand why there is huge scepticism and lack of trust of this government among timber workers and the timber industry when the government comes forward with this bill today and says, ‘Trust us. We want to use this legislation, we want to use these changes to the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, to clarify the way in which the code operates’. The industry does not trust the minister. They have no reason to trust the minister; they have seen for seven years the way in which this government acts towards that industry. There is no reason they would trust the minister. They would be stupid to do so given the track record of this government. So for Ms Taylor to come in here and say, ‘We want to clarify the way in which the precautionary principle applies with respect to the code of practice. Give us this mechanism which opens up and expands the basis on which incorporated documents can be included in the code, provides a new head of power’—she said ‘the god power’—‘by which the minister and the secretary of the department in future will have discretionary authority in relation to matters which may be included in the code’, and for the government to come forward and say the industry should simply trust them as to how these provisions will be used, is a stretch too far. The industry and the community in Gippsland have seen the actions of this government over the last seven years in relation to the timber industry, and they do not trust them—and with good reason.

My colleague Ms Bath has proposed an amendment to this bill which seeks to make very clear a constraint on the capacity for third parties to take action with respect to matters relating to code compliance. This has come about and Ms Bath has proposed this amendment because of the failure of this government to act to stop vexatious litigation, to stop vexatious actions which have undermined timber families throughout Gippsland. We have heard of the continuing green lawfare that is being taken against the timber industry through actions against VicForests, which have repeatedly failed to achieve the objectives of protesters, which have caused great uncertainty for the industry, which have caused great cost to the industry and to VicForests and which this government has stood idly by and allowed to occur and, even worse than that, has tacitly endorsed, such as most recently through the minister’s direction to VicForests that it should not recover the costs which had been awarded against it. That is the reason Ms Bath has brought forward the amendment she has, seeking to restrict the parties who can bring actions in relation to alleged breaches of compliance with the code—because we have seen an open-slather approach where this government should have stepped in previously to ensure that those provisions for breaches were used appropriately rather than used simply as a weapon to try and shut down a legitimate industry.

I listened with interest to Mr Hayes’s contribution earlier. I have to say it was very much the perspective of an inner-city MP. Ms Bath in her contribution put in context the impact of native timber harvesting in Victoria. Ms Bath created a very illustrative picture of the native timber industry when she said it is the equivalent of four trees out of 10 000 being harvested on an annual basis. I would encourage Mr Hayes and other members of this place to actually visit Gippsland to see the scale and scope of native timber harvesting in Victoria as a proportion of the total forestry resource in our state. It is minuscule; it is tiny. The impact of that sector on our forest resources is absolutely tiny—as Ms Bath said, the equivalent of four trees per annum harvested out of 10 000.

So, despite the way in which this sector is demonised by this government and inner-city MPs, this industry is not raping and pillaging through the state’s timber resources; it is having a negligible impact on the state’s forest resources while making an important economic contribution to our state and providing important employment, particularly in a region of the state where unemployment continues to be a problem and where disadvantage continues to be a problem. And for this government to demonise it, to act in such a way which even undermines the state’s own operator in VicForests because it is politically convenient for them to do so, is absolutely reprehensible.

The industry does not trust the government with this legislation as Ms Taylor said it should. This bill effectively is a blank cheque in allowing and broadening the scope for incorporation and modification of documents in the code and providing for the code to have provisions which allow discretion authority to the minister and the secretary of the department with future iterations of the code. It is all very well for Ms Taylor to say this is simply to clarify the precautionary principle, which is something which frankly the department’s application of has been questionable, but this is a problem which is broader than just the code of practice and this department. It goes to the whole understanding of the public sector in Victoria on the issue of risk management versus risk avoidance, and it is a problem we have seen across a whole range of areas where the government or the public sector interprets risk avoidance—running away from something rather than managing something—as being the way forward. That creates concerns around the way in which the precautionary principle in relation to forestry would be applied, given that Ms Taylor says the government’s intent with this bill is to provide a mechanism to clarify the application of that precautionary principle.

Once again we have a bill before the house where the government basically says, ‘Trust us’. We have seen for seven years the way in which this government has treated the native timber industry with disdain. The industry does not trust the government with this bill and the way in which it proposes to use it, the community does not trust the government, and I would urge the house not to trust the government with this bill and this provision and accordingly to support the amendment that Ms Bath is seeking to introduce to clarify the way in which third-party actions can be taken.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (15:43): I rise to speak on the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022. Victoria’s forests were once widespread and magnificent, from the tall trees and rainforests of the mountains to the giant box gums of the plains, to the red gums along the rivers. I so wish I could see these forests as they once were, before colonisation, when they were cared for by First Nations people.

Today Victoria is the most cleared state in all of Australia. Our forest ecosystems are either already irreversibly altered or on the brink of being so. Victoria’s remaining forests in the central west, Central Highlands and east of Victoria are so precious. They make the clean air we breathe, the fresh water we drink and the carbon stores we so desperately need to stabilise our climate. Victoria’s forests are habitats for creatures found nowhere else in the world. They are beautiful and vital, and they urgently need to be protected. Yet right now in Victoria, Labor, Liberal and The Nationals politicians continue to sanction native forest logging at all costs. Continued logging is irrational and desperate. It serves no-one but the vested interests that hold the Liberal, Labor and National parties to ransom. This Labor government is logging in water catchments, on steep slopes and in vital refuges for threatened species following the Black Summer fires. If the coalition were in power, they would be even worse.

The bill is a gut-wrenching move by the Labor government to ensure that logging can continue uninterrupted despite the stark reality that it is wholly untenable for so many reasons. Let us be clear, the purpose of the bill is to slap down the dedicated community groups who have resorted to legal processes and the courts to gain the protection Victoria’s forests desperately need. These are people that are holding VicForests to account, while the government with this bill is wanting to change the law to avoid scrutiny.

In recent times we have seen dedicated communities and environmental organisations challenge VicForests in the courts. They are doing so on the basis of evidence suggesting VicForests is breaching the forestry code of conduct and engaging in unlawful logging, logging that not just puts our forests at risk but threatens specifically our water supply and clean air. These people and organisations are motivated to protect our native forests and ecosystems.

The government says this bill is about giving certainty in the face of these lawsuits, but the question is: certainty for whom? Instead of pulling VicForests into line, the government is going out of its way to make it easier to log our precious forests and harder for communities to seek to protect them. There is no guarantee in this bill that the new provisions will be used to protect our forests, and in fact in the hands of a different government or a different minister the result could be even more disastrous.

The Greens and I are deeply, deeply concerned about this bill and in particular about new subsection (4), which gives the minister and secretary godlike powers to determine that logging is deemed acceptable whatever the real-world reality. We are very concerned about such a broad grant of discretionary power and the lack of checks and balances. That is why I will move a reasoned amendment calling for this bill not to be debated until the broad discretionary power it provides for has been considered and reported on by the Environment and Planning Committee.

Greens amendments circulated by Dr RATNAM pursuant to standing orders.

Dr RATNAM: It is also why I will move the amendments that I wish to propose in the committee stage of the bill, to put some basic conditions on the exercise of the extraordinary discretionary powers this bill provides for the minister to potentially make illegal logging legal. If we are going to give the minister such powers, at the very least they should be exercised on the basis of scientific evidence and in furthering the objects of the act. Furthermore, they should be subject to review in the courts.

A good government would see that the time to cut down native forests is well and truly over. A good government would overturn the wildly outdated Forests (Wood Pulp Agreement) Act 1996 that hands forests over for private profit until 2030. It would stop the public subsidy used to destroy our forests for private profit. We should be debating today a bill to repeal the Forests (Wood Pulp Agreement) Act. Instead of this we have a bill here that will drive the further destruction of our forests and the extinction of our precious native species who call them home. The Greens have a bill drafted and ready to do this right now. A good government would also bring forward financial assistance to immediately support workers to retire or move to new jobs and industries.

The world is on the brink of a climate and extinction crisis. We are on the brink of the sixth mass extinction. It is well past time to end native forest logging. That this bill from a Labor government is aimed at facilitating it further is just so sad. I urge everyone in this place to vote against this bill.

Mr TARLAMIS (South Eastern Metropolitan) (15:49): I also rise in support of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022. As my colleagues have said before me, this is an important reform the government would like to see implemented as soon as possible. Compliance standards that will be created following the passage of this bill and the subsequent enabling code amendment will allow the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning to give guidance to VicForests and its contractors as to how to comply with the precautionary principle. Although a new reform for timber harvesting, the concept is not new in regulatory schemes. With the overhaul of the Environment Protection Act 1970 in the last term of government we introduced the new broad general environmental duty. This duty means you must reduce the risk of harm from your activities to human health and the environment from pollution and waste. The Environment Protection Authority Victoria then went about developing compliance codes for different industries, providing guidance as to how they could comply with this new duty. This is what government also intends to do for the forestry industry.

I would like to reiterate what my colleague said before: compliance standards will not change the rules VicForests and its contractors must follow. This bill just creates a new option for how VicForests can demonstrate their compliance with the precautionary principle. The new voluntary pathway will improve certainty for industry by providing guidance on what actions can be taken by timber harvesters that will satisfy the precautionary principle. Public consultation will also be undertaken on the subsequent code amendments to enable the compliance standards framework should this bill pass the Parliament. There will be a mandatory public consultation period, parliamentary tabling of the code amendment and possibly disallowance by the Parliament, as laid out in the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987. Should the government wish to change the scope of the compliance standards in the future, the code would need to be amended and further mandatory public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny would be required.

It is also wrong to suggest that this bill will allow the government to decide if VicForests has complied with the existing rules. Another incorrect claim is that this bill allows VicForests to avoid third-party scrutiny. There is no restriction on third-party rights in this bill, and the new compliance standards could be subject to judicial review. The government’s intention is to make it much easier to determine if VicForests is complying with the existing rules, which I hope everyone in this place would agree is preferable to courts being asked to define ambiguous rules, which is often a slow, expensive and unpredictable way to get the clarity everyone is seeking.

I note that Dr Ratnam has circulated amendments to be considered later today during the committee stage. Although this bill does not change environmental standards, I would like to highlight for my colleagues that the code of practice for timber harvesting contains specific clauses for the consideration of the latest science. Section 2.2.2.3 states that:

The advice of relevant experts and relevant research in conservation biology and flora and fauna management must be considered when planning and conducting timber harvesting operations.

Dr Ratnam has also circulated amendments that propose to enable VCAT to review discretionary decisions by the minister or secretary for any person whose interests are affected under the code of practice. The government will not be supporting this amendment. While we want to provide certainty and guidance, the Greens are looking to create more hooks for future litigation, providing even less certainty for everyone involved.

Further, the minister will not be making decisions under the code with the proposed head of power. As my colleague has already stated, the subsequent amendments to the code of practice will outline how the head of power will be used. Our subsequent code amendments will simply enable the compliance standard framework. There are no decisions for the minister to make, and the Greens well know that heads of power such as this one are very common in the regulatory framework.

I want to thank the minister for bringing forward this reform. Our government is committed to ending native timber harvesting by 2030, with a step down in 2024, as we transition to a plantation-based industry. We have invested significant funding to support workers and communities through this transition, with over $200 million underpinning the Victorian Forestry Plan. We will continue to work hard every day to ensure these workers have certainty as we move toward 2030. That is why our government has prioritised consideration of this bill through the Parliament—to ensure greater certainty is in place for forestry workers as soon as possible. Any delay by those opposite means a delay in this new framework being in place. Again, I thank the minister for her work to bring forward this reform, and I commend the bill to the house.

Ms BURNETT-WAKE (Eastern Victoria) (15:54): I rise to speak on the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022. Eastern Victoria Region has a rich history of forestry. In East Gippsland the local logging industry had its beginnings in the 1880s, while now my electorate is home to the Australian Paper mill, which is just one example of a big employer in our area—and it relies on a functioning timber industry. Forestry is also a significant industry in neighbouring regions and is also important to those in the inner city who live in homes built with timber frames, wooden stairs and floorboards and have wooden furniture. These people may not experience the industry firsthand, but they will certainly feel the consequences if the industry continues to suffer. And sadly that is what is happening—the industry is suffering.

The bill before us is brief but gives broad powers to the Minister for Agriculture and Secretary of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. These broad powers enable the minister or the secretary to create legally binding directions around the management of our forestry industry. It also provides that any matter contained in any document, standard or specification may be adopted or incorporated into the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2014. As it stands, VicForests must comply with the precautionary principle, and many of my colleagues in the chamber have raised this today too. There have been numerous legal disputes around the definition of this principle. The principle is effectively about taking steps to protect against threats. Biodiversity should be preserved and regrettable future outcomes avoided. Many cases before the courts have arisen because there is no useful definition of what constitutes a threat. This has led to ongoing yet avoidable tension, particularly in my region, between timber harvesters and environmental activists.

I have already mentioned the code of practice. The code of practice was implemented to acknowledge that the timber industry impacts the environment and to find ways to protect areas that are particularly vulnerable. It seeks to strike a balance between allowing a vital industry to operate and minimising impact on the environment. It is evident that it has failed in its aim. For example, the state-owned VicForests has been accused by activists and researchers of logging illegally on steep slopes around water catchment areas, which may cause contamination to our drinking water, yet despite numerous allegations, VicForests continues to effectively defend against the activists’ cases brought against it—but at what cost? As a result of the anger over perceived abuses by VicForests, activist groups have focused on Baw Baw, Lakes Entrance and Noojee, where they persistently organise protests such as sitting in trees or weaving in and out of logging coupes, creating a danger to themselves and to harvesters.

The activists persistently use the courts to bring costly injunctions against the forestry industry that interfere and block essential supply. Given the current backlogged state of Victoria’s court system, cases can be drawn out for years. They are contributing to timber shortages and creating costs and delays, yet activists feel this is justified because their interpretation of the law is different to that of VicForests and only the courts are empowered to decide which position is genuinely aligned with the law. This situation is bad for everyone. VicForests is paralysed by court cases while activists remain embittered that they did not get the outcomes they expected. Clear, sensible laws must exist so that everyone has confidence that our water remains uncontaminated and that threatened species are protected, all while allowing forestry to operate but within a balanced ethical framework.

As I said earlier, the code of practice exists to strike a balance. There has not been balance, only uncertainty. This is why so many people are protesting. The industry has to navigate rules that create such complexity and ambiguity that it is possible for professional activists to convince themselves and others that only corrupt behaviour would lead to the logging decisions taken by VicForests. To date the courts have not accepted these arguments. The details of the arguments are typically so complex that few fully understand them. The rule of law rarely functions well in such circumstances. It is not surprising that both sides are convinced they are right if VicForests has made every effort to be compliant and log within the law, but activists read the law from an entirely different viewpoint.

If the criteria for protection are poorly constructed, costly and complicated to apply, then they are worse than useless. Everyone loses. Desired environmental protections are not afforded, and business faces crippling costs, no matter how hard it tries to do the right thing. The forestry industry needs to be able to determine with certainty what can and cannot be logged in a cost-effective way so that even if objections exist they can be resolved quickly, convincingly and definitively. Yet we also need clear and effective environmental protections, because our environment is a great treasure that our children and our children’s children should have the benefit of—and make no mistake, the long cycles of the forestry industry are on that generational scale.

We need clear rules and better oversight. These new guidelines must ensure that environmental practices are taken into consideration with clear boundaries to avoid drawn-out situations where it takes years to determine the law and if it was really breached. This will give the forestry industry the ability it so desperately needs to properly plan long term and predict how best to succeed in providing business and consumers with essential materials that are now in short supply. The forestry business cannot function without the ability to perform genuine long-term planning, and that means absolute certainty over legal matters and supply eligibility for several decades to come. Alas, these new discretionary powers will sit with a government that has been disturbingly unforthcoming about the future of the sector.

By 2030 we will be required to rely solely on plantation wood, yet the necessary plantations take between 20 and 30 years to reach full maturity. The reality gap is obvious. If we are going to end native timber supply and rely on plantations, we need thousands of hectares to be planted right now. Even then, 2030 is obviously a wildly optimistic date, and if we do not start planning now, what will happen in the meantime? We are already seeing the negative impacts of an undersupplied timber industry. Homeowners and renovators have been forced to wait nine months or more for trusses to be delivered. Victoria is battling a huge undersupply of timber products, and homeowners are being slugged with cost increases due to enormous demand and little supply. Nationally building costs rose 7.3 per cent last year, which is the biggest surge in construction costs in 16 years. No doubt this, like everything else, will be blamed on the pandemic, and yet it was clearly avoidable.

If we are not going to produce enough wood here in Victoria, where will it come from? That is the question this government fails to answer. We will be swapping our homegrown renewable timber for imports that create far more global damage than a well-regulated, job-creating local industry. Will we be creating yet another fragile supply chain that leaves us at the mercy of authoritarians and increasingly destabilising world events? I know I would much rather see our timber sourced sustainably, ethically and securely here in Victoria, building Victorian jobs and Victorian prosperity, not feeding into the profits of fat cat overseas commodity speculators.

We need to strike a balance between protecting the environment and continuing an ethical and sustainable forestry industry. This will ensure we minimise reliance on imported wood from countries that do not care about setting new records for deforestation. Even if we could source timber remotely in an ethical and sustainable manner, local industries such as Australian Paper in Maryvale, Latrobe Valley’s largest employer—one of them—rely on the economies of a local timber industry. We must have a reliable source of local timber. The devastation facing the industry is leaving lifelong harvesting families out of work and has the potential to render an otherwise prosperous paper industry unviable, resulting in an economic dissolution of the eastern region. We need more local timber processing, not less, and it is impossible without competitive and dependable local supply. If passed, I urge the government to use these new powers to strike this balance and finally get it right, because without a sustainable timber industry we are all impacted.

Sitting suspended 4.04 pm until 4.20 pm.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (16:20): I rise to speak briefly to the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022, and I have to say from the outset I feel like it is deja vu. I feel that we have traversed this issue many times, certainly in recent years, and we do not seem to be able to get it right, because it is not right. We need to transition this industry, and there are ways to do it and it should be done, rather than us trying to tinker around the edges with a bill such as this one.

You know, even with that interjection of COVID-19 into our lives I still remember the 2019 bushfires. I am sure Mr Quilty would remember them as well, and they were devastating. They were devastating on our native flora and fauna, and we have certainly have not recovered from them. In fact we have not recovered from the 2003 bushfires that devastated much of New South Wales. As I drive up to a property in New South Wales I still look for the mountain ashes that were there—mountain ashes that, when it was hot and we were driving up, would leave a strong peppermint smell in the air. They are coming back, but they have still got decades to go before they come back. I cannot forget the picture of that kangaroo bloated, dead on the side of the road, having tried to scratch on the side of the road to get away from the fire. In 2019, 1.5 million hectares of Victoria burnt in those bushfires, including more than half of the East Gippsland LGA. The fires wiped out the native forests, and they put significant strain on our endangered species. In terms of VicForests, that included 40 per cent of the area earmarked for native timber logging in East Gippsland.

At the end of 2019 the state government announced Victoria’s forest industry transition from native forestry and the end to harvesting native forests by 2030. Good. I do not see why we cannot bring this forward. Much of the timber that is being harvested is mainly for pulp, and there are many other ways that we can create jobs and we can create pulp. One of them is the need to transition to plantation timber, and I get that. We are working very hard on that, and it is important.

But as I have said many times in this place, we should be unlocking the extraordinary potential of industrial hemp. This is a product that could grow in all of the areas that we are looking at. Hemp should be the future of paper, and it can be. It could be the provider of many more jobs than are currently available in the timber industry. We heard Mr Hayes talking about how overseas they are leaving us behind with their new technologies and with their new way of doing things. We could be a leader here as well, and we certainly could do this with hemp. Hemp grows 4 metres in 100 days. It is the quickest carbon to biomass available. The University of Melbourne is undertaking extensive research into how we can move from logging native forests to using hemp instead. Hemp is cheaper, it restores the soil and it does not destroy old-growth forests. One acre of hemp can produce as much paper as 4 to 10 acres of trees. I will say that again: 1 acre of hemp can produce as much paper as 4 to 10 acres of trees. Hemp stalks grow in four months, whereas trees take 20 to 80 years. Hemp has a higher concentration of cellulose than wood, which is obviously the principal ingredient in paper. Hemp paper does not yellow, crack or deteriorate like tree paper. These are the raw facts, and this is where we should be going. This is the conversation I think this Parliament should be having.

I congratulate the government for announcing that there will be an end to the harvesting of our native forests, but let us do it faster, let us talk about the opportunities of how we are going to do that and let us start talking up hemp. Now, we actually need some legislative change for hemp. I would love to see some changes that would make it easier for us to introduce this industry. I have spoken to the unions about this, and the unions are very open to it. I have spoken to pulp mills; we can use our existing mills. We actually do not have to change a lot to transition to a much better product—a product that grows a lot faster, is a lot better for the environment, is a lot cheaper and is a lot better for our native flora and fauna. We do not need as much because it is a much denser cellulose product. And it is not just paper; we are seeing hemp really as an alternative to many timber products. Looking at particle board to high-strength beams. In 90 days you can grow the fibre required for structural beams, rather than the 30 years it will take to grow that same beam, that same product, using timber. The rest of the world is going this way. We are seeing considerable changes: Germany, Canada and the United States are investing a lot of money into hemp as fibre, and we should be doing the same. We could be leaders in this area.

Going briefly back to the bill, I know that it deals with the codes of practice and the precautionary principle, and I understand that. I would have to say that I very much appreciated the minister’s office briefings that we have received about this. I certainly do not have the same concerns I heard from the opposition about the godlike powers that this bill may present. I note that the opposition is concerned about this legislation, but I understand that they are not opposing it. I cannot see that supporting a constraint on litigation in the way that this bill does is a positive. I cannot see that either of the godlike powers, as they are called, or the constraints on litigation are good things when we look at some of that litigation that has actually successfully protected native wildlife in the past and when we look at the warriors and the fighters who have stood up when we have seen the timber industry—and this is no offence to many of the industry workers—logging on streams and illegally logging. This bill will constrain, to a degree, the ability to litigate against that.

So again I thank the minister’s office and the minister herself for her detailed briefings. As I say, they did allay some of my concerns, but I will support Dr Ratnam’s reasoned amendment. I do not see any problem with a reasoned amendment to see an inquiry into this. I would hope that that inquiry would look at alternatives to the timber industry—how can we transition faster? As I say, hemp could not be faster: 90 days for 4 metres. But I do not think we should be massaging codes and making it easier to log native forest. We should be planning for short-term transition, and as I say, hemp could be a centrepiece.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (16:30): I will be brief. This bill gives the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change enormous discretionary powers over timber workers. The government claim that they will use these powers to clarify vague standards that activists are currently exploiting to engage in lawfare, and God knows something needs to be done to rein in these legal attacks. The current code of practice requires compliance with the precautionary principle, which in practice demands the elimination of all environmental risks no matter how small or imaginary they might be. This is an impossible principle to apply, and anti-logging groups know it. They make up or exaggerate risks and drag VicForests through the courts, wasting time and money. VicForests, controlled by the state government, is told not to pursue compensation for the millions of dollars in legal costs caused by vexatious environmentalist litigation. Timber protestors are often well funded but hide their cash before issuing lawsuits. Anti-logging campaigners in East Gippsland moved $336 000 into a trust just before commencing legal action against VicForests. Another group, MyEnvironment, still owes $2 million to VicForests that it is unlikely to ever pay.

This government is not a fan of timber or the industry. Anti-timber activists want to kill off the industry overnight, and the government wants to kill it off over the next eight years. They are agreed on the objective; they are only haggling over the price. That is the choice we are being given. Hardwood timber has already been given a death sentence; it is only a question of how long before the axe falls. Giving these additional discretionary powers to the government is a risk. A much better way to address this issue would have been creating a clearer code of conduct that ditched the precautionary principle. Having discretionary powers in the hands of a minister and a department dedicated to ending logging cannot be good. If the minister were serious about protecting the industry, she would instruct VicForests to pursue recovery of those legal costs and lock these vexatious litigants out of the system. But I feel the minister and this government are fellow travellers with these protest groups. They do not want to rein them in.

Now, I do not see timber as an evil thing. Wood is a sustainable resource that captures carbon during its production. Everyone in the state relies on timber in one way or another. Timber keeps roofs over our heads, and almost everything we buy comes to us on a pallet made of timber. Constant attempts to demonise sustainable timber and to pretend it is an environmental blight show how out of touch the green movement has become. They have made it clear they believe humans are a disease on planet Earth and that we do not belong. They see anything that is productive as destruction. This view of timber is hypocritical. These are the same people who demand we replace our plastic straws with paper ones, only to turn around and put the screws on paper production. Where do you think all these recyclable alternatives come from? If we cannot have mining, plastic, concrete or timber, we cannot have cities, roads, houses or logistics. The green movement want to pull civilisation back into the dirt, and they are abusing our legal system to do that.

The Victorian timber industry is important to our state but vital to the economies of so many regional communities. The shutting down of the timber industry, as this minister is overseeing, can only be considered as part of this Melbourne government’s ongoing war on the regions. These communities do not want more government cash to shut them down. They want to continue to work, to produce timber and to help manage the forests. They deserve better. The Liberal Democrats will stand with timber workers and the timber industry and against this nonsense that is being forced on regional Victoria by out-of-touch city dwellers. We will support this legislation because the current situation needs fixing, but this is very, very far from the best solution.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (16:34): I will be brief. I thank all the members for their contribution. This is an important bill, even though it is only five clauses, and we have prioritised its passage through the Parliament to get greater certainty in the forestry industry as soon as possible. As my colleagues from the government side of the chamber have stated during the debate, it is the role of the government to provide guidance where there is uncertainty about how to comply with environmental regulation. The government has done this before with the EPA compliance codes, and we are doing it again via this bill. This bill is the first step of three steps that will ultimately enable compliance standards to be created.

These new standards will give VicForests and its contractors guidance on how to comply with the precautionary principle in the Code of Practice for Timber Production. Compliance standards will be voluntary, providing VicForests with a new way to demonstrate compliance with existing rules. The bill and the consequent code amendment will not change environmental standards. The bill will not give the minister God powers. As has been described by my colleagues before, heads of power are very common in regulatory frameworks, and any powers will be enabled by a subsequent code amendment. This code amendment has mandatory consultation requirements and must be tabled in the Parliament.

Government’s intention is to have this reform in place by mid-year, and we expect there will be a reduction in litigation. The contributions from members today have shown there is broad support to ensure forestry workers understand how to comply with the rules.

Dr Ratnam has proposed a number of amendments. The government are not supporting those amendments today. The Greens want to delay the reform, and if they cannot delay it, they want to ensure there are even more court cases in the coming months. Then we have the opposition. They have an amendment as well. We will not be supporting that amendment. My colleagues have already covered this in some detail, and I do not intend to go over it again. But this amendment from the opposition will not even do what they want it to do. It will not constrain cases like the ones currently before the court, because their amendments only relate to criminal matters, not civil matters. Their proposed amendment would have no effect on third-party litigation about breaches of the code, which would still continue as civil cases before the Supreme Court. I am sure there will be a number of questions on the bill, and I look forward to answering all of those in the committee stage.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Cumming missed her call, so I am just asking if, by leave, the chamber would permit her to speak.

Leave granted.

Dr CUMMING (Western Metropolitan) (16:37): I thank others in the chamber for allowing me to speak on the bill. I rise to speak on the Conservation, Forests and Lands Amendment Bill 2022. This is a very contentious issue—that of logging native forests. I will make my contribution brief. The Premier and the minister announced that commercial harvesting in public native forests would end in 2030. They also announced that the total harvest levels would be maintained at the current level to 2024 then cut by 25 per cent in 2025 and a further 25 per cent from 2026 to 2030, but that is not what has been happening. Today the industry is 50 per cent down. By the end of this year it will be 75 per cent down, and next year there will hardly be an industry.

Since 1985 records of our land cover have been kept. These records show that the net native tree cover in Victoria has actually increased by 80 000 hectares over the last 35 years. During that time over 200 000 hectares of extra timber plantations have been planted. That means that we have an additional 450 000 hectares of forest—native and plantation—to what we had 35 years ago. Harvesting of hardwood timber from our native forests is done in a sustainable and responsible way. It is independently audited, and measures are put in place to protect the fauna and flora.

We also have to remember that bushfire is the greatest cause of loss of vegetation, not logging. In the 2019–2020 Victorian bushfires more than 1.5 million hectares of public and private land were burnt, including 1.39 million hectares of forests and parks, plantations and native timber assets. In her second-reading speech the minister did not mention fires. This did not surprise me, as the government has had no regard for the recommendations of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. While I am not happy with the power that this bill gives the minister, I do understand that the industry need some certainty going forward, but I am just not sure that this bill will actually give them that.

Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (16:41): I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this bill be referred to the Environment and Planning Committee for inquiry, consideration and report, by 15 September 2022, on the contents of the bill, including but not limited to the appropriateness of the extraordinary discretionary powers this bill provides the minister and the second reading of this bill be deferred until the final report of the committee is presented to the house.’.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (16:41): Just to put it on the record, the government will not be supporting Dr Ratnam’s reasoned amendment for the reasons that I put on the public record in the second-reading summary.

Ms BATH (Eastern Victoria) (16:41): The Liberals and The Nationals will be opposing this amendment. It is quite interesting that we have had the biggest inquiry that the Environment and Planning Committee has ever seen, and it was actually from a Greens motion. It ended up being 600 pages. It investigated thoroughly aspects of VicForests and forestry, and yet they are still not satisfied without going back in again to continue to hammer a nail in the coffin. It is unfair, and we will not be supporting it.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (16:42): Certainly Reason will be supporting this reasoned amendment. I think it is very reasonable.

House divided on amendment:

Amendment negatived.

House divided on motion:

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (16:52)

Dr RATNAM: Minister, I understand that we have been told that the reason for the new authority under this bill is to provide certainty about when logging can and cannot occur. Can you assure the Victorian public that the practical application of this bill will not result in weakened legal protection for threatened species?

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Dr Ratnam. We are not altering the environmental standards whatsoever as far as changing what we want to in this code and the objectives of this bill are concerned, so the short answer is that I can reassure you and say yes in answer to your question.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change in the second-reading speech indicated that this bill is about providing a mechanism to clarify the precautionary principle. Where is the precautionary principle outlined in the bill?

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Rich-Phillips. That principle is in the code that is referred to in the bill.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. But if the intent of the bill is to provide clarification of that principle and how that principle should be applied, why hasn’t the government included that clarification in the bill?

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Rich-Phillips. It is a three-step process. It is the bill, then the code, then the compliance that need to go through. This is why we are going to do the bill, and the next step will be that work on the code.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, has that work been done on the interpretation of the precautionary principle?

Mr LEANE: Mr Rich-Phillips, there has been work on the principle around that particular code in 2021, but we cannot progress the code—the second stage—until this bill goes through the Parliament.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, so the interpretive work has been undertaken by the department as to how the government would expect the precautionary principle to be applied in respect of the code—the clarification that has been talked about in the second-reading debate?

Mr LEANE: The answer to your question is that the department is working on the code amendment as we speak.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, what guidance, interpretation or application of the precautionary principle is going to emerge from that process? How is that going to be applied in respect of the code? What is the practical application of that going to be?

Mr LEANE: The guidance will be incorporated in the actual code. The guidance will be part of the application in the code.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. But the government is unable to tell the house what that guidance is at this point?

Mr LEANE: Yes.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Minister, given the whole intent, we are told, of this bill is to interpret, apply and clarify the application of the precautionary principle, why hasn’t the government actually done that work and brought that application and clarification forward in legislation, rather than simply creating a mechanism where it can come along later and drop in an interpretation of the principle?

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Rich-Phillips. The reason all the guidance is not in the bill is for the ability for adaptability of the guidance in the code, in case it is out of date in the future as far as environmental changes that may have to be taken into consideration are concerned.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. Minister, the second-reading speech, as I said, talks about clarifying the precautionary principle. That is the rationale given for this amendment to the act. Does the scope of the amendments the bill is creating, providing the power for discretionary authority for the secretary or the minister and changing the scope of documents that can be incorporated in the code—are those matters confined to only interpreting the precautionary principle, or can those new provisions be applied far more widely?

Mr LEANE: Mr Rich-Phillips, the bill allows that the incorporated instrument can be varied.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: So it can be more than just addressing the precautionary principle?

Mr LEANE: Yes.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. So although the government has brought forward this bill saying it is to provide a mechanism to clarify the precautionary principle, in reality it is providing a head of power for the minister to address any matters in the code and use that discretionary power for any matters the minister chooses to deal with, not just clarifying the precautionary principle.

In the existing Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, where a code is promulgated there is a requirement for consultation, and sections 32 to 34 of the act set out the consultation process and the mechanism for creating a code. In the passage of this bill if a code is made which allows for discretionary authority by the minister or the secretary—and the provision is very broad in the act, being in relation to ‘any matter or thing to be from time to time approved, determined, dispensed with or regulated by the Minister or Secretary’—that power is very, very broad. Once that is incorporated in the code, the power for the minister or the secretary to do those things, is there any requirement for the minister or the secretary to consult before they exercise that power?

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Rich-Phillips. That consultation will be set out in the code amendment, but taking into account, Mr Rich-Phillips, that that actual variation of the code has to come to the Parliament as well, so it can be under a disallowance if the Parliament chooses. So there will be time for parliamentarians and others to look at that consultation measure in the code.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. Just to clarify what you are saying, if the minister or the secretary exercises a discretionary authority under this new provision, that has to come to Parliament for disallowance?

Mr LEANE: No, I am not saying that. I am saying, to your concern around this particular code amendment which is going to be enacted by this bill, the variation and any provision of consultation needs to be in that code. So if you have got concerns about consultation, there will be an opportunity for the Parliament to disallow that if you believe the consultation is not up to the standard that you believe it should be.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. But once this new discretionary power is reflected in the code, which I assume is the government’s intention, the minister or the secretary will then be able to use that discretionary power into the future without any further consultation? So on a literal reading of this the code could be amended to say the minister or the secretary may do anything they regard as convenient to give effect to the Victorian government’s forestry policies, and that could be incorporated in the code and then there would be no need for further consultation. Once that is in the code there would be no need for further consultation to actually exercise that discretionary power.

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Rich-Phillips. I just want to get you the correct information. So the code will outline the circumstances when these powers can be used. This will require a code amendment, which will be subject to the usual public consultation and a parliamentary disallowance period. These powers will not allow the Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change or the secretary to change code clauses. The future use of these powers will also be constrained by the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, which has a basic requirement that the codes of practice specify standards and procedures for timber harvesting. This is likely to mean a code cannot leave broad discretion to the secretary or minister.

There are also regional forest amendments with the commonwealth government which are based on the current Victorian timber harvesting regulation framework. The commonwealth government therefore has a vested interest in any significant changes to the code, particularly if this would alter environmental standards.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. That is a helpful addition to the committee’s consideration. Can I ask: with respect to that application of discretionary authority, can it only be applied on a sector-wide basis or can discretionary authority be applied specifically in relation to a particular coupe or a particular operator or a particular part of VicForests’ operations?

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Rich-Phillips. That will be set out in the enabling code amendment.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. The legislation as drafted, though, would not prevent a discretionary authority from being used for a decision around a sector of the industry rather than applying to the whole industry—subject, as you said, to what the code amendment comes forward as.

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Rich-Phillips. I will repeat my answer that that would be set out in the enabling code amendment.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: Thank you, Minister. Just one further: a technical question on why the authority is being vested in both the minister and the secretary.

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Rich-Phillips. It is standard drafting procedure in a lot of legislation, so those powers, we believe, are standard drafting procedures.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: That is reflected elsewhere in this act, is it, Minister? I thought it was unusual for the same head of power to be given to both the secretary and the minister. It is not a practice I have seen.

Mr LEANE: It is not unique to this legislation.

Clause agreed to; clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (17:14)

Mr MEDDICK: Minister, in the second-reading speech the minister explained that this bill will enable us to provide much clearer direction on what is required to protect our forests, particularly in the wake of natural disasters, such as fires, that change the context for management, and to ensure continued use and enjoyment of our forests well into the future. There are already existing mechanisms to protect forests after bushfires which have never been used—critical habitat determinations under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, which were created by Andrews government amendments. Why haven’t these mechanisms been used to protect threatened species after bushfires?

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Meddick, for your question. The precautionary principle is a mandatory action in the code. It enables requirements for timber harvesting operations to respond flexibly and responsibly. Critical habitat determinations are subject to process and consultation requirements that would not enable the same flexibility and immediate response that the precautionary principle provides.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Your answer does somewhat go to clarifying my second question, but if you could just reiterate that for clarity, sorry. The second-reading speech described the precautionary principle:

… if there are threats of severe or irreversible damage, but the science is not yet settled, the precautionary principle requires us to put in place protective measures to ensure we don’t have regrets in the future.

What scientific or evidence-based inputs will be used by the minister to avoid future regrets in making rules?

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Meddick. I just wanted to make sure I had the right information. Robust scientific input will be essential and has been a feature of all previous Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) guidance and advice on similar matters. Compliance standards may be open to a request for judicial review on the grounds of legal error in the secretary or minister’s decision-making, such as whether the decision-maker followed the rules as set by the code when considering and approving a compliance standard or regulated entity proposed action or made a legal mistake in approving a compliance standard or regulatory entity proposed action—for example, whether the decision-maker understood or applied the law incorrectly or failed to take into account some relevant factor provided for by the code when making a decision to approve a compliance standard or regulatory entity proposed action.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Minister, for that clarity. It does go actually a lot further than the original answer around that. My next question again comes from the second-reading speech:

Similarly, providing a clearer power, in express and broad terms, to enable a Code to specify matters that will be left to the discretion of the Minister or the Secretary will enable the Code to authorise discretionary approvals as a means of establishing greater regulatory certainty. The Code may provide, for example, that the Secretary may approve certain measures or plans, compliance with which will be sufficient to discharge the duty or obligation in the Code to apply the precautionary principle, in the particular circumstances to which those measures apply.

What considerations for the compliance standards are being taken, who is drafting those compliance standards and how can the public be assured that they are based on up-to-date conservation science and not captured by the interests of the logging industry, for instance?

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Meddick. The conservation regulator will be responsible for developing the compliance standards and recommending to the DELWP secretary for a decision. It is the regulator’s responsibility, compliance under the code, and it already undertakes the role of interpreting the code clauses and providing guidance to the industry.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Minister, there is little feasible way the application of the precautionary principle can be foreshadowed and therefore compliance with it deemed in advance. In every conceivable circumstance in which logging occurs, what guarantee does the public have that any instruments deeming compliance are scientifically sound?

Mr LEANE: It is not intended compliance standards foreshadow every conceivable circumstance. Therefore this bill will enable them to be updated as needed. I think that is the answer.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. It does give clarity around the fact that in many essences this is crystal ball gazing and that all circumstances cannot possibly be foreseen. The next question is: what are the inputs or considerations that will be made by the secretary or the minister in deciding whether VicForests is or is not complying with the precautionary principle?

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Meddick. The conservation regulator will be responsible for compliance under all elements of this reform. Since the conservation regulator’s establishment we have introduced new powers for the regulator and clarified the code to make it more enforceable. There are more resources for the timber harvesting regulator than ever before, which has resulted in more inspections of coupes and greater scrutiny of the industry. The regulator has also introduced more transparency as to how it regulates, through interactive online information and forestry surveys. Compliance standards are an important step to improving the powers of the conservation regulator, as they provide regulatory weight to its interpretation of code obligations.

In March 2022 the new powers for the conservation regulator that were passed by this Parliament last year came into force. They include improved ability to prosecute offences of illegal timber harvesting by ensuring that illegal harvesting undertaken by contractors can also be addressed and expanding tools and powers to respond in a proportionate way to alleged non-compliance, including the use of enforceable undertakings.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Minister. Minister, if the minister or secretary decides VicForests are complying with the precautionary principle in a particular case, can third parties still bring the issue to court if there is a disagreement with the decision made by the minister or secretary on the necessary measures to protect threatened wildlife impacted by logging?

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Meddick. Compliance standards may be open to a request for judicial review on the grounds of legal error in the secretary or minister’s decision-making, such as whether the decision-maker followed the rules as set by the code when considering and approving a compliance standard or regulated entity proposed action. Another dot point on that is if they made a legal mistake in approving a compliance standard or regulated entity proposed action—for example, whether the decision-maker misunderstood or applied the law incorrectly and, further to that, failed to take into account some relevant factor provided by the code when making decisions to approve a compliance standard or regulated entity proposed action.

Third parties will still be able to commence proceedings where they consider timber harvesting has breached or is likely to breach obligations contained in the code or in cases where there is a question as to whether a compliance standard has been complied with or where a timber harvester has taken different actions—sorry, this is on a separate point—to those set out in a compliance standard and the third party is of the view that these actions do not meet the standards of the precautionary principle.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Minister. The last part of that was a great and very clear answer to what the concern is that has been raised. The next question I have is: the precautionary principle provides that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. That is, if there are threats of severe or irreversible damage but the science is not yet settled, the principle requires us to put in place protective measures to ensure we do not have regrets in the future. So when the minister says the changes provide certainty for the industry in that regard, is she talking about greater access to forests and more logging that is not restricted by environmental protections and considerations for declining wildlife?

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Meddick, for your question. The simple answer is no.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Minister. The minister has acknowledged that the precautionary principle is currently engaged due to the impacts of the 2019–20 bushfires. There is a serious question regarding the ability of wildlife, for instance the threatened greater glider, to recover after fires. Yet logging has continued across Victoria since then in key remaining glider habitat. What has the government done so far to address VicForests’ continued logging and hold them accountable to recommendations from the commonwealth, the Office of the Conservation Regulator, the Arthur Rylah Institute and other scientists regarding additional protections in those areas?

Mr LEANE: The answer to your question is that we want to ensure the conservation regulator is a best practice regulator, and it is well on its way. Since the conservation regulator’s establishment we have introduced new powers for the regulator and clarified the code to make it more enforceable. There are more resources for the timber harvesting regulator than ever before, which is resulting in more inspections of coupes and greater scrutiny of the industry. The regulator has also introduced more transparency as to how it regulates, through interactive online information about forest surveys. Compliance standards are also an important step to improving the powers of the conservation regulator, as they provide regulatory weight to its interpretation of code obligations.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I am sure that will provide a great deal of certainty to some people who are very concerned about that. Minister, in the future we can expect more bushfires to occur. These will cause damage to forests of some depth and scope that we cannot now know. Can the minister provide an example of how these changes will provide greater regulatory oversight and clarity in this situation? And I do understand that this is somewhat speculative.

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Meddick. The precautionary principle is designed to be adaptive to respond to the environmental conditions. Timber harvesters must consider if any additional actions are required to protect the environmental values from serious and irreversible damage beyond what is explicitly stated in the code. This requirement exists where there are scientific uncertainties in relation to those environmental values.

While this precautionary principle provides an important adaptive function to account for the impact of fires, floods, new diseases and other impacts, it can create uncertainty over whether it applies in a given case and precisely what actions will satisfy this obligation. Currently the conservation regulator provides advice to VicForests about the possible measures to acquit the precautionary principle. However, even if timber harvesters follow this advice, it provides no legal guarantees that a court will find that these actions were sufficient. Compliance standards will provide a pathway for timber harvesters to comply with the precautionary principle and, if applied, have legal certainty that they have met their obligations under the precautionary principle for the species or value in question.

Mr MEDDICK: Thank you, Minister. I have no more questions on this clause, but I will just flag that I have one other question, and that is on clause 4.

Ms BATH: Minister, could you please explain what ‘full scientific certainty’ means? What is the definition of ‘full scientific certainty’?

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Ms Bath. This bill does not change the definition of the precautionary principle, and the definition you are seeking, of ‘certainty’, is outside the scope of this bill.

Ms BATH: It raises the question that the lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing. We have been talking and many MPs have been contributing, yet the definition cannot be identified in this debate. My question is: what is the smallest land area under which the precautionary principle operates in its entirety?

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Ms Bath, but it is the same answer: that question is outside the scope of this bill.

Ms BATH: Isn’t it interesting that we have been debating this bill for about 4 hours and it has been mentioned on multiple occasions, yet it is now outside the scope of the bill. I would put it to you that the government needs to, when considering the precautionary principle, consider it on a landscape scale or as a wide-scale entity and consideration, because a focus of this government has been a significantly, we will say, microscopic view of what is happening coupe by coupe by coupe by space within coupes rather than looking at species—and it is highly and very important to protect species—across the landscape, noting that the whole reason for having a code of practice and implementing a precautionary principle is knowing that there always have been, under a code of practice, timber operations that would alter the environment on those coupes but not actually cause any irrevocable damage in terms of species lost. That is the whole reason why this is in operation.

Mr LEANE: I will take that as a comment.

Clause agreed to.

New clause (17:35)

Dr RATNAM: I move:

Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 3—

‘3A New sections 41 to 43 inserted

After section 40 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 insert—

“41 Requirements for decisions under Codes of Practice

(1) The Minister or Secretary when making a Code of Practice discretionary decision must—

(a) make the decision on the basis of the best available, relevant scientific knowledge; and

(b) make a decision that promotes the object of the Act set out in section 4.

(2) In this section and in sections 42 and 43—

Code of Practice discretionary decision means either of the following—

(a) a decision that may be made under a discretionary authority conferred by the Code of Practice;

(b) the approval, determination, dispensation or regulation of a matter or thing under a Code of Practice.

42 VCAT review of Code of Practice discretionary decisions

(1) Any person whose interests are affected by a Code of Practice discretionary decision made by the Minister or Secretary may apply to VCAT for a review of the decision.

(2) An application for review under subsection (1) must be made within 28 days after the later of the following—

(a) the day on which the decision is made;

(b) if, under the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the party requests a statement of reasons for the decision, the day on which the statement of reasons is given to the party or the party is informed under section 46(5) of that Act that a statement of reasons will not be given.

43 Stay of decision pending review

(1) This section applies, despite anything to the contrary in section 50 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, if a person applies for a review of a Code of Practice discretionary decision under section 42.

(2) On the making of an application for review of a Code of Practice discretionary decision under section 42, the decision is stayed pending the determination by VCAT of the proceeding to which the application applies and the expiration of the appeal period.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) the appeal period expires—

(a) at the end of the period during which an application for leave to appeal from the order of VCAT determining the proceeding may be made under Part 5 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 if an application is not made within that period; or

(b) if an application for leave to appeal is made, when that application is determined if leave is not granted; or

(c) if leave is granted, at the end of the period during which the appeal may be instituted under Part 5 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 if an appeal is not instituted within that period; or

(d) if an appeal is instituted, when the appeal is determined.”.’.

As I said in my substantive speech, the Greens are particularly concerned about the nature of the power given by new subsection (4). Essentially it grants to the minister or the Secretary of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning free rein to decide how the logging code of practice is applied and therefore what logging is legal. The extremely broad nature of this power is disturbing and should not be happening at all. However, if it is to occur, there must at least be checks and balances on how it is exercised. This is what the amendments I have circulated will do.

These amendments do a few key things. First, new section 41(1)(a) would ensure that any decision made under the discretionary power is evidence based and incorporates the latest scientific knowledge. The logging code relates to the management of public forests, forests that are there for all Victorians; anything less than managing based on evidence and science would be to let down Victorians. It is disturbing that in the way that this power is currently drafted the minister can simply ignore science or evidence and instead sanction logging with detrimental consequences for our forest ecosystems, threatened species, water catchments and the list goes on.

Secondly, new section 41(1)(b) incorporates a requirement that the decisions made under this new power consider the objects of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987. This would ensure that any use of the power is consistent with the key reason for these laws to exist in the first place, which is to ensure our forests are conserved and managed in ways that are environmentally sound, socially just and economically efficient.

Third, new section 42 would ensure that decisions made by the minister or secretary to alter the logging code can be reviewed by the courts—in this case the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. It is a fundamental tenet of our Westminster system of government that decisions made by the executive arm of the government—in this case the minister and department—can be adjudicated.

I hope all MPs here can see that these amendments are very reasonable, and I urge that if you are determined to support this bill, you also agree to these amendments.

Mr LEANE: I just want to put on the record that the government opposes the inclusion of new section 41 in the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act but does not oppose ensuring timber harvesting is informed by the best scientific knowledge. The code already provides for this in section 2.2.2.3. There is no proposal to change the current requirement and the levels of environmental protection currently in the code. The code specifically provides in section 2.2.2.3:

The advice of relevant experts and relevant research in conservation biology and flora and fauna management must be considered when planning and conducting timber harvesting …

This bill is about clarifying the details of how the code requirements can be met, not about changing the code requirements.

The government does not support the inclusion of new section 42(1). The bill does not restrict existing legal rights of third parties to bring legal action through the courts. At present third parties can only bring court proceedings for a judicial review. This considers whether the decision has been made appropriately and within the decision-maker’s power. It does not consider the merits of the decision—that is, it does not stand in the shoes of the decision-maker and consider whether it was the correct decision. If this clause is implemented, it will likely provide an additional and unnecessary avenue for third parties. Merit review of government decisions through VCAT are better suited for circumstances in which individuals’ rights have been altered by decisions of government, such as a review of a planning decision that affects a person’s property.

Ms BATH: The Nationals and the Liberals will not be supporting this amendment. It seems to me that this is highly subjective, particularly new section 41(1) in terms of ‘best available, relevant scientific knowledge’. That, to my mind, opens a can of worms in terms of who is deciding the ‘best’ there. If it is the Greens’ best, it may well be different to somebody else’s best.

In relation to VCAT, it seems like if the third-party litigators are not getting the answers they want from the courts, then there will be an option to go around to another space and time at VCAT.

In relation to court decisions, I might just avail the house of the information that, I am very pleased to say, VicForests has successfully defended another of the four cases brought by Kinglake Friends of the Forest, with a decision by Justice Ginnane of the Supreme Court handed down this afternoon. So once again the court system is finding that for the practices undertaken by contractors on behalf of VicForests there is no case to answer.

Committee divided on new clause:

New clause negatived.

Clause 4 (17:48)

Mr MEDDICK: Minister, will any instruments deeming compliance be independently reviewable by independent experts?

Mr LEANE: Thank you, Mr Meddick. If I could refer you to my previous answer, I can confirm that experts within DELWP and the Arthur Rylah Institute will provide advice on the development of the compliance standards. Robust scientific input will be essential and has been a feature of all previous DELWP guidance and advice on similar matters.

Clause agreed to.

New clause (17:49)

Ms BATH: I move the amendment for the Liberals and Nationals standing in the name of Mr Davis and on behalf of the Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Mr Newbury:

1. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 4—

‘5 Proceedings for offences

(1) After section 96(2) of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 insert—

“(2A) Offence proceedings must not be taken by a person who is not authorised to take offence proceedings by this section.”.

(2) In the definition of offence proceedings in section 96(4) of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, after paragraph (c) insert—

“(ca) proceedings for an offence against a Code of Practice; or”.’.

We firmly believe that the government has missed an opportunity to close those loopholes that provide a mechanism whereby third-party litigators can continue to hold VicForests to ransom. We feel that the government should have been able to perhaps move a more elegant one than this one, but we still feel that it is important that this is passed.

Mr LEANE: The government opposes this amendment. The proposed amendment is unnecessary. Only the persons set out in section 96(1) may take offence proceedings under the CFL act. Litigation currently before the courts relating to the code are civil proceedings—they are not criminal proceedings—for the four offences. Section 96 of the act already limits the persons who can take offence proceedings to an authorised officer, a police officer, a person authorised by the DELWP secretary and the Victorian Plantations Corporation. Third-party forest litigation in Victoria is being made not under legislation but under the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Third parties rely on their rights under common law in Australia, as persons affected by native timber harvesting, to bring these proceedings. The proposed amendment would have no effect on third-party litigation about breaches of the code, which would still continue as a civil case before the Supreme Court. The most effective and efficient way to reduce third-party litigation is to ensure the law is clear. This is what we are doing with this particular amendment. The proposed amendment is misunderstood and would have no effect.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: The opposition disagrees with the minister in the government’s contention that this bill is going to fix the problem. It is our view and I think it is the industry’s view that the government has no intention of seeking to fix the problem, and we have seen that over the last seven years where third-party actions have been taken to nobble VicForests and in doing so nobble the native timber industry in this state. We have seen this government refuse or direct VicForests not even to recover costs where costs orders have been made in their favour against vexatious litigants who have brought a number of third-party civil litigations against VicForests in an effort to shut down the native timber industry. Ms Bath spoke about yet another case which has gone in favour of VicForests today, another attempt to shut down the industry and to shut down and frustrate VicForests. So we do not accept that the government’s mechanism is going to address that problem. We believe that the problem should have been addressed directly through a constraint on the capacity of third parties to bring litigation against VicForests, to allege breaches of the code and seek injunctions in that way. The government’s mechanism does not do that. We maintain that the amendment Ms Bath has proposed goes in the direction of stopping third-party litigants from taking actions of the nature we have seen time and time again over the last five years, so we will persist with the amendment.

Mr MEDDICK: I will be opposing this amendment, and just a very quick few words as to why: I have some very severe concerns about what this amendment will do. If you look at this isolation incident to begin with, we are talking about here an environment that holds some of our most precious native and indeed endangered wildlife. So to remove a third-party process, to remove a level of capture where something that is detrimental to that environment may occur and we can challenge it in the court, is not the correct way to go. I am also concerned on another level that this may potentially then be used as a precedent to also remove third-party rights in other pieces of legislation that may also have a detrimental effect where those people are concerned.

Committee divided on new clause:

New clause negatived.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (18:00): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

In doing that, can I thank Ms Bath, Mr Rich-Phillips, Dr Ratnam and Mr Meddick for their contributions during the committee stage.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Mr LEANE (Eastern Metropolitan—Minister for Local Government, Minister for Suburban Development, Minister for Veterans) (18:00): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the same without amendment.