Forest management
Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:21): (1376) My question is for the Minister for Environment. Two years after the cessation of native timber harvesting in Victoria, environmental organisations such as the Victorian Forest Alliance continue to express concerns that logging is effectively continuing via the back door through so-called forest management practices. These include a minimum of 10 full logging trucks per day for the last five years in the Lerderderg national park. Native forests provide essential habitat for threatened and endangered species, and their loss has significant impacts on biodiversity. While I acknowledge that logging is sometimes legitimately used to reduce fire risk, this must not be at the cost of our native forests. The system is failing. The current Forests Act 1958 and licensing framework still allows timber harvesting through forest produce licensing. My question is: why does the Forests Act 1958 and the current licensing framework continue to permit timber harvesting through forest produce licences?
Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Environment, Minister for Outdoor Recreation) (12:22): I thank Ms Payne for her question and her interest in this really important matter. I do think it is important to bust myth from fact as well because what I am hearing is this allegation of logging by stealth. It seems to be coming through, I am not saying that you are alleging that, some of the email campaigns that I have experienced as the Minister for Environment – that there is some logging going on. But our land management priorities are clear. We want to reduce fire risk, protect communities and improve the public’s and the forest’s health, so essential forest and fire management activities, as you acknowledge, are needed. From time to time fuel breaks and removing hazardous trees are required to not only protect communities but to protect, to be honest, the biodiversity of areas and the animals that they sustain. There is a reason for that work, and the reason is where possible woody debris, retaining forests that support habitat and biodiversity. We will not take out necessarily all the debris. The supply of by-products is always limited but necessary at times.
We made a tough decision as a Labor government to end and bring forward the end of the native timber harvesting industry in January 2024. It was the Labor government that did that. Victoria’s native forests deliver far greater value when they are protected for biodiversity, for climate resilience and for community safety and not used for commercial timber production. I do not necessarily accept the premise in terms of the act failing; I think it is working as intended. We did have a by-products auction recently. At the first trial of the storm debris from the Wombat State Forest it was demonstrated that where materials need to be removed for safety, bushfire risk or forest health reasons, they can be put to productive use instead of wasted, and the value generated is a by-product of storm recovery and forest management works, not from commercial timber harvesting. That ended in January 2024.
Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (12:24): I thank the minister for his response. The Australian government set a national target to protect and conserve 30 per cent of Australia’s landmass and 30 per cent of Australia’s marine areas by 2030 – the 30–30 target. By October 2022 environment ministers across all states and territories had agreed to this target. To reach the 30 per cent land target, we need to protect or conserve another 34.3 million hectares. For context, Victoria itself is around 22 million hectares. By way of supplementary, can the minister advise how the government is progressing toward its goal to protect 30 per cent of land and water as committed to in the 2022 meeting of environment ministers?
Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Environment, Minister for Outdoor Recreation) (12:25): I thank Ms Payne for her supplementary question. It is a really good question, because it gives me the opportunity to talk about our government’s commitment to progressing healthy forest planning and to determining the most appropriate long-term management arrangements that are based on science, based on community consultation and based on working with our traditional owners. That is a commitment that I am committed to and that the Labor government is committed to. We are committed to contributing to Australia’s biodiversity, including 30 by 30, for effective conservation outcomes; we are working with states and territories and the Commonwealth to bring that to fruition. This is about conservation outcomes, not simply changing the label on land. We will continue to do that work, and that is a national commitment to be reached by 2030. That is being implemented through nationally agreed frameworks and state biodiversity and public land management policies rather than through a separate Victorian statutory target. The international framework recognises that conservation can be achieved through protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures where appropriate, and our priority will always be to ensure our forests are managed to deliver biodiversity outcomes.