Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, together with the Hansardrecord of proceedings and documents presented to the committee and move that the report be printed.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I am pleased to speak today on the findings of the inquiry into the Abbott government's plan to delist 74,000 hectares of wilderness forest from the World Heritage area in my home state of Tasmania. I would like to thank everyone who took the time to make a submission, especially those who appeared before the committee. I would also like to thank the secretariat for their time, effort and wise advice, especially environment and communications committee secretary, Christine McDonald, and research officer Sophie Power.

My home state of Tasmania has been dogged by deep divisions over seemingly irreconcilable aims of protecting the environment and supporting forestry for decades. But 2012 saw an important and very welcome change in the landscape. The timber processors agreed, the environmental groups agreed, the unions agreed, the forest contractors agreed, the community agreed and the industry agreed: the division simply could not continue.

With the unflagging brokerage of members of both state and federal Labor governments, an agreement was designed and all parties finally agreed to work together in good faith on a long lasting plan to heal the generations-old rifts over logging in our forests.

In November 2012, these divisions came to an end with the historic signing of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement by 11 key stakeholder group representatives. This agreement laid out the path for a sustainable industry—one that could co-exist in harmony with greater protection for significant areas of native forest. It is hard to overstate what a significant event this was for Tasmania. Finally, there was peace. The protests stopped. The 'forest wars', as we all came to know them, were over.

Since then Tasmanian timber businesses have been reporting that certainty is returning, confidence is growing and business is looking good. But in September last year, that certainty was destroyed when the Abbott government announced its plan to excise 75,000 hectares of Tasmanian World Heritage listed forests which had only been added the previous year as a key part of the forest peace deal.

Importantly, the 2013 World Heritage area increase was also supported by the World Heritage Committee, which had repeatedly requested heritage protection for more of Tasmania's native forests. The Abbott government relied on three justifications for their action—all of which were found by the inquiry to be short-sighted, if not blatantly untrue. Firstly, they assert the area they want to delist is degraded and not worthy of protection.

During hearings, witnesses described these claims as 'incorrect', 'grossly overstated' and 'blatantly misleading, if not downright dishonest'. Again and again, witnesses asserted the vast majority of the 74,000 hectares is in no way degraded. Many argue that more than 90 per cent of the excision area has high conservation values and has not been logged.

We also heard the amount of plantation is negligible or around eight to 10 hectares of the 74,000 hectares proposed for excision. Tellingly, Department of the Environment representatives agreed when questioned that only four per cent of the area could be described as heavily disturbed.

In this context, it is not surprising that the government did not include specific information in their submission to the World Heritage Committee as there is simply no evidence that they could call on to back up their claims. It is true: small pockets of this type were included in the initial World Heritage area but for very sensible reasons of ecological connectivity and contiguous boundaries which are entirely consistent with World Heritage practice.

The second reason put forward by the Abbott government to remove areas from the World Heritage area was to 'deliver economic and social outcomes and invigorate the forestry industry.' Sadly, and more than a little ironically, it is this government's cavalier excision plan that is likely to do more damage to the forestry industry than they can possibly imagine.

We have heard in media reports comments from timber businesses, industry groups, unions and workers that they wanted the peace deal retained and that to rip it up could plunge Tasmania back into the dark old days of the so-called forest wars. Not only that but this would place a pall over the entire Tasmanian timber industry by threatening vital certification from the Forest Stewardship Council.

During the inquiry the committee heard again and again that customers simply will not buy wood that comes with such a bitter legacy. As one witness pointed out:

… there is nothing more certain to scare customers away from Tasmanian forest products than the delisting of areas that are currently in the Tasmanian wilderness World Heritage area and the starting up of logging there. That is going to send an appalling message internationally to the markets who are looking for … controversy-free timber.

The government also mentioned the specialty timbers industry, which is concerned the forest peace deal unfairly affected them. And of course, nobody wants to see specialty timbers lose out. However, the committee heard evidence from one of the key signatories that there are ways for this industry to be accommodated without placing the peace deal in jeopardy. As a result, the committee recommends the government undertake the specialty timbers management plan to determine the best way of meeting the needs of this very important industry without delisting tens of thousands of hectares of pristine wilderness.

The final main reason the government had used to justify the excision was an allegation that the 2013 extension was rushed and its outcome invalid. And, yet again, the government do not have facts on their side. Under questioning from the committee, the environment department itself described the 2013 independent verification process as 'extremely detailed' and 'thorough'. The committee also heard from many witnesses that the five months process included input from multiple independent experts and included detailed mapping and peer review.

One member of the Independent Verification Group, Professor Brendan Mackey, told the committee that the IVG undertook 'the most comprehensive, regional-scaled environment and heritage forest evaluation ever undertaken in Australia'. This stands in stark contrast to the process undertaken for the 2014 delisting, where the environment department were given only a few weeks to prepare the dossier for the World Heritage Committee.

Many submitters and submissions expressed shock at the scant nature of the Abbott government's submission. Witnesses pointed out that 'No statistics or maps pertaining to the 'logged/degraded areas' are provided. No arguments of substance are advanced. Key issues are ignored. No back-up materials in the form of references, illustrations or appendices are provided.'

When questioned, departmental representatives admitted that not only had they not undertaken independent scientific or heritage expert peer review as they had in 2013 but they had not even visited the site to determine the truth of the government's claim.

Similarly, there was no community consultation and the department did not even have access to Forestry Tasmania's maps. In fact, they were relying ironically on exactly the same data that convinced the World Heritage Committee of the outstanding universal value of the land in 2013. This makes it awkward and highly embarrassing for the government to ask the World Heritage Committee to use exactly the same data to come to exactly the opposite conclusion in 2014.

So not only is the Abbott government's plan completely devoid of substantial justification, not only does it threaten Tasmania's economic future, not only does it cast a dark shadow over our tourism industry but it also threatens Australia's international reputation. In hearings a witness voiced his concerns that:

... a proposal as threadbare and lacking in factual information and as oblivious to World Heritage values as the proposal before it this time will bring Australia into disrepute at that international level.

Similarly, the Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices submitted that the 2014 proposal 'may be construed as insulting' because 'the clear implication would be that the Australian Government believes the Committee got it wrong in 2013'. Others pointed to the excision as a breach of Australia's international treaty obligations, especially the World Heritage Convention, which requires Australia to protect the cultural and natural heritage within its territory.

In light of all this evidence the committee had little choice but to recommend that the government immediately withdraw its application to the World Heritage Committee. The 2013 process was a thorough and important process to provide World Heritage listing to an area that not only possesses— (Time expired)