Thursday, 20 June 2024

Sustainable Forests (Timber) Repeal Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Lizzie Blandthorn:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (14:21): This is a sad day, a dark day in Victoria’s history. This is a disaster of a bill, and the Nationals and the Liberals will seek to amend and oppose this abomination. This government – the former Premier and the current Premier – have abandoned regional Victoria. They have wilfully neglected to listen to the science. They have listened to the chirpy ideologues and inner-city elites who want to see a sustainable and world-class industry closed.

On the day the then Premier Daniel Andrews was choosing the beautiful, high-quality hardwood manufactured in Heyfield from world-class ash timber for our $42 million expansion of this Parliament – he was choosing that because it is the best in the world – he signed the death knell for this industry. It is an abomination, and they should all be ashamed of themselves. Killing off Victoria’s sustainable native timber industry is economically, environmentally, socially and morally wrong.

Before I get into the detail of the bill, I would like to move my reasoned amendment. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with ‘the bill be withdrawn and not reintroduced until fair compensation for loss of income is received by all those impacted by the Labor government’s early closure of the sustainable native timber industry.’

I ask the clerks to circulate the amendments in my name on behalf of the Liberals and the Nationals, and I thank Emma Kealy for her hard work on this.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Melina BATH: Before I get into the nuts and bolts of how bad this is for Victoria, I would like to pay homage to and thank the industry, the industry workers, the towns and the various people and entities associated. Over my time in this place I have met some wonderful people in regional Victoria, not only in regional Victoria but in metropolitan Melbourne, who are part of the supply chain for our native timber industry. I would like to thank the haulage and harvest operators, the contractors and the sole traders, who are doing it so tough at the moment because the government is not honouring a commitment to fully pay them out as required and is putting blocks in the road. I would like to thank so much the machinery workers and those employed by the VicForests contractors. I also want to thank and pay homage to the civil contractors who are not associated with VicForests. So many of those do an amazing job, and some have moved between department contracts and VicForests contracts over the past 20 years as well. I want to pay homage to them. When the fires are burning and for various reasons have not been able to be put out, they drive towards those fires, putting their own lives in peril to protect our regional communities and towns. I want to particularly thank the mill owners – and there have been many in the time – their workers and their administrations. I thank them for their ingenuity, for their integrity and for their grit and hard work on the floor – for value-adding this beautiful hardwood timber product which adorns our homes, our offices, our cultural centres, our GovHubs, our schools, our libraries and indeed the $42 million offices that we inhabit when we are here. To all of those, I thank them so much for their ingenuity and craftsmanship.

I want to thank, in particular, the engineers as well. I thank the registered training organisations. I have spoken with so many training officers who upskill and educate haulage and harvest operators, who provide that safety. And I thank the TAFE teachers. I know many of them have been so frustrated with third-party litigation. I also thank the seed collectors – and boy, haven’t they done it tough at the end of this, because the government has not been recognising them for their services. And I want to thank the VicForests staff – the biodiversity experts, the forest scientists, the surveyors, the assessors, the forest managers and the regenerators. I also thank Monique Dawson for giving a damn.

When the courts have said to VicForests ‘How high?’, they have attempted in many and various ways to perform those tasks: lidar data, forest surveys, middle-of-the-night and heat sensor surveys, and it goes on. On occasion VicForests has been in an uncomfortable position. They are not universally loved by the contractors, but they have been pulled and pushed and abandoned by this government. Twenty years ago Steve Bracks in actual fact introduced VicForests, and like timber workers in our community, I think that VicForests has been collateral damage for the elites and the egos that inhabit this place.

As I said earlier, it has been a passion of mine for all of my time in here to espouse and share the importance of this industry and the science behind it. In one of my first days in this place, when Federation Room was operational, there was a buzz in that place, and the minister then was Jaala Pulford. There was a buzz of forestry people. The room was full and the future looked bright. Well, weren’t we conned indeed. We know that there have been improvements over the time for harvest practices. We know that in the past it was always evolving to better serve biodiversity and better serve outcomes, conservation and protection of zones. We have got special protection zones and we have got buffer zones. There have been five ministers, in my time, of the ag department of this government. It seems like a hot potato that nobody wants. All of the National Party would relish it, and I am sure many of the Liberals would relish being the minister for ag.

There are various things. Let us look at this: 94 per cent of the public land estate is not available for timber harvesting – 94 per cent of roughly 8 million hectares is excluded from harvest. In the last few years around 3000 trees per hectare were harvested every year and regrown. These are the facts: four in 10,000 trees are harvested and regrown. The national state of the forests 2018 report stated that there was a 95 per cent success rate for VicForests for Victorian forest regeneration. There was a 95 per cent success rate for that regeneration. We also know that there is no such thing as deforestation. What I do also know is that the wilderness groups – these Wilderness Society groups – peddle this misinformation about it. Indeed when we asked, in the decline of ecosystems inquiry, how many programs the Wilderness Society has to regenerate, create habitat and plant trees, guess what, there were no programs. So whilst they are all about shutting down industry and shutting down community and not being environmentally understanding, they do not plant trees themselves. The Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) is not a good neighbour, and we know that many of those fires have established in parkland and the like and moved through – and the people in Sarsfield definitely know that.

I also want to pay homage to the late Kevin Tolhurst, who was passionate about bushfire mitigation and public access but also about active management of our forests. Dr Michelle Freeman from Forestry Australia is an eminent scientist, and we need to listen to her words and not the chirpy few scientists gone into ideology. Rob de Fegely, Professor Rod Keenan, Vic Jurskis, David Packham, Carlie Proteous, Deb Kerr, Tim Lester – the list goes on. I want to quote something from Rod Carter. Dja Dja Wurrung man Rod Carter talks about forest gardening:

I believe in forest gardening. We need to actively manage the bush, and this government is hell-bent on sterilising it and turning it into a bushfire habitat.

Thank you very much to all of those people – and more that I have not mentioned.

This government has enabled court litigation. Time and time again in this place the Nationals and the Liberals have spoken about closing the loopholes in the timber code of practice. There was a precautionary principle in the timber code, and indeed the former Premier stood in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee and said, ‘We’ve had advice. We’ve had legal advice to say that we can’t shut down this loophole’ – this timber code of practice loophole. Well, he refused to then document and share where that advice had come from. He refused to show that because, I believe, it does not actually exist and he was making that up.

We also see that the government is pandering to those environment groups, such as MyEnvironment. MyEnvironment lost a case against VicForests. They lost that case, and MyEnvironment had costs awarded against them – $1.2 million. They should have paid it. The government did not force them to pay it. It is now out to $2 million with interest costs, and the government has turned a blind eye. This is not being responsible, and this is not being fair. On one hand you have VicForests suffering these lawsuits to shut it down, and then you go around saying that indeed it is not profitable. Well, it is not profitable because you are hamstringing it all the way.

Let me speak about bushfires. I waded my way through, as did members in the Liberal Party, the decline in ecosystems inquiry, and the greatest threats to those vulnerable species are bushfires, pests and weeds. Let me say it again: bushfires, pests and weeds. Again, we need to have a sustainable principle around forest management. If you are going to cut out the people who understand that bush and who over time very gently take coupes and replant them, then you are going to have an impact. But not only that, you are taking away the capacity of this industry. Yes, some of them are going into DEECA, but clearly not all of them, and clearly those workers who live and work in the towns in our regions are not going to be there. Many of them – and I can give you quotes and examples – are going interstate and far away.

I just want to provide some information. There is this fallacy out there around how harvesting creates more bushfires. Well, let me give you some facts. I will ask if I could have this circulated and also put into Hansard. I seek leave to incorporate a graph created using evidence from the Forests Commission through the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action annual reports, showing that the Victorian bushfire area has increased as harvest volume has decreased.

Jaclyn Symes: On a point of order, Acting President, whilst Ms Bath is the lead speaker and has broad range to be reasonably general in her comments, she has spent much of her contribution detailing her issues with the decision to cease native timber harvesting. These are well-known views of Ms Bath and are already on the public record, but where she is straying to now is outside of the bill. I would ask that she be brought back to the contents of the bill, because we cannot possibly respond to every point she is raising in the confines that we will be stuck to by virtue of our contributions to the bill.

Melina BATH: On the point of order, Acting President, this government is closing down – repealing – the VicForests native timber bill on the grounds that it is not environmentally sound et cetera. This is evidence to back up my point.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur):The lead speaker does have leeway to range widely, but I will ask Ms Bath to go to the bill. Ms Bath, did you want that document circulated?

Melina BATH: Yes. Thank you very much.

Leave refused.

Jaclyn Symes: On a point of order, Acting President, I will just seek advice from the box, because if Ms Bath has indeed spoken to the minister and advised her of her intentions to seek leave and I have not been advised as such, then I would reconsider. But Ms Bath, as I have indicated, I doubt has spoken to the minister about tabling this, because it is not relevant to the bill. But if I am indeed incorrect, if you have sought advice from the minister in relation to these matters, then I would be willing to reconsider the granting of leave. But given that it is not connected to the bill at this time it would be inappropriate to grant leave, and I do not want to create such a precedent for future debates.

Melina BATH: On the point of order, Acting President, there is nothing in our standing orders that actually says that about anybody who is about to table a working document. I have approached the tables office and I have met the criteria, so there is nothing that actually says that I have to go and speak to the minister. I put that I deserve to have this put into Hansard.

Jaclyn Symes: On the point of order, Acting President, I was simply affording the opportunity for Ms Bath to demonstrate further how her line of debate in relation to the matters she has raised relate to the bill. It is inappropriate for anyone in this chamber to grant leave for people to start tabling things that are not related to the content of a bill. I have been quite generous in sitting here listening to Ms Bath’s views. We respect her views, she is entitled to her views, but she has a responsibility to confine them to the contents of the bill.

Melina BATH: On the point of order, Acting President, this particular graph relates to the commercial log production from VicForests over the last number of years.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): I can only ask if leave is granted. Leave appears to be not granted, Ms Bath.

Melina BATH: Thank you, Acting President. Not only are we shutting down our native timber industry, we are also shutting down debate on this issue, which will affect so many people.

Jaclyn Symes: On a point of order, Acting President, Ms Bath is misleading the house. Ms Bath has more than 12 minutes left to make a contribution. There is no attempt to shut down her contribution on the bill at all.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): There is no point of order, Minister.

Melina BATH: Thank you. The government has said that as part of this transition plan there will be plantations. I remember standing in the seat of Morwell – it was near Australian Paper – indeed it was in 2017, when the government then announced $110 million allocated in the budget. As it turns out, it actually happened to be the former agriculture minister, who is now at the table. They stood there and spoke about how the transition will work – by 2030, mind you – because they had this transition to plantations. What we know – and it is on record; it is on record in both the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee records and others – is that this is just not the case. There are not the trees in the ground to transition. There is not the wood volume. Australia is in peril about this – Victoria – because what are we doing now? Rather than growing our own and supporting local industry and jobs, we are going to import it from overseas with less environmental protections than we have here. There are not the plantations, despite that money. We also know that the transition to earlier closure than 2030 is having a mass effect on people. We also see that the government came up with some other ideas about this transition plan. One of those other ideas was in relation to the Nowa Nowa seedling enterprise. There was a media statement back some years ago about how it was going to revolutionise and create jobs in Nowa Nowa and be part of that solution and that plantation industry. Guess what, it did not eventuate. It was botched and non-existent, and there is no seedling enterprise in Nowa Nowa – again, turning the back.

What we also know is that this closure is false environmentalism. We know that both native timber and plantation trees are a carbon sink. Indeed the other day I went to Collingwood T3, the tallest building in Australia made from timber. It is made from cross-laminated timber and Masslam timber, it is made in Victoria and it is the last of its kind. We see these types of things happening, and it is absolutely untenable. This government made a commitment to the workers. It is very clear they made a commitment to the workers. I know from speaking with Peter Walsh that the former Premier came to Peter Walsh and said, ‘You do your thing, we’ll do our thing, but we’ll make sure that timber harvesters are covered and they get what they deserve.’ We know that that is not the case, and that is why I have moved this reasoned amendment to stop this bill until such time as timberworkers are paid.

There is one such example, and I can give you many. Jeff Coster was promised and committed to and paid 20 cents into his bank account by accepting ForestWorks commitment around $198,000 for his payment. Lo and behold, what has happened is crickets, nothing, no more. I do not actually blame the current agriculture minister – I believe that she in good faith would like to see these things come to fruition – nor the current environment minister. But the fact of the matter is there are many people out there who have lost their jobs because of the closure of this industry and contracts to VicForests and now are waiting desperately.

We talk about mental health. Mental health is being shredded out there, and this government must commit to paying those people, all of them. Indeed one of the members in the lower house spoke about that and said that everyone will get a new job and all will be well. This is not the case. We also know in relation to firewood that this government faces a problem. We hear all this banter going around about energy, and it is highly important. Our energy supply system is vital, but this is a close and immediate issue for many people: people who are elderly, people who are on the pension, people who cannot get their chainsaw in the back of their ute and go out when the firewood collection season is open and chop their own wood. They cannot do it, and there are hundreds and hundreds of them.

A member interjected.

Melina BATH: Thousands of them. They are facing a shortage of this. It will not be this year, because there is still enough left over from last year, and that is my intel from listening to people. But I spoke yesterday with a firewood supplier. He is getting his firewood in from New South Wales. What does that cost him? That cost has to be put on. These sorts of things are the impacts of this government’s decision.

The bill is repealing the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004, it is abolishing VicForests and it is amending section 52 of the Forests Act 1958. I have a number of amendments that I will speak to now, and then further I will ask some questions in the committee stage of the minister. In relation to the main themes and purposes of these Liberals and Nationals house amendments, I refer to amendments 1 and 2. Amendments 1 and 2 would allow traditional owners to take away timber resources in state forests and use them in the manufacturing and sale of timber products. These licences already exist, but we have seen a situation in the Wombat forest where they have the licence and have been thwarted by third-party litigation and environmental groups putting up their hands and saying no. This government needs to ensure that traditional owners do have the option, do have the right, when they have licences and permits, to take that timber away and manufacture it and sell it in products.

The next part is to allow for any licence or permit-holder to take away and use in the manufacturing and sale of timber products from timber resources in state forests, such as those bespoke manufacturers of guitars et cetera. The next part is to allow for firewood, as I have been saying, to be collected and removed from state forests in commercial quantities and for that produce to be offered for sale as firewood with an allocation of no less than the quantity required to sustain demand for firewood in Victoria.

This is an important one. In this bill there is no definition of ‘imminent damage’. At the moment I and the Nationals and the Liberals and my colleague Emma Kealy, the Shadow Minister for Agriculture, see this imminent damage as a concern. It needs to be defined very clearly. We are going to move an amendment to ensure that it has a meaning, and that meaning is the ‘loss of viable populations throughout a species range but does not include loss of viable populations arising from an activity performed for the purposes of preventing or suppressing disease, dieback or fire, including thinning, cutting and removing timber, planned burning and creating or maintaining firebreaks’.

Amendment 4 seeks to reinstate the timber harvest safety zones. We had a bill two years ago that was designed to protect those people who are harvesting, to protect them and to protect the recalcitrant vandals and the protesters who come onsite – a worksite. These sites are still worksites. VicForests is going to close down. We are not going to see timber harvest safety zones, but there will still be forest safety zones. They are still a place of work, and people need to be protected. We have heard terrible stories of black wallaby tactics. We have had cases where we have had an activist bring their child onto a worksite. These places are not places for children and they are not places to have steel spikes hammered into trees. These sites need to be protected, so we will reinstate that protection through this amendment.

Lastly, the amendments seek to prevent certain civil proceedings being raised by third-party litigants in relation to an actual and apprehended or threatened contravention of the Forests Act 1958, the regulations and instruments made under that act or a licence or permit granted under the act or any other act on behalf of the Crown or an entity that represents the Crown. New South Wales has implemented this. The right authorities need to have carriage, and that is the Office of the Conservation Regulator. That is the department. Where they do, they need to take stock and implement proceedings, but not these third-party litigants. They are crushing sanity, and it just needs to stop.

In relation to this bill, let me just refresh: this government has had the ear of – and vice versa – people who are not true scientists, because if they listened to true scientists, they would understand the importance of maintaining a native timber industry. We know that the IPCC in 2019 came out with a statement. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out and said a well-managed and sustained forest system with an annual yield is a mitigation tool to climate change. This government has not listened to the science, and in doing so – in closing this industry and repealing this act – the impact is wide, and the mental health deterioration of people that I care about, who care about our forests and our communities, is really rather challenging. I am not going to apologise for being passionate about this. I really feel that –

Jaclyn Symes interjected.

Melina BATH: Well, we have been shut down. I have been shut down while explaining some very important issues. This government has got it wrong. This government will go down in history as having an economically flawed argument, an environmentally flawed argument and a morally flawed argument. The Nationals and the Liberals oppose this bill, and I ask the house to consider our amendments.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:51): I also rise to make a contribution on the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Repeal Bill 2024. What I am going to do in my contribution is focus on what this bill is actually about. First of all, for the information of the house, the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Repeal Bill 2024 will repeal the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 to remove the framework that authorises commercial native timber harvesting in Victorian state forests under that act. Secondly, the bill will abolish VicForests and provide for the transfer of VicForests’ property rights and liabilities to the Crown. The bill will retain key provisions that remain relevant for the ongoing regulation and management of state forests by transferring them to other legislation. I guess what this bill does is provide for the administrative arrangements that need to be put in place as a consequence of the government’s announcement that we would be bringing an end to native timber harvesting in Victoria.

Of course we brought that forward, because it was on 23 May 2023 that the Victorian government announced that commercial native timber harvesting would end on 1 January 2024. This was earlier than planned – it was planned to be at the end of 2030 – and this was due to the uncertainty facing the native timber harvesting industry which was caused by increasingly severe bushfires, prolonged legal action and court decisions. The industry was facing uncertainty, and what the industry was telling us was that there needed to be more certainty – hence the decision was brought forward. This means that VicForests’ primary role, to harvest, sell and regenerate timber resources from state forests on behalf of the government, is no longer required. I will go into the sorts of things that we have done to support workers in a moment. VicForests will close by 30 June 2024, and its key forest management functions will be transferred to the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action to support future forest management. The bill abolishes VicForests and implements the end of operations of VicForests. The bill also ensures that important elements of the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 that have continued relevance for regulating and managing activities in state forests will be preserved in other legislation. This includes provisions for compliance and enforcement and public reporting on the state of forests, which is important.

The announcement included an additional $200 million in support for workers and their families to transition away from native timber logging. On 23 August 2023 the Victorian forestry worker support program was expanded to increase worker top-up payments from up to $120,000 to $150,000 and $200,000 for workers over 45 years of age. The wider community forest sector, including firewood sellers, guitar makers, seed collectors and other forest produce licensees, are eligible for the expanded worker support payments and redundant equipment compensation, plus payments for undersupplied timber and one-off hardship payments. That has all come about as a consequence of this government working with local communities, who we know so well were reliant on the timber industry for many years and many decades and derived their incomes and livelihoods for their families as a consequence of that. But it needed to end. We had to step in and end this, obviously, for environmental reasons, but if you look at that in sharp contrast to what the Liberals did when they shut down the SEC, there were none of these sorts of support payments for those workers – the axe fell heavily. It fell heavily, and there was nothing. The valley was decimated by these sorts of actions. So I am going to go into great detail in a moment about what this –

Melina Bath: On a point of order, Acting President, this has absolutely nothing to do with something that occurred a long time ago – in a different galaxy far away, to be honest.

Sonja TERPSTRA: On the point of order, Acting President, I am going to respond to the things that Ms Bath said because I found that a lot of the things that Ms Bath said were not contained in the bill. I am going to draw comparisons about the difference between how this government is dealing with people in the timber industry through the bill, and that is relevant to the bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): Ms Terpstra, Ms Bath had wide-ranging leeway because she was the lead speaker. You had better come back to the bill.

Sonja TERPSTRA: I will continue my contribution in the same vein of saying that what this government is doing in this package of support for workers shows the heart that this government has in helping and assisting workers transition away from an industry that has outlived its usefulness, unlike in the Kennett era, which smashed the communities. I am going to start by talking about –

Melina Bath: On a point of order, Acting President, on relevance, bring the member back.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): I have asked the member to refer to the bill.

Sonja TERPSTRA: On a point of order, Acting President, I am referring to the bill. I want to make the point that lots of interjections are unruly and –

Melina Bath interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Let me finish my point of order. I am allowed to debate a bill without continued interruption. The people on the government benches today allowed Ms Bath a lot of latitude and did not interject and did not make unnecessary points of order. I expect the same from Ms Bath, and I should be allowed to continue.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Bev McArthur): Continue, Ms Terpstra.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Great. Thanks, Acting President. I will return to my contribution. I was moving on to what the government is doing. Those opposite do not like to have pointed out to them the sorts of things that they have done to workers. In contrast, what we are doing is supporting workers. As I said before I was rudely interrupted, forestry contract workers have approximately 80 new roles to integrate these activities into the broader forest and bushfire risk management operations. The government’s free TAFE program has been able to retrain workers, helping them get jobs in growing regional industries – like construction and like agriculture, transport and manufacturing – through TAFE Gippsland and other key TAFE campuses in timber communities.

These initiatives were supported by up to $8000 in retraining vouchers for courses inside and outside the TAFE network. Timber communities worked with us. They talked to government and their union – so we could respond – to identify the jobs and growth sectors that will drive a sustainable future in their local communities. Altogether the government has invested over $1.5 billion in forestry industry management and transmission. This includes in plantation investment, targeted business and worker support and active forest management.

I will just talk for a moment about the forestry transition worker support program in a little bit more detail, because I noted Ms Bath’s contribution went into great detail about workers who were being affected by this. I want to talk about one success story. There are many cases of the worker support program helping workers to find work locally so their families can continue to live in their communities. For example, there is the story of a 57-year-old former sawmill employee. He had worked in the industry for 35 years and loved his job. Through the worker support program he was able to access redundancy top-up payments and additional payments as he was over 45 years old, allowing him to pay off some outstanding bills and seek financial advice on what to do with the rest of his package. He engaged with the skills and jobs centre to update his résumé and undertake first aid training and a responsible service of alcohol certification. He has also booked to undertake construction induction training to obtain his white card in traffic management. These are all initiatives that he wanted to do and that he sought by him telling us that is what he wanted to do. He was also able to secure bar and security work with a local pub utilising previous experience and the training provided through the worker support program. So these initiatives are worker-led. It is not us telling them; it is them telling us what they would like to do.

We have also worked with businesses to successfully transition their operations and pursue new business opportunities. The Victorian Timber Innovation Fund grants helped forestry businesses, such as sawmills, community forestry operations and harvest and haulage businesses to innovate by supporting their transition to alternative fibre sources, investigating manufacturing opportunities or transitioning to another industry. Nearly half of the round 2 applications under the fund relate to opportunities within the agriculture, forestry and fishing sectors, with transport and warehousing also being popular transition opportunities. The Forestry Transition Fund supports the immediate creation of jobs in towns and communities affected by the end of the native timber harvesting sector, particularly jobs for displaced timber workers.

The forestry transition program has seen a range of success stories about the creation of new business opportunities. Ex-native timber workers are finding new work opportunities through the Nationwide Trees program by a large-scale wholesale tree nursery located in Piedmont, West Gippsland, between Noojee and Powelltown. Through the first round of the Forestry Transition Fund grants Nationwide Trees has been awarded a $775,000 grant to partly fund the construction of a multipurpose production and dispatch shed to enable the company to expand its capacity and workforce to meet increasing demand across Australia. Nationwide Trees will also contribute $775,000 of its own funding towards the expansion. To support business growth, impacted forestry workers and their families are being recruited via the Victorian forestry workers support program and trained to work in the new facility, which is fantastic news. It is tripling the business’s workforce. One former sawmill employee has already been employed in an administrative role. Nationwide Trees has employed ex-timber workers to do the excavation work on the site in preparation for construction of the dispatch shed. The business currently employs six people, and through this project aims to employ an additional 10 workers as well.

Then there is Dahlsens Steel Truss and Frame, a business in Newmerella in East Gippsland. Dahlsens Steel Truss and Frame is a newly established company with the backing of one of Gippsland’s largest family-run businesses, Dahlsens, in conjunction with local business owners Lachlan Heather and Luke Priestley. The joint venture is committed to helping the region survive and thrive and will help meet the growing demand from builders and home owners for steel framing products through Australia. For the first round of the Forestry Transition Fund Dahlsens has been awarded $500,000 to expand its operation and directly employ up to 16 local native timber workers. In addition, Dahlsens is contributing $500,000 of its own funding to support this expansion. Several ex-timber workers from local sawmill businesses within the area are employed by the company, with onsite training being conducted on the new equipment as well.

You can see there is so much that we are doing to support workers who have been impacted by the changes. We will not let them languish, unlike those opposite when they smashed the SEC and sold it all off. That is the difference. We care for workers over here on the government benches, and we are supporting those workers. They are working with us; they are talking to government. They are not talking to those opposite, because they have no trust in those opposite, based on the history and the decimation that was caused in the valley thanks to the Liberals closing the SEC.

The forest, importantly, will provide higher protection to forest-dependant species and significantly improve the long-term prospects of more than 100 plant and animal species, many of which are only found in Victorian forests. This transition will result in the equivalent of 775,000 MCGs, or twice the size of metropolitan Melbourne – that is, 1,815,000 hectares – being made available for other uses. Also, in our 2024–25 state budget we have invested over $115 million into our future forests program. The funding will go towards managing forest regeneration and undertaking weed and pest control in previously logged areas of state forests. This will also include collecting and storing seeds to help restore forests after bushfires, maintaining the forest road network, developing a new framework to support the best use of by-products and developing a new strategy for the management of domestic firewood collection from state forests as well as targeting the illegal take of firewood. $11 million of this funding will go towards designing the future of the state’s public land estate, which now includes more than 1.8 million hectares of forest previously used for timber harvesting.

There is a lot more I could say on this. I have got about a minute or so left on the clock. I just want to address one of the points that Ms Bath said, because it is actually not correct, so I just want to make sure that I correct the record in regard to this. There was some commentary around firewood, and it is pretty clear that this bill does not impact domestic firewood collection. Essentially domestic firewood collection will continue, and it is not affected by the end of native timber harvesting in Victoria’s state forests.

Melina Bath: On a point of order, Acting President, in actual fact I do not need to be verballed. I was very clear in my statement. I ask the member to cease what she is saying.

Sonja TERPSTRA: On the point of order, Acting President, Ms Bath is debating, and there is no point of order.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): I ask Ms Terpstra to continue.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Thank you very much. I will continue on about domestic firewood, because again if those opposite were across their brief, they would not have said the stuff that they said earlier, because it is incorrect. The bill does not impact domestic firewood collection, so all of that was incorrect. Domestic firewood collection will continue and is not affected by the end of native timber harvesting in Victoria’s state forests. Domestic firewood collection is free. Firewood is made available in the state’s forests to members of the public through designated firewood collection areas during autumn and spring. The autumn 2024 season is open as normal, from 1 March 2024 to 30 June 2024, and Victorians will continue to be able to collect free firewood for personal use from state forest firewood collection areas in accordance with the domestic firewood collection scheme. We support this bill, and we should reject all of the Nationals’ amendments.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (15:06): I rise to speak on behalf of the Greens on the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Repeal Bill 2024. At the outset I want to thank the Minister for Environment, his staff and department staff for the time they took in providing me and colleagues briefings in the lead-up to this bill. The bill before us today repeals the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 and marks a formal end to native forest logging in Victoria by abolishing VicForests.

This is a significant moment for me and my Greens colleagues. The Greens have roots in the forests movement. The protection of our precious native forests and their inhabitants has been the bedrock of the Greens movement from as far back as the 1970s. This is a significant moment for the many dedicated community groups, environmental organisations and dedicated individuals who have been fighting to save our forests for many years. Their persistence in this fight, bringing court case after court case and staging protest after protest, is the true reason that we are seeing government take this action today. Most significantly, this is a significant moment for the many ancient trees and threatened species that call our forests home. Forests are unique and precious in their own right. They are home to greater gliders, Baw Baw frogs and giant mountain ash, and they are also essential to the health of our planet.

Mass devegetation and the clearing of forests is one of the great shames of this country’s colonial history. For years all across the country settlers were granted free claimed land if only they had the means to clear it. The resulting habitat destruction has deepened the climate crisis and threatens biodiversity on this continent. Only small pockets of untouched forests survive. These havens are precious and must be protected. The continued logging of native forests in 2024 is a travesty. I truly believe that if people in this chamber understood what happens to most of the biomass taken out of a forest, they would be appalled. Many romanticise the felling of trees by assuming that they end up as grand timber beams or quaint wooden homes, but in fact the vast majority of biomass removed from logging turns up as woodchips, cheap pallets and paper.

When Labor announced last year that it would bring forward the end of native forest logging and the abolition of VicForests, this came as welcome news. VicForests has consistently shown itself to be a company with a cowboy culture, burning and destroying our precious forests while losing money and failing to uphold its environmental obligations. This is not to say that individuals within this company do not deserve a fair and just transition to new work and sustainable incomes. The Greens are glad to see the commitment of the Labor government to provide for this. What do concern us, however, are the stories coming out of Tasmania that the nearly $1 billion provided by this government to the logging industry is being used by some to pack up and move the same destructive activities to the grand untouched native forests of Tasmania. This is frightening, and we really hope that the government will see the responsibility that it holds to do all that it can to ensure that native forest logging is ended beyond Victoria’s doorstep. The government has a responsibility to ensure that our taxpayer dollars are not being used to destroy old-growth forests in Tasmania and to ensure that these trees are not coming to sawmills in our state.

While this bill formally repeals the sustainable timber act, many functions of VicForests have already been moved to Forest Fire Management Victoria, and we are hearing of a continuation of significant problems. Recently there have been many questions raised by communities and environmental organisations all across the state about activities being undertaken in the name of fire management or storm clean-up. Works conducted under the guise of fire mitigation are not subject to the minimum guidelines set out elsewhere, and in Victoria we do not have any independent oversight of the ecological implications of forest clean-up, management and salvage logging. We have been deeply disturbed by reports that we are continuing to essentially see destructive logging continued by stealth in Victoria under the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) and FFMV, including in our national parks. So the Greens view this bill as an important opportunity to end these loopholes while also growing traditional owner consultation and joint management opportunities.

We have a number of commonsense amendments that I will speak to further in the committee stage, but in summary they include strengthening the government’s plan for the minister to determine sustainability criteria and reporting requirements under the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987; mandating that key international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity must be taken into account when determining these criteria; and crucially mandating that such criteria be developed alongside traditional owners. We will also introduce amendments that help to ensure that FFMV is not killing critically endangered species when they do their fire prevention work, as has happened recently with the death of a critically endangered greater glider due to FFMV actions. This amendment will strengthen fire prevention and recovery agreements by bringing mandatory ecological reporting requirements in line with action statements for threatened and endangered species. We also want to empower the conservation regulator and EPA to investigate the ecological impact of these works so there is some actual oversight of the work. Lastly and quite importantly, we wish to see an outright ban on the sale of timber collected under these works. We know that our forests have been destroyed due to a commercial imperative, and if we do not remove this financial incentive, we might see FFMV or DEECA do more logging than is strictly necessary for safety. The only tree removal works that should be done in our national parks and our forests are those which are strictly necessary to protect lives from fire or other dangers – and no more than what is necessary.

The Greens have put much time and consideration into the bill before us today. We view our proposed amendments as an opportunity to do more than just abolish the system of native forest logging of our past – we can ensure better management going forward. We want immediate steps to protect and conserve many of our forests for generations to come. We want to see a future where our forests flourish, where their health is valued and seen as intrinsic to the health of our climate and to human life. We must put an end to the commodification of these precious ecosystems. Forests are for conservation, not for profit. So the Greens will be supporting the bill before us today, and I ask that our amendments be circulated for the chamber to view.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Renee HEATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:13): I also rise to speak to this bill. I just want to start by saying I was disappointed to see the way that the government belittled the opinions of those that Ms Bath has consulted with and spoken about and is here to represent in this house. This bill – even though some of you believe in it strongly – is having a detrimental effect on the communities and the people that have survived because of this industry. As I go through this speech today, which I have consulted with many people on – I have spoken to the people who have been affected by this and I have brought their opinions to this house – I hope that it will not be treated like some of the other ones before, by just being belittled and met with eye rolls, because this is actually a huge deal.

Today is a very sad day for the regions. It is a sad day for the families whose livelihoods have been ripped away, and some of these families have been in this industry for three or four generations. They are not celebrating like you are. It is a sad day for small businesses, like the one in Orbost that said, ‘How’s my little cafe going to survive when 70 families move out of town because they cannot survive here anymore?’ There are exoduses happening from these timber towns, and that is not something that I think should be met with eye rolls; this is actually something that is personally devastating to the people in these regions. It is sad day for the kindergartens – for their teachers – that are now under threat of closing and for the schools that are going to have to downsize because of the amount of families that have moved away. I hope that these things are actually met with an element of seriousness – I certainly do not expect sympathy – because this is a sad day for Victoria. It is a sad day for the 15,000 workers who were employed in the Victorian timber industry. I leaned over to Ms Bath when Ms Terpstra said, ‘Oh, but there’s 80 new jobs that have been created’.

Sonja Terpstra: There were a lot more too, but you didn’t listen.

Renee HEATH: Well, you said 80, and I said, ‘Hang on, did she say 80? Well, the 15,000 workers that have just lost their jobs are going to have to learn to share, aren’t they?’ I do not know, let us just divide 15,000 by 80 and – well done, they might get a couple of hours work. The Labor Party with their words say that they are the party of the worker, but then on the other hand they have just axed thousands of jobs. I know that you are belittling this again, but these are the feelings of people in the Eastern Victoria Region whose lives have been obliterated by this decision, and I hope that you will begin to think about them.

What disturbs me most is that we seem to be governed by a group that is interested in activists above the wellbeing of communities, the prosperity of communities and the livelihoods of families, and these are things that my region has felt intensely. Timber communities were left blindsided by Labor’s choice to close and fast-track this decision by six years. They feel like they have been hung out to dry. Businesses that invested millions of dollars to upgrade their tools because they thought they had another six years left had the rug pulled from underneath them. One man who I spoke to in particular said he called a member of the government and told them about this decision and how it had affected him, and do you know what the advice was? ‘Well, you’ll have to sell those tools.’ I do not know who you sell tools to when a government has just shut down an industry. It is completely out of touch. I just thought, ‘Wow, that really shows the disconnection to the personal hurt that this has brought on.’

I have been contacted by timber workers who, despite Labor’s talking points, have not been properly compensated by this government. Although in the country, people have to accept that Labor do not care about them and the industries that they are shutting down. I am proud to be part of a Liberal and National coalition who, although we are so against this closure, have fought hard to make sure these people are compensated. We have had to pivot our energy to really fight for that to make sure that victims have been properly compensated. We are now fighting for fairness in this transition process. We are highlighting the fact that, regardless of whether or not you like these facts, some people have not received any transition payments – none. Some have received small payments and have said that this does not even come close to compensating for their loss of income and the investments that they have made. I know that these are unfortunate facts, but they are facts. Entire towns have been destroyed because a political party wants the preferences from some activists and inner-city elites, and I think it is disgusting. People can roll their eyes all they want, but I have consulted with the community, and these are their feelings and their stories, and that is who I am here to represent.

While Gippsland will never forget the sustained campaign of attacks from the former Premier Daniel Andrews, it is disappointing to see the now Premier Jacinta Allan taking up his mantle, putting it on and fighting the same fight against the regions like he did. I would have thought that somebody from the regions would have had a bit more insight and a bit more compassion and would have done things a whole lot differently. But sadly, that is not true. Jacinta Allan has ignored facts, like how the native timber industry was entirely renewable – and I actually mean ‘entirely renewable’, because trees grow back and when they grow back they store carbon, which makes our environment cleaner, and surely that is something that any ecowarrior should care about. That is something I care about, and it is something that has been totally overlooked.

For decades there has been a sustained campaign, but for the last decade the Victorian native timber industry have not received the respect and recognition that they deserve. They have built our state, they have been the first to clear our roads when there have been natural disasters – with those tools they were told to sell, by the way – they have built firebreaks and they have put their lives on the line for the rest of the state as soon as there is a natural disaster. And what thanks do they get? They get nothing. They get demonised and shamed, and they get called environmental villains, and it is not on, because that is not who they are. These people care about the environment, and they are the first ones to make sure that it is cared for properly. The facts about the timber industry’s sustainability and environmental importance have been drowned out by activists. They are more interested in emotions and headlines than they are in the facts and the substance. You have to hand it to them though I guess – they have been persistent, they have been creative and they have never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

The Victorian native timber industry had some of the world’s most rigorous and strict regulations. I found it interesting that a member of the Greens brought up how these industries are leaving Victoria and going to Tasmania. That is not the only thing that is happening. We are importing timber from nations that are funding terrorism from these activities and that are involved in modern slavery. That would never have happened in this state. Ninety-four per cent of our public native forest estates were locked up in parks, rec reserves and water catchments. Of the remaining 6 per cent available for timber production, 0.3 per cent of that area was harvested each year. Like Ms Bath said before, that is roughly four in every 10,000 trees, and they were replanted. As they were replanted, they would store carbon, cleaning our environment. This is a vital role in carbon storage which this government has shut down.

Before harvesting, forests were subject to pre-harvesting surveys to identify the presence of threatened species, both flora and fauna. If they were found, these areas were sectioned off and they were not touched. There has not been one species of animal that has become extinct as a result of the native timber industry. It might not be a popular narrative, but it is just the fact.

The consequences of this ban are devastating, and entire communities are hurting. I know that is not going to make you change your mind, but we need to put on record the realities. About 20 per cent of jobs in Orbost were direct full-time employees of the native timber industry. Forty per cent of the town’s jobs are dependent on the timber industry. That is what the town’s economy was built on. Do you know what happens when you stop it? You ruin the economy. And the economy matters, because we talk about food security, we talk about people not having enough money to put their heating on, having to choose between groceries and heating – well, this makes things worse. I wish Labor’s political elites were willing to look through the emotional narratives into the substance, because this matters. I do not think that they have considered the impact beyond the tram tracks, and that is incredibly sad. They have forgotten that if you destroy an industry, you destroy the communities that rely on it. Behind every community, what makes up a community is people. It is families, it is individuals, it is people, and that matters.

They have ignored the environmental evidence supporting the industry. A ban on Victoria’s native timber industry will see the departure of crucial manpower and machinery during the bushfire response each fire season. Then there will be some other person that they will blame for the bushfires. They will not blame the fuel load that is just going to be building up there. They will ignore the CFA volunteers, like one I spoke to recently who said the amount of fuel now that is in those forests, because we are not allowed to manage them properly, is going to give way to another 2019–20 fire season. That is devastating. It will lead Victorians to having no choice but to import timber from places that do not grow it and harvest it sustainably and do not look after the people that work in those areas. I think that is so sad. I think it is morally wrong, and it is just a fact that we have got to face up to. This sustainable timber industry built our state, and the government shutting it down will see the Gippsland region and other regions – but I am here representing Gippsland and the Eastern Victoria Region – suffer once again.

In closing, I want to thank my Liberal and National colleagues who have fought so hard for these communities. I want to thank Ms Kealy in the other place, who has done a whole amount of work. She is not the only one, but I want to give her a special shout-out. I want to thank Ms Bath, even though she was completely misquoted, for standing up for the people who cannot go and get their own firewood on those few specific days. That is what she was talking about, and I think that it was something that was completely misunderstood, because this government has not been down there and does not understand the issue.

I am so pleased that I am part of a team that is fighting for proper compensation so people that are not able to get out there and collect it themselves can have firewood, for the people that are vulnerable, and to help protect them from going cold this winter. So along with my Liberal and National colleagues, I condemn this bill.

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (15:26): I am personally happy to say goodbye to VicForests with this bill, an incompetent body who have seen the mass deaths of our threatened and native species and the mismanagement of fire risks and the proliferation of logging operations. I also welcome the end of commercial native forest timber harvesting, yet this bill does not go as far as to issue a system overhaul. This bill had the opportunity to oversee and regulate the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) forest and fire management activities that have continuously allowed harmful logging. Instead we are merely provided with administrative changes, substituting the name of VicForests for the government, who have already demonstrated their ineptitude throughout the operation of native forest logging. This bill could have provided real protections and considerations in decision-making to the wildlife populations who inhabit these forests and who lie in the wake of the felling conducted, yet the government has decided to ignore this, prioritising the transferral of power directly and solely into its own hands, with the remaining property rights and liabilities of VicForests transferred to the Crown.

VicForests has logged and burnt some of the world’s most carbon-dense native forest habitat right here in Victoria. I could spend my entire time talking about their shocking environmental performance, the many court cases and the illegal activity VicForests has undertaken, but in true fashion I will use my voice to speak up for the animals and the wildlife – the wildlife on the other side of these failures.

It is difficult to envisage how native forest management can be improved substantially without corresponding reforms to DEECA’s fire management activities. It is even more difficult to understand how change will be made with the dissolution of VicForests when 80 of its employees are being transferred into DEECA and loggers are being given five-year contracts under Forest Fire Management Victoria to now undertake the regeneration of forests, a skill and knowledge base they are not trained for, especially considering that those training have failed to deliver regeneration of our forests, their intended purpose. The cultural, legal and financial problems of VicForests have been transferred into the government, otherwise called VicForests 2.0. It is a common theme of this government to want to be both the sword and the regulator on its swings.

We cannot ignore the operation of the commercial loophole which would remain under this bill of the supposedly incidental by-product of forest and fire management activities that results in the debris collected as well as the debris created to be sold commercially. This wood is then used to feed timber mills owned by this government and the logging industry. Any work undertaken in our state forests should be supported by scientific data on safety and ecological needs. This grey area will remain unscrutinised and in the hands of its beneficiaries, DEECA. ‘No commercial harvesting of native timber’, the government says – except for the wood it wants for itself to gift into the very hands of the logging industries it claims to protect the forest from.

Just in May a federally listed southern greater glider was found dead in a felled tree in the Yarra Ranges National Park that had been logged to create fuel breaks. State and Commonwealth ministers were made aware by local scientists and conservation groups that this very tree contained gliders. Despite this information and the knowledge that this would breach the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Forest Fire Management Victoria, empowered by the lack of oversight, proceeded – knowing the death of a critically endangered species was imminent. Also in May old hollow-bearing trees that are crucial habitats of endangered Leadbeater’s possums, gang-gang cockatoos, swift parrots and greater gliders were destroyed along 250 kilometres of fuel breaks in the Yarra Ranges National Park.

Logging on private land next to national parks has even weaker regulation, with no 200-metre distance requirement around sites where the endangered Leadbeater’s possums are present. The government refuses to comply with its requirements for the assessment of impacts on endangered species under federal environment law designed to protect these very species. How these actions are consistent with the state and federal government’s National Recovery Plan for Leadbeater’s Possum, announced in March, is beyond me. How does the government seek to action the recovery plan, when it did not account for any measures in the state budget?

Of course no-one wants to see these workers, who were following the government’s heinous instructions, out of jobs. They should be supported by the government to transition into sustainable forest management and not into the indiscriminate fuel-break logging scheme that sees the destruction of old tall trees in wet mountain ash forests that pose the least danger in fire conditions. Some of these trees are between 200 and 350 years old. Nationally, endangered southern greater gliders rely on these tree hollows that only occur in the older trees. It has been proven that the removal of these trees has been the predominant reason for the drastic decline in their population. There was absolutely no need for the felling of the identified tree in the Yarra Ranges National Park that resulted in the death of a glider in May. If such trees need to be felled to allow for emergency vehicle access, then relocation strategies must be put in place to relocate the wildlife within and surrounding them. It is the bare minimum this government could do in order to protect our wildlife.

It was ironic to hear members of the other place make an outcry for what they perceived to be the extinction of white paper that this bill would bring. How they could come to these conclusions and form these priorities when they hear ‘sustainable forests’, I cannot understand. While members are crying for their white paper that sits readily in their offices for use, our communities cry for the death and burning of our wildlife within those forests. I will not stand here and listen to people equate paper with the lives of our wildlife.

I also want to touch on the scare campaign launched by members of this place who attended the protest against national parks at Drouin last month, shouting misinformation on what a national park categorisation means for the community. It is rich that shooters were not satisfied by the bloodbath of the duck-shooting season being continued and that they are now kicking and screaming about not being able to shoot of their own free will at anything that moves in our state forests. Instead, a national park label will protect our native fauna and flora and allow families to enjoy nature by camping, walking, riding and many other activities without the dangers of hunters and loggers.

I echo the amendments put forth by my colleagues in the Greens to strengthen new section 40A of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987; to mandate the sustainability charter; to ensure that international agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, are taken into account in decision-making; to mandate ecological reporting in line with action statements for threatened and endangered species; and to empower the conservation regulator and the EPA to investigate ecological impacts from these works. This bill needs transparency and regulation by independent bodies, not by the government itself ticking off felling after it has occurred.

I emphasise that this work must be done in accordance with and in consultation with the traditional owners of the land. Traditional owners have a wealth of knowledge on effective fire management, paying homage to the animals who reside in the forests and ensuring that native forests flourish. The government would do well to listen to this knowledge being so generously offered forward. Native forests are not there for us to exercise our free will upon. They are the habitat for thousands of wildlife who call these forests their home. Using these forests for commercial purposes to sell wood is a national disgrace and a stain on our treatment of our native wildlife. It must also be declared that how traditional owners choose to use their land and how they manage it is their prerogative and their right. It is not up to colonisers to decide what traditional owners can and cannot do after we have destroyed their land. I will be supporting this bill in the view that it is a step in the right direction but note that much more can and should be done to protect wildlife in our state forests.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (15:36): I rise also to speak on the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Repeal Bill 2024, and what a disgrace it is. The Victorian Labor Party’s whole approach has been continually disgraceful on this matter since the start; it has been deeply dishonest. Premier Daniel Andrews signed off on the phasing out of native forest timber harvesting in Victoria in April 2018 and did not make it public for a year and did not announce it during the November 2018 state election – dishonesty on steroids.

Freedom of information obtained by the Wellington Shire Council after more than two years of fighting shows the Premier decided on the 2030 ban in a briefing paper signed on 9 April 2018 titled ‘Native forestry industry transition approach’. It has been based on a fundamental lie that it is possible to painlessly transition away from these traditional jobs. From this industry, which has grown organically and shaped whole towns and regional economies, the idea of transition is an insult to the industry and its workers. Even more disgraceful is that despite the 2019 forestry plan giving a 2030 end date, in the 2023–24 budget, again just one year after a state election, it was accelerated forward to 2024, just one year ahead. With breathtaking spin, Andrews said this was done to give workers certainty. The government said:

… we’re stepping up to give these workers – and their communities, businesses, and partners along the supply chain – the certainty they deserve.

Well, the certainty they deserve was keeping their jobs in the timber industry. You should all hang your heads in shame.

The problem is this transition just is not possible. The government has portrayed the transition from native forests to plantations as feasible and beneficial for everyone, but this is a dishonest fantasy. It is undeniable that in fact Labor’s decision to halt native forest harvesting will severely impact rural communities and reduce the ecological sustainability of development for all Victorians and Australians. It will result in higher timber and housing prices, increased reliance on less sustainable building materials and more imports of forest products from countries with poor social, environmental and human rights records. This also includes likely increases in imports of wood products made with Russian timber and energy, which we should consider deeply problematic.

In Victoria about 1 million cubic metres of timber has been harvested annually from roughly 3000 hectares within a 160,000-hectare area managed by VicForests for timber production. The harvest area represents only 0.04 per cent of Victoria’s 7.5 million hectares of public native forests, of which 97 per cent is reserved for conservation and is never harvested. The Andrews government’s 2019 forestry plan, which was supposed to phase out native forest supply, has mostly resulted in announcements without substantial action. The loss of plantation area, rather than its expansion, highlights the inadequacy of the forestry plan. The claim that converting 14,000 hectares of farmland in Gippsland to plantations could replace 1 million cubic metres of native forest timber is misleading. This new plantation will produce only about 250,000 cubic metres annually and not for another 25 to 30 years. It could never cover the loss of 50,000 hectares of plantation area in recent years, let alone the 1 million cubic metres of annual native timber supply.

Replacing 1 million cubic metres of timber annually sourced from native forest requires about 50,000 hectares of new plantations, which will not be a perfect substitute and will not be available for 25 to 30 years. The decision to exit native forest harvesting comes at a time when the plantation estate has shrunk by 50,000 hectares and this has led to log supply constraints for existing plantation-based sawmills. The government’s promised 14,000 hectares of new planting, if achieved, will replace only 14 per cent of the 100,000 hectares required to compensate for the cessation of native timber harvesting and the recent reduction in plantation area. The $120 million investment announced in collaboration with Hancock Victorian Plantations is insufficient. It translates to $6900 per gross hectare, which is hopelessly inadequate to cover land purchase, establishment and maintenance costs over 25 to 30 years.

Labor’s 2022 announcement that establishing 14,000 hectares would underpin 2000 new and existing jobs is misleading. The impact on new jobs will be minimal until harvesting and processing begin in 2045 to 2050, long after much of the current workforce has retired. Most jobs in the forest industry are in harvesting, haulage and processing, not in plantation establishment and maintenance. Numerous challenges hinder plantation development: the high cost of suitable farmland, the unusable nature of cheap land due to steepness or distance from mills or the existence of remnant native vegetation. As any neighbour of the government knows, risk of plantation fire losses has increased due to inadequate management of Crown land. You cannot manage the land you have at the moment, let alone this amount of extra land.

I just want to add some figures here. The cessation of native forest supply under the Victorian government will cause an additional $5.6 billion lost in gross regional product and a further 3660 job losses over the next 20 years. The government’s $200 million transition package is insufficient, equating to only $55,000 per worker. This amount will not even cover the hundreds of millions invested in specialised harvesting and sawmilling equipment, which will become substantially devalued or worthless.

What about the environment? The decision to halt native forest harvesting is a step backwards for sustainability. Well-managed native forests provide superior biodiversity, fire and climate outcomes. Excluding harvesting does not guarantee biological diversity, especially given threats from wildfires, invasive species and climate change. As I have mentioned, the imported timber we will have to get to replace Victorian supply is a serious ecological black mark on this country and this state. For the sake of greenie activists and the unthinking consciences of the metropolitan elite, we are just offshoring the issue, exporting the industry, so we can pretend we live in a magical world where no trees need cutting down. It is a juvenile fantasy.

So far I have touched on the negative impacts the ban has had on large-scale commercial operators, their workers and their communities. One of the most absurd aspects of Labor’s policy has been that they are not only banning mass harvesting – which I understand they might, albeit very wrongly, think is environmentally damaging – they are, in the same sweeping ban, also destroying community forestry: small-scale, sustainable local operations sometimes felling one or two trees a year to create high-quality furniture or musical instruments. I have a great timber musical instrument producer in my electorate – one tree a year. For those of you who live in the urban elite, you may not know that for a blackwood forest to regenerate it has to be disturbed, otherwise it does not regenerate.

There are the local firewood producers too. Contrary to Ms Terpstra’s notion that everybody can go and get free firewood, there are many people totally incapable of going out with their wheelbarrow, chainsaw and axe to collect their own firewood. These are people that are in their homes, incapable of physically or materially being able to collect their own firewood. They need small-range commercial producers to get their firewood, to keep warm and to feed themselves. But you do not care about these people – you never have. It is all very well to say you are not banning firewood collection, but as I have said, how do the elderly and the ill who relied previously on local firewood supply businesses meet their heating needs? These people might not have gas – and heaven forbid, we are now banning gas as well. We will not have gas in any new homes, if these people need to move into a new home, because you are banning that as well. Firewood plays an incredibly important part in heating needs, especially in rural and regional communities, and for no ecological benefit this is now denied to them.

I go to Ms Purcell’s point about wildlife. Let me tell you, Ms Purcell: you are concerned about wildlife; think about what happens in a raging bushfire with intense heat. Millions of wildlife will be destroyed – destroyed forever. They do not survive a raging, intense bushfire. Where there was logging there was maintenance of areas. The problem we have also got is that this government and its bureaucracies and its departments have never been capable of properly managing forests. I think it was Ms Bath who said that the weeds and the vermin and the absolutely feral pests are the greatest danger to other wildlife and the environment – not logging. Bushfires and poor maintenance are the problem, and that is what you are incapable of managing.

I want to particularly thank Ms Bath for leading the debate on this and for her constant advocacy on the part of the thousands and thousands of timber workers in her electorate. She has been relentless, and she is to be applauded. I want to thank Dr Heath for her contribution, and I particularly also want to thank Ms Kealy, our Shadow Minister for Agriculture, who has done a power of work to try and ensure that we properly compensate workers in this industry, who you are destroying. It is mind-blowing to think that this government, who purport to be the government of the workers, continually –

Joe McCracken interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Yes – prosecute them. Thank you, Mr McCracken. This will absolutely destroy their livelihoods. I know that many people are totally concerned about how this is going to eventuate. As the forest and wood communities of Australia have said, ‘Trees grow back, but my timber town won’t.’ Remember that after you have destroyed the livelihoods, the communities, the towns and the people who have done so much to save so many lives when there have been bushfires in forest areas. Now you want to lock up the forests and throw away the keys. Surprise, surprise, the unions are fighting the government on doing this. It is a shame they were not around to make sure they did not shut down the timber industry.

This is an appalling day. It is a very sad day. I am sorry that we even have to be here speaking on this appalling piece of legislation and disgraceful action of the government to kill off a very viable industry.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (15:51): I also rise to speak on the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Repeal Bill 2024. Like my esteemed colleagues, I am rising to speak against the bill, because it is just a ridiculous bill. It comes on the back of other ridiculous bills and ideological moves by this government not to govern but to crush the people of Victoria. Timber is a renewable resource; how absurd to just shut down that industry. People were talking about profit like it was some evil thing – profit is how workers get paid and how government collects the taxes to provide the services that they keep pork-barrelling with to get re-elected. Any problems to do with fire management or looking after animals can clearly be managed. If you cannot do those two very, very ordinary things, you should not be in government anyway.

I am getting the impression that this government does not want anybody to be able to work for anybody at all unless it is for the government. It is like they want us to be dependent on them for everything. Anything to do that is private is offensive and outrageous and selfish, but if they collect every single industry and take it into their own control, apparently that is fine. Apparently that is altruistic. Big Brother is looking after us.

I kept hearing people talking about animals and plants as though they were the moral equivalent of human beings – what a slippery slope that one is. No animal is worth a human. That does not mean we do not look after them, but there is something strange going on in the way people are talking about trees and animals as if they are just as valuable as a whole human being and a whole town, a whole industry, lives, generations of human beings. We are supposed to be governing for the flourishing of human beings and human society. We are supposed to be governing so that all of these things can be balanced and work well together. Instead we are just crushing people and we are justifying it by saving some animals and some trees that can grow back. It is a very, very, very strange, slippery slope that we are on. It is anti human, and I do not agree with it. I condemn this bill.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:53): I also rise to speak on the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Repeal Bill 2024. We cannot even produce white paper in Victoria anymore. Through the ever-expanding aims of the environmental movement, lawfare and government policy, the sustainable timber harvesting industry has been decimated. No doubt this will be celebrated by radical environmentalists, but as with their irrational fear of nuclear energy, it is misguided. The idea that we cannot operate a sustainable and professional logging industry in this state is absurd. Timber harvesting is an ancient practice that has helped build homes, furniture, paper and more for thousands of years. The government announced a couple of years ago their intention to phase out the native timber industry, but the rampant lawfare by activists has led them to bring forward that timeline. It seems the activists have won, so here we are today debating a bill which essentially winds up the industry.

It may have a resurrection, however, being rebranded as ‘forest gardening’ or ‘cultural thinning’ through collaborations with traditional owner groups. A couple of years ago the Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation, trading as Djaara, launched their forest gardening strategy. Whilst it has many nice-sounding statements about traditional practices and economic empowerment, it also asserts their right to harvest certain flora and forest produce for commercial purposes. Words can hide actions, and I think it is possible that the famous conservation academic David Lindenmayer could be right that this pilot could simply become an Indigenous rebranding of timber harvesting. In his book The Forest Wars there is a section covering this. The Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation attempted to have the publisher withdraw the book as it covers an agreement between them and VicForests to harvest timber from the Wombat State Forest after storms felled many trees. Lindenmayer also covered the involvement of union representatives and VicForests employees with the forest gardening project. I do not know if Lindenmayer is correct in his assumptions, but I suspect he probably is.

The government have been delegating more responsibility and authority to traditional owners corporations for natural resource management. It would make sense. Opposition from activists would be a bit more challenging if it became conservation activists versus Aboriginal groups. Would they take them to court the way they have with VicForests? Possibly, but it would certainly be fascinating to watch. We will see if this prediction plays out soon enough, but I suspect that traditional owner groups might view poorly the new bosses contracting out to the old timber industry contractors. Time will tell.

As far as the bill goes, well, unless the government changes policy there is not really a reason for VicForests to continue operation. There are a couple of things in the bill that I do not like, such as increasing penalties, but I will not be opposing the bill, as it does not end the logging industry because that has already happened. This bill just winds up the things that need to be wound up to finalise it. I will, however, be giving consideration to the amendments proposed by the opposition.

Wendy LOVELL (Northern Victoria) (15:56): I rise to speak on the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Repeal Bill 2024. This bill before the house repeals the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 and puts the final nail in the coffin of the commercial native forest timber harvesting industry in Victoria. It abolishes the VicForests state enterprise, and it transfers any remaining property rights and liabilities of VicForests to the Crown. I will be opposing this bill because I opposed the shutting down of the Victorian native timber industry. Census data from 2021 showed that over 17,000 Victorians were employed directly or indirectly in forestry, logging, timber selling or processing. The consequences of Labor’s decision to ban native timber harvesting have decimated the businesses and industries that employed those 17,000 Victorians. The native timber shutdown will affect logging contractors, haulers and vehicle mechanics, mill workers, machine operators and repairers, fuel providers, seed collectors, timber sellers and processors, as well as paper and wood manufacturers. Many workers in these industries will suffer, as well as their families. Entire communities that depend economically on the timber industry will be hurt by this callous decision, driven not by data or evidence but by the ideological obsessions of the Labor Party. My sympathy goes to those workers and their families. My appreciation goes out to them too. I want to thank them for their years of service in an industry that has been central to the economy of Victoria for over 150 years.

Victorian native timber literally built our cities, towns and homes, but that has all ended now, because Labor has decided to end the native timber industry in this state, and in the most cruel way. You would think that the Labor Party, the party that claims to stand for workers, would have done more for them, but instead this Labor government has betrayed them. Forestry workers do not just log trees. They are involved in forestry management. They clear fire tracks and build firebreaks with their equipment, which will now lie idle. Unfortunately, this equipment will not be available next time we have a serious bushfire in our state. In the past they have also joined in fighting fires when necessary and have a lifetime’s worth of knowledge about the forest, which will now be lost when they leave the industry. This loss of knowledge, manpower and equipment will seriously reduce our state’s capacity to prevent or manage future bushfire threats. It was only very recently, in 2019, that the government told everyone, ‘We’re winding down native timber logging in 2030.’ They gave everyone notice of the closure in 11 years time, and on the basis of that announcement people made business decisions; some of them bought new equipment to see them through the final decade of operation. Then without warning this government made the snap decision to end it all six years early, totally betraying all of those people.

Labor promised help for people impacted by that decision. They made big announcements and they promised transition payments, but when the time came to pay up they walked away from workers. Harvesting ended at the start of this year, but for many the promised transition payments have not come through. Workers have been waiting and waiting without getting anything or they have been told they are not eligible for payment. Contractors who have lost their income are now struggling to pay off specialised vehicles and equipment that they can no longer use and cannot sell and also can not get any compensation for. Small business owners, contractors and sole traders have been totally left in the lurch, and some of their stories are heartbreaking. Families have been left devastated, and the financial impact of this shutdown is having knock-on effects in regional towns which Labor have sold out in return for doing deals with the inner-city Greens.

Let us not pretend this was the outcome of pure market forces or normal business operations. The end of this industry was a conscious decision by the Labor government. It is known that VicForests’s supply of timber has been dropping over recent years, because the government has totally failed to support the industry. Between 2002 and 2006 annual total sales were consistently above 2 million cubic metres. In 2017–18 total sales were down to 1.2 million cubic metres, and in 2021–22 sales amounted to only 954,000 cubic metres. Because VicForests were logging less and supply had gone down they were forced to start making compensation payments to customers who were not getting the supply they were promised. This put VicForests in a very difficult financial position, and in 2021–22 VicForests recorded a loss of $52.4 million. This is a direct result of the ideological obsessions of the Labor Party and its lack of support for a crucial Victorian industry.

The Labor government has knowingly failed to protect timber workers from being targeted by activists who are protesting and sabotaging logging. Workers were subjected to abuse and threats at work, and the government did nothing to protect them. Green activists and lawyers engaged in persistent vexatious litigation to try and close down this industry. They used lawfare to interrupt and interfere with state-owned enterprise logging in state forest. What did the state do? Nothing. The Labor government did nothing to stop the activists and lawyers who were harassing workers and attacking the industry. They could have followed the lead of New South Wales, which changed legislation in order to stop activists using litigation to attack timber harvesting, but instead Labor turned its back on contractors, small businesses, workers and entire communities. It turned its back on them, offered them no legislative protection and allowed the activists to drain and run down the industry. It even turned its back on its own staff – some were shifted to another department, but 60 will be made redundant when this bill abolishes the VicForests entity. Then when workers were at their lowest, Labor offered them false hope of another 11 years before suddenly killing the industry without warning. I am appalled by the way this whole matter has been handled – an absolute betrayal of workers and regional towns and economies by this Labor government.

The most frustrating and disappointing part of this situation is that it was completely unnecessary. There are environmental benefits to harvesting native timber. First, sustainable logging and replanting of forests removes carbon from the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its Special Report on Climate Change and Land, said that sustainable forestry is environmentally beneficial because of carbon capture. Logged and replanted forests are carbon sinks. When you cut down an older tree and use the timber for flooring or furniture you store the carbon away. Planting a new tree in its place will draw even more carbon from the atmosphere, because young trees absorb more carbon than older trees. Further, we still need hardwood timbers that grow in native forests. Plantation timber is mostly radiata pine, which is a great wood, useful for many different purposes, but there are some things that we need hardwood for, like furniture and home flooring. In future instead of using Victorian timber in Victorian homes we will have to get it from Tasmania or, worse, from overseas markets, where we have no control over the sustainability of practice and no ability to manage the environmental impact of logging.

Finally, as we know from Victoria’s history of devastating bushfires, it is absolutely crucial that we reduce fuel load from our forests. Harvesting timber from a native forest is one important way that we have done that in the past, and there are serious questions about how that will happen once harvesting stops. Whilst we are talking about fires, it is also worth remembering that forestry workers make a big contribution to assisting in fighting fires alongside the CFA. They create and maintain the firebreaks and keep fire tracks clear with knowledge and equipment that will no longer be available when they leave the industry. There is no compelling environmental reason to end the native timber industry. We can log trees and preserve animal habitats at the same time. We can replace old growth with new growth and so increase carbon capture. We can and must clear dead trees and reduce the fuel load to lower the severity of bushfires. There are no good reasons to close down the native timber industry and many good reasons to keep it going, but this Labor government will not listen, because it has sold out the regions in order to do deals with the Greens. I oppose this bill, and I urge members of this house to vote against it.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (16:07): I think just a few remarks from me. I will just cover off a few issues that I think will come up again in committee, but I just want to put them on the record in summing up. At the outset, this is a repeal bill. There is no new legislation here. In effect it is administrative legislation, formalising the ending of native timber harvesting in Victoria, which is catching up with, as we know, practice. I have listened to the debate, and I respect the various views here – I really do. You have got polar opposites of opinions on this matter, and I am not here to debate and argue with members. I think that that would be a futile exercise.

I do want to acknowledge the genuine concern that many members have for the impact that this decision has had on a generational workforce. I grew up in a town, knew timber workers and knew mill workers. In my role when I was in the agriculture portfolio I went out and visited timber workers on the ground. These are salt of the earth people, and for many people that I have spoken to that is all they have known. I do not underestimate the impact that this decision has had on individuals. I also want to acknowledge that there are genuine merits to the views of the Greens party. They talk about the environment; they talk about animal welfare. You heard Ms Purcell and her passionate views. This is a very emotive issue. As I said, I do not want to go and diminish people’s views in relation to this matter. Today we are here to pass a piece of legislation which is formalising something that has been subject to a lot of debate.

I do want to pick up on some of the legal issues, though. Despite the fact that I respect people’s views, I do not respect misinformation. Misinformation such as telling the house that we could legislate to avoid legal action is just false. I can tell you I looked at it, because it would have made my life a lot easier when I was in the portfolio. If I reckon we could have brought legislation in that would have prevented environmental non-governmental organisations causing disruption to the industry, I would have been up for presenting that to the house. But it is not something that we were able to do with any confidence at all, and therefore we were subject to a lot of litigation in the courts and a lot of injunctions. I can go through the reasons that the New South Wales approach is not transferable here to Victoria when we are addressing the Libs’ amendments.

The issues that were raised in committee were broad-ranging and very much connected to the merits – and views otherwise – of the sustainability and the decision to shut down the industry. That is not what the bill is mostly focused on. The bill, as I said, is administrative. It abolishes VicForests, it shifts relevant clauses into remaining acts and it formalises that there are no provisions to permit commercial native timber harvesting in Victoria. As we know, that has been the practice for some time. I have spoken to a lot of workers that were on standdown rates last year, for example. There are a lot of people in this industry that have indeed moved on a long time ago. As I said at the outset, the acknowledgement of the impact on workers in this transition has been at the forefront of our government’s thinking. That is why we have spent $1.5 billion on forestry transition. This was not a decision that we made and then ran. This was a decision that we knew was going to be difficult and was going to be impactful on particular parts of the state, and we have been up for that challenge.

The forestry transition has consisted of $640 million to deliver the future forests program and conduct forest and fire management works, providing jobs for former forestry industry workers. It does again concern me when we have members in the chamber asserting that fire risk is going to be dire because of this change. These are all matters that have been thoroughly considered, thoroughly accommodated for and massively invested in to ensure that equipment, expertise and people can be retained for those types of important roles.

The package also included $593 million to support businesses, workers and timber community contractors and to provide targeted timber industry worker transition support services. I acknowledge that for some individuals worker transition is easier than it is for others. If it is all you have known, trying to think about what your skills translate to is a challenge. That is why we have caseworkers. That is why there is support for people to consider all of their options, to have their hand held, if they wish to do so, and to have as many options to think about as they can.

$120 million has established the Gippsland plantation investment program, which has seen an extra 16 million trees planted in a new estate. The opportunities for future plantation timber – cross-laminated products and the like – are the future of the timber industry in Victoria, and I am pretty excited about the opportunities that that presents. There has also been $156.8 million – so $157 million – to finalise the wind-up of operations.

So there is a lot of investment that has gone into formalising a decision that is in our view good for Victoria, good for the environment and necessary for a range of reasons in an industry that was diminishing and already very, very problematic before our announcements and bringing certainty to an industry that for so long could see things happening. They could see their work becoming less and less, whether it was bushfires, whether it was diminished supply or whether it was changing product demand. We know that COVID exposed the fact that people do not use printer paper as much as they did. There are so many factors in here. It was not an easy decision, and today’s legislation catches up with the formalities of that decision. It has been an opportunity for people to again air their views, and I think it has been relatively respectful, given I do acknowledge that it is a passionate topic for many. There are a lot of topics that I think people want to cover off in committee, so I am probably best placed not pre-empting too much of that. I will leave my comments there and thank people for their contributions on this legislation.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (14): Melina Bath, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (16:22)

Melina BATH: Minister, you have mentioned that there is legal advice as to why you could not amend the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2014 or the legislation in relation to stopping third-party litigation. You have mentioned that it exists. Will you table it before the house? Clearly now that VicForests is going to be shut down there is no reason not to provide that transparency about what your claim to legal inability is.

Jaclyn SYMES: Prior to the end of native timber harvesting we explored all options available to introduce a range of reforms to clarify harvesting laws to reduce the risk of third-party litigation. Some of this work started under me when I was minister. I can advise there is no regulatory reform that could wholly prevent third-party litigation. Some of the topics that have been raised by those opposite today talk about the reform in New South Wales, but the New South Wales provisions are not transferable to the Victorian situation because they have different regulation of timber harvesting. The action that third-party litigants have taken in relation to both VicForests’s and the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action’s (DEECA) activities has relied on the Supreme Court’s inherent jurisdiction, so common law, and has not relied on statutory provision such as in New South Wales. It is not open to us to copy such provisions because the legal action is not being pursued via the same avenue. That is pretty clear in itself as an explanation as to why that would make sense.

Also, in relation to other opportunities for litigation, it can be brought under Commonwealth law; for example, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which is applicable to DEECA’s activities in forests and allows third-party applicants to bring proceedings in certain circumstances. It is therefore, you would appreciate, Ms Bath, not open to Victoria to legislate to exclude us from Commonwealth laws. So I am not in a position to give you advice on the government’s claims of legal privilege in this matter, but there is a pretty straightforward explanation as to why we are not able to litigate. I cannot commit to providing you with legal advice – that is not custom and practice in these types of matters – but hopefully I have given you enough of a flavour of the very obvious reasons as to why legislation has not been an option to reduce litigation in the state of Victoria.

Melina BATH: I still cannot see why it would not be able to be tabled, considering the fact that –

Jaclyn SYMES: Legal privilege.

Melina BATH: Well, it is now the end of VicForests, and I feel that there needs to be some transparency. But I will move on.

Various people in this house have often claimed about illegalities of VicForests and things they have or have not done. This has a huge impact on the very good people working for VicForests, and I think it is highly unfair that that is happening. Can you provide to this house: has VicForests ever been prosecuted for any illegality in the past, say, 10 years?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, I do not have that information at hand because it is not part of the bill. I cannot get you that information because it is outside of the bill.

Melina BATH: Minister, as I just said then, there are a lot of people who have been unjustly targeted and vilified through this process – decent people, employed by in effect the government. Will you agree to investigate and provide that at a later date, in good faith, to show that they are vindicated in their work rather than being held up for ridicule? Irrespective of whether it is in the bill or not, would you consider doing that at a later date, to keep their names clear rather than having them further muddied by certain parties?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, I am not the relevant minister, you would appreciate, so I can only operate within the confines of the bill today. I am very happy to pass on your remarks to both the Minister for Environment and the Minister for Agriculture. The points you raise are valid in that if there are false statements and you are concerned about the impact on the welfare of staff, then I might seek some advice in relation to the ongoing support through the transition package that picks up some of those issues. You would appreciate that there is mental health support and caseworker support for individuals, but extending it to that type of further information around debunking some false allegations and the like – I will pass that on to the ministers for their consideration.

Melina BATH: In relation to traditional owners, have the interactions between the changes to the act and the cultural rights of traditional owners to take, cut and sell the timber been considered when formatting this bill?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, I can just confirm again that this is a repeal bill. If we were proposing new legislation, there would be obviously further consultation. However, you have asked about the bill’s interaction effectively with traditional owner rights and the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 – I take that from the way you characterised the question. The bill does not affect existing rights of traditional owner groups with agreements under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act. It maintains the current exemptions to offences that apply to traditional owners acting under an agreement under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act, under the Forests Act 1958 and under the Conservation, Forest and Lands Act 1987. It will make consequential amendments to the Traditional Owner Settlement Act to remove reference to ‘VicForests’ and ‘sustainable forests’ and to remove provisions that no longer are relevant given the abolition of VicForests and the repeal of the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004. The bill also does not affect how cultural heritage is protected or make amendments to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. DEECA will continue to work with traditional owners to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage and to support self-determination objectives for country. We always work to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage and enable traditional owner corporations to manage cultural landscapes according to their own objectives.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, I was very concerned when you said in your summing-up that there is no legal avenue to limit litigious action such as we saw with the forestry anarchists. Can you comment as the Attorney-General that such third-party industrial-scale litigation is impossible to limit as it could apply to shutting down other industries that some decide are unfavourable?

Jaclyn SYMES: Mrs McArthur, I am not in a position to give broad legal advice in relation to other industries, nor is it part of this bill in particular. I have given a broad outline of the specific reasons about why limiting litigation in the context of the Victorian forest industry has proved difficult. Any measures would be a bit hard to hold up is kind of the issue that we have, or it would be in the sense of the proposed amendment actually not being a cure because it is not addressing the avenues through which litigation is being pursued. We would have to wait for an example for me to be able to give you further advice, and again that would be outside the scope of this particular bill.

Bev McARTHUR: Minister, you would have to agree that it is a terribly worrying situation that industries can be closed down because of legal action, wouldn’t you?

Jaclyn SYMES: It can be frustrating in this sense because I lived through some of that, but limiting people’s legal rights is also something that has to be approached with caution. As I have indicated, I am not in a position to give you a view on other industries that may be subjected to litigation. What we have seen in the timber industry is that there has been action against VicForests’s activities as well as DEECA’s activities, and we have attempted to act as model litigants in response to those.

Melina BATH: I am just going back to the previous theme on traditional owners. Minister, traditional owners, I believe, are entitled to royalties from VicForests. Is this bill removing the right to those royalties?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, I was a little confused in trying to find you an answer, because I do not think that there is substance or truth to the assertion that VicForests pay royalties now, or have.

Melina BATH: Let me give you an example in terms of the Wombat State Forest. There has been windrow timber there, and it is my understanding that Dja Dja Wurrung have a contract with VicForests for VicForests to actually process and remove that timber. I am just interested to understand how this bill will interact with the likes of those arrangements. Is there a protection in this bill that will enable traditional owners to still access and be the enablers of the outcomes of that timber?

Jaclyn SYMES: I think you are referring perhaps to the section 52 licences, which through this bill will enable further regulation powers. We would want to consult heavily with traditional owners in relation to how they would like to see this progressed through principles of self-determination, but the section 52 licence regime would certainly be an avenue for picking up a lot of those considerations.

Melina BATH: On that point about speaking with traditional owners, what are you doing? What is the process now? What are you doing to assure traditional owners that their rights will not be compromised by these changes in this bill?

Jaclyn SYMES: There are no changes through this bill in relation to rights. This is a repeal bill that does not actually repeal anything – as you have outlined. Our commitment through the regulations and wanting to talk to a range of parties, but particularly traditional owners, will be worked through through regulations as we establish the parameters around the section 52 licence requirements. A lot of those conversations have been underway for some time, and there are a lot of ideas out there. Those conversations will continue.

Melina BATH: Moving on to the topic of firewood, you can appreciate that there are many people concerned about how they will be able to access firewood. At VicForests there were forest contractors that had licences that enabled commercial firewood. Where are the commercial firewood operations? Where are they going to access that firewood now?

Jaclyn SYMES: A couple of things. I might just start a little bit with domestic firewood collection in the first instance and just clarify –

Melina BATH: But that is separate to what I am speaking of.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes.

Melina BATH: I just want clarity for some of these people.

Jaclyn SYMES: Yes. I take your point. We need to be very clear that there are no changes in this bill in connection to the ability of people to access domestic firewood collection. It will continue unaffected, and it opened as normal on 1 March and runs until 30 June in relation to those individuals that are in a position to collect firewood for personal use. When it comes to commercial firewood operations, commercial firewood operations in state forests have ceased. Demand for firewood has certainly been outpacing supply for some time, which has driven up the domestic firewood prices. What we want to ensure is that we can pick up some of these issues through the section 52 licences that I was referring to earlier. It is an issue that I know that both you and I are quite familiar with, Ms Bath, in relation to ensuring that – for clean-up from storms and the like – timber that is felled and destroyed as a result of natural disasters is kept locally and made available for local use. That predominantly ends up being firewood, probably followed by mulch – those are the two most common uses for that, and I am a big supporter of continuing that practice.

There will be the development of by-product utilisation – assessing how we can best utilise and manage timber by-products – as part of the $116 million future forests program, and that was in this budget. That is going to look at the development of a firewood strategy and by-product framework. The strategy will improve the management of firewood resources on public land, ensuring equitable access for those that are able to access it. We want that to be responsible and sustainable as well.

There are some good commercial firewood operators out there, and I would argue that I have heard some pretty bad stories as well, but I am certainly aware of the fact that we have a need for domestic firewood. A lot of people still rely on it for their heating, and indeed some do for their cooking. I have asked local councils before about ensuring their ability to identify vulnerable cohorts so they can have priority access to any of the available wood, and that is something that we are happy to work with them on as well. It is something that we are aware of, Ms Bath, and there is continuing work and conversation in relation to that.

Melina BATH: Minister, one of the government’s policies in the health and aged care section is to live in the home. This is separate to the bill, and I will grant you that. You rightly said, and I totally knew when I was making my debate, that domestic firewood collection is separate to what was functioning and happening under VicForests. I want to understand. It is important that those elderly, frail – whatever we want to call them – pensioners who cannot go and get domestic firewood have access. You have talked about a firewood strategy. I would be happy –

Jaclyn SYMES: A by-product strategy.

Melina BATH: Yes, I did see that – a by-product strategy and equitable access. How do you propose that these people actually get equitable access at a cost that is reasonable, because I know for a fact that there is one particular firewood supplier who had worked for VicForests and had firewood through VicForests who is now getting timber from New South Wales at an exorbitant cost that they have got to pass on? I guess I want to seek some understanding around the firewood strategy – by-product strategy – if you want to speak to that, and I have got one more on that particular question.

Jaclyn SYMES: Sure. The framework to manage potential timber by-products that is being developed will consider the end use for incidental by-product of forest and fire management activities. The framework will consider the highest and best use of the by-product and could include free domestic firewood. Again, coming back to that point that I made earlier, knowing who in the community is in need of firewood for essential heating and cooking activities in their home is something that I know a lot of local members are across as an issue. It is certainly something that has come into my office in the past 10 years. But that strategy will also look at commercial firewood, ensuring that there is the ability to assist people who are either not in that category or are not able to collect firewood for themselves.

I would also probably put on the record again – I guess I am taking up your invitation to stray outside the bill – that there is a range of support programs and financial support through other Victorian government programs, such as the energy assistance program, providing tailored energy support to people experiencing hardship; the Energy Bill Relief Fund; a range of rebates; and non-mains utility relief grants, which provide $650 to Victorians on low income who rely on firewood as their only source of heating to enable them to use that money to source it themselves or for other activities. I am certainly aware of the issues you raise. I can certainly give you confidence that I share your views in relation to making sure that we have an eye to ensuring that people that rely on these products, particularly those that are unable to get it themselves or have financial barriers to doing so, are indeed factored into any of our future strategies.

Melina BATH: The next question is in relation to volume. Do you have any quantum of the volume of what you would be looking at in terms of this by-product? That is one question there. To tack another theme onto that by-product, with forest management and firebreak occurrence, some of the harvesters have transferred over to DEECA, and they will be doing then that firebreak management, so therefore there will be a by-product from that. Do you have any idea about when that is going to start and the volume of that? Has there been any sort of investigation or assessment on that?

Jaclyn SYMES: With the by-product it is obviously a little difficult to be too precise, because as I indicated, it will include the likes of storm and other natural event debris in terms of that. But I think for some context, in 2023–24, 12,644 tonnes of timber debris from DEECA land management works were provided to commercial timber customers; 91 per cent of that has been suitable for commercial firewood purposes.

Melina BATH: I guess to that point, on the question about the fuel firebreak – so the transference of harvesters over into DEECA and looking at that firebreak – does the minister have any idea about when that will be cut? I am just thinking about forward planning for next year’s winter firewood season.

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not have that level of detail on me, Ms Bath, but there might be other ways to ask for that particular information.

Melina BATH: I turn now in relation to one of the functions that VicForests did – and contractors with VicForests – which was indeed seed collection. We know across the board the importance of seed collection for the growing and saving of future forests. I am interested: is seed collection being done in accordance with the timber code of practice? Is it going to be moved to a different regime of regulation? How is seed collection going to be conducted moving forward?

Jaclyn SYMES: Sorry, Ms Bath, I knew I had read it previously when I was preparing. As you would be aware there are the 80 roles from within DEECA that have been created for VicForests employees to support the department taking on the functions that will contribute to the government’s expanded forest management activities, and that includes the seed collection activities.

Melina BATH: So those are 80 roles where staff from VicForests have moved over to DEECA, but I can name one particular person, Brendon Clark, who was not in the department; he was an individual seed collector. What happens to them? What happens to that role if he does not get a job in this 80, and he was not in the VicForests department? What is going to happen to those seed collectors?

Jaclyn SYMES: You touched on this in your contribution, Ms Bath, in relation to the downstream line businesses that have been impacted by these events. The worker support program provides support to those involved in sawmills, harvest, haulage, community forestry, seed collection, tip truck driving, pulp and paper production and associated professional services and supply chains, which even extends to electricians, mechanics, accountancy services and general maintenance. So there has been a lot of thought and consideration and acknowledgement of the downstream impacts in relation to this transition. Further support is being provided through the forestry business support package to eligible forestry businesses, including some of those ones that I referred to. The timber supply chain resilience package is also providing support to a number of manufacturers to access grants, professional advice and planning services to support business transitions. Businesses may also be eligible for the package if they possess native hardwoods sourced from Victorian state forests to manufacture products, including floors, stairs, furniture, doors, windows, architectural features and pallets and the like.

I have certainly spent some time visiting Cross Laminated Timber in Wodonga in relation to some of the work that they can do. In relation to Mr Clark, I do not have any particular information on him as an individual nor would it be appropriate to go through his circumstances in the context of this bill; however, if you did want to pass on any details for me to be able to ensure that he has been spoken to then I am more than happy to do that.

Melina BATH: I know that he has been well canvassed in the lower house at question time and he is quite happy to have his case raised, because I think there is a significant degree of frustration. You have started to discuss compensation packages. These compensation packages are open until 2026; that is my understanding. Do your compensation packages have any financial cap? Are they open or have they got a cap, because there are clearly some people who still have not been paid? There is Jeff Coster, and he is more than happy for me to put his name into this house. He is highly frustrated with the process. All of the things that you have commented on just there, I accept them on face value, but there are people who are still slipping through the cracks, and it is really unacceptable – absolutely unacceptable. Is there a cap on these compensation packages, and what about these people who are falling through the cracks?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is outside the remit of the legislation we are debating today, but if I could offer some advice, there is no cap but different funding streams under each of the packages. I myself have come across an individual who felt as though they were, in your words, falling through the cracks, and I was able to connect them with the support services. So my advice to you would be to continue to engage with the minister’s office if you come across individuals who are not feeling as supported as they should, because there are people available to help them.

Melina BATH: I will not spend hours getting into this, but this gentleman was offered a payout and it is now not coming. Not only is he falling through the cracks, he has been offered something, and now it is not materialising. Clearly there is some flaw. I take it that it is outside the bill, but there is a significant flaw in the process of these compensation packages. At the end of the day these are real human beings who fought all the fires for the last 30 years, worked in this industry, and now are absolutely bereft. I just put on record that I thank you for your commentary and sincerity about it, but this needs to be resolved. Part of my reasoned amendment was about when they will be paid. When do you think, when do you feel and when do you understand that they will all be paid out?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, the payments are available until 30 June 2026, so eligible workers will continue to receive support payments progressively throughout this period depending on their application and personal circumstances. It is difficult for me to respond to an individual case. I would encourage you to bring that to the direct attention of the minister’s office. There are some cases that will take longer while you are determining the previous contractual arrangements and the like – you want to ensure that the payments are going to the right people – but the package is large, the package is there, it is designed to support people that need to transition from their previous roles into future roles, and we certainly want to ensure that that help is directed to where it is needed. Again, thank you for ensuring that you are a person that people can come to if they are having difficulties. I would encourage you to work with the minister’s office to see if you can close any of those gaps and deal with any of those eligibility issues that may be apparent.

Melina BATH: I will move on to a different area of the bill now. In relation to a legislative impact analysis, has one been undertaken and a statement been prepared of the consequences, including costs, of the proposed repeal of the principal act, the proposed costs and consolidation into the Forests Act and also the other act – I think it is the lands act?

Jaclyn SYMES: I am sorry, Ms Bath, I do not quite understand your question – cost in preparing the legislation?

Melina BATH: No. The repeal of this forestry bill, VicForests – has there been a legislative impact analysis? What will it cost to close this down and then move any of the functions of that into the Forests Act?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, there is no direct cost as a result of this legislative amendment.

Melina BATH: Can the minister tell the house if the government has completed an analysis of the impact of repealing this act on the environment and also the social and economic outputs of the forest and make it available this evening?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, as you would appreciate, this legislation is formalising decisions and actions that are very well underway. There is not a cost attributed to this bill this evening.

Melina BATH: Does the government intend to ban or curtail other multiple uses of our native forests, including mining or recreational tourism or beekeeping?

Jaclyn SYMES: Come on, you are really going outside the scope of this bill now. There is certainly no plan – you need bees in forests, come on. Do not start these scare campaigns about what you think. No, this bill has no impact on the issues that you have just raised.

Melina BATH: Part of the argument in closing down VicForests was in relation to protection of the forest. Can the minister tell the house if the government believes the forest will be more or less fire prone with the cessation of the native timber harvesting?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, first of all, you are asking for an opinion, but there are a range of other measures that respond to fire risk mitigation. I am more than happy to get you a briefing from DEECA facilitated through Minister Dimopoulos in relation to the activities, particularly back-burning activities and machinery activities that are planned before the next fire season. They are very extensive. But again, we are straying outside this bill, and I reckon I have been pretty generous. So if we can start getting back to some clauses, that would be great.

Melina BATH: I am happy to speak to sustainable forest management as defined in the bill. How is sustainable forest management defined, and does sustainability include how much management costs and how it is paid for? So how is it defined and then how much does that cost?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, I can offer some general comments in relation to the future management of state forests, which is kind of where your question was taking us, I think. Is that correct?

Melina BATH: Well, there is a section on sustainable forest management in new part 5A in the bill.

Jaclyn SYMES: Is that in connection to your amendment as well?

Melina BATH: We can go through them if you want to.

Jaclyn SYMES: We might wait, if that is okay.

Melina BATH: Sure.

Sarah MANSFIELD: We understand that the purpose of this bill is to abolish VicForests, end its native forest logging functions and return some of the remaining forest management responsibilities to the environment department – namely, Forest Fire Management Victoria. We welcome this change, but we also note that FFMV has had some issues of its own and may in fact escape some of the oversight that VicForests was required to operate under, recognising that this was weak in and of itself.

A few weeks ago a critically endangered greater glider was found dead by a citizen scientist in a section of the Yarra Ranges National Park, which had been cleared by FFMV for fuel breaks. This was despite conservation groups explicitly warning FFMV and state and federal environment ministers that greater gliders existed in the area. We understand that investigations are ongoing and wherever you stand on the matter of fuel breaks this is not easy or simple work. But what many people in the community are frustrated about is that not only was FFMV meant to survey this area for ecologically sensitive areas ahead of time, it was specifically warned by groups like Wildlife of the Central Highlands and the Victorian National Parks Association about these fuel breaks being developed in rare ancient hollow-bearing trees home to greater gliders and Leadbeater’s possums. Additionally, I should note that the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, or EPBC act, requires referral, assessment and approval of all works likely to impact threatened species. I have got a few questions related to those issues. What kind of on-the-ground surveying does FFMV currently do ahead of bushfire prevention works in terms of both data-generated and on-ground surveying?

Jaclyn SYMES: I might spend some time going through some of the information that I think will be directly relevant to your line of questioning, and then we will see what is left over if that suits you. The bill does not affect or change DEECA’s forest and fire management activities. A little bit like the conversation I had with Ms Bath, I am going to be generous, because it is outside the scope of the bill. But I have got some information, so why not relay it to you.

The bill is concerned with priority legislative reforms, as you have indicated, to abolish VicForests and support the end of commercial native timber harvesting. Before any bushfire management work is undertaken, DEECA’s planning and approvals process requires ecological and cultural heritage values assessments to be conducted, and these include detailed desktop assessments of existing biodiversity datasets. There are also field-based surveys conducted on a case-by-case basis to verify said desktop assessments. When conducted, field-based surveys can help to confirm the presence of threatened species, assess the potential impacts of the proposed works and implement appropriate mitigations to minimise any identified impacts.

Further to this, depending on specific characteristics and risks to specific values, DEECA will engage independent ecological consultants to undertake further consideration of values, particularly if there are concerns that have been raised. When engaged, consultants conduct on-ground flora surveys as well as fauna habitat and sign surveys in the field of the proposed work areas. These surveys may result, again, in further targeted surveys being undertaken, such as spotlighting and call-playback surveys for nocturnal species, as well as wildlife remote-camera surveys that may run over several weeks to detect the presence of any threatened fauna. These assessments by DEECA ensure that the values listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the state’s Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 are appropriately identified and managed for any of the delivered works.

Any specific area for work is defined and exclusion zones and buffers needed for protection of values are established within the work plan. Buffers are areas where works might be excluded, or there could be the opportunity to modify the activity to protect a particular value – for example, a waterway, a threatened park or, importantly, a habitat of a threatened animal. For example, habitat trees and living large trees, even if they are hazardous trees, are certainly identified as to whether they should be retained wherever possible by managing the risk they pose in another way, such as by blocking access to the area around that tree to reduce the risk that way.

I have got further information that there are a range of environmental obligations that apply to bushfire management works, and the government has confidence that its operations comply with those obligations. And indeed if they do not, then that is unacceptable and we would take action in relation to that. Under the Forests Act 1958 the Secretary of DEECA also has an obligation to carry out proper and sufficient work for the planned prevention and suppression of fires. DEECA undertakes by prevention work, including planned burns, debris clean-up and strategic fuel breaks construction, to reduce the size, intensity and impact of future bushfires. DEECA plans and delivers the work with consideration of multiple different values, as I have outlined earlier.

I give you this information just to give you context for the balance that is obviously considered in relation to all of these matters. I will leave it there and maybe drill down into anything specific, bearing in mind that, while I have got a lot of information here, I am proposing to keep it related to the bill as much as possible.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Given all of what you have described there – all the different steps that are taken – how is it that we still had, then, a greater glider death in recent weeks? What is the explanation for the failure there, and how can we have confidence in all of those checks and balances that you have just outlined?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Mansfield, the information that I have is that an investigation was undertaken in relation to the – I assume we are talking about the same one; hopefully it is the same one – southern greater glider found in the vicinity of those works. The pathologist’s report for the southern greater glider recovered from the Yarra Ranges National Park has been provided to FFMVic, with the manner of death reported as indeterminate with evidence of blunt force trauma. The investigation can only tell us the cause of the death, not the manner, and it is not possible to definitively substantiate whether the glider died from these works or some other intervention. However, hopefully there is some confidence that I can relay to you that DEECA is reviewing the situation and processes applied in light of that death. This is being taken seriously. The felling of hazardous trees can sometimes have inadvertent impacts on fauna that are not visible or are hiding deep in a tree; however, DEECA does everything it can to limit these impacts. I have met a lot of these people. They are very upset if they are causing any harm. It is certainly not deliberate. As I said, there have been a lot of people having a look at this and making sure that any of their actions in the future can avoid a similar outcome. I just reiterate that before any land management works are approved, ecological assessments are undertaken to identify and assess biodiversity and cultural values. Operations are designed to ensure the impacts are avoided where possible and mitigated, and obviously they have learned a lot from many, many years of trying to balance the needs of their work along with the environmental considerations.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Moving on to some of these fire management issues, given they ID big trees, why did FFMV remove an ancient giant tree recently in the Yarra Ranges? We know that this sort of tree slows down bushfires. Now that that has been removed it is going to be replaced with smaller, infinitely more flammable vegetation. How did that occur? Why is FFMV removing those sorts of trees?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Mansfield, I am not in a position to give you information on that particular matter. There would be another way to seek that information. If I had the material, I would give it to you, but I cannot answer that level of detail on that topic when it is not directly related to the bill. But you have put it on notice, and perhaps the minister’s office can pre-empt an advance from you via another means.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I thank the Attorney for that response, and I will follow up with the minister. Again just on fire management and perhaps a more general issue that is related to this bill, there are recent papers from the ANU that outline the evidence for this argument that logging ancient, less flammable trees and certain parts of salvage logging can actually make bushfires worse. How is the department balancing this new science with more established science in determining where and how firebreaks are created?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Mansfield, in relation to FFMVic’s work and the considerations that they take on board, I can assure you that a lot of these conversations are undertaken. I think I just outlined with the attention taken to the way they have responded to adverse incidents that they are very open to advice, they are very open to opinions and they balance a lot of that out, but I am not in a position to detail that type of process at that department level. But again, I think if you approach the Minister for Environment he might be in a position to provide you with greater detail in relation to how the department responds to such information as you have presented.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I guess just further to that, one of the concerns is the independence of the monitoring of this issue. Has the government investigated perhaps getting universities to do this monitoring so that that independence can be trusted by the public?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Mansfield, as I am not the relevant minister, I am not in a position to provide that information outside the scope of the bill.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Again we will follow up with the relevant minister. Turning to I guess oversight powers and responsibilities of the Office of the Conservation Regulator (OCR), what do they currently have in regard to forest management now that VicForests will be abolished?

Jaclyn SYMES: I might take you through a lot of the information for oversight and assurance over FFMVic’s works. I think that that might not just cover off the OCR element but just bring it together a little bit more comprehensively. Their forest and bushfire management planning is undertaken in accordance with overarching legislation, and regulations are established to protect a range of important values – a lot of the ones that you have mentioned. For DEECA, as I said, we have talked about all of the assessments that they are required to do. They go over and beyond what they are required to do by legislation. There are internal DEECA audits. There are assurance audits that have to be reported to the Office of Bushfire Risk Management. The Victorian Auditor-General plays a role. The inspector-general for emergency management plays a role. There are also regular reports to the security and emergency management committee of cabinet, where a lot of these issues can be tested. The planned burn operations obviously have been subjected to court action, which is another mechanism of testing as well.

In relation to the legislation and the change of role, the conservation regulator establishes annual regulatory priorities to focus its regulatory efforts on the greatest risks and what is most important to the Victorian environment and community. Unauthorised commercial take of timber is something that they will be looking at, and it is currently one of their regulatory priorities. Following the end of large-scale commercial timber harvesting the conservation regulator will continue to focus on the regulation of wildlife, forests and public land in Victoria. The conservation regulator aims to use regulation to ensure that everyone has equitable and safe access to public land and the use of natural resources, that the natural and heritage elements of the land are protected for future generations and that Victoria is a place of socially, economically and environmentally sustainable communities. So there are a few players in this space, Dr Mansfield.

Sarah MANSFIELD: We have heard that the OCR is still doing some surveys. Do you have any more information about what surveys they are doing?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not, but I can take that on notice and see if the department and minister’s office can provide you with information on their current work.

Sarah MANSFIELD: We are putting forward some oversight amendments. I think you have touched on oversight already and explained the various, I guess, mechanisms that you believe are in place to provide some oversight over the responsibilities that VicForests used to have that have been moved into other departments. The OCR will have some role in that, but we understand that there is difficulty with the OCR investigating bodies within its own department, so why not consider moving it to the Department of Justice and Community Safety or another department where it can independently investigate any activities by DEECA or FFMV that have an impact on listed species?

Jaclyn SYMES: I cannot speak to the policy development and consideration of that matter. I have got enough to do in justice at the moment. I would argue that from my experience there is a fair bit of tension that exists between the OCR and its department, so to suggest that it is happy days and everyone is friends – I would suggest that perhaps their independence is something that I have not been given cause to dispute, but I cannot go into the policy landing of that. But they are legislatively tied to DEECA, and I do not think that a case has been mounted to have that expertise placed in a foreign department.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I guess, to explore another option, should the EPA be able to investigate ecological impacts under fire management works such as the death of the greater glider in May?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Mansfield, I have probably strayed out of my lane in my answer to the previous question. I think this is outside of the bill, and I am not going to offer an opinion on that.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I thank the Attorney for that response, but it is an issue we would like considered, I think, going forward, particularly given concerns about the independence of any necessary investigations or oversight. One of the concerns we have has been around some of the issues in VicForests that relate to the culture in that organisation around not adequately preventing illegal logging. This issue has been detailed in reports from the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) and the Office of the Conservation Regulator. We understand that 19 of the former 21 VicForests contractors have since moved to FFMV. What assurances can you give us that DEECA and FFMV will ensure that the same culture issues that were present in VicForests are not following the law or will not continue now that they have moved to DEECA?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Mansfield, I do not want to get too provocative, but I have met a lot of people that work for VicForests, and I would not want this debate to delve into assertions against individuals’ characters and their motivations for the important work that they do or have done. But I can talk to some of the transition in relation to, I guess, touching on your concerns about perceptions of past practices and ensuring that it is a different approach and it is a different role. It will be a different culture because the work is different. In that sense I want to talk about the fact that the staff at FFMVic undertake fire prevention work, including planned burning, debris clean-up and developing strategic fuel breaks to reduce the size, intensity and effects of future bushfires. They plan and deliver the work with considerations of multiple different values, including threatened species and cultural heritage. They undertake forest and fire management activities in line with legal obligations to minimise bushfires and to protect life, property and the environment. The secretary of DEECA is required to consider potential biodiversity impacts in planning and delivering fire prevention works, so that is the instruction from the top in relation to the type of work and purpose that people have. In addition to this, DEECA’s fire prevention works – going to some of the points you raised earlier about oversight – are regulated by federal legislation that goes to protections of threatened and endangered species.

VicForests staff have incredible skills, and we are very lucky that we are picking up a lot of them – that is the contractors as well. They have the ability to operate specialised equipment for use in both bushfire prevention and response and recovery, and they will continue to support DEECA, as I said, in the forest and fire management roles. We want to respect the skills and expertise of that workforce, and that is why we have been so eager to ensure that we can retain that and bring those people over into the department. We are very lucky that we have got 80 new roles that have accommodated that.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Just for the record, there was no intention to cast aspersions on any individuals, but it was in recognition of the fact that there have been investigations into issues within VicForests, as I said, by both VAGO and the Office of the Conservation Regulator. Those issues have been publicly acknowledged and identified and probably contributed in large part to where we are at today with this legislation.

I would like to move on to commercialisation and some concerns we have with respect to that. Now that VicForests is wrapping up, are Victorian sawmills receiving logs from our native forests or national parks – for example, from these FFMV works?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Mansfield, I wanted to instantly respond with ‘Not much, if any.’ But the advice I have got is that FFMVic undertake fire prevention work, including planned burns, debris clean-up and developing strategic fuel breaks, as we have discussed, to reduce the size, intensity and effect of future bushfires, so important work. They plan and deliver that work with the consideration of multiple different values, as we have gone through before as well. Forest by-products that are incidental to that work – that is, the by-product is not the motivation for the work, it is a result of the need to do that work – can be removed or left in situ to provide habitat. The vast majority of it is unsuitable for mills because they require sawlog-grade timber, and it is just not something that becomes readily available from those types of activities.

I guess just to reflect on some personal experience, one of the first things that is said after storm damage – and it happened recently at Mirboo North as well – is ‘Great. We’ve got some mills that can take the logs and they can be put to use.’ The amount of wood that is suitable for that purpose is next to none. What it does provide is an opportunity to create firewood for vulnerable people and mulch and the like, and there is a lot of green waste to process. But as for it being available for timber, it is just not my experience that we have been able to identify the quality of log that could be transported for that type of purpose.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I appreciate that you said very little of that timber is suitable for mills, but do you have any more concrete information on what is being sold to which mills and for how much?

Jaclyn SYMES: Through those activities? Well, as I identified, it is just not something that has been made available through those activities. As I said, in the case where if there were saw-grade logs available, I would have liked them to go to timber mills. It just does not eventuate in relation to storm debris or firebreak-type activities. So I do not have that information to hand, but it is not an underhanded side business to create saw-grade logs out of the work of fire mitigation or emergency response.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I thank the Attorney for that assurance. We have had some reports from the community that this is occurring, so why isn’t the government tracing logs from salvaged logging operations to ensure that practice is not occurring?

Jaclyn SYMES: I cannot categorically say that there is not the odd bit of millable timber available. If you have got concerns about inappropriate practices, then I am sure that if you fed that information through we could have a look at that. There will be instances where there is the occasional log. I am just indicating that in my experience, most recently, when we went looking for it we could not find it. I think past practice data would show that there is less than 10 per cent of wood made available for mills as a result of any of FFMV’s work.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Related to this, as part of winding up VicForests, your government provided nearly $1 billion to transition native forest logging workers and industry to plantations. We have got very little information about how this money is being spent. I was wondering if you would be able to provide some details about that.

Jaclyn SYMES: Again, Dr Mansfield, that is outside the scope of the bill, but I can repeat some of the forestry transition costs of the $1.5 billion. Let me just have a look; I might have something a bit more relevant. Yes, actually I will not repeat the transition money, because I think you were a bit more interested in plantation development expenditure and I have got some information that can respond to that.

We certainly have an expansive world-class plantation industry in Victoria. We have the largest plantation estate in the country here in Victoria. We are also implementing a range of programs to grow and diversify the estate to meet future timber-need supplies, products and markets. Ms Bath and I both had a bit of conversation earlier about cross-laminated timber and some of the future opportunities for that and the need to plant more trees to take up those opportunities. The flagship of the plantation investment strategy is the $120 million Gippsland plantations investment program, which will see Hancock Victorian Plantations plant an extra 16 million trees. It is the single largest investment in plantation establishment in our history and also the biggest for Hancock Victorian Plantations. It will be one of the largest private plantation companies in Australia, and it will match the government’s grants fund almost dollar for dollar to buy, lease and manage more than 14,000 hectares of softwood plantations. The program also has the potential to bring new global-scale processes to the Gippsland region and boost the state’s production of much-needed timber house frames for the construction sector, one of the benefits we identified. Also, the more grunt behind the plantation industry, the more opportunities for jobs in that region, which would complement the transition.

Sarah MANSFIELD: We have heard reports that some sawmills and other timber companies have received that funding but rather than transition to plantation or recycled timber they have focused their purchasing on Tasmania’s native forest industry. Was there anything in the funding agreements to prevent this from happening?

Jaclyn SYMES: It is outside the scope of the specifics of this bill because the parameters of that program are not part of the legislation, but I think you would be able to get that type of information directly from the minister’s office.

Melina BATH: I was not going to ask any further questions on clause 1, but I just felt so appalled by what I heard. I have researched a document, the report of the declining ecosystems inquiry. It is also in Hansard. Minister Pulford made a response to Mr Gordon Rich-Phillips at the time. Ms Pulford said:

I have some advice on some numbers on the conservation regulator’s compliance actions in the last two years. So in 2019–20 investigations completed by the conservation regulator included –

and I am quoting directly –

one letter of advice, four section 70 directions, two findings of non-compliance, two official warnings and no prosecutions. For 2020–21 there were three letters of advice, one section 70 direction, two findings of non-compliance, three official warnings and no prosecutions.

I put it to you, Minister: do you think that Minister Pulford would have been lying at that point, or do you think that she would have been accurate?

Jaclyn SYMES: I do not want to get into a role of mediator here today. I think that you are more than welcome to put those comments on the record, Ms Bath. I can confirm that there have been no prosecutions from the conservation regulator since it was established in 2019.

Sarah MANSFIELD: Just a final one on clause 1. As part of winding up native forest logging the government bought a stake in one of the key timber mills at Heyfield. Does the Victorian government still own a Heyfield mill? And is it true you are planning to sell your shares?

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Mansfield, as you would appreciate, the government helped secure the future of that mill. We wanted to ensure that we could save jobs and support the local Heyfield economy. We wanted to ensure they were well placed for the future. We are now considering options around its shareholding at that mill. Australian Sustainable Hardwood’s day-to-day businesses, I think as identified by Ms Bath, are not run by the government; they are commercial concerns for ASH management and not subject to any government input. I think I have answered your question.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 15 agreed to.

New clause (17:39)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

1. Insert the following clause before clause 16 –

‘15A Definitions

In section 3(1) of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 insert the following definition –

“relevant international instruments means the following –

(a) the Convention on Biological Diversity;

(b) the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;

(c) the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

(d) any other international convention relating to the sustainability, use and management of the environment to which Australia is a party;”.’

This is to insert a new clause, 15A, and there are some associated clauses should this pass. Firstly, I would like to thank the Victorian National Parks Association and Environmental Justice Australia as well as the Wilderness Society for their support in developing these amendments. The bill’s proposed section 40A of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 would create a new power for the minister to determine sustainability criteria and indicators and reporting requirements. The Greens would like to strengthen this power in two ways, first by creating a list of relevant international instruments in the act so that this new power will take into account the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This, we believe, should not be a controversial change. Basically we just want the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act to acknowledge the relevant international agreements relating to biodiversity, climate change and Indigenous rights.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government will not be supporting this amendment from Dr Mansfield. The current criterion indicator provisions we use already align with the international agreements in the form of the Montreal process. We are committed to partnership with traditional owners, of course, and we understand from ongoing engagement that their aspirations for an active role in forest management are far more comprehensive than sustainability indicators. If a requirement to engage with traditional owners were to be embedded in the forests act, it would be a bigger reform than currently proposed and in line with self-determination. That would require engagement with traditional owners to determine exactly what that legislation should look like.

Melina BATH: The Nationals and Liberals will not be supporting this amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the new clause stand part of the bill.

Bells rung.

David Davis: On a point of order, Deputy President, there is someone in the gallery who has a device that is designed to draw attention to political issues, and that is not the way the gallery should operate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I also noticed that earlier and sought some advice from the President. He has removed it now, and I would ask him to remove his badge as well.

Council divided on new clause:

Ayes (7): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Noes (29): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

New clause negatived.

Clause 16 (17:48)

Melina BATH: Minister, in relation to the definition of ‘sustainable forest management’, that might be something that we have a collective interest in. Could I have that as a definition? I also ask: what are the criteria and indicators expected to be?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, the answer is somewhat in the clause. If you go to clause 16, new part 5A, 40A, the bill will retain and insert into the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act provisions for criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. These include provisions that require the minister to determine criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management. As you can see here:

(2) In determining criteria and indicators … the Minister may take into account any nationally or internationally agreed criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management.

(3) As part of a determination … the Minister must also determine:

(a) the reporting requirements relating to each indicator … and

(b) the frequency at which such reports are to be made …

This is a requirement for the minister to look at a broad range of matters that would amount to sustainable forest management, and there are commitments to make that public.

Melina BATH: Will the indicators include biodiversity and threatened species data, Minister?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, I am not in a position to confirm exactly how that would be articulated. The indicators will be made publicly available once determined by the minister, and I cannot step into her shoes at this point in time. I cannot pre-empt that. Probably more of the information will be available at a later time.

Melina BATH: In relation to the five-yearly reports, can I understand what format they will be in, and will they be assessed independently?

Jaclyn SYMES: As I have indicated, the framework for Victoria’s public-facing forest monitoring reporting will include five-yearly reporting in the Victorian State of the Forests report. That will also, as I said, include the criteria and indicators, so it will be as part of the State of the Forests report.

Melina BATH: The State of the Forests report was due at the end of 2023. Do you have any idea of when it will be tabled, presented and released to the public?

Jaclyn SYMES: My advice, Ms Bath, is that it is currently under consideration and will be released shortly, but I do not have a definitive time.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I might ask some follow-on questions from Ms Bath’s. With respect to the sustainability criteria and indicators and reporting requirements, what consultation will be done to develop these?

Jaclyn SYMES: The current ones will be preserved. They are just moving over, so they do not need consultation in relation to those.

Sarah MANSFIELD: With respect to the sustainability charter, how would this be developed and operate, especially if it is not mandatory for the minister to develop it?

Jaclyn SYMES: As you have identified, Dr Mansfield, the bill will retain the minister’s power to develop a sustainability charter. A new sustainability charter is not currently under development, but the bill provides for retention of a provision that means the government will be able to draft a new sustainability charter in the future. Under section 11 of the sustainable forests act, the minister may develop a sustainability charter that sets out the objectives et cetera, but as I indicated in my previous answer, at this point in time there is no consideration of a sustainability charter under development.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I suspect that may have partly addressed my next question, but are you able to provide any information about whether this charter would hold any power or do anything, or would it just be general objectives?

Jaclyn SYMES: A future one?

Sarah MANSFIELD: Yes.

Jaclyn SYMES: You will have to wait for the announcements of the minister at such time as a new one would be under development.

Sarah MANSFIELD: What work is the government doing to ensure that traditional owners benefit from the state’s massive reforestation task in forms such as seed collection, reseeding, landcare et cetera?

Jaclyn SYMES: I will just answer. We always work with traditional owners through all of our projects. I know you would be aware of current Yoorrook processes. Looking at land management has been part of their work as well, so there is a lot of work in this space. I am a little perplexed about clause 16 and the relevance of that question there, but I am more than happy to confirm our commitment to work with traditional owners in a range of matters as protected under the transition but also reaffirm our general commitment.

Sarah MANSFIELD: I thank the Attorney for her response. Perhaps the question was more relevant in light of the amendment that we are seeking to move to this clause. I move:

3. Clause 16, page 10, lines 21 to 30, omit all words and expressions on these lines and insert –

“40E Sustainability Charter

(1) The Minister must develop a Sustainability Charter.

(2) A Sustainability Charter must set out objectives for the sustainability of forests.

(3) In determining the objectives of a Sustainability Charter, at least one objective must be included to encourage participation by any traditional owner group entity (within the meaning of the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010) of the land in the management of the State forests on Country.

(4) In developing a Sustainability Charter, the Minister must consult with –

(a) the Minister administering the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992; and

(b) the Minister administering the Climate Change Act 2017; and

(c) any traditional owner group entity (within the meaning of the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010) of the land.”.

We want these criteria and indicators to be developed in consultation with traditional owners while taking into account those revised international agreements that I referred to earlier. First Nations people are the oldest living culture on earth and they have been caring for this land for more than 60,000 years, so it makes sense that they are at least consulted on what sustainability really requires. How those consultations take place remains within the discretion of the minister, so again, we do not believe that this amendment is controversial. We do not think it is anything game changing – just stronger, fairer change.

We wish to make the sustainability charter under the new section 40E mandatory and not leave it as an option for the minister, which they may or may not deploy. We think that whatever form this charter takes should be developed in consultation not just with the agriculture minister but with the Minister for Climate Action and traditional owners. Finally, we want to include an objective to foster good economic, sustainable joint management opportunities with traditional owner groups to ensure crucial reforestation works – like seed collection, seed distribution, landcare and more – will actually benefit traditional owners. Again, we think this is a moderate change. A consultation requirement already exists, and this change would merely expand the voices it must consider.

Jaclyn SYMES: Dr Mansfield, I do not think we have different views on this. I just think that the way you have gone about it is not something that we support, because we support self-determination. We do not want to legislate these types of things on behalf of traditional owners. We think that our commitment to consult with traditional owners is firm, and it is up to them whether they want to be involved. I do not think legislation in the prescriptive ways that you are proposing is in true alignment with self-determination.

I reaffirm our commitment to a partnership with traditional owners. I know from ongoing engagement that their aspiration to be involved in forest management is far more comprehensive than the sustainability charter. If a requirement to engage with traditional owners was to be embedded, it would be a bigger reform than is currently proposed and in line with self-determination it would require engagement with traditional owners to determine exactly what the legislation would look like. It is not for me to describe what that would look like, because that is at odds with our commitment to self-determination. We are certainly happy to work towards the development of a sustainability charter in the future. It would involve deep consultation with everyone in the sector, and we certainly do not believe that this needs to be prescribed in legislation.

Melina BATH: I find myself agreeing with the minister at the table. I find it somewhat disingenuous that you can have traditional owners, the Dja Dja Wurrung, out at Wombat State Forest who want to harvest and use the timber that was in their patch, on their land, and yet we have activists saying, ‘No, you can’t.’ I am concerned that anything this prescriptive in nature could work against traditional owners and their self-determination and the active forest gardening they speak about. The Nationals and the Liberals will be opposing this amendment.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (7): Katherine Copsey, David Ettershank, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Noes (27): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Georgie Crozier, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Sonja Terpstra, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 (18:09)

Melina BATH: I move:

1. Clause 20, line 12, before “After” insert “(1)”.

2. Clause 20, after line 16 insert –

‘(2) After section 52(1A)(i) of the Forests Act 1958 insert –

“(ia) in the case of a licence or permit granted to a member of a traditional owner group, or a traditional owner group, within the meaning of the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010, to take away forest produce and to offer that produce for sale;

(ib) to take away forest produce, to use that produce in the manufacture of any thing and to offer that thing for sale;

(ic) to cut and take away a commercial quantity of forest produce for the purposes of offering that produce for sale for use as firewood, being a commercial quantity that either individually or together with one or more other licences or permits granted under this section for the purposes of this paragraph, is not less than the quantity required to sustain demand for firewood in Victoria;”.

(3) After section 52(1B)(b) of the Forests Act 1958 insert –

“(ba) in the case of a licence or permit granted to a member of a traditional owner group, or a traditional owner group, within the meaning of the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010, to take away forest produce and to offer that produce for sale;

(bb) to take away forest produce, to use that produce in the manufacture of any thing and to offer that thing for sale;

(bc) to cut and take away a commercial quantity of forest produce for the purposes of offering that produce for sale for use as firewood, being a commercial quantity that either individually or together with one or more other licences or permits granted under this section for the purposes of this paragraph, is not less than the quantity required to sustain demand for firewood in Victoria;”.’.

I actually went through this reasonably at length during my discussion of the bill earlier, so I feel that if you were listening and paid attention, you would know what you are doing, and if you did not, you probably do not mind. We think this is a very important step. We believe that traditional owners should be able to take away, manufacture and sell the products as part of their management of the forest and through their licences. We also believe that there should be the ability to adopt and use particular boutique and bespoke state forest products, such as guitars and things, and we also believe it is highly important that we actually have firewood that will serve the community from commercial quantities that are not less than they were before, so I move these amendments.

Jaclyn SYMES: I actually do not disagree with the intent at all, but this is not a necessary amendment. The power to issue section 52 licences under the Forests Act provides for a range of activities and is unchanged by the bill. There is nothing currently preventing traditional owners from applying for licences under section 52, but the appropriate place for clarifying what these licences can be used for in the future is through the new regulation-making powers set out in clause 28 of the bill. That will enable proper consultation with traditional owners on matters that affect their rights and interests.

You keep talking about these guitar makers. I want to meet one of these bespoke guitar makers sometime in the future. But as I said, your intent is good; it is just not necessary through an amendment.

Council divided on amendments:

Ayes (13): Melina Bath, Georgie Crozier, Moira Deeming, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (19): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21 (18:15)

Melina BATH: I actually have one question, and it is on the terminology and the term ‘imminent damage to the environment’. Minister, how will you ensure that this provision does not simply lead to a new avenue for third-party litigation? How can you ensure that activists will not just use this to stop activity under the forest produce licences? We know that activists and at least one judge will potentially claim that cutting down a single tree in the course of forest management or fire prevention is damage to the environment. So how can you ensure that this is not just another avenue for third-party litigation?

Jaclyn SYMES: Ms Bath, I am going to just pre-empt your amendment a little bit because the answers are kind of related. In terms of imminent damage, your amendment proposes to narrowly define it, and we think that that would limit the ability for authorised officers to use the tools. Directions and suspension notices are regulatory tools that support a graduated enforcement approach, so in relation to imminent damage, that is the ability to facilitate a graduated response to actions. We would be concerned and perhaps might give consideration to the question. If you were to define it too narrowly, you might have to go straight to prosecution without some of those warnings, directions and suspensions, for example, which would invite more litigation because you would be going to prosecution prior to being able to manage and have conversations and apply different remedies to the actions. Hopefully that addresses your question in some way. But I guess the short answer is that we do not envisage this opening up another avenue in the way it has been crafted.

Melina BATH: I do not share your optimism. I think there is grave danger that this could actually just open up another Pandora’s box for third-party litigation. However, I will move the amendment and see how we go. I move:

3. Clause 21, page 13, after line 20 insert –

“57NAA Interpretation

In sections 57NB and 57NC, imminent damage means loss of viable populations throughout a species range but does not include loss of viable populations arising from an activity performed for the purposes of preventing or suppressing disease, dieback or fire, including thinning, cutting and removing timber, planned burning and creating or maintaining firebreaks, fire access tracks or public roads.”.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (13): Melina Bath, Georgie Crozier, Moira Deeming, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (19): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

New clause (18:22)

Melina BATH: I move:

4. Insert the following clause to follow clause 21 –

‘21A New sections 73A to 73L inserted

After section 73 of the Forests Act 1958 insert –

“State forest safety zones

73A Definitions

In sections 73B to 73L –

authorised person means the following –

(a) the Secretary, when performing a function, or exercising a power, of the Secretary;

(b) an authorised officer, when performing a function, or exercising a power, of an authorised officer;

(c) a utility performing functions in a State forest and any employee, agent or contractor of that utility when acting in accordance with the terms of the employee’s, agent’s or contractor’s employment, agency or contract;

(d) a transport authority performing functions in a State forest and any employee, agent or contractor of that transport authority when acting in accordance with the terms of the employee’s, agent’s or contractor’s employment, agency or contract;

(e) a person undertaking timber harvesting operations in accordance with an authorisation specified in section 45(2) and any employee, agent or contractor of that person when acting in accordance with the terms of the employee’s, agent’s or contractor’s employment, agency or contract;

(f) a person who is the holder of a licence or permit under section 52 of the Forests Act 1958 granted for the purposes set out in subsection (1A)(c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of that section and any employee, agent or contractor of that person when acting in accordance with the terms of the employee’s, agent’s or contractor’s employment, agency or contract and with the terms of the licence or permit;

(g) a person who is the holder of a licence under section 141 or 147, or of a right under section 149, of the Land Act 1958, when undertaking an activity authorised by that licence or right, or an employee, agent or contractor of that person when acting in accordance with the terms of the employee’s, agent’s or contractor’s employment, agency or contract and with the terms of the licence or right;

(h) a person who is an employee, agent or contractor of the Department when acting in accordance with the terms of the employee’s, agent’s or contractor’s employment, agency or contract employment, agency or contract;

(i) a person who is an employee, agent or contractor of Fire Rescue Victoria, WorkSafe Victoria, the Department of Transport, the Environment Protection Authority or the State Emergency Service, when acting in accordance with the terms of the employee’s, agent’s or contractor’s employment, agency or contract;

(j) a person who is a police officer, when performing a function, or exercising a power, of a police officer;

(k) a person who is an environmental auditor within the meaning of the Environment Protection Act 2017, when performing the function of an environmental auditor;

(l) a person appointed by the Secretary to observe the conduct of an environmental audit within the meaning of the Environment Protection Act 2017, when performing that function and in the company of a person referred to in paragraph (k);

(m) a person who is the holder of a lease, licence, permit or other authority under the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (other than a miner’s right or a tourist fossicking authority) and any employee, agent or contractor of that person when acting in accordance with the terms of the employee’s, agent’s or contractor’s employment, agency or contract and with the terms of the lease, licence, permit or other authority;

(n) a person who is the holder of a lease, licence, permit or other authority under the Geothermal Energy Resources Act 2005, Greenhouse Gas Geological Sequestration Act 2008 or Petroleum Act 1998 and any employee, agent or contractor of that person when acting in accordance with the terms of the employee’s, agent’s or contractor’s employment, agency or contract and with the terms of the lease, licence, permit or other authority;

(o) a person who is a member of a traditional owner group when that person is acting under and in accordance with an agreement under Part 6 of the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010;

timber harvesting operations means any of the following kinds of activities carried out by a person or body –

(a) for the primary purpose of the sale, or the processing and sale –

(i) felling or cutting trees or parts of trees;

(ii) taking or removing timber;

(iii) delivering timber to a buyer or transporting to a place for collection by a buyer or sale to a buyer;

(iv) any works, including road works, ancillary to any of the activities referred to in subparagraphs (i) to (iii);

(b) the provision or use of machinery or equipment for timber harvesting in a state forest safety zone;

(c) engaging in timber harvesting operations in a state forest safety zone as an authorised person;

(d) regeneration burning –

but does not include the collection of firewood for domestic use;

state forest safety zone has the meaning given by section 73C.

73B Power to declare certain areas for the purposes of sections 73B to 73L

For the purposes of section 73C(a), the Minister, by order published in the Government Gazette, may declare an area specified in a licence granted under section 52 for a purpose referred to in subsection (1A)(c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of that section to be a coupe for the purposes of sections 73B to 73L.

73C What is a state forest safety zone?

A state forest safety zone is –

(a) a coupe; and

(b) any road that is within that coupe that has been closed for the purposes of timber harvesting operations; and

(c) any area of State forest that is within 150 metres from the boundary of that coupe.

73D Notice of state forest safety zone to be given

(1) Before the initial commencement of timber harvesting operations in a particular state forest safety zone, the person conducting the operations must ensure that a notice that complies with subsection (2) is conspicuously displayed on or near the zone including on any road that is an entry point to the zone.

(2) A notice under subsection (1) must –

(a) specify the location of the state forest safety zone; and

(b) specify the commencement date of timber harvesting operations in that zone; and

(c) state that offences and penalties apply in that zone.

73E Direction to leave a state forest safety zone

(1) An authorised officer may direct a person to leave a state forest safety zone (and not re-enter the zone) in a manner specified in the direction.

(2) A person must not refuse or fail to comply with a direction under subsection (1).

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

73F Direction to stop or move a vehicle in a state forest safety zone

(1) An authorised officer may direct a person operating a vehicle in a state forest safety zone to stop or manoeuvre the vehicle in a manner specified in the direction.

(2) A person must not refuse or fail to comply with a direction under subsection (1).

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

73G Direction to remove a dog from a state forest safety zone

(1) An authorised officer may direct a person in apparent control of a dog in a state forest safety zone notice of which has been given in accordance with section 73D to remove the dog from the zone.

(2) A person must not refuse or fail to comply with a direction under subsection (1).

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

73H Offence to enter or remain in a state forest safety zone

A person (other than an authorised person) must not enter, or remain in, a state forest safety zone notice of which has been given in accordance with section 73D.

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

73I Offence to be in possession of a prohibited thing in a state forest safety zone

A person (other than an authorised person) must not be in possession of a prohibited thing in a state forest safety zone notice of which has been given in accordance with section 73D.

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

73J Offence to allow a dog to enter a state forest safety zone

A person must not allow a dog to enter a state forest safety zone notice of which has been given in accordance with section 73D.

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

73K Offence to remove or destroy a barrier or fence

A person must not unlawfully break down, damage or destroy a barrier or fence which has been erected to prohibit or restrict access to a state forest safety zone.

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

73L Offence to remove or destroy notice

A person must not unlawfully alter, obliterate, deface, remove or destroy a notice displayed in accordance with section 73D.

Penalty: 60 penalty units.”.’.

I have made comments in the debate on behalf of the Liberals and Nationals today. We debated it at great length a couple of years ago, and people went on the record saying it is very important for the protection of people in the workplace. All this is doing is reinserting this back into the Forests Act 1958, and it is stated as ‘state forest safety zones’. They are still workplaces, and our workers still need to be covered and protected.

David LIMBRICK: I also remember that debate very clearly. Those of you who were here in the last term of Parliament will remember that this was one of the very few occasions where I disagreed with my former colleague Mr Quilty. Libertarians sometimes disagree and both come to valid arguments. Mr Quilty constructed an argument based around property rights, and I constructed an argument around not wanting to further limit the rights of people to exercise their right to peaceful assembly. After all that I had witnessed and indeed personally experienced during the pandemic I was in no mind to give any further powers to the government, or the police for that matter, on limitations. I will be consistent in this, and I will be opposing this amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES: The government will not be supporting this amendment. We have put on the record that the secretary to DEECA can still establish public safety zones in state forests under the Safety on Public Land Act 2004 for a range of purposes as set out in the act, including for fire operations, forest conservation and continuing public safety.

Council divided on new clause:

Ayes (12): Melina Bath, Georgie Crozier, Moira Deeming, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

New clause negatived.

New clause (18:26)

Sarah MANSFIELD: I move:

4. Insert the following clause to follow clause 21 –

‘21A Secretary may enter into agreements and arrangements relating to the prevention and suppression of fires and recovery from fires

(1) After section 62C(2) of the Forests Act 1958 insert –

“(2A) Before entering into an agreement or arrangement under subsection (1) or (2) that relates (in whole or in part) to activity for the prevention of or recovery from fire that is likely to affect a threatened or endangered species, the Secretary must –

(a) undertake an assessment of the likely ecological impact of the activity; and

(b) consider any action statement under section 19 of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 relating to the threatened or endangered species; and

(c) ensure that the agreement or arrangement provides that any logging to be undertaken under the agreement or arrangement must not contravene the action statement.”.

(2) After section 62C(3A) of the Forests Act 1958 insert –

“(3B) The Conservation Regulator of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action, or the Environment Protection Authority, may investigate the ecological implications of activities undertaken under an agreement or arrangement under subsection (1) or (2) and make appropriate recommendations to the Secretary about the activities.

(3C) A person must not sell, or offer for sale, any timber or forest produce that is cut in or removed from a State forest in undertaking an activity under an agreement or arrangement under subsection (1) or (2).

Penalty: 20 penalty units.”.

(3) Insert the following definition in section 62C(4) of the Forests Act 1958 –

“Environment Protection Authority has the same meaning as Authority has in the Environment Protection Act 2017;”.’.

Our amendment would make several changes. To prevent Forest Fire Management Victoria and the department repeating the mistakes of VicForests, we propose three moderate and what we think are commonsense amendments to fire prevention and recovery agreements. They would mean that mandatory ecological reporting ahead of fire prevention and recovery works takes place, including specific reference to action statements for threatened and endangered species under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. This change would not impact fire suppression works. We understand it is not practical to do these sorts of surveys when a bushfire is raging.

The amendment would also empower both the Office of the Conservation Regulator and the EPA to investigate ecological impacts from FFMV’s fire management works. As I mentioned in the debate on the second-reading speech, FFMV seemingly has escaped some of the weak oversight that VicForests was subject to. So this change would effectively fill that vacuum. We want to acknowledge that our suggestion of giving this power to the OCR might seem contradictory. It would in practice result in DEECA investigating another DEECA agency. This is why we have called on Labor to move the OCR through regulation into the Department of Justice and Community Safety or another department to foster both some independence and teeth. We understand that this might be complicated and time-consuming, and ultimately this would be left to the discretion of whichever government is in power, which is why we have also suggested that the EPA take on the power as an independent agency.

Finally, with our amendment we want to see a ban on the commercial sale of timber collected under these works so as not to create a financial incentive for what would be solely a health and safety issue. We propose a penalty of up to 20 penalty units for a person selling or making available for sale any products collected as part of the aforementioned agreements. People can still collect and use leftover products for firewood. This just nips that commercialisation threat in the bud.

We believe these are moderate changes. We are not saying we have to end fire management, but we think this strengthens ecological surveying and provides some genuine oversight, and a ban on commercialising any by-products we believe can only be a good thing for ensuring a responsible, sustainable approach to forest management.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Jaclyn SYMES: I move:

That the meal break scheduled for 6:30 be suspended.

Motion agreed to.

Jaclyn SYMES: I have a few points in opposition to the series of amendments contained in Dr Mansfield’s amendment 4. We believe they would have significant ramifications for the government’s fire and emergency prevention and response activities, and they are, frankly, to that end unacceptable.

A range of environmental obligations already apply to bushfire management works, and we have absolute confidence that operations comply with those obligations. DEECA undertakes forest and fire management activities to fulfil legal obligations under the Forests Act 1958 to minimise the risk of bushfires to protect life, property and the environment. DEECA’s forest and fire management operations are already overseen and audited by a range of internal and independent agencies. DEECA is committed to continually improving assurance of its fire and forest management works. However, creating additional regulation is not the best way to achieve this.

I would put on record we do not support the EPA being responsible for these activities. Their core work is in relation to waste and pollution, not in relation to matters connected with the purposes of this bill. We do not support the proposed amendment for a ban on the ability to sell incidental by-products, and as I have outlined in some detail, we are currently developing a framework to provide clarity on how to manage the by-product of DEECA’s forest and fire management activities. There was funding in the recent state budget to facilitate that, and there is a lot of interest in that. I would welcome the Greens’ participation as that is being developed.

Melina BATH: In relation to this new clause, we believe that it has the potential to endanger human life and property and towns. We have seen an example where through the current state, the current regulations, the current requirements, the township of Bemm River in 2020 almost went up in flames because there was so much regulation around putting in preparatory burns – they were called really emergency preparatory burns, almost back-burns. If you are going to start to go into a whole range of ecological impact, not only will it tie up and tie up and tie up forest management practices that support the sustaining of forests not getting burnt, it will also endanger human life and human towns.

Council divided on new clause:

Ayes (5): Katherine Copsey, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam

Noes (27): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Georgie Crozier, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Sonja Terpstra, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

New clause negatived.

Clauses 22 to 27 agreed to.

New clause (18:35)

Melina BATH: I move:

5. Insert the following New Clause to follow clause 27 –

‘27A New section 97A inserted

After section 97 of the Forests Act 1958 insert –

“97A Civil proceedings

A civil proceeding may not be commenced in relation to an actual, apprehended or threatened contravention of –

(a) this Act; or

(b) the regulations; or

(c) an instrument made under this Act; or

(d) a licence or permit granted under this Act –

other than by or on behalf of the Crown or an entity that represents the Crown.”.’.

It is to insert a new clause of civil proceedings. Indeed the New South Wales legislation, the Forestry and National Park Estate Act 1988, has very similar wording to this, which actually says you can do this. Despite our conversations earlier, this is not dissimilar to the New South Wales legislation. It is about ensuring that civil proceedings do not occur other than on behalf of the Crown or any other entity, in which case that would be DEECA or the OCR. We believe that there are significant provisions for prosecution and for ensuring that legislation and regulations are upheld. There should not be third-party litigators again going on a gambit, so I move this amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES: We will not be supporting this amendment. We have gone over it a little bit. At the outset you should always be cautious in limiting people’s legal rights, but even if you were seeking to achieve that, we would say that this proposal of the Nationals and Liberals is unworkable. It would create bad law to say that you can pick up a provision in New South Wales and apply it in Victoria. It is not the same framework. I am not concerned about the wording being different, but you cannot apply the same wording to the different way that things are set up here. There is also the inability to exclude Victoria from Commonwealth laws, and indeed the common law creates the fact that this would be unworkable. So we are not in a position to support an amendment that would create an unworkable and bad law.

David LIMBRICK: Whilst I appreciate the intent of Ms Bath’s amendment, my team has done significant research into this and has come to a similar conclusion to the government – that we do not believe that this will achieve what it is intending to achieve. Therefore the Libertarian Party will not be supporting it.

Council divided on new clause:

Ayes (12): Melina Bath, Georgie Crozier, Moira Deeming, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

New clause negatived.

Clauses 28 to 69 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (18:41): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Jaclyn SYMES (Northern Victoria – Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (18:41): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on question:

Ayes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

Noes (12): Melina Bath, Georgie Crozier, Moira Deeming, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Question agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.