Chapter 3
Background to the RFA legislation
History of RFA legislation
3.1 The Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 (referred to in this report as the Bill) was first
introduced into the House of Representatives on 30 June 1998 and passed by the House on 15 July
1998. However, due to the proroguing of the Commonwealth Parliament before the 3 October federal
election the Bill was again re-introduced into the House of Representatives on 26 November 1998.
[1]The Bill was finally passed by the House of Representatives on 9 February 1999. [2]
Consultation
3.2 As required under Article 23(a) of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA), the
Commonwealth Government released a policy paper outlining the proposed regional forest agreements
legislation in December 1997. The paper titled Commonwealth Legislation to Complement Regional
Forest Agreements, was circulated to all States and Territories. This document was also provided to a
large number of interested bodies, including industry participants, their associations and conservation
groups.
3.3 The paper set out the basis for the proposed legislation and called for submissions to be made to the
Government by 31 January 1998. Commonwealth Government officials also discussed the proposed
legislation directly with industry and conservation groups in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. [3]
The National Forest Policy Statement
3.4 In 1992, the Commonwealth, States and Territories signed the National Forest Policy Statement
(NFPS). This Statement outlined the agreed objectives and policies for the future of Australia's public
and private forests. The RFAs are seen as the central package of measures designed to implement the
National Forest Policy Statement in relation to native forests. [4]
3.5 The National Forest Policy Statement set out national goals in 11 areas, namely:
- Conservation
The goals were to maintain an extensive and permanent native forest estate in Australia and to
manage that estate in an ecologically sustainable manner so as to conserve the full suite of values
that forests can provide for current and future generations. These values included biological
diversity and heritage along with Aboriginal and other cultural values;
- Wood production and industry development
The goal was for Australia to develop internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable
wood production and wood product industries. Efficient industries based on maximising
value-adding opportunities and efficient use of wood resources were seen as providing the basis
for expansion in wood product manufacturing, which in turn would provide national and regional
economic benefits;
- Integrated and coordinated decision making and management
The goals were to reduce fragmentation and duplication in the land use decision-making process
between the States and the Commonwealth and to improve interaction between forest
management agencies in order to achieve agreed and durable land use decisions;
- Private native forests
The goal was to ensure that private native forests are maintained and managed in an ecologically
sustainable manner, as part of the permanent native forest estate, as a resource in their own right,
and to complement the commercial and nature conservation values of public native forests;
- Plantations
One goal was to expand Australia's commercial plantations of softwoods and hardwoods so as to
provide an additional, economically viable, reliable and high-quality wood resource for industry.
Other goals were to increase plantings to rehabilitate cleared agricultural land, to improve water
quality, and to meet other environmental, economic or aesthetic objectives;
- Water supply and catchment management
The goals were to ensure the availability of reliable, high-quality water supplies from forested land
and to protect catchment values;
- Tourism and other economic and social opportunities
The goal was to manage Australia's forests in an ecologically sustainable manner for a range of
uses, including tourism, recreation and production of non-wood products;
- Employment, workforce education and training
The goal was to expand employment opportunities and the skills base of people working in forest
management and forest-based industries;
- Public awareness, education and involvement
The goals were to foster community understanding of and support for ecologically sustainable
forest management in Australia and to provide opportunities for effective public participation in
decision making;
- Research and development
The goals were to increase Australia's national forest research and development effort and to
ensure that it was well coordinated, efficiently undertaken and effectively applied. This research
was to expand and integrate knowledge concerning the many aspects of native forests, plantations,
forest management, conservation, and forest product development; and
- International responsibilities
The goals were to promote nature conservation and sustainable use of forests outside
Australia and to ensure that Australia fulfiled its obligations under relevant international
agreements. [5]
3.6 The Commonwealth Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Wilson Tuckey, told the House of
Representatives during the Bill's second reading speech on 26 November 1998 that the National Forest
Policy Statement was the framework for a long term and lasting “… resolution of forest industry,
conservation and community interests, and expectations concerning our nation's forest.” [6] Mr Tuckey
noted :
The Statement requires joint Commonwealth-state comprehensive regional assessments
of the environmental, heritage, economic and social values of Australia's forests. These
assessments, involving a high degree of input from interest groups, form the basis of
negotiated regional forest agreements between the Commonwealth and the States. [7]
3.7 Mr Peter Yuile, First Assistant Secretary, Fisheries and Forestry Industries Division, Commonwealth
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry told the inquiry in evidence:
One of the principal goals of the national forest policy statement was to manage
Australia's native forests to protect biological diversity, to address heritage and cultural
values and at the same time to develop an internationally competitive forest products
industry which includes native forests managed on a sustainable basis.
Under the national forest policy statement, governments expressed a commitment to
strengthen integration of Commonwealth and state decision making and to promote
cooperative planning. Governments also agreed to formalise resource related decisions
and identify appropriate management arrangements through the use of these regional
forest agreements. [8]
Regional Forest Agreements
3.8 The Parliamentary Library's Bill Digest notes the Bill “… seeks to provide legislative support to the
outcomes of Regional Forest Agreements … entered into between the Commonwealth and States and
Territories, as part implementation of the National Forest Policy Statement.” [9]
3.9 The Bills Digest also stated:
A Regional Forest Agreement is an agreement about the long-term management and use
of forests in a particular region between the Commonwealth and a State Government. Its
purpose is to reduce uncertainty, duplication and fragmentation in government
decision-making by producing a durable agreement on the management and use of
forests. [10]
3.10 During his 26 November speech in the House of Representatives Minister Tuckey explained that
RFAs provide:
… a blueprint for the future management of our forests and the basis for an internationally
competitive and ecologically sustainable forest products industry. RFAs will provide for a
world-class, national, comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system and
will clearly identify those forest resources available for multiple use, including resources
available for sustainable timber harvesting. [11]
3.11 The aim of any RFA for a region is to:
- ensure the long-term protection of environmental and heritage values through the establishment and
management of a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system; and
- provide the basis for an internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable native forest
products industry outside that reserve system. [12]
The National Association of Forest Industries (NAFI) told the inquiry RFAs, “… have been developed
to provide the framework for both ensuring a world class, comprehensive, adequate and representative
reserve system and providing long term guarantees of wood supplies to industry”. [13] The Association
told the Committee the main features of the Bill are:
- Removal of export controls for unprocessed and processed wood soured from a region which is
covered by an RFA;
- Exemption from specified trigger sections of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, the
Environment Protection (Impact and Proposals) Act 1974 and the World Heritage Properties
Conservation Act 1983 for forestry operations, which are not prohibited under an operative RFA;
and
- The provision of legislative backing for RFA termination and compensation provisions. [14]
Requirements for an RFA
3.12 Clause 3 of the Bill defines what an RFA is and what conditions it must satisfy. This clause states:
RFA or Regional Forest Agreement means an agreement that is in force between the
Commonwealth and a State in respect of a region or regions, being an agreement that
satisfies all the following conditions:
(a) the agreement was entered into having regard to assessments of the following matters
that are relevant to the region or regions:
(i) environmental values, including old growth, wilderness, endangered
species, national estate values and world heritage values;
(b) the agreement provides for a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve
system;
(c) the agreement provides for the ecologically sustainable management and use of
forested areas in the region or regions;
(d) the agreement is expressed to be for the purpose of providing long-term stability of
forests and forest industries;
RFA process
3.13 The inquiry was told the key stages in the RFA process are:
- Commonwealth-State agreement on deferred forest areas;
- these areas include all forested land in a particular region that may be required for conservation
purposes. Areas are identified where harvesting can proceed during the regional assessment
process;
- Formal Commonwealth-State Scoping Agreement;
- setting out tasks to be done under the Comprehensive Regional Assessment process, including
studies/projects to be undertaken;
- Comprehensive Regional Assessment (CRA) process;
- detailed Commonwealth-State social, economic, environmental and heritage assessments
necessary to meet Commonwealth and State objectives for forested areas of the particular region
and to provide a basis for a Regional Forest Agreement;
- this is the most costly aspect of the RFA process, in terms of both time and resources;
- Public Consultation;
- on the basis of a publicly-released directions/options report providing basic information on
possible outcomes and on their social, economic and conservation impacts;
- this normally takes 6-8 weeks;
- Negotiation of a formal Regional Forest Agreement to be signed by Heads of Government
- which balances industry development and conservation objectives;
- which meets Commonwealth statutory obligations including national estate, World Heritage and
indigenous heritage values; environmental impacts; and international obligations, such as protecting
endangered species and biological diversity;
- significant aspects of RFAs, such as their compensation and termination provisions, are legally
binding, thus compensation would be payable by the Commonwealth in the case of a
Commonwealth breach of an RFA.
Where RFAs are operating
3.14 As of November 1998 three RFAs had been signed they cover East Gippsland in Victoria and the
Central Highlands in Victoria and Tasmanian region. [15] These agreements will remain in force for 20
years, being subject to review every five years. The Committee understands that the process of
assessment and negotiation for RFAs are currently taking place in relation to nine other regions. [16]
Appendix 1 of this report sets out the list of 12 regional Forest Agreements signed or progressing
towards being signed. This list was contained in the Department of the Parliamentary Library, Bills
Digest No. 50 of 1998-99 dated 1 December 1998. [17]
Necessity for the legislation
3.15 The Bills Digest notes that there appears to be two reasons for the formulation and introduction of
the Bill into the Commonwealth Parliament, namely, to:
- legislate to remove Commonwealth environmental assessment, national heritage and World
Heritage legislative requirements over regions covered by RFAs; and
- require the Commonwealth to pay compensation if it intervenes to protect the environment in an
area covered by an RFA. [18]
3.16 The Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (AFFA) told the inquiry the
Bill introduced by the Government was to remove any doubt concerning Commonwealth's commitment
to RFAs. The Bill provides “ … the necessary legislative backing to ensure that the forest industry
environment and Australian people in general have confidence in the long-term future of the management
of the forest estate.” [19] According to the Department:
This confidence will be further underpinned by the enactment of state legislation where
that is appropriate, the authorisation of supply arrangements, the declaration and
protection of agreed forest reserves and also the provision of ongoing wood supply
agreements and contractual arrangements between individual states and companies. [20]
The Department went on to state the “…bill is designed to provide another layer of certainty, sitting
alongside the RFAs and contractual arrangements.” [21]
3.17 Minister Tuckey, when speaking in the House of Representatives on 26 November 1998, stressed
the importance of the Bill when he stated:
This Bill represents an important element in underpinning our industry development
commitment. Strong, comprehensive and long-term Regional Forest Agreements mean
the policy stability that is essential for investor and community confidence in the future of
our forest industries. At the same time, they also ensure the protection of the unique
environmental and heritage values of our forest estate. [22]
3.18 The company Harris-Daishowa (HAD) stated in its submission to the inquiry; “We view the RFA
outcomes and the relevant legislation and regulation that attaches to them as crucial to the future of the
HAD operation.” [23]
3.19 Harris-Daishowa later told the inquiry in evidence:
… our attitude to regional type forest agreements without some form of legislative
backing is that, from their recent history, they are not really worth the paper they are
printed on. From our point of view we see the legislative backing afforded in New South
Wales, if it can be backed up by similar legislation in the Commonwealth sphere, as being
vitally important to any sort of longevity in terms of a regional forest agreement. [24]
3.20 The Forest Industries Federation of WA submitted to the inquiry that:
The success of any Regional Forest Agreement depends greatly on the ability to legally
bind the parties involved. Without the legislative support of the Regional Forest
Agreements Bill 1998, it is likely that either the state or Commonwealth governments will
break the voluntary understandings. This has been the outcome of many such agreements
in Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. [25]
3.21 The National Association of Forest Industries also stressed to the inquiry the importance of forestry
agreements having formal legal standing. The NAFI noted that in the past, agreements have been
established on the basis of “… purely voluntary understanding between governments, and without
legislation they do not have any legal standing.(sic) [26] According to the NAFI:
The history of non-legislated voluntary forestry agreements in Australia provides no basis
for confidence in long term wood supplies arising from these arrangements. Over the last
few years agreements between the Commonwealth or its agencies have been entered into
and subsequently broken in Western Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and New South
Wales. [27]
3.22 In its evidence to the public hearing in Melbourne the NAFI stated that in relation to earlier forest
agreements; “They had no legal standing. As soon as they became inconvenient for either side, they were
ignored.” [28]
The Association went on to advise “… appropriate legislative backing is essential to these matters to
provide the security that provides the sound basis for industry to go ahead.” [29]
3.23 Mr Robert Pearce, Executive Director of the Forest Industries Federation of WA, submitted that:
… the RFA process has been very divisive in the community, it has caused a lot of angst
and we would like to see it settled as soon as possible. I believe that legislation is
necessary to finally fix that settlement, because one of the problems with regard to our
forests is that we just had constant process after process - at state level, in all of the
states and at Commonwealth level—and that continuing process is not good for
anybody. [30]
3.24 The Forest Protection Society (FPS) claimed that forestry agreements in the past have frequently
failed because they have not been legally binding. The Society commented on two such agreements:
- the 1992 Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding between the WA Department of
Conservation And Land Management and the Australian Heritage Commission. [31]
According to the FPS this “… agreement did not stand the test of time with access to native forests of
WA continuing to decline along with industry and community security and certainty.” [32]
The second agreement the Society referred to was:
- the South-East New South Wales Forest Agreement. [33]
The FPS told the inquiry this agreement:
… was totally ignored in the current NSW forest agreement process despite being only 5
years old. This Agreement guaranteed a specific volume of wood for local sawmills and
as a result considerable investment took place in the region. Now, only 5 years later, the
volume promised has been reduced by a further 60% by the NSW Government leaving
those communities, businesses and individuals who trusted the 1993 Agreement with
serious social and economic problems. [34]
3.25 The FPS identified two main issues which it viewed as supporting the necessity of making RFAs
legally binding:
- The future of regional timber communities being directly related to the level of security/confidence
and the level of insecurity/risk associated with access to the forest resource as defined by RFAs;
and
- The failure of the majority of past 'non-legislated' forest agreements to endure and deliver their
specified outcomes which undermined community confidence and industry investments. [35]
3.26 A small sawmiller from Western Australia, Mr Trevor Richardson, stressed:
… clearly we not only need an RFA signed but we need a signal to financial institutions
and to the small sawmilling sector that the governments are dinkum about this agreement
and that the agreement is not going to be just another agreement. Past history is littered
with broken agreements that have been made with the timber industry, and we certainly
do not want this one and the many millions of dollars which have been spent on it to go
the same way. So we in the small sawmilling sector look forward to the signing of it, on
the basis that without it really this is just another worthless government agreement. That is
how strongly people feel about it. We have had them in the past; they have been broken
in the past. [36]
3.27 The Victorian Association of Forest Industries (VAFI) argued that; “Further strengthening of RFA
outcomes through legislation at both State and Federal level is needed to provide added security for
these investments and further reduce sovereign risk.” [37]
3.28 In evidence during a public hearing Mr Graeme Gooding of the Association stated the:
VAFI supports the legislation and sees it as important in cementing the Regional Forest
Agreement outcomes in terms of the conservation areas and the resource supply
outcomes. Basically, the industry wants to know what is available, what is not available,
and what the rules are. What we do not want is a constant changing of those rules and a
constant changing of those areas that are available. [38]
Footnotes
[1] House of Representatives Hansard, 26 November 1998, p. 611; see also Department of the
Parliamentary Library, Bills Digest No. 50 of 1998-99, pp. 1-2.
[2] See the Second Reading Debate in the House of Representative, House of Representatives
Hansard, 9 February 1999, pp. 2158- 2166
[3] Regional Forest Agreement Bill 1998, Explanatory Memorandum, p. 3; see also Submission,
Busselton-Dunsborough Environment Centre p. 2.
[4] Regional Forest Agreement Bill 1998, Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2.
[5] National Forest Policy Statement: A New Focus for Australia's Forests, (Commonwealth of
Australia, n.p. 1992) pp. 5-6; see also Regional Forest Agreement Bill 1998, Explanatory
Memorandum, p. 2.
[6] House of Representatives Hansard, 26 November 1998, p. 611.
[7] House of Representatives Hansard, 26 November 1998, p. 611; see also Regional Forest
Agreement Bill 1998, Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2.
[8] Evidence, Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, p. 211.
[9] Department of the Parliamentary Library, Bills Digest No. 50 of 1998-99, p. 1, 10. See comment
by Mr Yuile; “I do not think it is suggested that the RFAs are the only vehicle by which governments are
trying to deliver on the National Forest Policy.” Evidence, Commonwealth Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry, pp. 219-220.
[10] Department of the Parliamentary Library, Bills Digest No. 50 of 1998-99, p. 2. For information
concerning the signing off of agreements see Evidence, Commonwealth Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry, p. 214.
[11] House of Representatives Hansard, 26 November 1998, p. 611; the Tarkine National Coalition in
its submission set out a point by point response to the Second Reading Speech, particularly in relation to
the Tasmanian RFA..
[12] Regional Forest Agreement Bill 1998, Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2.
[13] Submission, NAFI, p. 1.
[14] Submission, NAFI, p. 3; see also Evidence, NAFI, p. 62.
[15] Regional Forest Agreement Bill 1998, Explanatory Memorandum, p. 4. The entire State of
Tasmania is classified as one region within the Tasmanian RFA. This has resulted in the Tasmanian
Wilderness World Heritage Area being covered by the legislation. Department of the Parliamentary
Library, Bills Digest No. 50 of 1998-99, p. 9. Mr Geoff Law in his submission set out a list of areas in
Tasmania that have been proposed as World Heritage extensions, pp. 11-33.
[16] Regional Forest Agreement Bill 1998, Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2,
[17] Department of the Parliamentary Library, Bills Digest No. 50 of 1998-99, p. 4,
[18] Department of the Parliamentary Library, Bills Digest No. 50 of 1998-99, p. 5.
[19] Evidence, Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, p. 211.
[20] Evidence, Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, p. 211.
[21] Evidence, Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, p. 211.
[22] House of Representatives Hansard, 26 November 1998, p. 613.
[23] Submission, Harris-Daishowa, p. 1.
[24] Evidence, Harris-Daishowa, p. 69.
[25] Submission, Forest Industries Federation of WA, p. 1.
[26] Submission, NAFI, p. 1; see also Submission, Harris-Daishowa, p. 1.
[27] Submission, NAFI, p. 1. For a discussion of the claimed failure of the 1995 South East Forest
Agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales Government to operate properly see
Submission,: NAFI, p. 2. See also submissions from; Forest Protection Society Limited, p. 1, Forest
Industries Association of Tasmania, p. 1, Marbut Pty Ltd.
[28] Evidence, NAFI, p. 62.
[29] Evidence, NAFI, p. 63.
[30] Evidence, Forest Industries Federation of WA, p. 168.
[31] Submission, Forest Protection Society, p. 4.
[32] Submission, Forest Protection Society, p. 5; see also Submission, Forest Industries Federation of
WA p. 2; see Submission, WA Forest Alliance, p. 1 which claims the present RFA process in WA has
been “a sham and a fraud”. Dr Ian Crawford's submission to the inquiry details what he sees as the
shortcomings in the RFA being developed in Western Australia. Mr Greg Sweden's submission consisted
of a paper he produced in 1997 titled “Management of Old Growth Forests in Accordance with National
Objectives: Western Australian Experience”.
[33] Submission, Forest Protection Society, p. 5.
[34] Submission, Forest Protection Society, p. 5; see also Submission, Forest Industries Federation of
WA, p. 2.
[35] Submission, Forest Protection Society, p. 2.
[36] Evidence, Forest Industries Federation of WA, p. 169.
[37] Submission, Victorian Association of Forest Industries, p. 2
[38] Evidence, Victorian Association of Forest Industries, p. 135.