Chapter 7
Opposition to the Bill
Opposition to the Bill and to Regional Forest Agreements
7.1 The inquiry received views from a large number of groups and individuals environmental groups
views which were critical of the Bill and the operation of RFAs. The following section of the report sets
out objections raised to the Bill and RFAs.
7.2 The Conservation Council of Western Australia, for example, argued that the Bill should be rejected
on the following grounds:
- it is unnecessary;
- it is predicated on false assumptions about RFAs;
- it unjustifiably removes RFA forests from the application of federal statutes;
- it pre-empts the application of improved knowledge of forest ecosystems to forest management
without payment of compensation to timber and woodchip companies; and
- it precludes additions to the forest conservation reserve system without payment of compensation
to timber and woodchip companies. [1]
7.3 During her evidence to the inquiry Ms Judith Clark alleged that:
… it is clear that the RFA process and the legislation, which is obviously hinged to that
process, would fail to deliver on the key industry policy goals; namely, the development
of an internationally competitive forest based industry. On that basis, I therefore
recommend to the Senate that this legislation be voted down. [2]
According to Ms Clark; “The RFA will fail to develop internationally competitive forest based industries
because Australia's plantation industry has been largely ignored.” [3]
7.4 Mr Colin Stephen claimed that Regional Forest Agreements “… directly and increasingly threaten the
well being of the Australian population” through increased Greenhouse effect, contamination of water and
salinity in the soil. [4]
7.5 Mr Roger Martin of George Town, Tasmania commented:
The Regional Forest Agreements in practice fail to sufficiently address issues of
sustainability, equity, forest practices or the inadequate reservation of high quality forests,
and fall well short of satisfying the 1992 National Forest Policy Statement requirements
… [5]
7.6 The WA Forest Alliance registered strong criticism of the Bill in its submission to the inquiry:
The WA Forest Alliance regards this Bill as an iniquitous attempt to entrench
unsustainable old growth forest logging for another 20 years for the benefit of a
destructive, heavily subsidised and anti-competitive old growth forest-based industry that
deserves no more favours from the community or the Government. [6]
7.7 The Aboriginal Legal Service of WA set out the following objections to the Bill:
- the impropriety of removing Commonwealth heritage and environmental protections from areas
covered by Regional Forest Agreements;
- the impossibility of assessing what heritage and environmental protections will exist in their place,
when only a few Regional Forest Agreements have as yet been finalised, and when nearly all
relevant Commonwealth and State legislation is in the process of being repealed, replaced or
drafted; and
- the failure of the Commonwealth government to respect its constitutional and international
responsibilities in the areas of heritage and environmental protection. [7]
The Legal Service went on to argue that:
It is inappropriate to contemplate Federal Regional Forest Agreements legislation before
all Regional Forest Agreements have been completed and a proper assessment made as
to whether they satisfy those goals outlined in the National Forest Policy Statement. [8]
Lack of meaningful consultation
7.8 Ms Whitelk commented the “… RFA process across Australia has been a sham and a fraud; it is
being used to give resource security to the woodchipping and whole log export industries, at the expense
of jobs and other values, and under the cloke of a very expensive public relations exercise.” Ms Whitelk
went on to claim; “There has been a notable lack of genuine public participation in the RFA process,
particularly in Victoria and WA.” [9]
7.9 Ms Helen Curtis noted:
The RFA process across Australia has been a farce. With the appearance of a very
expensive public relations exercise it is being used to give resource security to the
woodchipping and whole log export industries, at the expense of conservation values. It
appears to have been designed to make the public and the media believe that genuine
public participation has occurred and that RFAs are achieving an appropriate balance of
industry and conservation interests. [10]
In defence of the consultative process
7.10 Mr Peter Yuile of the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, speaking
concerning the level of consultation that has taken place in the development of RFAs stated; “I have been
very impressed with the extent of the effort that has gone into explaining the process and allowing people
an opportunity to make representation and to be involved.” [11]
Objections to specific RFAs
Tasmania
7.11 Mr Geoff Law criticised the RFA in Tasmania as “a public relations fraud”. [12]
7.12 The Wilderness Society in Tasmania suggested that the RFA in that State had the following
environmental implications:
- Increased logging of native forests due to the removal of all Commonwealth controls on the export
of raw materials from native forests;
- Logging of forests of World Heritage quality in Tasmania's South - West, Tarkine, Great Western
Tiers and North Eastern regions;
- “Meagre protection of forests,” for example, national parks have increased from 20 per cent to 21
per cent in Tasmania;
- Loss of wilderness due to logging and mining in the Tarkine, South - West and West coast;
- Loss of biodiversity due to the failure to meet the RFA's JANIS criteria for commercial forest
types; and
- Further replacement of native, old growth forest with plantations funded by the “Commonwealth's
$70 million dollar handout to the logging industry”. [13]
7.13 According to the Wilderness Society:
Most areas that have been 'protected' are unloggable, steep slopes, buttongrass, lakes,
sand dunes and rainforests on the west coast. The majority of tall hardwood forests, in
some cases the tallest in the southern hemisphere, remain unprotected and threatened by
the increased clear felling and woodchipping activity the RFA facilitates. [14]
7.14 The Tasmanian Conservation Trust attacked Tasmania's RFA in a forthright manner describing the
Agreement as “… an outrageous fraud perpetrated by officials involved in the process of developing the
RFA and abetted by the ministers responsible at both State and Commonwealth levels … The
Tasmanian RFA is also an outrageous hoax.” [15]
7.15 The Trust went on to state:
The Tasmanian RFA will meet none of the outrageous claims made for it in the
extraordinary Memorandum accompanying the Bill and in the responsible minister's
second reading speech. The Bill should therefore be withdrawn until such time as the
Tasmanian State Government is prepared to enter into an agreement which genuinely and
believably commits it to meet the expectations of the Commonwealth with respect to the
exercise of Commonwealth responsibilities by a Federal Government including those
conditions which an RFA must meet as set out in Clause 3 of the Bill. [16]
7.16 The Tasmanian Conservation Trust urged the Committee to:
… recommend that the Senate reject this Bill and so prevent the Commonwealth of
Australia from abdicating its responsibility under the Acts referred to in Clause 5 of the
Bill and so prevent future governments from being burdened by the compensation
provisions referred to in Clause 7 of the Bill when they have to clean up the mess created
by the Howard government responsible for entering into the Tasmanian RFA. [17]
7.17 Mr Alistair Graham of the Trust, while giving evidence to the inquiry during its public hearing in
Melbourne, stated in relation to the Tasmanian RFA; “… in 22 years as an advocate for nature
conservation issues I have never been confronted by such an orchestrated litany of lies as I have seen
orchestrated by officials and ministers of both governments, on behalf of the forest industry.” [18]
7.18 The Deloraine Aboriginal Cultural Association provided an Aboriginal assessment of the RFA
process in Tasmania. According to the Association's Ms Darlene Mansell:
The Aboriginal community of Tasmania is now fully aware that the RFA process has
been negligent in its approach to the cultural, spiritual and traditional needs of Aboriginal
people in Tasmania. … the capacity of the Aboriginal communities to have equity in
status as major stakeholders has been consistently undermined.
The Tasmanian Aboriginal community are fully aware that we have been excluded from
the social, economic, environmental and heritage assessments and issues, and all effective
management systems and processes. … We … believe that there has been a hidden
agenda by the failure to move on Aboriginal issues related to the RFA until it became a
mechanism for the promotion of the proposed new heritage legislation bill for Tasmania.
The Deloraine Aboriginal Cultural Association feels fairly ripped off in relation to our
participation in the process. [19]
7.19 In stark contrast with the above views Mr Desmond King strongly supported the RFA consultative
process in Tasmania arguing that “it was rigorous and thorough and widely consultative.” [20]
New South Wales
7.20 The Southern Tablelands NSW Branch of the Friends of the Earth was critical of the RFA process
for Eden and the Upper North East region of New South Wales:
We can see no valid reason to believe that the NSW North-East Forest assessments or
for that matter, assessments of the Tasmanian or Central Highlands Forests would have
been carried out in a manner more or less scientifically credible than the Eden assessment
… [21]
The Eden report is poorly researched and we do not believe that any of the other RFAs
are based on more reliable assessments. [22]
Victoria
7.21 Ms Michelle van Gerrevink set out in her submission a list of key concerns she has with the RFA for
East Gippsland. Her concerns were:
- the reserve system being inadequate;
- reserves created in East Gippsland not being made National Parks;
- inadequate protection for endangered species;
- the way opened for unlimited export woodchipping;
- the public participation process being completely inadequate; and
- the RFA locking in a 20-year agreement with no room for review or change. [23]
7.22 The Victorian National Parks Association was critical of aspects of the East Gippsland RFA. In its
submission the Association critically analysed the RFA under a number of headings, including;
“inadequate biological survey and analysis”, “analysis of threat to species”, “forest
management/silviculture”, “sustainable yield” and “ecologically sustainable management”. [24]
7.23 In his evidence to the inquiry Mr Alan McMahon contended that the RFA for the Central Highlands
was “… not providing many of the conservation measures that they claim to be providing or should be
providing, and thus in some ways they are misleading agreements.” [25]
Western Australia
7.24 During his evidence to the inquiry Mr Peter Robertson of the WA Forest Alliance alleged that the
WA Regional Forest Agreement had been exposed as “a sham and a fraud on the community of Western
Australia”. The Alliance claimed that support for the RFA had evaporated across the WA community.
[26]
7.25 The Alliance went on to state:
The RFA is now exposed as nothing more than a costly handout to the old-growth forest
based timber industry and in particular the woodchip industry, and it is generally
accepted that if the WA Regional Forest Agreement is by some miracle ultimately signed
it will simply usher in a new era of even more intense conflict and controversy over
Western Australia's forests. [27]
7.26 The WA Forest Alliance is of the view that the WA RFA:
… has been turned into a complete circus by this latest set of processes. Any suggestion
that the RFA is going to somehow provide certainty in the timber industry has been
completely blown out of the water by the government itself… [28]
7.27 The Busselton-Dunsborough Environment Centre's submission to the inquiry set out what it viewed
as the shortcomings in the development of Western Australia's RFA for the south-west of that State. [29]
7.28 The Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia told the inquiry:
In Western Australia there has been controversy concerning the way the Regional Forest
Agreement process has been carried out. There is now considerable doubt as to whether
the process will produce a system that meets the aims of the National Forest Policy.
There is also little likelihood of broad public support as stakeholders from varied
viewpoints have rejected those. [30]
7.29 Unlike many environmentalist groups opposed to the Bill, Mr Robert Pearce of the Forest
Industries Federation of WA had a different view of who benefited from the WA RFA. According to Mr
Pearce:
… instead of the RFA process being a plot to assist the timber industry in Western
Australia, the reverse is the case. The timber industry will be worse off as a result of the
RFA. There will be more areas in reserve and there will be less timber available for
cutting. [31]
Queensland
7.30 The submission from the Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action details the
Foundation's concerns with the RFA and the comprehensive regional assessment process (CRA) in
South East Queensland. The Foundation is particularly concerned with how the concerns of indigenous
people are being dealt with in the process. Issues of particular concern to FAIRA include:
- the lack of a national agreed indigenous cultural heritage criteria;
- inconsistency in legislative approaches to forestry operations and other issues involving land dealt
with by RFAs; and
- the impact of assessment of the RFA on indigenous rights, including native title. [32]
Footnotes
[1] Submission, Conservation Council of Western Australia, p. 1. A large number of submissions were
received during the inquiry opposed to the the Bill and critical of many elements of existing and proposed
RFAs. Critical comments were also made in several submissions concerning the manner in which the
inquiry was conducted, particularly in relaittion to the the amount of time set aside for the inquiry.Among
a number of submissions opposed to the Bill were those from: Ms E. Somerville, Mr Leon Bryan, Mrs E
J Wright, Mr Henry Diner, Mrs Fiona Moore, Mrs Mary Maslen, Mr Ed Tuleja, Ms Simone
Unterlechner, Ms Linda Odgers, Mallacoota Arts Council, North Coast Environmental Council,
Bendalong and Districts Environmental Association, D R Johnson, Ms Heather Murray, Ms Veronica
Mahoney, Sylvia and Annelis Franzen, Graig Taylor, Environment Victoria Inc, A and B Cook, Victorian
National Parks Association, Justin Tutty, Beechworth Environment Group, Phillip Island Conservation
Society, Ms Shirley Viner, Ms Miranda Whale Nagy, Mr Murray Winter, G A and Sally Meseby, Knox
Environment Society, Forest Campaign Group, Mrs Jill O'Brien, Ms Margaret Barnes, Ms Sheryl
Burgess, Kiama Sanctuary, Mr Robert Stephen, Ms Doris L Metcher, Mr Richard Barlow-Clifton, Ms
Dallas Kinnear, Ms Susan Harris, Mr Dave Monroe, Mr Leon Costermans, Drsl Jocelyn and Bill
Blomfield, Mr Donald Matheson, Ms Margaret Files, Ms Alfrieda Booth, I N and B C Fletcher, Jenna
Rose, Mr David Cook, Goulburn Valley Environment Group, Mr David Barkley, Ms Janice Sagar, Mr
Steve Doyle, Pascoe Vale Naturalists, Ms Patricia Naus, Ms Delys Henshaw, Ms Emma Stewart, Ms
Celia H Smith, Mr Tony Swindale, D Haywood, South Coast Environment Group, Victorian National
Parks Association, Mr Simon Cook, Ms Heather Whitelk, Mr Neil Smith, Professor David Shearman, D
Haywood.
[2] Evidence, Judith Clark, p. 150.
[3] Evidence, Judith Clark, p. 152.
[4] Submission, Colin Stephen, p. 1.
[5] Submission, Mr Roger Martin, p. 1.
[6] Submission, WA Forest Alliance, p. 1.
[7] Submission, Aboriginal Legal Service of WA, pp. 1-2.
[8] Submission, Aboriginal Legal Service of WA, p. 2.
[9] Submission, Ms Heather Whitelk, p.1. See also the following submissions: Ms E. Somerville, p. 1,
Pat Wilson, Victorian National Parks Association, p. 4, Ms Margaret Files, M H Kelso, p. 1.,
[10] Submission, Ms Helen Curtis, p. 1.
[11] Evidence, Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, p. 212.
[12] Submission, Mr Geoff Law, p. 1. For details of his criticism of RFA in Tasmania see Mr Law's
submission, particularly pages 1-2, 5, 7-10. See also the following submissions from: Mr Laurie
Goldsworth, Ms Clare Thompson, Mr Helmut Schwabe, Mr Ian C Matthews, Ms Dawn Whitten.,
[13] Submission, Wilderness Society, Tasmania, p. 2.
[14] Submission, Wilderness Society, Tasmania, p. 2.
[15] Submission, Tasmanian Conservation Trust, p. 3; the group Tarkine National Coalition set out
detailed criticisms of the Tasmanian RFA in its submission. See also Evidence, Tasmanian Conservation
Trust, p. 104 and Evidence, Tarkine National Coalition, pp. 104-105.
[16] Submission, Tasmanian Conservation Trust, pp. 3-4. The submission goes on to detail what the
Trust views as the failings and problems with the Tasmanian RFA, see pp. 4-7.
[17] Submission, Tasmanian Conservation Trust, p. 4.
[18] Evidence, Tasmanian Conservation Trust, p. 102, see also p. 103.
[19] Evidence, Deloraine Aboriginal Cultural Association, p. 143.
[20] Evidence, Mr Desmond King, p. 203.
[21] Submission, Southern Tablelands NSW Branch of the Friends of the Earth, p. 2.
[22] Submission, Southern Tablelands NSW Branch of the Friends of the Earth, p. 3. See also
submissions from Casuarina Dalton, Braidwood and Bega Greens. For information concerning recent
developments related to the RFA process in NSW see Evidence, Commonwealth Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, p. 215.
[23] Submission, Ms Michelle van Gerrevink, pp. 1-2; see also submissions from, Ms Linda Odgers,
Mr Andrew Picone, Concerned Residents of East Gippsland, Residents of Goongerah, Goongerah
Environment Centre, Kim Devenish and Julie Constable, Jindi Daynes, Ms Delys Henshaw.,
[24] Submission, Victorian National Parks Association, pp.9-14.
[25] Evidence, Mr Alan McMahon, p. 114, see also pp. 114-117 for a critical analysis of the RFA. See
also Submission, Surf Coast Shire, pp. 2-3. See the following submissions from Environment Victoria
Inc., Mr Greg Thompson. Judith Clark noted the failure in Victoria and New South Wales to take into
consideration softwood plantations in these States in developing their RFAs, see Evidence, Judith Clark,
p.152.
[26] Evidence, WA Forest Alliance, p. 174; see also House of Representatives Hansard, 9 February
1999, p. 2181-2184. See Submission, Blackwood Friends of the Forest.
[27] Evidence, WA Forest Alliance, p. 174.
[28] Evidence, WA Forest Alliance, p. 175,; see also pp. 175-176.
[29] Submission, Busselton-Dunsborough Environment Centre, pp. 1-2. The Committee understands
that he WA RFA is expected to be finalised in about May or June 1999, see Evidence, WA Forest
Alliance, p. 171.
[30] Submission, Aboriginal Legal Service of WA, pp. 2-3.
[31] Evidence, Forest Industries Federation of WA, p. 168.
[32] Submission, Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action, pp. 2-5.