2001 Appropriation Bill - April 3rd
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2)
2000-2001 Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-2001 Appropriation Bill (No. 4)
2000-2001: Second Reading Senator LEES
(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) (1:33 p.m.)

The issue I want to raise today as we discuss the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2000-2001 and related bills does not just relate to expenditure on the environment—expenditure, one would presume, to protect our environment—but also expenditure on other areas, including the tourism budget. I particularly want to relate the failure of Forestry Tasmania to adequately protect areas that currently are being logged. The particular area that I want to emphasise today is Mount Arthur, an area just out of Launceston. My concern is all the more pressing when government instrumentalities such as Forestry Tasmania fail to ensure that proper practices are followed and that the natural values of the land under its management are properly protected. I was able to spend some hours the week before last out in this area. I was asked by a group of local residents very concerned about a raft of issues, particularly the protection of the water supply for a number of the smaller communities in this region of Tasmania—but also, ultimately, for Launceston—to go out with them to see this destruction first hand, in particular the destruction of an area known as coupe 126C. What I saw can certainly not be called `forestry practice'. To me, forestry activities by a department under the guise of best forestry practice relate to the protection of the forest for a variety of uses; in some cases, yes, for ongoing timber harvesting, but always with a mind to the protection of the natural environment and the value of the forest. What I saw was wholesale destruction of near pristine rainforest to plant crops. Yes, in this particular case the crop to be planted is trees but the devastation that I saw was the same as if one were going to plant a field of wheat or barley. The complete removal of anything and everything by way of native vegetation was just the same as if you were planting a raft of different crops. In fact, the devastation in the area is so complete in some places that you could barely tell what particular species were being bulldozed into piles ready for burning. The only possible way to proceed here is simply to stop the logging throughout this entire area, go back to the drawing board, get out the basic code of practice agreed to in 2000, look at its intent and make sure it is being followed. The Forestry Practices Code 2000 must be held in one hand as one walks through this area. Therefore, I think it is not too sudden a call for me to say here today that we must stop logging in this area until we assess the damage that is being done. The complaints about the logging in this area have been referred to the minister's office. I understand that Senator Hill is still in the process of asking further questions of Forestry Tasmania as to whether or not the code is being breached. But there certainly is an amazing lack of transparency as to how—or, indeed, why—permits were ever issued for much of this area. It is a very steep area, crisscrossed with streams, yet somehow permits have been issued. As you go through the area you see the myrtle, the sassafras and the tree ferns which have been bulldozed. As you wade through the mess you see in some cases logs, obviously of furniture grade quality such that they could have been used productively, much of which has been piled up for burning but some of which has simply been put on a truck and sent to the chip-mill. There has been no thought of any endangered species, particularly the Mount Arthur burrowing crayfish and also some of the bird species that rely on these forests, such as the wedge-tailed eagle. One means of surveying how many wedge-tails there were in this area was by helicopter. I can just imagine how many wedge-tails would go out to notify their presence when a helicopter was overhead. Basically, Forestry Tasmania is hell-bent on replacing as much of the rainforest as it can as quickly as it can, using whatever means are at its disposal, including replanting with Eucalyptus nitens, an imported species from Victoria. The devastation that I saw was most depressing. Despite assurances from Forestry Tasmania, local people are concerned for the area on a number of fronts, including on water catchment, on the tourism value, on recreational space and on the pollution of the water supply with various baits, such as 1080 poison, as well as fertilisers. But none of these seem to matter to Forestry Tasmania. With all of the complaints and with all the arguments that have been put, Forestry Tasmania has given few assurances, shrugged its shoulders and just gone ahead with the logging operation, arguing that it is in fact in compliance with requirements, which is nonsense. I was able to walk through much of this area in a number of places—but only just. It is very steep. It is crisscrossed with streams, which was particularly evident as there had been some substantial rain, and I could see the siltation occurring. In some places, the streams themselves have actually been used as logging roads—forget about the 10- or 20-metre buffer zones. Some of the areas, when you look at the maps, were actually within the area that was a part of the reserve that this government signed off on with the Tasmanian government. Under the RFA, the area on the upside of the Mount Arthur road is actually very clearly within the original agreed area that would be protected. Yet even that area has been wholesale logged. It was called the `annex to 126C'. The only good news in all of this is that the clear-felling of that area has temporarily ceased, but there is still a lot of work to be done before we can be assured that there will be some protection for that very steep slope. Associate Professor Brian Finlayson from the Centre for Environmental Applied Hydrology at Melbourne University visited the area and walked through it. If I get time, I will read some of his comments. He found a raft of different problems, including problems relating to water yield. His conclusion was based on data available from smaller scale clearing areas than this one and from revegetation in central Victoria with another eucalyptus species. He said, very clearly, on the basis of exploitation and data from these studies that there would be a significant reduction in water yield from Mount Arthur. He also looked at water quality, the treatment of the streams, buffer zones, erosion, road construction and chemical contamination. As I said, I will read some of his comments if I get time. There are threatened species in this area, particularly the Mount Arthur freshwater burrowing crayfish. Under the practice code there is a requirement that this be notified. A notification form for the proposed timber harvesting plant should have been submitted to the Forest Practices Board for approval. The local community have been chasing this for some time. They have been unable to ascertain whether or not this occurred and, indeed, it is most likely that it did not occur, that it was simply ignored. The hydrology survey, it seems, was absolutely inadequate as far as assessing the coupe was concerned. How can we say to the community with any confidence, `Yes, the RFA process is working and everything is being followed,' when there is simply no transparency? The public cannot have any faith in the government departments responsible for land management and for the protection of our environment if there is not some transparency. I think this and, indeed, forest practices in Victoria are going to become bigger issues because of growing public concern about the long-term impact on them, as well as the environment. How exactly the decision to clear-fell this area and replace it with Eucalyptus nitens was made is something that, hopefully, Senator Hill will be able to ascertain, and we will be able to have that information in the not too distant future. Most senators would be aware that, when you wholesale clear an area and plant a eucalyptus species, there is a significant impact on water catchment, yet there seems to be no study whatsoever into the likely impact of this in such huge areas. There are already significant plantations. You cannot see them from Launceston—the three rows of hills and mountains in the distance appear to be relatively pristine—but if you flew a plane over them, the minute you got over the top you would see that the side away from Launceston is now almost all plantations. The impact is already being felt in many of those smaller communities. How the area ever became designated as a disturbed forest is another issue. It seems that aerial photographs were taken and, because in 126C there was a small area in one corner that had been disturbed and had been selectively logged in the past, and another very small patch—the size of a 5c coin on a sheet of A4 paper—appeared to have been disturbed, the whole area was designated as disturbed forest and therefore open to clear-felling. The people of Lilydale, Lebrina, Karoola, Underwood, Wyena, Patersonia and Myrtle Bank have all been assured that everything is fine, but they themselves know that that is far from the truth. More and more people from these communities not only have a feeling of not only being left out of the process but feel that unless they get active—and get active very quickly—the damage is going to be irreversible. Some of them have already been forced out of the area. Pressure is being applied particularly to those who are organic growers because the run-offs from the use of fertilisers in particular is likely to have a significant impact on them. I will quickly go through some of the other comments that Professor Finlayson made after he looked through this area and left with the local community. I will quote from a paper prepared after his visit. In his comments on water yield he said: The scale of the clearing and replacement (with) plantations in this area is so large that the effects on the water yield have the potential to be tremendous. This extensive clearing has been conducted without sufficient data and study, ie no small scale pilot areas established and monitor for changes in water yield. Therefore, any conclusions drawn — and he makes this comment about his own conclusions as well as those of Forestry Tasmania — could only be speculation. Given the nature of the operation — he is looking particularly at the clearing of forest which has taken millions of years to establish — any impact on water yield will be long term ... On water quality he says: The effect on water quality by clearing and plantation establishment in this operation will take two forms—impact from run-off (carrying sediment thereby increasing turbidity) and impact from use of chemicals and sprayed herbicides. Here are some comments from his visual inspection of the area, quoted directly from this paper: Throughout the coupe and surrounding areas, there was evidence that streams and water carrying depressions had been ignored and disturbed. This was particularly noticeable in the area known as the variation to the FPP for Coupe LI 126C— also known as the annex— In the section about the Mt. Arthur Road, at least 4 streams, currently flowing ... were identified. He goes on to talk about insufficient buffer zones. Indeed, he stresses: Throughout the coupe, streams identified on the FTP were not afforded appropriate exclusion zones. The nature of these streams high in the catchment is that they cover a broad area, with ill-defined banks and boundaries. Again, the boundaries of the streams can be ascertained through studying the vegetation. Stream boundaries change according to the seasonal conditions. As the soils become saturated during wet periods, the water table rises and the boundaries of the water courses expands and widens. In some cases the stream itself grows in width from a narrow channel to 20 or 30 meters wide. And he looks at some specific examples of where all of this has been ignored, all of the evidence on the ground has been ignored, and they have simply been bulldozed. He also comments on the provision of roads through this area and the provision, with that roading process, of drains and areas for run-off. He says: The Mt. Arthur Road was not adequately constructed, being flat, with no table drains. Existing culverts had been damaged and/or covered. According to code, all forestry roads must be shaped and table drains constructed, with frequent exits for dispersement of water into areas of undisturbed vegetation, where most of the sediment from the run-off from disturbed areas could be trapped and collected. There were insufficient exits, and undisturbed patches of vegetation, to enable adequate protection for streams. Instead, all run-off water would be expected to build on road edges, collecting at the lowest points ... and flow directly into the streams systems. Basically, he is saying there are two effects - firstly, the water is going to become contaminated with silt, requiring filtering if it is for human consumption; and, secondly, the fine layer of sediment is going to be deposited throughout what little remains of the natural vegetation, clogging up the streams, and many of these species are not going to be used to having their roots pressured by a build-up of sediment. He goes on to talk about chemical contamination. I note with interest my former colleague and senator from Tasmania, Rob Bell, picked up this issue on 6 May 1993 when he talked about contamination in the Lorinna area and about local people becoming more and more concerned about herbicides building up and moving through the watertable. Professor Finlayson looks at this and at the belief of Forestry Tasmania and others that everything is fine because soil filters out all contaminants before the water gets into the watertable. He explains that, while this has some validity and in some cases may be true, it simply does not apply because of the extensive clearing and because the natural humus and native vegetation has all been removed. He says that when you bulldoze and pull out the trees, remove the humus, put in the furrows and plant out a crop, in many cases you have actually created—where the tree roots were—direct drains from the surface where the fertilisers are being applied straight down into the watertable and that quite high levels of fertiliser can build up and pollute the water further down the stream. He says: So you have a proportion of contaminants being moved quickly down through the soil in macro pores then laterally through soil through block fields emerging in springs and streams lower down the slope. These contaminants all then pass into the food chain. He comments on a couple of other issues, particularly diesel contamination. I saw the diesel spilt as I walked along the road area and also as I stepped off the road. Part of the commitment, supposedly, in the forest practice code is that there is absolutely no spillage of material such as diesel. It was clearly evident; it had pooled in several places and, from the film and the colour seen on the ground, it was obviously diesel. So, just on that issue, forestry practices were clearly not being met. There is also the problem of using maps for assessment of the coupe watercourses. Professor Finlayson says that, often, contours on a map will show a depression but not a stream. Indeed, when we were there after the recent rain, a raft of springs and streams was very clearly in evidence. Yet in one area, logs had been piled up and stored right on top of an area where the burrowing crayfish had been identified, although it was obviously a watercourse. In conclusion, there must be an immediate halt to logging in this area and a full and complete review of the practices of Forestry Tasmania. They must come clean about their decision making processes. How they ever got to log this area in the first place is an indictment of both the current and the previous government in Tasmania that they have been so quick to move into areas and completely destroy the native vegetation with no thought to the local community, to the long term value for all Australians of our natural heritage or to the tourism industry in Tasmania. That industry is, very pleasingly, becoming more and more pressured by those who want to get off the beaten track and to walk in areas such as Cradle Mountain and who are finding long queues of people ahead of them wishing to go out and see something of Tasmania's natural environment. For people in Launceston this was a place they could take visitors. It is certainly no longer such a place.

<< Back