Mrs M Dockray
110 Watchorn's Road
Karoola Tas 7267

Dear Mrs Dockray,

Thank you for your correspondence of 30 March and 2 May 2001 concerning native clearfelling practices, the community forum held at Launceston on 29 March, and your personal representation on behalf of the Mount Arthur Environment Management Group when we met in Scottsdale on 30 April. I apologise for the delay in my response but, as you can appreciate, I needed to seek advise on the issues your Group have raised.

Tasmania has made great progress over the past decade in conserving its natural heritage. The total area of land reserved for timber harvesting mechanisms is more than 2.76 million hectares. That's more than 40 per cent of the landmass of Tasmania. Like many other Tasmanians, I'm very proud of that.

Another 30 per cent of production forests, outside the reserve system, are generally not available for harvesting for a host of practical and environmental protection reasons. And, following the implementation of the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA), 86 per cent of Tasmania's old growth forests on public land have been protected for conservation and tourism purposed in viable and secure reserves or are otherwise generally unavailable for timber harvesting.

As the manager of State forests, Forestry Tasmania operates within, and must comply with, the Tasmanian Forestry Act 1920. It is a requirement that State forests are managed for wood production in perpetuity, and Forestry Tasmania complies with that requirement.

Biodiversity is addressed at an operation level through the Forest Practices Code. All operations by Forestry Tasmania and private timber harvesting companies in Tasmania are carried out in accordance with an approved Forest Practices Plan, prepared under the Forest Practices Act 1985, that takes into account special values such as flora, fauna, landscape, geomorphology and cultural heritage.

Before forestry operations can commence in a coupe an evaluation of the various environmental values must be undertaken and appropriate measures placed in the Forest Practices Plan for the coupe to protect these values. Those measures include buffers on streams and limitations on machinery access adjoining to streams. There are also laws and codes of practice applying to chemical use which ensure that there is a minimal risk of chemicals used in forest operations entering a stream.

I note your comments regarding the Mount Arthur Environment Management Group contemplating legal action against Forestry Tasmania and the Forest Practices Board. You have not stated why you would want to take such action, and as such, I cannot comment on this matter.

The Government has sought an explanation and account of the activities on Mt Arthur. That report has now been completed and includes a valid assessment of the forestry operations.

The RFA was signed in 1997 after extensive research was undertaken and there has been a review of the implementation of the Forest Practices Code. Processes leading to the development of the RFA and the Code ensure that the best science, economic and environmental knowledge is brought to the forefront of forest management. Ongoing research will continue to yield knowledge that will further develop and continue to improve our forest management practice.

The Forest Practices Board is constituted with people who have a strong knowledge of forestry matters, industry, science and the community, at the Board and the Advisory Council level. The Government considers that the Forest Practises Board is independent. The Board reports directly to Parliament through the Office of the Deputy Premier.

Following the lodgement of a formal complaint received by the Forest Practices Board on 8 March 2001, the Board undertook to investigate alleged breaches of the Forest Practices Code relating to logging operations at Mt Arthur coupe LI126C. The Forest Practices Board, in consultation with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, found no evidence of any matter that would cause undue environmental harm or warrant legal action under the Forest Practices Act 1985. The board also found that the majority of the alleged breaches of the Code were unsubstantiated.

I have been advised that there was only one marginal breach and that this incident has not resulted in any harm to soil or water values. Normally the process of a formal issue of a notice to the responsible party deals with relatively minor breaches such as this, and serves as a warning against any recurrence of the incident. Additionally, Forestry Tasmania has sought a recent assessment of water quality at Mt Arthur. Test conducted on water samples by Analytical Services Tasmania confirm no detectable residues from spraying operations.

My Government believes that the majority of the community certainly supports the balance now between reserves and the amount of timber available for logging. As Premier, I am keen to ensure that the balance is maintained. Forestry is an important industry to Tasmania. It supports many of our families. Equally, our natural heritage is contributing to our economy and well-being.

Thank you for your interest and please be assured that I'm conscious of the value of our natural environment, and maintaining the balance in the best interests of the whole community.

Yours Sincerely,

Jim Bacon MHA
Premier