Dr WOODRUFF – Minister, on 8 November last year and 1 May this year, the Bob Brown Foundation sent letters to Forestry Tasmania, the Forest Practices Authority, NRE and the Premier to provide them with scientific records of threatened species observations inside the CZ022A logging coupe boundary including the Tasmanian masked owl, the swift parrot and the blue‑winged parrot.
On 29 November last year, the Acting Chief Forest Practices Officer, Willem Mulder, acknowledged receiving those scientific records and stated that Forestry Tasmania is required to follow up on this new scientific information.
What modifications to the Forest Practices Plan have been implemented based on that new scientific information?
Mr ELLIS – Thanks, Dr Woodruff, I might look to Ms Chuter to provide a further update on that
Ms CHUTER – Thank you. As far as I’m aware, the new information is being taken into account. I don’t actually have to hand exactly what’s happened with that Forest Practices Plan, so we might have to take it on notice to get back to you on exactly where that Forest Practices Plan is up to with respect to taking account of the new swift parrot records.
Dr WOODRUFF – Could I take that on notice, minister.
Mr ELLIS – That’s fine.
Dr WOODRUFF – Also, on 8 November last year and 1 May this year, the Bob Brown Foundation sent letters to Forestry Tasmania and FPA requesting the Forest Practices Plan for that CZ022A coupe, but they didn’t receive it. This is the one that you’re just talking about now. On 2 June this year, Forestry Tasmania employee, Grant Joseph, refused to provide the Forest Practices Plan to the Bob Brown Foundation, and on 2 June this year the Bob Brown Foundation requested the Forest Practices Plan on that coupe. The Forest Practices Plan was not available on the Forestry Tasmania website, and the Forest Practices Plan was not published on the Forestry Tasmania website until 25 August.
This is an ongoing problem that people have with getting access to forest practice plans. Why was that Forest Practices Plan not available for nearly nine months?
Ms CHUTER – Forest practices plans are owned by the applicant, in this case, Sustainable Timber Tasmania. So, Sustainable Timber Tasmania being the applicant, are the ones who are responsible for answering as to whether to provide the Forest Practices Plan.
Mr ELLIS – We can do that next week with STT GBE scrutiny.
Dr WOODRUFF – So there is no capacity for the Forest Practices Authority to compel the applicant to provide it in a timely fashion?
Ms CHUTER – Being the applicant, they are the owner, if you like, of the Forest Practices Plan, so we direct the inquiries for that Forest Practices Plan back to the applicant.
Dr WOODRUFF – What about when people directly ask the Forest Practices Authority? There was an RTI request by Senator Nick McKim to the FPA on 16 June this year about forest practice plans for coupe FPL1073. He got no response and sent a follow‑up on 17 September the same year, that was 93 days later, and as of 20 November he still hasn’t had a response from the Forest Practices Authority, which would be another 60 days.
Can you explain through your minister why the FPA is not providing information like this, and can you table the Forest Practices Plan for FPL1073 please?
Ms CHUTER – Unfortunately, I’m not aware of the RTI request that you’re referring to, so I will have to get that information for you. I don’t have the information to hand.
Dr WOODRUFF – Could you go straight to the chase and provide the Forest Practices Plan which Senator McKim was requesting in the first place for FPL1073? Could I take that on notice?
Mr ELLIS – I think this question’s already taken on notice, would that be fair to say?
Dr WOODRUFF – Not on this one, no.
Ms CHUTER – I think there are two forest practices plans you’re talking about.
Dr WOODRUFF – The one for Senator McKim –
Ms CHUTER -Which is an RTI, if I’m understanding –
Dr WOODRUFF – That’s right, which hasn’t been responded to for an incredibly long time at all.
Ms CHUTER – If that RTI is with us, as you say, we can go through the RTI process as required under the RTI legislation.
Dr WOODRUFF – Or you could just provide the plan. Why wouldn’t you just provide the plan, through you, minister? Why not just provide the plan? Isn’t it meant to be a public document?
Ms CHUTER – Sorry, the document again is the applicant is the owner of the forest practices plan, so we defer to the applicant to release that forest practices plan. We can assess the RTI; I’m not aware of the RTI that you’re referring to.
Dr WOODRUFF – In the RTI processes, is there usually a holdup at Forestry Tasmania? You said your RTI officers send a request in and get nothing; this is really outside the bounds of the time limit for RTIs. What’s going on here? It seems like a problem with FPA’s processes in responding to people in a timely fashion, I would suggest.
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, can we take this on notice?
Dr WOODRUFF – I think that Ms Chuter has said that she will take on notice that she will respond to the RTI; is that right?
Ms CHUTER – I’m not aware of the RTI, but we can take on notice – in fact, I should make a note of the RTI you’re referring to.
Dr WOODRUFF – FPL1073.
Mr ELLIS – We can certainly commit to following up, if you like.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you. The other one was CZO22A.
