Dr WOODRUFF – Minister, regarding the 39,000 hectares of forests that ought to be protected for their biodiversity and high conservation value as that is incredible forest, we asked you in Question Time on 1 August:
Will you release the maps that show where these parcels of land are and tell Tasmanians how much public land you’re planning to log and burn?
You said you’d take that on notice and table the maps if they existed. You never tabled them. Yesterday, an RTI emerged that showed that they did exist back in August this year. In fact, we now know they existed on 4 March 2022. Did you know?
Mr ABETZ – Well, first of all, the premise of your question, the 39,000 hectares to which you refer, was agreed to by a number of organisations, including those that present themselves as conservation organisations, as being land to be set aside for future consideration. To say that it was set aside for conservation values is not to represent the truth of the matter. The truth of the matter is that those 39,000 hectares were set aside for future consideration.
Dr WOODRUFF – Chair, to the question.
Mr ABETZ – No, you cannot –
Dr WOODRUFF – To the question, Standing Order 45, relevance. I asked you a question.
Mr ABETZ – You cannot give a huge introduction –
CHAIR – I’m sorry, minister. Dr Woodruff, it’s not Question Time. You get to ask the question. You don’t get to interject in here, or it’s going to be a very long three hours. You’re going to get plenty of opportunities to ask plenty of questions, as you did yesterday. The Greens had more than their fair share of questions yesterday. I will make sure that you get enough questions today. Allow the minister to answer the question.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you, Chair.
Mr ABETZ – The 39,000 hectares which you reference has been misdescribed either ignorantly or wilfully, and I’ll let listeners determine that. I won’t make a judgement call on that. Suffice to say that, on becoming minister, I inherited a policy and I am now taking a staged approach to taking Future Potential Production Forest (FPPF) parcels before the parliament before the consideration should we come to that position. I’m awaiting advice from the Department of State Growth in relation to this and there will be an opportunity for all to scrutinise this through the parliamentary process. Any land suggested or proposed for harvesting will have to go through the parliamentary process.
Dr WOODRUFF – We know the locations and the details were known to the Department of State Growth on 4 March 2022. When we asked you where those 27 parcels were, did you know then?
Mr ABETZ – The question that was being proposed in relation to what I may or may not be doing, the answer remains the same: that I’m taking advice and seeking advice in relation to certain parcels. Until I have that advice, I’m not in a position to say whether a particular parcel should or should not be advanced. At the time I make such a determination, that is when the parliament will have its say as well.
Dr WOODRUFF – We asked you in parliament whether you would release the maps that show where those parcels were. You said you’d take it on notice and table the maps if they existed. You never tabled them. We have the evidence that they existed in 2022 because we’ve identified the coupes – the maps – ourselves from the RTI information. Why didn’t you table them? Did you mislead parliament?
Mr ABETZ – No, but you didn’t identify them. You were told what they were back in 2022. It’s not a requirement or a claim that you can make that you personally identified them. You sought information from the department and the information was obtained.
Dr WOODRUFF – Hold on. This is your department’s information; you’re the minister. We asked you to table the maps. You said you’d take it on notice. You didn’t table them. You said you would take it on notice if the maps existed. We have the evidence that the maps existed. You didn’t table them. Did you mislead parliament?
Mr ABETZ – No, I didn’t.
Dr WOODRUFF – Did you know that the maps existed?
Mr ABETZ – I was aware that there was some proposals put forward for the election but from my perspective, I was going to have a look through each and every suggestion and before I was willing to commit to any area, I wanted to go through – and look, there’s a legislative process that, as minister, I am required to go through should I come to a determination that I want to propose an area to the parliament.
Dr WOODRUFF – You were the third minister –
CHAIR – I am going to move on.
Dr WOODRUFF – Guy Barnett was Resources minister in 2021 and he wrote to Forestry Tasmania in December of that year asking them – actually it was Kim Evans, the secretary, who wrote; Guy Barnett wrote earlier in the year. Kim Evans wrote asking to provide advice on their strategic land interests with specific information about FPPF land parcels or subparcels that you would seek to manage within your estate, with information for each parcel or subparcel about land size and area required. It should include preliminary information on known land values and lands potential contribution. There was a response on 4 March 2022 that said they would like 27 parcels of FPPF land totalling over 39,000 hectares that will be suitable to be managed as production forests.
Minister, the RTI also shows deliberative material was prepared for Cabinet. Your government announced 27 parcels of high conservation value forests would be given to the forest industry in March this year at the election, exactly the same number and hectarage that Forestry Tasmania requested in 2022. Why did you not provide that information to parliament and did you deceive parliament when you said you didn’t know anything about this?
Mr ABETZ – Chair, if I may, I have been burnt far too often, taking at face value assertions made by the Greens. I would want to see the documentation and the actual Hansard ‑
Dr WOODRUFF – It’s online. It’s available.
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff.
Dr WOODRUFF – You are the minister.
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff.
Mr ABETZ – I know that it’s available, but I don’t have it presently in front of me.
What I have unfortunately learned, as with the introduction to the first question – it was misleading by the assertion that this land had been set aside for whatever values and not that it was also set aside for future consideration for wood production.
I have been too often burnt, and I have realised that the Greens in the questioning have introductions and assertions that don’t match with the actual record or with the actual facts. Until such time I have the full information in front of me, I won’t be able to answer the specific question. Suffice to say, of course I did not mislead the parliament.
Dr WOODRUFF – Well then, I ask the question, are you the minister of Forestry Tasmania, or aren’t you? How could you ‑
Mr ABETZ – No. I am the minister for Sustainable Timber Tasmania.
Dr WOODRUFF – Hold on. Chair, could I ask the question?
CHAIR – You asked the question.
Dr WOODRUFF – The question is, are you the minister or not? Because if you are the minister, how is it believable that after five months of being the minister, when this information was sitting in your department – your own department secretary had instigated this; it had been worked on for two‑and‑a‑half years at that point by your own department. How is it believable that you didn’t know?
Mr ABETZ – As I think the record will show, I entered the parliament in March of this year. I was made a minister for this area in April of this year ‑
Dr WOODRUFF – Four months.
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, one more time and you’ll be officially warned.
Mr ABETZ – As I understand it, I look after Sustainable Timber Tasmania, Chair, and not forestry, as Dr Woodruff continually refers to it. I would have thought just common decency and practise would require a member to refer to the organisation by its proper name.
Dr WOODRUFF – Will you answer the question? Did you mislead parliament on 1 August when we asked you to table the maps of the 27 parcels of land and any other information, for which the evidence is shown from the right to information document that was released yesterday by the Ombudsman because your own department has been fighting tooth and nail since earlier this year to make sure this information wasn’t released to communities. Did you mislead parliament? The evidence is that the information was there and has been there for two-and-a-half years now.
Mr ABETZ – You can ask a sixth, seventh or eighth time and it won’t surprise you to learn that I categorically deny that I misled the parliament.
Dr WOODRUFF – Will you release the maps today? Table the maps now, because we know they exist.
CHAIR – I’ll move on. You’ve had three questions in this rotation, Dr Woodruff. I’ll go back to Mr Shelton.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you. Minister, the right to information that was released by the Ombudsman – he finished his report on 28 November – was at least publicly discussed yesterday. You were asked questions by the media, so it does beggar belief that you wouldn’t have taken advice about the contents of the RTI. The only reason that has been kept secret for so long was to hide from the communities the actual land that will be logged and burned if Forestry Tasmania has its way and gets access to these areas. Will you make all of that information available and table the maps and the locations of these areas of high-conservation forests?
Mr ABETZ – Chair, as I’ve already indicated, the questioning by the Greens member has all the descriptors to try to grab a headline but does not necessarily represent the truth. They talk about hiding information to log and burn 27 areas. Assessments have to be made in relation to each and every proposed area and until such time as I have information, and as a relatively new minister in this area, I’m not going to put areas out into the public domain which on assessment might come back to us as not being appropriate or uneconomic. As I understand it, under the legislative requirements there has to be a whole host of considerations taken into account and that is what I will do. I’m currently getting information and being given guidance in relation to areas and until such time as a determination is made, there’s no real inclination by myself to talk about areas in hypothetical circumstances.
Dr WOODRUFF – Through you, minister, to the CEO, Mr Whiteley, you wrote a letter on 4 March 2022 and said that Forestry Tasmania has identified 27 parcels of FPPF land totalling just over 39,000 hectares suitable to be managed.
Mr WHITELEY – Was that an actual quote of what I wrote?
Dr WOODRUFF – It says:
The assessment found that there are 27 parcels of FPPF land totalling just over 39,000 hectares that are suitable to be managed as PTPZ (Permanent Timber Production Zone) land.
Those are your words – well, at least you signed the letter.
The letter goes on to identify 27 lots, which has been redacted. Will you release the details of those 27 lots and the map numbers of what Forestry Tasmania was looking at in 2022?
Mr WHITELEY – I think that was the information at that time and, as the minister’s indicated, he’ll be seeking some contemporary advice.
Dr WOODRUFF – Through you, minister, I’m speaking to you, though, as the CEO of the forestry –
CHAIR – Just to be clear, you actually can’t direct questions directly to the CEO. You can only ask the questions to the chair or the minister and they can choose whether to then direct them to the CEO.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you. Through you minister, to the chair, recognising that was information in March 2022, will you table the information of the 27 lots referred to in the letter of March 2022?
Mr ABETZ – The technicality is that you can’t just say, ‘Through the chair to’ or ‘Through the minister to’. You have to ask me and then it is for me –
Dr WOODRUFF – For clarification, I understand this is a GBE and that this is the scrutiny of the GBE, and I do not have to get the permission of the minister to ask the chair –
Mr ABETZ – You are correct.
Dr WOODRUFF – of a government business board a question. Is that correct?
CHAIR – That is correct, yeah.
Dr WOODRUFF – So, I do not have to go through you and you are time-wasting. I’ve asked the chair: will you table the contents of the 27 lots referred to in the 2022 letter?
Mr de FEGELY – I’ll pass that to our CEO.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you.
Mr WHITELEY – I’m aware of the information that’s been provided through the Ombudsman and we’re satisfied that’s sufficiently complete at present.
Dr WOODRUFF – Hold on, that’s not an answer to my question. I’m a member of parliament; you’re a government business. I’m asking you to table the letter that you sent to the government in March 2022.
CHAIR – Again, Dr Woodruff, you’re asking a question directly at the CEO, which I’ve asked you not to do.
Dr WOODRUFF – I beg your pardon? Chair, I’m asking this question as a member of parliament. I have a right to ask this question and we have a right to expect transparency from Forestry Tasmania. Will you please table the letter to the committee?
Mr de FEGELY – Sorry, point of order, Chair. We are, which I did remind you last year ‑ please refer to us as Sustainable Timber Tasmania, not Forestry Tasmania. We have discussed this before. So, I would expect you can ask your question again.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you. I did seek advice again, as I did last year, because we had this waste of time last year. You are registered under the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. Your business name is Sustainable Timbers Tasmania. Your holder name is Forestry Tasmania. That is your incorporated entity. You are incorporated as Forestry Tasmania and trading as Sustainable Timbers Tasmania. This is a government business entity. I will refer to you as the business, Forestry Tasmania, trading as Sustainable Timbers Tasmania, for future, which is correct.
Mr ABETZ – We could then refer to you as Rosalie Ellen Woodruff on all occasions because that is your full name on the electoral roll.
Dr WOODRUFF – Fine by me.
Mr ABETZ – Courtesy suggests that I should simply call you by your given name, namely Rosalie Woodruff or Dr Woodruff. I would ask you to extend the same courtesy to with Sustainable Timbers Tasmania.
Mr de FEGELY – Thank you, minister.
Dr WOODRUFF – I’ve asked the question and we’re still waiting for an answer. Will you table the letter, please?
Mr de FEGELY – This hasn’t come before the board so I’ll ask the CEO to answer this.
Mr WHITELEY – Perhaps, I think we’re aware that you’ve requested a right to information so perhaps an update on that. So –
Dr WOODRUFF – Excuse me, Chair, I’m not requesting a right to information. There was a letter written by Forestry Tasmania, trading as Sustainable Timbers Tasmania, to the minister on 4 March 2022. I would like you to table a copy of that letter to this parliamentary committee, please.
Mr ABETZ – Was that advice to the minister, or –
Mr de FEGELY – No.
Dr WOODRUFF – No, it was not advice. It was to the secretary. It purposely avoided a minister.
Mr WHITELEY – I understand you already have that information.
Dr WOODRUFF – No, I don’t. That’s why I’d like you to table it, please. What I have is redacted information through right to information, which is not what I’m asking for. I’m not asking for a right to information process of the government. I’m asking a process for you as a government business entity. You are a business, you are constituted by parliament and I’m asking you to table to parliament a copy of the letter you wrote on 4 March, 2022 to the secretary of State Growth. Table it today, please.
Mr ABETZ – Bear with me.
Dr WOODRUFF – It’s not the minister. It’s to the chair. I’d like it tabled today, please.
Mr de FEGELY – No, I’m sorry. As I said, our board hasn’t seen that ‑
Dr WOODRUFF – It’s not a board matter, with respect.
Mr de FEGELY – No, I’m sorry, but you’re asking me ‑
Dr WOODRUFF – You’ve referred it to the CEO.
Mr ABETZ – As I understand the situation, the letter has been released in redacted form ‑
Dr WOODRUFF – Excuse me, I asked a question of the chair, not of the minister.
CHAIR – The chair can refer the question to the minister as well.
Mr de FEGELY – And I’ve referred to the minister, thank you.
Mr ABETZ – The letter has been, and I was thinking this was the case – but the letter has been provided in a redacted form, courtesy of the Ombudsman, to whom you so strongly referred to. The Ombudsman, in releasing a redacted letter, one assumes was of a view that certain sections of it should be redacted. I’m not aware of the detail of that which was and was not redacted, but the RTI provided you with the letter, albeit parts of it redacted, if I am correct, and I stand to be corrected.
What you are now seeking to do is get the whole letter to bypass the Ombudsman’s determination that certain sections should be redacted.
Dr WOODRUFF – The Ombudsman is about a Right to Information Act to do with government businesses and I’m ‑
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, I’m moving on to Mrs Pentland.
Dr WOODRUFF – This is such an abuse of parliament.
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff.
Dr WOODRUFF – By 8 August of this year, you’d had approximately four months to get across your portfolio as Minister for Resources. You gave comments to the media yesterday about the right to information that was released by the Ombudsman and said you still maintain that you don’t have the information about those 27 parcels. Which is true, that you had no idea about the detailed election policy that had been announced in March by your government and that had been discussed, including in Cabinet – we know from RTI that there was Cabinet deliberative material for at least two years – or that you misled parliament on 1 August when you said that you had no idea whether there were any maps and specific information that you could provide parliament?
Mr ABETZ – Is that a question or a statement? I’m not sure what that’s meant to be.
Dr WOODRUFF – Which is true?
Mr ABETZ – I have indicated on numerous occasions that I have not misled parliament and the member might like to refresh her memory as to what the parliament said about this very matter, if I recall, in early August, at about the time when she sought the parliament to force the release of this information. I forget the vote, but I think it was comprehensively defeated by about 20-something votes to some other number, but was comprehensively defeated. When you come to this committee claiming parliament and all sorts of other requests, can I say your own colleagues in the House of Assembly rejected your call, if my memory serves, on 7 August ‑ and for those who report this, I would invite them to keep that in mind as well.
Dr WOODRUFF – Do you usually go out to the media and make statements about important issues like this without having any idea what you’re talking about? You said you didn’t know there was detailed information. I have the detailed information. You’d been minister for four months when you said that it didn’t exist. You didn’t table it to parliament and you’re still pretending that it never existed, yet here it is without the final detail of the maps. We know it’s all there, it’s in black and white. We know you had a copy of it because you went and spoke to the media about it, so I assume you actually had a look, or someone had told you about it, but you’re still pretending that you don’t know about the maps and that you can’t provide them to us. Why? Are you totally incapable of doing your job?
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, you’ve asked the question.
Mr ABETZ – It is all the loaded language. Most people would just dismiss a question like that – and it should be – with a sort of loaded language in it about incompetence and hiding, et cetera. The statements that I’ve made are clear, they’re on the record and I have nothing further to add, other than to ask Dr Woodruff to reflect on her ongoing insinuations.
Dr WOODRUFF – To the chair, can you please tell me what we understand from the letter of 4 March 2022 from the CEO, Mr Whiteley? We understand that Forestry Tasmania, trading as Sustainable Timbers Tasmania –
… has undertaken a desktop assessment of all FPPF lands to determine those lots that are suitable to be managed by it.
It also says –
A detailed compendium describing each lot identified as suitable to be managed by STT is in Appendix 1.
And it further says –
The 22 lots of 34,564 hectares will provide up to 149,000 cubic metres of high-quality sawlogs to north-east mills from 2027 onwards and five lots of 4844 hectares will provide up to 9000 cubic metres of high-quality sawlogs in the north-west.
Can you please table for the committee the five lots in the north-west and the 22 lots in the north-east that Forestry Tasmania, trading as Sustainable Timber Tasmania, was referring to at the time in March 2022?
Mr de FEGELY – Personally, obviously I don’t know which lots they are, because as I mentioned to you in my earlier comment, the board hasn’t approved any of this process, so I’ll ask the CEO to refine that.
Mr WHITELEY – It’s on the record there. It’s been appropriately redacted.
Dr WOODRUFF – Through you, Chair, that’s not the answer to the question. I’m not asking about that, I’m asking you about what was known by Forestry Tasmania.
CHAIR – You’ve asked the questions and you have received the answers, Dr Woodruff. I am moving on to Mrs Pentland.
Dr WOODRUFF – I refer to a question that Dr Broad asked earlier. On a number of occasions, the Greens, Labor and independents have asked what will happen when your current contracts, when Forestry Tasmania’s, trading as Sustainable Timber Tasmania, current contracts with sawmillers expire in 2027. Dr Broad asked this question last year in the committee and your answer indicated that they would be fulfilled using plantation forests.
The information in the RTI that was available yesterday makes it clear that Forestry Tasmania’s intention since 2022 has been to fulfil sawlog requirements beyond 2027 with timber from 39,000‑plus hectares of Future Potential Production Forests. Was there a reason you didn’t share that information with the committee when it was asked last year?
Mr ABETZ – If it was asked last year, I wasn’t around.
Dr WOODRUFF – Was there a reason the minister didn’t do that?
Mr ABETZ – No, no, no. Let’s look at your question. This is why I said earlier on, you have to be exceptionally careful with every single question you ask, because it must have been to your knowledge. Weren’t you aware that I wasn’t in the state parliament last year, Dr Woodruff? I could then make all the accusations that you’ve been throwing across the table at me this morning.
You know, I know and everybody else knows, I was not in this parliament last year, so to assert that I had somehow answered a question last year is just to defy all logic, all facts, but of course we have come to expect that of the Greens in the Parliament. What may or may not be in the mind of somebody else, believe it or not, is not within my purview.
Dr WOODRUFF – Of the total 39,408 hectares of land that Forestry Tasmania, trading as STT, has identified in the north‑east and the north‑west, 6364 hectares have been described by them as old growth, ecologically mature forest with ‘negligible past disturbance’.
STT has also raised the potential of making just over 18,000 hectares available for designated logging coupes, 88 per cent of which is forest more than 80 years of age. It’s no wonder that you’ve been hiding this information so hard and it still won’t be tabled before us today.
Mr ABETZ – I’ve been hiding it since last year?
Dr WOODRUFF – Minister, will you rule out today the logging of old growth forest on FPPF land, or PTPZ land for that matter, or the rezoning of that land?
Mr ABETZ – As I’ve indicated on a number of occasions, there are specific requirements that I have to go through under the legislation, and I will consider all those matters carefully. I will be advised by DSG, by STT, et cetera, and when and if there is something to report to the parliament, that is what I will do, because at the end of the day, the parliament will have to either approve or disapprove of any recommendation that might be made.
I’m not going to engage in any hypotheticals, other than to say that if something is put forward to the parliament, it will be done balancing all the needs and considerations that most people would expect a responsible government to consider. We know that the agenda of the Greens has been ‘Stop old growth’, then ‘Stop native’, and we’re starting to get condemnation of monocultures as well, which are plantations. I don’t know where people think we’re going to get our timber from in the future, but we know what the Greens strategy is. I’m not going to engage in your game of hypotheticals to help the Bob Brown Foundation raise money on a basis that is purely hypothetical.
Dr WOODRUFF – Minister, you are the minister now and Dr Broad asked you just before how the contracts were going to be fulfilled beyond 2027. You didn’t mention FPPF land wood. Are they still on the table as part of those contracts?
Mr WHITELEY – Our contracts are purely for wood sourced from PTPZ land. We do not consider any other contracts at all, full stop.
Dr WOODRUFF – Can I reclarify that question, then, maybe to the CEO if that is appropriate? When I say FPPF land I’m talking about the 39,408 hectares that have been discussed previously today that would be converted to PTPZ land. Are those lands being considered as part of those contracts and the wood supply for 2027?
Mr WHITELEY – No. We will only contract from PTPZ land. It would take a decision of parliament, which it may do from time to time about determining what the extent and nature of PTPZ land is. We will simply, at that time and after that occurs, consider what appropriate contracts can be provided.
Dr WOODRUFF – Through you, Chair – I think you are purposely misunderstanding my question. It’s quite clear.
Mr ABETZ – Chair, that is a reflection on the witness to say purposefully doing that. A bit of civility around the table would go a long way. I would encourage the member to rephrase her question.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you, I will rephrase it so it is very clear. Understanding that for Forestry Tasmania, trading as Sustainable Timbers Tasmania, to access any wood, any lands would need to be converted by parliament to PTPZ. The FPPF current lands, the 39,408 hectares that have been discussed today that have been considered to be transferred to Forestry Tasmania and transformed through to PTPZ, is wood supply from those lands in the north-east and north-west part of the consideration for what will be made available to sawmillers in their negotiating of the 2027 contract?
Mr WHITELEY – To be clear, no.
Dr WOODRUFF – That was one question and that was how long it took to get the answer. I have a follow-up question, Chair.
DEPUTY CHAIR – You can have last question, you have asked three questions.
Dr WOODRUFF – Minister, from some sleuthing by my very talented staff, we have managed to identify from these 27 parcels in the RTI land that has been identified by Forestry Tasmania as having Aboriginal heritage values. This might be appropriate for the chair or the CEO. Has the Aboriginal community been informed that you would like to log and burn their heritage?
Mr ABETZ – Log and burn – it is this loaded language that the member just cannot help herself –
Dr WOODRUFF – That is the work of Forestry Tasmania, to log trees and then burn it up.
Mr de FEGELY – Objection, Chair.
DEPUTY CHAIR – Order. Dr Woodruff, you have asked the question. Can you let the answer be heard?
Mr ABETZ – She cannot help herself. Sustainable Timber Tasmania and the people who work for it are deserving of protection from that sort of commentary. There is a statutory process that needs to be gone through and that will be gone through in the event that any parcel is identified for further progressing and everything that is required.
Dr WOODRUFF – My question was to the chair, minister.
Mr de FEGELY – Sorry, Dr Woodruff, but I take objection to your language that we are about log and burn. That is incorrect. We do harvesting but we also do a lot of other things as well. I explained to Mr Jenner that we put in things for recreation, for mountain biking. We have Tahune. You, maybe, were not here – you did leave at one stage – so you may not have listened to that answer, but we are a multiple use forest manager. We manage land, we manage forests, some of which, less than half, is available for harvesting. That’s all documented. We also – look, people who want to go fishing ‑
Dr WOODRUFF – I’m not going to sanitise my language to make you feel comfortable.
Mr de FEGELY – I’m sorry, but I’m offended by the way you refer to us.
Dr WOODRUFF – You do regeneration burns and you log trees. They’re both true facts.
DEPUTY CHAIR – Order.
Mr ABETZ – Your objectionable language has to be curtailed, Dr Woodruff. The world does not revolve around you.
Dr BROAD – ‘Logging and burning Aboriginal heritage’. That was ‑
DEPUTY CHAIR – Dr Broad.
Dr WOODRUFF – My question is, have you talked to the community?
DEPUTY CHAIR – Sorry. Dr Broad, you have the call.
Mr de FEGELY – We’re not operating there.
DEPUTY CHAIR – Order.
Dr WOODRUFF – You’re not talking to the community, the Aboriginal community about it.
Dr BROAD – I’ll just try to bring the temperature down here, but I will talk about fire.
Dr WOODRUFF – Regeneration burns, there’re a lot of temperatures in that.
Dr WOODRUFF – To the chair: Forestry Tasmania, trading as Sustainable Timber Tasmania, has been trying to get FSC certification for more than a decade. Last year in GBE scrutiny, you or the CEO said that you’re working through the complex process of closing out the non‑conformities from the failed 2019 FSC audit, and that the auditors would be brought back out when that was complete. Those major non‑conformities were due to Forestry Tasmania continuing to log in swift parrot nesting and foraging habitat against the advice of experts. Have you closed out the major non‑conformities and, if so, when will Forestry Tasmania be audited by the FSC?
Mr de FEGELY – Thank you, Dr Woodruff. I’ll pass through to the CEO and the general manager, Conservation Land Management.
Mr WHITELEY – We’ve been continuing to work through some of the things we described last year. There was a significant body of work we needed to undertake to do some operational trials to prove up costs and benefits of changing some of our operating methods. Suzette can provide an update of where we’re at.
Ms WEEDING – We’re still working through the process in terms of those operational trials. The key aspects are around improving habitat retention in particular coupes, so looking at retaining individual trees and the habitat on the particular coupe itself. We’re still working through those trials in terms of the outcomes, and getting that information together. We’ve undertaken the trial in 18 coupes to date, and what we’re waiting on at the moment is the outcomes of the regeneration activities to see survival of the trees themselves and what additional management actions might be required in those particular coupes in order to continue or potentially continue this work.
For swift parrot we’ve undertaken a whole range of additional work, as I think we’ve mentioned in previous years, and we continue to do that. The non‑conformance wasn’t specifically about harvesting in swift parrot habitat, it was about implementing a management approach to the swift parrot, and we’ve been working on that for a number of years now.
Mr ABETZ – Ongoing improvement.
Ms WEEDING – Correct.
Mr ABETZ – Which is hard when you’re at a very high level.
Ms WEEDING – Correct. Part of our operational management and our strategic management has involved pre-season surveys around areas where swift parrots are likely to come and nest during the year. As you’re aware, they utilise forests all the way up the east coast of Tasmania, and on offshore islands are threatened by a range of processes including sugar glider predation. Our pre-season work involves doing bud surveys to look at where trees might flower during the year as the key foraging resource for the species. Subsequent to that we go out and do specific on‑site assessments, including placing acoustic monitors in the field to determine where the birds might be, which can allow us to tailor our management activities in those particular forests and hopefully identify any nest sites in and around our operations that we can protect and manage as part of those activities.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you. Through you, Chair, possibly to Ms Weeding if appropriate, a statement is that the State of the Environment report and the Federal State Recovery Plan for the Swift Parrot have both identified logging as the key threatening process for the swift parrot. One of the FSC’s key recommendations from the failed attempt in 2019 was for Forestry Tasmania to develop a swift parrot management plan. You’ve just talked about that. You’ve been talking about this now ever since I became a councillor in 2009 and then member of parliament. When will Forestry Tasmania be producing their parrot management plan? Every single day you continue to cut the trees down, so it’s obviously you that is the reason that the swift parrot has been driven to extinction.
Mr ABETZ – That is false.
Dr WOODRUFF – That is what both of these reports show. All three bodies show this.
Mr ABETZ – That is false.
Dr WOODRUFF – The recovery plan, the State of the Environment report and the FSC all say it is Forestry Tasmania’s destruction of habitat, nesting and feeding that is driving the swift parrot to extinction.
DEPUTY CHAIR – Order. Is there a question from you, Dr Woodruff?
Dr WOODRUFF – When are you going to deliver the plan? That’s the question.
Mr de FEGELY – We have established that if you wish to call us Forestry Tasmania, you must add ‘trading as Sustainable Timber Tasmania’. You agreed to do that. Now you are calling us Forestry Tasmania.
Dr WOODRUFF – No, I didn’t. You just wanted me to, but I don’t have to if I don’t want to because you are actually registered as Forestry Tasmania Incorporated. We can have that fight if that is the fight you want to have. I am here to fight for communities, and you’re destroying forests.
DEPUTY CHAIR – Order.
Mr de FEGELY – Excuse me, no.
Dr WOODRUFF – I want to know when you are going to have a plan to protect a critically endangered bird.
Dr BROAD – Stick to that bit instead of the other stuff.
Mr de FEGELY – Yes. Thank you, Dr Broad.
Dr WOODRUFF – That was my question.
DEPUTY CHAIR – Order. To the question.
Mr de FEGELY – A little bit of respect would be great. Our staff take offence at the attitude that you have taken to that. I am sorry, but I will ask for a ruling from the Speaker as to whether or not we stay in this chamber, if that’s what you are going to do, because it’s bullying and harassment to refer to somebody by a name they do not wish to be referred to. My first name is Andrew and I take offence at being called Andrew. I am Rob. I think your colleague, Mr Vica Bayley, his proper name is Michael. I would never call him Michael because I know and respect him and I will call him Vica. Can we please desist from this? This is a game.
Mr ABETZ – And a childish one at that.
Mr de FÉGELY – Thank you.
Dr WOODRUFF – This is not about how I am referring to the chair.
Mr ABETZ – It’s your demeanour.
Dr WOODRUFF – This is not about persons. That is totally inappropriate and it’s an abuse of parliament’s time. I am here to ask a question. I have asked a question and the chair is not answering.
DEPUTY CHAIR – Order. If Dr Woodruff can ask the questions in a respectful manner and we can stick to the questions at hand –
Dr WOODRUFF – Yes.
DEPUTY CHAIR – This is a time to ask questions and seek answers, not a time to make statements. That is for the parliament.
Dr BROAD – I agree.
Mr de FEGELY – Thank you, Chair.
Dr WOODRUFF – Can you please answer the question?
DEPUTY CHAIR – To the question.
Mr de FEGELY – Would you mind please rephrasing it?
Dr WOODRUFF – When are you going to deliver the swift parrot management plan? When?
Mr de FEGELY – I will refer to our General Manager, Conservation and Land Management. Thank you, Suzette.
Ms WEEDING – We have developed and are implementing a swift parrot management plan. That plan has three key areas of focus, which is managing and protecting swift parrot breeding habitats –
Dr WOODRUFF – Excuse me, Chair. Excuse me, Ms Weeding. Can you just please give me a date?
DEPUTY CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, you have asked the question. Can you –
Ms WEEDING – We have developed the plan; we are working on it. We are implementing it at the moment.
Dr WOODRUFF – Where is it? When are you going to stop logging swift parrot habitat?
Mr ABETZ – Stop native forestry – here we go. That is the bottom line in all of it.
Dr BROAD – You don’t want a management plan. You want a cessation.
Dr WOODRUFF – This is what is happening. You are continuing to log it. Are you actually trying to get FSC because you are continuing to log swift parrot and masked owl and Tasmanian devil – critically endangered species – habitat? Are you going to go into FPPF, which is replete with swift parrot, masked owl, grey goshawk and giant lobster?
Mr ABETZ – Here we go. Can somebody remove the soap box?
Dr WOODRUFF – Can you just let Tasmanians know you’ve let go of trying to get FSC? Just be honest about it. Is that true?
Mr ABETZ – These loaded questions that suggest –
Dr WOODRUFF – Through the Chair, has Forestry Tasmania, trading as Sustainable Timber Tasmania, actually stopped trying to get FSC?
DEPUTY CHAIR – Order. Dr Woodruff. You asked a question and the answer is barely a sentence in and we’re interjecting. You have the right to ask a question without being interjected on, and answerers have the right to answer your question without being interjected on. As I have done whenever I am in the chair, I am allowing some flexibility with people asking follow‑up questions, but if interjections are going to continue, then I am happy to start counting interjections towards people’s question allocation too.
We need to keep some semblance of order to this so that people can get answers to questions and so the Hansard staff are able to discern who is saying what. This is the last question, then we will go to Dr Broad.
Dr WOODRUFF – Can I get clarification? Thank you for your ruling, Chair. Will you please also call the minister to account, because he is interjecting while I am trying to ask a question of the chair.
Mr ABETZ – Chair, I was raising a point of order.
Dr WOODRUFF – There is no point of order.
DEPUTY CHAIR – Dr Woodruff.
Mr ABETZ – Until you’ve heard it, how would you know whether there is a point of order?
Dr WOODRUFF – What is it?
Mr ABETZ – Really, the mindset of Dr Woodruff does amaze.
Dr WOODRUFF – There is no point of order in the committee.
Mr ABETZ – My point of order, Chair, is that for order to be maintained in this committee, having loaded questions suggesting that the chair is being less than honest is a reflection on the witness and should not be countenanced. The question should be rephrased to treat the witness with the respect that, in this case, the chair deserves.
DEPUTY CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, in clarifying your question, can we make sure questions are asked in an appropriately respectful manner? Ask your question, we’ll get an answer and then we’ll move on to Dr Broad.
Mr de FEGELY – It is a very complex process to develop a plan for the swift parrot. They move around the state depending on flowering of Eucalyptus globulus and Eucalyptus brookeriana and a couple of other specialist species. What is often missing in this issue around the debate about how we manage swift parrots is the problem of predation by sugar gliders, an exotic arboreal mammal imported from the mainland and not native to Tasmania, which predates on young chicks of swift parrots and nesting females, which is a real challenge. We’ve proven that swift parrots do breed well on Bruny Island where we don’t harvest and there are no sugar gliders on Bruny Island that we are aware of.
This year, I think – and correct me if I’m wrong, Suzette – we surveyed in excess of 1200 trees looking at flower buds to work out where these species might be flowering, which would be an indicator of where the swift parrot will nest. Those are the areas we will aim to avoid harvesting in. That’s been our process all along. We can’t define that at the moment because we’re still working out the process. Suzette, would you like to add any detail to that?
Ms WEEDING – I think you’ve covered it there, Rob.
Dr WOODRUFF – Chair, through you possibly to Ms Weeding, Ms Weeding said before that Forestry Tasmania, trading as Sustainable Timber Tasmania, is implementing the swift parrot management plan. This is required for the forest estate by the Forest Stewardship Council certification. Can you please table a copy of that?
Ms WEEDING – Yes, we can.
Dr WOODRUFF – Good, thank you. Minister, recently a logging contractor was found guilty of assault after they cut the rope of a forest defender residing in a tree sit who was protesting the destruction of swift parrot habitat by Forestry Tasmania, trading as Sustainable Timber Tasmania. It’s clear peaceful protesters are not safe on Forestry Tasmania land. Will you condemn this behaviour?
Mr ABETZ – I condemn every assault, as I condemn every act of vandalism. That is why I was willing to condemn the act of vandalism on the War Memorial in Canberra, which I note the federal Leader of the Greens wasn’t willing to condemn, and one thing I think you’ll find is that just because it’s in one tribe, I won’t condemn or condone it. There are fundamental principles at stake. Any assault is wrong, any vandalism is wrong, and I would welcome the day when the Greens accept that standard across the board. Just because you believe in a cause does not give you licence, and there are things such as trespass, there are also such things as safe workplaces and that occasions difficulties so I would encourage people in the community to consider how they protest and behave. That said, in opposition to that behaviour, there is no excuse for assault.
Dr WOODRUFF – I’m pleased to hear that you condemn the Forestry Tasmania’s contractor’s behaviour, and through you, Chair –
Mr ABETZ – No.
Dr WOODRUFF – I am speaking to the chair, minister.
DEPUTY CHAIR – Order.
Mr ABETZ – Dr Woodruff made a ridiculous assertion to me, trying to put words into my mouth, and it is vitally important that the record is corrected. At no stage did I suggest or in any way, shape or form indicate that the assault that occurred was related to Forestry Tasmania, trading as Sustainable Timber Tasmania. If there is a green demonstrator or somebody else or a Greens staffer who might be convicted of a particular offence, that of necessity does not then reflect on every single parliamentarian.
Dr WOODRUFF – Chair, I think we have already heard this answer. I think the minister is just wasting time at this point and I have a question for the chair.
DEPUTY CHAIR – If you have a question, ask the question. I will remind everybody at the table that the proceedings for today’s sessions, as per the Standing Orders that were agreed to by the parliament, are that members ask questions and answers are given. It’s not a place to make statements. If you have a question, ask a question.
Dr WOODRUFF – The question to the chair is do you condemn the behaviour of this Forestry Tasmania contractor and what are the consequences for Forestry Tasmania, trading as Sustainable Timber Tasmania –
Mr ABETZ – Stop pointing. It’s so rude.
Dr WOODRUFF – for operators that breach your company’s safety protocols?
Mr de FEGELY – We condemn any assault and we aim to have a very safe workplace for everyone. Safety is the first thing the board looks at in all of our board reports and that’s for staff, contractors and people who use our forests. Safety is number one. We are concerned and I don’t know the details about what happened and where but I’m happy to ask the CEO or any of the others of our general managers here at the table to provide a comment if you so wish, but as an entity and a GBE, safety is one of our number-one priorities and we continue to work on that. We’re concerned about trucks on Tasmanian roads, about how they’re loaded, what happens in processing facilities where people process our logs. It’s something that we work on daily and we do not approve of any assault anywhere.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you.
Mr DEPUTY CHAIR – Last question and then we will go to Dr Broad.
Dr WOODRUFF – It is the same question. Are there any consequences for operators that breach Forestry Tasmania, trading as Sustainable Timbers Tasmania, safety protocols?
Mr WHITELEY – No, we don’t discriminate. We expect safety, as the chair said, to be universally adopted in all of the ways we operate, so we’re agnostic around who people work for. To the extent that people have breached our standards, there will be procedural consequences.
CHAIR – The call is to Dr Woodruff.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you. My question is to the chair. Chair, does Forestry Tasmania, trading as Sustainable Timber Tasmania, have an established protocol for the management of protesters? What are the provisions of that protocol? Will you table it in full for the committee if there is one?
Mr de FEGELY – We do have a process. Thank you, Dr Woodruff. I’ll refer to the CEO.
Mr WHITELEY – We have an operational process, which has really got two parts. One is keeping people safe. We make sure we brief contractors on protocols to stop work and do those sorts of things. There are a whole lot of other legal requirements related to the way they manage their site under workplace safety. There are a lot of regulatory things – we effectively operationalise the workplace regulations that they are required to put in place.
The other part is from a legal point of view. We have authorised officers who through, particularly the police, are required to deal with people occupying a workplace. There’s a standard statement that an authorised officer needs to inform those people that they’re in a workplace.
Dr WOODRUFF – Thank you. Can you please table the protocols that you referred to?
Ms WEEDING – It’s an internal procedure that we don’t make public.
Dr WOODRUFF – If it’s not made public, how do you provide that information to the operators, the contractors and the people that are working for you? How do you provide that information to them?
Ms WEEDING – We go through an induction process for the contractors in terms of their obligations. They’ve got obligations under their existing contracts, and those safety requirements are embedded, and how we deal with various aspects are embedded within the contracts themselves. Then we induct operators onto particular operations and into our procedures from that side of things.
Dr WOODRUFF – Can you table that? This is not a workplace safety issue.
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, the call is with Dr Broad.
Dr WOODRUFF – Chair, we’ve established from Ms Weeding earlier that your company ‑ or Mr Whiteley, I think ‑ does have a protocol for the management of protesters. It is in part related to ensuring that Forestry Tasmania, Sustainable Timber Tasmania, works within the law. Can you please table that protocol?
Mr de FEGELY – I’ll refer that. It’s an operational matter, not a board matter. I’m happy for the CEO to respond but I think he’s answered that question.
Dr WOODRUFF – No, Ms Weeding said it was an internal process, but we would like it to be external because it relates to matters pertaining to the work and the directions of how Forestry Tasmania manages peaceful protesters. We want that to be public. That’s entirely reasonable. My question is not to you, minister, but through you, chair, to the CEO. Will you table it?
Mr ABETZ – But the chair can refer to the minister should he so wish.
CHAIR – I’m sorry, Dr Woodruff, but you can’t direct the chair to direct something to the CEO. It’s his decision.
Dr WOODRUFF – No, it was back to the chair.
CHAIR – So the question is to the chair.
Dr WOODRUFF – You can all chat amongst yourselves to make sure Tasmanians don’t get this information.
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff.
Dr WOODRUFF – Well, that’s what’s going on here.
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff, please.
Mr ABETZ – The bad behaviour exhibited here is undoubtedly part and parcel of the bad behaviour that is so often on display at the forest protests. I just wish the protocols for those protesters would be on public display where they have a number of convictions against their name. The Bob Brown Foundation still embraces them and allows them to carry the Bob Brown Foundation name. What is being sought here from Sustainable Timber Tasmania is the way that internally they handle protesters. Should the Bob Brown Foundation be armed with those protocols, they will undoubtedly use them to try to assist them in their misinformation campaigns and their protest campaigns which disrupt the work of men and women who gain a living from our forests. That is an internal document and will remain so.
Dr WOODRUFF – Chair, the US ambassador, Caroline Kennedy, climbed to the top of the giant tree with the help of The Tree Projects. The Valley of the Giants was part of Forestry Tasmania’s three‑year plan. It was taken off the plan after she did that because she saw the inestimable world value of those trees, but it’s not actually being protected. You can suspend logging in that area, just like you suspended logging on Bruny Island to protect swift parrot habitat. Will you commit your company to protecting those globally significant trees and permanently suspending or logging operations in the Valley of the Giants?
Mr de FEGELY – I think we’ve had this discussion. Thank you, Dr Woodruff. Suzette, would you like to answer that question?
Ms WEEDING – The operation you’re referring to is called Denison 7B –
Dr WOODRUFF – It’s called the Valley of the Giants.
CHAIR – Dr Woodruff.
Ms WEEDING – and it’s taken off our three-year wood production plan. It’s still part of permanent production zone land and is considered as such. That said, the area itself contains a number of trees which would qualify either as giant trees or large trees under our under our protocols. Giant trees under our giant tree policy requires them to be protected, and our large trees under our internal procedure in relation to large trees, which are trees over 2.5 metres diameter at breast height. In consideration of those factors, it’s probably unlikely that that area will come back on to our plan but it’s still within our production forest area and potentially available. It’s something we’d need to consider in due course at some point in the future.
