Dr WOODRUFF - Tasmanians were very distressed earlier this year to see an image of this young Tasmanian devil that was incinerated in a logging burn in one of the STT's forests in the Central Highlands. How many other Tasmanian devils have been burned like this one this year?
Mr ELLIS - In terms of managing forest practices, we note that the FPA, the Forest Practices Authority, is not available for us here today. What I might do, I might pass over to the STT team around the way that we manage wildlife when it comes to regeneration burns-
Dr WOODRUFF - You don't get that information yourself? As minister, you don't get those sort of statistics about our protected native species?
Mr ELLIS - As I mentioned Dr Woodruff, the FPA is the regulator in this space, but I might pass over to the STT team.
Mr de FEGELY - Thank you, Dr Woodruff, I'll pass to Suzette Weeding, our general manager at conservation and land management.
Ms WEEDING - We are aware of the report of the animal that was killed in one of our burning operations. It was unable to be confirmed or validated I think when everyone went out there to have a look, it was already gone. In terms of our regeneration activities, we undertake comprehensive assessments as part of our [inaudible] operations. We provide management prescriptions for management of flora and fauna and other heritage, other natural values as part of our harvesting activities. In terms of our burning activities, we have not had any other reports of Tasmanian devils being impacted in relation to our burning activities.
Dr WOODRUFF - Thank you, Ms Weeding. Minister, how many spotted-tailed quolls have been incinerated by logging this year?
Mr ELLIS - I'll pass that over to the SST team.
Ms WEEDING - We've had no reports of any spotted-tailed quolls being incinerated by our regeneration burning activities.
Dr WOODRUFF - How many other threatened species, minister, have been burned to death from logging burns this year?
Mr ELLIS - I might do the same although I think it's also worth mentioning as well for people that do want to make reports of course to the FPA that that's an avenue that's more than open to them as well, and we're open to that scrutiny, but-
Dr WOODRUFF - Well, they do actually.
CHAIR - Mr Behrakis -
Dr WOODRUFF - Ms Weeding was in the middle of providing the answer, Chair.
CHAIR - Oh, sorry, please.
Ms WEEDING - It's exactly the same answer: we haven't had any other reports of any other threatened species that have been burnt in our regeneration activities.
Dr WOODRUFF - There's no other threatened species that you've got evidence of being mowed down by the logging operations? How many species have been sort of mown down in the process of logging? There's animals living in those trees when they'reclear-felled and then later burnt.
Mr ELLIS - In terms of reports and that sort of stuff, Dr Woodruff, if you do have any reports, feel free to provide them of course. The FPA is an independent regulator so that's obviously an avenue available to you if you have specific concerns -
Dr WOODRUFF - Minister, the answers that I heard before show that Forestry Tasmania is not doing the assessments of the damage from logging operations and burning operations; they're relying on conservationists, and that devil photo was taken by a conservationist. Is it just like fire bombing, where Forestry Tasmania just sort of burns the area, walks away, and shuts its eyes to the evidence of what's going on. There are gross harms happening, but Forestry Tasmania is not doing an assessment of the extent of them.
Mr ELLIS - I'll pass over to the STT team to maybe provide a bit more of an understanding around the monitoring. One of the things I will say is that regeneration burning in eucalypt forest is absolutely a critical part of making sure that the forests regrow. And in much the same way, in terms of fuel reduction burning, in terms of the Australian eucalypt landscape as well, it's a critical -
Dr WOODRUFF - It's rubbish. That is such misinformation. It's a critical part of ensuring biodiversity is damaged forever in those forests, and you know that.
CHAIR - Order.
Mr ELLIS - Dr Woodruff, I mean, I don't -
Dr WOODRUFF - It is so far from a restored catchment by the time Forestry Tasmania is finished with its -
CHAIR - Order.
Mr ELLIS - So, look, what I -
Dr WOODRUFF - Unbelievable that you could say that in a biodiversity crisis.
Mr ELLIS - Yes, I think if you ever need to see an example of the Greens having absolutely no understanding of forest science, that would be a very high example of it. And as I say, I'll pass over to the team shortly, but -
Dr WOODRUFF - Why don't you tell me how much carbon is trashed each year by Forestry Tasmania? Do you do an assessment of that?
CHAIR - Order.
Mr ELLIS - Yes, no. And again, the carbon space - one of the things that it's been shown that for the last 30 years that STT's permanent timber production zone land has been a carbon sink for Tasmania, and I think-
Dr WOODRUFF - You're chopping it down.
Mr ELLIS - I think your lack of understanding in this space is unfortunate. You look at the way that this landscape has been managed for tens of thousands of years, and I think even the Greens are starting to understand this: fire is an important part -
Dr WOODRUFF - Actually, don't start down this track. You're not comparing Aboriginal care and management and fire burning with napalming by Forestry Tasmania.
CHAIR - Order.
Mr ELLIS - Active landscape management through fire is an important part of managing fuel loads in the Australian bush and in terms of regrowing eucalypts as well.
Dr WOODRUFF - Are you seriously comparing what Forestry Tasmania does to traditional Tasmanian Aboriginal community techniques of managing land?
Mr ELLIS - Active landscape management through fire, through thousands of generations, has been practiced in Tasmania and in Australia, and look, I will pass over -
Dr WOODRUFF - That is so offensive. I think you should apologise to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people for saying that. That is a very disrespectful thing to say.
Mr ELLIS - No, I think you should apologise to foresters everywhere who know a heck of a lot more about this than you are clearly demonstrating. I will pass over to the team to explain a little bit more about this, and also some monitoring matters as well.
Mr de FEGELY - Point of order, Chair, we are Sustainable Timber Tasmania and that is what we prefer to be called. Thank you very much but -
Dr WOODRUFF - You are trading as Sustainable Timber Tasmania, but you are the body which -
CHAIR - Order, Dr Woodruff
Dr WOODRUFF - is Forestry Tasmania so -
Mr de FEGELY - We prefer to be referred as Sustainable Timber Tasmania -
Dr WOODRUFF - That is fine.
CHAIR - Dr Woodruff, please listen to the Chair.
Mr de FEGELY - and I think you would find, that if somebody prefers to be called or referred to by a certain name, then you respect that. Could I please ask for your -
Dr WOODRUFF - You are a corporation being paid for by Tasmanian taxpayers and you are killing and destroying biodiversity every single day. We do not want to play the games and greenwash your company.
Mr de FEGELY - Thank you, I would prefer if you referred to us as Sustainable Timber Tasmania. That is what we prefer.
Dr WOODRUFF - Well, moving on you might not get what you prefer today, with all respect, Chair.
Mr ELLIS - I do not think there is a lot of respect going on at the moment from you Dr Woodruff.
Ms WEEDING - As part of our planning operations in developing our Forest Practices Plan, we undertake quite a detailed evaluation of natural and cultural values within a harvest area. That includes searching for eagle nests, looking for devil dens where they may occur, and implementing management prescription as part of our harvesting operations. I am informed in that particular coupe no devil dens were located as part of that operation or subsequent to that report coming through, despite evaluation.
In terms of the processes we run, as the minister said, par tof our management of the forest areas is undertaking a regeneration burn to provide optimal eucalypt and other species regeneration within a harvest area and that is certainly what we do from a management perspective.
As I mentioned previously, we have not had any other records or citizen scientists or others come forward with evidence of animals being impacted, or particularly threatened species being impacted, as part of our regeneration burning activities - particularly something as dramatic as what you have shown - which to us, is part of the evidence that we are not routinely impacting on devils as part of our harvesting operations or in our regeneration burning activities.
Dr WOODRUFF - You do not do anything yourself, you rely on citizen scientists. You do not do any post-burning, post-logging surveys to assess what animals have been killed in the process?
Ms WEEDING - As part of our regeneration activities, we go out and undertake detailed assessments post-burning activities. We are out there confirming that a fire has been extinguished, that there is not any ongoing risk from fire in relation to those areas. Part of that would be to capture anything that they were observing in those particular coupes.
I have some conversations with some of our foresters after that report came out and asked whether this was something they had seen, or had seen evidence of in their activities and the answer was no.
Dr WOODRUFF - Yes, but you are not denying the truth of what that is and where it was taken.
Ms WEEDING - I have no evidence to prove or disprove it.
Dr WOODRUFF - Thank you, minister. Yesterday we were pleased somewhat surprised to hear you acknowledge the important work of animal liberation and the key role they are playing in exposing cruelty in the greyhound industry, in the case of the former trainor Anthony Bullock and his life ban. In the forestry sector we are also seeing Tasmanians who are concerned and playing a critical role and exposing exactly what is happening in the industry and damage to biodiversity. There are amazing, dedicated citizen scientists out there working tirelessly to document the natural values in the forest. They are in areas that are scheduled for logging, to identify the masked owls and the swift parrots that are living there now. Will you join the Greens and thank and acknowledge the work of these passionate Tasmanians that they are doing to protect our precious areas?
Mr ELLIS - I will say a couple of things here. The first is just like I said yesterday, anyone should feel welcome if they want to report things to the independent regulator. Of course in racing, it is the Office of Racing Integrity. In this case the Forest Practice Authority who, as I mentioned, are not here because they are not a GBE.
One of the things I will say though is that there have been concerning reports as well of things like meat traps being set up in the forest -
Dr WOODRUFF - That was proven to be a false story.
Mr ELLIS - In what sense?
Dr WOODRUFF - All of it was false. There was not a meat trap that was set up.
Mr ELLIS - There was just meat hanging from a tree?
Dr WOODRUFF - It is misinformation perpetrated by - would you like to speak about the young Tasmanians who are out there documenting the values in our forest?
Mr ELLIS - As I said Dr Woodruff, people should feel welcome to report any reports when it comes to forest practices to the independent regulator. People should not feel welcome and should not be thanked if they are doing the wrong thing including staging things like meat traps in our forest and there is no place for that kind of behaviour particularly because it's a distortion of trust-based science. But, that being said, anytime people would like to bring forward legitimate information about the way that we manage our forests, we welcome that. Obviously, this isn't a hearing about the FPA; this is a GBE hearing, but in general, I can say as minister, that we take any report seriously.
Dr WOODRUFF - Okay. You would've seen this image. It went viral nationally and internationally, shocking people around the world. It shows a centuries-old tree being trucked through Maydena in August this year. I have some photos here that were taken in Huonville today of enormous centuries-old trees. You'd be aware that these are critical breeding habitat for threatened, endangered species like the swift parrot and masked owls. How can you sanction this sort of destruction in a climate and biodiversity crisis?
Mr ELLIS - In terms of climate, the sustainable management of forestry is a critical solution when it comes to climate change. The OPCC has said themselves that sustainable forest management is a critical tool, in conjunction with conservation, because trees capture carbon. They do that best when they're growing. They imbed carbon in the end product which, includes wood products.
Dr WOODRUFF - Sure, plantations are a great idea. What about these centuries-old trees?
Dr BROAD - The Greens approved every one of those trees being harvested.
Mr ELLIS - Mr Bayley is at the table. He was one of the signatories of that agreement.
Mr BAYLEY - Minister, don't go there.
Mr ELLIS - You went there, you were there.
Dr BROAD - But you said that that was okay?
Mr ELLIS - I will make a few points regarding large trees. We have a giant tree policy with STC. Trees that are over 85 metres or 285 metres tall, 280 metres cubic capacity, they are regarded as giant trees. We have very large trees in Tasmania, as part of the forest ecology, that we have here and we can grow large trees quite quickly. We have a process for managing them, a policy for doing so, recognising that, for giant trees, that meet that threshold, they are reserved as part of this process where it is feasible. That's an important part of that-
Dr WOODRUFF - Hold on, I am holding images of ancient giant trees. How do you justify this to the children of the future, the children of Tasmania?
Mr ELLIS - We might be able to provide an update, Dr Woodruff.
Dr WOODRUFF - Minister, I am asking you, in the moral sense, how do you justify this to future generations? It's a climate crime.
CHAIR - Order.
Mr ELLIS - Dr Woodruff, we have a giant tree policy. You're wrong about forestry in terms of climate change. The IPC agrees that forestry is a critical part of that. I might pass over to the STT team to talk about our giant tree policy and provide some understanding for you around how that works and the way that we operate.
Dr WOODRUFF - Thank you, I don't think-
Mr ELLIS - You don't want information on giant trees? Is that because it might be different to what your narrative?
Dr WOODRUFF - I don't want to waste the time by hearing information that we know we are going to get, which is arbitrary. It's an arbitrary policy.
Mr ELLIS - If you don't want to waste your time by asking questions about information, then I'm not sure what we're doing here, Dr Woodruff.
Dr WOODRUFF - It's about your moral integrity as a minister, leading a government with a policy to continue to cut down old growth forests.
CHAIR - Order. I'm going to give the call to Dr Broad. Thank you.
Dr WOODRUFF - Minister, I know we had a pretty heated conversation before, and I know you might have said things that you might possibly regret later. I would like to give you the opportunity to make an apology to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people who will read, at some point, this Hansard for comparing the careful, very thoughtful, and evidence-based practice of burning - with the season, the species, and the time of year all taken into account - with comparing that ancient practice to the incineration of clear-felled logging coupes by Forestry Tasmania. Will you make that apology to them now?
Mr ELLIS - Dr Woodruff, it is important to note that while the two are not exactly the same, there is an important biological process that is important to understand. The reason why burning occurs for regeneration of eucalypt forests is because those forests are fire driven. You see that after all sorts of burns that happen in our landscape, so, whether it is a bushfire that happens through natural causes, eucalypts through the way that their seeds germinate, fire is a key driver of that. That has been understood in this landscape for many, many years, and a thousand generations effectively.
It is really important for people to understand that there are beneficial fire processes for our landscape and, particularly, when it comes to eucalypts, they are a tree species that is well understood to benefit from the way that fire assists with germination and a whole range of other biological processes.
Dr WOODRUFF - Forestry Tasmania has reversed its decision -
Mr de FEGELY - Point of order, Chair, please. I did request the honourable member to refer to us as Sustainable Timber Tasmania. To refer to somebody by name they do not wish to be referred to begins to fall into bullying and harassment. Could you please ask Dr Woodruff to withdraw her comment, apologise to my team, and refer to us as Sustainable Timber Tasmania?
CHAIR - Dr Woodruff, I ask that you withdraw that and refer to them as Sustainable Timber Tasmania as is their name.
Dr WOODRUFF - Chair, I will not be doing that because Forestry Tasmania is a legal entity. Sustainable Timber Tasmania is the trading entity. I recognise that if Forestry Tasmania wants to change its legal status and become Sustainable Timber Tasmania I will do that, but I am not going to participate in what has become an exercise of greenwashing for what happens with forestry in Tasmania. I cannot do that and I do not think this is in any way reasonable to compare it to a person taking offence as though it is bullying.
Honestly, you are the head of a company, Chair. This is really a little bit small-minded. Why don't we talk about the serious issues?
Mr de FEGELY - I think you are showing massive disrespect to our staff who have been, for many years now, referring to Sustainable Timber Tasmania. Yes, legally we are still Forestry Tasmania -
Dr WOODRUFF - Thank you, that is correct.
Mr de FEGELY - but we have chosen to be called, and in terms of respect for individuals and entities, if somebody refers to a name that they wish to be referred to, then out of respect and dignity, you use that name. To refer them by a name that they do not wish to be referred to as, is actually bullying and harassment.
Dr WOODRUFF - This is about, look -
Mr de FEGELY - I am sorry but it is. It is very clear.
Dr WOODRUFF - I have a question to ask, Chair.
CHAIR - Dr Woodruff. No, it is my turn. I agree the entity needs to be referred to as they wish and as they should be. I ask you to respect that and respect the staff here this afternoon. If you cannot do that, stop referring to them in that other way. Okay? Your choice, but if you keep this up, you are gone.
Dr WOODRUFF - Chair, I would like to understand on what basis you could prevent me from referring to a state-owned company by its legal name?
CHAIR - Dr Woodruff, I have made that ruling. Respect the ruling. We will now move to further questions, Dr Broad.
Dr WOODRUFF - Chair, I have not had a question.
CHAIR - No, no.
Dr WOODRUFF - I have a rotational right and I did nothing wrong -
CHAIR - Interjections will cease.
Dr WOODRUFF - other than use the legal name -
CHAIR - You are right up to date with your -
Dr WOODRUFF - of Forestry Tasmania. That is the name.
CHAIR - Dr Woodruff, I will take this opportunity, I did not want to do this, but I will take this opportunity to remind you that if you persist in interjections, I will have no choice but to seek the Speaker's advice and you will be out for the rest of the session. Now cease.
Dr WOODRUFF - I will seek some clarity on that other matter. I understand that the Speaker has been quite clear that you cannot take offence on behalf of other people. That is not upheld in the Standing Orders. This is matter about the Chair.
CHAIR - Again, I ask that you respect these people opposite and refer to them in the correct manner.
Dr WOODRUFF - I refer to the Chair as the Chair but to be clear, Chair of the Committee, Forestry Tasmania has signed a document with the Treasurer on 20 June 2023, under the heading 'Forestry Tasmania'. They are legally 'Forestry Tasmania.' It is the legal term. I am using the term that they themselves use when they make contracts and arrangements with the Government.
CHAIR - Dr Woodruff, we are here to scrutinise this particular GBE. You are chewing up valuable time by pursuing this line. If you continue, I will have to suspend this, seek advice from the Speaker and the time will not be added on to the back. I do not want to do that because we do not want to waste these good people's time.
Please, if you have a question, ask it of the GBE or I will move to Dr Broad.
Dr WOODRUFF - Chair, it is not okay for you to shut me down just because there is a disagreement about a matter of the Standing Orders, so I will ask the question.
CHAIR - Dr Woodruff, please ask a question of the GBE, Sustainable Timber Tasmania. Do not waste their time as you are. I ask you, please.
Mr BAYLEY - While you are looking for that, Ms Weeding, I will draw the minister's attention and indeed the committee's attention to page 19 of the very recently released National Recovery Plan for the Swift Parrot. It still identifies logging of native forest as a key threat to the species. Specifically, it says:
Loss of potential breeding habitat in Tasmania via clearance for conversion to agriculture, native forest logging and intensive national forest silver cultural operations continues to reduce the amount of available swift parrot nesting and foraging habitat. It therefore remains a significant threat to the continued persistence of the species.
Ms Weeding, we accept that you do a lot of this monitoring and you have the best intentions in mind but all the science is showing and the recovery plan is articulating that intensive native forest logging in Tasmania of nesting and foraging habitat is a key threat to the species.
It is implausible for us, on this side of the table, to believe that you are monitoring and that planning processes that you have in place is adequate to protect the species. That is not what the science is saying. It is it not what the Tasmanian Government's own recovery plan is saying. I would ask you to bear that in mind in relation to your answers as well.
We accept that you are doing a lot of monitoring and so forth but we do not accept that you are taking enough action in protecting this habitat. That is what the science is showing.
Ms WEEDING - To go back to coupe HP29E. It is a native forest harvesting operation which we have not commenced planning at this stage. We have constructed a road, located five kilometres west of Dover. We acknowledge that there is some habitat for swift parrot in and around the coupe and a detailed assessment will be undertaken as a part of that process.
Mr BAYLEY - The roading would have taken out trees. Do you know whether that took out important breeding or foraging habitat trees?
Ms WEEDING - It would have been assessed as part of that planning process to determine whether there was potential habitat. I could not tell you off the top of my head how many trees were removed as part of that operation but I can absolutely say that the forest practice's planning process would have considered swift parrot as part of that roading operation.
Mr BAYLEY - It would not necessarily have protected the trees, even if it was in an important area. If the road had to go through that tree, it would have been lost?
Ms WEEDING - Part of an assessment process is looking at the forest and the landscape as a whole. If there was a known swift parrot nest site, for instance, they're an absolute protect. We put a 50-metre reserve around known swift parrot sites.
Mr BAYLEY - Even from roading?
Ms WEEDING - Even from roading. Before the roading goes in, of course. Once the road is there, it is a bit of a different story. We have management proscriptions which are proscribed through the forest practice's system around how to manage foraging habitat and nesting habitat. They would have been considered as part of that process in putting that road in place.
Mr BAYLEY - Coming back to the recovery plan and coming back to FSC certifications, clearly those proscriptions are not working.
Ms WEEDING - I believe in terms of the FSC process, we are undertaking a whole range of actions around swift parrot. A number of years ago we put in place the Public Authority Management Agreement which is still enacted and will be for quite some time. It provided for additional retention and protection of swift parrot habitat, on permanent timber production's own land. We implement the forest practices system which is a continuous improvement system looking at retention and management of habitat for swift parrot.
I understand that clearing activities and other activities that impact natural forest are still threatening processes for the swift parrot. There's a whole range of threatening processes that affect the swift parrot. Other management actions that we are doing is that we are undertaking regeneration activity and restoration activity of Bruny Island, an area where swift parrots are not predated by sugar gliders which are pretty prevalent on the mainland. We have that in place. That is a roughly 50-hectare area that we are planting with Eucalyptus globulus. We are very pleased that this year we have seen quite substantial numbers and our monitoring has picked up quite substantial numbers of birds on Bruny Island.
Mr BAYLEY - Notwithstanding all those actions, how do you explain the intensive native forest logging - your activities - is still articulated as one of the key threats to the species in the recovery plan that was published by the Tasmanian Government and the Australian Government this year, in September 2023.
Ms WEDDING - There is a whole suite of it. A recovery plan picks up a whole range of threats-
Mr BAYLEY - Yours has been identified as a significant one.
Ms WEDDING - I understand that. It picks up a whole range of threats which affect a whole range of species and what it does is applies actions around managing those threats. It all comes down to how you balance managing the forest areas. That is not just on permanent timber production zoned land. It encapsulates the whole reserve areas and all areas where the species may occur. It is not just here in Tasmania it is also on the mainland.
Mr BAYLEY - But it is pretty clear in the management plan that the balance isn't being struck.
Mr ELLIS - Mr Bayley, when you were asking a question earlier you mentioned land clearing, for example. That is not forestry. That is not the way that STT operates. I suppose that is one of the things that is important for the communities' understanding that the whole point of forestry is that you regrow the forests and that is the business model.
Mr BAYLEY - I understand that, but do you accept that native forest logging and intensive native forest silver cultural activities are the kind of activities the entity undertakes? Do you accept that, minister? That is the other threatening process that is articulated in the recovery plan.
Mr ELLIS - Thanks, Mr Bayley. I think Ms Weeding outlined that we take a range of measures to mitigate that. To conflate land clearance with forestry is not accurate.
Mr BAYLEY - I am reading from the recovery plan. I acknowledge it does say here that clearance for conversion to agriculture is one threat, absolutely. That is one that I would contend your Government needs to address but it equally articulates native forest logging and intensive native forest silver cultural operations as a significant key threatening process. That is exactly the activity that is undertaken by this entity.
Mr ELLIS - Yes, I think we have articulated how we mitigate around that. But I think it needs to be on the record that you shouldn't be conflating land clearance.
Mr BAYLEY - I am not conflating; I am just quoting. I am quoting from your own recovery plan.
Dr WOODRUFF - You're deliberately misrepresenting people again, Mr Ellis.
Mr ELLIS - You said it Mr Bayley, I am just clearing that up and I think you acknowledged that as well.
Mr BAYLEY - I do not acknowledge that. It is a misrepresentation. I do not at all acknowledge that. I am just quoting from a recovery plan, mate.
Mr ELLIS - As I say, this is a public hearing so for the benefit of everyone, you and I both acknowledge the land clearance is not something STT does. I think that is important for the public understanding of what we do but noting your other comments it is important that we are also putting in place mitigation.
Ms WEEDING - I have just got a further point of clarification around Hopeton. I have just received some more information. We surveyed Hopeton 209E for potential swift parrot habitat on 17 and 18 November and included a preliminary assessment on 15 November. We already have work underway in relation to it. It involved walking along the roads and a range of other things and we have also deployed six acoustic recorders in that coupe.
Mr BAYLEY - Have there been any findings?
Ms WEEDING - Yes, so we found two nest sites so we will be able to consider those in terms of our ongoing planning activity. As I said it has not been planned yet in terms of a harvest area I think there is an old forest practices plan that we need to update in relation to that area. Absolutely, new information will be taken into account.
