Estimates - Forestry - Logging Contracts
CHAIR - Minister, I'm trying to elicit some information on your department's action on the pending environmental law reforms. Would the state be liable to pay out logging and supply contracts if logging and supply undertakings cannot be fulfilled?
Mr ELLIS - What I would say in the first instance is that if you destroy people's livelihoods, you have a moral duty to pay them out.
CHAIR - It's not really the question, minister.
Mr ELLIS - Well, I think there's compensation that's been worked through as part of that process. So, if you're to destroy an industry, you should compensate the people who are involved in it. That's
CHAIR - I'll bring you to my question which was around the pending environmental law reforms.
Mr ELLIS - Yeah. So, the environmental law reforms, you know, accredit our systems and we certainly had, as I mentioned, really strong engagement with the Commonwealth who recognised our independent Forest Practices Authority and the broader architecture that we have is very sound, probably nation leading. Tasmania is among the leading jurisdictions in the country on this, then we deliver a bilateral agreement that recognises our system. Forestry will continue across land tenure and across forest types. Now, if say for example the Commonwealth were to cram down on Tasmania, a ban on native forestry, like the Victorian Government did to itself; Victoria has, I think, at last count paid out $1.5 billion in that process. They've destroyed firefighting capacity, they've destroyed regional communities, and they haven't delivered a better environmental outcome. They've actually reduced their ability to manage the landscape so let's not go down that path. Let's deliver a bilateral that accredits our system. We might pass to Ms Pinto to maybe talk more about how the ongoing negotiations are going with the Commonwealth, noting the answer to Mr Jaensch as well.
CHAIR - Sorry, before you do, and I'm very happy to hear from her, but it's around getting advice in relation to your, or the state's, potential liability.
Ms PINTO - Through you minister, and I'll make this succinct to the question. So the first comment I would make is that the minister is accurate here, what we're looking to do is to undertake a bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth that would accredit the forest management system, but it also needs to ensure that the industry is operational. So if we have a system - I'm using this as a very hypothetical context - so if we were to have a system that would render large parts or even sectors within an industry inoperable, then that is going to be a matter for an element of the negotiation. Absolutely. We have made that a very clear element of discussions with our counterparts in the Commonwealth. Further I would note that I've made reference earlier to the imperative to ensure that as a jurisdiction we have comprehensive legal and technical advice, that will be also forming part of that, which would consider through two lenses, and I'm looking at these from a legal perspective, and look at the lens of the Commonwealth and their obligations. We will look at the lens of our jurisdiction and their obligations, and then I just merely make acknowledgement of the minister's comment in terms of what would be ostensibly due to an industry and I think you know, you made the reference of moral grounds. I think that's another imperative that needs to be considered.
Mr ELLIS - The other element, just to add, as well as the regional forest agreement, there are significant compensatory provisions under that if there's an impact on Tasmania's forest industry, the Commonwealth potentially need to pay. So obviously that's something that you know we continue to receive legal advice on. It's very important that we deliver a regulatory regime that continues Forestry and its Land Management properties across the Tasmanian state and if the federal government's changes were to shut down native forestry, that would be an economic, social, environmental and financial disaster for the Commonwealth and Tasmania.
CHAIR - Thank you, minister.
****
CHAIR - Minister, I'm trying to elicit some information on your department's action on the pending environmental law reforms. Would the state be liable to pay out logging and supply contracts if logging and supply undertakings cannot be fulfilled?
Mr ELLIS - What I would say in the first instance is that if you destroy people's livelihoods, you have a moral duty to pay them out.
CHAIR - It's not really the question, minister.
Mr ELLIS - Well, I think there's compensation that's been worked through as part of that process. So, if you're to destroy an industry, you should compensate the people who are involved in it. That's -
CHAIR - I'll bring you to my question which was around the pending environmental law reforms.
Mr ELLIS - Yeah. So, the environmental law reforms, you know, accredit our systems and we certainly had, as I mentioned, really strong engagement with the Commonwealth who recognised our independent Forest Practices Authority and the broader architecture that we have is very sound, probably nation leading. Tasmania is among the leading jurisdictions in the country on this, then we deliver a bilateral agreement that recognises our system. Forestry will continue across land tenure and across forest types. Now, if say for example the Commonwealth were to cram down on Tasmania, a ban on native forestry, like the Victorian Government did to itself; Victoria has, I think, at last count paid out $1.5 billion in that process. They've destroyed firefighting capacity, they've destroyed regional communities, and they haven't delivered a better environmental outcome. They've actually reduced their ability to manage the landscape so let's not go down that path. Let's deliver a bilateral that accredits our system. We might pass to Ms Pinto to maybe talk more about how the ongoing negotiations are going with the Commonwealth, noting the answer to Mr Jaensch as well.
CHAIR - Sorry, before you do, and I'm very happy to hear from her, but it's around getting advice in relation to your, or the state's, potential liability.
Ms PINTO - Through you minister, and I'll make this succinct to the question. So the first comment I would make is that the minister is accurate here, what we're looking to do is to undertake a bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth that would accredit the forest management system, but it also needs to ensure that the industry is operational. So if we have a system - I'm using this as a very hypothetical context - so if we were to have a system that would render large parts or even sectors within an industry inoperable, then that is going to be a matter for an element of the negotiation. Absolutely. We have made that a very clear element of discussions with our counterparts in the Commonwealth. Further I would note that I've made reference earlier to the imperative to ensure that as a jurisdiction we have comprehensive legal and technical advice, that will be also forming part of that, which would consider through two lenses, and I'm looking at these from a legal perspective, and look at the lens of the Commonwealth and their obligations. We will look at the lens of our jurisdiction and their obligations, and then I just merely make acknowledgement of the minister's comment in terms of what would be ostensibly due to an industry and I think you know, you made the reference of moral grounds. I think that's another imperative that needs to be considered.
Mr ELLIS - The other element, just to add, as well as the regional forest agreement, there are significant compensatory provisions under that if there's an impact on Tasmania's forest industry, the Commonwealth potentially need to pay. So obviously that's something that you know we continue to receive legal advice on. It's very important that we deliver a regulatory regime that continues Forestry and its Land Management properties across the Tasmanian state and if the federal government's changes were to shut down native forestry, that would be an economic, social, environmental and financial disaster for the Commonwealth and Tasmania.
CHAIR - Thank you, minister.
****
CHAIR - Dr Woodruff, we'll move around the table. Thank you. Minister, I just want to continue with the line of questioning that I've started. With foreseeably less availability, how are expected increases or decreases in value of native forest products being considered as part of contract negotiations?
Mr ELLIS - So the basis of your comments about decreases?
CHAIR - Well, with the reduced, the likely reduced supply.
Mr ELLIS - On the basis of?
CHAIR - Oh, well, I think it might be STT information.
Mr ELLIS - Do you mean with the resource mix change to plantation?
CHAIR - Yes.
Mr ELLIS - So there're two separate processes - obviously without STT here - but, there's a contracting process for the high-quality plantation sawlog, which is coming online now. It was planted after a sort of wave of lock-ups around the early 1990s. That project is coming through at the same time as the recontracting for the native resource. Certainly, you know, as we're signing new contracts, we're going to make sure that we get a good deal that supports STT's ongoing operations and continued profitability, while also making sure that the industry has good opportunities to grow. Again, we don't have the STT staff here at the table, but at a high level, certainly new contracts provide opportunities for us to take into account the growing demand for Tasmanian timber and the new resource mix that's coming through with -
CHAIR - This is really - I'm sorry, you might have misunderstood my question. I'm sorry if it was clumsy, but it's really in relation to the changes in the environmental laws and negotiations.
Mr ELLIS - Well, I mean, we've had no indication as yet, unless the Commonwealth's told you something that they're planning on reducing the amount of -
CHAIR - You'd be the first to know, minister.