Mr PALLAS (Tarneit) — I also rise to address the Forests Amendment Bill 2012. In so doing I want to  reaffirm the opposition’s position that this bill and its implications should properly be considered through a joint parliamentary process by the Environment and Natural Resources Committee.  The reason for this is that we do not want  to  see a repeat of  the  sloppy legislative efforts  that  have accompanied the introduction of this initiative into Victoria.

The minister at the  table, the  Minister for Ports, has been quite outspoken in the past  about what he  sees  as sloppy legislative  initiatives;  however, you could  not  find  a  more  dramatic  demonstration  of a very poor  approach  to introducing public policy into the lawful domain of  this  state than this bill. The initial legal  bungle was made when  the government changed the  regulations and published arrangements for firewood collection without  a permit, failing to change the legislation which in fact still held penalties for collecting without a  permit. Whilst the  regulations empowered people, the overriding principle of statutory  interpretation  which  holds  that  legislation  prevails  over   the regulation  effectively made it impossible for the lawful collection of firewood without  in  fact  running  foul   of  the  legislative   prohibitions  and  the requirements under which firewood could be lawfully collected.

This is a bungle, and it is a demonstration that this government had not thought through either its policy or the way that it sought to implement its policy.

We on this side of the  chamber believe that if you  are going to go through the process  of legislating in this place, especially if you are going to change the very way in which public policy is implemented  and change  the process  for the collection of firewood that  was established by  Henry Bolte and his  government back in 1958, then it might be  useful to  understand the  full implications  of what you are doing. This is  a clear demonstration of a  government that has not thought through the implications of  its policy and what it means. Most notably, the government has not thought through how it  can give  the requisite  level of legal assurance to those who seek to avail themselves of the increased  capacity  to  access  firewood  under these arrangements without  the requirement for a permit.

Prior to the last election the  coalition promised to scrap  firewood collection permits. That  is  the main purpose of this bill  —  to  abolish the need for a permit. The bill  establishes two collection  seasons  each financial year:  the autumn and  spring.  It  designates areas in state forests for the collection of firewood. The intention was also to provide  flexibility to ensure that firewood supplies  could be managed  into  the long term,  and provide safeguards  around that, and to create a series of offences to encourage appropriate  behaviour and deter illegal firewood collection.

The question  that has  to be asked is: does this bill  achieve that  objective? There are very serious questions being asked  in country Victoria about  whether this bill achieves that objective.

For example,  in the Weekly Times  of  2 May 2012, under  the  heading ‘Raids on firewood —  Open  slather as traders  abuse no-permit collection’, there  is an article which states:

  Commercial operators from  Melbourne have been  accused of ‘cleaning  out’ the  free collection areas supposed to provide winter warmth to country residents.

  Even the homeowners are taking part in the illegal ‘firewood free-for-all’, as  the government policy has been dubbed by environmentalists.

The  article  goes  on to  say,  quoting  a  speaker on  behalf  of  a number of environmental groups:

  ‘The intentions were good  but  the result has been a disaster’, angry Axedale  resident Jeff Wallis said.

  ‘I’ve  been out a few weekends now to  get  my wood for the winter and there’s  not a scrap left’.

  North Central Catchment Management Authority member  James  Williams  said the  government no longer had staff to patrol firewood-collection points.

Here is the basic principle that underpins the loss of the permit  arrangements. There is also a similar loss of capacity to resource adequate enforcement around these  arrangements.  As the North Central Catchment Management Authority member said, merchants from the  city are going in and they are just taking everything. The free system was always  going to be open to  abuse. Where are the safeguards in this legislative scheme?

Where is the commitment to effectively resourcing  it so that country people can be assured that the  opening up of access to firewood on roadside areas is being appropriately policed and that that policing is being adequately  made available for those who  legitimately seek to work  within the confines,  constraints  and safeguards incorporated within the legislation?  There  are  serious  doubts  in country Victoria about whether in fact that is happening here.

The article goes on to say:

  Permits costing  $20  to $30 were  abolished  last September by  the coalition  government,  which said the ‘new approach will reduce the burden of red  tape’  and ‘make it easier for households to access an annual supply of firewood’.

Of course as we heard in the  earlier  part of that article, it is only  cheaper and it is only easier if there is wood to access.

If  there is not, then in effect all you have is a system where people are being severely compromised  in terms of access to a resource that is  finite and  that ultimately is one that many households, particularly in country Victoria, depend upon.

Similarly,  in the  Mildura Weekly  of 4  May 2012  an article under the heading ‘Firewood collection — The burning question’ states:

  According to  the  Victorian  National  Parks  Association,  when  Premier Ted  Baillieu changed a system that had been operating since 1958, he  left it open  for homeowners to be liable for fines of up to $6000, or a year’s jail!

This  is effectively confirming what the opposition is saying: that  this  is  a clear  demonstration  of  the  miscalculation   of   this  government.  This  is legislative stupidity.

The government has effectively put the regulation before the legislation. It has failed  to recognise  that and  failed to put in place a legislative scheme that appreciates not only the  safeguards  but  also  the  means  by which you ensure available supplies of  firewood  and environmental  safeguards  in terms of  the protection  of flora  and fauna that depend upon felled timber as part  of their ecosystem. The  government  has also failed  to  recognise that  country  people deserve the right to be protected from those who come into their communities and actually clear out those communities. That is an issue that has  not been worked through.

The  article goes on to talk  about  the  need to amend the bill ‘to  align  the legislation with the government’s  existing policy’. So here  we are cleaning up in a retrospective sense  after an abject  failure of legislative effectiveness. The article continues:

  The scrapping of the firewood permit system by the Baillieu government was the  biggest single change to a system that had been introduced —

once again I refer to this —

  by the Liberal Bolte government in 1958.

There  are key issues of concern around the way this legislation  operates.  The free-for-all that has  existed since last year  has resulted in  growing concern among country  people that it is  open  to  abuse.  The  impact  of  private  firewood organisations like the  Northern United Forestry Group and the potential for the loss of jobs in Victoria have not been addressed. Some communities are likely to be worse off, for  example those in  Gippsland.  There are unclear  arrangements both  in compliance and  monitoring.  There are  also  unclear arrangements  for ensuring sustainable  levels of firewood collection. Finally, it is unclear what level of environmental impact increased firewood collection will have.

All  these  things  demand  a  clear  assessment  of  the  consequences  of  the legislation by the government. We have  seen regulation without legislation. The government has not seen the forest for the trees in a statutory sense.

The  opposition  urges the government  to  take up the  opportunity the reasoned amendment presents  — that  is, to  enable a  serious analysis of this issue so that  country  people  can  have  consistent,  clear access to a system that  is appropriately enforced and  managed  so as to  preserve their resource  for  the future.

See Tim’s speech in Hansard here.