Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 195 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

support for a compromise position. I think people need to be well aware of that. It is not what I would like to see; I would like to see a stronger position. The SEFA options are a compromise position and it is so disappointing that this Government is not prepared even to look at them.

I might just make a few comments on what happens to water if you have this sort of logging. Basically, it places at risk our remaining forested catchments and the clear, reliable water they provide. It is so hard to get these arguments up because we have governments like this one which are so obsessed with what we can value. Look at what is happening in Europe right now with the poisoning of the major river system. Those people are finding out what water is worth. Those people are finding that it matters a hell of a lot, even though it does not feature on the account balance. The people opposite have no idea of the value of the wonderful fresh water that we have here and how to maintain it or take a strong enough interest in it. If they had, they would have come here today with proper and substantiated arguments on this important topic.

Basically, when rain falls on an old-growth, multi-aged forest, much of the water is stored in the soils bound by the root systems of the forest. They act as a sponge, gradually releasing water into the creeks and rivers. After logging the soil is compacted by heavy machinery, causing loss of the sponge effect and topsoil erodes, causing poisonous nitrates and phosphates to wash into creeks and rivers. Initially, following harvesting, stream water levels often rise due to increased runoff. It is a fact, however, that regrowth forests use far more water than the multi-aged, old-growth forests that still remain.

Intensification of harvesting will result in much larger tracts of regrowth forests and significantly less water in the streams and rivers that rise in these forests. That will have serious implications for agriculture, fisheries, tourism, businesses and residents downstream. There is no quick fix. Some scientists believe that it will take as long as 120 to 150 years for the water yields to return to levels found prior to integrated harvesting.

Basically, what we are seeing with these options is the concept of value adding. It is not how most of us understand it. The New South Wales option is one that requires large old-growth trees and could well see the destruction of all remaining old growth in state forests. Old-growth forest is essential habitat for fauna, as regrowth forest does not contain the tree hollows that are present in the old growth. Old-growth forests also provide food resources, such as fungi and nectar, in far greater quantities than regrowth forests.

As I said, it does concern me greatly that we are not seeing a greater understanding by this Assembly of the importance of the ACT having a view on this matter. This Government is obsessed with trying to win political points. Whenever I or other members of this place offer Mrs Carnell and the gentlemen on the other side of the house an opportunity to have a rational debate, supported by information, they do not come out with substantiated arguments and information, even though they have lots of people to support them, or any serious analysis of the economic implications of the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .