Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2471 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
given that it no longer needs to have its proposed harvesting procedures subject to environmental impact studies-such a requirement having been abolished under the regional forests agreement, thus allowing the poisoning to take place-can you explain why you accept the assurances of State Forests of New South Wales that it manages forests sustainably and that the project will not source timber from poisoned trees?
MR STANHOPE
: Ms Tucker, I noted the comments you made in a debate last night in relation to your concern about management practices of State Forests of New South Wales. In relation to the trees that were injected with a substance and on-sold for firewood, there certainly are some legitimate interests. The advice made available to me was, as relayed in the letter to you, that Environment ACT were satisfied that the wood that was the subject of your previous question on this matter had not found or would not find its way into the fireplaces of ACT consumers.In relation to the broader issue of whether one should have any confidence in State Forests of New South Wales and why I express any confidence in them at all, I do that on the basis of advice, but I will revisit the question you have asked and look at the letter. I do not have it with me. You have me at some advantage in that respect. I will review the letter and review my answer and go to the nub of the question you asked.
It was and would be broadly an issue around the acknowledgment of the level of wood consumed in fires and wood heaters in the ACT and steps that the government has taken to educate consumers on the availability of different sources of supply of wood and, therefore, different wood. To that extent, much of the concern that the ACT government seeks to meet in relation to the consumption of wood goes to the issue of the protection of lowland woodland and the protection of yellow box and red box, species that are highly desired by those within particularly the ACT who have wood heating.
If it comes to a choice between continuing to consume yellow box or red box, much of which is sourced from up to 600 kilometres to the west and north of the ACT, and utilising state forest wood sources, I instinctively favour the use of wood from New South Wales State Forests over and above the continued harvesting of yellow box and red box, which is currently the favoured wood type of ACT consumers.
Canberra, for a city of its size, has been quite rapacious in its appetite for yellow box. ACT wood vendors now source their yellow box, the No 1 sought after wood in the ACT, from as far afield as 600 kilometres away. That is how far the ACT wood consumers now spread their net. I said "instinctively"but, as I say, Ms Tucker, I will look at the detail of my letter and of your concern. But if it is a choice between continuing to harvest yellow box and sourcing wood from New South Wales State Forests, I will source it from New South Wales State Forests any time. That goes to the heart of the response I have provided.
MS TUCKER
: My question actually goes to how State Forests harvests the wood and the sustainability of that. My supplementary question is: will the minister table the report of the Health Protection Service investigation that concluded that burning picloram-treated firewood represented a very low risk to public health and did not produce any more emissions or dioxins that burning non-treated timber?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .