I Object!
Our case against VicForests.
What is the court case about?
We have two grounds in our court case, both relating to the question of whether VicForests is following its own guidelines, as set out in the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2014, the Management Standards of 2014, and the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act of 2004. Those ‘serious questions’ (legal speak) are:
That VicForests is not preserving a 20 metre wide vegetation buffer along roads and tracks in order to screen logging operations from view.
That the net area it plans to log in many coupes exceeds the net area specified in the Timber Release Plan.
So, we sought an interim injunction to stop logging in 16 coupes (10 for screening reasons, 6 for net area reasons).
Is this your first rodeo?
Yes. We needed to gather material to establish standing. We were a bit nervous, but we have wonderful solicitor, John McMullan, and an equally wonderful barrister, Jonathan Korman, and they guided us through the process. The application for an interim injunction was in the Supreme Court on 24 June, 2020, in front of Justice Melinda Richards.
Were there dramatic scenes in the courtroom?
Not really. It wasn’t even in a court room, but done remotely. On the subject of roadside buffers, our barrister, Jonathan Korman, noted how:
The loss of the buffer is a serious loss of amenity to users of the forest… and causes an eyesore for generations to come.
VicForests’s barrister came back with this defence of buffers which had already been logged:
There comes a point at which, if this is a visual amenity buffer, a few remaining clumps of trees end up like a pair of underpants on a naked person: they are a modesty block which don’t really leave much to the imagination in terms of what’s there.
Ok …
The arguments weren’t always this visually arresting. Another argument by VicForests’ barrister was that Kinglake Friends of the Forest needed to show that people actually use the tracks and roads adjacent to coupes. Her Honour said the fact that roads can be freely used by the public is a more relevant indicator.
On the subject of over harvested coupes, VicForests said there was no legal obligation to publish the net coupe area in the Timber Release Plan, nor was it obliged to stick to those original hectare figures once the Operations Map was published. The judge was not convinced. To quote what was in the written judgement: ‘’On the current state of the evidence, this variance is unexplained’’.
So what happened next?
The judge thought KFF had made a ‘strongly arguable case’ in relation to VicForests failure to screen. She granted a temporary injunction, until July 14 2020. The buffers in 10 coupes could not be cut until then.
Our case regarding net coupe areas was ‘more finely balanced’. The judge wasn’t prepared to stop all harvesting there, since that would intrude on the legal principle that an injunction should only be sufficient to achieve its objective. But VicForests’ was injuncted from logging those 6 coupes until it produced another operations map which limited the net coupe area to that cited in the Timber Release Plan.
Great. So why did you have another court appearance on 3 July 2020?
Well, the July logging schedule was late in being published. On the principle that VicForests should abide by these rules for ALL coupes, at least until July 14 2020, we decided to ask for an injunction on logging roadside buffers, and in excess of net areas listed in the TRP, on all scheduled coupes until that time.
And what happened?
Justice John Dixon gave us that injunction as well. This time, it applies to ALL coupes in the Central Highlands.
The trial will be heard in the second half of 2021.
Is this the straw that breaks the camel’s back?
The barrister for VicForests said this in court on 24 June 2020, noting how it is now prevented from logging 65 other coupes owing to legal action by environmental groups. But with over 2000 coupes listed on the Timber Release Plan, there are many more straws to place on this particular camel’s back.