Anne Ruston says National Parks Association “engaged in a campaign to mislead the Australian people” after groups make public submissions on RFAs

The government has accused green groups of deliberately misleading the Australian people by raising concerns about the roll over of long term logging agreements.

NSW Labor refuses to approve forestry agreements based on 'out-of-date' science Read more

The accusations from federal assistant agriculture minister senator Anne Ruston were revealed after Guardian Australia reported the government itself had discussed concerns that the agreements were invalid as they are based on old scientific assessments.

In February 2018 Ruston sent letters attacking the groups for “deliberately and dishonestly” making misleading claims in emails about the regional forest agreements (RFAs).



The environment groups had responded to calls for public submissions on the extension of the NSW RFAs, claiming they were a failed model for forest management, that populations of forest animals – including koalas - had “plummeted”, and that forest jobs had steadily declined while subsidies were needed to keep logging financially viable.

National Parks Association letter for RFA review

Ruston replied personally in a letter to NPA chief executive, Alix Goodwin in February. The minister – with responsibility at the federal level for forestry - said she was disappointed that the association was “engaged in a campaign to mislead the Australian people”.

Letter from Ruston to NPA

Guardian Australia revealed on Wednesday commonwealth concerns about the validity of the RFAs and possible legal challenges to their roll-over because the science that underpins the existing agreements is “now quite old”.

The “legal and political risks” were outlined in ministerial briefs prepared by NSW bureaucrats for three meetings of commonwealth forestry ministers from late 2016, as they negotiated plans for the RFA extensions.

Yesterday the Senate passed an order for the production of documents from Greens senator Janet Rice. Rice is seeking the release of all documents relating to the RFAs produced for the three meetings, and any subsequent meetings. The government has a week to respond.

After receiving Ruston’s letter, the board of the NPA NSW sought legal advice before responding on 23 February with a detailed nine page letter refuting the Minister’s claims.

“We are also aggrieved by and refute the four allegations in your letter asserting that our ‘petition deliberately and dishonestly’ makes certain claims, or fails to include certain information,” the letter said.

Response to Senator Ruston from NPA

In a statement to the Guardian, Goodwin said: “It’s hard to see the senator’s letter as anything but an attempt to intimidate us, because we successfully challenged the government’s efforts to rush the RFAs through with minimum scrutiny.”

Exclusive: legal concerns over plan to roll over forestry agreements without reviews Read more

She said the “direct attack” by Ruston was extraordinary, given that the association’s members wrote the emails while public consultation on the NSW RFAs was still open.

Ruston’s letter has also been used as a template for other members of the government to respond to groups making submissions on the RFAs.

For example, David Gillespie, the federal member for Lyne, wrote to Mr I Hodson from the mid-north coast branch of the NPA in Wingham on 23 February, saying he was making deliberately dishonest claims about wildlife and native forest logging.

Letter from Dr Gillespie MP to Mr Hodson of the National Parks Association

Oisin Sweeney, a senior ecologist with NPA, said: “Senator Ruston’s attack was over a submission letter we put together on the failings of the RFAs. We based our claims on a comprehensive review of the RFAs’ social, economic and environmental performance.

“We presented this review to Ruston’s office in April 2016.... There were no claims of dishonesty or inaccuracy then – or in the 22 months since.”

The Guardian asked senator Ruston a series of questions about the letters. The minister declined to answer the specific questions. She said in a written response:



Interactive Interactive

“The Coalition government strongly supports Australia’s native forest industries and the jobs and economic prosperity they bring to our regional communities.

“The Coalition government is fully committed to fulfilling its election commitment to establish a 20-year rolling life to all Regional Forest Agreements, which are the best mechanism for balancing the environmental, economic and social demands on our native forests.”

Ruston’s letter to NPA NSW is similar to a letter dated 20 February 2018 to Ed Hill, campaign co-ordinator with the Goongerah Environment Centre Office (GECO) in Victoria.

Like the NPA, the GECO was encouraging its members and supporters to send emails to state and federal politicians opposing the rollover of the RFAs.

Ruston, who wasn’t on the list, replied in a letter to Ed Hill dated 20 February. Appearing to confuse the Goongerah Environment Centre with the Wilderness Society, the minister claimed that the group was trying to “mislead” the Australian people.

Letter from Senator Ruston to the Wilderness Society

“What’s curious is that our emails weren’t sent to senator Ruston, they were sent to Victorian premier Daniel Andrews and copied to federal environment minister Josh Frydenberg. We didn’t get a reply from Mr. Frydenberg, but we did get one from senator Ruston.”

Hill said: “Normally the responses from government are more measured but this made some outrageous assertions, accusing us of lying just because we didn’t agree with them.”

In her statement Goodwin said: “This is an extraordinary attack on the NPA, an organisation well respected for it’s evidence based advocacy, and we reject completely senator Ruston’s accusations of dishonesty and misleading behaviour.

“You have to question the state of our democratic processes when we’re invited to make submissions about the management of two million hectares of public property, and then have our integrity questioned by a senator when our view opposes that of the government.”