Stewart McArthur (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We agreed with it, but it was your Labor government that disbanded it both in New South Wales and Victoria. So whilst you give lip-service to the national forestry statement 2002—a regional forest agreement—it was your state governments which did not do the right thing. It is my understanding that the Tasmanian government has stuck with the spirit of the RFA, much more so than the other states.

I have long had an interest in these forestry matters and I commend the thrust of this bill in terms of research and development. I have always advocated a sustainable forestry industry and have been around these arguments for the last 15 years or so. Obviously time is short for me to conclude my remarks tonight, but I would like to mention Mr Michael O’Connor, who is well known to me as a representative of the CFMEU. That may come as a surprise to those opposite. Michael O’Connor has conducted negotiations on behalf of his workforce to keep the forest workers in the forest. He has fought a number of battles on behalf of the workers. He fought a battle, I recall, in Tasmania before the last election. Michael O’Connor does have a deep understanding of the matters referred to in the bill and I think he should be participating in research and development because he can make a valuable contribution. I say that in all sincerity, because he does have an understanding of some of the key elements of tree growing, harvesting and new species. I think the member for Hotham would agree with that. I note that Mr Michael O’Connor has been elevated to the federal executive. He has had arguments with some other members of the frontbench about forestry matters. So I put that on the record and would be happy to support that particular proposal.

Like the member for Hotham, I am pleased to support the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2007 and the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2007. These are technical bills, as members would be aware. These pieces of legislation provide for the establishment of a new body to coordinate the marketing, research and development, and the provision of services for the forestry industry. The fact that we are debating these bills today demonstrates the Howard government’s support for the sustainable forestry industry sector, and in particular the government’s strong support for those hardworking forestry and timber industry workers and their families. They make a living in the Australian bush in one of the most sustainable resource industries. Again I put on the record my strong support for those workers. They are good people. They work hard in very dangerous areas. They have worked, in my view, cooperatively with the loggers in trying to sustain the industry over time, contrary to some of the perceptions and arguments put forward by some of our city cousins.

The new forestry industry services body will replace the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation, which has served the industry well. The FWPRDC has administered the levy paid by forest companies to undertake research and development to improve the long-term sustainability and competitiveness of the sector. There have been major improvements in the genetics of tree species that have supported the improvements in productivity and efficiency. I am aware of that, as the member for Lowe would be because he knows about blue gums. The genetics of those blue gums have improved over the last 10 years. That has been a result of some of this concentrated research. It is claimed that the improved genetics of some of these species has increased yields by up to 15 per cent. This demonstrates the importance of industry research and development. The Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation was restricted in how it could expend the levy funds raised with the emphasis being on research and development. The industry has worked with the government on the reforms that will encourage increased industry contribution to the new forestry services body to undertake a wider range of activities that the sector believes should be undertaken on its behalf. I think the member for Hotham alluded to that and supported more ongoing promotion. I am pleased that he has added his support to this.

The new body established by the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2007 will continue to undertake and deliver industry-wide research and development. Government funding for R&D will be maintained at the current levels as a minimum. Under these reforms it will potentially increase because the levy base will be broadened to include a new forest grower managed investments levy. So the forest growers—and I have had a few things to say about managed investment schemes—will be making a contribution to commercial forestry. I have had some reservations, as the member for Lowe and others would know, about managed investment schemes. I will have more to say about that in this House at a later time. The Commonwealth will also match funding raised from the existing import charge imposed on logs and certain classes of primary processed forest products imported into Australia where that import charge is spent on eligible research and development. Contract payments from state and territory governments to the new forestry industry services body will also be able to receive matching funding from the Commonwealth for eligible research and development. I think that is a commendable set of arrangements. The Commonwealth will match dollar for dollar the state contribution.

An important role of the new body which has not been able to be provided by the current Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation is that the body will be able to use levy funds to promote the sustainable nature of the timber industry and promote the environmental values of wood products. The member for Hotham, the member for Batman, the member for Lowe and I would agree on that approach. We want to argue the case for the timber industry. Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, I am sure you would agree with us as well. It does provide environmental values and it is a sustainable product, contrary to some of the green environmental debates that we have seen over recent years—probably in the heartland of the electorate of the member for Lowe where they have some misguided views on the timber industry. Some of the more sensible members on both sides of the parliament have been trying to enlighten them. It is a sustainable industry and it is here to stay provided we can provide some research, provide some sensible guidelines and do not reject the regional forest agreements as some state governments have done. In view of the time, I seek leave to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

See this speech in context