House debates
Monday, 28 May 2007
Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2007; Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2007
Second Reading
6:35 pm
Stewart McArthur (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source
Prior to the break in this debate on the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2007 and cognate bill, I noted that this legislation provides for the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation to be replaced by a proposed new company, Forest and Wood Products Australia. This new company will, for the first time, be able to use levy funds to promote the environmental values of the use of wood products and the use of wood products harvested from forests.
The new company will invest industry funds into research and development to support improvements in productivity and efficiency in the industry. The research work of the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation has been well respected by those in the industry, and we look forward to the new organisation delivering results to help improve the competitiveness of the forestry and wood products industry.
During the budget sitting week, I had the pleasure of escorting around the parliament Mr Stuart Bennett, Director of Midway Wood Products. Mr Bennett formerly managed a very successful timber mill at Birregurra in the Corangamite electorate and maintains an active involvement in the industry. Mr Bennett indicated to me that a need exists to do more work on plantation tree species, especially for hardwood and sawlogs. Mr Bennett stated that the improved genetics of pine trees had resulted in a 15 per cent boost to yield over time, demonstrating the benefits of research. This is an endorsement of the current R&D corporation and justification of the government’s policy to maintain support for forest and wood products research and development in the new company.
From a processing perspective, Mr Bennett advised that the quality of wood is better when sourced from plantations because the trees are the same age and of consistent type and are therefore less costly to process than timber sourced from forests. But, in a cautionary note, Mr Bennett made the point that it has not yet been proven that a suitable quantity of sawlogs will be grown in plantations to meet long-term demand. This is a key challenge for the domestic timber industry. Where will the industry source suitable timber supplies? I note that, in his second reading speeches on these bills, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry confirmed industry support for the legislation, for the establishment of a new company and for its new, broadened roles.
The industry supports these measures because they will help timber workers and timber communities respond to challenges facing the sector. The challenges include: difficulties in attracting private investment for plantations, an undersupply of softwood and hardwood sawlogs, restrictions on harvesting from native forests and ongoing attacks on the industry from radical environmental extremists. Finally, the establishment of the new company, Forest and Wood Products Australia, through these bills will be necessary to support the forestry industry, because it is an industry under threat as you, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, would know.
There has been a determined campaign waged against the forestry sector over many years which has sought to marginalise the industry and put the future of the industry and forest workers’ jobs at risk. Opponents of the sector have gone about the total destruction of the industry with a religious-like zeal. Not only have our foresters been forced out of many of the nation’s forests but there are also groups which now seek to wipe out the plantation sector. Mr Anthony Amis, representing the misnamed Friends of the Earth, recently wrote in the Age newspaper, dated 4 April 2007, attacking the plantation sector and blaming it for causing all kinds of ills from water pollution, air pollution and toxic waste to crumbling roads.
There could be no more renewable an industry than the timber industry, where you can grow a tree, cut it down and coppice another tree to grow in its place. This simple fact of life seems lost on Friends of the Earth, who want to force foresters out of forests, close down plantations and presumably source the future supply of Australia’s wood and paper needs from environmentally devastating and ethically bankrupt logging in the Amazon and sensitive environments in Third World nations.
While Friends of the Earth would see sensitive world forests bulldozed to supply Australian timber, the Prime Minister has recently announced the establishment of a Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. The Australian government has committed $200 million to kick off this measure to protect world forests. In announcing this initiative, the Prime Minister recognised that almost 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from clearing the world’s forests. More than 4.4 million trees are removed every day world wide.
In contrast to the arm waving by Friends of the Earth, the Howard government’s $200 million commitment to this initiative will support new forest planting, limit destruction of the world’s remaining forests and promote sustainable forest management. This is a key, practical measure to help stop denuding forests in developing nations.
The government’s clear support for Australian timber workers and a sustainable forest industry can be contrasted with the Labor Party, which proposed a disastrous policy for Tasmanian forest industries at the last election. Former Labor leader Mark Latham sold out Tasmanian timber workers and their families during the 2004 election. It is good that this legislation allows the forestry industry to promote itself. Concerns about Labor’s policy remain within the forestry industry. Even some Labor MPs are concerned about Labor’s policy, as was taken to their national conference just a few weeks ago. Steve Lewis, writing in the Australian on Monday, 2 April 2007, reported:
One frontbencher expressed concern at the draft policy, which is based on “no overall loss of jobs in the industry” while leaving open the prospect of locking up further old-growth forests.
“You can’t have it both ways because Tasmanians can’t be conned,” the MP said.
That is right. The opposition leader cannot have it both ways. He tries to walk both sides of the street on most issues, but the Australian people know that is not possible. It is disappointing that the opposition environment spokesman is not contributing to this debate. It would be very helpful if the member for Kingsford Smith would come in here and speak in support of the timber workers, but we all know that he will not because he wants to close the timber industry down. The opposition spokesman wants to force timber workers out of native forests. That is why he will not step into this chamber and speak in favour of this particular legislation. Labor MPs know the opposition spokesman cannot be trusted on this issue. I, again, quote Steve Lewis in the Australian, of 3 April 2007:
Although Labor MPs believed Mark Latham’s 2004 Tasmanian forestry policy was dead and buried, Peter Garrett seems determined to resurrect at least part of it. Labor’s climate change spokesman says he is determined to hold on to that part of the draft policy platform which clearly states that Labor in office will consider further protection of Tasmania’s old growth forests.
In the context of the threats faced by the forestry and wood products industry, I note the comments by Tasmanian Premier, Paul Lennon, following the ALP national conference:
“I’m fed up with Tasmanian forestry workers and their families being election bait …
“I don’t want the looming federal election to be another period of uncertainty and worry for them …
Premier Lennon was obviously unimpressed with the federal Labor Party’s position, which, once again, has the potential to sell out timber workers. The Forest Industries Association of Tasmania is quite clear on what it thinks of Labor’s policy. FIAT Executive Director Terry Edwards told the Hobart Mercury on 30 May 2007 that if Labor’s policy is:
… exactly as it reads—additional reservation—then as happened at the last federal election we’ll be campaigning against the Labor Party.
It is disappointing that Labor is sending such negative signals to forest workers. It is a sign of just how much these new reforms are needed to allow the forestry industry, working cooperatively as a whole, to promote their industry and the benefits of sustainable timber harvesting.
I am pleased to speak on these bills in support of our forest industries, timber workers and their families. I personally have been a long-time supporter of sustainable forest industries and the use of good science in forestry. The Howard government has supported our timber industries and contributes to research and development which promotes improved tree species and a more competitive production timber system. I commend these bills to the House.
No comments