Mark Baker (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to discuss the important issue of forestry to my electorate of Braddon and the benefits that the Australian government’s policy has to the forestry issue. It has been estimated that the industry contributes about $1 billion each year to the Tasmanian economy. Wood and wood paper product manufacturing alone account for some 20 per cent of total manufacturing employment, 25 per cent of total manufacturing wages and salaries and 24 per cent of total industry turnover. In 2003-04 total Tasmanian forest fibre production was over 23 per cent of national production and valued at some $381 million. This figure represents an increase of 65 per cent in value since 1997-98. Since 1997, around $1.4 billion has been invested in the industry.

The federal government’s forestry policy and implementation program has been of tremendous importance to the Tasmanian forestry industry, ensuring sustainability and world’s best practice performance. Proudly, it is such a good policy that the Labor government has agreed with all issues, with the only difficulty being their conflict in the commitment of the delivery between the Labor leader and his shadow environment minister.

Overall, Labor’s forestry policy does not deviate greatly from the federal government’s current policy. It identifies very small amounts of additional funding, but these will not go very far to achieving any of the desired outcomes. What the industry wants is security of resource, but the Labor policy does not fully commit to this, as it does not state categorically that Labor will not add any new forest reserves.

The Labor government has two forest management policies. Policy 1 is committing to the existing forest policies, in that it acknowledges that the Australian government’s current forest policy settings are right and the Labor government would continue with them. The second policy, set out in its conference in April 2007, did leave the door open for Labor to dedicate more reserves. Labor’s policy does not close this door, as Kevin Rudd, the Leader of the Opposition, has not made a firm commitment that there will be no new reserves. In Tasmania, the opposition policy states that under the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement the protection of forests and private land is complete, but the private land protection is yet to be fully achieved. The opposition does not indicate that there is additional funding for this, so it is likely that it will just be focusing on the 45,000-hectare target under the forest conservation fund.

When considering building forestry industry skills, the federal government’s Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement had $4 million to support industry skills in Tasmania provided through DEST. There have also been several programs nominated by the forestry industry that have gained funding through programs such as the Regional Partnerships programs. The opposition is only offering some $1 million to establish a new forests and forest products industry skills council. Value-adding to forestry products is also a crucial economic reality for the sector and, under the federal government’s Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement, $56 million has been provided for industry development and has focused on value-adding and improving the efficiency of mills.

Similarly, following the regional forests agreement, some $98.8 million was provided for the forestry industry structural adjustment—for New South Wales, $60 million; for Victoria, $18.8 million; for Queensland, $5 million; and, for Western Australia, $15 million. The opposition is only offering a $9 million forest industries development fund, and this focuses on increased investment in value-adding in the processing sector. However, it has been put forward that this also relies on state governments to match the applicant’s funding. There is no indication that the states have made funding available to support this commitment. Ensuring sustainable timber imports is not a new concept, and there is nothing new in Labor’s commitment that is not included in the policy on illegal logging that Senator Abetz has been developing over the past year other than the required disclosure at point of sale of species, country of origin and any certification. The $1 million identified to achieve this will not go very far, as it is likely to require a regulatory body or the like to collect the information and control imports.

In considering preparing industries for climate change, the federal government has announced $126 million for climate change adaption. But where does Mr Garrett stand? The Conservation Foundation, which Mr Garrett led for a three-year term and is a patron of, stated, after the recent announcement:

The Australian Conservation Foundation has called on the ALP to honour its April national conference commitment to “further protection of identified Tasmanian high-conservation value, old growth forests, rainforests and other ecosystems”.

The list of times when the shadow minister for the environment has stated that old-growth and high conservation value forests across Australia should be immediately protected goes on and on. It throws the whole forestry industry into chaos when one considers that he is the alternative environment minister. (Time expired)

See this speech in context