Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

When I arrived in this place in 2013, there was barely a mention of forest policy; there certainly was very limited discussion. There was a lot of chatter around agriculture, and rightly so, but, as I grew up in a timber town, the fact that forestry was receiving almost no attention was something that I took really seriously. I'm pleased to say that as co-chair, with my good friend the member for Hunter, of the Parliamentary Friends of Forestry Industries, I set about changing the debate in two ways. The first was to raise the salience of forestry industries—that is, to talk about the importance of forest industries. HomeBuilder, I should say, has turbocharged that in recent months because of issues around the availability of structural timber.

The second, and probably the most powerful, thing we did, from the industry's perspective, was to commit to a bipartisan approach on forestry. We committed to taking the uberpoliticisation of forestry out of the conversation so that we could set forestry on a particular pathway irrespective of who was in government. I hope that with this motion we're not charting another course, because for this industry uncertainty is death. It takes around 30 years to grow a softwood tree to the point at which it can be harvested. Any uncertainty with government policy during that time is critical, and we need to avoid that.

Every year or so at meetings of the Parliamentary Friends of Forest Industries, as a symbol of our bipartisan effort, the member for Hunter and I hug. We do that to show that in this place we are one on forestry. I'm disappointed to see that there has now been a breakout of the old way. If we're going to go back to the old way, let me point out something that those opposite need to address—and I say this against a background not of seeking to politicise forestry but of taking a bipartisan approach. The best thing they could do on forestry right now would be to get on the phone to their Labor Party friends in Victoria and Western Australia, who effectively are ending hardwood production in this country. In Victoria's case they've been relatively sensible; they've said that by 2030 the Victorian native forestry industry will be gone. If you're working in native forestry in Victoria, it will be gone by 2030. I said 'relatively sensible', because in Western Australia they've announced that it will be gone by 2024. So if you're working in native forestry in Western Australia your job will be gone in 2024. Those opposite have the temerity to come into this place and say there's a national wood fibre shortage in this country. So there is! That's why we shouldn't be pursuing these kinds of policies.

Speaking of the kinds of policies we should be pursuing: it's all about R&D. In the past fortnight we've spoken a lot about net zero. Our forestry industry has an opportunity to play a key role in meeting this target. In an increasingly carbon constrained future, the forest and forest products industry is one of the few well-established carbon positive industries and it sits poised to benefit. Yes, the current timber supply constraints have shone a light on the need to get more trees in the ground, but let's not forget an important parallel need. For the Australian forest and forest products industry to realise its potential as an innovative internationally competitive industry that contributes significantly to economic growth, social wellbeing and environmental sustainability, we need to increase focus on R&D.

The industry faces many new opportunities for carbon sequestration and biomass as well as the expansion of wood products to meet demand driven by population growth. National coordinated research and development will increase our sovereign capability and bolster our national modern manufacturing initiatives. In 2016 the federal government initiated a pathway for increased research and development in the sector by the announcement of the establishment of the National Institute for Forest Products Innovation—NIFPI, as it's known—in partnership with the states and industry. I commend the government on this initiative. A hub-and-spoke model sees national coordination and guidance through the Australia-wide NIFPI together with continued, indeed, increased funding for the NIFPIs. I'm very proud to say that the very first NIFPI was established in Mount Gambier, and I for one know that the solution to these shortages is greater R&D in NIFPIs across the country, including the one in my electorate.

See this speech in context