Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—The purpose of this statement is to update the House on the delivery of our forestry election commitments; reaffirm the policy framework for the sustainable management of our forests, and; reiterate the importance of forestry jobs and businesses during this time of global economic downturn. This government is committed to ensuring the conservation and sustainable management of Australia’s forests and supporting our forest industries and jobs into the future. Our election commitments will help our forest industries prepare for the future. In our first budget, the government committed $20 million to assist industry and support jobs, particularly in regional communities, through measures that invest in value-adding through the Forest Industries Development Fund; address long-term skills and training shortages through the new Forest and Forest Products Industry Skills Council and database development; deal with climate change by addressing major knowledge gaps; and work with our Asia-Pacific neighbours and industry to tackle illegal logging by investing in capacity building, certification, improving governance and in developing a regulatory impact statement. I can report to the House that we are on track in delivering all of these commitments.

Australia is blessed with unique and diverse forests, from the giant karris and tingle tingle of the south-west to the mountain ash of Victoria and Tasmania and the rainforests of the wet tropics. Within weeks of being sworn in as the forestry minister, I saw firsthand the stunning natural beauty of Tasmania’s forests and how they are being sustainably managed and I talked to the workers and company managers who dedicate their lives to this sector. Our forests are a uniquely defining national icon which inspires a breadth and depth of community feeling like few other features of our landscape. Australia’s forests cover almost 20 per cent of the continent—more than 149 million hectares—and make up four per cent of the world’s forests.

Our forests are greatly valued by all Australians for many reasons: environmental protection; biodiversity conservation; recreation; tourism; and, importantly, as a sustainable resource that provides jobs, supports important Australian industries and underpins many rural communities. The diversity of these benefits will always be reflected in the range and strength of views about how our forests should be managed. Indeed, how we should conserve and use our precious forest resources has been debated intensely many times in Australia’s recent history. Striking the right balance between these objectives has been an enduring principle for our forest policy over the past few decades. As Prime Minister Paul Keating said in 1995, our forests ‘are a national treasure and their management must be ecologically sustainable and economically clever’.

An important part of striking this balance is having the right framework in place for the conservation and sustainable management of our forests. A cornerstone of this framework is the 1992 National Forest Policy Statement, jointly developed by the previous Labor government in consultation with the state and territory governments. Pivotal to this approach, and arising from the policy statement, was the development of regional forest agreements (RFAs). RFAs are 20-year plans which deliver the right balance between conservation and sustainable production in native forests. The Rudd government remains fully committed to RFAs as the primary mechanism to sustain jobs and support industry, to ensure high conservation values, and for the protection of biodiversity and threatened species. They form the central pillar of our national forest policy framework. A total of 10 RFAs, covering most of Australia’s major native forestry regions, were endorsed between the Commonwealth and the states of New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania between 1997 and 2001.

RFAs were developed on the back of the largest scientific assessment and stakeholder consultation processes ever undertaken for Australia’s forests. The agreements have delivered significant environmental outcomes, including Australia’s world-class forest reserve system. Currently, 23 million hectares of Australia’s native forests are protected in formal nature conservation reserves, as defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Sixteen per cent of Australia’s total native forest estate is now formally protected in reserves, up from 10 per cent in 1998. About 4.6 million hectares of Australia’s native forests are contained within World Heritage listed areas. More than 73 per cent, or more than five million hectares, of Australia’s known old-growth forests are now protected within reserves. Significant conservation outcomes are also being achieved outside the reserve system.

Central to the RFAs was the development of a rigorous sustainable forest management framework to ensure the environmental protection of key forest values, including biodiversity, soil and water, and cultural heritage. Strict codes of practice now underpin the management of production forests to protect these values. In addition to the regulatory framework, many forest managers have achieved independent certification of high-quality forest management through internationally recognised forest certification schemes. An interim report from Allan Hawke’s independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 will be released next week. This report will discuss the issue of RFAs and their interaction with federal environment law.

Australia’s various RFAs, and their underpinning frameworks, have been effective in delivering this environmental protection for forests within those regions. As 20-year agreements, the RFAs ensure environmental protection whilst providing the certainty for industry to invest in its future.

As forest growth cycles can span many decades, forestry requires long-term planning and investment horizons. Australia’s forest industry has had to factor a changing resource base into its investment planning and decision making. The declining amount of public native forests available for production has coincided with a dramatic increase in the size of Australia’s plantation estate. The estate has nearly doubled since the mid-1990s, expanding by around 70,000 hectares a year, and now stands at nearly two million hectares. This increase in area has been a key objective of the Plantations for Australia: the 2020 Vision, which is a partnership involving the Australian, state and territory governments and the forest industry.

It is important to note that the majority of this significant investment in new plantations over this period has been from the private sector, mainly through managed investment schemes (MIS). The behaviour of some MIS companies and reasons for their recent failure are currently attracting much attention—and rightly so. However, it should be recognised that forestry MIS have fostered significant investment into regional communities. The most appropriate investment model for forestry will naturally be a focus of our attention once the corporate cases become clearer and current inquiries run their course.

Plantations now account for around two-thirds of this country’s log production. The changing resource base has required a significant investment by the forest industry to harvest, transport, process and manufacture wood. Value-adding has been central to this investment—creating new revenue streams, boosting export earnings and making the industry more competitive. The government is assisting this process through the $9 million Forest Industries Development Fund to support industry initiatives which add value to forest resources.

The most significant value-adding investment proposed for Australia’s forest industry is the Gunns Bell Bay Pulp Mill, in Northern Tasmania. At up to $2 billion in capital expenditure, the mill would be the largest ever private sector investment in Tasmania, and the largest ever by Australia’s forest industry. The economic benefits for Tasmania should not be underestimated. The mill will add an estimated $6.7 billion to Tasmania’s economy. Construction of the mill and flow-on investment would create some 8,000 direct and indirect jobs spread across the trades and other areas. Another 1,500 jobs would be created during operation. The mill will also provide a significant boost to Australia’s export earnings.

It is important to note the mill would not result in any increased harvesting of Tasmania’s forests, which are already subject to stringent conservation and management frameworks through the Tasmanian RFA and Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement. This project is about value-adding in every sense of the term. Without it, we would be exporting revenue and jobs.

As the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, let me state quite clearly that I want to see the Gunns Bell Bay Pulp Mill built—provided the requirements of federal environmental law are met. At present, this assessment process is ongoing and will have to come before the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for decision, before the mill can operate. The Gunns Bell Bay Pulp Mill will be good for jobs, good for industry and good for Australia.

Job security remains a concern for our forest industries as they deal with the global recession—and securing these jobs is a priority for this government. The forestry sector is not immune from the downturn in the global economy. Companies are being forced to slow operations and reduce staff. Export opportunities are restricted. Forestry contractors are facing a tough business climate due to a reduction in the demand for forest products.

Forest industries make significant contributions to Australia’s regional economies, providing over $21 billion in turnover in 2005-06. Currently, 76,800 people are directly employed in the sector. These industries are vitally important to so many regional communities around Australia. In Tasmania, for example, 32 per cent of the workforce in the Derwent Valley and 23 per cent in the Dorset area are directly employed in the forest industry.

During my visits to Tasmanian towns such as Maydena, St Helens, Lilydale and larger centres like Launceston, there was clear evidence of the importance of vibrant forest industries to these communities. Within the Green Triangle, the areas of Grant, Mount Gambier and Wattle Range all depend heavily on the forest industry for employment—with between 11 and 16 per cent of the workforce directly employed in the sector, and significant employment as well, I acknowledge, in Gippsland.

As part of our election commitments, we declared ForestWorks as the new forest industry skills council and provided $1 million towards its implementation and operation. This initiative will build the skill base and capacity of the forest industries workforce and keep government and the education sector apprised of future skills needs. The government has allocated $1 million towards the development of a comprehensive industry wide database to help address skills shortages. The database will contain essential information on skills requirements for the forest sectors, training providers and availability of courses, planning for areas of shortages or growth, and understanding trends in specific regions.

The government is consulting closely with the industry on these and other important issues through the Forest and Wood Products Council, which I chair. The council not only acts as a bridge between government and industry but also enables cooperation between different industry sectors.

To complement the work of the council, today I am announcing that the government will establish a Forest Industry Leaders Ministerial Roundtable. This will include the heads of Australia’s major forestry and timber companies and will focus on government-industry collaboration to secure industry investment and jobs at a time of global recession. The round table will include leading representatives from Australia’s native forest and plantation sectors, the wood processing sector, the pulp and paper sector, the skills and training sector and the workforce. I have discussed the round table with industry and will be sending formal letters of invitation to representatives shortly.

My colleague Senator Kim Carr, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, last week announced the formation of a new Pulp and Paper Industry Strategy Group by this government. The group comprises senior representatives from the leading pulp and paper companies, unions and all levels of government. It will undertake a review of the industry and develop a plan to encourage innovation and attract investment in pulp and paper manufacturing in Australia.

Australia’s forestry sector has a very important role to play in another priority of this government—dealing with climate change. The government has allocated $8 million towards projects which address major knowledge gaps about the impacts of climate change on forestry and the vulnerability of forest systems.

What we do know is that our forests absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they emit, making them net carbon positive. In 2007 forests provided a net sink of 21.1 million tonnes of CO2 and the increase in the carbon stock of harvested wood products was 4.4 million tonnes. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will provide important recognition and incentives for the ongoing role of forests and forestry in national efforts to address climate change. The government expects that the CPRS will increase environmental plantings while creating new jobs and while providing for climate change mitigation.

In the international climate change negotiations leading up to a new agreement in Copenhagen at the end of this year, the Australian government is pushing for revised treatment of land use, land use change and forestry. Australia wants to recognise the full mitigation potential including recognising stored carbon in harvested wood products.

As a cradle of biological diversity, as places of incalculable yet exquisite natural beauty, as a renewable economic resource, as an integral component of our response to climate change and as a defining element of the national landscape, we have responsibilities which weigh greatly upon our policy considerations. This government will continue to achieve the right balance in the management of our forests. We will ensure these resources are conserved and used sustainably for the benefit of all Australians. It is a balance that will guarantee the future of this resource, enable its conservation and protection, and support jobs and our forest industries into the future.

I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Calare to speak for 14 minutes.

Leave granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Cobb speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 14 minutes.

Question agreed to.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is Minister Burke’s first ministerial statement regarding forestry since he assumed the portfolio and I was particularly pleased to hear him mention his and, I sincerely hope, his government’s support for the Gunns project in Tasmania, and I am sure that the member for Lyons would agree with that. In listening to the minister mention the requiring of a sign-off by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, one can only hope—and I am sure all Australians do, especially those involved in productivity and employment—that that minister will not play around with it and that he will address it at the first opportunity and make it a realistic issue.

The timber industry is vital to regional Australia, and I accept the figures that were read out by the minister just a few moments ago. There are something like 76,000 people directly employed in it. So obviously the timber industry is a very big employer in Australian terms. Last financial year, in 2007-08, Australia imported almost $4½ billion of forest products, the bulk of it, over $3 billion, being pulp and paper products. In that same year we exported $2.471 billion of forest products. Obviously, as we are a country that does not like to import more than we export—of anything, let alone anything to do with agriculture—we need to lift our game in Australia and support our forest industries to address what is for us an incredible trade imbalance in the agricultural sector.

It is unforgivable in my view that we are placing a burden on forests in developing countries, which I am told, in some instances, are illegally logged, because of our desire here in Australia to lock up our native forests. We are leading the world in sustainable forestry management practices and yet we continually lock up our native forests—normally because the Labor Party is chasing green preferences, I think we could say.

For a long time it appeared Minister Burke was asleep at the wheel when it came to his fisheries and forestry portfolio responsibilities. In October last year the coalition determined, through the Senate estimates processes, that Minister Burke and the Labor government had in fact made woeful progress in honouring their election commitments. Despite being in office just shy of 12 months and despite the minister duck-shoving the addressing forestry skills shortage program off to the employment and workplace relations minister—and it is actually being well received and is supported by industry—guidelines for the program had not been developed. Guidelines for boosting the export of forest products had not yet been developed. Guidelines for the program building a forestry industry database had not yet been developed. Guidelines for the program banning the importation of illegally logged timber had not yet been developed. And when it came to the $8 million preparing forest industries for climate change program, there was a draft paper only which was not going to go any further until after the ministerial council in April 2009—six months later!

For a minister who apparently aspires to higher places, this was indeed a scathing report card revealed by Senate estimates, especially coming from someone who was reported as saying that the first year in government is all about implementing government election promises. Minister Burke’s statement today of course seeks to highlight the so-called ‘decisive action’ his government has been taking in this area. But I am sorry that I am going to have to point out that there have been a significant number of low lights for forest industries since Minister Burke took the reins.

We have recently had tabled a Senate inquiry report where the Labor and Greens senators cast doubt on the future of the regional forest agreements, about which the minister just spoke, a recommendation which effectively represents an abandonment of more than a decade of bipartisan support for the RFA process and for the forest industry. I refer to the coalition senators’ dissenting report, which said:

If enacted, this recommendation … would cast uncertainty over the forest sector and put at risk thousands of jobs and millions of dollars of investment.

Not like the Gunns project. It goes on:

This is bad enough at the best of times, but unthinkable in today’s economic climate.

And, off the back of that, we had wild reports from Senator Bob Brown that he was going to attempt an insane deal with this Labor government to end logging in return for the Greens senators’ votes for Labor’s flawed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Senator Brown said he was putting on the table that deal proposing to end logging, yet no-one in the government batted an eyelid. No-one came out, not even Minister Burke, and dismissed that idea. It beggars belief that Labor will not negotiate with the coalition on emissions trading but will happily entertain this Greens nonsense that would gut forestry and see thousands of jobs and millions of investment dollars disappear overnight. Minister Burke and Labor MPs in forestry electorates—the member for Lyons for one—should have been up in arms, but their silence was deafening and their lack of support did not go unnoticed by forestry workers.

The government focus should be on commercial-productive timber plantations and not on taking land out of production in environmental plantings. The current reafforestation rules in the draft CPRS are too complex and bureaucratic and will not encourage substantial new investment in production plantations. Recognition of harvested wood products in the CPRS is the key to getting more production plantations in the ground under that CPRS. I cannot understand how it is claimed that, once a tree is cut down, the carbon locked up in a house made from that tree—or a coffee table or a dining room table—is not stored. This makes no sense and must be addressed by your government, Minister, and by all.

If we need even more evidence of Minister Burke’s haphazard management of his portfolio, let us go to the CPRS fuel scheme. This scheme includes agriculture and fisheries but leaves out forestry, which is the only carbon-positive industry in Australia. Yet it is penalised. Excluding forest contractors from the CPRS fuel scheme means they will not get the same compensation arrangements for extra fuel costs as those in other primary industries. Again, this just beggars belief. It is another attack on forestry by a Labor government which is falsely trying to claim today that it is a friend to this industry.

This ministerial statement in relation to future plantation investment is not as strong and positive as we would like. Continuing to encourage investment and reinvestment in timber plantations is vital to maintaining the international competitiveness of the whole wood products and paper industry. The government and the minister in particular have been extremely quiet on the future of managed investment schemes. The minister did mention these a few moments ago but he must be doing all he can to ensure that the Timbercorp and Great Southern plantations continue to be managed and ultimately are harvested and replanted. The government should also provide certainty about the investment environment for plantations in the future, not just let the process run its course.

I believe the minister has a responsibility to stand up for the industry and to not only promote it but also defend it against extremists. I believe that the minister has failed to do this, and I suspect it has a lot to do with his former involvement with the Wilderness Society, of which he was an active member, campaigning on issues such as preserving the Daintree rainforest. I cannot understand why the minister has sat idly by whilst over a thousand jobs in one of the most drought affected regions in Australia—Deniliquin, in south-western New South Wales—were placed in jeopardy by his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the same person we are relying upon to okay the Gunns project. Virtually on his own this minister has put at risk a thousand jobs in Deniliquin. The minister for the environment tried to stop logging in the central Murray red gum forests by claiming a parrot, namely the superb parrot, was under threat. This is not a threatened species, but it is so to the minister for the environment. I have spoken personally to timber millers in this region and they are disgusted and dismayed by the government’s action. It is very telling that the minister at the table, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, has never commented on that issue.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did on that day.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, not in this House. I refer to when the forestry industry protested here and in fact blockaded Parliament House. I forget exactly which year it was; I think it was 1993.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

1995.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So it was 1995, and I thank the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. I believe that was one of the few occasions when the people of Australia were given a very real insight into what the forestry industry in Australia was all about. Up until that time people had misconception that this was an aesthetic argument—all head and no heart. I recall footage taken very early in the morning up in the hills during the course of that blockade that suddenly changed public opinion very quickly. The pictures shown during that blockade—when then Prime Minister Paul Keating was refusing to negotiate over the RFAs and over the forestry industry—were of mothers and young children, some babies in arms. The mothers were actually going up in the mist to defend their husbands’ right to work and, by doing so, were defending—and stopping extreme greenies from sabotaging—sawmilling and logging equipment up in the hills. Suddenly Australia realised that the logging industry, an industry that had served this country so well, was about people, about jobs, about families and about security.

I started by saying we were importing twice as much, by value, in timber products as we were exporting. We are importing $4½ billion worth; we are exporting timber worth something over half that. I think it is time once again that the Labor Party and its government made it plain that they will stand behind an industry for which women and children will get up at daylight and walk to the top of a mountain to protect the jobs of their husbands, themselves and their lives. The timber industry, be it the sector which has plantations or the sector which reuses timber over many years, is a very strong industry in Australia. It does the right thing. The industry is world’s best practice. The Labor Party should stop unnecessarily locking up forests just to catch a green vote.