Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that:

(a) we have a world-class and sustainable native hardwood timber industry in Australia which delivers social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits for our nation;

(b) timber industry workers provide invaluable skills and practical support to their communities during times of natural disasters, particularly bushfires;

(c) banning native timber harvesting in Australia will result in more imported timber products, often sourced from countries with poorer environmental protocols; and

(d) a sustainable native hardwood timber industry is part of the answer to reducing Australia's carbon emissions as timber products sequester carbon in our floorboards, furniture and other timber products;

(2) notes that the Victorian Government's illogical decision to ban all native hardwood timber harvesting on public land from 1 January 2024 is based on political science, not environmental science; and

(3) urges the Government to:

(a) recognise the sustainable native hardwood timber industry is an issue of national importance because of supply chain considerations and community safety;

(b) include the future of the native hardwood timber industry as an issue for discussion at the next National Cabinet; and

(c) support a taxpayer-funded public information campaign to explain the importance of the native hardwood timber industry and dispel the myths perpetuated by environmental activists.

This motion is self-explanatory. It outlines in a very logical way the issues and the challenges facing our world-class and sustainable native hardwood timber industry in this nation, particularly in the state of Victoria. What the motion can't capture is the emotion, the anger, the frustration and the disbelief that lies at the heart of the decision to ban all harvesting of native hardwood timber in Victoria in what is a Dan-made disaster for the people of Victoria.

People in my electorate of Gippsland and those in the electorate of Monash have been deceived. This has been an incredible act of treachery by the Premier of Victoria, who lied to Victorians repeatedly in the lead-up to making this snap announcement. Proud Gippslanders have worked in the bush and have provided a world-class product. Multiple generations of people have toiled and helped to keep our community safe and generate the economic prosperity of my region. They have been lied to by a treacherous Premier, who told them and guaranteed that the industry would remain in place until 2030. Without any notice whatsoever, he brought forward his announcement to 1 July next year—giving less than six months notice to these proud Gippslanders.

The decision to phase out the native hardwood timber industry by 2030 was bad enough. It was based on political science, not on environmental science. At least there was time for the industry to work through some of the issues, particularly the issues around the access to fibre and log supply. This snap decision, with no consultation, showed no respect whatsoever for my community. It is devastating families today. People are losing their jobs today. People have lost their jobs already in places like the Latrobe Valley, Orbost and Heyfield.

What worries me the most is that this decision is based on ignorance. It's city-based Labor MPs bowing down to environmental extremism and absolutism. They're saying that we must never cut down a tree on public land in Victoria again. It is bizarre and it's dangerous. The alternative to sourcing our own native hardwood in a sustainable way is to import more timber from foreign countries that have lower environmental protocols. The other alternative in Victoria's case is to raid other states, get a log supply from somewhere else. That's happening already as well.

There is a better way. The practical environmentalists in my region have been working with government to try to find a way to meet their expectations while also understanding that the demand for hardwood timber is not going away. The better way is the balanced and sustainable approach that the industry was trying to achieve. We in Gippsland believe in the reserves, in the national parks and in protecting old-growth forests—we believe in that. We also believe that public land, which is effectively a mixed-species plantation, is a better alternative to monoculture plantations of hardwood, which is what the Greens will have us doing in the future. A mixed-species plantation harvested on a rotational basis of decades has more biodiversity outcomes. The regrowth and revegetation that has to occur by law provides a better environmental outcome in our communities than the monoculture plantations which the Greens seem to think will answer all of our problems when it comes to hardwood timber supply to the future.

Time is against me today, but I must make this point: people die when they live next door to poorly managed forest. Country communities are destroyed when decisions are made with no consideration of the impact on their social and economic life. And my community doesn't want handouts and they don't want a transition package—it will never be enough to replace their jobs and their lifestyles, and being forced to move away from the towns they love.

The reason we're debating this issue, which is ostensibly a state decision, in federal parliament is that it will have impacts on the cost of living, undermine our supply chains, reduce our sovereign capacity to make timber products and reduce community safety in times of bushfire, and the skills network workforce will be gone and perhaps on welfare in the federal government budget. So I urge the Prime Minister to take this issue to National Cabinet. I also urge the Prime Minister to consider a national information campaign so that people can actually understand how our world-class sustainable timber industry works in this country. It's worth fighting for.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Gippsland for providing me with the opportunity to speak about a very important industry in my electorate.

I agree with the member: we have a world-class sustainable native hardwood industry in Australia that delivers social, economic, cultural and environmental benefits for regions and for the nation. I'm not going to comment on what mainland state governments do, but I can tell the member for Gippsland that in Tasmania both the minority Liberal government and the Labor opposition are fully supportive of forestry. And, federally, you won't find much, if any, difference in forestry policy between the opposition and the Labor government. We went to the election in May last year supporting sustainable forestry, with a focus on growing a lot more plantations and building up the value-added sector, just like those opposite, and we are standing by that commitment. The Albanese government supports sustainable forestry, including sustainable native forestry. The native forestry sector provides more than $320 million to the national economy, and provided a net carbon sink of 35.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020-21.

Forestry and conservation are not mutually exclusive; they can and should be allies. Tasmania's native forestry sector supplies vital hardwoods and specialty timbers. The sector is highly regulated and strictly managed, with every tree taken replaced and with safeguards in place to protect fauna and flora. The cowboys have been run out of town. It's a different story overseas, as the member for Gippsland has already noted. If protesters get their way and kill the Australian native forestry sector, thousands of jobs will be lost, regional communities will be decimated and the global environment will be worse off. Trees will still be cut down, they will just be getting cut down in places where the environmental protections that underpin the Australian industry do not exist. I've had the privilege to see timber-felling operations in Tasmania firsthand. It's serious stuff, with safety and environmental protection paramount, and a lot of money tied up in capital investment. Our Labor government supports the highly skilled jobs that forestry now attracts, including 6,000 direct and indirect jobs in Tasmania and more than 51,000 direct jobs nationally.

One big difference between the former Liberal-National government and the Labor government is that we're getting on with the job—we're not just putting out press releases. When Tasmania Liberal senator Jonno Duniam was minister for forestry, he was responsible for the billion trees plantation program—400,000 hectares by 2030 was the goal. But by 2022, Senator Duniam had achieved just one per cent. If we stuck to Senator Dunam's timetable, we'd all be pushing up daisies and it would be well into the next century before the goal was achieved. I know he's only a young bloke, but the member for Gippsland, the member for Monash and I would be helping the trees grow by the time they were in the ground!

In Tasmania, the minority Liberal government is in strife because mainland sawmillers are securing contracts from a state-government-owned grower, Sustainable Timber Tasmania. Local sawmillers are getting outbid unfairly for the work. I make this point because managing forestry can be a difficult business, whether you're a Liberal or a Labor government. But I can assure the member for Gippsland that forestry has the full throated support of Tasmanian Labor and the Tasmanian Labor federal MPs and senators.

Let's look at some of the support the federal Labor government is providing to Australian forestry. We've released $300 million in forestry support initiatives, including $100 million for the Accelerate Adoption of Wood Processing Innovation Program, launched nationally from my electorate earlier this year, which seeks to encourage higher-value products, use more from available resources and boost supplies for construction and manufacturing. I'm proud to stand with my timber communities in supporting sustainable forestry in Tasmania.

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I couldn't complain about that speech from the member for Lyons. I just wish he were a Victorian politician rather than a Tasmanian politician. Regional Australia, from our point of view, has been dealt a terrible blow by what's happened in Victoria, and I come from that place too. I have lived regional forestry agreements through the Hawke-Keating government and every government since, including the Howard government, when we spent political blood and millions of dollars to get those regional forest agreements up for the states. We achieved great things on behalf of our communities to give a long-term, sustainable future for people like those the member for Lyons has just talked about.

I acknowledge the member for Gippsland for bringing this very important motion before the chair to say: have a look at what they've done in Victoria. I was at a rally while the member for Gippsland was away; I took his place at that rally to say that we as a federal parliament actually care what's going on. I didn't restrict that to Liberals and Nationals, I'd like to say to the member for Lyons, because I know there are members of the Labor Party who care as well. I strongly supported the CFMEU Forestry Division, who worked out of my office to save the paper industry when it was in my electorate. The CFMEU Forestry Division worked out of my office, a Liberal Party member's office, to gain what we did in those times. These were very important issues, because this industry was worth more than $1.42 billion to Victoria alone, and it affects thousands of jobs—not just the jobs on the line in the forest but jobs that go all the way out, right across our community, and I mean thousands of jobs.

It is so true that people making decisions in Melbourne, for instance, in those Green seats, do not have any idea of not only what we went through before but how we argued for the sustainability of this industry and the fact that you can regrow these forests and that they are broadly beneficial to the management of the forests. As the member for Gippsland said, it is now dangerous to live around a forest that is not managed and doesn't have any cultural burning. So you may say, 'Right, we're saving our forests from these terrible loggers,' and then, in turn, you have wildfire go through, which just destroys the lot. It kills them, so the return of the forest after that takes quite a while.

This is a real kick in the guts for my small communities, and it's immoral for this reason. We are one of the wealthiest nations in the world, with the greatest opportunity for forest management and to lead the way internationally—as Tasmania is doing, as the member for Lyons pointed out. It's immoral because we are now going to import far more timber than we otherwise would to fulfil the needs that are here. The member for Gippsland talked about monoculture trees, particularly blue gums, that are said to replace. They may replace the fibre for the paper industry, but they will not replace the structural timber, because the make-up of the blue gum does not handle the length of timber you need before you have a knot to be able to give you structural strength without laminating. You have to laminate every bit of pith to get your outcome.

So these are real issues that affect real people. I can only hope that a miracle comes, and the miracle would be that the Andrews government falls for some reason and a sensible government comes in and reverses this decision very quickly. I'm here to plead for real people who are making great contributions and doing real jobs in country Victoria. Most of them live in the seat of Gippsland. That wealth that came out of that for the broader general public was more than just some timber or a tree that you see on the back of a truck going past your house every now and again. These are very important issues, and we bring them to the attention of the Australian people.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll start with a few fundamental observations. In Australia and across the globe we've destroyed too much natural habitat already, and in Australia and across the globe we practice deforestation on a scale that has caused enormous harm to biodiversity on our planet and has put our climate system dangerously out of whack. Some estimates put the extent of deforestation in Australia over the last 200 years at 50 per cent. In 2021, Australia was named in a report by WWF as the only developed country on the list of deforestation hot spots, and, of course, we hold the unwelcome distinction of being the world leader in mammal extinctions.

On that basis you may think that in a country like Australia, with all our resources and practical know-how, the status quo would at least be a cessation of further harm; unfortunately, you'd be badly wrong if you thought that. Through all our activities—not just through forestry practices but in agriculture, industry and urban expansion—we continue to clear habitat in a way that pushes our biodiversity closer to the brink and continues to tip the carbon scale in the wrong direction. That doesn't mean that no clearing can or will ever occur again. It doesn't mean there's no place for very carefully managed and limited harvesting of non-plantation timber. It does mean we can't kid ourselves about the enormous harm that's already occurred.

The motion refers to a 'sustainable native hardwood timber industry'. It would have been more persuasive if it had acknowledged that the industry, for most its existence in this country, has been unsustainable and if it had acknowledged that the coalition government did nothing in particular to make it sustainable. The reality is that, after a long period in which the coalition government failed to show the stewardship required to arrest an entrenched trajectory of environmental decline, the Albanese government is making sure we can have a sustainable approach to a properly managed and renewable timber industry. If this is not done, the further harm to our environmental, social and economic wellbeing will be enormous and irreversible. Not only will there be the extinction of species, but entire ecosystems will be lost for ever—river systems and groundwater reserves pushed beyond recovery.

This Labor government will not sit idle and watch that occur. We'll not follow the coalition's method and leave the hard work for someone else or peddle dishonesty for short-term political gain by telling workers and communities that everything is fine and we can all keep driving towards a fast-approaching cliff. Already, the sensible and necessary measures of this government include a $300 million package to accelerate wood processing innovations, support new plantation capacity, combat illegally logged imports and provide $10 million for the Forestry Workforce Training Program. That matches the approach taken in my home state of Western Australia, where native forest logging will cease by 2024 and transitional programs include an investment of $350 million to expand WA's softwood plantations, in addition to the $80 million Native Forest Transition Plan to support affected workers, businesses and local communities in the south-west.

In July, I spent some time in the Great Western Woodlands, north-east of Mukinbudin in WA. Those woodlands represent the largest unfragmented temperate forest on our planet, with 16 million hectares across a range of woodland and scrubland habitats. That woodland contains more than 20 per cent of Australia's flowering plant species and 30 per cent of Australia's eucalypt species. In fact, the amount of floral diversity in those woodlands is comparable to the plant diversity in Canada, a country more than 60 times the size. But, of course, those woodlands are already massively reduced from their original scale because the WA Wheatbelt, which occupies 18 million hectares, was carved out of a good proportion of the incredible western woodlands when it was even greater than it is today.

Timber is a renewable industry, and it's a renewable material. We should produce and use timber in careful and sustainable ways. It's welcome, but in Australia we've reached the point where 87 per cent of our timber comes from plantations; we should get closer to 100 per cent as quickly as we can. Where native forest harvesting can sustainably occur, it ought to be in relatively few and small areas. Serious impacts on wild native forests and habitat, through logging or other land clearing activities, have to cease in this country and on the planet as soon as we can; otherwise, what would we expect, other than what the science shows us? Further biodiversity loss, environmental collapse and widespread and severe impacts of climate change—that's what we will get.

The member for Gippsland is a very good fellow, and I reckon he would have been super frustrated over the last decade to have been part of a government that was utterly irresponsible in grasping some of the big challenges, especially when he represents a community that will be at the sharper end of some of those challenges. It is indisputable to say that climate change and environmental degradation, which are entrenched in this country, will affect rural and regional Australians more sharply than it will affect those who live in capital cities, more sharply than the people in my community. Correspondingly, the actions of a responsible government to rise up and meet those challenges will have the greatest benefits and opportunities for rural and regional Australians. The member for Gippsland and his colleagues, after 10 years of waste and neglect in government, can choose to change their tune and change their approach and be part of those solutions, or they can keep playing the silly games they've been playing for those 10 years.

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Gippsland for bringing on this motion in relation to the native timber industry. For the past 12 months, I've been compelled to call out the prioritisation of ideology over need and theory over reality by this government. I've shone light on the ideological decisions that have escalated both the costs of living and housing and energy crisis across communities in Australia .Today, I rise to ask the government to ensure that we don't continue washing over the reality of the needs of our country and our communities for the sake of metro based, ill-informed opinion that is often perpetuated by other countries, not from the experiences and practices of our own nation. Of course, I'm talking about the sustainable hardwood timber industry.

My very passionate colleague the member for Gippsland has fiercely represented his community and championed the sustainable practice that his local timber harvest has employed for many months now. I'd like to provide a perspective of my own electorate's hardworking industry for consideration. The North Coast forestry industry employs an estimated 3,800 people and contributes $184 million to the local economy. Local timber workers in my electorate of Cowper are fiercely proud of their ethical and sustainable practices—businesses like Hayden Timbers in Rollands Plains and logging contractors like Matt and Kristy Parker up in Dorrigo. I have visited logging sites in my electorate on many occasions and have seen firsthand the painstaking environmental practices they utilise every day. The true environmentalists in my state don't live in Sydney. They're not sitting in boardrooms deciding the green-aligned taglines that resonate with their marketing strategies. They're not strapping themselves to machinery attempting to gain more likes on Instagram. The true environmentalists in my state are out in rural and regional townships doing practical environmental work on a daily basis.

It's not in a logger's best interest to negatively impact their environment. How could it be? The creation and management of thriving forests is literally what keeps them employed. Why would they want to destroy it? Shutting down our native timber industry is not just detrimental to the local business owners and workers in regional electorates like mine; it is detrimental to the country's economy and, ironically, detrimental to the local and global environments that those opposite and on the crossbench consistently refer to. I should say that it was pleasing to hear in the speech by the member for Lyons that he supports the native forest industry. I hope that he goes and talks to his colleagues and explains how sustainable it is and how it should continue.

A sustainable native hardwood practice is not deforestation. It is not land clearing. It is not irreversible. Our local native timber harvesters are positively impacting emissions through the planting of native saplings. They are responsibly managing local forests and protecting them from pests and introduced species. They are contributing to biodiversity outcomes. Comparatively, plantation timber, which is our only other local option, provides none of this. It is planted in cleared land and is a monoculture. Whether pine or hardwood plantations, these are monocultures. They are not contributing to our biodiversity targets. We also don't have enough of them to sustain our own building and manufacturing industries.

The member for Gippsland spoke about the unfortunate reality that the meticulous and heavily regulated native hardwood practices that we employ in Australia are not shared by other countries around the world. It's from those countries that we'll be forced to purchase timber, at a financial cost much higher than what we achieve locally, and it's those offshore forests that will be destroyed.

I look forward to seeing these issues raised in the next National Cabinet and I hope to see facts about our critical, responsible native hardwood— (Time expired)

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak to this motion, I do want to acknowledge the member for Gippsland and how steadfast he is on this issue. He has been an advocate around forestry for the time he has been in this parliament—possibly, before. I would have to say that, in my experience, the only person I know who can match him for his fierce advocacy would be Michael O'Connor from the CFMMEU Manufacturing Division, who, like the member for Gippsland, does not make a secret of his position on native timber and the forestry industry, in representing his members in the way that he does.

But the good news is that the Albanese government does support forestry timber and a sustainable forestry industry, as previous speakers on this side have mentioned. In my own electorate of Bendigo, we were successful in a previous round of grants that the minister for this area, Minister Murray Watt, announced, for a great local project, that I hope will seed future work. It is our First Nations Dja Dja Wurrung people's corporation that received a grant to establish a local program where they will work on harvesting local timber through cultural thinning, for two reasons: for better bushfire management in our state parks and forests, but also to contribute towards a sustainable timber industry, for their organisation to create jobs for their First Nations people. I'm not suggesting that this is in any way to replace what has been lost by changes in the Victorian landscape, but it's a demonstration that, when we work with First Nations communities, where appropriate, where we can have cultural thinning or cultural harvesting, we can achieve a win-win all around.

When it comes to our native forests and our native timber industry, there's a lot of work and a lot of lessons that we can learn from First Nations people. It's not as simple as some greenies would suggest—'Just lock it up and walk away.' That doesn't restore country—particularly in an area like mine, where we lost so much of our forest to the gold rush. What we have seen in my area, with a lot of our state parks, is the toothpick effect, where we have too many ironbarks trying to compete, and our First Nations community are quite right in saying: 'We have to thin; we actually have to take out a huge chunk of the trees that are there, because there is too much competition.' It's also not restoring the land to the way it was, and that's what the ultimate goal is.

There are other efforts that we are taking as a government. Our forestry industry, as we know, generates 51,000 jobs directly, and forest and timber wood products generated $26.6 billion in 2021-22. In 2020-21, the Australian softwood and hardwood plantation estates produced 87 per cent by volume of the logs harvested, and the remaining 13 per cent were native forest.

The Albanese government is delivering on what the Morrison government failed to do. I do want to make this point. I can remember the big, grand speeches about a billion trees to be planted and new plantations by 2030. That was what the promise was, and that was what would help get us through our timber crisis. But only one per cent of those have actually been planted. The previous government needs to take responsibility for some of the crisis that we're in. They didn't work with First Nations people to be able to be the advocates of where it is appropriate and necessary for there to be cultural thinning, as in the example I used earlier.

Our government is working to deliver for the forestry industry in Australia. This includes $300 million in measures to support the forest industry sector. I raised one of the examples of how they're delivering in that space in my electorate, but this is a complicated policy area, because it isn't just federal government responsibility. There is the crossover with states and territories. It is a space where there is a lot of interest.

In my closing remarks I say we should listen to First Nations people on native forests, particularly on the issue of cultural thinning. (Time expired)

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last Sunday I had the pleasure of joining Wentworth locals in Christison Park, a beautiful stretch of land that's perched on top of the cliffs and provides amazing views of the ocean and Sydney Harbour. I was there alongside colleagues from Woollahra council to celebrate National Tree Day and join members of our community as part of Australia's largest tree-planting and nature-care event. I was in the park, planting trees, tending to grasses and talking to Wentworth locals about the importance of conserving our natural environment combating the climate crisis. In that hour or two elsewhere across Australia, the staggering truth is that 52 hectares of unique and threatened species habitat were bulldozed—an area equivalent to 28 times the Sydney Opera House.

Australia has the highest rate of deforestation in the developed world and, every year, we log about two per cent of our native forests. The consequences of this destruction are enormous: we are the mammal extinction capital of the world and, if we continue at our current rate, we will lose national treasures like the koala and greater glider forever. In southern New South Wales there are over 250 threatened species that have been affected by native logging in the last two decades, and most of this logging is to make low-value products like woodchip and paper pulp, which we could get from plantations instead.

Beyond the damage to our environment, the logging of native forests is also making the climate crisis worse. Our native forests are an incredibly powerful carbon sink. For centuries they have taken carbon dioxide out of the air we breathe, stored it safely under the ground and used it to generate new life. When we cut them down and we burn what's left to help clear the land faster, forestry experts estimate that this generates emissions of up to 15 megatonnes each year. If we stopped logging native forests in southern NSW, it would be by far the largest carbon abatement project in the state.

Whilst native forest logging is destroying our environment and accelerating the current crisis, it's also costing us money. In the past two years alone, the New South Wales state Forestry Corporation has lost nearly $30 million in taxpayers' money. In the last financial year, VicForests lost $54 million. In a cost-of-living crisis, where every dollar matters, this isn't how we should be spending people's hard-earned money.

The good news is that we have an opportunity to turn things around. We can protect our environment in ways that benefit our economy and provide new, high-paying jobs for people who currently work in native forest logging. This is a significant issue; I care very much about the livelihood of people who currently work in forestry, and I want to make sure that we find a way to support them through a change that is good for our environment and good for the economy. It needs to be good for those communities too.

In NSW, transitioning to active forest management, sequestering carbon and sustainable tourism are estimated to have a net benefit of nearly $50 million, with plantations taking up the slack for making timber products. This transition must be carefully managed, and in New South Wales that means supporting the roughly 600 workers who are currently employed in native logging activities. We all want the best for our workers and our wildlife, so real support means a proper plan for transition. It doesn't mean creating a culture war that pits people in the cities against people in regional and rural Australia.

Ending native forest logging would be good for our environment, good for our climate and good for our economy. I welcome the commitment the minister made to me in question time a few months ago that she would bring native forest logging under tough environmental laws, but I urge her to go further, to follow in the footsteps of her colleagues in Victoria and Western Australia to develop a national transition plan and to end native forest logging across Australia for good.

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll begin by acknowledging the member for Gippsland, opposite, and noting his fierce advocacy for forestry—particularly native forestry—over a very long period of time in this place, which I respect immensely. In doing so I also make note of the member for Lyons, who spoke a little earlier on this same topic. Between them we have two fierce advocates for a sustainable forest industry here in this country from different sides of the parliament. That speaks of the importance of this industry to those of us here. The very great Bob Gordon—those that know him know—tells me that I might be the first forester in the House of Representatives, and I wear that particular mantle with a great deal of humility because, firstly, it's a long time since I donned a hard hat and, secondly, most of my work in the forest sector has been in the policy space. I'm acutely aware that when I hit the bush I need to be respectful.

The Albanese Labor government recognises and values the important contribution the forest industry makes to Australia, particularly in regional areas. We understand that there are families, communities and regional economies that rely on forestry. In my home state of Victoria alone, the forest industry generates nearly 15,000 jobs, almost half of which are in wood product manufacturing. Across the country, nearly 51,000 Australians rely on the forest industry for work. That's why the Albanese Labor government is investing in forestry to support manufacturing, skills, innovation and a sustainable future for the industry.

Unfortunately, the former coalition government failed our forestry sector. Despite coming up with a grand plan for 400,000 hectares of new plantations and a billion trees by 2030, it only reached one per cent of this target before being tossed out by the Australian people last year. This failure to meet the growth need of the industry increased our reliance on imported products. These imports not only come from countries with questionable environmental and workforce standards but they can also undermine the potential of our domestic forest industry. Despite the significant challenge left by the coalition, the Albanese Labor government is wasting no time in delivering the support and investment that our forestry sector needs. The October budget included $300 million in new measures and we're expanding the plantation estate, modernising our manufacturing processes and giving workers the skills they need in a modern, sustainable forestry industry.

In April this year, 34 wood processors from right across Australia were awarded over $100 million to support them in all of their activities. In addition, the Support Plantation Establishment program will see $73.8 million invested in the establishment of up to 36,000 hectares of new plantations.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Gippsland have a point of order?

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under standing order 66A, would the member for Hawke take a question?

The DEPUT Y SPEAKER: Would the member for Hawke like to take the question? He can choose to take it or not.

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I'll leave it to the member for Gippsland, for whom I have great respect, to ask his question of the minister. I think that's probably the most appropriate forum for doing so. But I'm happy to continue to explain to the member for Gippsland my views about government support for the sector.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Is the member for Gippsland satisfied?

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hawk may continue.

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In addition to the Support Plantation Establishment program, we'll see $73.8 million invested in the establishment of up to 36,000 hectares of new plantations. These will be delivered in partnership with private industry, First Nations businesses, farm foresters and state and territory government forestry bodies. The Albanese Labor government is also partnering with the University of Tasmania to establish Australian Forest and Wood Innovation, a national research and development institute, and will deliver $100 million over the first four years of its operation. Importantly, we're also investing $10 million in the Forestry Workforce Training Program, $4.4 million to combat illegally logged imports and $8.6 million to extend the regional forest hubs until 2027.

The scale of our investment in forestry reflects our understanding of the important economic and environmental role it can play. We know that the forest and wood product industries generate tens of billions of dollars each year, and we also understand that, when responsibly managed, forestry can contribute to the responsible management of our natural environment. In particular, forestry can reduce our net carbon emissions through sequestration.

Our native forests are an incredibly important asset for our country. Native forests remain an important source of hardwood products in Australia, delivering products that plantations can't, while also reducing our reliance on imports subject to less stringent environmental controls. The Albanese government is getting on with investing in the forestry sector, ensuring that we have a sustainable industry into the future, where jobs are supported and our environmental outcomes are achieved.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.