Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

That may be the case. I should not be distracted by the interjections, but I am afraid I cannot help myself because I can only agree with them. The frenetic nature of Senator Milne’s last presentation gave it away. It was quite out there. The false, misleading and hyperbolic statements that Senator Milne and Senator Brown put on the record as part of their presentations were extraordinary. Senator Milne made a reference to balance, and I would have to say that is one thing you will not find from the Greens, particularly when it comes to forestry.

I am pleased to say that, on most forestry issues, there is largely a bipartisan approach. There have been some famous moments, which again Senator Milne referred to, where there has been a divergence, but I think it is important that the community understand that the reason that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party generally agree with respect to forestry is that we take a balanced view of it. We take a considered view of what is a very important industry for our country and for jobs within our communities, particularly rural communities. It is a very important issue.

I might take up one of Senator Milne’s points. In respect of the debate on climate change, forestry, as she said, can play a very important part. But she seeks to deny one of the things that can assist people to understand much better how forestry can play an important part. In Europe, energy generated from wood waste is seen as a good thing. It shows how far behind the Greens here in Australia are when it comes to this issue. They are in the prehistoric age. They are not up with the latest thinking with respect to forestry. They are way behind, and there are real opportunities for the forest industry in Australia to move forward.

The concept of considering carbon stored in furniture and timber products is a very important step forward for the forest industry and an opportunity for the industry in this country. Senator Milne seeks to deny that, but it is only reasonable to consider that your timber kitchen table is in fact a carbon sink. It stores carbon and locks it away. The research now shows that a properly sustained and maintained forest that is harvested over a reasonably long cycle will in fact sequester more carbon over time if it is properly managed and harvested than it would if it were just left to grow on its own.

The Greens talk about these highly carbon dense forests that exist within some of our native forest areas, but they completely disregard the fact that those same features exist in some of our regrowth native forests. So you will find the same carbon density characteristics in regrowth native forests, not just the old growth native forests. It is a very important point to remember but something that the Greens continue to deny.

Can I just make a few comments with respect to the minister’s performance in the portfolio. I have to say it has been very disappointing to this point in time. When we investigated the progress of election commitments at estimates, we found it has been extremely slow. Back in November, after 12 months, nothing had actually been commenced. It was all in review and for decision by the minister. Some of it now remains at ministerial council but without too much underway.

I welcome the minister’s statements with respect to the pulp mill. I think it is fantastic that the government, through Minister Burke, is talking about support for the pulp mill. I do remain, however, concerned about statements that are being made as part of the approval process by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. It appears that, at every occasion, he seeks to enhance his environmental credentials by talking down the pulp mill at Bell Bay. It does send shockwaves and shivers through the markets when they hear the person who has the last stroke of the pen with respect to this project making negative comments. Reports back to me from industry with respect to the skills training programs are very positive, and I congratulate the government on those programs. They have been very well received. The companies undertaking them are very proactive. I think that is good news. It is also assisting with encouraging people into the forest sector.

I have to say, though, that there are some things that are missing out of this report. Minister Burke talks about the possibilities for forestry and climate change, but one thing that he does miss out—and one thing that nobody has been able to get answers on to date—is the fact that forest contractors are left out of the fuel rebate scheme under the CPRS. I cannot understand why that is the case. Farmers get it and heavy transport gets it, but forest contractors do not get it. I had a forest contractor in my office this morning. When we were talking to him he said: ‘I run a farm. I run a forest contracting business and I run a transport business. How do I deal with the red tape involved in separating all of that out.’ There has been absolutely no satisfactory explanation from the government to anybody—the forest industry, the contractors or anybody—with respect to what might be going on and why the decision was made to exclude forest contractors from the fuel rebate scheme under the CPRS.

We saw again with the review of the EPBC Act coming through—and I note that the minister has referred to the review of the EPBC Act in his statement today—the report from Green and Labor senators on the EPBC Act. It is very concerning that that report cast doubt on the future of the RFAs. The minister says he is committed to the RFAs into the future but he places a caveat on that. I can recall, going back to the early nineties, when there were huge debates about sovereign risk of investment into forestry and the RFAs were part of that process. Again, it was a bipartisan process. It took a long time to get them into place. But they are the foundation upon which investment in the forest industries is built, and companies, contractors and people working in the industry have confidence in the security of the resource. The reference in the minister’s statement to that is extremely concerning. When you put it alongside the recommendation in the Senate report, that really does cast doubt on the future of the RFAs. I congratulate coalition senators on their recommendation that put the coalition perspective on the table well and truly—that we would continue to support the RFAs.

Again, it is pleasing to see some activity from the minister with respect to his portfolio responsibilities for forestry. As I said, there are some pluses and minuses in what really is a pretty bland statement, but at least he has put something on the record. I would urge him, however, to double his efforts to ensure that the RFA process is protected—that is absolutely vital. And I would like him to stand up for his portfolio constituents, particularly the forest contractors, with respect to the development of the CPRS and include them in the fuel rebate scheme as part of that process.

Question agreed to.