Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to take note of the response of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to the Senate resolution concerning mountain ash forests that has just been tabled.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This is a response to a Senate resolution regarding mountain ash, or Eucalyptus regnans, forests in Australia. It is a response from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Burke. I had sought the government’s response to the report by Professor Brendan Mackey at the Australian National University and his colleagues Dr Heather Keith, Dr Sandra Berry and Professor David Lindenmayer on the greenhouse gas release from the destruction of Australia’s tallest forests, which are indeed the mountain ash forests of Victoria and Tasmania. What we have in this response from the minister is a complete lack of information and, indeed, a revelation of extraordinary ignorance in the department and of the minister himself. You will note, Mr Acting Deputy President, that after the question of whether the report from the Australian National University has validity comes this conclusion from the government:

Neither report—

because they include a further report from the Australian National University on proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in Australia—

provides sufficient detail to allow a review of the validity of the findings.

In other words, the government has no idea. Minister Burke does not have a clue about the greenhouse gas emissions from the destruction of Australia’s tall forests, primarily by the export woodchip industry. The Senate asked:

(ii)          What government measures are being taken or considered to protect Eucalyptus regnans forests in Australia that are currently targeted for logging …

The minister resorted to an answer which was basically ‘none’. There are forests that are protected, but for those that are targeted for logging under the regional forest agreements—which, by the way, were established by the Howard government back in the 1990s—no change is planned. This is despite the Australian National University report showing extraordinary volumes of greenhouse gases being emitted through the destruction of these forests. In fact, it is the biggest release of greenhouse gases through terrestrial logging anywhere on the planet. Quite remarkable. Acre for acre it is much greater than, for example, the destruction of rainforests in Brazil, Indonesia or Central Africa. The minister says:

The sustainability indicators report prepared for the ten-year review of the Tasmanian Regional Forests Agreement indicates there is 68 000 hectares of predominantly E. regnans forest in the state, of which 18 000 hectares is reserved.

In other words, 50,000 hectares is targeted for logging. Then comes the minister’s anaemic excuse for that outrage in terms of greenhouse gas emissions:

The 50 000 hectares available for timber production—

read ‘available for woodchip export to the Japanese and Chinese markets’—

is predominately regrowth. Of this, 45 000 hectares is on public land.

These regrowth forests—and we are talking about forests seeded as far back as 1898 due to wildfires over a century ago—should be allowed to grow to their full potential, taking out of the atmosphere enormous volumes of greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide. There is nothing like them for achieving the greenhouse gas emissions reductions that this nation needs, in this week in which we are discussing the government’s recipe for failure in tackling climate change. The minister says that, of the 50,000 hectares in Tasmania of Eucalyptus regnans, 45,000 hectares is on public land—that is, within reach of his say-so. He goes on to say that VicForests, the Victorian authority:

… report that current approved timber release plans—

that is, forest destruction plans—

exist for 2771 hectares of predominantly E. regnans forest in Victoria. This area is estimated to contain 363 621 cubic metres of sawlog and—