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

Thank you to Senator Xenophon for his consideration. My reference to the IPCC and the FAO comes from a letter that I have been copied into from a considerable number of Australian forest scientists who have written to the government. I understand Senator Ludwig is a recipient of this letter, as is the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, and it has also been sent to the Climate Commission. I am pleased that Senator Milne referenced the Critical Decade report because the subject of the letter is to say that that report's approach to native forests is flawed. I will read a couple of paragraphs out of this letter that has been sent by these 87 forest scientists.

We, the undersigned forest scientists and practitioners, wish to draw your attention to what we regard as some serious flaws, omissions and lost opportunities in relation to the best approaches for using forests to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Climate Commission's latest report, "The Critical Decade".

We argue that there is significant potential for managed forests to contribute to a more sustainable future for our economy and society and to address climate change. However, we are deeply concerned that climate change policy will be based on assertions not supported by sound analysis or scientific evidence.

In recommending policy options, we urge you to:

This is 87 highly qualified, highly regarded forest scientists. It goes on:

I think we all understand that they have a carbon footprint, as I have explained here previously. Timber is in fact a carbon store, so all that lovely timber furniture that you might have at home is actually storing carbon for the life of that product. It continues:

This where the reference comes from, Senator Xenophon. I am happy to provide you a copy of that letter. It has been provided to me and obviously to members of the government. I think it actually demonstrates some of the myths that have been peddled in the current debate about forestry: that the best way to manage these forests is to just lock them up. It is certainly not true. I am disappointed that the government is not prepared to support our amendments because, if the government is genuinely serious about mitigating carbon—and it tells us that it is every day—here is one opportunity that sits there before it to do so. But the government obviously will make its choices.