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

I am going to get out my long bow and quickly return to the answer Senator Lundy gave me a moment ago in relation to the use of biomass. Senator Lundy has confirmed that the government is using a non-science based approach to put forward a prejudice against native forest management and to try and align with voluntary action.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Colbeck, could we proceed with the amendment and then go back to this question, which is not—

I will be very quick. I will get this out of the way and Senator Lundy can respond to me. I just want to make this point, thank you, Temporary Chair.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We can do that once we have voted on the amendment.

I have already conceded the call two or three times to put an amendment and then missed out on the call afterwards. I would like to finalise this point. We can do that without wasting any more time arguing about whether I get the chance to say what I want to say.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I will ensure that you get the call after we have moved the amendment, unless you wish to speak to the current amendment.

Temporary Chair, I would like to finish what I am going to say and then I can let everybody else get on with the rest of the business.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: As long as it is relevant, Senator Colbeck.

I was just trying to come to that when you interrupted me, Temporary Chair. I come to a business in New South Wales which manufactures a product using native forest resources. They could replace 75 per cent of their current coal use for energy generation by using the saw wood, the wood waste that is generated on site. Under the current provisions that the government is proposing, they are prejudiced against because native forest sawmill waste is excluded from the renewable energy process.

I go back to the point I made before. This time I am quoting from Future Science: Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilization on carbon mitigation, which says:

We have that problem in Australia and we saw that, unfortunately, in the bushfires on Black Saturday. It goes on to say:

Thinning treatments can restore forest health and double carbon stores.

Just so that I do not get called out for quoting US based research, it then goes on to say:

I have a final question: what action is the government taking to rectify the flaws in the Climate Commission report, The critical decade, which have been identified by forest scientists in Australia?