Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will backtrack just a little from where I was in my speech where I pointed out that the inclusion of woody biomass into the renewable energy target is not a new suggestion. I pointed out that as a matter of fact for 10 years it was included in the RET and, despite outright lies from the Greens and now Labor—or certain factions of it—and extreme environmentalists, it did not lead to one extra tree being harvested; it only led to one RET being handed out.

I have received many emails and phone calls from constituents who are gravely concerned about the so-called destructions of our native forests and, rightfully so: it is not their fault that they have been misled. However, their concerns are about issues that are not related to the inclusion of woody biomass at all.

The inclusion of woody biomass is to include by-products of current harvesting operations as an eligible source of energy in the RET. We are not on about harvesting or logging any extra forest; we are on about utilising biomass that is left over.

We are speaking about a by-product that will rot and break down releasing carbon or methane into the atmosphere as it currently does or get pushed into the windrows and burnt. We are speaking of utilising a by-product of current harvesting projects; we are not speaking of cutting down a single extra tree, not one—just like it was when woody biomass was included in the RET for 10 years before the Labor party made an agreement with the Greens. This was a decision that the Labor party made, to the best of my knowledge, without even consulting the forestry division of the CFMEU.

Perhaps now is a good time for me to remind the Labor party that, before I got involved in politics, I was a paid-up union member and what one would call a traditional Labor voter. Now would be a very good time to remind you of who your traditional voters are. By trying to appease the Green votes, all you are doing is getting a nod of approval from people who are going to vote green anyway.

I would like to point out correspondence that I have received from the CFMEU where around 30 delegates from within the timber industry have pleaded for the support of their jobs, saying:

The ALP's proposed continued discrimination of electricity derived from waste, product or bi-product derived from biomass from native forests as an eligible source under the RET is extremely disappointing and unfair. The proposal is also without any justification as it is clear from the regulations that only wood waste from sustainably managed forests is permitted and that electricity generation must not be the driver for the harvesting operations—

that means that we cannot harvest forest just to generate electricity.

In support of our jobs, we would appreciate it if you could use your influence to ensure the defeat of the ALP amendment to the bill.

I would also like to make a point that a misleading meme on social media is not a fact and, as a matter of fact, can create a lot of unnecessary unrest for those who actually believe what the meme might say but also for those who are employed in an industry who think that their jobs are going to be axed.

I have a photo here that I am happy to table—if the chamber is happy for me to do so—which shows the extent of what is utilised in the timber industry and, in this instance ASH—Australian Sustainable Hardwoods—Australia's largest hardwood timber mill, a mill with which I am extremely familiar as I worked there for a number of years. The picture helps highlights the protection that the high-value test contributes to ensuring that wood waste would not be a driver in harvesting operations.

It clearly shows an offcut which is 50 millimetres by 38 millimetres by about 30 centimetres in length. This is then joined by a finger joiner—again, I have worked in this industry and this mill; I have seen it with my own eyes; I know—with other similar lengths and turned into high-value products such as floor joists, window components, door components, stair stringers and more. These products are then sold to manufacturers at set lengths minimising their waste. So the manufacturers are able to buy product which is essentially made to size out of waste which has not been burnt for electricity.

What waste is left over is then turned into chips and sold to Australian Paper, Maryvale.

By ensuring the procurement of Australian paper we will then ensure that the high-value test would still apply on waste. By not procuring Australian paper we run the risk of seeing Australian manufactured paper and the industry that is supported by it cease, leaving us to rely on products that are imported from countries that do not have our chains of custody from forests that may not be sustainably managed. If we do not utilise the by-product of our timber industry and let our timber industry go down the drain, we are still going to be buying products from somewhere else, where forests are not managed as well as we manage our forests here.

Some of the sawdust from Australian sustainable hardwood is used to create heat to operate their kilns to dry the timber. If they were not using that sawdust—which is dry, so it burns very clean—it saves them about $4 million every year in gas bills. So, not only will we be having waste products from milling going to waste and breaking down but also the mill would have a $4 million gas bill. We would have a product breaking down and releasing emissions and also using emissions to dry the product in the first place instead of utilising what was already there. In the timber industry in Victoria—and I mention Victoria because it is my state—it will be 21,000 jobs. That is a lot of people whose jobs will be affected if we do not respect what industry we have.

Another point I would like to make before finishing is that it is suggested that woody biomass comes from AFCS-certified native forests. That is all good and fine except that there is not one single native forest that is actually under AFCS certification. So, for us to move an amendment like that would essentially mean nothing.

In conclusion, I think it is important that we do get the renewable energy target through, as I said at the very start. We need bipartisan support. We did see that in the lower house, and I would like to see the target go through this house, unamended, as is—or at least, if there are any amendments, with support from both sides.

I seek leave to table a document.

Leave granted.