Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Seselja, for your question. I should note, as I was remiss in not doing so during my contribution in closing the second reading speech, that there were some very sound contributions in relation to the overall debate around this legislation but particularly the issue around biomass and native forest wood waste from not just some on our side who spoke, like Senator Macdonald, but notably some of the members of the crossbench as well. At the risk of missing those whose contributions I did not hear, I particularly want to single out Senator Lambie and Senator Muir, who both outlined very compelling arguments as to why this type of native forest wood waste should be included. Of course, they both bring particular backgrounds, experience and knowledge to this—Senator Lambie has a particular interest as a Tasmanian senator and Senator Muir has a background in working in associated industries and has a good understanding of the sector. I think it is important to highlight that and to highlight that they, along with the government and along, I think, with most of the crossbenchers, accept the validity of the arguments that I have been putting forward.

Senator Seselja, in answer to your question, particularly about the strength of the regulations that we are putting forward, as I had emphasised those regulations are consistent with what operated between 2001-2011. They are clearly adopting the same type of approach and the same types of tests that were proven to work through that time and for which no arguments have been made—that I have heard—demonstrating any abuse of those regulations or demonstrating that they were not satisfactory in relation to the protections they provided to native forests and the assurance they gave in that, where native forest waste was burned or used for electricity generation purposes, it was because it was genuinely waste. It was genuinely a secondary by-product, a waste product, of otherwise used native forest products that were harvested for purposes other than electricity generation.

I was highlighting some of the previous positions of the Labor Party, Senator Seselja. Having put in my own words what the protections are, given that we are utilising the same type of protections, it is important that we acknowledge the explanation that previous Labor minister, Senator Wong, gave when she was Minister for Climate Change and Water, defending the same thing, outlining exactly how the protections worked in her eyes at that time. In a debate on 19 August 2009 in this place, Senator Wong pointed out:

We did go to the election with a commitment to retain existing eligibility. I would make the point that this native forest biomass has been an eligible source under the current MRET since 2001.

I say to Senator Seselja and other senators and those listening that we went to the last election committing to reinstate it, because we never believed it should have been removed. We believe it was only removed as part of the awful deals that were undertaken between the Labor Party and the Australian Greens during those fateful three years of the largely Gillard government.

Importantly, Senator Wong went on to explain what the regulations meant. I think it is very valuable for the Senate and for senators to understand what the regulations meant then, in Senator Wong's words, because they mean exactly the same thing today in terms of their operation and what they will mean when reinstated as a result of the government's legislation. To quote Senator Wong:

The existing regulations underpinning this prescribe that, to be eligible under the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, native forest wood waste must either come from an area where an RFA, a regional forest agreement, is in place or, if it is from outside an RFA area, it must be produced from harvesting carried out in accordance with ecologically sustainable forest management principles that the minister is satisfied are consistent with those required by an RFA, which I understand is referred to as an RFA-equivalent area.

Senator Seselja, that is of course exactly what we are proposing. As I told the Senate before, as a test for this, we are proposing that, if the forest management framework under which the harvesting operation is conducted is a regional forest agreement, the harvesting must have been carried out in accordance with the ecologically sustainable management principles in that agreement. Further, if the harvesting operation is not conducted under an RFA, the harvesting must have been carried out in accordance with ecologically sustainable forest management principles equivalent to those of an RFA, to the satisfaction of the minister. We are reinstating exactly the same conditions that Senator Wong explained in the 2009 debate as we reinstate the eligibility for native forest wood waste. Let me go on with what Senator Wong said on19 August 2009, in responding to questions that had been put to her by Senator Milne. Senator Wong said:

The regulations also prescribe a primary purpose test—that is, the wood waste must be primarily harvested for a purpose other than biomass for energy production. The wood waste must also be either a by-product or a waste product of a harvesting operation for which a high-value process is the primary purpose of the harvesting—known as a ‘high-value test’—or a by-product of a harvesting operation that is carried out in accordance with ecologically sustainable forest management principles. The wood waste is taken to be from a high-value process only if the total financial value of the products of the high-value process is higher than the financial value of other products in the harvesting operation. The regulations define a high-value process as ‘the production of sawlogs, veneer, poles, piles, girders, wood for carpentry or craft uses or oil products.’ Woodchips are not specified as a high-value process, so waste from operations where woodchips are the primary purpose is not eligible. Sawmill residue produced by the processing of native forest timber is eligible without reference to the high-value test.

Chair, Senator Seselja and other senators, it is important to understand that, at the time, Senator Wong was explaining the tests that had applied at that stage for eight years and that continued in operation for another two years. We are simply seeking to reinstate those types of arrangements. We are applying the same sorts of tests.