Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Hansard source

Who did these green groups contract to conduct those regeneration burns? The green groups contracted Forestry Tasmania, whom Senator Milne just a moment ago was condemning for conducting regeneration burns. Why did they do that? Because only Forestry Tasmania had the expertise to conduct those regeneration burns. Senator Milne comes in here condemning Forestry Tasmania and condemning forest harvesting, and yet those very areas that were harvested under the regional forest agreements have now been included, supported by the Greens, in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage estate. If the forest industry were so destructive, as Senator Milne says—if those 100- to 600-year-old forests were so destroyed by the forest industry—how do those forests qualify as wilderness under the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area?

The deceit of the Greens and the green groups is just breathtaking, and the hypocrisy of the Greens in this process is likewise breathtaking. They will say one thing one minute to suit their case and they will say another thing another minute to suit their case. That was demonstrated, as I said in my contribution to the second reading debate on this bill, by Senator Bob Brown. When he was campaigning against renewable hydro electricity in Tasmania, he was proposing coal fired power stations in Tasmania—but, of course, the wheel has turned and it is no longer convenient for the Greens to acknowledge that that even occurred. They want to deny it and they want to forget about it, but the historical record is there. The Greens will say anything at any point in time to support their case.

Yet the science is quite clear. Compilations of global science are quite clear. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change support utilisation of biomass, on a sustainable forest management basis, for the generation of energy. They say that in their IPCC report of 2007. The Food and Agriculture Organization supports it. The World Wildlife Fund actually supports it. It has been supporting it right through Europe and has a target for generation of energy by the utilisation of biomass in Europe. There is a target.

It is a pity that Senator Lazarus has left the chamber, because I understand that he is prepared to support this measure only on the basis of Forest Stewardship Council certification of the forests that the biomass comes from. Senator Lazarus has fallen into a green-Wilderness Society trap. Had he accepted certification of forests rather than just going for one of the options on the market, he might have had an option, but, of course, he went for FSC. The green groups try to use a veto power by virtue of their place on the FSC board. They have been trying that for years, but they are in real trouble because I suspect that in not too long a time you will start to see Australian native forests certified under the FSC standard—and what you will probably see then is the Greens and the green groups turning on the FSC. Senator Lazarus has, unfortunately, fallen for a green trap

But what really annoys me is that the Greens have come in here with their forest tripe. Who would have thought that the Greens would turn out to be the climate science deniers? Even the IPCC supports the utilisation of biomass in native forest residues, but, of course, that is inconvenient for the Greens, so they are prepared to deny that part of the IPCC report. They are happy to belt up the government with the rest of the IPCC report, but they actually turned out to be the climate science deniers because they are not prepared to accept that bit that they do not like. They want to pick and choose. They want to be able to say, 'We reject that bit of science because it's inconvenient,' and yet the global science in this space clearly supports the utilisation of biomass for generating energy.

Progress reported.