Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Hansard source

Before I make some comments about why the government believes that the regulation amendments that we are seeking to put before this place are sensible and balanced, can I just make a few comments about some of the comments that have been made about this disallowance motion by those who have spoken before me. It comes as no great surprise that it is of great concern to me that Senator Rice would actually suggest that the federal government's position of having a desire to reduce red tape for Australian businesses is somehow a bad thing. I would have thought it was eminently sensible for us to be constantly looking at ways and means by which we can reduce the financial and cost burden on Australian businesses if there is demonstrated fact that the cost of the regulation far outweighs the benefits of anything that it's trying to achieve.

It's also interesting that Senator Rice makes many comments about the Greens not being satisfied—that she's not satisfied. I absolutely assure this chamber that the very extensive review that assessed the need for and impact of the regulations that were brought in in conjunction with the illegal logging legislation that was brought in by this government at the start of our term was undertaken by a number of independent assessors. It was a very robust process. It sought to speak to people across the entire supply chain: importers, domestic operators and unions. So to suggest that somehow what the Greens say or what Senator Rice thinks is a more robust way to assess the efficacy of a particular regulation—I'm sorry, I'm going to have to say that I would rather take the word of and outcomes that have been delivered to us by an independent, transparent, robust and scientifically based process than what she may think.

I'd also draw to the attention of this place to the fact that it is incumbent on every government, no matter of what persuasion, and everybody in this place to understand that nothing is ever going to be perfect. What we're entrusted to do is make sure that we strike a balance so that we are not, as in the old saying, smashing a walnut with a sledgehammer. If, as legislators, we believe that the burden of the regulation far outweighs any benefit that the regulation puts into place, then it's incumbent on us to assess that and make a decision that you cannot possibly regulate the Australian economy out of existence just because you want to deliver an absolutely perfect environment, where absolutely nothing ever has any risk. You cannot triage by legislation all risk out of existence in Australia.

First of all, I congratulate the Australian forestry industry for their response to the introduction of illegal-logging regulations. They have worked extremely hard to make sure they've got their businesses and their importing businesses up to speed so that they can address the very serious issue of illegally logged timber, seeing that Australia is doing everything that's reasonably possible to make sure that we're not a country where illegally logged timber is imported.

The coalition government, by its very actions, has demonstrated that it is absolutely committed to combatting illegal harvesting of timber. But we recognise that the importance of preventing illegally logged timber being imported into Australia has to be balanced by making sure that the regulatory burden we place on importers is at a relevant and an appropriate level so that we combat the illegal logging but don't destroy our businesses in the process.

I'd also draw to the chamber's attention that when Senator O'Neill was making her contribution to this particular disallowance motion, she made a comment about $800 million of timber that's being imported into Australia and that there was some risk of it being logged illegally. Again, Senator Rice drew attention to the estimate that up to nine per cent of timber that's logged internationally has some risk of having been sourced illegally. I'd like to point out to the chamber that just because something is averaged across the whole of the world doesn't necessarily mean that Australia has to accept its proportion of that particular issue. In many instances, Australia is a world leader in how we go about things, whether it be in our forestry sector, our fisheries sector, our water management sector or our agricultural sector. We have some of the most robust regulations in place to ensure that we hit well above the average in making sure that we are very compliant in many of the things that we do. So to pluck a sum out of the air and say that because the world has up to nine per cent illegally logged timber—it's in our report and I admit it's in our report—is not a direct correlation to saying that nine per cent of wood that's imported into Australia being illegally logged.

I think this probably highlights very clearly one of the most insidious things that are seeping into our country at the moment, and that is that you can twist and distort facts. You can twist and distort the science, and in many instances you can actually tell untruths to try to argue your point. And we see time and time and time again from the Greens where the inconvenient truth is completely disregarded because it makes a much better argument for us to come in here and twist the facts so it looks like a much worse situation than really exists on the ground.

All we serve to do by this false information, this misrepresentation of the facts, is to damage our industries—our industries that are recognised, if you look at peer group review of the science, as some of the best and most effective, efficient and sustainable in the world in just about everything we do in Australia. And yet we seem to think that it's okay to come in here and spread misinformation to the rest of the world so they actually think that Australian industries are not the fantastic industries they are. I can assure you I will, day in, day out, never fail to stand up in this place and defend the amazing environmental credentials of all of our agricultural industries and sectors, because they are the best in the world. They deserve to be supported and they deserve to be protected against the misinformation that's often thrown our way by those that sit opposite.

But I move on to the actual disallowance. I'm disappointed that those opposite are choosing to move to disallow this. I would question particularly the Labor Party and their support of this disallowance. Does their hypocrisy know no bounds? I can assure you that I've been working on this particular issue with industry, with importers in the Australian domestic timber industry, for a number of years. In fact, it was one of the first chores and tasks that I undertook when I was appointed to this particular position. The Labor Party had been out amongst industry up until the last week of 2017, spruiking their support for these particular amendments and changes to the regulations. And then, lo and behold, somehow over the Christmas period we found that someone, whether it's the CFMEU or whoever, had somehow got into their heads, and now they don't support these regulations.

I generally thought, from the comments that I had been hearing and receiving as I had been travelling around the country, talking to our timber industry and consulting on this particular issue, that those opposite actually also understood that, if you go through the rigorous process of getting yourself certified by an independent certification standard, particularly FSC in the case of the Greens—FSC is auspiced by the World Wildlife Fund, about whose credentials they seem quite happy to crow at every other instance, particularly when there's money at the other end of it. They then come into this place and say that it's not good enough anymore.

I don't know what went on, but all I can say is that this just seems to me to smack once again of the 'no' politics we see from those opposite. All we're doing is, in effect, stopping the release of nearly $5 million back to industry that's been independently assessed as being an unnecessary regulatory burden on the Australian forest-products-importing industry. So it is with great disappointment that I find that the Labor Party, the Greens and Senator Hinch have chosen not to recognise that there is very, very little risk of any further imported timber into this country having been illegally sourced after the addition of a deem-to-comply condition on the two internationally recognised standards, FSC and PEFC. The benefits of this arrangement would be simply to reduce an unnecessary cost on industry and, in the process of doing so, make very little difference to the outcome.

So it is with great regret that it appears to me as if these particular very small changes to regulation that we have before us will not pass this place. All I can say is: shame on those opposite for the hypocrisy that they have shown in not supporting these amendments.