Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak today about one of Australia's traditional strengths and that's the forestry industry, an industry we as a country should be very, very proud of with regard to the men and women right across this country that work so hard, so honestly and at the cutting edge of innovation and technology. It's an industry we need to do more to support, I think, to ensure that it has the bright future I believe it can have. As they say: wood is good, and it's the ultimate renewable. Trees grow. You cut them down, you use them for beautiful products like the ones that adorn this chamber, another tree is planted in its place and the cycle continues. Along the way, of course, it abates carbon. It absorbs carbon. It is a big part of the answer to the issue we as a globe face, as a planet, and that is offsetting our emissions. The forestry industry will play a huge role as we move forward, and that is on top of the fact that we produce these quality products and, of course, in this country, we do it to world's best standards—something I will come back to a little bit later on.

For context, here we are in 2021 with unprecedented demand for timber products, for housing and construction, for appearance grade products, for furniture. For all manner of timber products we have got unprecedented demand, in part because of that fantastic scheme, the HomeBuilder program that was announced during the pandemic to stimulate the housing and construction sector and, boy, has it done its job. That demand is set to quadruple by the year 2050. That is something we need to cater for and plan for and that is what we are in the process of doing.

As a government we contributed $150 million to support this industry, that's on top of what industry itself has done and what state and territory government have done with regard to that need to grow and plan this great industry. Federally we've removed impediments when it comes to accessing carbon credits for new plantations through the Emissions Reduction Fund, by amending the water rule. We've provided support for industries that were hit by the bushfires. We've backed in the regional forestry hubs, which are doing a great job of focusing that industry in parts of Australia where it thrives, where the right conditions exist, where we have processing capacity and also logistic support for the industry. To keep ourselves at the cutting edge—a space where a lot more work can be done—we invest heavily in research and development and we'll continue to do that into the future.

Obviously, though, we face significant challenges in this industry. In terms of growing the plantation estate we compete against other land users. Farmers, graziers, recreational pursuits, urban development—all of these things compete for that finite resource, which is acreage to be able to plant out trees. The bushfires of 2019-20, the Black Summer bushfires, had a massive impact on the forest estate, both plantation and native, putting further pressure on our capacity to meet demand.

There are also some things that are in the power of lawmakers across this country that have contributed to the challenges. The decisions by both the Victorian and Western Australian Labor governments are what I'm talking about here. In both those states they've made a decision to end native forest harvesting, to put an end to that industry. That's a decision I've declared is a bad one. It is a bad one because it is not based on science; it is one that is based on politics. Those who have made the decision know that. The problem is, when we draw a line under such an industry demand for the products that come out of that industry will continue. Timber, like the timber we are surrounded by here in this chamber, comes out of native forests. We need to continue to supply it. Consumers still want to buy it and they will be able to.

The only difference is, as a result of the decisions of both the Victorian and Western Australian Labor governments, people will be sourcing this material from markets that don't have world's best forestry standards. We'll be importing this timber from places offshore, overseas, where, frankly, they don't care about the environment and where standards of environmental protection are not important and where deforestation occurs—something our government, along with over 100 other countries, declared should stop. They will contribute to the deforestation problem this world has. That is the net result of decisions by these governments.

For what it's worth, though, in Australia we conduct DNA testing—and have done recently—of imported timber, to determine whether it meets the claims being made by retailers and importers. It is alarming to see the amount of wood being sold as a certain type from a certain location but is not actually that type of timber from that location and, perhaps, is illegal. Retailers should expect more of this to come. It is upon us to make sure that we source only responsibly and sustainably grown timber, just like Australian producers manufacture and provide to market here.

The Western Australian government, less than two years ago, talked up how important the native forestry sector is. On 3 December 2019 forestry minister Dave Kelly said, in reference to this industry:

The native forestry sector is an important employer and economic contributor that supplies our community with sustainable, renewable building materials and other timber products.

He went on to say:

The native forestry industry injects $220 million into the Western Australian economy each year and supports more than 800 jobs …

If we fast-forward the clock two years, apparently this stuff that was said doesn't matter. How can an industry so proud, so sustainable, bank on anything the Western Australian Labor government says?

Then we move across to Victoria, where we're in the middle of negotiating renewal of the regional forestry agreement, the agreement between the Commonwealth and state that governs how we manage this industry. Without notice—without even a hint of an announcement coming down the pipeline—they announced that they too would be phasing out this industry.

I've written to both ministers, in each of those jurisdictions, and asked them to provide me with the science that they're basing their decisions on. I've given them until this Friday. They've had a couple of weeks to provide it. It shouldn't be hard. It was there to take to cabinet, to make the decision. If it doesn't come to my desk, if it's not returned to me and I don't have that as a basis to refer to, I can only assume that there was no science behind this decision. I have a fair hunch that that is actually the case.

In terms of science and evidence, I point to the work of Responsible Wood. They are a group that are absolutely concerned. They are custodians of our forests, they certify our native forests and they have highlighted some of the concerns we have with regard to decisions being made. They make the point that all of Australia's public native wood production forests in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia are independently certified as complying with the Responsible Wood forest management standard. This means that natural and cultural values are identified and protected, with independent audits conducted annually. This is a practice we've seen in other parts of the world where they continue to harvest native forests.

Responsible Wood also point out that when it comes to carbon emissions the 4th assessment report of the UN IPCC states:

… a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit.

So scientists, the people who assess the numbers, who look at the facts, who do the work to understand forests, are saying that we should back this industry in.

I want to applaud one of my Labor colleagues, from Victoria, Senator Raff Ciccone. In this place, last night, he talked up the need for that industry to be backed. He made the point that in Victoria they need to reverse the decision. That is something I agree with him on: reverse the decision undermining the native forest industry. He concluded his contribution to the Senate by saying: 'I look forward to continuing to support timber workers and their communities because federal Labor is on their side.'

One senator does not make an opposition. One senator does not make an entire party. I look forward to seeing what the federal opposition say about native forestry, and forestry more broadly, in the lead-up to the next election. It's a challenge for them. In Tasmania they have form: they shut it down under the last Labor-Greens government. And we know that at the next election the only pathway to the treasury benches for the Labor Party is if they do deals with the Greens, as they did after the 2010 federal election. Heaven help us if that happens again.

So I challenge the shadow minister for agriculture, Ms Julie Collins—who has responsibility, who is a Tasmanian—to commit today to supporting forestry in all its forms, plantation and native, and to call on her state counterparts in the Labor governments in Victoria and Western Australia to reverse their decision. If she does not, it means they do not stand behind this industry. Raff Ciccone is on the right side of history, and I hope his colleagues follow him—but I doubt they will.