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

It is good to see Senator Whish-Wilson in the chamber. He has different views to me on things like forestry. But being the gentleman that I am I can acknowledge that we have different opinions and we can agree to disagree, and I will continue on with my contribution in silence, I hope.

The Prime Minister made a promise before the last election to Tasmanian forestry workers. I have a letter here, dated 17 May, from the Hon. Anthony Albanese, Leader of the Opposition, as he was then. It was addressed to workers and participants in the Tasmanian forest and forest products industry. Without reading the whole letter, he said, 'I promise you that if I become Prime Minister the government I lead will not shut down native forestry in Tasmania.' Now, I accept it is only for the state of Tasmania. It doesn't relate to the industries in Victoria or the great state of Western Australia, where, sadly, closures of that industry are occurring, which is something I lament terribly and will talk about in a very respectful way. He goes on to say: The fact that a low-carbon-emitting industry like yours, which uses a renewable resource, grown in Tasmania, is excluded from the former government's Modern Manufacturing Strategy is shameful. Adding to my commitment to you, a federal Labor government will support native forest harvesting, and Labor will assist in growing the plantation estate and increasing Tasmania's capacity in sawmilling, timber processing and pulping, including more value-adding jobs in Tasmania.' It is pretty clear that the Prime Minister was making a commitment to the people of Tasmania that native forestry was in. In fact, he uses the three words 'native forest harvesting' in a letter that talks about manufacturing and is a reference to the policy we have now.

As I said earlier, Senator Allman-Payne has secured an agreement out of the government that native forest logging is out, and that is something the Greens are very proud of. Senator Watt, the relevant minister, said in question time on Tuesday of this week, in answer to a question from Senator Sterle, that this bill 'was never about investing in coal, gas or native forests, despite the Greens patting themselves on the back for getting a win they didn't actually get'. I don't know who's right here, whether the Greens are right about having secured this agreement to have coal, gas and native forestry out or whether the government are telling the truth about it always having been out of the equation. This is when I turn to the legislation, and I look at clause 63, paragraphs (3) and (4), which talk about prohibited investments. Paragraph (3) says:

(3) An investment of a Corporation body must not:

…   …   …

(c) directly finance the logging of native forests.

Paragraph (4) defines 'native forest' to 'not include a plantation' and says:

plantation means an intensively managed stand of trees that is created by the regular placement of seedlings or seed.

I understand that, but does that mean the National Reconstruction Fund will fund the harvesting of plantation but not native? Or is it only about the value-add, which is what the minister was telling us about? It has been put to me a number of times in the chamber this week, mainly in response to disorderly interjections, President—I wasn't the one making them, I might add—