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

I've never actually participated in a debate on a forestry bill before where we've talked about a marine reserve! It was quite interesting to hear Labor's plan to turn Macquarie Island Marine Park into a forestry reserve! It was most interesting. And then we pivoted straight back to opposition to the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023, which I do commend the government for. The opposition won't be supporting this bill either. It is bad legislation based on nothing more than emotion and ideology, and not on science or fact, as I'm sure the minister and his colleagues—no matter how many references to marine parks are in their speeches—would agree.

The reason this bill is bad is that it doesn't take account of, as Senator White mentioned in the relevant part of her speech, the fact that there are families that are impacted by decisions of this nature. There is an economic outcome of such decisions. There is no contemplation of this at all, despite the speech given by Senator Rice. I have to commend her for her consistency, although it's completely in the wrong direction and completely based on emotion and those sorts of unicorns at the bottom of the garden, rather than on the facts around what impacts these decisions will have.

We only have to look at a recent decision by the Victorian Labor government, which I don't think Senator White referenced in her speech. The Victorian Labor government, which talked about being the friend of the worker and supporter of the regions and in the corner of those doing it tough, back in 2019 made the decision to phase out native forest logging, an entire industry. This is an industry which is sustainable, which is world's best, which actually is good for the environment, particularly when you look at the situation, globally, when you look at other countries what they do. They go ripping trees out of the ground and don't replant. They displace human populations and endanger populations of threatened species. That's what they do in many of the overseas jurisdictions from which we import timber. In Australia, we don't do that. We actually abide by world-leading, science based standards which are good for the environment.

In Victoria, the Labor government, against the wishes of the CFMMEU, shut down this industry. In 2019, they said, 'We'll do it by the year 2030.' Just a couple of months ago, they turned around and said: 'You know what? We're bringing that forward by seven years.' Why? No-one knows. For what purpose has this decision been accelerated to such an extent? We will never know. But that is an absolute abrogation of their responsibility to the people that they represent in that state, the thousands of workers who depend on this industry. Premier Andrews and his government, in partnership with the Albanese Labor government, have turned their back on that industry. I find it passing strange that that didn't make it into the first government speech on this bill.

Across our country we have over 134 million hectares of native forests. On an annual basis, 0.06 per cent of that area is harvested. That's six out of every 10,000 trees. If you listen to the rhetoric that's put out there in the malls and the city streets of our built-up population areas, you'd think that we were ripping millions of hectares out every day and displacing native species and endangered species, but, no, we're not. Six trees out of every 10,000 are harvested annually, and then, as is required by law under these nasty regional forest agreements which have ripped the guts out of our environment, if you listen to the Australian Greens, this land is regenerated—by law.

Under law, these trees are replanted so that they can be harvested again so that we can have a continual flow of access to this vital material. Almost exclusively, I might add, these trees that are being harvested have been harvested before. So this is this whole renewal thing—as the industry calls it: the ultimate renewable. Of course, in Australia, we have certification. We're proud of our industry. Again, it's backed in by science and is sustainable and world-leading compared to the rest of the world, where 80 per cent isn't certified.

It comes back to this fundamental point. The Greens say that this is an environmental imperative, we must protect the environment by shutting down native forestry, we have to do it. The thing is, by shutting it down here in Australia, by doing what has irresponsibly been done in Victoria, and Western Australia I might add, we're just offshoring our demand. We're sending our demand to jurisdictions where, as I've already said, they don't care about the environment. They don't care about what happens to those endangered species. They don't care about the impact on the environment at all. They don't care about what that might do for carbon emissions. They don't care about what that does for bushfire management. They don't care, and you don't see it. It's not happening here in our backyard; it's happening somewhere way offshore where we don't have to worry about it. That's a good thing, that's a good outcome, as far as the Greens are concerned. Of course, that's what this bill would do. Although I do understand, based on the contribution of Senator White, that this bill wouldn't actually prevent native forest harvesting from occurring in this country; it just would mean it's subject to assessment under the EPBC Act, so doesn't actually end native forest harvesting, it just means it has to be approved in a different way.

Demand isn't going to disappear for this product, because you can't just swap out native hardwood that we use in so many applications. In this chamber I often refer to the beautiful timbers that line this place. You wouldn't be able to use radiata pine to create the wonderful pieces of furniture—the staircases we go up and down in our houses, the window frames. Those sorts of things don't come out of softwood plantations, and, indeed, if you talk to anyone in the industry that knows, hardwood from plantations doesn't have the same strength characteristics as native hardwood does, so that's why you can't just swap it out. You can't just shut it down and automatically there's a resource.

Sure, in Tasmania there is a huge amount of unthinned, unpruned eucalyptus plantations. That's not going to be used for that sort of purpose, and those who talk to the industry know that. It was planted to feed a pulp mill which was never built. So, of course, as a country, we end up importing pulp products, paper, from countries that, again, don't care about the environment.

I was doing a bit of a google on the paper used in this parliament now. We bring it in from Indonesia. We used to buy it here, but, of course, because of the Labor plan to shut down the industry despite saying they will keep it open, we don't make white paper in this country anymore. We bring it in from Indonesia. If you read the Greenpeace's website or the World Wildlife Fund's, the company that makes this paper is responsible for huge amounts of deforestation as recently as 2022. These are the net results of these sorts of plans—bad for the environment globally.

We are told that we a global responsibility to show leadership when it comes to reducing carbon emissions. Sure. But then, when it comes to managing our forests to ensure we don't cause devastation and destruction elsewhere, that's something we aren't going to worry about. We'll just shut it down here and push this burden offshore to countries where they don't have high standards of good environmental management, where frankly they don't care and it's about making a buck rather than making sure that their employees, the communities they support and the environment have good outcomes as well.

Also, there was a reference to ending native forestry and that being a recipe to minimise the risk of bushfires. I find that strange, because what happened in the Black Summer bushfires was terrible. It devastated huge swathes of the forestry estate. It had a massive and devastating impact on the communities that depend on the forestry industry. But one thing we did see in the Black Summer bushfires were those businesses who work in the forestry industry using their equipment to support the firefighting effort. If we go and shut down a forestry industry and we send out of town all of the forest contractors—those people who own equipment to manage the land, to manage the forest—if they aren't operating in the forest, if they aren't in those communities, when bushfires come along they're not going to be there to fight the fire. They aren't going to be there to help protect life and property. They aren't going to be there to stop the fire from burning and prevent carbon emissions. The fire will burn on, out of control. You know what that's going to do for carbon emissions: it's not going to be very good at all. This is another net result of shutting down native forestry, offshoring the environmental problem, offshoring the economic inputs to our community and increasing the risk of bushfires in our community.

The whole idea of locking up forests entails not managing them properly, which, sadly, is what happens. With the best of intent, reserves are created, but never are appropriate amounts of resources put into managing these resources—

They become delinquent neighbours, havens for pest animals and weeds and, of course, bushfire risks, which no-one will have the capacity to manage because, if this bill passes, we will be seeing those people who have the capacity, the resources and the equipment to fight these fires leave town and never come back. I think there was a reference in Senator Rice's speech when she introduced this legislation to the $2 billion needed annually to manage these ecological features of our nation and protect the environment. That is an increase of $2 billion a year. But where does this money come from? How do we pay for it when we shut down parts of the economy that generate revenue for governments to then spend? It all depends on government doing everything. It asks that the government be responsible for every bit of private land management and public land management. It says that forest management can be done only by government, not by private industries that actually depend on the resource. The idea that any part of an extractive or resource-intensive industry wants to see the resources disappear is madness. Those industries depend on continued access to a sustainable flow of timber products. That is why they manage this resource so well, so sustainably. That is why they actually do want this resource to be available in a continued fashion. We in the coalition support that.

At the last election, we made it very clear that we backed native forestry. We said that this is an industry that we don't think should be shut down, for the reasons I've set out, including the environmental reasons. Sending this burden, this devastating and destructive impact, offshore to other countries means unfairly putting the pressure on them so that they can feed our demand for native hardwood products. It would be offshoring the economic benefits of downstream processing, which we want to see retained here. We don't want them sent offshore. That's why, at the last election, we had a great suite of programs which would support growth in this sector: value-adds, innovation and future focus. It was pleasing that the Australian Labor Party virtually copied those policies. They are now government policy, and I say good on you. If it's good, take it; run with it. The only thing they didn't copy, though, of course, was our support for native forestry. In part, they did commit to protecting this industry. The now Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, made a commitment on 17 May last year when he wrote to the participants in the Tasmanian forest and forest products industry. He said that he would ensure that this industry would not be shut down. He said:

I promise you that if I become Prime Minister, a Government I lead will not shut down the native forest industry in Tasmania.

It was a promise that only related to Tasmania—it didn't relate to New South Wales, Victoria or Western Australia; it was just Tasmania—so I will put that out there. But it's clear that at least in part the government, thankfully, does support this industry.

I do hope that they go further than that. I do hope that they will see sense in bringing back onshore what is a sustainable industry, not offshoring it, not sending the jobs, not sending the economic returns and certainly not sending what is a worse outcome for the environment globally. Sure, with any industry—farming, forestry, fishing, mining or any primary industry—there is going to be an impact on the environment. But balance is key—making sure that we don't deprive ourselves of economic returns for one cause. I said it yesterday: gone are the days when we made decisions purely on economic grounds. That town in Tasmania, Queenstown, is a beautiful part of the state. But because decisions were made purely on economic grounds we've seen environmental devastation that will take a millennium to repair.

Senator Whish-Wilson referenced the impact on Macquarie Harbour as a result of legacy mining issues. Those decisions aren't made anymore. There is balance in the decision-making process—or at least there should be balance in the decision-making process. So, we have to be careful not to go down this pathway of thinking purely and only about environmental outcomes at the expense of economic outcomes, of the communities we represent here and of the people who more than ever need jobs to pay their bills. This is a bad bill and should be defeated.