Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will just say, from the outset, that the government will not be supporting this bill. But I also want to take this opportunity to say to you, Senator Rice, that I have enjoyed working together with you for many, many years now. I've found that you are a person of integrity and honesty. In your previous role as a spokesperson for the Greens, I couldn't have wished for a better representative from the Greens to work with. We've never had a cross word, although we may differ in some of our opinions. Certainly, from the transport sector, I know that you are held in high regard, and I miss you. I will miss working with you in the road transport and shipping areas. Hopefully you might do a 180 and come back again in the next parliament.

We can't support this bill. This issue affects not only our environment but also the livelihoods of countless workers in Australia, as we have heard from previous speakers. And I will go into that further. While I acknowledge the sentiment to ban logging outright, I believe that careful regulation of responsible logging is a more pragmatic approach that minimises the economic impact on workers. We can do these things. We can have both. We can do it properly, whether it is agriculture, forestry, fisheries or mining. It is ridiculous to think we have to kill off one side of the argument. We can do both—when it is done properly. This government has repeatedly made it clear that we are committed to strengthening environmental protections, and we are getting on with the job.

We also recognise the vital role that forest industries play in regional communities. They directly employ over 50,000 people, with thousands more jobs indirectly supported by the sector. That is thousands and thousands of families. I can't speak for Victoria or Tasmania, but I do know the southern end of Western Australia. Think about all those small communities—the little timber towns and the bigger towns that have agriculture near them. Think about what would happen to these communities if we were to just kill off all logging completely. I know, as an ex furniture removalist, that every time a mine shut down or an industry shut down we'd come in and start moving the families out. All of a sudden, the school wasn't viable. That happened on a couple of occasions. By the time half a dozen families had left and 20 odd kids were gone, the school was not viable and we had issues: what do we do with the other six or seven kids who are left? That is a serious problem. Think about the local service station. Think about the local IGA or supermarket. Think about the local news agency, the repair shops, the tire shops. All of these small businesses actually employ people and families who live in these towns and in these communities. It's easy to stand in this building and say we want to kill off an industry or we want to stop fishing or we want to stop certain parts of agriculture. Well, we have to think of the knock-on effect that has in communities. We have seen this in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee that, Senator Rice, you and I have sat on together for many, many years. We have seen the devastating effects it can have when governments make these decisions to just kill industries off without consultation and without working with the communities and the industries. I'm not saying it can't be done. We can move things and move to something else, but we have got to do this in consultation.

We also recognise the vital role that forest industries play in these regional communities. We can't forget that. The benefits of a competitive, sustainable and renewable forest industry to our regional community should not be so lightly dismissed. These hardworking Australians deliver employment and income throughout the whole supply chain. We forget about the whole supply chain, but we should never forget about it.

Responsible logging can play a pivotal role in sustainable forest management. When forests are managed effectively they can lead to healthier ecosystems and even support biodiversity. By carefully regulating logging we can ensure that these practices are followed, minimising the negative impact on the environment and also promoting long-term sustainability.

Another crucial aspect to consider is that timber is a renewable resource. Wood is an essential material that is used in various industries, as we have heard other speakers say, including construction, furniture manufacturing and paper production. By responsibly harvesting timber we can meet our society's needs while reducing reliance on non-renewable resources, and promoting a more sustainable future. A complete ban on logging would force us to rely more heavily on alternative materials, some of which may have even greater environmental consequences.

It's also important to recognise that Australia has a long history of implementing strict regulations to protect its forests. By strengthening these regulations we can ensure that logging operations follow stringent environmental guidelines, minimising the impact on native forests and their ecosystems. Rather than an outright ban, investing in stronger regulations and enforcement mechanisms will lead to better outcomes for both the environment and the workers.

This is why the government will be not supporting the repeal of the RFA Act. The government is also expanding Australia's plantation forests that are available to our timber industry. We are committed to supporting the ongoing operation of the regional forestry agreements while also strengthening environmental protections. As I said, we can do both at the same time, and we should be doing both at the same time. We are committed to working with stakeholders and relevant jurisdictions to ensure national environmental standards for regional forestry agreements. These will support the ongoing operation of RFAs while also providing stronger environmental protection. This can and will be achieved by applying new environmental standards to the RFAs.

If the Greens are really serious about protecting native forests and supporting regional communities, I suggest they take a closer look at the actions of the Labor government in the great state of Western Australia, rather than simply rely on stunts like the bill before us today. The Western Australian government has made the decision to end the logging of native forests—that's no secret. This followed extensive consultation not only with the industry but with workers and, importantly, communities. There was the promotion of additional plantation timber. This decision will deliver no less than 400,000 additional hectares of karri, jarrah and wandoo forests. The WA government has also released a transition plan to support workers, businesses and communities, along with the Community Development Grants Program. That's how grown-ups do it.

The government announced an $80 million commitment. Now, think about that—$80 million for supporting workers, businesses and communities transitioning out of native logging. It's not killing off jobs, not killing off communities and not killing off businesses. It is actually working with them, closely consulting and assisting with some funding. This $80 million commitment is in addition to the $350 million investment to expand WA's softwood timber plantations to not only support jobs but create more jobs. This record investment will provide at least an additional 33,000 hectares of softwood timber plantations. Up to 50 million pine trees will be planted, sequestering between 7.9 million and 9.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. It will also create about 140 timber industry jobs, protect about 1,980 existing jobs—mostly in the south-west timber industry—and support the many thousands of jobs in the state's construction industry. By crikey, don't we need to do that? These are jobs that depend upon the reliable supply of softwood timber. A native forestry community advisory group was also established late last year as part of the state government's plans to end logging of native timbers. Importantly, the community advisory group includes representatives from south-west native forest communities.

Compare this to the approach of the Greens political party. The Greens come in and seek to have this parliament agree to an immediate cessation of native forest logging without any consultation with the affected communities, industries or workers. I find that gobsmacking, but we shouldn't be surprised. This is how they operate. The Greens claim to be the bastions of climate change reform and warriors for the environment, yet that was the party that sided with that mob over there, the Liberal and National parties, in 2009—and I know because I was sitting in here watching it unfold—to vote against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Let me make this point very clear again: the Greens voted with the Liberal and National parties to vote down the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Former prime minister Kevin Rudd wrote an article in the Monthly in June of last year about this scandal, where he said:

If the Greens had stood up for their beliefs, we would now be 12 years into an emissions trading scheme steadily decarbonising our economy with targets escalating at conferences in Doha, Paris, Edinburgh and beyond. Having attracted some Liberal support, Abbott could not have repealed it without unleashing a devastating civil war. Unlike the subsequent carbon price, which was legislated without any Coalition votes, it would have stuck.

Former independent member of the ACT Legislative Assembly Michael Moore pointed out the Greens' faults further in an article that he wrote in 2019, titled, 'How the Greens failed climate change'. He begins his article by stating:

In their unwillingness to compromise, the Greens destroyed Australia's best chance to establish an emissions trading scheme and to seek later improvements.

I couldn't have written that better myself. Mr Moore then goes over a number of the Greens' reasons and justifications as to why they sided with the 'no-alition', and he subsequently pulls them apart. One of the Greens' more strident arguments was that the CPRS 'is not just a failure, but it locks in failure'. Mr Moore writes in response to that:

The irony is that the Greens locked in failure on climate action by siding with the Abbott-led coalition in a pincer movement of the hard right and the hard left of their respective parties.

Sadly, not a lot has changed with respect to the Greens in the four years since this article was written. So the Greens can move all the motions and private senators' bills that they like, but at the end of the day every Greens senator and MP has to live with the fact that, when they had the opportunity to protect the environment and support legislation to combat climate change, they failed.

Mind you, those opposite are no better. They got an independent review showing Australia's environmental laws were broken and did nothing. They refused to act on climate change. They announced 22 different energy policies and didn't land a single one of them. Let's be honest: a complete ban on logging would have far-reaching economic consequences for workers in that industry. Instead, careful regulation and oversight of responsible logging practices, like what the government is striving to achieve, should be our priority. By implementing stringent guidelines, investing in sustainable forest management and engaging in meaningful dialogue with the community, we can strike a balance that safeguards our environment while minimising economic hardships. As I was saying, the time for stunts and inaction is over.

The government is getting on with the job of developing stronger laws to better protect the environment and give faster clearing development decisions. We're strengthening RFAs to ensure better environmental protections. We're working to establish an environmental protection agency, restoring our urban rivers and waterways, cracking down on plastics pollution and doubling the number of Indigenous rangers. For these and many other reasons, the government will not be supporting this bill.