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

I am delighted to be able to speak on the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, an important piece of legislation which we need to ensure we do absolutely get right. At the outset, I do want to thank the relevant minister, Minister Collins, for her willingness to engage on this issue and thank her predecessor, Minister Watt. It is, broadly speaking, an issue that we, the coalition and the Labor Party, can find a lot of common ground on when it comes to its management. There are a few issues we do diverge on, as you would expect, but I do want to put on the record at the outset my thanks to, in particular, Minister Collins, as a Tasmanian who understands these issues, for her willingness to cooperate and hear me out.

Obviously, the coalition is a big supporter of the forestry industry in Australia. We have a very, very fine history when it comes to the processing of timber products here, harvesting and managing forests and ensuring we do it to the world's best standard. That is an industry that has been in existence now for the entirety of the history of Australia as we know it today in terms of productive forestry management. We learned a lot from First Nations traditional owners about forest management and things that have been picked up over time. But, in terms of our commercial forestry sector, the participants in that industry over time have improved their practices and are very proud—rightly so—of what they've been able to achieve. I challenge and continue to challenge my friends from across the chamber to identify a jurisdiction where they do it better and actually have a productive forestry sector. I'm sure we'll hear from other participants in this debate about jurisdictions that might, in their opinion, do it better. But I highly doubt it because, to this day, I have not been given a country that does it better than Australia. Whether it be native forestry or plantation, we do it to the world's best standard, we do it sustainably and we do it in a way we should be proud of.

To that end, that's why dealing with illegal logging in overseas jurisdictions and in how we source our timber here is incredibly important. If we're going to hold ourselves to the highest standard possible and make our industry jump through the hoops that we do to attain certification, to be granted a forest practices plan, to go and harvest and to comply with all relevant laws—whatever they might be—in any state or territory jurisdiction, then we should be expecting that of jurisdictions we import timber from. Of course, as we know, demand for timber is increasing in broad terms over time. We have a massive housing shortage. We have public infrastructure that we're talking about building out of timber. We have a stadium in Hobart that we're looking at constructing out of timber too—hopefully beautiful Tasmanian hardwoods. The demand is going through the roof. Yet Australia's capacity to supply all of its demand is diminishing. Therefore, where do we get timber from? We import it, which is why this legislation is so incredibly important. Understanding what it is we are consuming by way of timber—where it's coming from, the species, how it's managed, if it is done to the world's best standard—is something that consumers are after.

This legislation is what we have in the arsenal to be able to ensure consumers do have that sort of information at their disposal when they're making those choices. It is the responsible thing to do. If we're going to go down the path of making it difficult for industry to operate here, to comply with standards, then we don't want to just push off over the horizon the environmental responsibility of making sure that they do their forestry right when we do it well in our country. We don't know what they do in the Congo Basin. We don't know what they do in Borneo. I have a fair hunch, based on the information I've received, and it's not like we manage forests here.

This is the problem. I know others have referred to it as the 'drug dealer argument': take our timber because ours is better managed than yours. The reality is that the demand for these beautiful products—necessary, great carbon sinks—is not going away, and we should do it in a way, as we do here in Australia, that is good for the environment. You can manage that industry well and ensure that there are good environmental outcomes and a beautiful product at the end—and jobs, to boot, in Australian timber mills, in harvesting operations and through contracting businesses that are part of this amazing industry.

I do want to reflect on a time, in the last term of the previous federal government, off the back of some developments in Victoria, which led to, I believe, a regrettable decision by the Victorian government to bring in a phase-out of native forest harvesting in the state of Victoria, which then turned into an immediate ban not long after, despite promises from that government. It was interesting—and I don't want to hover on their decision because this bill doesn't go to that issue—at that time, a major retailer in Australia made a decision to no longer stock timber sourced from the Victorian state owned forestry corporation. It was not because there was any proof that there was wrongdoing, not because the regulator had found there were problems with forest management and not because of any facts stacking up but because claims were made. In response, a retailer became very nervous and made the decision not to stock those timbers.

I then, as assistant forestry minister, asked the department to engage in some DNA testing across a range of retailers across the country to understand what was being sold in our timber retailing outlets, big and small, where it was coming from and could we validate what claims were being made about its source. It took a little while to get done. I think it might be the University of Adelaide that is the home, the repository, of the database against which all of this DNA information is measured, and I want to thank them for their good work. The data that came back was alarming. We had a retailer make a decision about not stocking timber from an Australian jurisdiction because of claims circulating that things weren't being done to a standard some would like, yet complying with the law, but they were happy to sell timbers purporting to be a particular species from a particular jurisdiction—some carrying the logos of certain certification schemes, backing in this claim that it came from a certain jurisdiction and was a certain species of timber—but, in fact, it was something completely different and, as far as the DNA evidence showed, came from a totally different jurisdiction. That concerned me greatly.

We have Australians who want to do the best thing they can by the environment in sourcing materials, so they trust retailers—generally speaking—they trust certification schemes and they trust the products bearing the logos of these certification schemes. But on a very, very small sample and a very random approach taken to selecting samples to DNA test, there were quite a number of alarming inconsistencies between what was claimed to be the species and source of this particular timber product and what the facts were—where it came from. The jurisdictions from which this timber is sourced, according to the DNA evidence, are those jurisdictions where, of course, they don't have good environmental standards. They don't have laws and regulations that protect the environment. They came from jurisdictions where there are concerns around modern slavery attached to the sourcing of these timbers.

That's why it's important that, when we are importing timber, which we are doing more and more of, particularly when we have less and less available here, we are going to see an increased need to ensure what we bring in meets our standards and meets what consumers are actually after in this country. I, still to this day, believe that timber is the best building product. Yes, there is a place for concrete and steel, but I can tell you that nothing beats the qualities of timber not only as a building material but also in an environmental sense. As I've already said, the carbon storage capacity of this material is absolutely incredible.

In referring to our time in government, it was something that was very much on our radar. We were very concerned about making sure that timber processors here and retailers complied with our illegal-logging regime. The laws that were in effect, and the regulations attached to them, were reviewed on a relatively regular basis, which gave rise to the work that's been undertaken by both the last government and the current government, culminating in this legislation we have before us today.

I should also foreshadow that the opposition does have a number of amendments that we have circulated. Some relate to what products require testing and those that don't, the application of certain provisions applying to imports only, the notices related to the import of timber products, the removal of certain strict liability offences in certain situations and the publication of details, amongst a range of other amendments we have here. Again, this is something I've been talking about with Minister Collins and, before her, with Minister Watt, and there is a genuine willingness to engage on this front.

Before I go on with a little bit more of the history, there were further concerns raised with the coalition—outside of the Senate committee process into this legislation, which we were happy to initiate—around the regime that we have before us and what the new laws would do in terms of putting the onus on processors here, who have limited visibility about where timber comes from, particularly if it is imported. So, if a processor receives timbers from a particular importer, is the onus on them—a small- to medium-sized timber processor here in Australia who is creating furniture, perhaps, or building materials—to be able to indicate the veracity of the claims around the source of the timber or is it on the importer? It's about making sure that we have a clear delineation and that the onus is not on small- to medium-business operators who are in the business of not importing but processing. I think that's an important clarification. That is something we're working with the government on.

We want to make sure that we don't have scope creep in terms of Commonwealth government legislation. We have states and territories, who have responsibilities for land management in this country. These provisions should relate to imports from overseas jurisdictions and of course to the processing, in this country, of timber that has been harvested here. When it comes to the harvesting of Australian domestic timber resources, all state and territory jurisdictions have their own forest practices management authority or equivalent entity that manages their forests. So I wanted to be absolutely sure that we are not seeing the Commonwealth step into a space where we already have entities that are managing this important issue.

In Tasmania, I know that the Forest Practices Authority work exceptionally well and closely with land managers, along with other entities within the forestry space, to try and ensure: that we have appropriate mechanisms in place to manage timber harvesting; that it is done in accordance with the law, to the world's best standard; and that we don't have illegal harvesting of timbers. Of course we all know the flow-on impacts to both flora and fauna, waterways and the rest. It is important to ensure that we have a delineation between Commonwealth and state and territory responsibilities.

At the last election, we did announce a dedicated commitment to assign $4½ million to strengthen our country's fight against illegal logging and to stop illegal timber imports from undercutting Australian producers, because that's what it does come down to. That, I'm pleased to say, was a commitment that, along with all of our forestry policies, was met by the now government, which I think is rather a vote of confidence. It's said that imitation is the best form of flattery, and, when the now government is working very hard to implement our policies, that is a good outcome for the Australian timber industry, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of that labour being borne soon.

Of course, there were a couple of shortcomings, I hasten to add, that have been worked on with the minister and the government. I've referred to some of the amendments, and I'm sure the questions I've just asked will be interrogated in the committee stage perhaps in the next sitting week. Summing up the best part of them, some of the other issues that were referred to relate to the cost associated with the mass fibre testing; the requirement of importers to directly verify and validate legitimacy of their products; and the dangers of the strict liability regime.

That is where the coalition is on this particular legislation. I thank the ministers I have worked with on this legislation. It is important to get this right, and I believe we can. I'm proud of this country's history as a timber processor and producer. I think we can do more of it and do it better; we do it better than anywhere else in the world. I commend this bill to the Senate.