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

I'm pleased to be able to do that. I was rather enjoying Senator McKim's contributions to a debate on the forestry bill by talking about the maugean skate, which of course is an aquatic creature, as he admitted. I'm not quite sure how references to this endangered creature are in any way related to this. But I do want to just correct a couple of things that have been put on the record here. I will never, ever undersell Senator McKim's passion, his vigour and his desire to put out into the marketplace what he believes to be the case—his truth, his version of events, his view of the world—and good on him for doing that. He does that very effectively. As a fellow Tasmanian, I see a lot of what he has to say. Despite disagreeing with nearly every word of it, I commend him for his passionate participation in the democratic process. But I just think we need to come back to basics in this debate, before I get to Mr Haneveer—who is a top Tasmanian, in my view: a very good journalist. I read an article on the weekend that I think Senator McKim would be very interested in, and I'll refer to it before I conclude.

On this point around what we do here in Australia when it comes to forestry versus what happens elsewhere in the world: if we assume that Australians want to continue to consume this fantastic product, the hardwood timbers that come from native forests or other varieties of forests, if we're not going to be producing it here to what is, I would argue, the world's best standard, then where is it going to be coming from? It's not going to be coming from Australian well-managed sustainable forests; it's going to be coming from places like the Congo Basin, where there is no regard for the environment, no rules around how you can extract the timber you need and must replace it, and no regard for what impact it will have on the climate, on waterways or indeed on human populations. Senator McKim talked about the displacement of human populations. You can see examples in overseas jurisdictions. Some of these products carry the FSC logo, but we know there are problems with the timbers that go on sale accompanied by this rather questionable mark.

I was always very disappointed with what happened in Victoria. A court case was brought against VicForests and, as a result, a particular retail chain decided not to stock the timbers coming from any of the VicForests coupes. At that point the company had not been found in breach, but this retail outlet made a decision on the basis of a question before a court. It was at that point that, as the former assistant minister for forestry, I asked for some DNA testing to occur in retail outlets across Australia. Again, I make the point that some of them carry a logo claiming a level of certification, specifying the type of timber they are selling. It was amazing to see, in a number of retail outlets, including the one that decided not to stock the Victorian timber in question, that they were selling timbers purporting to be a particular species from a particular jurisdiction with a certification logo attached, which of course didn't match up to exactly the type of timber it was and where it came from.

This is the problem with this argument around shutting down the timber industry in Australia—that if we don't do it here we're going to have to get it from somewhere, and what happens over the horizon is a problem. That is why this bill is important—putting in place safeguards and measures that actually protect people who want to buy sustainable products as well as environments beyond our own jurisdiction. That's why it is important to back this in.

Senator McKim talks about a 'stitch-up' between the two major parties. I still believe that, as evidenced between 2010 and 2014 in Tasmania, there is only ever one stitch-up, one partnership you will ever see in Australian politics when it comes to forestry, and that is the one where that green tail wags the Labor dog, in a power-sharing government—and the polls point to us having, after the next election, a Labor-Greens minority government, supported by the teals. I'll almost guarantee that the Greens' list of demands post an election, when they're marching around to the blue carpeted wing of this building, the ministerial wing, will include a ban of native forestry. That will be one of the key asks. In fact, they're already asking for it in relation to another bill that we will be debating this fortnight. So, if ever there was going to be a stitch-up on forestry, it isn't between the two major parties; it is very much between the Labor Party and the Greens, as evidenced by what happened in Tasmania between 2010 and 2014, when, based on emotion and whim, we saw the shutdown of a sustainable industry not based on science and not based on fact.

In concluding, as I said, there were constructive discussions, and I've been able to satisfy myself regarding some of the concerns I had around impacts on Australian domestic processors and that we aren't going to see scope creep here from the Commonwealth government into what should be a state or territory matter. We all have state and territory forestry regulatory authorities, and I don't think it's the place for the Commonwealth to be marching in and taking over any of those responsibilities. But I want to finish by reflecting on comments that Senator McKim made about a very good journalist, Mr Haneveer. Yes, I did work with him many years ago in this very building, in fact. I think it's unfair to characterise Mr Haneveer in the way he does. I think he's a very even-handed journalist. He's given me a whack from time to time in his editorials, and I'll take them. I think there might well have been a couple saved for Senator McKim as well.

But I did read one on Saturday, as a matter of fact, and I'm surprised Senator McKim didn't reference that one as much as he referenced the one that's totally unrelated to this debate. It was on one of our own colleagues here, Senator Polley. I do think Mr Haneveer is a fantastic journalist. Given the number of times he has been referenced in this debate, I just wanted to put that on the record. He might have views about the skate and the salmon industry, and, if that keeps going on as a topic of conversation, I might respond to some of those a bit later on. I do recommend that all senators pick up Saturday's Advocate newspaper and have a read of the editorial. It's well worth it; it's a good laugh.