Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Water and relates to the large volumes of carbon captured and stored in Australia’s native forests and vegetation. Does she agree with former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr that protecting native forests is fundamental to fighting climate change and that keeping carbon locked up or sequestered in Australia’s native forests instead of logging them not only will slow Australia’s rising greenhouse gas emissions but will also have biodiversity benefits?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Milne for the question. I know that this has been an issue that the Greens have previously raised. As you would be aware, the government does recognise the importance of Australia’s forests in terms of both their biodiversity values and also because they remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as part of a comprehensive effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are committed, and this is something that was made clear prior to the election, to maintaining a robust system of regional forest agreements.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They destroy forests.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand, Senator Brown, that that is not a position with which your party agrees, but that is the position that was made very clear prior to the election. The 2008 State of the forests report shows that there has been a 1.5 million hectare increase in the area of forest added to the reserve system since 2003. I am advised that 23 million hectares of native forests are now in formal reserves. We welcome the ANU research on carbon storage in intact natural forests in south-eastern Australia. The government’s national carbon accounting system does draw on Australian research from peer reviewed scientific studies and encourages research in these fields.

The senator would also be aware that the government’s proposal in the green paper is for a voluntary opt in for forestry which would enable landholders who wish to enter the CPRS to do so subject, obviously, to the maintenance and permanence of such forests. That is currently the proposal in the government CPRS green paper. I do understand that Senator Milne and Senator Brown may have a different set of views on this issue.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you are wrong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I meant from the government, Senator Brown, not between one another. As I said, we do recognise the importance of Australia’s forests. We have a clear commitment to maintaining a robust system of RFAs and I again reiterate through the green paper that the government is proposing in its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme a voluntary opt in for forestry. That is important and it is predicated upon the recognition that forests can form an important part of our fight against carbon pollution and our fight to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed opt in through the green paper would enable landholders to voluntarily opt into the system to establish a forest and to generate a credit as a result of entering the system. That obviously creates an incentive for sequestration where it is appropriate for forest activity for the establishment and maintenance of forests. I make the point that once landholders are in the system then in accordance with the Kyoto accounting rules they would have to remit a permit to remove those forests.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for her answer although I noticed that she studiously avoided answering whether or not she agreed with former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr. I also note that in her answer she focused on the opt in for plantation forestry, not talking about native forest as standing stores. So I ask: can the minister explain why the forests of Indonesia and PNG are carbon stores and must be protected from logging to save the climate, but the forests of Australia are not? Is this a case of Australia hypocritically saying to the world, ‘Do as I say on the protection of your forests, but do not do as I do on the logging of ours’?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reiterate, Australia, as the senator knows, does have a system of management of forests that has been through an extensive process. Obviously there is the matter of historical record and I note that this is not actually my portfolio, but we have been very clear about our support for the Regional Forest Agreements. I understand that some in the chamber have a different view about this. But very clearly, we do have not only forest management practices and regulation in Australia, but also extensive land clearing legislation at a state level and the green paper goes through that in detail and explains that we do believe there is regulatory management there in terms of land use, which is appropriate. In terms of the senator’s question about Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, the government has made it clear that we do see—(Time expired)