Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

  (a)   notes that:

     (i)   the operator of the Eden woodchip mill in south east New South Wales, South East Fibre Exports Pty Ltd (SEFE) which is owned by Nippon Paper Industries, plans to build a 5MW biomass-fired power station in Eden,

     (ii)   the biomass power plant would accelerate the damage done to the New South Wales south east forests by the Eden woodchip mill operations, inevitably using woodchips that have been produced from native forests with heavy subsidies by the New South Wales Government,

     (iii)   both SEFE and the local federal Member for Eden-Monaro, Dr Kelly, have been promoting the burning of native timber as an important measure in fighting climate change, falsely claiming that forestry biomass is economic, sustainable and a low carbon energy source, and

     (iv)   biomass electricity generation from native forest feed-stocks is no longer eligible for Renewable Energy Certificates, which will threaten the commercial viability of the Eden biomass power plant; and

  (b)   calls on the Member for Eden-Monaro and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) to guarantee that no federal funding will be allocated to subsidise the operations of the proposed Eden biomass power plant.

Question agreed to.

by leave—Under the recent carbon price agreement, biomass electricity generation from native forest feedstocks is no longer eligible for renewable energy certificates. It is now widely recognised that native feedstock is not a sustainable power source. It has no part in our renewable energy future. The South East Fibre Exports Pty Ltd, which is owned by Nippon Paper and operated by the Eden chip mill is planning to build a biomass fired power station in Eden in the south-east of New South Wales. This plant would inevitably burn for fuel the woodchips produced from logging the stunning native forests that are so valuable ecologically and economically. The woodchip mill's operations are heavily subsidised by the New South Wales government, and it is an environmental outrage that excess woodchips could now be incinerated to produce electricity. It would be a big setback for the commercial viability of the Eden biomass power plant if they were given any funding. People across Australia are watching closely the developments in Eden to see what happens next, because if funding came through from another source it would certainly open up this industry to the possibility of being developed in other areas.

I urge the member for Eden-Monaro and the minister for forestry to give a guarantee to the public that they will not seek any backdoor means of giving federal funding to the proposed Eden biomass power plant. The question is often asked: why don't we use this waste? This is not waste. It is part of the whole forest process, and the ongoing concern is that, if this biomass power plant was built, it would establish infrastructure that would drive the woodchipping of these beautiful native forests for decades to come.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are three matters that I want to go to. One is in relation to the statement that accompanies a motion. I remind the Senate that we recently provided a Procedure Committee report which effect­ively went to this issue to limit the amount of time people take in making short statements during this time. This is a time when people can put motions and if they want to contain the issue within the motion they should write the motion accordingly. They should then put the motion without debate. What we have now heard is debate in relation to the motion, which then provokes others around the chamber to debate the motion. It is this issue that we are trying to avoid. I under­stand Senator Rhiannon is new to this chamber so I simply rise as a courtesy to explain how motions work in this instance.

The government does not support the motion. The government notes the use of biomass as an energy source is carbon neutral as it does not add to the stock of carbon in the atmosphere, as does the com­bustion of fossil fuels. Accordingly, there is no liability under the proposed carbon price for carbon dioxide emitted from the combus­tion of biomass. This will mean that biomass combustion will benefit from a carbon price through greater cost competitiveness. How­ever, to protect native forests from the risk of perverse outcomes, the government has com­mitted to amend the renewable energy target regulations to ensure that renewable energy certificates are not issued for wood waste that comes from native forests. Both I and the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry clearly support the government's position in relation to this. And I do understand that I have now probably provoked a further response—and this is the exact issue that I am trying to avoid in respect of these notices of motion as they proceed, but be that as it may. (Time expired)

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig is right: I have been provoked by previous statements to make a short statement. One thing on which I do agree with Senator Ludwig is that the use of biomass is, in fact, carbon neutral although the science that I have seen recently indicates that it is some­thing, in a life-cycle sense, like only four per cent of the CO2 emissions of coal, so it is certainly a viable and sensible utilisation of our natural resource. Obviously, the oppo­sition does not support the government's view that biomass from native wood stocks should be ruled out of access to renewable energy certificates. It is the opposition's view that a sensibly scaled biomass sector is a very viable use of the resource that exists and, in fact, we are aware that up to 8,000 gigawatt hours of energy could be produced from existing sources without cutting down another tree, without any further impact on the forest. So that resource is, in fact, going to waste and could be utilised quite sensibly to reduce our CO2 emissions. The govern­ment, obviously because of the influence of the Greens, has gone down the track of removing that capacity to reduce our CO2 emissions by ruling out the use of native forest biomass in the renewable energy process. We do not think that is a sensible way to go, when you are ruling out a resource that even the WWF has set an OECD target of 15 per cent of energy generated from renewables via biomass. We see this as a sensible course to follow and obviously we do not support the govern­ment's or the Greens' position.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Rhiannon's ) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:31]

(The President—Senator the Hon. JJ Hogg)

Question negatived.