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

Chair, I indicate for the benefit of my colleagues who are going to be dealing with the amendments—I am the only one with amendments and I am doing this informally now, but I will move amendments each time in a formal sense, so this is just to let people know—that it is my intention to deal with amendment (1) and then amendment (4) and then with (3), (9) and (18) together, (2), (5), (7), (8) and (19) together, (20) on its own, (21), (22), (23) and (6) together, and then (24) on its own. So I let you know that is how I would like to proceed to try and expedite things as quickly as I can. I move Australian Greens amendment (1):

(1) Page 2 (after line 7), after clause 2, insert:

2A Objects of this Act

     The objects of this Act are:

  (a) to prevent the trade of timber products derived from illegal logging; and

  (b) to help reduce illegal logging in Australia's region and globally; and

  (c) to encourage the sourcing of timber products produced using sustainable practices; and

  (d) to help Australia to become a country that trades only in sustainable timber products; and

  (e) to assist in the implementation of Australia's international obligations in relation to the eradication of corruption, including under:

     (i) the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions done at Paris on 17 December 1997 ([1999] ATS 21); and

     (ii) the Convention against Corruption done at New York on 31 October 2003 ([2006] ATS 2); and

     (iii) the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime done at New York on 15 November 2000 ([2004] ATS 12); and

  (f) to assist in the implementation of Australia's international obligations in relation to the environment, including under:

     (i) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora done at Washington on 3 March 1973 ([1976] ATS 29); and

     (ii) the Convention on Biological Diversity done at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992 ([1993] ATS 32); and

  (g) contribute to the implementation of Australia's commitment to the environment under the Montréal Process, and the Santiago Declaration of Criteria and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests made at Santiago on 3 February 1995.

Note:   In 2012, the text of an international agreement in the Australian Treaty Series was accessible through the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (www.austlii.edu.au).

This amendment goes to the objects of this proposed act. The Greens want to include 'sustainability' in the objects clause of the proposed act. In the lead-up to the 2007 election the government announced its policy to bring in a ban on illegal timber imports with the heading 'Ensuring sustainable timber imports'. That has not appeared in the objects of the proposed act as currently before us. So the Greens believe that this is an important addition. In December 2009, the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Burke, signed off on changes to the objective of the government’s policy, which remains current. It ‘provides the basis for addressing all five components of the government’s illegal logging election commitment’. It states that the policy objective is ‘the Australian government will combat illegal logging and its associated trade by establishing systems that will promote trade in legally logged timber and wood products and, in the long term, trade in timber and wood products from sustainably managed forests’. I add, for emphasis, that it says 'sustainably managed forests'.

The explanatory memorandum recognises that this is existing government policy, and flags on several occasions the possibility of a shift from legality to sustainability in the legislation. It says:

Review elements of the policy necessary to meet the government’s policy objective would include consideration of the range of timber products that are covered and the possible timing of a shift from a legality requirement to one based on sustainability.

That is on page 49. It goes on to say:

At some future time it would be possible to consider whether the legality verification requirement could be replaced with due diligence applied to the sustainability of the products covered by the regulatory elements of the policy; (c) the economic impacts of the due diligence compliance requirements; (d) potential for increasing the legislative requirement from ‘legality’ to ‘sustainability’ of timber products (to meet the long-term objective of the policy); and (e) the effectiveness of the arrangements in reducing illegal logging in producer countries.

It is clear that the government recognises the five-year review is an opportunity to begin to examine this possible shift to sustainability. However, nothing in the bill as it is currently written reflects this. So we have a proposed objects clause which I think gives effect to what the government has said is its intention to move towards sustainability in timber trade and practice. It does so in a way that is cautious and non-prescriptive, and allows the five-year review—which is a review of the legislation, not the policy—to consider the shift from legality to sustainability. That is the basis of the amendment.

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

( The opposition will not be supporting this amendment. As I indicated in my speech during the second reading stage, we have enough concerns about this legislation at the moment. I reject the minister's comment earlier that all we are looking to do is delay. What we are looking to do is allow industry and our trading partners enough time to put in place the measures that will effectively allow them to comply with this legislation. That is the concern that we have. In fact, our leader has written to the Prime Minister to express those concerns. The government rejected that opportunity.

With this clause, what the Greens are looking to do in bringing the term 'sustainability' into the whole argument—rather than the purpose of this legislation as it was originally designed, which is to deal with illegal logging—is to provide another layer in a weapon that would be used by environmental groups against industry. If you look at the Australian forest industry and the commencement of the arguments, we started off talking about old-growth forests and logging in old-growth forests. The Greens moved on from that process and started talking about high conservation value forests. In fact, some of those high conservation value forests are actually regrowth forests. Former Senator Bob Brown recently made a very glowing statement about a coupe on the back of Mount Wellington that is 'full of biodiversity, full of different species, a magnificent example of Tasmanian forest'—it was clear-felled and burnt in 1963. In the Greens' terms it was destroyed in 1963, but the Greens now claim it is a high conservation value forest and want to lock it up.

We are now talking about all native forests. The sustainability argument is one about the Greens being able to continuously redefine the argument to continue to campaign and achieve the objective of trying to kill off the forest industry—which is completely and utterly absurd when you consider that timber is the only renewable and sustainable building product available in the construction industry. Here the Greens are trying to provide a mechanism for their environmental groups, particularly some of the more activist ones, to continue to redefine the argument, to wind back the industry, to make attacks on the industry and to sustain their own political party. They have absolutely no interest in peace in the forests of Australia because then they would have nothing to argue about. The opposition will not be supporting this mechanism that the Greens have put up because it is just another mechanism for them to beat up on industry and redefine the argument to suit themselves.

This bill is about illegal logging. As the minister rightly said, the coalition has played a constructive part in the process of developing this legislation. We are disappointed that the minister has not been prepared to come as far as we might have liked to give industry—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have come a long way.

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

I am happy to concede that you have come a fair way, Minister; but you have not come far enough to allow industry and our trading partners to put in place the provisions that will actually allow them to comply with the legislation—and that is the important thing. So we are not supporting the legislation and we are certainly not supporting this amendment.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( I understand the Greens position on this. The government will not be supporting the amendment for the principal reason that this is about what clause 6 of the bill makes very clear—that the purpose of the bill is to prohibit the importation of illegally logged timber and the processing of illegally logged raw logs and requires importers of regulated timber products and processors of raw logs to conduct due diligence in order to reduce the risk that illegally logged timber is imported or processed. That is the essence of what the bill does. It does not stretch into the objects clauses, particularly what the objects clause in your amendment goes to. It is a very specific piece of legislation that is designed to prohibit the importation of illegally logged timber and the processing of it domestically.

What I can say is that the 2010 election commitment by the Australian Labor Party makes it clear that that would be the nature of the legislation that we would be implementing. I will end there and continue after question time.

Progress reported.