Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Colbeck, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) recognises and supports the need for fuel reduction burns as an important management strategy aiding in the protection of communities, businesses and natural resources from bushfires; and

(b) recognises the role fire has in the sustainability of the ecology, regeneration and sustainability of a significant proportion of the Australian landscape.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a brief statement.

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

Leave is granted for one minute.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will be supporting this motion because we do support the appropriate use of fuel reduction burns, but we wanted to make it very clear today and get it on record that the Australian Greens do not support regeneration burns, which are the opposite of fuel reduction burns, and have asked to have that particular term removed from this motion. I also point out the contradiction in this motion. Fuel reduction burns are designed to reduce biomass whereas regeneration burns are designed to increase biomass. It is very important that that distinction be noted by those opposite in the chamber here today.

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

I seek leave to make a short statement.

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

Leave is granted for one minute.

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

I make a bit of a distinction here that goes to the dishonesty of the Greens in the way that they portray a fuel reduction burn versus a regeneration burn and the suggestion that a fuel reduction burn might be in some way increasing biomass and endangering the community. It is about regenerating a forest after a harvest process. It is not a destructive process. It is a regeneration process. I do appreciate that the Greens are supporting the motion. I have not been contacted about any changes to this motion, so any suggestion that there has been a request for changes of wording in the motion I would have to say I reject, because I have not been contacted by anybody about it. So, again, if you are going to make claims in the chamber that requests have been made, it would be nice if you actually made the requests. But I do appreciate the support for the motion.

Question agreed to.