Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) to a question without notice asked by Senator Thorp today relating to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

Today Australians can be in no doubt that we cannot trust this government to look after our environment. Since it gained power, the Abbott government has systematically tried to dismantle Australia's strong environmental protections and attempted to open up Australia's precious World Heritage spaces to loggers and big polluters, but overnight in Doha, common sense has prevailed. The World Heritage Committee took just seven minutes to reach agreement that the Abbott government's attempt to delist 74,000 hectares of World Heritage forest in my home state of Tasmania should not proceed. The committee saw what was clear to anyone who had even a passing acquaintance with the facts: that the delisting was completely unjustified and, if approved, would have set a dangerous global precedent.

Ironically, the very area in question is the very area the World Heritage Commission itself requested Australia to include in our World Heritage listings in 2007, 2008, 2010 and again in 2012. Really, the government was asking the World Heritage Committee to say that it was wrong when it repeatedly asked for the extensions in these years and wrong again when it supported the extension application in 2013. Not only that, but in preparing its submission for the excision, the government relied on exactly the same data that convinced the World Heritage Committee to list the area only a year ago. No extra information was sourced, no field trips were undertaken by the department, no further mapping was done and no experts were consulted. Instead, in its submission to the World Heritage Committee, the government simply jotted down a few words next to each of the 13 areas they wanted to excise. In fact, 10 of these areas only had the words 'contained logs/degraded areas' as the single justification for their excision. It is almost as though the government thought they did not need to provide any sort of evidence to support their claims—as if their very words alone would make it so. Well, it is not so.

It seems the World Heritage Committee agrees; one member nation referred to the Abbott government's application as 'feeble'. And feeble is exactly what it is. Recently I chaired an inquiry into the delisting which found that the vast majority of the proposed excision area—unlike the comments from Senator Abetz earlier—is pristine, untouched wilderness. During hearings, expert witnesses described the government's claims to the contrary as 'incorrect', 'grossly overstated' and 'blatantly misleading if not downright dishonest'. Again and again, witnesses asserted that the vast majority of the 74,000 hectares is in no way degraded. Many attested that more than 90 per cent of the excision area has high conservation values and no evidence of logging. Tellingly, the Department of the Environment representatives agreed under questioning that only four per cent of the area could be described as heavily disturbed.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not true.

Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is true. In fact, the 748 hectare area to be listed at Dove River near Cradle Mountain has been put forward to be excised despite the fact the environment department has determined the degree of disturbance to be precisely none. Of course, the World Heritage Committee last year found the area to be of outstanding universal environmental and cultural value. This is not surprising when you understand the area is habitat to iconic rare and endangered species such as the Tasmanian devil, the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle, the spotted-tail quoll, the grey goshawk and the myrtle elbow orchid. It also incorporates pristine tracts of old-growth tall eucalypt forests, rain forests, cave systems and moorlands that are simply too precious to lose.

What made the excision request even more absurd was that it was supposed to deliver economic and social outcomes by invigorating the forest industry. Sadly, and perhaps even a little ironically, it is this government's cavalier excision plan that would have done more damage to the forest industry than they can possibly imagine. The inquiry heard again and again that this excision, if it were to go ahead, would threaten Tasmania's Forest Stewardship Council's certification, which would in turn threaten the viability of our timber industry. Thanks to this government, we are becoming rapidly known as having an aggressive anti-environment agenda which pays scant regard to the impacts on generations to come— (Time expired)

David Bushby (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers from Minister Abetz. As Minister Abetz noted when he provided the answers to the questions on this matter, the people of Tasmania have spoken on this issue. Both the federal and state elections saw a resounding mandate provided to the Liberal parties at federal and state level for the policies that both those state and federal parties took to the respective elections.

In the federal scenario, we saw massive swings in Braddon and Lyons, those being the electorates in Tasmania most heavily affected by forestry—particularly Lyons, where Eric Hutchinson, the excellent and very strong member for that federal electorate, achieved the largest swing of any winning seat in the country. That, to a large extent, is because of the strong support for him by the people of Lyons because of this issue and the stance that he and the Liberal Party took on it. Similarly, at the state election, Labor received an absolute thumping—the biggest thumping it had received since 1992. And nowhere was that bigger than in Braddon, an area also heavily impacted by decisions to wind back forestry.

The fact is that the boundary adjustments of the year before last occurred as part of a flawed political process. Tasmanian Labor went to the 2010 election on a bipartisan ticket to support forestry, as it had done for decades. But it ended up in minority after the 2010 election, and it did a dirty deal with the Greens. Part of that deal was the so-called forest peace agreement which they put together. Out of that forest peace agreement came the boundary adjustment under which Labor gave in to the longstanding claims of the extreme environmental movement who want nothing more than to shut down the forestry industry in Tasmania completely. They did that by reducing the areas of forest available for harvest to below viable levels. This was achieved through this flawed, rushed process which saw the WHC list these additional small adjustments to the existing World Heritage areas.

It is worth looking for a minute at the truly sustainable state of what the forest industry used to do prior to the IGA being put in place in Tasmania. Back then, only a few years ago, on the rate of harvesting that was occurring at that time, in 100 years time there would have been 103 per cent of the native forests in Tasmania that there were at that time. There was more native forest being replanted than was being harvested. In 100 years time, there would have been 103 per cent of the native forests in Tasmania that then existed.

What, you might ask, was being planted instead? Were we putting in plantation forests or something that was changing the nature of those forests? No. With every coupe that was being harvested through Forestry Tasmania in Tasmania, they would go in beforehand and harvest seeds from all the plants in that very coupe, to maintain the genetic material of that coupe. They would then go off and take those seeds away and start growing them. They would come in and do the harvesting of the forests, and then they would go back and plant the same seeds from the same trees that were harvested in those coupes. Five years down the track, if you were to go back and look at those coupes, you would see that there was lots of healthy growth with a mix of plants that reflected what was there before. In 20 years time, if you were to come back you would not know it from the coupe next door that had not been harvested. And in 100 years time, there would be big trees and everything—and 100 years time is what we are talking about, when there would be 103 per cent of the native forests. That is the standard of the forest practices that were occurring—and what they were trying to stop here.

It is also important to remember this. I think Senator Thorp mentioned eagles and other issues of concern to many people. Well, if there is an eagle's nest found in a forest, I cannot remember exactly but I think they were not allowed to log within five kilometres around it. If there were streams or waterways, there was a buffer of half a kilometre or something similar to that where they could not log. These were the practices that were in place for Tasmanian forests. They were outstanding. They were world's best practice. And they protected all the sorts of environmental values and heritage that Senator Thorp was saying were threatened by our attempted delisting. We do it so well, in fact, that a lot of the areas that were added to the World Heritage area through the boundary adjustment were areas that had been previously forested and had regrown. The environment movement now claims that these are so well regrown that they are now World Heritage in terms of the standard of their forests.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak to the motion to take note of answers given by the Minister for Employment, Senator Abetz, to questions without notice asked today by Senator Thorp on the Abbott government's feeble and failed attempt to have parts of the Tasmanian wilderness removed from the World Heritage list. Senator Abetz's response was a personal attack on Senator Thorp, and showed his resolve to play politics over policy in regard to Tasmanian forests.

I begin by highlighting the remarks of the Portuguese delegation to the World Heritage Committee, who said that the arguments of the Australian government were, to say the least, feeble, and would set an unacceptable precedent. Of course these are just the first comments to come out of Doha, and we will all wait with interest to see what other responsible governments have to say about the Abbott government's almost unprecedented move to seek a delisting.

From the beginning, the rhetoric from the Tasmanian Liberals against a forest peace deal was simple political point-scoring. They saw an opportunity to wedge the community once more, just so that they could get into government. Once in government, of course, everything was out of the window.

Just a few weeks ago, Parliamentary Secretary Colbeck, Premier Hodgman and the member for Braddon, Brett Whitely, were more than happy to turn the sod on a project funded through the Tasmanian forests agreement package at Ta Ann in Smithton—the very agreement that saw industry, unions and environmentalists come together and end the decades-long war in the forests; the very agreement that was conceived by the industry because they knew that if the forest wars were to continue then their markets would continue to look elsewhere.

In December last year, the ABC reported what everyone in this place knows: without the peace deal, Ta Ann would have left Tasmania. Ta Ann's Executive Director, Evan Rolley, said at the time:

I don't think we would be operating the business, frankly … the Forest Agreement provided the basis on which we could go back in the market, hold the small amount of market that was still there for us …

Interestingly, despite all the huffing and puffing over the past four years, it is reported that, when push came to shove, the Abbott Liberal government did not even put in much of an effort to have the World Heritage listing reversed.

The Advocate newspaper in Burnie reported today that lobbyists at the meeting said there appeared to be little evidence of Australian government lobbying for the wind-back, in contrast to concentrated effort last week to avoid the listing of the Great Barrier Reef as in danger. After all of the rhetoric and all of the negativity, reports are out that the Liberal government barely even lobbied to see through the delisting. I suspect that industry has had a quiet word about how life is now and that there is peace in the forests. I also suspect that industry has had a quiet word to the Liberal state government about its bill to unwind the Tasmanian Forests Agreement. The state Liberals were just as rabid as the federal Liberals in pointing the finger at Labor. And the state Liberals promised to unlock Tasmania. And, as Senator Bushby said, they were rewarded for their campaign at the ballot box. But once they were in government the Tasmanian Liberals put up a bill that will not see one extra log available for harvesting for the next six years.

Tasmanians are waking up to the constant deception of the Abbott and Hodgman governments. The Burnie Advocate was running an online poll asking whether people supported the World Heritage Committee's decision. Over 50 per cent of respondents agreed with the World Heritage Committee's decision. We all know how vexed this issue is in Tasmania, yet a poll in the north-west's local newspaper showed that over 50 per cent are in support of the World Heritage Committee's decision. It is just further evidence that the Australian public is wising up to the negative feeble campaigns of the Liberal and National parties.

Senator Colbeck interjecting—

I conclude my contribution by noting that the 'robust and rigorous' Senator Colbeck, as Senator Abetz described him, has suffered from 'bandwidth limit exceeded' on his website today. I wanted to take another look at Senator Colbeck's photos of a so-called degraded area. These are photos that the department assured me in estimates were not included in the submission to the World Heritage Committee, photos that Senator Colbeck, Senator Abetz and the self-titled 'three amigos'—Mr Whitely, Mr Nikolic and Mr Hutchinson—use time and time again in their feeble campaign to unlock this so-called degraded area. The embarrassment to the Australian people on the international stage is the responsibility of Senator Colbeck, Senator Abetz and the three amigos. All Tasmanians—indeed, all Australians—deserve much better from our government.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to speak on the motion moved by the Labor Party in respect of questions asked of Senator Abetz by Senator Thorp. What the Labor Party has just demonstrated, yet again, is two things. One is their strong connection with the Greens—and they are arguing now for Greens policy. We know that the Greens want to close down the native forest industry in Australia, and the Labor Party is complicit with them in that process. We have just heard that argument. The second thing is that they have absolutely no understanding of the forest industry. Senator Urquhart talks about the area not being utilised in Tasmania for another six years. It is not needed in an immediate sense, but it is needed for the sustainability of the forest industry in the long term. What the Labor Party does not know—or is not prepared to admit—is that the Tasmanian Forests Agreement was actually a death sentence for the forest industry in Australia. That is why the green group supported it. It was a death sentence for the forest industry in Australia. And I wonder if the Labor Party would have been prepared to stump up again in 2027-30 to pay out what was left of the industry when their wood supply ran out. That is what the Labor Party and the Greens condemned the forest industry in Tasmania to. But of course they are not prepared to admit it; probably they do not even understand that that is what they did. They keep on trotting around saying that they left a sustainable industry behind. But all you had to do was look at the wood supply figures to know that there was not a sustainable industry left at the scale it is currently at in Tasmania. I would like to make a particular mention of the Ta Ann project. The coalition has delivered for Ta Ann without the disaster of the Tasmanian Forests Agreement. So much for Senator Urquhart's comment that if the TFA goes away so does Ta Ann. They are still there, Senator—and they are expanding, and there is no Tasmanian Forests Agreement; it is being unwound. So the scare tactics of the Labor Party are just not demonstrated.

We are disappointed that the World Heritage Commission did not accept our nomination to remove 74,000 hectares from the wilderness estate that was dishonestly put in through the disastrous TFA process in 2013 by then minister Tony Burke, that was done without consultation, that was done without the opportunity for all Tasmanians to make a contribution, that was done despite then minister Tony Burke saying to our legislative council in Tasmania, 'I don't think I'm going to go ahead with the nomination' and then walking out the door and announcing that there would be a nomination. You cannot believe a word this guy says.

It was a disastrous process that left large sections of the community disenfranchised. There are hundreds and hundreds of property owners who now have World Heritage wilderness areas as boundaries, with no understanding that that has come their way, with no consultation, and who now have new planning requirements over their properties that they did not know they had before—hundreds and hundreds and hundreds. The so-called experts who appeared before the Senate inquiry said that there were perhaps one or two. Well, they did not know, or they were not telling the truth. And the so-called experts who appeared before the Senate inquiry said, 'You can discount logging before 1960, because it is not industrial.' That was a lie. You only have to go into the forests of the Styx and the Florentine, which historian Peter MacFie clearly showed in the last fortnight are in fact 60- and 70-year-old regrowth forests, which the Greens and the Labor Party portrayed to the Australian community as old-growth forest. The dishonesty from the Labor Party and the Greens on this issue continues.

As I have said, the coalition—the government—will respect the decision of the World Heritage Commission. We will consider the decision of the World Heritage Commission. But we will do one thing. We will continue to stand up for the forest industry and forest workers in Tasmania. The really sad fact is that the light on the hill for the Labor Party now has a very nasty green tinge to it. It is not the traditional light on the hill for workers. The Labor Party has sold out the forest industry and its workers in Tasmania, and that is why they suffered so badly at the Tasmanian election. That is why they are down to seven members in the House. That is why the Greens lost 40 per cent of their representation and party status in the Tasmanian parliament. We will continue to stand up for the timber industry in Tasmania— (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also make a contribution in this taking note debate on responses by Senator Abetz to Senator Thorp. In the contributions this afternoon we have already heard that the United Nations World Heritage Committee took just seven minutes to reject the Abbott government's application to remove 74,000 hectares—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How long?

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Seven minutes, Senator Conroy. It took just seven minutes to reject the Abbott government's application to remove 74,000 hectares of the Tasmanian wilderness forest from the World Heritage List.

Yet again, those opposite have been exposed for their anti-environment agenda. In the last few seconds of Senator Colbeck's contribution he really did expose the Abbott government's agenda. It is a political agenda. It is about dividing the Tasmanian community. It is about causing conflict in Tasmania. It is not about industry. It is not about the environment. It is about their own political agenda, at anyone's expense and, particularly, at the expense of Tasmania.

We had a rejection of the Abbott government's application in just seven minutes. It is just another example of the embarrassment that this government agenda has caused Australia on the world stage. World leaders have condemned Mr Abbott's climate inaction. The World Heritage Committee has asked him to reconsider handing over environmental protection powers to the states. Here in this place we have twice rejected attempts to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

The government's proposal to reverse protection of this section of the Tasmanian wilderness forest should never have gone to the World Heritage Committee in the first place. The report of the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee inquiry into the Tasmanian wilderness World Heritage area, which was ably chaired by my Tasmanian colleague Senator Lin Thorp, to quote from recommendation No. 1, said that:

The committee recommends that the Government's proposal to the World Heritage Committee to remove 74,000 hectares from the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area be withdrawn.

Unfortunately, the Abbott government did not agree with this recommendation, but the World Heritage Committee obviously did. It took seven minutes to chuck out this government's application. That is exactly what it deserved. It deserved that action because it was feeble. It was a feeble application, just like the feeble attempt that Senator Abetz made to answer a very good question by Senator Thorp. Senator Abetz's responses were feeble and the government's application to the World Heritage committee was feeble.

We also heard in Senator Abetz's response today about the area being degraded. The World Heritage Committee and the Senate committee considered the Abbott government's argument that degraded areas, such as previously logged forests and plantations, should be removed from the extended Tasmanian wilderness World Heritage area. The evidence received by the Senate committee was clear. Unlike what Senator Abetz and Senator Colbeck would have you believe, only a small portion of the 74,000 hectares could actually be described as degraded. We heard from experts. Experts and stakeholders alike agree—unlike Senator Abetz's description in here today of extensive road networks, abandoned quarries and other degraded areas—that the degraded areas comprise less than 10 per cent of the area proposed. In those areas where there has previously been logging activities, there are clear signs the forest is recovering. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.