Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move items (1) to (4) on sheet 7712, together:

(1) Title, page 1 (lines 2 and 3), omit "and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Regulations2001".

(2) Clause 3, page 2 (line 11), omit "(1)".

(3) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 15 to 17), omit subclause (2).

(4) Schedule 1, Part 4, page 13 (line 1) to page 15 (line 2), omit the Part, substitute:

Part 4—Wood waste

Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000

47 At the end of section 17

  Add:

Wood waste

(6) Despite anything in regulations made under subsection (3), wood waste does not include waste, or a product or by-product, that is, or is derived from, biomass from a native forest.

Labor's amendments remove the provisions in this bill that seek to reinsert native wood waste into the Renewable Energy Scheme and amend the act to prevent any future regulation being made by the government to reinsert native wood waste into the scheme. This attempt to reinsert native wood waste into the Renewable Energy Scheme is nothing more and nothing less than a cynical red herring. It is not an issue that was raised with our shadow minister during negotiations. We all know that those negotiations went for some 12 months or more and yet it was never raised during all of those negotiations. It was a critical issue for industry, but it was certainly never, ever raised.

Native wood waste is neither clean nor renewable in the modern-day sense of the term with respect to the Renewable Energy Scheme. Boosters of this provision like to pretend that they are talking here about small amounts of waste, small amounts of refuse that are left, say, on the forest floor after some harvesting. But what we clearly know is that the definition of 'native wood waste' would involve the whole of any tree that is harvested but not ultimately saw lopped. So the industry definition of 'waste' is not waste in the sense of the residue—that is, the leaves, branches and stumps—left after logging on the forest floor. The definition of 'waste' or 'residues' that is built into the regulation allows for whole logs to be burnt for power production. Wood waste, for instance, from plantation logging is already an eligible source in the current renewable energy act. But including wood waste from native forests would allow native Tasmanian trees, for instance, to be logged and burnt for power production because waste can be defined as any log that is harvested but not ultimately saw lopped or that has no higher commercial purpose. So in this way a pulp log, for paper production, is of lower value than a sawlog for sawn timber, so the pulp log is considered waste, even when pulp logs comprise 90 per cent of the timber extracted from a forest.

So Labor is not willing to see the Renewable Energy Scheme used to provide an alternative to the hard work of debating serious questions around the comprehensive inclusive and long-term solutions for our traditional logging industries. So it is for those reasons and for the reason that the reinsertion of native wood waste into the scheme was never raised during the some 12 months of negotiations with the opposition that I move the amendments that are before the Senate.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chairman, I am not sure that there was a question to the minister in that, but I do have a question—

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have moved amendments.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. I will then ask you the question.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just by way of clarification for Senator Macdonald, I have just moved amendments.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That being the case, perhaps I should not have jumped in before the minister. As I have the call, I just want to draw the senator's attention to a wonderful speech made this morning by Senator Lambie on this very subject. Senator Lambie, as a Tasmanian senator, understands what this is all about. I was delighted that Senator Lambie has shown herself to be the only non-government senator from Tasmania who understands just what a destructive force the Greens political party has been in the whole debate and in the Tasmanian economy as well.

Senator Singh, as I recall, was actually a minister in the Tasmanian government and was supported by the Greens political party. Knowing the way the Greens political party operates, there would have been some deal on preferences to ensure that the Labor government stayed in power—the Labor government of which I understand Senator Singh was a member and, indeed, a minister.

It is terribly important that the issue is fully understood, and whilst I appreciate that the Labor Party is supporting the bill as proposed, I am disappointed that they have tried to turn back the clock on this issue of the sustainable use of wood waste: the ability to use wood waste, which would otherwise rot, as a means of creating renewable energy. I guess I should leave it to the minister to indicate the government's view on the amendment, but it would seem to me, from my experience in these areas, that this is not an amendment that is in the best interests a) of Tasmania, b) of the timber industry or c) of the whole renewable energy debate across Australia.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government opposes these amendments by the opposition. The proposed amendments would mean that native forest wood waste is not reinstated as an eligible source of renewable energy under the RET.

Our concern is that this provision from the opposition, which would mean that the reinstatement of biomass from native forest wood waste as an eligible source of renewable energy was removed, is counter to many things that many in the opposition have said previously, and, more importantly for us, is counter to the policy we took to the last election and to the commitments we have given in this regard. The opposition also seeks to add a provision to the legislation that prevents the eligibility of biomass from native forest waste as a source of renewable energy.

As I said in my closing remarks, the use of native forest for the primary purpose of generating renewable electricity has never been and never will be eligible to create certificates under the scheme. Let us again make it crystal clear for anybody following this debate and for anybody concerned about the future of native forest—as I expect many people with an interest in this debate will be—that the use of native forest for the primary purpose of generating renewable electricity has never been and never will be eligible to create certificates under the renewable energy target scheme. Under the proposal we have before us tonight, eligibility was and will continue to be subject to several conditions, including that it must be harvested primarily for a purpose other than energy production. We are clearly talking here about waste, as Senator Macdonald made clear before, as Senator Lambie made clear during the debate, and as many other senators have made clear. We are talking about wood waste products, not about it being harvested for the purpose of renewable energy.

One of the objectives of the RET is to support additional renewable energy generation that is ecologically sustainable. Our government is seeking, consistent with the policy we took to the last election, to reinstate native forest wood waste as an eligible source of renewable energy, because there is no evidence that its eligibility leads to unsustainable logging or has a negative impact on Australia's biodiversity. But there is evidence that by allowing this you would ensure that such waste does not rot, is not otherwise burnt, and does not otherwise end up causing emissions when it could instead have been used in a productive way to generate electricity. The safeguards that were previously in place for a decade, from 2001 through to 2011, were, and still are, sufficient assurance that native biomass will be harvested in a sustainable way and that the regulations are underpinned by ecologically sustainable forest management principles that provide a means for balancing the economic, social and environmental outcomes from publicly-owned forests.

We want to put back in place the pre-November 2011 regulations that established eligibility for native forest wood waste as a renewable energy source. As was the case under those regulations, which operated for that decade from 2001 to 201, the regulations will require that the eligibility is subject to a number of conditions. Let me detail those for the Senate. The biomass must arise from a harvesting activity where the primary purpose is not energy production. Further, the biomass must either be a by-product or waste product of a harvesting operation approved under relevant planning and approval processes and that meets the high-value test or be a by-product of a harvesting operation carried out in accordance with ecologically sustainable forest management principles. The biomass must meet ecologically sustainable forest management principles in a regional forest agreement or, if no such agreement is in place, meet equivalent principles to the satisfaction of the minister of the day.

The Clean Energy Regulator, who, I think, as an entity is broadly well regarded across the chamber in a number of ways, will be tasked with undertaking a rigorous assessment of the applications by power stations for accreditation to use native forest wood waste. In determining the eligibility of native forest wood waste as a renewable energy source, the regulator would verify that, if the forest management framework under which the harvesting operation is conducted is a regional forest agreement, the harvesting has been carried out in accordance with the ecologically sustainable management principles in that regional forest agreement; or, if the harvesting operation is not conducted under an RFA, that the harvesting is carried out in accordance with ecologically sustainable forest management principles equivalent to those of a regional forest agreement, to the satisfaction of the minister. The power stations must provide a statement of the ecologically sustainable forest management principles related to the wood waste.

The regulator would also test that the use of wood waste for energy production is not the primary purpose of the harvesting operation. The regulator would be verifying that the existence of the sawmill and its operating licence is appropriate; that, where applicable, the high-value test is satisfied; and that there is an auditable trail of documentation in place, from the source of the wood waste to the power station.

The regulator would also undertake sample checks of the registration numbers of wood waste trucks and the weighbridge documents for the supply of wood waste to ensure that all is above board and satisfies the requirements in the supply of that wood waste. The regulator also has the power to conduct spot audits of power stations that use wood waste for energy production.

Once the power station is accredited, having jumped through all of those hoops, having met the tests that have been applied, it can then create large-scale generation certificates. If the LGCs are being created using wood waste, several data validation checks are completed as part of a generation data assessment process. These include a requirement for the power station to retain an auditable trail of documents that demonstrate compliance with the eligibility requirements—such as identifying very clearly the type of wood waste, whether it is biomass, sawmill residue or a by-product of a manufacturing process; the origin of the wood waste; and the amount of wood waste delivered to the power station—including the details I spoke of before pertaining to truck registration numbers, weighbridge documents and the like.

I want to make it clear to all that these are robust safeguards. These are safeguards that, it was demonstrated over a decade, do not have any negative impact on the operation and use of native forests. They are safeguards that allow for the use of product that would otherwise go to waste—product that would potentially otherwise be burnt, to no end, or left to rot, to no end. Instead, we are providing the opportunity for that product not to be burnt for no purpose, not to be left to rot for no purpose, but to be utilised in a sustainable way for the generation of electricity within the operation of the renewable energy target.

This matter has been debated in the chamber many times over the years. The Australian Greens have always sought to make an issue out of it because of course there are no circumstances in which the Australian Greens support any form of native forest logging. Frankly, there do not seem to be any circumstances in which the Greens are inclined to support any form of logging activity or any forestry activity at all. There are probably few circumstances in which they are interested in supporting any economic activity at all. So we have seen this debate run before as a proxy for debates about how native forests are managed, and that is all it is. It is a smokescreen. It is a proxy. It is the Greens, as they have done historically, suggesting as part of some type of dubious activity that the use of this waste is somehow encouraging greater use or logging of native forests. That is not the case. We have very strict management regimes in place around how native forests are used. The regional forest agreements provide a sound framework for that. And, as I have emphasised, all of the regulations to date—all of the previous regulations and those proposed for the future—make it crystal clear that the waste can only be utilised as waste for energy purposes and that the primary purpose of any harvesting must not be energy production.

The Labor Party used to agree with us on this topic. For many years, they defended the inclusion of native forest wood waste as one of the eligible activities. For many years, they stood by and defended that. It was only during those unfortunate three years—unfortunate for the nation and unfortunate, frankly, for the Labor Party—that they were in a coalition government with the Australian Greens that they relented. This is one of the issues during that three-year period that the Labor Party stepped back from and let the Greens have their way on. Sadly, the Labor Party have not worked out that that did not work for them; that that was a disastrous period not only for the country but also for the Australian Labor Party; and that they would be well advised to go back to their old policy, the one they had before they got into bed with the Australian Greens, that supported sound and sensible management of native forest wood waste.

Let me highlight some of the arguments the Labor Party used to make in this regard, before their agreement with the Greens. Back in 2009, Senator Penny Wong—who, at that stage, I think was Minister for Climate Change and Water—said:

I would make the point that this native forest biomass has been an eligible source under the current MRET since 2001.

Senator Wong was quite correct. It had been and continued to be for another couple of years. She was defending it at the time. Senator Wong went on to say:

There are additional eligibility criteria in relation to the use of native forest biomass, including restrictions on the areas where the native forest wood waste can come from in order for it to be used in generation that is eligible to create RECs.

At that stage, back in 2009, Senator Wong was very clear there was an eligible source and the additional eligibility criteria, and the additional tests that were applied, were appropriate. Of course, what we are trying to reinstate are the criteria and the tests that applied when Senator Wong was endorsing it in 2009.

In 2010 Senator Wong was continuing at that stage to defend this very legitimate activity and this very legitimate definition. At that stage, she did call out the Australian Greens for what this debate actually was. She said: 'I always find it interesting that you feel the need to do that, Senator Brown.' Of course, it was Senator Bob Brown at the time. Bob Brown had said: 'Penny Wong is a prodigious supporter of the destruction of native forests.' Senator Wong rightly said: 'That was an extraordinary inflammation of the debate without any factual basis.' And that is quite right. It is, of course, an example of the fact that, at that time, the Australian Greens, as they had consistently, and continue to do so, used this as a proxy war over native forest management altogether.

The tragedy is that the Labor Party did not stand by the position that Penny Wong took consistently and, indeed, that is still the position of the Tasmanian Labor Party. Senator Singh, who has moved these amendments, should really be listening to Mr Bryan Green, the Tasmanian Labor leader. He wrote to the shadow environment minister Mark Butler to strongly put forward the case for a compromise on the inclusion of biomass in the RET. Mr Green is right, Penny Wong was right, our government and party today are right, the Labor Party are, sadly, wrong on this. Sadly, they are standing by a position they adopted when they were in bed with the Greens. They would be wise to withdraw these amendments. They would be wise to support the government in having native forest wood waste included as an eligible source with all of the protections that we are putting forward.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We support this amendment. Indeed, we have amendments that are drafted slightly differently but achieve the same outcome. Native forest burning is not a renewable energy source. It is terrible for biodiversity and it will throw a lifeline to the native forest logging industry just as the woodchips industry dries up. Interestingly, our amendment is drafted in a slightly different way, of course, such that it requires one less vote to pass. I think the Labor Party full well know that the way they have drafted their amendment means it is destined to fail.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to seek some further clarification from the minister, particularly looking at a number of the aspects of how this would work in practice to ensure we do not see some of the things that the Greens are claiming—some of the ideas that there would be, somehow, wholesale extra logging or destruction of forests as a result of this inclusion. Also, when it comes to the regulation to ensure that this is not abused, I am interested in how that would be regulated. What would be the arrangements when it comes to an auditable trail of documentation from the source of the wood waste to the power station? If you could give some clarity on that, Minister.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Seselja, for your question. I should note, as I was remiss in not doing so during my contribution in closing the second reading speech, that there were some very sound contributions in relation to the overall debate around this legislation but particularly the issue around biomass and native forest wood waste from not just some on our side who spoke, like Senator Macdonald, but notably some of the members of the crossbench as well. At the risk of missing those whose contributions I did not hear, I particularly want to single out Senator Lambie and Senator Muir, who both outlined very compelling arguments as to why this type of native forest wood waste should be included. Of course, they both bring particular backgrounds, experience and knowledge to this—Senator Lambie has a particular interest as a Tasmanian senator and Senator Muir has a background in working in associated industries and has a good understanding of the sector. I think it is important to highlight that and to highlight that they, along with the government and along, I think, with most of the crossbenchers, accept the validity of the arguments that I have been putting forward.

Senator Seselja, in answer to your question, particularly about the strength of the regulations that we are putting forward, as I had emphasised those regulations are consistent with what operated between 2001-2011. They are clearly adopting the same type of approach and the same types of tests that were proven to work through that time and for which no arguments have been made—that I have heard—demonstrating any abuse of those regulations or demonstrating that they were not satisfactory in relation to the protections they provided to native forests and the assurance they gave in that, where native forest waste was burned or used for electricity generation purposes, it was because it was genuinely waste. It was genuinely a secondary by-product, a waste product, of otherwise used native forest products that were harvested for purposes other than electricity generation.

I was highlighting some of the previous positions of the Labor Party, Senator Seselja. Having put in my own words what the protections are, given that we are utilising the same type of protections, it is important that we acknowledge the explanation that previous Labor minister, Senator Wong, gave when she was Minister for Climate Change and Water, defending the same thing, outlining exactly how the protections worked in her eyes at that time. In a debate on 19 August 2009 in this place, Senator Wong pointed out:

We did go to the election with a commitment to retain existing eligibility. I would make the point that this native forest biomass has been an eligible source under the current MRET since 2001.

I say to Senator Seselja and other senators and those listening that we went to the last election committing to reinstate it, because we never believed it should have been removed. We believe it was only removed as part of the awful deals that were undertaken between the Labor Party and the Australian Greens during those fateful three years of the largely Gillard government.

Importantly, Senator Wong went on to explain what the regulations meant. I think it is very valuable for the Senate and for senators to understand what the regulations meant then, in Senator Wong's words, because they mean exactly the same thing today in terms of their operation and what they will mean when reinstated as a result of the government's legislation. To quote Senator Wong:

The existing regulations underpinning this prescribe that, to be eligible under the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, native forest wood waste must either come from an area where an RFA, a regional forest agreement, is in place or, if it is from outside an RFA area, it must be produced from harvesting carried out in accordance with ecologically sustainable forest management principles that the minister is satisfied are consistent with those required by an RFA, which I understand is referred to as an RFA-equivalent area.

Senator Seselja, that is of course exactly what we are proposing. As I told the Senate before, as a test for this, we are proposing that, if the forest management framework under which the harvesting operation is conducted is a regional forest agreement, the harvesting must have been carried out in accordance with the ecologically sustainable management principles in that agreement. Further, if the harvesting operation is not conducted under an RFA, the harvesting must have been carried out in accordance with ecologically sustainable forest management principles equivalent to those of an RFA, to the satisfaction of the minister. We are reinstating exactly the same conditions that Senator Wong explained in the 2009 debate as we reinstate the eligibility for native forest wood waste. Let me go on with what Senator Wong said on19 August 2009, in responding to questions that had been put to her by Senator Milne. Senator Wong said:

The regulations also prescribe a primary purpose test—that is, the wood waste must be primarily harvested for a purpose other than biomass for energy production. The wood waste must also be either a by-product or a waste product of a harvesting operation for which a high-value process is the primary purpose of the harvesting—known as a ‘high-value test’—or a by-product of a harvesting operation that is carried out in accordance with ecologically sustainable forest management principles. The wood waste is taken to be from a high-value process only if the total financial value of the products of the high-value process is higher than the financial value of other products in the harvesting operation. The regulations define a high-value process as ‘the production of sawlogs, veneer, poles, piles, girders, wood for carpentry or craft uses or oil products.’ Woodchips are not specified as a high-value process, so waste from operations where woodchips are the primary purpose is not eligible. Sawmill residue produced by the processing of native forest timber is eligible without reference to the high-value test.

Chair, Senator Seselja and other senators, it is important to understand that, at the time, Senator Wong was explaining the tests that had applied at that stage for eight years and that continued in operation for another two years. We are simply seeking to reinstate those types of arrangements. We are applying the same sorts of tests.

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

Exactly the same tests.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Exactly the same tests, indeed, as Senator Colbeck rightly acknowledges. I have already highlighted the direct correlation between the test Senator Wong was talking about in relation to the consistency with a regional forest agreement and the ecologically sustainable principles that applied there; or, if there is no RFA, an equivalent test. But equally the same direct correlation applies in relation to the primary purpose test that is put in place. Senator Wong spoke of the primary purpose test, saying that the wood waste must be primarily harvested for a purpose other than biomass for energy production. Indeed, what I told the Senate just before in relation to this is that the biomass must arise from a harvesting activity where the primary purpose is not energy production. It is very clear. Further, Senator Wong highlighted the high-value test and went into some of the detail of the definitions that apply to that high-value test. As I have highlighted in this debate, the biomass must be either a by-product or a waste product of a harvesting operation, approved under relevant planning and approval processes, and must meet a high-value test. As Senator Colbeck rightly interjected before, we are seeking to put in place the same regulations, the same tests, the same standards that worked so effectively for so long before the unholy Labor-Greens alliance, the previous government, stripped them out.

As I highlighted before, it is not just the former Labor Party—the Labor Party of 2009 or 2010, or really any time prior to them doing this deal with the Greens in 2011—that they are inconsistent with today and that the amendments which we are debating are inconsistent with. They are also inconsistent with the Tasmanian Labor Party of today. Mr Bryan Green, the Tasmanian Labor leader, on 8 May this year—just one month ago—said:

I have written to Shadow Environment Minister Mark Butler to strongly put forward the case for a compromise on the inclusion of biomass in the RET.

We are not talking about large-scale power stations in the middle of the forest burning trees to create electricity.

He of course is dead right: we are talking about a product that will be harvested anyway and it is harvested for other purposes, but the waste, the offcuts, the by-product does not end up going to waste.

We are putting in place an incentive, an opportunity, for those waste products to be used in an ecologically responsible way, to make the most out of those waste products—so that they are not left rotting on the floor, so they are not thrown into a fire for no purpose, but so that they are actually used to generate electricity and so they are put to some good use. The timber will primarily have already been utilised for a range of the purposes such as: the creation of high-value products like sawlogs, like veneer, like poles, like piles, like girders, like timber for carpentry or craft use—high value purposes that this wood would have been harvested for and must have been harvested for, if any of those offcuts or that waste is to be used as part of the renewable energy target criteria.

I think it should be clear to all in the chamber not only that we have strong safeguards in place—because we do, incredibly strong safeguards—and that we have the evidence to support the safeguards—because we do and those safeguards operated effectively in a decade spanning from 2001 to 2011—but also that the Labor Party is once again being completely inconsistent in the way in which it is applying their policies. Tasmanian Labor is arguing for the coalition government's position; Tasmanian Labor is in lockstep, it seems, with the Tasmanian Liberals, like Senator Colbeck, rather than Tasmanian Labor senators, like Senator Singh. Of course, Labor seems to want to continue its unfortunate relationship with the Greens, and that is what Labor is doing with its amendments. It also continues to ignore the cries of some from the Labor Party were arguing that it should be maintained—even in 2011 and even when the Labor Party was getting into bed with the Greens and removing the eligibility provisions that had operated with safeguards in place for a decade.

I look to Dick Adams, who at that stage at least was recognising the value of bioenergy sourced from the native forest biomass. He was part of the House of Representatives inquiry that recommended that under any version of the RET or similar scheme, bioenergy sourced from native forest biomass should continue to qualify as renewable energy where it is true waste product and does not become a driver for the harvesting of native forest. Sadly for the Labor Party, it did not listen to that sort of advice; sadly for the Labor Party, it did the deals with the Australian Greens; and, sadly for the Labor Party, that meant that it went into the last federal election and only managed to win one of the five seats in Tasmania. Labor paid a price for turning its back on sensible forestry policy and on sensible policy relating to renewable energy—policies that were demonstrated to work and to have the effective safeguards in place. If it had any sense today, the Labor Party would be withdrawing this amendment and would be supporting the government's proposal to re-include the eligibility criteria for forest wood waste and to make sure that we have an effective regime in place, as our government intends to have.

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

I have heard a lot of drivel in a decade in the Senate, and often it is just drivel to fill in time, and that is precisely what is going on here tonight. Anyone listening to this debate needs to understand that what the government has now set up is a filibuster. We had Senator Seselja a little while ago vote against an inquiry into this bill to spell out the provisions of the bill and now he seeks to have the minister explain something that has already been explained. I will tell you why: out in the back rooms, the crossbenchers are trying to stitch up an even worse deal with the government. The government now has its tail up because it has got the Labor Party to cave in to 33,000 gigawatt hours and to cave in on forest logging, because the Labor Party did not make it a condition of accepting this to get rid of the native forest logging component. Now we have the anti-wind, anti-science, anti-the future, pro-logging on the crossbenches out there negotiating with the government to see what other disasters they can incorporate into the RET. That is exactly what is going on now.

I call it 'drivel' for this reason: nobody who has actually stood up and spoken on this can have been out into a coupe in Tasmania's native forest. If they had, they would know that 90 per cent of what comes off that coupe has gone to the woodchippers in the past. Talk about logs for high value purpose! Not on your life! The only reason they go ahead with the logging is the money they got from the woodchippers. That is what made it economically viable for Gunns to make a fortune over all those years and then ultimately go broke when the bottom dropped out of the native forest market. There is no market for the logging of native forests and say this is an attempt to create a market—to make logging native forests viable. Why is that? When the loggers themselves recognised there was no future in native forest logging, they approached the conservation movement to try to work out how they could get out of native forests. They did then get out of native forests with a deal where the Commonwealth spent hundreds of millions of dollars, paying them to get out of native forests

Exit packagers for the loggers were paid to get them out of native forests.

Then in came Prime Minister Abbott. He said he would overturn that previous agreement on the forest in Tasmania. He said he would get the loggers back to work. Only he did not know enough about it to know that they were never going to get back to work because there is no market for native forest woodchips—and so now the government are trying to create one. They stand here and say, 'This will be logged in accordance with regional forest agreements.' Exactly. That is what has gone on for the last 10 years.

RFAs are exempt from the EPBC Act. There are no provisions to protect habitats and threatened species. We are seeing logging on Bruny Island, as I stand here today, killing the habitat of the swift parrot, a threatened species. I wrote to the minister and asked, 'What are you doing about that?' I got a letter back from the Threatened Species Commissioner who has just been set up saying, 'Nothing. We are not doing anything about it and we will not be doing anything about it. It is not our jurisdiction.'

Right across Australia, regional forest agreements have overseen disastrous native forest operations removing habitats for our threatened and critically endangered species. Forestry Tasmania are such a basket case. Even today in the legislative council Sue Smith down there was saying it should be sold off and disbanded. That is absolutely where it has got to because they are in debt up to their necks. They have had to transfer $30 million from the electricity network in Tasmania to prop them up. They even had to get a letter of comfort from the Tasmanian government or they would have been trading insolvent.

Now we have a government running around trying to put some value into native forest logging by giving out credit certificates for renewable energy. But it is not renewable energy. It can never be renewable to log native forest and put them into a forest furnace to burn for electricity. That is never going to work. What is more, it is going to lead to a massive consumer campaign against any retailer that tries to sell this electricity, as it did a decade ago when we last campaigned against this—and we will again. They were then known as burnt koala certificates. They will now be not only burnt koala but burnt swift parrot and burnt everything else certificates because that is exactly what is going on here.

I hate to think what is being stitched up out in the back room as we stand here and speak. No doubt it will be an attempt to undermine wind technology. This deal of 33,000 gigawatt hours was designed to try to save wind. These people hate wind, so they will be out there trying to stitch up some deal that restricts wind. The Clean Energy Council has facilitated it. Labor have gone down, down and down to 33,000 when Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, stood with me in Barton at a public meeting saying, 'Labor is not for turning.' The government is wearing everyone down, except the Greens. I can say that standing proudly. And Senator Lazarus stood with us on the second reading vote. We are the only ones in this place who stood up and said, 'We like 41,000 gigawatt hours.' There was no rationale whatsoever for wheedling this down to where they have got it to except that the government did not like the fact that there is too much electricity in the system. They needed to take out 9,000 megawatt hours. They could have done that by shutting down coal fired power stations, but they did not want to because their objective was to prop up coal fired power and destroy renewable energy. If they can get destroyed forests into it, that is exactly what they will do.

We heard the minister over there telling us about how marvellous these logging operations are and how sustainable they are. There was an open letter to the Senate today from 40 scientists across Australia. What they obviously do not understand is that this is an anti-science government. This is an anti-science crossbench. They do not want to have the science put in their faces because they are not interested in science. That is exactly the case. These 40 scientists have written today saying the acceptance of a perverse definition of wood waste in renewables is being questioned by them. They are alarmed that once the door opens on burning Australia's native forests in tower furnaces it could see our forest heritage drawn into supplying an export demand to satisfy the expanding number of biomass burners overseas. Peter Gell, professor of environmental science at Federation University, said, 'The wood fuel market has potential to impact even more destructively on our forests, ecosystems, wildlife and water catchments than has the export woodchip industry. If it can be burnt, it will not be safe. The ironbark forests and woodlands, the forest types that the chippers rejected, would all be targets for the resource mix if the RET bill passes parliament as it stands.' That is from Australia's leading scientists writing to this Senate. Yet we have a situation where people are sitting here thinking that this would be a good idea.

It is hard to believe that in this country we have got to the point where we are rejecting the latest science, where we still have a situation where the logging industry is exempted from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and where we have this perverse idea that we will give a financial incentive to give viability to native forest logging when it clearly has no viability. Native forests would not be harvested anyway, as Senator Birmingham tried to suggest, because Forestry Tasmania are in debt up to their necks. They are putting back into it a financial incentive to destroy native forests. It is absolutely despicable. As the scientists said, it is a falsehood to claim this type of electricity production as renewable. 'You cannot renew or replace the burnt carbon stored in a 100- to 600-year-old forest in the turnaround time needed to address climate change,' said Professor Gell. If all Australian native forest logged production in 2009 had instead been burned for electricity it would have substituted as little as 2.8 per cent of our coal based power generation. We risk unleashing an industry with a potential appetite to decimate our native forests and all the services they provide to gain very limited emission benefits. This is very poor environmental policy and poorer energy policy. That is the fact of the matter. When I go back to what they have said about the export demand to satisfy the expanding number of biomass burners overseas, I know that this is a horror show.

There are also the free trade agreements the government have stitched up. Let's talk about South Korea. We have also signed up to one with China today. In those free trade agreements—you wait—there will be agreements to send shiploads of whole logs and pellets to South Korea to burn in forest furnaces. It will not be long before we are doing the same with Japan. This is where the world is going. Tragically, there are countries like Australia prepared to raze the last of their forests and sell them to other countries to burn—not to use even in the production of paper, as they suggested previously. The poor quality woodchips that went from here did not even make it into the paper mix; they went straight into the furnaces to run the place to generate the electricity. This is what they did in the Stone Age! That is where you want to take us back to—and it is completely wrong.

The renewable energy target should be increased. The rest of the world recognises, as we go into Paris at the end of the year, that we need to get out of fossil fuel energy production as fast as possible. The energy race of this century has already been won by the renewables. The jobs, the technology, the brains base—everything—depends on moving fast into the low-carbon economy, not frustrating it and locking us in to more dig it up, cut it down, ship it away, and now burn it as well. This is utterly appalling policy!

It is really sickening, Minister, to hear you regurgitate all of the lines that the loggers have used for years about sustainability and regional forest agreements and ecologically-sound logging. Go out onto the coupes! Go out and see the mess that they have left! Look at the stats on the number of species now on the threatened and critically endangered lists! Do not stand here and tell the Senate that native forest logging in Australia has been anything other than extremely destructive at the industrial scale that it has operated on. Go and have a look out at those forests where the Bentley blockade was, for example. Here you have more threatened species being able to be cleared for expanded coalmines. How obscene is that! Offsets that enabled those primary forests to be cleared for coalmines. This is a disgrace!

We are so much of a pariah at a global level. Step out of this country for five minutes and hear the conversation that is being had around the world. This is such an opportunity cost to this nation. Every other country is getting ahead of us in terms of technology, in terms of jobs. Our brains base is going to leave this country. Young people are going to take their skills overseas because they want to be part of the solution; they do not want to stay here and be locked into the problem. I would ask every senator to read this open letter from 40 leading scientists. Think about biodiversity. Think about the climate. Think about the value of forests—and do not support this absolutely backward step.

You just have to look at the Prime Minister's words. He said that the reason the RET is 33,000 gigawatt hours is not that he wants to give certainty to the renewable energy industry. No! It is 33,000 gigawatt hours because he could not get it any lower. That is as low as he could go in this Senate. But he will go lower if he can. In terms of whether it means more wind turbines, what did the Prime Minister say? He can't stand them. There are too many of them. He does not want to see any more of them. But he spoke to the loggers at their dinner and said he thinks they are marvellous; they do a great job. That is exactly where this is going! This is not about certainty. This is about the far Right in Australian politics getting what they can out of the Labor Party, getting what they can out of the crossbench and dragging it lower and lower and lower. They will put it in their back pockets and they will go lower still. They do not compromise. They have no intention of providing certainty.

It has been the biggest con job with the Clean Energy Council thinking this gives anyone certainty. It does not. The only certainty it gives is that the Liberals will pocket what they can get now and will go after the rest later. None of this is safe under this government, because it does not believe in renewable energy. You, the government, do not believe in renewable energy. You do not believe in reining in fossil fuels. You do believe in expanding coalmines, opening up the Galilee Basin, more coal seam gas and logging as many native forests as you can put the trucks and the bulldozers through. That is exactly what is going on. It is a disgrace in Australia at this time in our history. When people look back, they will see you as Neanderthals—and they are right to do so.

Senator Singh interjecting—

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Singh, I did not see you. I have given the call to Senator Colbeck.

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

It is very good to be able to follow Senator Milne, who has again demonstrated, as the Greens are so good at doing, that the Greens will say absolutely anything at any point in time to suit their case. The lies that have been told by the Greens political party over so many years about the forest industry were continued here tonight. What Senator Milne does not tell you is that she wants to see the end of the entire native forest industry in this country. She wants to undermine financially the entire forest industry in this country. The complete hypocrisy of the Greens political party in this space is absolutely breathtaking.

Senator Milne talked about the destruction of the native forest industry. She talked about the denuded landscapes from the native forest industry. What she does not tell you is that thousands of hectares of harvested native forests, some of it harvested as little as four years ago, have been nominated by green groups to be listed as wilderness in Australia's World Heritage area. Senator Milne completely excludes that. If these areas are so badly destroyed, as Senator Milne would like those who are listening to believe—another act of complete deceit, I might say—how do those thousands of hectares then qualify as wilderness to be listed by the World Heritage Committee as part of Australia's World Heritage estate?

What Senator Milne also does not tell you is that the Greens, as part of the Tasmanian forest agreement process, lined up and took Australian taxpayers' money to conduct regeneration burns in those areas that had been harvested by the forest industry.

An honourable senator: What are you talking about?

The green groups in Australia took this money. They took this money supported by the Australian Greens. They took this taxpayers' money to conduct regeneration burns. Of course, anytime there was a puff of smoke on the horizon in Tasmania from a Forestry Tasmania conducted regeneration burn, the Greens and the green groups would hit the telephones and complain about smoke pollution and the terrible effect on the environment—and yet the green groups, supported by the Australian Greens, are participating in exactly that process right now.

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

Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The Australian Greens did not support any of the things that Senator Colbeck suggests. He may refer to other groups that are not the Australian Greens—that is his right—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: What is the point of order?

but it is not the Australian Greens. We did not support that.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

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

Who did these green groups contract to conduct those regeneration burns? The green groups contracted Forestry Tasmania, whom Senator Milne just a moment ago was condemning for conducting regeneration burns. Why did they do that? Because only Forestry Tasmania had the expertise to conduct those regeneration burns. Senator Milne comes in here condemning Forestry Tasmania and condemning forest harvesting, and yet those very areas that were harvested under the regional forest agreements have now been included, supported by the Greens, in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage estate. If the forest industry were so destructive, as Senator Milne says—if those 100- to 600-year-old forests were so destroyed by the forest industry—how do those forests qualify as wilderness under the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area?

The deceit of the Greens and the green groups is just breathtaking, and the hypocrisy of the Greens in this process is likewise breathtaking. They will say one thing one minute to suit their case and they will say another thing another minute to suit their case. That was demonstrated, as I said in my contribution to the second reading debate on this bill, by Senator Bob Brown. When he was campaigning against renewable hydro electricity in Tasmania, he was proposing coal fired power stations in Tasmania—but, of course, the wheel has turned and it is no longer convenient for the Greens to acknowledge that that even occurred. They want to deny it and they want to forget about it, but the historical record is there. The Greens will say anything at any point in time to support their case.

Yet the science is quite clear. Compilations of global science are quite clear. In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change support utilisation of biomass, on a sustainable forest management basis, for the generation of energy. They say that in their IPCC report of 2007. The Food and Agriculture Organization supports it. The World Wildlife Fund actually supports it. It has been supporting it right through Europe and has a target for generation of energy by the utilisation of biomass in Europe. There is a target.

It is a pity that Senator Lazarus has left the chamber, because I understand that he is prepared to support this measure only on the basis of Forest Stewardship Council certification of the forests that the biomass comes from. Senator Lazarus has fallen into a green-Wilderness Society trap. Had he accepted certification of forests rather than just going for one of the options on the market, he might have had an option, but, of course, he went for FSC. The green groups try to use a veto power by virtue of their place on the FSC board. They have been trying that for years, but they are in real trouble because I suspect that in not too long a time you will start to see Australian native forests certified under the FSC standard—and what you will probably see then is the Greens and the green groups turning on the FSC. Senator Lazarus has, unfortunately, fallen for a green trap

But what really annoys me is that the Greens have come in here with their forest tripe. Who would have thought that the Greens would turn out to be the climate science deniers? Even the IPCC supports the utilisation of biomass in native forest residues, but, of course, that is inconvenient for the Greens, so they are prepared to deny that part of the IPCC report. They are happy to belt up the government with the rest of the IPCC report, but they actually turned out to be the climate science deniers because they are not prepared to accept that bit that they do not like. They want to pick and choose. They want to be able to say, 'We reject that bit of science because it's inconvenient,' and yet the global science in this space clearly supports the utilisation of biomass for generating energy.

Progress reported.