Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the bill which I introduced into this place, the Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017. This bill seeks to end the destruction of Australia's native forests by repealing the act which enables logging to continue with exemptions from, and without the oversight of, our country's environmental protection laws. These logging laws, the regional forest agreements, are outdated, they are destructive and they are not achieving the environmental or economic purposes for which they were intended.

For me, this is a question of justice across generations. I challenge all of us in this place to consider how we would feel if we couldn't offer our children and our grandchildren the same experiences in the natural world that we have experienced. What if they couldn't enjoy camping by a crystal-clear river, fringed by magnificent forest, camping at night around a campfire, listening to the sounds of the night, listening to the owls—the boobooks, the mopokes—listening to the screeching of gliding possums?

What if our children and grandchildren couldn't marvel at birds like swift parrots and be amazed by creatures like the giant freshwater lobster of north-west Tasmania? What if our children and grandchildren couldn't be inspired by gorgeous creatures like the Leadbeater's possum? What if our children and grandchildren don't have those experiences? What if they don't know those animals as precious animals and birds, because their homes, nesting sites and food supplies have been destroyed? Beyond experiencing magnificent forests, what if they couldn't ski on our alpine slopes deprived of snow? What if they couldn't snorkel a reef filled with colourful coral off the Queensland coast?

Logging has wide-reaching impacts, contributing to the further warming of our planet. It's not just the immediate destruction of areas of forest—and destruction it is; intensive, industrial-scale clear-fell logging—and it's not just the destruction that that wreaks on our forests but the impact of those forests no longer being there to soak up carbon, no longer playing their bit in the critical role of tackling dangerous climate change that is the issue.

I remember very well the first time I saw a clear felled forest. I was 23 years old. I had just finished university and was working out what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. I visited some forests in East Gippsland which had been clear felled and then had been burnt. They were totally destroyed. For me, it was this awareness: why was this happening? So I did a bit more research and discovered the justification for it was to be producing timber that was largely, even then, only going to very low value purposes. It was being used for housing construction timber for which even then, 30 years ago, we had plantation pine that was going to take up that market. It was being used for tomato stakes; it was being used for pallets. I asked myself: why are we are causing all of this destruction for such little ends? As a rational person, I said, 'But we need timber. We need wood. Surely we must need to be doing this.' I did a bit more research and found out that, no, we didn't. I found out that virtually all of the wood that was coming from this incredible natural heritage, this precious natural heritage that we have here in Australia, we could be getting from other, much less precious places—certainly not the old growth forest that was being logged then and that is still being logged now.

I did the research then, and the research continued for the last 30 years to show that the forest destruction that's occurring isn't occurring because we need the timber. It's not occurring because we need the jobs. It's occurring just because we this attitude: 'Well, we've got forests there, so we've got to do something with them.' We are increasingly getting a much greater proportion of our timber and wood product supplies from sustainable plantations. That's the direction of the industry for the future. And yet with the regional forest agreements that this government is rolling over, we are pretending we are right back where we were last century, not acknowledging that we can be protecting our forests and maintaining a viable wood products industry.

Let me lay out what this bill seeks to achieve, with the principle in mind that our precious places should be properly managed for all of the values they hold, including their value to our future generations. For the past two decades our native forests have been managed under the banner of these 10 regional forest agreements that were established between the federal government and the states. These agreements cover significant tracts, all of potentially economic, so-called productive, forests in Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia and New South Wales. This bill would wind up each of the 10 regional forest agreements at the time of their expiry dates. I note the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement has been subject to a variation which was signed last year by the Prime Minister and the Tasmanian Premier, and this was presented to the public as a variation. But the actual outcome is a substantial rewriting of the RFA, which was undertaken without any engagement of this parliament, despite the significance of the extension of this RFA to 2037. In effect, it makes future extensions automatic into perpetuity. That is staggering.

When the RFAs were introduced 20 years ago, they were meant to provide long-term sustainable forest management to protect these complex ecosystems and to ensure the viability of threatened species living in the forests as well as govern production of timber from these forests and maintain jobs. They have failed in every regard. And the government have indicated that, like they've done with the Tasmanian agreement, they intend to just roll over the existing 20-year regional forest agreements when they come up for expiry. The lack of rigour and reflection in this position is astounding, and it demonstrates that the government do not have any commitment to safeguarding our carbon stores, our clean water, our water supplies, our tourism hot spots or our wildlife habitat or the current and future jobs of locals who rely on all of these.

Across Australia, the evidence of the last 20 years is that the Regional Forest Agreements have failed and continue to fail in their goals of providing security to industry and workers and securing a reserve system to protect species. When then Prime Minister John Howard and the Victorian Premier signed the Victorian Central Highlands Regional Forest Agreement in 1998, the Howard government environment minister stated that the RFA would ensure that 'the whole forest will be sustainably managed for future generations'. And yet under the Regional Forest Agreements these forests are logged, pulped and burnt. The story is exactly the same across the other nine areas subject to RFAs. Yes, under the Regional Forest Agreements there were some areas of forest that were reserved, but there were vast areas of forests of equal value and of equal significance that have not been protected and have been subject to ongoing, intensive logging in the 20 years since.

The Regional Forest Agreements are outdated, impotent and costing us irrecoverable species, taxpayer dollars and extensive forgone opportunities. We need to scrap them. As I've already said, over 80 per cent of the wood products that are being produced in Australia are now being produced from plantations. The remaining native forest timber industry is just the rump of the timber industry. It's not the direction that the industry is headed in. It's not where all of the excitement of, say, having timber for multistorey buildings is coming from; that's timber coming from plantations. When you look at the latest announcement of a new sawmill, Hermal mill, in north-west Tasmania, that is going to be a hardwood plantation based sawmill. This is the direction that we need to be continuing in, transitioning all of the industry out of our native forest so we can have that sustainable plantation based industry, protecting our precious native forests for so many values that they also hold.

One of the most appalling parts of the Regional Forest Agreements and of our current logging laws is that they exempt logging from our national environment protection laws. When an area is logged under an RFA it's deemed to be occurring in an ecologically sustainable way even where there is ample evidence this is not the case. There are no grounds for our environment protection laws in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to apply. Think of that. These complex native forest ecosystems are not protected through our national environment protection laws from the destruction of logging. This means that even if a critically endangered species is found in a forest valley or ridge, under an RFA it's still okay to go ahead with the logging. All that needs to happen with regard to any endangered species is that there needs to be a recovery plan in place—or not even in place, but being planned. It doesn't matter whether this recovery plan, at the end of the day, is shown to have been totally inadequate to protect the species. All that's required is to get a recovery plan in place, and then logging can continue to occur under the rules that are set out in the recovery plan. In fact, they're not even rules but only guidelines for how logging could occur. So there is no rigour and no ability for the EPBC Act to overrule the logging operations occurring under an RFA even where the evidence is there. As it is, you have threatened species that are being driven towards extinction by those logging operations. How can it be possible that native forests get such special treatment? Other extractive industries such as mining are required to justify their impact on the environment, but not the native forest industry. They get to carve out sections of precious forests to destroy them. They're given carte blanche to destroy animals, plants and vital habitat.

Let me remind the chamber that the Commonwealth has a duty to protect our environment for all Australians. Yet, in continuing the regional forest agreements and their exemption from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, this government is shirking that responsibility and is allowing an extractive industry—because that's what it is—to carry out its business with no regard for the long-term damage this does to our forests. For all the talk of 'Oh, the forest will regrow,' when you are logging a forest that has got trees in it that are hundreds of years old, such as with the logging that is currently occurring in East Gippsland and in Tasmania, you cannot say that you are replacing this forest, because you cannot replace an old-growth, unlogged forest—a complex, ancient forest—with essentially just a plantation of young species. It will not provide the habitat for those plants and animals for hundreds and hundreds of years, and certainly won't provide the nesting hollows in those trees for the species that rely on them and need hollows in old trees in order to survive. It is an extractive industry. It is destroying that forest's value for those precious and threatened animals.

As a nation we have the worst rate of mammal extinctions in the world over the last 200 years since colonisation. We have forest-dependent species that are headed to add to those extinctions: the critically endangered Leadbeater's possum, the critically endangered swift parrots, the giant freshwater crayfish and Carnaby's cockatoo. These animals are threatened and are becoming more threatened, and yet logging is allowed to continue to occur in places where they live. It's a shameful position to be in, particularly as a wealthy, developed nation, particularly as a nation with so many unique species that are found nowhere else in the world and particularly as a nation that has only seen just over 200 years of this atrocious use of our land—just over 200 years.

In the forests such as at Granite Mountain in East Gippsland, with trees hundreds of years old, those trees were old when Captain Cook sailed past just over 200 years ago. These extinctions are not a trend we want to continue, particularly with our unique plants and animals serving as a backbone for our incredibly valuable tourism industry and the many communities whose livelihoods rely on the protection of these precious places. The sheer enormity of past extinction rates and the tiny amount of pristine native habitats remaining in Australia means we need to fight to conserve every remaining piece.

I have already mentioned the Leadbeater's possum in my home state of Victoria,. It's critically endangered. Its primary habitat, the beautiful mountain ash forests, are in such dire condition that the animals and the whole ecosystem are listed as critically endangered. We have a government that is saying, 'Oh, the Leadbeater's possum is having a massive population increase,' which is based on absolutely farcical data. If you look at the most thorough review of the science with Leadbeater's possums, you see that it shows that they are in dire straits. Yes, we may have observed more Leadbeater's possums over the past year, but that is because there have been more people out looking for them. It does not mean that those populations have increased.

The forests of the planned Great Koala National Park in New South Wales, the Great Forest National Park in Victoria, the Tarkine in Tasmania, Western Australia's South-West Forest and the incredibly biodiverse and beautiful East Gippsland are hugely valuable parts of our natural heritage and must remain so for future generations.

A recent assessment of Victoria's Central Highlands forest using ecosystem accounting methodology and which was published in the prestigious journal Nature Ecology and Evolution clearly demonstrated that there are considerably greater benefits in soaking up and storing carbon, water, habitat provision and recreational amenity if logging ceased compared with the economic value of logging these forests. And this work also clearly shows that the economic benefits of native forest logging are small compared to other industries in the region and that the economic impact of ceasing native forest logging could be more than offset by increases in other industries such as tourism and by entering the carbon market. Native forest areas have got enormous tourism potential, which is undermined by destructive and unsightly logging practices. The people and small businesses of regional Australia would stand to benefit hugely from increasing the amount of forest being protected and stronger government plans promoting tourism and recreation over logging.

Jobs are vital in the regional communities living near and in our forest areas, and we need to face up to the reality that direct employment in the forestry industry is already drying up. It has been drying up for the last 20 years, due to its economic and environmental unsustainability. Many mills are just scraping through on direct and indirect taxpayer subsidies. We've had the Victorian government paying $50 million to buy the Heyfield mill. We know that logging in East Gippsland costs us, the taxpayers, $5 million a year. So it costs us for the logging of our forests. Just think about what else that money could be spent on. Think about: what if you spent $5 million a year, or more than that, on improving the tourism infrastructure, the recreation infrastructure—upgrading walking tracks, forest drives and bicycle touring tracks? There are many, many more jobs in really valuing the forests as a tourism resource than in their ongoing logging.

Industrial logging in our public native forests has had its day. It has failed to protect our environment and it has failed to protect jobs. The future for the Australian wood-products industry is in a sustainably-managed plantation industry. So, in order to achieve this vision for long-term sustainability for the Australian wood-products industry, and to protect our native forests, with all their unparalleled values, we must scrap the Regional Forest Agreements. This bill to repeal the RFAs does what the government has failed to do. This bill would protect our forests in a way that all Australians, now and into the future, would value and really appreciate, well into the future.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure it will be no surprise to those who are in the chamber or listening to this contribution to know that the Australian government will not be supporting Senator Rice's, on behalf of the Greens, Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017. The coalition government does not subscribe to the theory that we just lock up our forests and throw the key away and wait for a fire to come through and burn them down. We don't subscribe to the theory that you do nothing in your forests and wait for the feral animals to come in and eat our endangered species. We subscribe to the theory that you can actually manage all of our forestry estates in such a way as to strike a balance between making sure you keep a certain amount of it in a pristine state—we are absolutely committed to that—and having a place in the Australian landscape for a forestry sector, and that that forestry sector also includes an amount of native regrowth harvest. And we believe that's sustainable into the future.

Just to give a shout-out for our friends the trees, I'd like to put on the record that trees are renewable and they are recyclable. We believe that we will manage them in a sustainable way. They are carbon-positive and they are a resource that belongs to all Australians. If you were going to go out and invent the absolutely perfect product—as the big man who invented trees in the first place did—you would invent a tree.

I'm sure that trees were put on this earth in the very first instance because they were able to be cut down, because they would grow again and because they would provide a resource for myriad different things—not just for possums and for people to go and look at for a tourism adventure, which, Senator Rice would have you believe, is the only purpose for a tree to be in existence. There is actually a place on earth for trees to be cut down and used for myriad different purposes, because they will grow again. Also the suggestion, for some reason, that forestry and ensuring a sustainable environment and sustainability of our native animals are somehow mutually exclusive is just ridiculous. They can coexist side by side.

It is also extraordinary hypocrisy to suggest that we can't use native timber. So much of our magnificent appearance-grade timber that we, as Australians, are absolutely delighted to have as part of our lives—the beautiful furniture; the beautiful floorboards; the things that you can't actually get from plantation timber—we value. But I would also say that I believe Australians value sustainability in the harvesting of our forests, just as we believe in sustainability in everything we do, whether it be our marine environment, our beautiful Murray-Darling Basin or the sustainability of how we manage our agricultural sector in Australia. To suggest that somehow we can completely replace this beautiful appearance-grade timber, which many, many people in Australia are able to enjoy every day, by using plantation timbers is just a stretch too far. They aren't the same thing.

Senator Rice, on behalf of the Greens, says that she believes the RFAs have failed, that they haven't protected endangered species. I would say that I absolutely dispute that. I believe the RFAs have stood us in good stead and I also believe that they have acted, and assisted us, in the protection of our endangered species. But that's not to say that, as part of an iterative process of the rollover and renewal of these RFAs, we can't make them fit for purpose for 2018 and into the 21st century. As Senator Rice rightly points out, these agreements were first brought into place 20 years ago. We've learnt a lot in the last 20 years, so what we are seeking to do, as part of an iterative process of the rollover of these RFAs, is to make sure that the lessons of the last 20 years have been learned. At the same time, we want to enable a sustainable forestry industry to go forward in a practical, sensible and realistic way without destroying the livelihoods of many communities that rely on the timber industry or taking away the delight that many Australians have in the beautiful appearance-grade Australian timber they have in their homes and their lives.

It seems somewhat ironic that we were talking just a minute ago in relation to illegal logging. We know that in Australia we have such strict regulations and rules that demand Australian timber is harvested in a very sustainable way. So we're making it as difficult as we possibly can to import timber into Australia, while at the same time we're going to stop the Australian timber industry from being able to progress—it does seem a little hypocritical. There does seem to be an overall theme going on with the Greens when it comes to Australian agriculture—that is, they actually don't want us to have any.

The coalition government believes that Australian forestry industries are absolutely vital to this country and they are an absolutely integral part of our regional communities. The forest industry directly employs over 67,000 people Australia-wide and it contributes nearly $24 billion to the Australian economy. This is no lightweight industry. And the benefits of this competitive, sustainable, renewable forestry industry in our regional communities cannot be underestimated. For this reason, the Turnbull government believes that it's absolutely important that we put the right tools in place to ensure the sustainable management of these forests but at the same time make sure that we don't place an unreasonable burden on them—this balance in making sure that our regulation and our legislative burden is commensurate with what we are trying to achieve. We are not a government that smashes walnuts with sledgehammers; we are a government that makes sure the tools we put in place are appropriate for the job we're trying to do. So we believe that the RFAs are undoubtedly the best mechanism by which we can manage our native forests in a sustainable way, and we believe this is an effective framework for achieving the balance between the economic outcomes that we want for our regional communities, the environmental outcomes that we all seek for sustainability—because we all love our beautiful environment—and making sure that we deliver a socially appropriate outcome for all Australians, in particular the Australian communities that rely on our forestry sector.

We have 10 RFAs in Australia. They were signed progressively between 1997 and 2001. Over $1 million was invested in ensuring that our native forestry management was balanced across the environment and making sure that the environmental, social and economic outcomes were achieved. To quote you, Senator Rice, in your explanatory memorandum:

The intention of the RFAs was to provide long-term forest management to protect these complex ecosystems.

Well, Senator Rice, I believe that's exactly what has happened here. More than 3.3 million hectares of native forests have been transferred back into Australia's reserve estate over the time the RFAs have been in practice. That is an increase in the reserve estate of 46 per cent in the last 20 years. If you look at a state-by-state breakdown: the area in New South Wales increased by 1.334 million hectares; in Victoria, nearly a million hectares; in Tasmania, 684,000 hectares; in Western Australia, 338,000 hectares. That is 3,320,000 hectares, or a 46 per cent increase in our forest estate that is under reserve. That is a fantastic outcome for the environment, but have I ever heard you, Senator Rice, come in here and talk about the positive result of the increase in the amount of the forest reserve as a result of the actions that have been generated by the RFAs? Not a word. I assure you that the reason you do not do that is that it does not suit your argument—your argument of scaremongering.

In the first 20 years of operation, the RFAs have delivered long-term certainty to regional communities and the forest resource and the timber industry. They have improved the regulatory processes for businesses that operate in this industry. They have increased the identification and protection of old-growth forest values and the protection of 100 per cent of old-growth forests that are rare or depleted, and there have been significant advances in our approach to ecological, sustainable forest management.

With RFAs, we have a timber industry that operates with some of the highest levels of biodiversity protection in the world. The EPBC Act continues to provide a level of assistance in ensuring that we have world's best practice and we can put our hand on our heart and say that we are appropriately managing our forest system. Logging activities in Australia's native forests are not exempt from environmental protection laws—although you would believe they were if you listened to some of the things that come from the other end of the chamber. The act recognises that, in each RFA region, a comprehensive regional assessment was undertaken to address the environmental, economic and social objectives of the EPBC Act. So the establishment of RFAs actually constitutes a form of assessment and approval under the EPBC Act.

Senator Rice interjecting—

It absolutely is a recognition that the RFAs have established comprehensive reserve networks. This is another feature of the RFAs that you wilfully continue to ignore, another inconvenient truth for the Greens.

Another inconvenient truth for the Greens is in relation to threatened species. We do have a series of obligations and requirements that are set forth in the state based legislation that we have to adhere to. The RFAs do not exempt forest operators from obligations in state based legislation for the protection of threatened species and communities. This includes the application of forest management strategies to protect rare and endangered species. The management of threatened species within the RFA regions is consistent with the objectives of the EPBC Act. According to the Australia's state of the forests report 2013, the most significant threats to forest-dwelling animal species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act are historical land use changes and forest loss caused by clearing, predation from introduced predators, illegal collection and genetic or breeding issues. It doesn't say anything in there about forestry.

Just last year in a Senate estimates hearing the Threatened Species Commissioner stated that no Australian mammal has become extinct due to forestry operations. That's another inconvenient truth for you, isn't it, Senator Rice? I know that you love the Leadbeater's possum, and I have to say I don't know any Australian who wouldn't love the Leadbeater's possum if they saw that cute little thing. But, despite the continued dire warnings by those who are paid to research these things, in fact it would appear that the Leadbeater's possum is a rather adaptable little critter, and it seems that, the more we look for them, the more we find. We are able to come in here and say that the recovery plan that's been put in place for the Leadbeater's possum is working, and we're really pleased that it is working. There's nothing that gives me more pleasure than when I get a report sent to me saying that we've had another sighting of a Leadbeater's possum in any of our forests. Everyone rejoices in the fact that this little critter is being seen in greater and greater numbers. Contrary to the doom and gloom that you hear from the other end of the chamber, this is a positive story and one from which we can learn. We should all be looking at what's happening when we're seeing increased populations of any of these species and looking at what we're doing right. We should be working together so that we can make sure that we continue to be able to get positive outcomes for all of our species. Sitting at the other end of the chamber and complaining and whingeing and twisting the thing is not going to save one more possum.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listen to the science! Read the science!

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do read the science, Senator Rice. The problem we have here in Australia is that we have an industry of scientists who have made a fortune trying to come up with inconveniently ill-informed and unfactually based misinformation because it suits their purposes. It's about time somebody started calling out some members of our environmental scientific community for the rubbish that they put out in the marketplace, believing that the word 'professor' or 'doctor' before their name somehow gives them some sort of legitimacy to say things. But that is another story, and I won't waste the chamber's time with it now.

When you look at this, this is a really good story about the success of adaptive management work. For instance, when it comes to the swift parrot, researchers have shown that it actually isn't forestry that is causing the threat to the swift parrot; it's predation from sugar gliders. We need to make sure when we come in here and make these statements that we use the facts behind the reasons for these things happening—for it to be the truth. It is just convenient for you to say it's forestry. It's not forestry that is causing these problems; it's myriad other things that are much more difficult to deal with. So, once again, the inconvenient truth of the situation seems to be lost—or not provided—by those at the other end of the chamber.

It is the belief of the government that the creation of RFAs has made considerable advances in the identification and protection of old-growth forests. We believe that they are working extremely well in setting specific protection targets for particular ecosystems. We believe this is a great result for the Australian forestry sector, the environment and the people who depend on it.

We also believe that the timber industry is a hugely important source of wood products in Australia, and Australian native forest remains a primary source for durable, high-strength, appearance-grade timber. This is not the kind of stuff you can get from growing a pine tree. It includes solid wood flooring, panelling, furniture and fine crafts. Some magnificent products are coming out of Tasmania; you have only got to go down to the Launceston wood products display centre to see the magnificent artworks that are being achieved by using this magnificent timber in a sustainable way. Australia's plantations are not able to replace the type and quality of wood that comes from using native timbers. This is, once again, something you refuse to accept. To stand in here and say, 'We'll move to plantations and we won't use native timber anymore,' is absolutely ridiculous. You know it is, but it's not convenient for your argument.

You also ignore the fact that our downstream forest industries are fully integrated; they use every single piece of wood from both plantations and native forests. Wood from our native forests complements that sourced from our plantation industry. I know you want to get rid of the RFAs, claiming they are preventing Australia from moving out of forest logging, but why would we want to move out of forest logging when we've already demonstrated it's renewable, recyclable and carbon positive, and we are managing it in a sustainable way? Why would we want to wilfully cripple our forest industries? I don't understand it; maybe you can explain it to me. Why would we want to destroy jobs in regional communities? Why would we want to shut regional communities down? Why would we want to decimate regional communities? You only have to look at the disallowance motion that Sarah Hanson-Young moved in here in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin plan to see that you don't care about our regional communities. You only care about your own ideology. There is not a care in the world for the fact that people like me live in regional communities, and those communities would be shut down by the actions of the legislation and regulations that you constantly come in here and try to have passed.

The Tasmanian RFA is a fantastic example of what 20 years of learning has done for us. We were delighted to sign the new RFA recently. There was an 80 per cent increase, or 800,000 hectares, in the reserve estate. Fifty-eight per cent, or 1.778 million hectares, of Tasmania's forest is now protected in reserves, including the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. More than a million hectares of old-growth forest are now permanently reserved, and world-benchmark, ecologically sustainable forest management has been implemented. At the same time, significant business savings have been enabled for industry. These are significant achievements, and we were delighted in 2017 to sign an extension for a further 20 years rolling.

In conclusion, we believe the management of Australia's native forests is being undertaken sustainably. What's more, far from an industry in decline, we believe our forestry industry is a sunrise industry. The RFAs set the framework for that sustainable management and the conservation of our native forests. So what's at stake? If the RFAs were repealed, jobs would be lost and communities would be destroyed, and for what environmental gain? Do we really want to put Australian Paper's Maryvale Mill out of work—is that really what you Greens want to do? Do you really want to make sure all those people who work in the Gippsland no longer have a job? I don't think it's what the Australian public wants, and it's time we called you out for the scaremongering and, often in cases, the lies that are put out into the marketplace to try and make people think that Australia's native timber industry is not a sustainable industry—it is. You have absolutely no regard for the tens of thousands of families whose livelihoods you actively seek to destroy or the hundreds of regional communities that would cease to exist if you had your own way. This is deliberate ignorance, and it is absolutely reprehensible.

The coalition government does not support the repeal of the RFA Act. The repeal will not help the environment. It will not help business. It will not create jobs. It will not help our regional communities. This coalition government stands for every single one of those things. We believe the environment must be sustainable, and our actions, legislation and regulations support that. We believe that we should be helping business, and our legislation and regulations support that. We believe in creating jobs. We created 400,000 of them last year and we are committed to making sure it's another 400,000 this year—over a thousand jobs a day. We will not destroy our regional communities with ridiculous Green ideology with absolutely no basis. It is absolutely our longstanding position that the RFAs are the best mechanism to balance the economic, social and—(Time expired)

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I often remember the times before I came to parliament. My encounters with the Senate and the House of Representatives, before I got the key to my office when I became the member for Robertson in 2010, were through the radio soundwaves across this country, particularly Radio National. You'd hear all sorts of conversations and your life, as you're driving your kids from one activity to another, would be informed by the conversations we are having here. This conversation is about a very important industry—the forestry industry. It is also a very important conversation about how we manage our environment and that precious resource that we have: the trees that Australians enjoy throughout the country.

Why is this such an important discussion that we're having this afternoon in the Senate? The forestry industry provides not only jobs for 67,000 people, but also a range of absolutely essential products that integrate themselves into people's lives. We know Australia generates a very significant export outcome from our produce in this sector, from sales to international markets. But the sorts of products that this reaches out to extend to sawn wood and wood based panels for constructing our homes. That's often what people in the cities think of wood: it's simply the timber that comes in the frames they see of the houses that spring up on the edges of our cities.

But this debate touches on so many more uses for sustainable forestry industry in our country, including furniture, printing and writing paper for our homes and our offices, sanitary paper products for everyday use, and paper and paperboard for packaging many of the products we consume. We even have wood derived products such as cellophane, rayon and ethanol involved in this industry. If I can, I want to make some remarks about the capacity for innovation in the way that we might be able to use this amazing renewable resource to create new types of technologies and new applications that will improve lives not just here in our country but around the world.

We know that carbon fibres that are derived from wood are used to make lightweight parts for things as diverse as motor vehicles and packaging for food and beverages—another wood product that comes into our lives. Solvents made from wood fibre are used instead of petroleum, and that's got to be a good thing. Wood also has the potential to generate renewable energy through the combustion of wood pellets, liquid biofuels and any other adaptation modern technology can make of this very precious resource. As esoteric as a discussion about the Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017 might sound, its intersection with the lives of Australians goes right into the cabinets in our bathrooms and the cupboards in our kitchens.

The current private member's bill that's before the Senate, on this occasion put forward by Senator Rice, seeks to repeal the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002. The agreements are known as RFAs. I know that Senator Ruston has made some significant comments about this and celebrated the recent signing of another agreement in 2017 to provide some stability to the sector. But this bill is trying to do something entirely different. The bill itself, in its explanatory memorandum, acknowledges that for the past two decades, our native forests have been managed under the banner of 10 regional forest agreements that were established—and, I'm sure, not easily at the time—between the federal government and the states.

I am one of the Australians who's been very lucky to have travelled through every single state of the country. In fact, my husband and I took a year off, before we were grey—we were certainly nomadic—and spent it travelling around Australia. The great forests of Australia that we saw were covered by these 10 agreements in Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia and New South Wales. As a New South Wales senator I am all too aware of how critical the management of the forests of our native timbers, and also our plantation timbers, is to regional economies right across this state.

I note and agree with the statistics that were put forward by Senator Ruston, that in the course of the previous RFA there was a 46 per cent increase in the forest estate under reserve. This is an important measure of the success of what the RFA achieved. To have 46 per cent more forest in reserve is a great outcome that I think Australians would be proud of. Being a legislator for the period of time that I've been here, I'm aware of the many failures of legislation, but surely that has to be applauded as a great outcome.

As a senator for New South Wales, it is with great pride that I stand here on the back of work that's been done by previous governments and celebrate as a New South Welshwoman that there are 1.334 million hectares of New South Wales land under reserve in forest estate. That's a great outcome. We need to be mindful that, despite its imperfections, the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002 is not an entirely failed piece of legislation, and it should only be an entirely failed piece of legislation that should be repealed. That is not the case with this piece of legislation.

The intention of these RFAs, which were established between the federal government and the governments of Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia and New South Wales, was to provide long-term forest management to protect these very complex ecosystems, to ensure the viability of threatened species in the forests and to govern the production of timber from these forests. They also have that very worthy aim of maintaining jobs to maintain the economy and the viability of communities across the country, especially those in regional areas where these forests exist.

The bill that's before us from the Greens party claims that the RFAs have failed to meet the intended goals. Well, much legislation, sadly, doesn't always meet its goals, but I don't think we should be discarding this piece of legislation. The Greens' EM argues that the environmental and industrial context of the RFAs has substantially changed since they were commenced in the late 20th century. A lot's changed since that time, but I don't believe that in this case that provides sufficient argument for the repealing of this forest management framework.

The fact is RFAs have had exemptions from the EPBC Act, and this bill would see the application of the EPBC Act to forestry operations and ensure the same level of environmental approvals and protections are applied to any other extractive industry. But, to be clear, I want to put it on the record that Labor will not be supporting this bill, and we believe that the Greens position with regard to the RFA doesn't make sense in the context of the current situation of this particular industry. The RFAs, in addition to delivering that 46 per cent increase in reserves in estate, is in fact the important current and legal framework that we use to manage our forests. To repeal such a framework without another framework adequately formed, considered and in place to replace it would in my view be an irresponsible act. In common parlance, it would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

These regional forest agreements, which are 20-year plans for sustainable management and conservation of Australian forests, across the four states cover large native forestry regions. Five of those forestry regions are in Victoria. Three are native forestry regions in New South Wales, and there is one in each of Western Australia and Tasmania. In a sensitive way, the RFAs seek to—and in many, many instances have delivered—a balance between the competing industries of the economy, the society and the environment.

Balancing economic, social and environmental demands on forests by settling obligations and commitments for forest management delivers great outcomes. One of the things that the RFAs have delivered, and need to continue to deliver, is certainty of resource access and supply to industry, building investment confidence, which matters to all of us everywhere, including in the cities, not just where these forests are. The RFAs seek to balance ecologically sustainable forest management issues, ensuring forests are appropriately managed and that they are regenerated to benefit young Australians and those who come after us.

The RFAs also seek to make sure that we expand the permanent forest conservation estate, and on that measure, given the statistics that there's been a 46 per cent expansion, you'd have to say that the RFA has most certainly achieved the outcome that was set. We know that the RFAs, in their formulation, are informed by scientific study, that they were the product of significant consultation and negotiation and that they cover a diverse range of interests. Labor is prepared to work responsibly with regard to the management of our forests. However, in our view, this bill before the Senate does not take a sensible approach.

I want to restate the love that Australians have for wood. My father loved wood, and the smell of him working with wood in our garage in suburban Sydney is a beautiful olfactory memory for me. As a former teacher, I know that students who didn't necessarily enjoy my English classes absolutely delighted in their capacity to work with their hands and their talents in woodwork classes on the Central Coast. We need to make sure that that passion and love for wood is not just translated into the joy of small enterprise but continues to be a vital and growing part of our economy. To do that we need to find a sustainable and balanced way of going forward to make sure that we create jobs that are innovation-based jobs, backed up by adequate research, and make sure that there are technologies that we can discover through proper investment in innovation policy.

In closing, I simply indicate—and I am citing a very useful document from the Forest Industry Advisory Council—that internationally significant research and technological advancements have resulted in the development of innovative applications for wood fibre and are enabling producers of emerging products to gain scale and improve cost-effectiveness in overseas markets. And let's be clear that timber is a renewable resource that can meet with innovative capacity.

However, while we're not supporting the proposals as they're put before the Senate today by the Greens in their private members' bill, I cannot indicate that I think the government is adequately responding to this sector. In fact, in terms of innovation right across every sector, we've had a lot of noise from this government but very, very little careful and considered investment in a way that is actually delivering jobs growth and economic growth for this country.

So in some ways I guess I've tried to walk the Buddhist path, somewhere down the middle between the Greens and the conservative representatives on the other side of the chamber. The Labor Party is truly the centrist party of this nation, and we have the sensible policy that balances all the things that we need to balance carefully. It balances the things that are at the heart of the regional forest agreements. It balances the need to make sure not only that we have sustainability and look after our economy but also that we look after our community in all its forms, in terms of its needs for resources, and that we look after the people in those communities, so they have jobs with decent wages and decent and fair working conditions, in such a way that this becomes a sustainable and long-term contributor to our local economy and our international participation.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.