Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very important debate. I'm sure many in the chamber would agree that, at a time like this, in the context that we are facing—as part of a global economy and as a nation that's struggling with a number of economic issues, amongst others—it's important that we provide certainty to all parts of our community and all parts of our economy. And we need to make sure that those that generate economic activity—the small and medium businesses out there and the hundreds of thousands of people that work in those businesses—have that certainty as well.

Looking at the uncertainty we face at the moment, it is important to take stock of the context in which this private senator's bill is being debated. Just in doing that, I want to pay tribute to Senator Bridget McKenzie, who introduced the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill in the last parliament—at a time when things were slightly different, though not incredibly different—and to the work that she's put in to drafting this bill and bringing it forward, again, in the 47th Parliament.

Here, in Australia, we're facing a great many domestic economic pressures—matters for which there is no handbook to just pull off the shelf and provide a response for government in dealing with these issues—but there is one tried and true thing that a government can adopt, and that is the matter of certainty. Look at inflation, where that's predicted to go and the impact that that's going to have on the cost of living and on all other segments of the economy; power prices, even in my home state of Tasmania, where they're going up by 12 per cent, something that is going to hit small businesses and households alike; the cost of food and of fuel; and, of course, mortgage interest rates, going in the direction that they are. All of these things are generating incredibly uncertain times, and it's something for which that we, as legislators, need to look at every tool we possibly can. The government needs to look at every tool it has at its disposal as a Commonwealth government, along with the state and territory governments, to provide certainty as one measure in responding to these times of uncertainty.

As we emerge, and continue to emerge, from COVID, where the world was an unpredictable place, we have seen an incredible pattern of behaviours and an incredible pattern of different economic indicators. Who could have predicted, through COVID, that we would have seen the growth in the housing and construction sector that we did for that time, thanks to stimulating measures on the part of many state and territory governments and, indeed, the last federal government, with its HomeBuilder program? But there is one thing that Australian businesses and households are looking for, and that is, of course, certainty. That's the one thing they're asking for—it's the one they're calling for—and this bill provides a pathway for one such example.

I think we can all acknowledge that forestry is an industry that, for time immemorial, has been kicked about by emotive arguments and often ones that lack scientific basis. That has resulted in a downscaling of the industry, in job losses and in a reduction of economic activity, particularly in regional communities. It also, of course, means that there's less of the resource available to our country—and I've already touched on the increased demand for the resource—particularly at a time when we need it. I might also point out that the resource, given the way we do forestry in this country, is a renewable resource. On top of that, given, by and large, the good track record that the forestry industry has—of course, with exception, and I think we all need to acknowledge that—and its good conservation outcomes, it's something we need to pay tribute to. This industry relies on the environment it operates in to continue to operate. They are good custodians of the forests and the land on which they work. They do it based on science. They do it based on world's best practice.

On that claim, I also make another claim: we do it better than anywhere else in the world. I'm yet to hear examples of another jurisdiction that does forestry, both native and plantation, to the same standard that we do here in Australia. Be it the regulation that is imposed on this industry at a state or territory level or, indeed, the RFAs, they do lead to positive outcomes that are of benefit to our nation and the people who live and work here. There are economic benefits, which I've already talked about, and I think they're pretty obvious for anyone who's listening. Of course, there are the environmental benefits that I talked about before. There is reforestation, which is part of our forestry management regime. We don't just go out, clear-fell and leave the land denuded; we actually seek to reforest so that we have continuing and sustained availability of resource.

Investments in innovation are central to ensuring that we have a strong and vibrant forestry future. Getting more products out of less resource is critically important to having less waste at the end of the production cycle. Of course, the science that goes into that innovation is centrally important. At the last election, both major parties committed over $100 million to science, innovation and research through the NIFPI, as it's called, and that will feed further into better outcomes. Of course, the forestry industry plays a huge part in the carbon outcome of this country, the capacity for our productive forests to sequester carbon and do a great deal of heavy lifting when it comes to our carbon abatement, the job that we have as a nation to fulfil our responsibilities. Indeed, the proud, hardworking men and women who work in this sector as well, who get besmirched every other day of the week by those who just seek to take this industry down—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It might be a good opportunity for my colleagues down the end there to not rile me up, and I'll keep it pretty tame too.

Given all of this, it does beg the questions: why wouldn't we back the industry? Of course, if you don't, where do you get the resource from? Those are two pretty central questions around this bill, and, indeed, what happens in a world where this bill does not take effect? Conservative estimates that we've repeated ad nauseam in this place—and of course in the other place and out in the public domain as well—are that demand for timber products is going to increase fourfold by the year 2050. There are myriad reasons that feed into that, mainly in the housing and construction sector: timber framing, staircases, window frames, flooring, furniture and decorative applications, amongst others. The demand is heading in that direction. Of course, native timber, from the forests that we're contemplating here in the debating of this bill, are central to the provision of the resource that is required to fulfil that demand. There are some stats out there now that 30 percent of any home built these days is hardwood, and therefore coming from native forests.

Bearing in mind the world-leading status of our forestry industry and those who work in it, you've got to wonder why we wouldn't back it. Of course, that goes to the second question I asked before: where does the resource come from if we aren't taking it from well managed, world-leading, science based Australian forests? We often get it from overseas. This is the thing. If we're not producing it here, we're taking it from overseas nations, where we don't have the same assurances. We don't have the same guarantees around the resource and the sustainability of the management models they have in place in those nations. We don't know what environmental outcomes there are. We don't know what conditions exist for workers in those forests and those mills. Without strong regimes in those corresponding nations around traceability and labelling, it is very difficult for us to know with any confidence. It's very difficult for us as a country that does value environmental management and the value conditions for employees in these often dangerous environments to know whether the timber we are buying and importing will in any way be the standard we require of ourselves and expect as consumers of this resource. I'll come to some facts in a moment around other nations and their track records.

In the last term of parliament, I was pleased to see a DNA-testing program in many of our timber retail outlets. The scary thing was—and I'm pleased that we were able to reveal this—that, while many of our very high-profile retailers were marketing and selling product that was claimed to be a particular species of timber sourced from a sustainable forest overseas, the DNA testing revealed that, in fact, it wasn't that timber and, indeed, it didn't come from a sustainable source. I implore the Albanese government to consider continuing this program, because I think it is important. If we're going to impose high standards on our timber industry, and rightly so—it's a set of impositions that the industry would welcome and that would, of course, help them with their brand—we should continue to do that for overseas sources and those who import from them.

To that point, we are bringing our timber in from overseas, and one such point of origin is the nation of Brazil. A lot of timber comes in, and we've got a void here that we are seeking to fill. As I said before, with demand quadrupling by the year 2050, where are we getting this timber from? It's not coming out of thin air and it's certainly not coming out of Australian forests; it's coming from overseas. I did a bit of research earlier on and I came across a number of facts that worried me quite significantly We still want to buy the products, but we are finding it less and less possible to do so here in Australia, using Australian timber, sustainably managed, sustainably sourced and done to the world's best standard. We still want to buy the product, but we are forcing ourselves to buy it from overseas.

If you look at Brazil, for the first six months of this year, 2022, the Amazon rainforest reached a record high in terms of deforestation. Government data showed that an area five times the size of New York City was destroyed. From January to June this year, 3,988 square kilometres was cleared. Of course, you can't just say, 'Oh, well, that's a matter for them,' because I think turning your back on the rest of the world, when we are good global citizens, is an important thing for us not to do. We set an example and we expect others to follow. This very same report talks about how in this clearing regime—not done in accordance with any science and not done to the world's best standard as it is here in Australia—after loggers extract valuable wood, ranchers and land grabbers set fire to what's left to clear the land for agriculture. So here they are, indeed, contributing not only to deforestation but to carbon emissions, which is something I would have thought many in this place would be opposed to supporting. This is what happens when we strangle our industry here by not providing certainty: we force demand offshore. We are sourcing timber from unsustainable forests offshore and, of course, sending the jobs to them.

I could go on about Brazil at length, but let's turn to the continent of Africa and the deforestation in the Congo Basin, particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We're seeing, if you're looking at the measurement of the amount of timber being ripped out of the Congo Basin, that wood removal, which is measured in cubic metres, is continuing to increase annually. Industrialised roundwood, which is used for the purposes I've been talking about, increased from 3.05 million cubic metres in 1990 to 4.45 million cubic metres in 2010. So, if we think that these forests are being managed well and in accordance with world's best practice, you only have to consider claims like 'Congo Basin rainforest may be gone by 2100, study finds', and the facts I have already put on record.

We do forestry well here, and that was the point behind Senator McKenzie's private senator's bill—the bill we're debating today. Of course, there have been events that have happened in the Federal Court of Australia since the bill was first introduced, and that's great. But we are in the business of providing certainty. We are in the business of providing certainty for this industry, which is world-leading and does not have headlines like the ones I've just read out or academic studies pointing to terrible outcomes like the ones I've just referred to. Our industry is one that is sustainable, one that we should be proud of, one that supports tens of thousands of jobs in regional communities and billions of dollars of economic productivity and revenue for Australian households and businesses, all the while providing good environmental outcomes.

So this is why it is important for us to remove all doubt. It's great that the Federal Court reached the conclusion that they did, but let's not leave people in doubt. Let's show the government's intent for this particular industry, amongst other great primary industries, and make sure it has the support it needs. That certainty I mentioned earlier on is the one thing businesses and households are looking for anywhere they can get it—certainty from government through its policy, its regulation and its legislation. We know, of course, that, at a time in the future, the new government will present to this parliament its response to the Samuel review—a review which, I might add, has been out and in the public domain for some time. But that will also make a change to what we're debating here. So let's put a marker in the ground, let's support this industry and let's support this bill.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's good to start this parliamentary week on such an important topic: our forestry and ensuring that we not only conserve our forests for future generations but also support a very important industry that employs thousands of people right around this country, particularly in my home state of Victoria. I note the comments by Senator Duniam as a former minister in this portfolio. It is a very important industry in his home state of Tasmania.

However, I want to just also make the point that the last election demonstrates, sadly, how irrelevant those opposite have become. The decision to bring forward this private senator's bill in the first period of private senators' business in this 47th Parliament says a lot and is just another example of how the opposition are scrambling to find any form of relevance right now. For a whole decade, there had been an absence of policy agenda, particularly when it came to forestry. Faced with the very first opportunity to put forward in the Senate a bill that will deliver jobs and actually strengthen the industry, the opposition bring forward a bill that is effectively out of date. It's superseded by events of last year. It really is concerning to see that, at the first opportunity, the shadow minister for forestry brings to this chamber a bill that no longer has any practical meaning or practical effect. I know it's not his bill, and I should note that for the record. It is a bill that was put forward by Senator McKenzie in the previous parliament. But this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020, is not really a serious legislative venture. Indeed, it has never been.

The bill was originally conceived by the former minister, Senator McKenzie. She effectively used this bill to wedge the previous administration during her time out of the ministry. This bill is nothing more than a stunt. It is nothing more than an attempt by the National Party to embarrass their Liberal colleagues.

Senator Scarr, I'm doing you and your colleagues a favour. It started as nothing more than the Nationals trying to do wedge politics against the Liberal Party when they were last in government.

The matter to which this bill pertains—that of the May 2020 decision of the Federal Court—has, just like those opposite, long since lost relevance. For those who are unfamiliar with this and are listening in to the chamber today, the decision by the Federal Court came as a judgement in the matter of Friends of Leadbeater's Possum v VicForests. That decision's impact upon the forestry industry was devastating, in my opinion. I note that there'll be others who will have very different views. Just to be clear on that particular decision, in her interpretation of section 38(1) of the EPBC Act, Her Honour found that, in breaching the Victorian Code of Practice for Timber Production 2014, VicForests was no longer operating in accordance with a regional forestry agreement and thereby lost the so-called exemption from part 3 of the EPBC Act. I know that the intricacies of such legislation and regulation, particularly when it comes to the environment and the forestry industry, can be lost on a lot of people. However, I appreciate that it's complex, but it's a policy area that is so important for thousands of people who rely on a very strong industry, an industry that does employ people in our regions. As I said, it is a particular area of interest here in the Senate. I can assure you that, for me, and for thousands of workers in my state who rely on this industry to make ends meet, these interests are hardly niche; they are of vital importance. The implications of the Federal Court decision were very significant for the forestry industry in this country. They threw in doubt the legal framework within which forestry activity operates.

Regional forestry agreements are essential legal instruments for the Australian forestry industry and are each tailored to a specific geographical area. These agreements provide forestry operators with the certainty they need to carry out their very important work. Recognising the significant environmental approval processes proposed forestry activity must complete before proceeding at a state level, regional forestry agreements allow these processes to stand as those that apply to the forested area, rather than those of the EPBC Act. Indeed, it was never the intention of the EPBC Act to provide the legal framework for forestry operations. This is why regional forestry agreements exist.

With great relief to me and many others, in May 2021, the full bench of the Federal Court handed down a unanimous decision which upheld VicForests' appeal against the previous Federal Court decision, reinstating the longstanding status quo regarding how regional forestry agreements interact with the EPBC Act. This was a big win, a major win, I might say, for the industry and for the thousands of workers that rely on its continued existence for their own economic security. The later decision by the High Court of Australia to deny leave to appeal this second decision was just as much of a relief. It provided industry with the certainty it needed, certainty that was lost in the first Federal Court decision.

Unfortunately, those opposite appear not to be aware of these essential and very important facts. This should hardly be a surprise. After all, those opposite aren't really interested in delivering for very key industries in my home state like forestry, and it really is disappointing to see them rehashing old bills from the previous parliament. But there is something that is more disappointing, and it was probably not even acknowledged in the contribution by the good senator Senator Duniam, someone who I've worked very closely with on a number of issues in this place. One of the recommendations that came out of the Senate inquiry into this bill—and I'll read it out for the benefit of new senators—is:

Recommendation 3

2.71    In the event that the Federal Court decision of 10 May 2021—in relation to VicForests' appeal to the decision in Friends of Leadbeater's Possum Inc v VicForests (No. 4) [2020] FCA 704—is appealed and at that time the Australian Government has not legislated the outcome required by Recommendation 1, the committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill.

The only thing about that recommendation is that the appeal was actually denied. Therefore, if you take the Liberal Party's recommendation from the previous inquiry, we really should not even be here today debating this bill. The recommendation was that we should proceed only if the appeal was successful, but it wasn't. So, quite frankly, this is redundant. I'm surprised we're even wasting the Senate's time this morning debating such a bill. But, as I said earlier in my contribution, it is no surprise, given those opposite are scrambling to find bills to even debate in this place.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So negative!

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, Senator Scarr, to take your interjection, I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to be negative; I'm just being truthful, just putting the facts on the table. Quite frankly, it is disappointing. I was trying to make the point earlier this morning—again, not to be negative, Senator Scarr—that it is also disappointing that the opposition have not provided names for committee memberships in this place, because quite frankly I'd like to get stuck into business as much as you would. I know the Nationals were very keen to get an into inquiry into biosecurity, which I'm very keen for. I'm very happy that this Senate supported my motion, but we don't have a Chair. Why don't we have a Chair? Because the National Party and the Liberal Party haven't provided the Senate an opportunity with names for committee membership—

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order on relevance: whilst I understand Senator Ciccone is concerned about the issue of committee memberships, and raised it earlier in the proceedings today, it can hardly be in any way relevant to the bill under consideration.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw you back to the bill at hand.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know it's a sensitive issue, but I thank you very much for your ruling there, Acting Deputy President McLachlan. As I was saying in my speech earlier today, it is disappointing to see the opposition again not bring forward a bill that the Senate can deal with today that actually deals with real issues that matter to working people. It is disappointing that we are here, on the first day of the second sitting week, having to deal with a bill that is, quite frankly, redundant and will not have any practical effect on working people, even by their own recommendation. Recommendation No. 3 makes it very clear that, in the event the appeal was denied by the High Court, we should not even proceed with this bill. Yet we're here dealing with a bill that shouldn't even be spoken about today, because it has no practical impact. But what else are we going to talk about today, other than old legislation the opposition are bringing forward from the 46th Parliament?

As we stated the first time this bill came to the Senate—when the opposition's now environment spokesperson and the former assistant minister for forestry vehemently opposed it—we do not support piecemeal amendments to the EPBC Act. That's very important. We don't. It's important that we do these in a much more coordinated, collaborative fashion, rather than this piecemeal approach that we saw in the previous parliament, which I really hope we don't see in this new parliament going forward. Our approach—

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you end your speech on a positive note!

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr, you like to interject, but I will say it's not being negative; it's just being truthful with the Australian people. We are being quite frank and putting all the facts on the table. Senator Green and others in this place have seen the negativity of the previous government in the last three years. What we want to see is outcomes: outcomes that matter to working people; outcomes that will change their lives; and outcomes that support vital industries, like forestry, right around this country. Where are those one billion trees that the former coalition government promised? Not one tree was planted.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're growing.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not one tree was planted, Senator McDonald. I don't think they're growing, sadly. I don't think they're growing, because not one was actually put in the ground. I've got a shovel ready to go. We should start planting those trees. Come on, let's do it. We know that the previous government promised one billion trees and then at the last election said, 'Actually, we're now only going to promise a couple of hundred million,' instead of the one billion that they'd promised. Again, we see the opposition, who are constantly backflipping all the time, promise one thing to the Australian people and then after the election go back on their word. That was the rhetoric and the narrative of the previous Morrison government. The previous Morrison government was all spin and no substance.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How are wages?

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Wages—just to take the interjections across the aisle—actually are going up. One thing we did—the first thing we did, in fact—when we came into government was to put a submission, signed by the Prime Minister, to the Fair Work Commission to support Australian workers. When it comes to Australian workers, we know who's on their side. It's unfortunately not senators opposite of the government.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's such rubbish!

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator McDonald, but you know that is the case. Why did your Prime Minister sign off on a submission to the Fair Work Commission? Why?

I will go back to the point that we are discussing today, which is forestry. It's an area of policy that is very close to my heart. Senator Green knows I've spoken about forestry many times, and Senator Rice also knows that it's an area we have spoken about many times in this place. We might have slightly different views, but we do have a view that we need to protect the environment and also protect the sustainability of the industries going forward so we can enjoy both worlds. I think it's very important that we actually do work together on these very sensitive but important areas of policy.

But, Acting Deputy President Sterle—good to see you, Acting Deputy President, and congratulations on your swearing in early last week—I also just want to make this point before I finish off my contributions: those opposite, in considering how to use their senators' precious time in this place, in the future ought to perhaps focus on bringing forth bills that actually have importance to the problems that we are all seeking to solve. After 9½ years of inaction, let's try and work together. Let's try and work together rather than have this nonsense that we keep seeing from those opposite. I really do hope that we don't start off on a bad foot here, with the opposition bringing forward bills in private senators' time that don't have any practical impact on the lives of working people. That is something that I really do implore of those opposite, and I really do ask them: if they are very serious about changing the lives of working people, maybe they can start by bringing forward a list of senators who can actually participate in our committee system, because I think it's very important that we start doing the important work that this Senate is meant to do, which is to scrutinise legislation and deliver for working people.

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

This bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020, is shameless. It is an unbridled, completely huge onslaught on our precious native forests. Not only is it shameless; sadly, as Senator Ciccone has just told us in his contribution, it is irrelevant. Sadly, the court cases that have been completed over the last couple of years have shown that our native forest logging laws—the regional forest agreements—are totally broken. They do not protect wildlife. We have species going to the brink. We have Leadbeater's possums, now critically endangered. We have greater gliders, which have just in the last few months been declared endangered because of the impact of native forest logging. Yet our logging laws are not protecting them.

This bill came about because of the number of legal cases being brought by the community, by scientists and wildlife ecologists, people concerned about our native forests and about illegal logging—logging of threatened species—that was occurring in Victoria. The initial findings in the Supreme Court were that, yes, this logging was threatening precious native wildlife. It was threatening species that are listed under our federal environment laws as matters of national significance. The original judgement found that logging in the 66 areas subject to the case was in breach of Victorian environment laws and that, in 17 of the areas investigated, up to 600 greater gliders may have been impacted and killed by the state's logging appeals. However, what we found in the appeal was that the finding that said our logging laws had been broken was dismissed, but not because the environmental impact was dismissed. No, in the appeal, all of the grounds of the initial finding—that the logging that was occurring was illegal—were upheld. Yes, the logging that was occurring was having a massive impact on our native forests and our wildlife. The reason why the appeal was upheld was that it basically said that our regional forest agreements allowed this to occur. They are broken, totally broken, and our forests are suffering.

Now we have legislation that seeks to consolidate this and seeks to say, 'That's exactly how we want it; we want ongoing native forest logging that's going to continue to destroy our wildlife and continue to send our forest-dependent wildlife to the brink of extinction.' Rather than acknowledging we've got a problem here and, if we're concerned about our native forest wildlife, we maybe need to actually protect them, the former government—the Liberal and National parties—are now debating legislation and continuing to debate legislation that actually says: 'We support this status quo. We want this industry to continue to decimate our native forest wildlife.' It is absolutely shameless.

I want to talk us through what the state of play actually currently is, because if you listened to Senator Duniam and you listened to Senator Ciccone just now, they would have had you believe that everything is fine, that we've got best-practice logging activities and that we don't need to worry one jot. However, anyone that knows anything about what's going on in our forests—anybody who sees what's going on in our forests—realises it is totally unacceptable. Every wildlife ecologist who is working in the area of forest ecology says that what is currently happening is totally unacceptable. And of course it's not just wildlife that native forest logging is impacting. It is water. It is carbon. It is our forests as places of beauty and inspiration. And it is our forests as sovereign lands of our First Nations peoples—sovereign lands that contain totem species of our First Nations peoples. All of this is under attack by native forest logging.

Let's just start with water. In Melbourne we are lucky to have some of the highest-quality drinking water in the world, and a key reason for that is our forests. It's through the trees, the roots, the branches, the soil, the surrounding of our mountain ash and forest ecosystems that Melbourne's largest water supply catchment filters water naturally. Any disturbance to these forests, any logging of these forests, has detrimental impacts on the quality and the quantity of our water supply. Without this forest, our water would require intensive man-made filtering, and it just would not be as good quality water.

When it comes to carbon, we know that the ability of our forests to be soaking up carbon, to be storing carbon, is absolutely unmatched anywhere in the world. The forests of Australia contain some of the most carbon-dense ecosystems in the world. Yet logging them is massively impacting on them. There was a recent report on Tasmania's forest carbon showing that the native forest logging industry was in fact the highest-emitting industry in Tasmania, with 4.65 million tonnes of carbon being emitted each year because of logging activities. The contrast is what would occur if we allowed those forests to just keep growing old and to be protected rather than being logged. That report found that 75 million tonnes of carbon would be absorbed by these forests—these so-called production forests—by 2050 if they were protected rather than logged, and it would allow $2.6 billion in benefit in climate mitigation.

And then let's talk about the value of our forests for our wildlife. We've got case after case where the impact of logging on our wildlife has been exposed in court and where the logging that's occurring is illegal. There was a report by the ABC last December that exposed the widespread illegal logging of hundreds of hectares of mountain ash forest by the Victorian government's own logging agency, VicForests. Documents that showed that the Office of the Conservation Regulator, which is the body tasked with enforcing our state logging laws and monitoring VicForests, was alerted to the agency's illegal activity, but it failed to properly investigate. Even after admission by VicForests in 2019 that they were illegally logging protected areas, the regulator found that allegations of widespread illegal logging could not be substantiated.

So much for Senator Duniam's case that we have the best-regulated forest logging regime in the world. We have widespread illegal logging going on in our forests that is being permitted by our state logging agencies. The case I was just talking about, of VicForests and its lawless logging of our mountain ash forests—which was shown to be impacting on threatened species: the critically endangered Leadbeater's possum—goes on unregulated by our federal agencies, and in doing so is endangering our water supply, endangering the habitat of countless other species and destroying the country of First Nations peoples.

After the case, the appeal was dismissed in the Federal Court last year. There was an article by an ecologist and professor of conservation biology, Brendan Wintle, which explains why we are debating this outrageous bill today. He said:

Australia's forest-dwelling wildlife is in greater peril after last week's court ruling that logging—even if it breaches state requirements—is exempt from the federal law that protects threatened species.

The Federal Court upheld an appeal by VicForests, Victoria's state timber corporation, after a previous ruling in May 2020 found it razed critical habitat without taking the precautionary measures required by law.

The ruling means logging is set to resume, despite the threats it poses to wildlife. At particular risk are the Leadbeater's possum and greater glider—mammals highly vulnerable to extinction that call the forests home.

So there are catastrophic consequences. Since the commencement of the regional forest agreements over 20 years ago, we have seen more than a quarter of the federally listed forest-dependent species move closer to extinction. In these decades we have seen 15 forest vertebrate species listed as threatened for the first time. This is the impact that native forest logging is having on our wildlife. Our laws are broken. Our environment laws are broken. We are in an environmental crisis. We cannot afford to push more species closer to extinction. Our laws need to be strengthened urgently, not weakened, which is what this bill would seek to do.

If this bill were passed, it would basically consolidate the position that would make forestry activities within regional forest agreements totally exempt from any scrutiny under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, regardless of whether they are being undertaken in compliance with the regulations that are set out in the regional forest agreement. It's apparent if you look at the history—if you look at the devastation that native forest logging has caused to Australia's forests over the decades and particularly during the last 20 years under the regional forest agreements—that VicForests and other logging agencies don't need any more exemptions. They are already able to recklessly destroy forests critical to the survival of wildlife, to water and to carbon.

Going to some of the other illegal logging activities that our state logging agencies are not managing is the whole claim that the industry like to make that, for every tree that they log, more regrow. You might recall the revelations that were covered by the ABC last year, showing that VicForests actually fails to regenerate sections of harvested forest, despite those claims. The Victorian government claim that, 85 to 95 per cent of the time, logged areas were successfully regenerated within three years, yet documents obtained under freedom of information reveal that at least 30 per cent of harvested areas weren't regenerated in this time frame, which means, with regard to this claim that we are regenerating our forests after logging—you cannot regenerate a 100-year-old forest anyway, since you cannot regenerate the habitat for those critical species, but even with regard to the claim that we regrow the trees that are logged—that 30 per cent of those logging operations failed to regenerate.

So we have got to a situation where we need to change. We need to strengthen our environment laws. We need to protect our forests. We need to get logging out of our native forests. We need to protect them for their water, their wildlife, their carbon and their places of beauty and inspiration. Yet what are we doing? We still have bills like this being proposed; we still have Senator Ciccone, a member of the new government, saying that he is absolutely in favour of ongoing native forest logging; and we have state legislation that is not only continuing not to protect our forests but, in fact, persecuting people who are trying to protect them.

The Victorian government is attempting to pass draft legislation that would mean people defending Victoria's forests could be imprisoned for up to a year or receive up to $21,000 in fines, for trying to protect our precious forests. This draft legislation would also introduce powers to search vehicles, to confiscate personal belongings and to ban people from being in public forests based on suspicion of an offence. This is where we're at. The majority of the Australian population want to protect our wildlife. They know that it's important. They know that it's critical to who we are as a people that our wildlife be protected. Yet people who are trying to protect our wildlife are now being threatened with up to a year in jail or $21,000 in fines, totally unnecessary and disproportionate provisions for non-violent protesters who want to protect forests. Similar antiprotest laws have been introduced in the Tasmanian and New South Wales parliaments.

The freedom to protest is absolutely fundamental to a functioning democracy. It allows people to voice their disquiet and bring change into effect. These laws would prevent and penalise legitimate protests by community groups and forest defenders who are seeking to hold these logging companies, like VicForests, accountable for potentially illegal activities. These antiprotest laws would also prevent traditional owners from protecting country and their totems, which rely on the forest to survive. Additionally, with these draconian measures they will restrict the work of wildlife carers and citizen scientists who are absolutely critical to understanding and caring for our native flora and fauna.

We need to be protected in the freedom to protest, and to allow that we need to make sure those draconian antiprotest laws are stopped. We urgently need stronger laws to be protecting our magnificent forests. We need to be strengthening our environment laws. We need to be getting rid of the regional forest agreements. We need to be getting native forest logging out of our forests, and yet here we have a private senator's bill which basically represents a final attempt by the native forest logging industry to lobby for additional exemptions from basic environmental protections. Enough is enough. Right now we are facing a climate crisis and we are facing an environment crisis. We have to protect our forests, and we need to act now to do that.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak to this private senator's bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020. I always think it's fascinating to spend some time in the chamber listening to the contributions of various senators who all represent different parts of the country and I always listen closely to Senator Rice because she is always incredibly sincere and passionate in her defence of her region and the environment. I come from the other end of the country, in Queensland, where we have had a proud history of incredibly considered timber cutting.

Whilst Senator Ciccone made some representations on representing workers, I would suggest that what has long been the role of the National Party is to ensure that primary industries—and I include timber cutting as one—are represented. There's also the certainty that's required for those people who are still operating in the Maryborough region, those people who are operating in the cape, being native title holders and Indigenous people of the north who are now accessing their own hardwood timbers, and they need be given the rights and opportunities to develop their industries in an appropriate, sensitive and well-regulated environment. Something that I believe is in the best interests of our communities, of our people, of course, is to be able to utilise the most renewable and sustainable resource there is—probably other than sugarcane—and that is timber. So I rise to support this legislation in its attempt to provide certainty, in its attempt to allow the men and women who are employed in the timber industry, particularly under the RFAs, to have a sense that they will not be held up or have the industry which they are so passionate about and work so hard in be in any way curtailed.

The EPBC Act is one that, as we all know, is incredibly difficult to deal with. In Queensland, particularly in the far north of the state, it is not uncommon for projects to get to seven or eight years of spending hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in consultants' fees before they just withdraw and walk away from an investment in our part of the state. Now, I think that's an incredible tragedy, because we are crying out for jobs for those communities. As Senator McCarthy said in the chamber the other day, purposeful, meaningful work only happens when we approve projects and allow for investment to go forward. And certainty is a very important part of that. Again, in Queensland we had a timber industry that was so successful, so environmentally light in its touch, that the region was nominated for World Heritage listing because it was so pristine after 100 years of logging. I speak to some of those people, particularly men, who came out as immigrants from different parts of the world to go into timber cutting. They understand and they know that country as well as anyone. They talk about which tree to take and from which direction.

During the school holidays, I took my son and we drove up the Kirrama Range Road to the Blencoe Falls. That was the old timber cutting track to allow the timber to come more directly down to the coast and to the mills, rather than work their way round the Kuranda range on other roads that are further away. It is beautiful, and it is impossible to see where those timber activities used to be because they have now completely regrown. Some of the timber cutters tell me that, if they went back a month after they had cut, it was difficult to see where they had cut trees from. Certainly, six months or a year later, all traces of their activities were gone, such was the sensitive touch that they had in that part of the country. So, while some of Senator Rice's comments were, I'm sure, well made, they are really better directed at the Victorian state government, which is failing to carry out the work that it is required to do under its regulations.

In Queensland we have a fully sustainable hardwood industry. It is highly regulated, and something that we should be incredibly proud of is the expertise and knowledge of our timber workers and timber industry. But what they require is certainty to know that they will still be able to operate in the months and years ahead and that they will be able to bring their children into that industry and pass on that deep knowledge and understanding of the forests and the timbers they take and how that continues to make it healthy. Previously, we used to have more fires and more events that would have managed forests and rangelands in a different way. As humans, we now try and stop that from happening. We fear fire. Of course, the result has been that we've got growth in different places that was being managed by timber cutters and by the forestry industry, and we are now leaving parts of the country completely exposed to the hot fires that we've had more recently. So I support this private senator's bill. I commend it to you because I do believe it provides a sense of certainty in relation to the RFAs and for the people who work under them—the people who have deep expertise and sensitivity for the place they work in and the communities they live in.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to be speaking on this private senator's bill this morning. It's clear that every speaker who comes to the chamber today to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 is choosing to highlight different areas that this bill touches on, such as different parts of the industry or our environment. I would like to take this opportunity to really reflect on the context of the work to reform the EPBC Act and what this bill does in highlighting the failures of the previous government to do that.

The bill itself, being brought here today by the opposition after 10 years in government, really highlights that they failed to reform the EPBC Act and protect our environment when they had the chance to do that. They had a decade to deliver certainty to industries and to build a framework to protect our environment. Instead, the Liberal-National Party defunded the environment department, hid crucial reports and presided over a decline in the state of the environment. For too long, they used the environment and climate change as opportunities to wedge the Labor Party and create political division. Our Labor government will reform the EPBC Act. We will respond to the Samuel review and we will establish an environmental protection agency. The Albanese government is focused on tackling spiralling costs of living that are making life tough for too many Australians, and, while we get on with the job of delivering for Australian people during these difficult economic times, the Liberal-National Party is focused on these types of bills—redundant, cheap political stunts still aimed at wedge politics.

The EPBC Act is the Commonwealth's central piece of environment legislation, and it provides a national legal framework for environmental and heritage protection and the conservation of biodiversity. This bill would amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Regional Forest Agreements Act so that all forestry operations covered by the RFAs will be exempt from part 3 of the EPBC Act. The private senator's bill before the chamber today was brought about after a decision of a single judge of the Federal Court in Friends of Leadbeater's Possum v VicForests, in which the court found that whilst operations in accordance with the RFAs are exempt from provisions in the EPBC Act forestry operations were not considered. This decision, as has been explained by my colleagues this morning, was appealed by VicForests, and the full court of the Federal Court upheld that appeal on 10 May. Further to that, the High Court has denied leave to appeal that decision. That means that this bill in itself, in its current form, is redundant. The relationship between the bill and the court decision is important in terms of context for this bill today.

But it's the further context that needs to be considered, about how this bill came to be introduced in the previous government and where we were in terms of legislative reform of the EPBC Act at the time this bill was introduced. The bill was introduced to the Senate under the previous government and a Senate inquiry was held, and lots of evidence was taken, but the bill itself was a sign of disunity and dysfunction from the previous government. It was introduced by a Morrison government senator but it did not reflect the Morrison government policy at the time. The theatrics from the government benches epitomised the former government—a government focused on dividing Australians instead of delivering for them.

The act itself requires an independent review of the operation of the act to the extent to which the objects of the act have been achieved—so every 10 years someone is required to review the act. That happened; the Samuel review commenced on 29 October 2019. It was led by Professor Graeme Samuel, and an interim report of the review was presented to the previous government in June 2020. The final report of the Samuel review was presented to the government in October 2020. I raise this because it's incredibly important to understand that, in relation to the final report, Professor Samuel asserts that the act itself is outdated and presents a barrier to holistic environmental management. To address these deficiencies, the final report called for extensive reform of the EPBC Act and a fundamental shift in Australia's environmental management from a transaction based approach focused on individual projects to one centred on effective and adaptive planning. This report was delivered at the same time this bill was introduced into the Senate, and the previous government were yet to provide a formal response to the independent statutory review. They never responded to the report. They never amended the legislation. They failed at every step to do what was required of them to reform the act and to deliver protection for our environmental systems.

Proponents of this bill believe the measures are necessary to ensure operational certainty for industry and for clarifying how the provisions work. But we know, as we've said, since the High Court denied leave, that that is not required now. But what is required, and what has always been required, to balance protecting our environment and providing certainty to proponents and to industries, and what should have been done already by the previous government, is a response to the Samuel review and a reforming of the entire EPBC Act. That is the work that should have been done by the previous government. So to be here now and to be looking at a piece of legislation that seeks to amend a small part of this act points to the failure of the previous government to address entire reform when it comes to the way our environment is regulated, the way it is protected and the way that industries work with the environment.

When the bill was previously considered, Labor senators held the view that EPBC reform should proceed not in an ad hoc, unconsidered, piecemeal manner but by way of a private senator's bill, given the significance of the nation's environmental laws and the importance of getting those reforms right. The fact of the matter is that those opposite had a decade to reform the act and they failed to do so. Even the former government's Liberal controlled Senate committee at the time refused to support this bill. They couldn't deliver reforms. They could never do the hard work to bring Australians together. They were solely focused on political pointscoring. Nothing much has changed in opposition. This bill brings that into focus. And can we really take seriously anything that those opposite say about the environment?

The independent Samuel review concluded that our environmental laws needed reform. At every opportunity that the previous government had to genuinely reform Australia's laws, they failed to do so. They are the same people who buried the State of the environment report. The previous minister, who is now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, received it before Christmas but decided to keep it locked away before the federal election. Now that the report has been delivered, we understand why. The State of the environment report, when it was finally revealed to the Australian people, showed that we've lost more mammal species to extinction than has any other continent; that threatened communities have grown by 20 per cent in the past five years, with places literally burnt into endangerment by catastrophic fires; that the Murray-Darling fell to its lowest water level on record in 2019; and that for the first time Australia now has more foreign plant species than it has native ones. I can see why they kept this report secret, because it shows just how damaging the wasted decade of environmental neglect was to this country. The former government cut funding to the environment department; repealed climate legislation; failed to deliver for the Murray-Darling Basin; and ignored the Samuel report, which said that our laws were broken. That's why they hid the report and it's why they never stepped in to reform the EPBC Act as a whole.

Last week, the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, mapped out our government's approach to reform of this important law. The government will formally respond to the Samuel review this year. We will then develop new environmental legislation for 2023 and create a new Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the law properly. While the government consults on this generational reform, we will not be accepting any stunts from those opposite when it comes to the environment and the EPBC Act. As our first acts in the new parliament we are legislating more ambitious emissions reduction targets, setting a goal of protecting 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030, and reforming our environmental laws to finally build trust, integrity and efficiency into the system. After nine years of wasted time, nine years of going backwards on the environment, Labor is finally taking a step forward.

This private senator's bill today demonstrates again the lack of urgency, the lack of priority and the lack of care, when it comes to our environment, from those opposite. All they do care about is coming in here and playing wedge politics with our environment, with industries that rely on the environment and with our forestry workers. They're not here to deliver the reform that our country requires; they're here to play politics and to make sure that nobody ever takes a step forward in the things that need to be done. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Debate interrupted.