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

My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Watt. Minister, the Samuel review found that our logging laws—the Regional Forest Agreements, or RFAs—had weaker protections than EPBC legislation and inadequate Commonwealth oversight.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Rice for the question. I recognise this is an issue that she has a long history of activism in. There are two states in Australia which have now decided to phase out native forestry, those being Victoria and Western Australia, but there are a number of states that have not made that decision. As you point out, native forestry around a number of states is regulated through regional forestry agreements.

The reality is that, at this point in time at least, we are not in a position as a country to meet all our timber needs through plantation forestry. It's estimated that plantations supply something like 85 to 90 per cent of timber, paper and products in Australia, and it is completely unrealistic to think that if we were to ban native forestry immediately in the form that you're suggesting we would be able to meet our timber, paper and other wood product needs—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson!

Senator Henderson!

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

quite apart from the impact such a decision would have on regional communities and the jobs that are delivered through those industries. When I here these sorts of comments from the Greens, it's a little like the argument that we should be shutting down all coal and gas tomorrow as well, ignoring the fact that it would bring the electricity network to a halt and people's lights would go out. Similarly, if we were to end native forestry today in the way that you suggest, we wouldn't be able to meet our timber, paper and other wood product needs. Unfortunately for the Greens, some of us choose to live in the real world, where we need to be making decisions about what will actually happen in the world. We as a government support responsible, sustainable forestry. Minister Plibersek flagged an intention to look at how this practice is conducted, in consultation with stakeholders, but we need to be real.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I come to Senator Rice—Senator Henderson, when I call you to order, that's what I expect. Senator Rice, a first supplementary question?

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

At COP15 the Australian government committed to take urgent action for zero extinctions after 2030. This are hundreds of rare, threatened and endangered animals and plants that live in and are part of our forests, including the critically endangered wollert, or Leadbeater's possum, and the greater glider. Minister: in this real world, the RFA are allowing these species to continue their trajectory to extinction. Will you scrap the RFAs and end native forest logging as part of your government commitment— (Time expired)

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Rice. I've already outlined the reasons it would not be a prudent move to do the kinds of things that you're talking about, whether we're talking about supplies or regional economies and jobs. But it is the case that we do want to make sure that Australia's forestry industry is as sustainable as possible, and that's why Minister Plibersek, in responding to the Samuel review said:

Regional forestry agreements are designed to have regard to environmental values, such as old growth forests and wilderness, endangered species, and World Heritage matters.

But they are currently exempt from the EPBC Act—which make them unique.

As part of these reforms, our government will begin a process of applying our new National Environmental Standards to Regional Forestry Agreements.

We will consult with stakeholders on how this will be done.

We want to make sure that the management of our forestries in this country are done as sustainably as possible, but we need to meet some of the current timber and paper product needs that our country has. We flagged an intention to consult with stakeholders as we apply those EPBC principles. (Time expired)

The P:

Senator Rice, a second supplementary question?

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

Scientific analysis shows that ending native forest logging would have significant benefits to the climate and be the easiest and most significant land use change that could be implemented to help Australia meet its carbon reduction targets. Minister, given your government's commitment to tackling the climate crisis, won't you scrap the RFAs and end native forest logging?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I say, Senator Rice, I invite you to let the Australian people know how we would meet our timber and paper product needs if we were to end native forestry immediately, in the way that you suggest. I also invite you to explain to the Australian people what effect on the environment it would have if, as a result of ending native forestry overnight, Australian importers were to instead turn to forestry activities overseas, which have far worse environmental standards than our own country does.

What we're trying to do is make sure that we have a sustainable forestry industry and that we can meet our timber and paper product needs but that we have strong environmental principles around it. That's exactly what Minister Plibersek has flagged as part of the implementation of the Samuel review.