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

We are here on Ngunnawal country, and I acknowledge the First Peoples of this land and pay my respects to them. Sovereignty has never been ceded by the peoples of this land nor by the First Peoples of the land I want to take you to. A few hundred kilometres to the south of here are the lands and the forests of the Bidawal, Yuin, Gunaikurnai and Monero Ngarigo peoples in East Gippsland in Victoria. When I was in my 20s I got to know the tall, wet forests and some of the totems of this country really well—incredible animals, including greater gliders, yellow-bellied gliders and powerful owls. These forests shaped me significantly and helped me feel and understand how we all exist as part of the web of life.

In my first speech in this place I recalled my work as an environment campaigner from those years. I said:

I … fell in love with the forests of East Gippsland. I experienced their beauty and learnt everything I could about their ecology; their wildlife; their values for tourism, for water and as carbon stores; and about the impacts and economics of the forest industries.

I became a leader of the East Gippsland forest campaign, working with hundreds of thousands of supporters, and we had some big successes. The wonderful rainforest and huge eucalypts of the Errinundra National Park in the catchment of the Roger River are protected because of our campaigns. But, despite the support of over 80 per cent of the population and despite the significance and value of these forests, neither Labor nor the coalition are willing to commit to protecting them. In my speech I also recalled the first time I visited a forest that had recently been clear felled and burnt on the Errinundra Plateau. It was early 1984, and I said:

I can still vividly picture the smouldering stumps of trees hundreds of years old. These trees would have needed a dozen people arm to arm to encircle them. The forest was destroyed, and I was appalled—not just because of the loss of the forest, the potoroos and spotted quolls, but because it was all so unnecessary. The forests were being logged not because we needed the sawn timber but for export woodchips, with minimal employment in their processing.

I worked as a forest campaigner into the 1990s.

The ongoing sellout and betrayal by the Labor Party and the Liberal Party on forests and the hypocrisy of Labor, who claimed to be concerned about nature, animals, birds, climate, water and First Nations heritage, yet allowed industrial-scale destruction of some of the most biodiverse and carbon-rich environments in the world, were pivotal in my decision to throw myself into being one of the founders of the Greens in 1992. From then on, I kept on campaigning to protect our forests—one of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. Over decades we have campaigned on how destructive, how uneconomic and how illegal logging of our precious native forests is, pointing out that we don't need to log our forests for wood supply, that almost 90 per cent of wood produced in Australia comes from plantations now and that the potential of farm forestry and urban forestry is huge.

Then suddenly, last month, four decades on, things in Victoria changed. The Victorian Labor government announced that native forest logging would end at the end of the year. The announcement has been celebrated across the country. Victoria is joining Western Australia in ending logging at the end of the year, and New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania will be next. The end of logging in Victoria is a victory for all the dedicated grassroots organisations who have been calling for this day for over 40 years. It's a victory for First Nations heritage and culture. It's a victory for the many threatened species and all of the other wildlife that call our forests home. And it's a win for the climate. Logging in Victoria was a huge driver of carbon emissions.

It is genuine progress to see an end to logging in Victoria and Western Australia, but there's so much more to do. We need to end native forest logging in the other states, and this bill ends the regional forest agreements that allow this destructive logging to occur. The alternative, if we don't pass this bill, is that native forest logging continues in New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania, with devastating impacts for First Nations communities. When governments heedlessly damage forests through destructive logging, they are destroying First Nations heritage, with devastating impacts on our wildlife. There are over 1,300 plant and animal species that live in forests that are listed as critically endangered or vulnerable, including the critically endangered wollert, or Leadbeater's possum, swift parrots, Tasmanian devils, koalas, long-footed potoroos, gliders, owls, gang-gang cockatoos—the list goes on.

Forests also have incredible benefits for water supply. Logging impacts the quality and the quantity of water available. And protecting our native forests has massive carbon benefits. Native forest logging increases carbon pollution at a time when we need to be doing everything we can to combat the climate crisis. Logging of Tasmania's forests emits almost five tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. In New South Wales, that figure is four tonnes.

We also know that, when we preserve and protect our forests, there are economic benefits across our communities. As part of realising those economic benefits, we have to ensure a just transition for workers and communities out of native forest logging. The Greens have called for greater support for just transitions, including through a national transition authority. Just transition assistance should be provided to communities and workers affected by job transitions, towards sustainable industries. There are so many potential jobs—in plantation based timber, in ecological restoration and in pest animal and weed control, and in tourism. A key part of Australia's appeal in the international tourism market is our reputation as a place where visitors can be inspired by unique ecosystems and see incredible wildlife that is unlike any anywhere else in the world.

Sadly, Labor has been missing in action when it comes to what's needed for protecting our environment. The nature repair market shows how far they've gone wrong. We don't need a green Wall Street; we need urgent, genuine action by government. We need investment in our forests. It's estimated we need to invest in the order of $2 billion a year in ecological restoration to halt the extinction crisis. And we need urgent action on the climate crisis, rather than the half-hearted efforts so far. Our forests are at increasing risk because of our heating planet. We are in a climate emergency, and our forests are on the front line. There is no time left. Who can forget the massive swathes of forest burnt and the two billion animals killed in the Black Summer fires three years ago? With the next drought, the next El Nino event, we can expect to see more—much more—of this devastation. Of course, protecting our forests enables them to keep growing, keep on soaking up and storing carbon and fully contribute to restoring a healthy, safe climate for us all.

In conclusion, I commend this bill to the Senate, but I don't expect it to have the support of either the government or the opposition. Sadly, both parties at the federal level are still back in the Dark Ages, unable to recognise what needs to happen to allow our forests and our wildlife to flourish. But I can tell you that campaigning to protect our forests is going to continue until they are protected. And I know that eventually the federal government will see the light and will follow the lead of communities and the governments of Western Australia and Victoria, and that this bill, or a bill like it, will pass through this place. For the sake of our forests, I hope that happens today.

Linda White (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support this bill, the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023. Unfortunately, it's another political stunt by the Greens political party that shows, again, they are far from understanding the considerations necessary for being a responsible government for Australia. It's another example of their endless addiction to putting social media clicks ahead of consultation, consideration and meaningful environmental reform that responsibly balances community and environmental impact. The bill just ignores a whole lot of real-world factors and considerations that a government would ignore at its own peril, if we supported this bill. This government is anchored in the real world, so that's what we are doing with our environmental reform agenda because that is the strategy we took to the last election and that is the mandate the government has when it comes to environmental protection.

Professor Graeme Samuel's 2019 review into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act showed us the EPBC Act is outdated and requires fundamental reform:

Australians do not trust that the EPBC Act is delivering for the environment, for business or for the community.

I take that to mean our current framework isn't getting the balance right between nature and the environment, and the industries and communities that rely on the longevity and sustainability of our environmental and natural world for their economic prosperity. That's why the government released the Samuel review into our environmental protection framework and responded to it with the government's Nature Positive Plan.

These actions show you that Minister Plibersek is committed to rewriting environmental laws to better protect the environment and also to giving certainty to communities and the industry. What that does not mean is that the government is going to steamroll into communities, as the Greens and this bill would have us do, and start dictating to them exactly what they should think and do. It might come as a surprise to the Greens, but government doesn't work that well that way. You have to consult with people, you have to bring people with you and you have to explain change in a way that people hear you, and you have to persuade them. That's not what this bill does.

The bill fails to acknowledge the native forest industry requires careful consideration and consultation. It's an industry managed across various Australian jurisdictions. It has impacts on workers and communities, and so requires a more thoughtful approach than this bill proposes—which is not what the Greens are proposing here. But I suppose there are no surprises there; consultation is not the Greens' political style.

This bill doesn't adequately acknowledge that this very issue is already being addressed by the government. Part of the Nature Positive Plan released by Minister Plibersek is a commitment to getting everyone on board the national environmental standards to existing regional forest agreements. As they currently stand, regional forest agreements exist as long-term agreements with four states and set out requirements for sustainability and conservation of native forests. There are 10 agreements in total in commercial and native forest regions—five in Victoria, three in New South Wales and one each in Western Australia and Tasmania. Many of these agreements have been in place since around the year 2000. When they were implemented, they ended a history of dispute over forest use and were underpinned by the principle that Australia's forests should be managed for everyone.

Back then the Commonwealth's role was to coordinate a national approach to integrating environmental, social and commercial interests in native forests. It did not happen overnight; there was widespread consultation to identify government obligations, regional objectives and interests, and broad forest uses as well as the nature and scope of the forest assessment. The process also included areas of forests that needed protection and which parts could be used for commercial purposes. The assessments also determined what the forests meant to the industries and the people in each region, including Indigenous Australians.

This is a process of government and it's what managing complex issues and balancing interests looks like. It isn't particularly sexy; it can be laborious. But it is necessary to getting a sustainable long-lasting result. This approach to government seeks to bring people along with you, which is not something I would expect the Greens to understand, especially given they have never actually been in government. Instead, the Greens are seeking to throw away those useful and productive agreements and flatten the whole process to suit their agenda. As usual, the Greens are ignoring everyone who doesn't 100 per cent agree with them.

That consultative and coordinated roll that the Commonwealth played in establishing those original agreements has not changed, and that is a good thing because that is what the Commonwealth should do. However, the time has come to revisit those agreements and make sure they are updated and fit for purpose in contemporary Australia, which is what Labor is doing.

This is especially important after 10 years of neglect from successive coalition governments that not only ignored Australia's environment but also treated our natural world with outward contempt. Currently, the government is consulting with industry, regional communities and those states that have regional forestry agreements about updating and applying new environmental standards to those agreements. These environmental standards will be stronger and better reflect the changes in the forest industry and environment protection practices. We are doing that consultation work with the flaws of the environmental protection framework at the forefront of minds and with a keen awareness that, in fact, a sustainable renewable forest industry also acts as a net carbon sink for Australia.

Native forests are valuable stores of carbon. In 2020 alone they sequestered 39 million tons of carbon dioxide—that's not a small amount at all. It is also worth pointing out that Australia's forestry product industry underpins the economic prosperity of many regional communities. The sector contributes nearly $24 billion to the national economy per year. Forestry jobs are also good jobs if the industry is managed properly and constructively, and they are sustainable in the long term. Currently, about 51,000 people are directly employed in the industry.

Beyond the economic interests of regional communities, and like many primary and agricultural industries, forestry also underpins the social networks and fabric of many regional towns and communities. I've seen this myself when travelling around Australia as part of the Senate committee on rural and regional affairs and transport. I don't profess to be an expert on agricultural industry policy, but anyone who has spent five minutes in regional areas that rely on agriculture or primary industry realises how important these things are to local identity and as a source of pride as well as a source of jobs and incomes. That is something I often think the Greens party ignore or forget. They come into the Senate and try to pull off these political stunts by putting up something extreme. They are neglecting the fact that there are families that they haven't spared a thought for that would have been directly impacted by this legislation.

I want to confront the allegation that Labor's been missing in action on the environment. That is just not correct. I want to put some facts on the record that point out the government's record on the environment and its reform agenda. As I alluded to earlier, after a decade of nature neglect by the Liberals and Nationals, Labor is now doing something on reforming our environmental protection laws. Even when they received reports showing Australia's natural environment was in trouble and that environment protection laws needed reform, not only did they do nothing about it they didn't even release the report to the public. In contrast, the Australian government under Labor has committed $1.8 billion in the most recent budget to protect the Barrier Reef, to protect native species, to clean up waterways, to fund the Environmental Defenders Office and employ a thousand new Landcare rangers.

Something that has also become very close to my heart in the environment portfolio is the ongoing campaign to protect the unique biodiversity of Macquarie Island, which sits far south of the mainland—halfway between Tasmania and Antarctica. This rocky outcrop is an incredibly diverse and interesting place, home to 13 different species of seabird as well as fur seals and elephant seals. The Albanese government wants to make sure Macquarie Island, along with all of its unique inhabitants, is protected and preserved for the future. That is why Macquarie Island Marine Park will triple in size, adding an extra 385,000 square kilometres to the high-protection area. This is an area the size of Germany.

The Albanese government is acting on the environment, just like Labor governments before it. We are making substantial changes and improvements not for social media likes, retweets or shares but for long-lasting changes for the better of the environment. Again, the government will not be supporting this bill.

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

I've never actually participated in a debate on a forestry bill before where we've talked about a marine reserve! It was quite interesting to hear Labor's plan to turn Macquarie Island Marine Park into a forestry reserve! It was most interesting. And then we pivoted straight back to opposition to the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023, which I do commend the government for. The opposition won't be supporting this bill either. It is bad legislation based on nothing more than emotion and ideology, and not on science or fact, as I'm sure the minister and his colleagues—no matter how many references to marine parks are in their speeches—would agree.

The reason this bill is bad is that it doesn't take account of, as Senator White mentioned in the relevant part of her speech, the fact that there are families that are impacted by decisions of this nature. There is an economic outcome of such decisions. There is no contemplation of this at all, despite the speech given by Senator Rice. I have to commend her for her consistency, although it's completely in the wrong direction and completely based on emotion and those sorts of unicorns at the bottom of the garden, rather than on the facts around what impacts these decisions will have.

We only have to look at a recent decision by the Victorian Labor government, which I don't think Senator White referenced in her speech. The Victorian Labor government, which talked about being the friend of the worker and supporter of the regions and in the corner of those doing it tough, back in 2019 made the decision to phase out native forest logging, an entire industry. This is an industry which is sustainable, which is world's best, which actually is good for the environment, particularly when you look at the situation, globally, when you look at other countries what they do. They go ripping trees out of the ground and don't replant. They displace human populations and endanger populations of threatened species. That's what they do in many of the overseas jurisdictions from which we import timber. In Australia, we don't do that. We actually abide by world-leading, science based standards which are good for the environment.

In Victoria, the Labor government, against the wishes of the CFMMEU, shut down this industry. In 2019, they said, 'We'll do it by the year 2030.' Just a couple of months ago, they turned around and said: 'You know what? We're bringing that forward by seven years.' Why? No-one knows. For what purpose has this decision been accelerated to such an extent? We will never know. But that is an absolute abrogation of their responsibility to the people that they represent in that state, the thousands of workers who depend on this industry. Premier Andrews and his government, in partnership with the Albanese Labor government, have turned their back on that industry. I find it passing strange that that didn't make it into the first government speech on this bill.

Across our country we have over 134 million hectares of native forests. On an annual basis, 0.06 per cent of that area is harvested. That's six out of every 10,000 trees. If you listen to the rhetoric that's put out there in the malls and the city streets of our built-up population areas, you'd think that we were ripping millions of hectares out every day and displacing native species and endangered species, but, no, we're not. Six trees out of every 10,000 are harvested annually, and then, as is required by law under these nasty regional forest agreements which have ripped the guts out of our environment, if you listen to the Australian Greens, this land is regenerated—by law.

Under law, these trees are replanted so that they can be harvested again so that we can have a continual flow of access to this vital material. Almost exclusively, I might add, these trees that are being harvested have been harvested before. So this is this whole renewal thing—as the industry calls it: the ultimate renewable. Of course, in Australia, we have certification. We're proud of our industry. Again, it's backed in by science and is sustainable and world-leading compared to the rest of the world, where 80 per cent isn't certified.

It comes back to this fundamental point. The Greens say that this is an environmental imperative, we must protect the environment by shutting down native forestry, we have to do it. The thing is, by shutting it down here in Australia, by doing what has irresponsibly been done in Victoria, and Western Australia I might add, we're just offshoring our demand. We're sending our demand to jurisdictions where, as I've already said, they don't care about the environment. They don't care about what happens to those endangered species. They don't care about the impact on the environment at all. They don't care about what that might do for carbon emissions. They don't care about what that does for bushfire management. They don't care, and you don't see it. It's not happening here in our backyard; it's happening somewhere way offshore where we don't have to worry about it. That's a good thing, that's a good outcome, as far as the Greens are concerned. Of course, that's what this bill would do. Although I do understand, based on the contribution of Senator White, that this bill wouldn't actually prevent native forest harvesting from occurring in this country; it just would mean it's subject to assessment under the EPBC Act, so doesn't actually end native forest harvesting, it just means it has to be approved in a different way.

Demand isn't going to disappear for this product, because you can't just swap out native hardwood that we use in so many applications. In this chamber I often refer to the beautiful timbers that line this place. You wouldn't be able to use radiata pine to create the wonderful pieces of furniture—the staircases we go up and down in our houses, the window frames. Those sorts of things don't come out of softwood plantations, and, indeed, if you talk to anyone in the industry that knows, hardwood from plantations doesn't have the same strength characteristics as native hardwood does, so that's why you can't just swap it out. You can't just shut it down and automatically there's a resource.

Sure, in Tasmania there is a huge amount of unthinned, unpruned eucalyptus plantations. That's not going to be used for that sort of purpose, and those who talk to the industry know that. It was planted to feed a pulp mill which was never built. So, of course, as a country, we end up importing pulp products, paper, from countries that, again, don't care about the environment.

I was doing a bit of a google on the paper used in this parliament now. We bring it in from Indonesia. We used to buy it here, but, of course, because of the Labor plan to shut down the industry despite saying they will keep it open, we don't make white paper in this country anymore. We bring it in from Indonesia. If you read the Greenpeace's website or the World Wildlife Fund's, the company that makes this paper is responsible for huge amounts of deforestation as recently as 2022. These are the net results of these sorts of plans—bad for the environment globally.

We are told that we a global responsibility to show leadership when it comes to reducing carbon emissions. Sure. But then, when it comes to managing our forests to ensure we don't cause devastation and destruction elsewhere, that's something we aren't going to worry about. We'll just shut it down here and push this burden offshore to countries where they don't have high standards of good environmental management, where frankly they don't care and it's about making a buck rather than making sure that their employees, the communities they support and the environment have good outcomes as well.

Also, there was a reference to ending native forestry and that being a recipe to minimise the risk of bushfires. I find that strange, because what happened in the Black Summer bushfires was terrible. It devastated huge swathes of the forestry estate. It had a massive and devastating impact on the communities that depend on the forestry industry. But one thing we did see in the Black Summer bushfires were those businesses who work in the forestry industry using their equipment to support the firefighting effort. If we go and shut down a forestry industry and we send out of town all of the forest contractors—those people who own equipment to manage the land, to manage the forest—if they aren't operating in the forest, if they aren't in those communities, when bushfires come along they're not going to be there to fight the fire. They aren't going to be there to help protect life and property. They aren't going to be there to stop the fire from burning and prevent carbon emissions. The fire will burn on, out of control. You know what that's going to do for carbon emissions: it's not going to be very good at all. This is another net result of shutting down native forestry, offshoring the environmental problem, offshoring the economic inputs to our community and increasing the risk of bushfires in our community.

The whole idea of locking up forests entails not managing them properly, which, sadly, is what happens. With the best of intent, reserves are created, but never are appropriate amounts of resources put into managing these resources—

They become delinquent neighbours, havens for pest animals and weeds and, of course, bushfire risks, which no-one will have the capacity to manage because, if this bill passes, we will be seeing those people who have the capacity, the resources and the equipment to fight these fires leave town and never come back. I think there was a reference in Senator Rice's speech when she introduced this legislation to the $2 billion needed annually to manage these ecological features of our nation and protect the environment. That is an increase of $2 billion a year. But where does this money come from? How do we pay for it when we shut down parts of the economy that generate revenue for governments to then spend? It all depends on government doing everything. It asks that the government be responsible for every bit of private land management and public land management. It says that forest management can be done only by government, not by private industries that actually depend on the resource. The idea that any part of an extractive or resource-intensive industry wants to see the resources disappear is madness. Those industries depend on continued access to a sustainable flow of timber products. That is why they manage this resource so well, so sustainably. That is why they actually do want this resource to be available in a continued fashion. We in the coalition support that.

At the last election, we made it very clear that we backed native forestry. We said that this is an industry that we don't think should be shut down, for the reasons I've set out, including the environmental reasons. Sending this burden, this devastating and destructive impact, offshore to other countries means unfairly putting the pressure on them so that they can feed our demand for native hardwood products. It would be offshoring the economic benefits of downstream processing, which we want to see retained here. We don't want them sent offshore. That's why, at the last election, we had a great suite of programs which would support growth in this sector: value-adds, innovation and future focus. It was pleasing that the Australian Labor Party virtually copied those policies. They are now government policy, and I say good on you. If it's good, take it; run with it. The only thing they didn't copy, though, of course, was our support for native forestry. In part, they did commit to protecting this industry. The now Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, made a commitment on 17 May last year when he wrote to the participants in the Tasmanian forest and forest products industry. He said that he would ensure that this industry would not be shut down. He said:

I promise you that if I become Prime Minister, a Government I lead will not shut down the native forest industry in Tasmania.

It was a promise that only related to Tasmania—it didn't relate to New South Wales, Victoria or Western Australia; it was just Tasmania—so I will put that out there. But it's clear that at least in part the government, thankfully, does support this industry.

I do hope that they go further than that. I do hope that they will see sense in bringing back onshore what is a sustainable industry, not offshoring it, not sending the jobs, not sending the economic returns and certainly not sending what is a worse outcome for the environment globally. Sure, with any industry—farming, forestry, fishing, mining or any primary industry—there is going to be an impact on the environment. But balance is key—making sure that we don't deprive ourselves of economic returns for one cause. I said it yesterday: gone are the days when we made decisions purely on economic grounds. That town in Tasmania, Queenstown, is a beautiful part of the state. But because decisions were made purely on economic grounds we've seen environmental devastation that will take a millennium to repair.

Senator Whish-Wilson referenced the impact on Macquarie Harbour as a result of legacy mining issues. Those decisions aren't made anymore. There is balance in the decision-making process—or at least there should be balance in the decision-making process. So, we have to be careful not to go down this pathway of thinking purely and only about environmental outcomes at the expense of economic outcomes, of the communities we represent here and of the people who more than ever need jobs to pay their bills. This is a bad bill and should be defeated.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Rice for the opportunity to speak on the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023, and I will be supporting this bill. Here we have another example of a disappointing stance from the major parties, a unity ticket that means that the young people up in the gallery and around Australia will be facing worsening climate impacts and will potentially not be able to enjoy the incredible biodiversity that all of us have enjoyed and have been able to experience here in Australia. Last year at the COP 15 biodiversity summit there was global consensus about the need to conserve nature, to take the necessary steps to safeguard nature and indeed our future. And we have a government that has committed to no new extinctions.

The first and most obvious thing to do is to stop destroying important habitat for threatened species. Continuing to log native forest no longer makes sense. I really want to call out the major parties for the way they talk about logging; they include native forest logging and plantation timber. There is a thriving plantation timber industry in Australia. It is much needed. It is something that does need support. Native forest logging—its time has come. It is time to transition those communities out of native forest logging. It doesn't make environmental sense. It doesn't make sense for our climate. And it's bad for our economy. Without ending native forest logging, the government will struggle to reach its own climate goals and will likely fail on its commitment to no new extinctions.

Senator Duniam talked about having better logging standards overseas but didn't mention the fact that Victorian logging operations haven't been able to get Forest Stewardship Council certification because of their unsustainable practices. Our magnificent forests are now far more valuable as carbon storage than as woodchips and paper pulp. The climate impact of ending native forest logging in Victoria at the end of this year would be the equivalent of taking 700,000 cars off the road. Ending native logging forest in Tasmania would be the equivalent of taking 1.1 million cars off the road every year. And let's remember that 90 per cent of the wood from native forest logging goes to woodchips, paper pulp and box liners. Less than 10 per cent of it goes to sawn timber and building products. It is an absolute furphy that this is what we are building our houses with. Our native forests are ending up as low-value, high-volume commodities.

After the 2019 bushfires we should all be concerned about the impact climate change is having and the increased risk of catastrophic fires. And the science is now clear that logged forests burn more easily than old-growth forests. We should be pushing for an end to native forest logging rather than continuing with this and risking what we saw in 2019. Senator Duniam seemed to dispute this, but this is peer reviewed science published in some of the world's best scientific journals. Dr Chris Taylor from the ANU's Fenner School of Environment and Society notes that the general trend across the scientific literature is that forests begin to be more flammable eight years after logging. To quote:

The relationship between the forest having been logged and how severely it burns during a fire is quite clear.

Professor David Lindenmayer AO from the Climate Change Institute stated that the link between fire severity and logging has been found in global studies of places such as the US and Patagonia and now locally here in Australia.

There is also a huge cost when it comes to biodiversity to continue native forest logging, driving some of our most incredible, unique species to extinction—like greater gliders, yellow-bellied gliders, swift parrots, Leadbeater's possums, Carnaby's black cockatoos and a host of other species.

To turn to the economic argument, the forestry industry in New South Wales and Tasmania is losing money. In Tasmania, total losses are above $1.5 billion since regional forest agreements were signed 20 years ago. We have heard much debate, including from Senator Duniam, about the need for more investment in things like social and affordable housing in Tasmania rather than building a stadium. Here is $1.5 billion that could have actually gone to those things. It could have gone into these communities that need to be looked after. The Blueprint Institute found that, if we end native forest logging on the north coast of New South Wales, there would be an economic windfall of $294 million between now and 2040. This is just in northern New South Wales. The economic argument does not add up. It doesn't hold water. We as a country have the opportunity to stop losing money by cutting down our precious native forests, and we have the opportunity to then benefit from the economic, climate and biodiversity windfall of protecting them.

Moving to employment, we absolutely need to work closely with communities impacted by the transition to ensure that they are able to build and transition to industries of the future—industries that can sustain their communities for generations to come. There are huge opportunities that exist in transitioning the valuable skills held by the native forest logging industry to sustainable forest management and tourism. There will increasingly be the need for those same skills to be used in firefighting. Turn on the TV and see what is happening in Canada. We're going to need specialist logging teams help our firefighters come the next bushfire season and the one after that.

It is time for the government to step up, to show some leadership and to help states make the transition now so we can actually look after these communities, rather than just kicking it down the road and getting to the point where we have cut down those remaining native forests and things like tourism and carbon aren't the opportunities that they are right now.

In New South Wales, it's irresponsible to continue to wait to end native forest logging. Just in north-east New South Wales, if we end forest logging now instead of waiting for the north-east forestry regional agreement to expire, we could deliver a net benefit valued at $45 million. That is $45 million that could be invested in those communities to set them up for beyond the end of the RFA. Let's remember that 90 per cent of all sawn timber in New South Wales already comes from plantations. That's the opportunity. That's where the value is. That is what we should be focusing on. In south-east New South Wales, Frontier Economics analysis shows that the plantation industry is worth 160 times the native forest sector and employs far more people. We know that in New South Wales a lot more endangered species are in proposed logging areas. There is high conservation value in places that are planned for logging. We have heard talk about the Great Koala National Park. We know that areas around there are earmarked for logging. I would urge the government to work with the New South Wales government to show the leadership required to speed up this transition and protect those areas.

In Tasmania, it is quite incredible that there are proposals to actually log proposed World Heritage areas. This would be bad for the climate and terrible for the environment and our native species and would detract from the amazing opportunities that tourism provides Tasmania and will continue to provide Tasmania as more people look to get out into nature and enjoy this incredible continent. As a country, we are now cutting down our remaining native forests at a loss. We're cutting them down at a financial loss and we are losing biodiversity. And the more we cut down, the more difficult it will be to transition communities in the impacted regions to use the forest for carbon storage and tourism.

I urge the government to show leadership. Australians love our native wildlife. They want a government that is taking climate change seriously. You have commitments around climate action and biodiversity conservation. Here is an opportunity to address both those things.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just say, from the outset, that the government will not be supporting this bill. But I also want to take this opportunity to say to you, Senator Rice, that I have enjoyed working together with you for many, many years now. I've found that you are a person of integrity and honesty. In your previous role as a spokesperson for the Greens, I couldn't have wished for a better representative from the Greens to work with. We've never had a cross word, although we may differ in some of our opinions. Certainly, from the transport sector, I know that you are held in high regard, and I miss you. I will miss working with you in the road transport and shipping areas. Hopefully you might do a 180 and come back again in the next parliament.

We can't support this bill. This issue affects not only our environment but also the livelihoods of countless workers in Australia, as we have heard from previous speakers. And I will go into that further. While I acknowledge the sentiment to ban logging outright, I believe that careful regulation of responsible logging is a more pragmatic approach that minimises the economic impact on workers. We can do these things. We can have both. We can do it properly, whether it is agriculture, forestry, fisheries or mining. It is ridiculous to think we have to kill off one side of the argument. We can do both—when it is done properly. This government has repeatedly made it clear that we are committed to strengthening environmental protections, and we are getting on with the job.

We also recognise the vital role that forest industries play in regional communities. They directly employ over 50,000 people, with thousands more jobs indirectly supported by the sector. That is thousands and thousands of families. I can't speak for Victoria or Tasmania, but I do know the southern end of Western Australia. Think about all those small communities—the little timber towns and the bigger towns that have agriculture near them. Think about what would happen to these communities if we were to just kill off all logging completely. I know, as an ex furniture removalist, that every time a mine shut down or an industry shut down we'd come in and start moving the families out. All of a sudden, the school wasn't viable. That happened on a couple of occasions. By the time half a dozen families had left and 20 odd kids were gone, the school was not viable and we had issues: what do we do with the other six or seven kids who are left? That is a serious problem. Think about the local service station. Think about the local IGA or supermarket. Think about the local news agency, the repair shops, the tire shops. All of these small businesses actually employ people and families who live in these towns and in these communities. It's easy to stand in this building and say we want to kill off an industry or we want to stop fishing or we want to stop certain parts of agriculture. Well, we have to think of the knock-on effect that has in communities. We have seen this in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee that, Senator Rice, you and I have sat on together for many, many years. We have seen the devastating effects it can have when governments make these decisions to just kill industries off without consultation and without working with the communities and the industries. I'm not saying it can't be done. We can move things and move to something else, but we have got to do this in consultation.

We also recognise the vital role that forest industries play in these regional communities. We can't forget that. The benefits of a competitive, sustainable and renewable forest industry to our regional community should not be so lightly dismissed. These hardworking Australians deliver employment and income throughout the whole supply chain. We forget about the whole supply chain, but we should never forget about it.

Responsible logging can play a pivotal role in sustainable forest management. When forests are managed effectively they can lead to healthier ecosystems and even support biodiversity. By carefully regulating logging we can ensure that these practices are followed, minimising the negative impact on the environment and also promoting long-term sustainability.

Another crucial aspect to consider is that timber is a renewable resource. Wood is an essential material that is used in various industries, as we have heard other speakers say, including construction, furniture manufacturing and paper production. By responsibly harvesting timber we can meet our society's needs while reducing reliance on non-renewable resources, and promoting a more sustainable future. A complete ban on logging would force us to rely more heavily on alternative materials, some of which may have even greater environmental consequences.

It's also important to recognise that Australia has a long history of implementing strict regulations to protect its forests. By strengthening these regulations we can ensure that logging operations follow stringent environmental guidelines, minimising the impact on native forests and their ecosystems. Rather than an outright ban, investing in stronger regulations and enforcement mechanisms will lead to better outcomes for both the environment and the workers.

This is why the government will be not supporting the repeal of the RFA Act. The government is also expanding Australia's plantation forests that are available to our timber industry. We are committed to supporting the ongoing operation of the regional forestry agreements while also strengthening environmental protections. As I said, we can do both at the same time, and we should be doing both at the same time. We are committed to working with stakeholders and relevant jurisdictions to ensure national environmental standards for regional forestry agreements. These will support the ongoing operation of RFAs while also providing stronger environmental protection. This can and will be achieved by applying new environmental standards to the RFAs.

If the Greens are really serious about protecting native forests and supporting regional communities, I suggest they take a closer look at the actions of the Labor government in the great state of Western Australia, rather than simply rely on stunts like the bill before us today. The Western Australian government has made the decision to end the logging of native forests—that's no secret. This followed extensive consultation not only with the industry but with workers and, importantly, communities. There was the promotion of additional plantation timber. This decision will deliver no less than 400,000 additional hectares of karri, jarrah and wandoo forests. The WA government has also released a transition plan to support workers, businesses and communities, along with the Community Development Grants Program. That's how grown-ups do it.

The government announced an $80 million commitment. Now, think about that—$80 million for supporting workers, businesses and communities transitioning out of native logging. It's not killing off jobs, not killing off communities and not killing off businesses. It is actually working with them, closely consulting and assisting with some funding. This $80 million commitment is in addition to the $350 million investment to expand WA's softwood timber plantations to not only support jobs but create more jobs. This record investment will provide at least an additional 33,000 hectares of softwood timber plantations. Up to 50 million pine trees will be planted, sequestering between 7.9 million and 9.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. It will also create about 140 timber industry jobs, protect about 1,980 existing jobs—mostly in the south-west timber industry—and support the many thousands of jobs in the state's construction industry. By crikey, don't we need to do that? These are jobs that depend upon the reliable supply of softwood timber. A native forestry community advisory group was also established late last year as part of the state government's plans to end logging of native timbers. Importantly, the community advisory group includes representatives from south-west native forest communities.

Compare this to the approach of the Greens political party. The Greens come in and seek to have this parliament agree to an immediate cessation of native forest logging without any consultation with the affected communities, industries or workers. I find that gobsmacking, but we shouldn't be surprised. This is how they operate. The Greens claim to be the bastions of climate change reform and warriors for the environment, yet that was the party that sided with that mob over there, the Liberal and National parties, in 2009—and I know because I was sitting in here watching it unfold—to vote against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Let me make this point very clear again: the Greens voted with the Liberal and National parties to vote down the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Former prime minister Kevin Rudd wrote an article in the Monthly in June of last year about this scandal, where he said:

If the Greens had stood up for their beliefs, we would now be 12 years into an emissions trading scheme steadily decarbonising our economy with targets escalating at conferences in Doha, Paris, Edinburgh and beyond. Having attracted some Liberal support, Abbott could not have repealed it without unleashing a devastating civil war. Unlike the subsequent carbon price, which was legislated without any Coalition votes, it would have stuck.

Former independent member of the ACT Legislative Assembly Michael Moore pointed out the Greens' faults further in an article that he wrote in 2019, titled, 'How the Greens failed climate change'. He begins his article by stating:

In their unwillingness to compromise, the Greens destroyed Australia's best chance to establish an emissions trading scheme and to seek later improvements.

I couldn't have written that better myself. Mr Moore then goes over a number of the Greens' reasons and justifications as to why they sided with the 'no-alition', and he subsequently pulls them apart. One of the Greens' more strident arguments was that the CPRS 'is not just a failure, but it locks in failure'. Mr Moore writes in response to that:

The irony is that the Greens locked in failure on climate action by siding with the Abbott-led coalition in a pincer movement of the hard right and the hard left of their respective parties.

Sadly, not a lot has changed with respect to the Greens in the four years since this article was written. So the Greens can move all the motions and private senators' bills that they like, but at the end of the day every Greens senator and MP has to live with the fact that, when they had the opportunity to protect the environment and support legislation to combat climate change, they failed.

Mind you, those opposite are no better. They got an independent review showing Australia's environmental laws were broken and did nothing. They refused to act on climate change. They announced 22 different energy policies and didn't land a single one of them. Let's be honest: a complete ban on logging would have far-reaching economic consequences for workers in that industry. Instead, careful regulation and oversight of responsible logging practices, like what the government is striving to achieve, should be our priority. By implementing stringent guidelines, investing in sustainable forest management and engaging in meaningful dialogue with the community, we can strike a balance that safeguards our environment while minimising economic hardships. As I was saying, the time for stunts and inaction is over.

The government is getting on with the job of developing stronger laws to better protect the environment and give faster clearing development decisions. We're strengthening RFAs to ensure better environmental protections. We're working to establish an environmental protection agency, restoring our urban rivers and waterways, cracking down on plastics pollution and doubling the number of Indigenous rangers. For these and many other reasons, the government will not be supporting this bill.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to agree with the government. I'm not going to support this bill, the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023, and the Nationals will not support this bill on behalf of the thousands of timber workers across Australia whose economic viability this bill will rip out from underneath.

There are more than 9,000 employees across New South Wales alone who work in the timber industry. These are people who are already fearful of what the state Labor government may do to their future economic viability, even though Timber NSW has produced a report by Ernst & Young that shows that any plans to transition native forestry to plantations are both unnecessary and unworkable. It says that science based forest policies can achieve environmental aims while safeguarding local timber supply and local jobs—and science based policy is one of the things that RFAs do.

I also want to highlight, for the benefit of those listening, the absolute and utter hypocrisy of the Greens in presenting this bill. The Greens are quite happy to see rangelands and grasslands covered in glass and silicon for solar farms. They're quite happy for sections of native forests and national parks to have swathes cut through them so that we can erect transmission lines to connect renewables in far distant locations to where they're actually used—in the cities, which are concrete jungles. Maybe we should set up a concrete forestry industry! The other hypocrisy in this, though, is that demand for timber products is growing. We know timber products are true carbon sequestration. The tree absorbs carbon as it grows. Once it's harvested, as it's turned into a table or a chair or used for housing and construction, that is that carbon locked up forever.

Australia has sustainable practices. Gone are the days when wholesale land clearing was the practice of the forestry industry. But, instead of supporting our sustainable industries and encouraging our sustainable industries to continue to improve their practices, the Greens want to export our problems. They do this time and time again. They want to tell us, 'We can't grow rice, so we'll buy it from other countries that have less sustainable practices.' They want to tell us, 'We can't have other industries; we'll just import it.' That's what will happen; we'll ban native forestry and we will import hardwood from countries that we know have unsustainable practices—countries whose orangutans are at risk of extinction because of logging. But it's okay; we'll buy their wood and we'll shut down our sustainable practices just so that they can say that they've done the right thing by their ideals. We've got to stop this hypocrisy. We've got to back our industries and we've got to make sure our industries continue to grow and evolve and become more sustainable each and every day.

We will not be supporting this bill. We will be supporting all of our foresters, loggers and sawmillers across Australia—and I, in particular, will be supporting those across New South Wales. I've had meetings with the northern New South Wales timber industry, and I want them to know that I back them. I support them and I support their industry. Keep up the good work.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate has expired.