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

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Wong. Last Thursday, on National Threatened Species Day, the minister for the environment issued a media release stating:

The Albanese Labor Government has today released a new Recovery Plan to boost the long-term survival of the critically endangered Swift Parrot.

However, as reported by the Guardian, the swift parrot recovery plan announced on Threatened Species Day was not actually finalised and had not been shared with the experts who helped to develop it. The last official draft they had received was a version released for public comment in 2019, and, once they had seen it, the scientists said the plan released on Thursday contained no meaningful action to address the key threat to the survival of the species—the logging of native forests. Minister, how much longer is the federal government going to allow the native forest logging industry to recklessly destroy swift parrot habitat and drive them to extinction?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for her question. The advice I have in relation to the swift parrot recovery plan perhaps differs from what she just read out. The advice I have is that the plan has been endorsed by the federal government's independent Threatened Species Scientific Committee, which includes many of Australia's most experienced and respected scientists. But I think the real nub of the question from the senator is that—

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're the swift parrot recovery team.

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

Senator McKim!

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it's a different team.

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

Senator McKim, I am calling you to order! The minister is answering.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have listened to what the senator put to me, and if there's anything further, notwithstanding the information that Senator McKim appears to be wanting to share with us, I will provide that. I think the real nub of the question that the senator is asking is at the end. I know the Greens political party have a position in relation to native forests—

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

We don't like native animals becoming extinct.

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

Senator Rice, it's not a commentary. You've asked your question, and the minister is answering.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They have a position on native forest logging. I would say to them that I think we all understand—and the Albanese government understands—that native forests are valuable for their carbon storage and native habitats, including for endangered animals like swift parrots. That is why the government has already announced that, for the first time in Australia, the regional forest agreements will have to comply with new environment laws. I understand that the position that has been put to me is essentially a hard-line position—'hard-line' meaning it's drawing a line; I wasn't trying to make a political comment—in relation to native forests. Obviously, the government has to balance the regional forest agreement imperatives as well as the environmental imperatives that the senator references. (Time expired)

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

Senator Rice, a first supplementary?

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

Minister, can I clarify: are you claiming that the recovery plan has actually been finalised? Reporting and the department have told us that it is actually still being finalised and that the Victorian and the New South Wales governments are yet to sign on. Has it been finalised? When will we actually be able to see a final swift parrot recovery plan? How many swift parrots are going to die because of logging before the plan is finalised?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the first part, I provided you with the brief that I have, Senator Rice. But, as I said to you at the outset, you put a range of facts or assertions to me in your opening question which I don't have any further advice on, and if there's anything I can usefully add to that, I will come back to the chamber and do so. I will check with the minister. But, in relation to native forests, I again say that I think the nub of the question from you is that there is a difference of views in relation to the native forestry sector. The government recognise the immense value of our native forests, including as habitat for endangered animals and species, such as the swift parrot; however, we do support a sustainable native forest sector. We were clear about that before the last election. We want to make sure that it operates on the high standards for environment management and sustainable harvesting.

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

Senator Rice, a second supplementary?

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

Minister, since the commencement of the regional forest agreements we've witnessed more than a quarter of forest-dependent species that are listed by the federal government as threatened and endangered moved closer to extinction. How does the federal government expect to reach zero extinctions when native forest logging is killing endangered species, including swift parrots, greater gliders—one was found dead in a logging coupe just recently—and koalas, and obliterating their habitat?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I identified in my response to the primary question what the nub of the question was, which is essentially a difference of views on native forests. We continue to support sustainable forestry. We recognise that a sustainable native forestry sector that operates under high standards for environmental management and sustainable harvesting has benefits in terms of jobs and the economy. Frankly, as someone from—

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

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Rice?

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

I have a point of order, President. My question was: how does the government expect to reach zero extinctions? It was not about extolling the benefits of native forest logging.

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

Thank you, Senator Rice. You also went to species and you also mentioned the RFAs. Minister Wong I think is being relevant. Please continue.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, your position is: stop native forest logging. That's your position. I respect it. I disagree with it, but I respect it. So if I'm responding by saying that isn't the government's position then that is entirely relevant. One of the things I have never understood, given where I come from, is why it has been the position of the Greens political party that it's alright to have logging offshore in countries with lower levels of regulation than it is in Australia. And I can say that with first-hand experience— (Time expired)