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

I am delighted to be able to speak on the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, an important piece of legislation which we need to ensure we do absolutely get right. At the outset, I do want to thank the relevant minister, Minister Collins, for her willingness to engage on this issue and thank her predecessor, Minister Watt. It is, broadly speaking, an issue that we, the coalition and the Labor Party, can find a lot of common ground on when it comes to its management. There are a few issues we do diverge on, as you would expect, but I do want to put on the record at the outset my thanks to, in particular, Minister Collins, as a Tasmanian who understands these issues, for her willingness to cooperate and hear me out.

Obviously, the coalition is a big supporter of the forestry industry in Australia. We have a very, very fine history when it comes to the processing of timber products here, harvesting and managing forests and ensuring we do it to the world's best standard. That is an industry that has been in existence now for the entirety of the history of Australia as we know it today in terms of productive forestry management. We learned a lot from First Nations traditional owners about forest management and things that have been picked up over time. But, in terms of our commercial forestry sector, the participants in that industry over time have improved their practices and are very proud—rightly so—of what they've been able to achieve. I challenge and continue to challenge my friends from across the chamber to identify a jurisdiction where they do it better and actually have a productive forestry sector. I'm sure we'll hear from other participants in this debate about jurisdictions that might, in their opinion, do it better. But I highly doubt it because, to this day, I have not been given a country that does it better than Australia. Whether it be native forestry or plantation, we do it to the world's best standard, we do it sustainably and we do it in a way we should be proud of.

To that end, that's why dealing with illegal logging in overseas jurisdictions and in how we source our timber here is incredibly important. If we're going to hold ourselves to the highest standard possible and make our industry jump through the hoops that we do to attain certification, to be granted a forest practices plan, to go and harvest and to comply with all relevant laws—whatever they might be—in any state or territory jurisdiction, then we should be expecting that of jurisdictions we import timber from. Of course, as we know, demand for timber is increasing in broad terms over time. We have a massive housing shortage. We have public infrastructure that we're talking about building out of timber. We have a stadium in Hobart that we're looking at constructing out of timber too—hopefully beautiful Tasmanian hardwoods. The demand is going through the roof. Yet Australia's capacity to supply all of its demand is diminishing. Therefore, where do we get timber from? We import it, which is why this legislation is so incredibly important. Understanding what it is we are consuming by way of timber—where it's coming from, the species, how it's managed, if it is done to the world's best standard—is something that consumers are after.

This legislation is what we have in the arsenal to be able to ensure consumers do have that sort of information at their disposal when they're making those choices. It is the responsible thing to do. If we're going to go down the path of making it difficult for industry to operate here, to comply with standards, then we don't want to just push off over the horizon the environmental responsibility of making sure that they do their forestry right when we do it well in our country. We don't know what they do in the Congo Basin. We don't know what they do in Borneo. I have a fair hunch, based on the information I've received, and it's not like we manage forests here.

This is the problem. I know others have referred to it as the 'drug dealer argument': take our timber because ours is better managed than yours. The reality is that the demand for these beautiful products—necessary, great carbon sinks—is not going away, and we should do it in a way, as we do here in Australia, that is good for the environment. You can manage that industry well and ensure that there are good environmental outcomes and a beautiful product at the end—and jobs, to boot, in Australian timber mills, in harvesting operations and through contracting businesses that are part of this amazing industry.

I do want to reflect on a time, in the last term of the previous federal government, off the back of some developments in Victoria, which led to, I believe, a regrettable decision by the Victorian government to bring in a phase-out of native forest harvesting in the state of Victoria, which then turned into an immediate ban not long after, despite promises from that government. It was interesting—and I don't want to hover on their decision because this bill doesn't go to that issue—at that time, a major retailer in Australia made a decision to no longer stock timber sourced from the Victorian state owned forestry corporation. It was not because there was any proof that there was wrongdoing, not because the regulator had found there were problems with forest management and not because of any facts stacking up but because claims were made. In response, a retailer became very nervous and made the decision not to stock those timbers.

I then, as assistant forestry minister, asked the department to engage in some DNA testing across a range of retailers across the country to understand what was being sold in our timber retailing outlets, big and small, where it was coming from and could we validate what claims were being made about its source. It took a little while to get done. I think it might be the University of Adelaide that is the home, the repository, of the database against which all of this DNA information is measured, and I want to thank them for their good work. The data that came back was alarming. We had a retailer make a decision about not stocking timber from an Australian jurisdiction because of claims circulating that things weren't being done to a standard some would like, yet complying with the law, but they were happy to sell timbers purporting to be a particular species from a particular jurisdiction—some carrying the logos of certain certification schemes, backing in this claim that it came from a certain jurisdiction and was a certain species of timber—but, in fact, it was something completely different and, as far as the DNA evidence showed, came from a totally different jurisdiction. That concerned me greatly.

We have Australians who want to do the best thing they can by the environment in sourcing materials, so they trust retailers—generally speaking—they trust certification schemes and they trust the products bearing the logos of these certification schemes. But on a very, very small sample and a very random approach taken to selecting samples to DNA test, there were quite a number of alarming inconsistencies between what was claimed to be the species and source of this particular timber product and what the facts were—where it came from. The jurisdictions from which this timber is sourced, according to the DNA evidence, are those jurisdictions where, of course, they don't have good environmental standards. They don't have laws and regulations that protect the environment. They came from jurisdictions where there are concerns around modern slavery attached to the sourcing of these timbers.

That's why it's important that, when we are importing timber, which we are doing more and more of, particularly when we have less and less available here, we are going to see an increased need to ensure what we bring in meets our standards and meets what consumers are actually after in this country. I, still to this day, believe that timber is the best building product. Yes, there is a place for concrete and steel, but I can tell you that nothing beats the qualities of timber not only as a building material but also in an environmental sense. As I've already said, the carbon storage capacity of this material is absolutely incredible.

In referring to our time in government, it was something that was very much on our radar. We were very concerned about making sure that timber processors here and retailers complied with our illegal-logging regime. The laws that were in effect, and the regulations attached to them, were reviewed on a relatively regular basis, which gave rise to the work that's been undertaken by both the last government and the current government, culminating in this legislation we have before us today.

I should also foreshadow that the opposition does have a number of amendments that we have circulated. Some relate to what products require testing and those that don't, the application of certain provisions applying to imports only, the notices related to the import of timber products, the removal of certain strict liability offences in certain situations and the publication of details, amongst a range of other amendments we have here. Again, this is something I've been talking about with Minister Collins and, before her, with Minister Watt, and there is a genuine willingness to engage on this front.

Before I go on with a little bit more of the history, there were further concerns raised with the coalition—outside of the Senate committee process into this legislation, which we were happy to initiate—around the regime that we have before us and what the new laws would do in terms of putting the onus on processors here, who have limited visibility about where timber comes from, particularly if it is imported. So, if a processor receives timbers from a particular importer, is the onus on them—a small- to medium-sized timber processor here in Australia who is creating furniture, perhaps, or building materials—to be able to indicate the veracity of the claims around the source of the timber or is it on the importer? It's about making sure that we have a clear delineation and that the onus is not on small- to medium-business operators who are in the business of not importing but processing. I think that's an important clarification. That is something we're working with the government on.

We want to make sure that we don't have scope creep in terms of Commonwealth government legislation. We have states and territories, who have responsibilities for land management in this country. These provisions should relate to imports from overseas jurisdictions and of course to the processing, in this country, of timber that has been harvested here. When it comes to the harvesting of Australian domestic timber resources, all state and territory jurisdictions have their own forest practices management authority or equivalent entity that manages their forests. So I wanted to be absolutely sure that we are not seeing the Commonwealth step into a space where we already have entities that are managing this important issue.

In Tasmania, I know that the Forest Practices Authority work exceptionally well and closely with land managers, along with other entities within the forestry space, to try and ensure: that we have appropriate mechanisms in place to manage timber harvesting; that it is done in accordance with the law, to the world's best standard; and that we don't have illegal harvesting of timbers. Of course we all know the flow-on impacts to both flora and fauna, waterways and the rest. It is important to ensure that we have a delineation between Commonwealth and state and territory responsibilities.

At the last election, we did announce a dedicated commitment to assign $4½ million to strengthen our country's fight against illegal logging and to stop illegal timber imports from undercutting Australian producers, because that's what it does come down to. That, I'm pleased to say, was a commitment that, along with all of our forestry policies, was met by the now government, which I think is rather a vote of confidence. It's said that imitation is the best form of flattery, and, when the now government is working very hard to implement our policies, that is a good outcome for the Australian timber industry, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of that labour being borne soon.

Of course, there were a couple of shortcomings, I hasten to add, that have been worked on with the minister and the government. I've referred to some of the amendments, and I'm sure the questions I've just asked will be interrogated in the committee stage perhaps in the next sitting week. Summing up the best part of them, some of the other issues that were referred to relate to the cost associated with the mass fibre testing; the requirement of importers to directly verify and validate legitimacy of their products; and the dangers of the strict liability regime.

That is where the coalition is on this particular legislation. I thank the ministers I have worked with on this legislation. It is important to get this right, and I believe we can. I'm proud of this country's history as a timber processor and producer. I think we can do more of it and do it better; we do it better than anywhere else in the world. I commend this bill to the Senate.

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

I will come to a couple of observations on Senator Duniam's contribution shortly, but I commence by pointing out that this bill, the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, amends the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012. I reflect that the Australian Greens supported the passage of that act through this parliament but said at the time that it didn't go far enough. In a nutshell, that is our response to the current bill: we will support this legislation but it doesn't go far enough. That's why we've got some amendments that I will speak to a little bit later in my contribution that would go some way towards rectifying the more egregious failures in this bill.

Basically, this bill will enable testing of timber products at the Australian border and beyond to ensure that non-compliant, illegally logged timber is not imported—or, at least, that's ostensibly what the bill would do—and there are a range of other matters this bill will cover. The Greens agree that the consideration of this bill would ideally be deferred until the finalisation of the accompanying new rules—which I note was a recommendation that the opposition made in the Senate inquiry into this legislation. However, here we find ourselves today thanks to this bill being placed on the agenda by the government.

This bill purports to take steps to ensure that noncompliant, illegally logged timber is not imported into Australia. But surely, colleagues, a greater priority for us in this place should be the illegal logging that is going on in Australia, that we have seen over many decades in this country, under a regime that has just been described by Senator Duniam as world's best practice. Let's look at VicForests, for example—when it was still around, I might add. It was a rogue government agency. It conducted repeated illegal logging, repeatedly breached environmental protections, ran covert surveillance of scientists and environmentalists and faced multiple dozens of successful court challenges that demonstrated it was illegally logging. It was forced by the courts to pay compensation because it was so incompetent.

Let's make no mistake: VicForests was an illegal logging agency. Its modus operandi was to trash Victoria's forests, home to beautiful species like the Leadbeater's possum, massively carbon rich forests, home to massive tall trees, and ancient majestic forests that were stolen from their original inhabitants by the colonisers in this country. Its modus operandi was to trash those forests illegally, and that was shown repeatedly and found repeatedly by the courts.

Is that illegal behaviour endemic to Victoria? No, it's not. Let's have a look at New South Wales. The New South Wales EPA has successfully prosecuted the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales on multiple occasions for breaching forestry laws. In a recent case, Justice Pepper of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales found that the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales 'has a significant history of unlawfully carrying out forestry operations'. That's not me making that claim; that's Justice Pepper of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, putting their view on the record that the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales 'has a significant history of unlawfully carrying out forestry operations'.

Then, of course, we get to my home state of Tasmania. I could stand in this Senate for hours and give you chapter and verse about Forestry Tasmania, the state government owned logging corporation. Just like the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales and VicForests, it has a modus operandi of illegally logging our forests.

I'll give you one case that's become prominent recently, where forest defenders—and I absolutely want to shout out people right around this country who defend our forests from destruction—including former senator Dr Bob Brown, pointed out on site, in real time, to Forestry Tasmania officers that swift parrots were in a coop that was being logged. The relevant forest practices plan said that, if there was a credible sighting of swift parrots in a coop, the logging had to stop immediately. Did the logging stop immediately? No, it didn't, and that was illegal and unlawful by Forestry Tasmania. Of course what happens then is Dr Brown and his courageous fellow forest defenders get arrested and hauled up in front of the court system in Tasmania and found guilty, while the actual criminals who conducted that logging went free, and there's been no sanction applied to them. The forest defenders are being criminalised, whilst the illegal logging is given a great big green flag and allowed to continue.

Let's not forget the swift parrot in Tasmania is being logged into extinction. This beautiful little bird, this amazing little creature, the fastest parrot in the world and one of the very, very few migratory species of parrots in the world, is being logged into extinction by a mendicant, illegal logging industry, an industry that is massively contributing to the ecological collapse that we are living through and to the breakdown of the planet's climate that we are living through. It could do neither of those things if it wasn't massively subsidised by the long-suffering Australian taxpayers. If you pull the subsidies out of the native forest logging industry, it is finished overnight. It cannot stand on its own two feet. It is a political make-work scheme that is supported by the establishment parties in this place, despite the damage it's doing to nature, despite the fact it is driving multiple species into extinction and despite the fact that logging practices are a mass emitter of carbon. They are contributing to the breakdown of our planet's climate, which, according to the United Nations, is rendering this planet incapable of sustaining human life.

Courageous forest defenders are being thrown into prison for protesting against that abomination, while the people that are conducting the abomination are making off like bandits, pocketing obscene salaries and conducting illegal logging operations right around this country. So I won't hear a bar of arguments from forest industry sycophants like Senator Duniam, who is going to try to claim that we somehow have world's best practice forestry in this country. What we have is a mendicant industry with a business model of breaking the law. That's what our forest industry is in this country.

One thing I can agree with Senator Duniam on is that our forests are great carbon sinks, and I'm pleased to hear Senator Duniam finally accept the obvious, which is of course that our forests are great carbon sinks. Where we in the Greens differ from Senator Duniam and his ilk is that as soon as those forests are logged the carbon in them—in their trees, in their shrubs, in the woody mass that is on their ground, and in the very soils that have been created over countless millennia by those forests—is released into the atmosphere. They are great climate sinks until Senator Duniam and his ilk get their hands on them, and those forests turn into gross carbon emitters.

Now, as I said, we have some amendments to move to this bill, and I now move the second reading amendment that stands in my name:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:

(a) each year around 300,000 hectares of Australia's native forests and woodlands are lost to logging and land clearing;

(b) Australia's native forests are among the most carbon-dense in the world;

(c) if Australia ceased all logging of native forests, the avoided emissions alone would be close to what is needed annually (15.5 Mt CO2) to achieve our national target of a 43% reduction on 2005 levels of emissions by 2030; and

(d) the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023, which will repeal the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002 and amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to remove any and all exemptions they provide for native forest logging, should be brought on and passed".

I don't have any certainty that this bill won't be subject to a guillotine at some stage in the future, given what we've witnessed over the last couple of weeks, so I want to quickly refer to some of our amendments so folks know how we are trying to make this bill fit for purpose and lacking in some of the flaws that it currently has. The Greens have an amendment to section 18B of this bill to require that import notices include at a minimum information on the species and country of harvest of imported timber that replicate the act's due diligence requirements in the Illegal Logging Prohibition Regulation 2012.

I also want to say, in relation to our amendments on sheet 2626, that several witnesses to the Senate inquiry, particularly the Jubilee Australia Research Centre, Uniting Church Australia's Synod of Victoria and Tasmania, the Center for International Environmental Law and the Environmental Investigation Agency, are very concerned that the definition of 'illegal logging' provided by the bill could be too narrowly interpreted. We understand the definition in the bill is intended to capture any and all contravened laws in Australia's timber supply chains, both foreign and domestic, but we believe the bill needs to clearly articulate the breadth of laws that would engage the provisions of the bill. We believe the bill needs to make clear that it is in line with relevant legislation in other comparable countries combating importation of illegal timbers. We are concerned that a failure to do this would see Australia becoming a dumping ground for illegally logged timber. So we have an amendment on sheet 2626 to ensure that supply chain actors know that the laws cover not only the environment and human rights but also corruption-related offences such as bribery, money laundering, tax evasion, fraud and other financial crimes. I will make the obvious observation that offences like bribery, money laundering, tax evasion and fraud are rife in a number of logging jurisdictions around the world. Our amendment to give effect to that will do so while also maintaining the bill's definition for it to broadly apply to any law contravened in a supply chain.

There are other amendments that time will preclude me from going into. But, just quickly, we are concerned that under its due diligence provisions the bill appears to use industry certification standards as a proxy for the lawful harvesting of timber. The Senate inquiry heard from Ms Margaret Blakers, an absolute icon of the Australian conservation movement. Ms Blakers submitted that the listing of industry certification standards as timber legality frameworks wrongfully suggests that meeting one of those standards equates to legal compliance. So we have an amendment to address that. We also have other amendments that I hope I will be able to detail when this bill enters into the committee stages.

In the less than a minute that I have left to me in this contribution, I just want to go back to where I began. This bill, an amendment to the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012, will get the support of the Greens, but it doesn't go far enough. Just as we said that in regard to the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act in 2012, we say it today. I confidently predict that, at some stage in the future, another amendment bill will be brought forward which acknowledges some of the concerns that the Greens have raised today and hopefully will plug some of the gaps that the Greens amendments that I have foreshadowed are intended to plug—even though I expect them to go down in a screaming heap because the establishment parties always vote together on logging matters in this country.

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

I also want to rise to make a contribution on the bill before us today, the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024. Before I go further, I want to acknowledge the work of the former minister with responsibility for forestry, Senator Watt, whose advocacy for forestry must be commended in this place. I also want to acknowledge my good friend Senator Chisholm on his elevation to the Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry here in the Senate.

I have spoken many times in this place, as senators would be aware, about the significant contribution that is made by our sustainable forestry industry, given the important role that it has played in my home state of Victoria and obviously across the country in other states and the importance of being able to achieve emissions reduction targets. I think that's something that always gets forgotten in the debate or discourse around these issues when they do come up from time to time in this place. Forestry, forest management and the timber industry can actually play a positive role in helping governments across the world reduce our emissions. We know that trees absorb carbon. Using timber products stores that carbon. Then other trees are planted to replace the timber that was used for those products. So, by definition, as to what is being discussed here, they are very much sustainable, from when the trees are planted all the way to us using those products for whatever they might be used for.

It is great to see the positive role that forestry plays in climate action being recognised and encouraged on the world stage, as new research does urge nations around the world—and this has been discussed many times at COP, as other world leaders around the world recognise the importance of the industry and that sustainable forestry plays a very positive role and thereby also addresses an emerging global timber and wood supply gap as the world pivots to climate-friendly fibre supplies.

It is no wonder that demand for timber products is increasing, and, if we do not support a sustainable industry in forestry, this demand will be met either by unsustainably sourced timber or by other products that do not have the same climate benefits and may even contribute to higher emissions. That is something, sadly, that does not get acknowledged by some in this place. This is one of the great frustrations that I have with some senators who fail to understand that and the positive role that forestry plays. It is also the case that we have seen, time and time again, many activists, particularly those in my home state of Victoria, doing everything they can to disrupt the industry and ruin the lives of many people in regional communities where the sole employment, the sole source of income, the sole lifeblood of many regional towns, is timber and the forestry industry.

We have one of the most sustainably managed forest industries in the world. That's something we should be very proud of. We have strict regulations. Yes, there are times when things need to be improved. There are times when we do need to make improvements such as those in the bill that is before us today. But we should not also rubbish an industry that supports tens of thousands of jobs, has a positive role to play in the environment and helps us get to our targets for reducing emissions by 2050.

The amendments that the bill proposes aim to better protect the Australian market from illegally harvested timber and timber products and support legal and sustainable trade by improving regulatory tools and action for non-compliance. As we know, illegal logging has devastating consequences for our climate, the environment, people and the economy, and it is a driving force of various environmental issues around the world. As a member of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, as well as being the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Forestry, Timber and Paper Products with my good friend Senator Duniam, I have seen firsthand the major role that Australia's forest products play in promoting sustainable forest management.

The Albanese Labor government understand the importance of combating illegal logging, and the department of agriculture is heavily involved in international efforts to promote sustainable forest management. It's an industry that we must preserve and protect, and this bill will keep Australia's logging laws at the forefront of international efforts to prevent illegal timber harvesting and associated trade. The bill will also enforce a new requirement on importers, and, as we heard earlier, it's important that the importers play a positive and significant role in how we manage and try to understand where timber is sourced from around the world.

Sadly, I know Senator McKim mentioned the Greens saying the bill doesn't go far enough, but the only things that will satisfy the Greens are the shutdown of forestry in Australia and the complete shutdown of these jobs and these communities right across regional Australia. The irony is that they want to import timber from countries that don't have the same standards that Australia has. What we have heard, time and time again, from various inquiries and reports from right around the world and here in Australia is that there are some countries that we do import timber whose standards are, frankly, not up to scratch. Yes, they might have the official stamp that we all believe means that it is certified to acceptable standards—standards that we would hope, Senator McKim, would actually be the standards that you and I, and others in this place, would accept. But, unfortunately, we know that there are some countries where timber is sourced in which that it is not the case. They are not up to the standards that we, as Australians, should be accepting and should be importing into this country, hence why we are introducing this bill.

There is also a requirement on the processors to give notice prior to importing all processing timber products, giving the government more information about what is entering the market. It will also allow for more flexible enforcement options, including expanded monitoring and investigation powers, strict liability offences, injunctions and enforceable undertakings under the act.

It is also important to note that, before the current regulation, which was introduced back in 2012, around 10 per cent of timber imported to Australia each year was estimated to be illegally logged. What a disgrace! This undercut prices of sustainably grown timber by seven to 16 per cent. Therefore, the passage of this bill through this place will continue to make our country a less attractive destination for illegally sourced timber, and we will finally start to flush out the bad guys in the industry whose only want is to destroy the environment and provide Australians with a cheap source of timber in this country.

It's important to make sure that Australia retains a reputation, on the global scale, as a responsible supplier of sustainable and legally sourced timber products. This week, our Acting Deputy President marked National Forestry Day, where we celebrated the enormous contribution of Australia's forest industries and what they do to our country. Recently, I was able to witness that firsthand, when I had the pleasure of touring a sawmill in my home state of Victoria, Powelltown Sawmills. Like in so many regional towns in Victoria, Powelltown Sawmills is a major employer in their community, providing lifelong employment to their workforce—in fact, there was one family who had three generations of employees at the one site—and over 80 per cent of whom live in the immediate area.

Australia's forest industry employs around 80,000 people directly and another 100,000 indirectly across the supply chain, many in regional communities and many in the manufacturing sector. Our country's forest industry contributes around $24 billion to our economy every single year.

During my visit to the Powelltown sawmill we also discussed how timber products support the sustainable management of our forests, which protects the environment, contributes to emissions reduction and mitigates the risk of bushfires.

I am glad to see that the Victorian government has finally recognised that the industry is able to work in fire management, with the employment of harvesting crews by Forest Fire Management Victoria. When these bushfires occur—sadly, much more frequently—the very first people who go out to fight these bushfires are people in the industry. It's not necessarily the CFA, in my home state of Victoria, but the people in the industry, who have the equipment to go out and break up those fires before the CFA and other volunteers can actually go in and start to put the fires out. We saw the devastating impact that the Black Saturday bushfires had across the eastern states some years ago. So it's very important for these workers in the industry to be involved in what is very much a sustainable forest management practice. They're workers who bring valuable skills and experience and have encountered different scenarios.

Forestry also plays a significant role in Australia's efforts to mitigate climate change. We know that, as trees grow, they absorb carbon, as I mentioned earlier—

which then continues to be stored in the wood and in the soil—retaining carbon that would otherwise live in the atmosphere. That's just pure fact, Senator McKim.

The Australian forest products sector is the world leader in sustainable forest management. But the value of our excellent environmental protection is greatly diminished if Australian timber is replaced by a supply that is illegally logged, devastating the environment overseas. By protecting our industry from illegal logging and rewarding leadership in sustainability, that is exactly the outcome that this bill is preventing. The Australian Forest Products Association, the peak body that represents the many fine men and women in the industry and forest wood and paper products, has thrown its support behind these strengthened reforms.

As a result of the native forestry industry closures in WA and Victoria, sadly—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So why does the government keep shutting them down?

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

in our home state, Senator McKenzie; I know you and I have been one on this—the industry has seen an increase in the volume of imported hardwoods. That is telling. There is strong demand out there in the community for these products, and we should do everything we can to support our domestic industry in a sustainable way that also meets our strict regulations. It is unacceptable that, by shutting down our world-leading sustainable industry, we are importing products from places with less stringent environmental regulations than Australia. According to AFPA, Australia's importation of timber and timber products has increased from $4 billion to $6.87 billion over the decade to 2022-23. Illegal timber has severe impacts on our environment, and it has enormous ramifications for our domestic biosecurity protections. It creates an increased risk of pests and diseases, and this could have dire consequences for the local industry.

While it is disappointing to see the Victorian government shut down the native timber industry, it is pleasing to see that the federal government is putting money into plantations and supporting forest and timber workers. I do know that that is something that both sides of the aisle here in Canberra are very proud to do.

This week the Albanese Labor government also announced funding worth $5.6 million for eight new plantation projects through the Support Plantation Establishment program. The projects will create softwood plantations ranging from 40 to 1,671 hectares in size located in Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania. The government has also invested $10 million to deliver the Forestry Workforce Training Program through ForestWorks over the next two years. This program will improve access to required qualifications and credentials for the forest and wood products sector.

With the time that I have left: without a strong timber industry, we wouldn't be able to utilise the things that Australians love, such as house frames, cardboard boxes and paper products, just to name a few. Let's not forget that timber is the ultimate renewable and that demand for timber is only increasing.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 1.30, the debate is interrupted.