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

I indicate to the Senate that the opposition won't be proceeding with any of the amendments it circulated. Off the back of very constructive discussions with stakeholders and the government, we don't need to proceed with those amendments.

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

Firstly, it always concerns the Australian Greens when we hear about constructive discussions between the opposition and the Labor Party on forestry matters. Let's be very, very clear about what's happened for decades in this country—that is, the Labor, Liberal and National parties have got together and stitched up the ongoing destruction of our native forests. That means the native forest logging industry in Australia has turbocharged the breakdown of the planet's climate. It means the native forest logging industry in Australia is logging species like the swift parrot and the masked owl, in Tasmania, into extinction.

The swift parrot—that beautiful little bird, the fastest parrot in the world, one of the only migratory parrots in the world—is being logged into extinction by a mendicant industry that only survives because of public handouts it gets. Because of the stitch-up between the establishment parties in this country, that beautiful little bird is being logged into extinction. There are around 500 birds left, down from vast flocks of tens of thousands of those beautiful little birds. It is crashing in number because its feeding habitat and its breeding habitat is being destroyed. That's what the stitch-up between the establishment political parties looks like. It looks like the destruction of biodiversity and the destruction of nature, because that is exactly what is happening.

While our planet is literally cooking, while our ecosystems are crumbling around us, while species after species is either going extinct or sliding towards extinction, the major parties are colluding to exempt the forest industry from our national environment laws, weak as they are. The major parties are colluding to continue to pump, even just in my home state of Tasmania, tens of millions of dollars a year so that this mendicant industry can continue. The major parties, for base political purposes, are logging habitats of critically endangered species and logging those species into extinction. It is profoundly distressing.

Of course, what the major parties fail to understand is humans are actually part of the ecosystem as well. We are part of the biodiversity of this planet, and when the ecosystems crumble, in all their complexity and all their magnificence, it affects us. As our climate continues to break down, in all of its complexity and all of its magnificence, it affects us—it affects humans. We are already seeing large—massive—displacements of human beings around the planet because of changed weather and rainfall patterns and the resulting impacts on the availability of food and drinking water. We are already seeing mass biodiversity collapse on this planet as a result of climate change and the ongoing poisoning of nature, yet the Labor and Liberal parties get together and keep stitching it up for their own base political purposes. It's profoundly disturbing that we stand here today, with all of the scientific knowledge that we have and with everything that we know about ecological collapse and climate breakdown, and we fail to take action to stop species like the swift parrot being logged into extinction.

Just today in Tasmania we had an editorial in the Advocate newspaper from Mr Anthony Haneveer, the editor—someone, I might add, who is straight out of the Liberal political offices in Tasmania, as Senator Duniam well knows. In fact I'm not certain about this, but I expect they worked together at some stage. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they worked together in the office of the Tasmanian Premier at some stage. Mr Haneveer editorialised this morning in the Advocate newspaper in Australia in relation to the Maugean skate. There are fewer than 150 of these amazing creatures left in Macquarie Harbour in Tasmania, and this is what Mr Haneveer had to say about that skate, which is sliding into extinction because of the industrial fish-farming industry in Tasmania:

This might sound a little controversial, but I do not really care about that damned fish.

Sure, it would be unfortunate if the Maugean skate were to go extinct, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

That is an incitement to extinction. That is an incitement to the industrial salmon-farming industry in Tasmania to continue to act in a way that the science is telling us is sliding the Maugean skate into extinction. It is so profoundly distressing. Whether it's the Maugean skate and the industrial salmon-farming industry or the beautiful little swift parrot and the industrial native forest logging industry in Tasmania, these two species—so different but so amazing, so beautiful and so intricate, and each the result of millennia of evolutionary forces and ecological processes to arrive where they are today—are being logged and fish farmed into extinction while the establishment parties in this country sit on their hands and do nothing about it.

Here's something for Mr Haneveer: I do care about that damned fish. The Greens do care about that damned fish. We will lose sleep over the fate of that fish—we are losing sleep over the fate of that fish—unlike Mr Haneveer and the establishment political parties in this place. I've got another thing for Mr Haneveer and the establishment parties: we will fight to defend that fish—that beautiful, ancient fish that's been around since the time of the dinosaurs. We will fight for the swift parrot—that beautiful little parrot, one of the fastest parrots ever to have lived on this planet—that is being logged into extinction. We will fight for those species in this place and we will fight every day to protect them from the establishment parties and their agents, like Mr Haneveer and many, many others in the Tasmanian media ecosystem.

Minister, I've got some questions in the committee stage for you on the interrelationship between some of the standards covered in the draft rules that have been published. My first question is: does the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard—which is the PEFC endorsed Australian standard—meet the PEFC sustainable forest management requirements? This is critical because it goes to whether it is an auditable condition for forests to be legally logged in order for them to be certified.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're endeavouring to get an answer to that. If you bear with us, we'll do our best.

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

I appreciate the minister's response. I do have a couple more observations to make and then I will come back to that matter and an ancillary question that I have in regard to it. I understand this is a bill about logging, but it does go to whether or not logging is legal, both overseas and here in Australia, and that, of course, raises threatened species issues. I will just explain why that is.

In Tasmania, as I've just said, there is this beautiful little bird, the swift parrot. In many forest practices plans, which are part of the framework which purports to govern the native forest logging industry in Tasmania, there is a requirement that, if there is a credible sighting of swift parrots, the logging needs to cease. We've seen repeated scenarios where there have been credible sightings of swift parrots reported to people conducting logging in particular coops and that logging has not ceased.

Now, in my argument, that means that that logging is illegal. There are court cases afoot around the country in regard to testing whether logging of particular forests is legal or illegal. There have been plenty of court findings, including in Victoria, where we had the shonky practices of VicForests exposed, that made it very clear that there is a lot of illegal logging that goes on in Australia. That illegal logging has consequences for threatened species, and the swift parrot is one of those species.

The parallel here is that the political stitch-up between the establishment parties in this country is sending the swift parrot sliding into extinction because that stitch-up is enabling the industrial-scale destruction of its habitat by the native forest logging industry. In the same way, the political stitch-up between the establishment parties is tragically sliding the maugean skate into extinction because the major parties, the establishment parties, are united behind the salmon-farming industry in Tasmania.

I want to say this to Mr Haneveer, the editor of the Advocate: editorialising in the way that you did, which is basically an incitement to extinction, and basically cheering on as the maugean skate, which has been with us since the age of the dinosaurs, slides into extinction because of the actions of the industrial salmon farming industry in Macquarie Harbour—doing those things—mean that you should resign. He no longer should sit as editor of the Advocate. If he won't resign, Australian community media should sack him.

It is a disgrace to incite extinction at a time of ecological collapse, just as it is a disgrace to incite the logging and burning of our native forests at a time when the planet's climate is breaking down around us. Whether it be Mr Haneveer or any of the senators who represent the establishment parties in this place, it is time to go, because you are not acting in the best interests of the ecology and the climate that actually underpin human life in this country and on this planet.

So, Minister, the reason I'm asking about the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard and whether it meets the PEFC sustainable forest management requirements is that, basically, this legislation aims to prevent illegally logged timber from entering the supply chain in this country. Processors and importers, for that matter, have to exercise due diligence to assess the risk that raw logs actually are from illegal sources. If a raw log is covered by a forest certification standard, then a simplified assessment applies. So the applicable standards named in the draft rules are the FSC forest stewardship principles, the FSC chain of custody certification, the PEFC sustainable forest management requirements, which I'll shorten as the 'benchmark standard', and the PEFC chain of custody standards. PEFC, the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, is a global network of national standards, represented in Australia by Responsible Wood.

I'll pause here to give a little bit of history, which is that Responsible Wood was formerly the Australian Forestry Standard. I'm not sure if Senator Duniam was around at the time, but I certainly was when, in the early 2000s in the Tasmanian parliament, the Australian Forestry Standard was developed by the logging industry in Australia because they knew they wouldn't be able to meet Forest Stewardship Council certification standards. So they invented their own certification standard: the Australian forestry standard. It was an industry standard designed so that the industry could certify itself. What could possibly go wrong?

Anyway, the AFS, the Australian Forestry Standard, is now Responsible Wood. So the PEFC benchmark forest management standard requires organisations to comply with all applicable laws, and the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard is the corresponding PEFC endorsed Australian standard. It's therefore supposed to conform with the PEFC requirements and has been accepted as doing so, but—and here's the nub of the matter, Minister—the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard doesn't appear to have an auditing requirement for logging to be legal. That is the crux of the matter.

So the position is that the legislation and the rules taken together require logging to be legal by reference to the PEFC standard. The certificate that would be presented to a processor to verify legality would be a Responsible Wood forest management certificate, which does not, it appears, require logging to be legal. Therefore, my question is: does the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard meet the PEFC sustainable forest management requirements, and, in particular, does it require logging to be legal as an auditable condition for forest management to be certified?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator McKim, for your patience on that. In regard to the first point that was raised that I'm seeking some clarity on, it's my understanding that the Responsible Wood national standard is consistent with the global PEFC standard for sustainable forest management. How matters are dealt with under these standards is obviously a matter for the PEFC and Responsible Wood.

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

Thanks, Minister, for your response. So you've just informed the Senate that the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard is consistent with the PEFC sustainable forest management requirements. Is that correct?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

That's correct. Thank you. So I understand that it's consistent. Does it meet all of the requirements under PEFC sustainable forest management?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that's my understanding.

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

Therefore, Minister, does the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard require logging to be legal as an auditable condition in order that forest management can be certified?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a level of detail that I don't have with me at the moment. Again, we'll try and seek some clarity for you on that, Senator McKim.

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

Perhaps you could indicate that you'll try and come back to us, either to the chamber or to me directly, once you have any further information that you're able to provide?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Happy to.

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

Therefore, Minister, if the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard meets the PEFC sustainable forest management requirements, which you have said that you believe that it does, and if the answer is, yes, it requires logging to be legal as an auditable condition for forest management to be certified, which you've said you will come back to me or the chamber on, could you please outline which section of the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard requires logging to be legal? I'm happy for you to indicate you'll take that on notice, Minister.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Happy to.

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

Senator Duniam, Senator McKim has exhausted that line, so I give you the call.

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

I'm pleased to be able to do that. I was rather enjoying Senator McKim's contributions to a debate on the forestry bill by talking about the maugean skate, which of course is an aquatic creature, as he admitted. I'm not quite sure how references to this endangered creature are in any way related to this. But I do want to just correct a couple of things that have been put on the record here. I will never, ever undersell Senator McKim's passion, his vigour and his desire to put out into the marketplace what he believes to be the case—his truth, his version of events, his view of the world—and good on him for doing that. He does that very effectively. As a fellow Tasmanian, I see a lot of what he has to say. Despite disagreeing with nearly every word of it, I commend him for his passionate participation in the democratic process. But I just think we need to come back to basics in this debate, before I get to Mr Haneveer—who is a top Tasmanian, in my view: a very good journalist. I read an article on the weekend that I think Senator McKim would be very interested in, and I'll refer to it before I conclude.

On this point around what we do here in Australia when it comes to forestry versus what happens elsewhere in the world: if we assume that Australians want to continue to consume this fantastic product, the hardwood timbers that come from native forests or other varieties of forests, if we're not going to be producing it here to what is, I would argue, the world's best standard, then where is it going to be coming from? It's not going to be coming from Australian well-managed sustainable forests; it's going to be coming from places like the Congo Basin, where there is no regard for the environment, no rules around how you can extract the timber you need and must replace it, and no regard for what impact it will have on the climate, on waterways or indeed on human populations. Senator McKim talked about the displacement of human populations. You can see examples in overseas jurisdictions. Some of these products carry the FSC logo, but we know there are problems with the timbers that go on sale accompanied by this rather questionable mark.

I was always very disappointed with what happened in Victoria. A court case was brought against VicForests and, as a result, a particular retail chain decided not to stock the timbers coming from any of the VicForests coupes. At that point the company had not been found in breach, but this retail outlet made a decision on the basis of a question before a court. It was at that point that, as the former assistant minister for forestry, I asked for some DNA testing to occur in retail outlets across Australia. Again, I make the point that some of them carry a logo claiming a level of certification, specifying the type of timber they are selling. It was amazing to see, in a number of retail outlets, including the one that decided not to stock the Victorian timber in question, that they were selling timbers purporting to be a particular species from a particular jurisdiction with a certification logo attached, which of course didn't match up to exactly the type of timber it was and where it came from.

This is the problem with this argument around shutting down the timber industry in Australia—that if we don't do it here we're going to have to get it from somewhere, and what happens over the horizon is a problem. That is why this bill is important—putting in place safeguards and measures that actually protect people who want to buy sustainable products as well as environments beyond our own jurisdiction. That's why it is important to back this in.

Senator McKim talks about a 'stitch-up' between the two major parties. I still believe that, as evidenced between 2010 and 2014 in Tasmania, there is only ever one stitch-up, one partnership you will ever see in Australian politics when it comes to forestry, and that is the one where that green tail wags the Labor dog, in a power-sharing government—and the polls point to us having, after the next election, a Labor-Greens minority government, supported by the teals. I'll almost guarantee that the Greens' list of demands post an election, when they're marching around to the blue carpeted wing of this building, the ministerial wing, will include a ban of native forestry. That will be one of the key asks. In fact, they're already asking for it in relation to another bill that we will be debating this fortnight. So, if ever there was going to be a stitch-up on forestry, it isn't between the two major parties; it is very much between the Labor Party and the Greens, as evidenced by what happened in Tasmania between 2010 and 2014, when, based on emotion and whim, we saw the shutdown of a sustainable industry not based on science and not based on fact.

In concluding, as I said, there were constructive discussions, and I've been able to satisfy myself regarding some of the concerns I had around impacts on Australian domestic processors and that we aren't going to see scope creep here from the Commonwealth government into what should be a state or territory matter. We all have state and territory forestry regulatory authorities, and I don't think it's the place for the Commonwealth to be marching in and taking over any of those responsibilities. But I want to finish by reflecting on comments that Senator McKim made about a very good journalist, Mr Haneveer. Yes, I did work with him many years ago in this very building, in fact. I think it's unfair to characterise Mr Haneveer in the way he does. I think he's a very even-handed journalist. He's given me a whack from time to time in his editorials, and I'll take them. I think there might well have been a couple saved for Senator McKim as well.

But I did read one on Saturday, as a matter of fact, and I'm surprised Senator McKim didn't reference that one as much as he referenced the one that's totally unrelated to this debate. It was on one of our own colleagues here, Senator Polley. I do think Mr Haneveer is a fantastic journalist. Given the number of times he has been referenced in this debate, I just wanted to put that on the record. He might have views about the skate and the salmon industry, and, if that keeps going on as a topic of conversation, I might respond to some of those a bit later on. I do recommend that all senators pick up Saturday's Advocate newspaper and have a read of the editorial. It's well worth it; it's a good laugh.

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

Are there any other contributions? Minister, do you have anything for Senator McKim at this point?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and I'm hoping to help. I am a big fan of the Advocate newspaper, particularly to see how the Ulverstone Robins are going, but I don't think I want to delve into Tasmanian politics with these two who seem obsessed with it here—

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

The one behind you.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but Helen's got a broader view of the country and so does Anne, unlike you two. But anyway, we're getting a bit personal now. In response to Senator McKim, I refer to Responsible Wood's Australian/New Zealand standard for sustainable forest management (AS/NZS4708:2021). Section 11.2.10 requires forest managers to address illegal activities and notify the relevant authorities. Operators accredited to the standard are audited. Forest managers have to comply with all legal requirements and demonstrate compliance with them as stipulated by the standard.

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

Minister, thank you for that. Could you read out which part of that standard that was? I think you had a number there.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Section 11.2.10.

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

Section 11.2.10 of the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard, numbered 4708:2021; is that right?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. That is correct.

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

Just to be clear, you are informing the committee that section 11.2.10 of the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard requires logging to be legal. Is that right?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What it requires is that forest managers address illegal activities and notify the relevant authorities. Operators accredited to the standard are audited. Forest managers have to comply with all legal requirements and demonstrate compliance with them as stipulated by the standard.

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

So, if those conditions weren't met, then that section of the standard would not be met and, therefore, products could not be certified; is that right?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's obviously bordering into hypothetical scenarios there, but it would be a matter for the PEFC and Responsible Wood to manage.

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

Are there any other contributions before I ask Senator McKim to begin moving his amendments? Senator McKim, you have the call.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) standing in my name on sheet 2626 together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 29), after item 4, insert:

4A Section 7 (definition of illegally logged )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

illegally logged, in relation to timber, means authorised for harvest, harvested, processed, or transported in contravention of laws, including laws related to:

(a) the protection of plants;

(b) the protection of the environment;

(c) human rights;

(d) bribery;

(e) money laundering;

(f) tax evasion;

(g) fraud; or

(h) other financial crimes;

in the place (whether or not in Australia) where the timber is to be harvested, or was harvested, transported or processed.

(2) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 3), after item 21, insert:

21A Subparagraph 14(3)(a)(iii)

Omit "harvested", substitute "authorised for harvest, harvested, processed, or transported".

(3) Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 13), after item 37, insert:

37A Subparagraph 18(3)(a)(iii)

Omit "harvested", substitute "authorised for harvest, harvested, processed, or transported".

(4) Schedule 1, item 27, page 33 (line 15), omit "harvested", substitute "authorised for harvest, harvested, processed, or transported".

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

The question before the committee is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2626, as moved by Senator McKim, be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) standing in my name on sheet 2646 together:

(1) Schedule 1, items 24 and 25, page 13 (lines 8 to 12), omit the items, substitute:

24 Subsection 14(5)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(5) The rules may provide for due diligence requirements for importing regulated timber products to be satisfied, wholly or partly, by compliance with:

(a) specified laws (including laws in force in a State or Territory or another country); or

(b) specified rules or processes (including rules or processes established or accredited by an industry or certifying body) that are consistent with a law in force in a State or Territory or another country; or

(c) specified established operational processes that are consistent with a law in force in a State or Territory or another country.

25 Subsection 14(6)

Repeal the subsection.

(2) Schedule 1, items 40 and 41, page 20 (lines 18 to 22), omit the items, substitute:

40 Subsection 18(5)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(5) The rules may provide for due diligence requirements for processing raw logs to be satisfied, wholly or partly, by compliance with:

(a) specified laws (including laws in force in a State or Territory); or

(b) specified rules or processes (including rules or processes established or accredited by an industry or certifying body) that are consistent with a law in force in a State or Territory; or

(c) specified established operational processes that are consistent with a law in force in a State or Territory.

41 Subsection 18(6)

Repeal the subsection.

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

The question is that Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2646, as moved by Senator McKim, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

by leave—I ask that the Greens' support for the amendments be recorded.

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

Senator McKim, you have the call.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2665 together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 6), after item 1, insert:

1A Section 6

After "importation of illegally logged timber", insert ", the supply of illegally logged timber".

(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (after line 16), after the definition of State or Territory body in section 7, insert:

supply includes supply by way of sale, exchange, gift, lease, loan, hire or hire-purchase.

(3) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 12), after item 25, insert:

25A After Part 2

Insert:

Part 2A — Supplying

Division 1 — Introduction

14A Simplified outline of this Part

The supply of illegally logged timber is prohibited.

Division 2 — Supplying illegally logged timber

14B Supplying illegally logged timber

Fault-based offence

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person supplies a thing; and

(b) the thing is, is made from, or includes, illegally logged timber; and

(c) the person is a constitutional corporation, or the person supplies the thing:

(i) in the course of, or for the purposes of, trade and commerce with other countries, or among the States or between a State and a Territory; or

(ii) on behalf of a constitutional corporation; or

(iii) for the purposes of supplying timber products to a constitutional corporation; or

(iv) on behalf of the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority; or

(v) for the purposes of supplying timber products to the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority.

Penalty: 5 years imprisonment or 500 penalty units, or both.

Strict liability offence

(2) A person commits an offence of strict liability if:

(a) the person supplies a thing in Australia; and

(b) the thing is, is made from, or includes, illegally logged timber; and

(c) the person is a constitutional corporation, or the person supplies the thing:

(i) in the course of, or for the purposes of, trade and commerce with other countries, or among the States or between a State and a Territory; or

(ii) on behalf of a constitutional corporation; or

(iii) for the purposes of supplying timber products to a constitutional corporation; or

(iv) on behalf of the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority; or

(v) for the purposes of supplying timber products to the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority.

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person supplies a thing in Australia; and

(b) the thing is, is made from, or includes, illegally logged timber; and

(c) the person is a constitutional corporation, or the person supplies the thing:

(i) in the course of, or for the purposes of, trade and commerce with other countries, or among the States or between a State and a Territory; or

(ii) on behalf of a constitutional corporation; or

(iii) for the purposes of supplying timber products to a constitutional corporation; or

(iv) on behalf of the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority; or

(v) for the purposes of supplying timber products to the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority.

Civil penalty: 100 penalty units.

14C Forfeiture

(1) A court may order all or any part of a thing to be forfeited to the Commonwealth if:

(a) the court:

(i) convicts a person of an offence against subsection 14B(1) or (2) in respect of the thing or part; or

(ii) makes a civil penalty order under section 82 of the Regulatory Powers Act in relation to a contravention of subsection 14B(3) of this Act in respect of the thing or part; and

(b) the thing or part is the property of the person.

(2) The person is entitled to be heard in relation to the forfeiture order.

(3) The thing or part may be dealt with or disposed of in any manner that the Secretary thinks appropriate, but only after:

(a) if the periods provided for lodging appeals against the forfeiture order and the conviction or civil penalty order have ended without such an appeal having been lodged—the end of those periods; or

(b) if one or more such appeals have been lodged—the appeals lapse or are finally determined.

(4) Schedule 1, item 56, page 53 (after line 5), after subitem (1), insert:

(1A) Sections 14B and 14C of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012, as inserted by this Schedule, apply in relation to a thing that is supplied on or after the commencement of this item.

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

The question before the committee is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2665, as moved by Senator McKim, be agreed to.

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

I move the Greens amendment on sheet 2643:

(1) Schedule 1, item 42, page 22 (lines 5 and 6), omit paragraph 18B(4)(a), substitute:

(a) include as much of the following information about the regulated timber product as is reasonably practicable:

(i) the common name, genus or scientific name of the tree from which the timber, or the timber in the product, is derived;

(ii) the country, the region of the country and the forest harvesting unit in which the timber, or the timber in the product, was harvested;

(iii) any other information prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this subparagraph; and

Question negatived.

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

We will record the Greens' support for that amendment.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2664 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (after line 20), after the definition of entrusted person in section 7, insert:

interested person has the meaning given by section 26.

(2) Schedule 1, item 50, page 32 (lines 12 to 15), omit subsection 26(2), substitute:

Authorised person

(2) For the purposes of Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act, the following are authorised persons in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1):

(a) the Secretary;

(b) an interested person (other than an unincorporated organisation);

(c) a person acting on behalf of an unincorporated organisation that is an interested person.

(3) Schedule 1, item 50, page 32 (after line 19), insert:

(3A) For the purposes of an application for an injunction relating to conduct or proposed conduct that contravened, or would contravene, a provision mentioned in subsection (1), an individual is an interested person if the individual is an Australian citizen or ordinarily resident in Australia or an external Territory, and:

(a) the individual's interests have been, are or would be affected by the conduct or proposed conduct; or

(b) the individual engaged in a series of activities for the promotion of the legal and sustainable timber trade, or research into illegal logging, at any time in the 2 years immediately before:

(i) the conduct; or

(ii) in the case of proposed conduct—making the application for the injunction.

(3B) For the purposes of an application for an injunction relating to conduct or proposed conduct that contravened, or would contravene, a provision mentioned in subsection (1), an organisation (whether incorporated or not) is an interested person if it is incorporated (or was otherwise established) in Australia or an external Territory and one or more of the following conditions are met:

(a) the organisation's interests have been, are or would be affected by the conduct or proposed conduct;

(b) if the application relates to conduct—at any time during the 2 years immediately before the conduct:

(i) the organisation's objects or purposes included the promotion of the legal and sustainable timber trade, or research into illegal logging; and

(ii) the organisation engaged in a series of activities related to the promotion of the legal and sustainable timber trade, or research into illegal logging;

(c) if the application relates to proposed conduct—at any time during the 2 years immediately before the making of the application:

(i) the organisation's objects or purposes included the promotion of the legal and sustainable timber trade, or research into illegal logging; and

(ii) the organisation engaged in a series of activities related to the promotion of the legal and sustainable timber trade, or research into illegal logging.

Question negatived.

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

Let it be recorded that the Greens supported the amendments.

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

I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2645:

(1) Schedule 1, item 52A, page 44 (lines 9 to 13), omit subsection 83A(1), substitute:

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of this Act:

(a) during the 5-year period starting on the commencement of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Act 2024; and

(b) during each subsequent 5-year period.

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), a review under subsection (1) must examine and report on:

(a) the extent of illegal logging in Australia; and

(b) action taken under the Act to respond to illegal logging in Australia.

Reporting

Question negatived.

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

I order that it be recorded the Greens voted for that amendment.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.