Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (4) on sheet 7202, standing in my name:

(4) Clause 7, page 5 (line 5), at the end of the definition of illegally logged, add "including, but not limited to, laws about the following matters:

  (a) rights to harvest timber within legally gazetted boundaries;

  (b) amounts payable in relation to rights to harvest and timber, including duties related to the harvest of timber;

  (c) harvesting timber, including environmental and forest legislation including forest management and biodiversity conservation where it is directly related to harvesting timber;

  (d) legal rights of third parties in relation to land use and tenure that are affected by harvesting timber;

  (e) customs and other tax duties in relation to the timber product sector;

  (f) trade in timber products.".

This is a very important aspect of the bill. It goes to the definition of ‘illegal logging’. If this is going to be an effective piece of legislation, our definition of ‘illegal logging’ has to be consistent with that of other people around the world; otherwise, we are just going to end up with leakage. So, if the EU says a product is not suitable for their market because they regard it as being illegally logged, and we on the other hand say, ‘No, actually our definition is different,’ we are then going to have material sent here that would not comply in the EU.

The current definition lacks clarity and certainty. It simply says:

illegally logged, in relation to timber, means harvested in contravention of laws in force in the place (whether or not in Australia) where the timber was harvested.

This is quite different; it is very vague. The EU has much more specific definitional requirements. The Greens amendment seeks to ensure that the definition of ‘illegally logged’ is consistent with the EU definition. That is why at the end of the definition of ‘illegally logged’ we want to include—and it would include but not be limited to—laws about the following matters: rights to harvest timber within legally gazetted boundaries; amounts payable in relation to rights to harvesting timber, including duties relating to the harvest of the timber; harvesting timber, including environmental and forest legislation including forest management and biodiversity conservation where it is directly related to harvesting timber; legal rights of third parties in relation to land use and tenure that are affected by harvesting timber; customs and other tax duties in relation to the timber product sector; and trade in timber products. That is exactly consistent with the EU.

Also, the legal rights of third parties in relation to land use and tenure are critical because we find in many of the areas where timber is being illegally logged the rights of indigenous people, in particular, are abused as licences are granted over areas to which they have actual traditional rights. They are thrown off the land and the timber is harvested for the profit of the company that has the licence, whether or not that has been legally granted.

So, to just say that ‘illegally logged’ means ‘harvested in contravention of laws in force in the place’ is way too vague. I reject the government’s reasoning here: that by becoming more prescriptive in the definition you might result in some elements of applicable legislation being overlooked or excluded through omission. That is one way of looking at it. On the other hand, when you go so vague it is going to be difficult to prove that something is illegally logged. So, I ask why the minister did not make it consistent with the EU definition. The EU have had this definition for some time. What is wrong with the EU definition and why would we not have adopted a definition consistent with it?