Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to address the issue of the forestry industry and what I regard as an important bill, the Forestry Marketing and Research and Development Services Bill 2007. The opposition is also paying close attention to the outcome of the Senate committee’s consideration of this matter. In response to the comments by the member for Corangamite, it is interesting to note that the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources has not chosen to speak in this debate. Many in the industry are fearful of the minister’s real views because we all appreciate that he represents an inner-city, very Sydney-centric seat which is becoming more and more marginal. It contains what is best described as a large percentage of doctors’ wives, who have a particular view about the timber industry—which is, close it down at the first available opportunity. If the polls continue as they are currently, then we will wait and see what the environment minister’s real, private position is—if it is publicly declared—with respect to the future of the forestry industry, especially given his decision to close down the mining industry on Christmas Island. He has put at serious risk the future livelihood of many workers on Christmas Island in his endeavour to play to the gallery and say, ‘I am the saviour of rainforests in Australia.’

This debate cuts both ways. Just as I am very supportive of the community forestry agreement in Tasmania—which, I remind the member for Corangamite, provides for additional reserves—I am also concerned about the future of Christmas Island. It is an island that has very serious economic challenges ahead of it because of its long-term dependency on the superphosphate industry. It is our responsibility during this process of transition to work with the local community to, if possible, transfer some mining reserves to some forest reserves. It is very clear on the basis of the evidence to date that reforestation is working very successfully on Christmas Island. So as far as I am concerned, the member for Lingiari is correct. The minister for the environment, Mr Turnbull, representing a very inner-city seat, has chosen to basically put the future of Christmas Island at risk because he is not concerned about the long-term viability of the forestry industry in Australia; he is more concerned about potential Green preferences. I raise those issues here seriously because this is a very serious debate. That is why we support the proposal to establish a new company under the Corporations Act 2001 to be called Forest and Wood Products Australia. This new body will replace the former statutory authority, the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation. As its name implies, this was focused on research into and the development of the forestry industry—which is exceptionally important. The forestry industry is not an industry that is standing still; it is an industry which is vitally concerned with research and development. This new body will not only accept research and development responsibilities but will also be expanded to appropriately take on marketing and promotional activities as well. As a former shadow minister for forestry and someone who is vitally concerned with rural and regional communities in Australia, I think this initiative is long overdue.

I would like to see the industry expand, especially with respect to the growth in plantations in Northern Australia. Such an initiative—now that we have some stability with respect to the future of the managed investment schemes, which the member for Corangamite has such serious concerns about—might encourage investors in Aboriginal communities to pursue plantations, which would create long-term, viable employment opportunities and economic opportunities for those people in Indigenous communities, which are seriously suffering economically at the moment. Research and development, especially in those tropical regions, is therefore vitally important to the future capacity to expand the forestry industry in Australia. As we appreciate, the industry faces great challenges, some of which were touched on in passing by the member for Corangamite. We know that that is partly related to the fact that, because of public pressure, there is an ongoing campaign, based not on scientific evidence but on emotion, to lock more and more forests away from commercial forestry. Further loss of resources has occurred through bushfires. The industry faces threats to its markets through misguided campaigns against Australian forestry and timber products more generally. Sawmills and timber-processing facilities are struggling. They are struggling to keep going and to make the innovations and investments needed to maintain a viable industry for the future. Let us hope that this new company, Forest and Wood Products Australia, can play a driving role to advance the industry and secure that future.

The selection of its board is very important. Again I find myself supporting the comments of the member for Corangamite. The board must comprise members who represent all the stakeholders in the industry—with the appropriate qualifications, skills, knowledge, expertise and energy to drive the future of Australian forestry. They must also be prepared to stand up and be counted in terms of being committed to the industry. I therefore encourage the government to include the National Secretary for the CFMEU’s Forestry and Furnishing Products Division, Michael O’Connor. He has always fought courageously for the industry, its workers and its communities dotted around regional Australia. Sometimes, unfortunately, Michael O’Connor has found himself standing alone. It has sometimes been hard for some employers to have the courage to stand in the front line with him. Michael knows that in parts of rural Australia when the forestry industry goes so does the local community—the local doctor, the local school, the local sporting or netball team, the chemists and a variety of other facilities disappear from these communities if the forestry industry disappears. It is central to the future viability of many small and medium sized communities in rural, remote and regional Australia. So we have to make sure that we get on this board people who are committed to the industry and have the knowledge and expertise to actually drive it so that we can guarantee a viable future for the industry.

I would also add that Timber Communities Australia has been a strong, tireless and loyal advocate for the industry. Having a member representing that organisation would add strength and diversity to the board and recognise the significant contribution of that organisation to Australian forestry over many years. It has also been a courageous advocate for the future of this industry. That is about strength, because the industry has many enemies. The success of this new organisation may well make or break the industry. It will be essential for it to focus on internationally competitive, environmentally sustainable practices, innovation and the production of high-quality forest and timber products. Just as importantly, it will defend Australian forestry and timber products in domestic and international markets through its promotional and marketing activities.

As I have said many times before, no forestry policy will ever go far enough for the Green movement. They will simply shift the goalposts at every opportunity. There will be no end to this struggle in their minds. As far as they are concerned, nothing short of shutting down forestry, coal and airline industries in Australia will ever be good enough. It is forgotten that Australia’s forest and wood products industries contribute about two per cent of Australia’s GDP and directly employ more than 83,000 people. This is one of our largest manufacturing industries and it is the lifeblood of many rural and regional communities throughout Australia.

Although we are both a net producer and exporter of timber in volume terms, we unfortunately have a significant trade deficit in forest products of around $2 billion. So it is important that we grow both our domestic and export markets to offset that deficit. It is economically smart and clever for Australia. If collectively the industry, the unions and the timber communities do not conquer the agenda of the Greens and their fellow travellers, the truth is they will conquer our great forest industries and Australia will be the poorer for it. That is why it is absolutely essential for the friends of the industry to unite on issues like certification, fire management, catchment management and the role of forests in climate change policy. We, as a nation, have unfortunately spent the last 30 years increasingly locking Australia’s forests away from the forest industries in national parks. But the managers of our forest conservation assets could learn a lot from the forestry industry, and I hope this will also be a focus of Forest and Wood Products Australia when it comes to research and development, marketing and promotion.

Four years ago the Pilliga State Forest in New South Wales was one of the world’s finest timber resources for white cypress pine. White cypress pine needs to be managed. It needs to be thinned to allow it to grow, and it germinates only in rare events initiated by favourable climatic conditions. These germination events may be several decades apart, and when they occur the young seedlings come up so thick that, as legend would have it, ‘a dog cannot bark in it’. If the seedlings are not thinned they quickly reach a stage when their growth is curtailed. That means that trees in a forest might be 50 to 80 years of age but still only a few metres high and with diameters of only a few centimetres. In that situation they create a monoculture, and a monoculture in a forest is not desirable because it leaves no ground cover and creates perfect conditions for erosion and land degradation.

Let us deal with a bit of science. We understand that the Greens and their fellow travellers are not interested in such a complex debate. It goes to proper management: when such forests are managed, biodiversity flourishes and erosion and fires can be controlled and managed. There were an estimated 15,000 koalas living in the managed part of Pilliga State Forest before it was effectively locked up four years ago, and it was a favoured place for wildflower devotees. But in December last year, after four years of so-called conservation and no management, a hot fire destroyed the Pilliga, the koalas and the wildflowers. Gone are 420 jobs, which are so important to regional New South Wales, and, interestingly, a timber industry in north-western New South Wales worth $38.4 million. That is nothing to be sniffed at.

By the time Christmas arrived last year, 700,000 hectares of forest in eastern Australia, much of it in national parks, had gone up in smoke. By the end of summer more than one million hectares were lost—‘lock it up, forget it and do not manage it’, is the catchcry of many in the environmental movement—more than 16 times the annual average amount of forest harvested by our world-class forestry industry. What a comparison. But let us not deal with the facts. Some people do not want a factual debate, just an emotional debate—especially as we move closer to state and federal elections—so that they can do yet another dirty little Green deal with preferences. Interestingly too, 40 million tonnes of carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere as a result of those fires. According to a CSIRO scientist, we also lost 370 million animals in this summer’s bushfires alone.

As the forests regenerate their thirst for water will be insatiable. At a time of a deep drought this is the No. 1 concern of most Australians. Where is the evidence that native animal and plant species are better protected in national parks than state or privately managed forests? There is none at all. But this unfortunately is not a one-off. Back in 2003 we lost more than three million hectares to bushfires in New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT. Thousands of hectares of mountain ash forests in our alpine regions were wiped out and there has been practically no regeneration of the species in national park areas, unlike commercial forestry areas which use proven silvicultural practices to ensure regeneration of all species harvested. The 2003 forest fires also released 130 million tonnes of CO₂about a quarter of Australia’s total annual greenhouse emissions. Equally significant, studies predict a reduction of up to a fifth of the water flowing into the Murray-Darling Basin region as a result of the regeneration of those forests. It is estimated that the regrowth from the 2003 bushfires will use 430 billion litres of water a year for the next 50 years.

There is much more to this drought than people realise. The question has to be asked whether it is time to rethink our management strategies when it comes to national parks. If we believe in climate change we are going to have to confront issues such as the thinning of our national parks forests to save water in our catchments and prevent fires—a strategy that the forestry industry has employed for over a hundred years. We are going to have to confront the issue that perhaps cattle grazing in our alpine areas was good fire management practice and less environmentally harmful than the devastating fires that have ripped through our national parks in the absence of any active management.

The Greens are opposed to active management of our national parks, but the evidence when it comes to forest conservation is firmly stacking up on the side of the forestry industry. I hope this is the message Forest and Wood Products Australia can effectively deliver to our domestic and international markets, and to those in our community who have been subject to misinformation campaigns for way too long. It is time, too, for the industry to stand up for itself and, instead of jumping into bed with the green groups as the easy way out of secondary boycotts, take on the fight with the CFMEU’s forestry division and the timber communities in the interests of better national conservation and industry outcomes for Australia and the world at large. More also needs to be done in terms of social outcomes—not only in saving the dying timber communities in places like Baradine but also in building new opportunities, particularly in Indigenous communities like Port Keats-Wadeye, building on the success of ventures like those in the Tiwi Islands.

The industry also has a great opportunity to capitalise on the carbon sequestration benefits of forests and timber products. This is a huge challenge. The world’s forests and soils store more than a trillion tonnes of carbon, twice as much as is in the atmosphere, and they have the potential to absorb 10 to 20 per cent of total global emissions from now to 2050. In Australia, the annual net sink in forests and wood products is about 10 per cent of total greenhouse emissions. It is growing trees that sequester carbon most rapidly, generally early in their lifecycle. So managed forests are very important in terms of carbon absorption—hence the interest of the Indigenous community.

And it is time that green hypocrisy when it comes to the proper utilisation of wood waste was ended. About five million cubic metres of timber residues are generated from commercial forest harvest operations each year, very little of which is burnt for power generation. If an extra four million cubic metres of that waste was used, 30 per cent of the MRET would be met overnight. Yes—meeting an MRET through the forestry industry. That is a real challenge to the so-called environmental movement. But wood residues account for less than five per cent of MRET certificates, because wholesalers and retailers are too frightened of secondary boycotts by environmental NGOs to sell power generated from them; it is not politically correct. I hope Forest and Wood Products Australia have the courage to front up to this issue and do something about it. It is part of the greenhouse debate.

There are also new opportunities for wood residues and timber crops when it comes to alternative transport fuels. I am referring to lignocellulosic ethanol. There is a growing ethical debate about food versus fuel, with ethanol in Australia produced from starch, grain or sugar. In the United States and South America, diversion of land from food to biofuels production is already driving up the price of food. Mexican corn prices have doubled in the last year, forcing the government to put a ceiling on tortilla prices. Sugar prices have also doubled, and that is why Australian sugar producers are more interested at this moment in the sale of their cane for sugar than for ethanol. Countries all around the world are now considering biofuels production from various crop sources, and these will be grown on land that previously grew food—or else on newly-cleared forest land. Interestingly, 80 per cent of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions arise from the deforestation of the Amazon basin, mainly to grow sugar cane for—guess what—ethanol. This dilemma comes at a time when climate change is also perceived as a threat to world food supplies and when drought in Australia is of great concern to all of us. As a Science Alert reported a couple of weeks ago, the industrial production of biofuels threatens to create conflict over food for humans, feed for animals and feedstocks for liquid transport fuels. That is why production of lignocellulosic ethanol from waste and non-food crops is a very important future technology.

There are many exciting opportunities out there for the forestry industry in Australia. The opposition supports this bill and wishes Forest and Wood Products Australia every success in its future endeavours. We only hope that, by working together with the forestry industry, we can take the debate forward on the science rather than on emotion and the coming and going of state and territory elections over their regular four- and three-year cycles. We owe that to the timber communities. (Time expired)

See this speech in context