John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If ever there was a time and a reason to have a disallowance motion, this is it. It defies belief for a government to turn its back on its own policy—its own mantra for dealing with renewables and reducing emissions—and allow the Greens to sit on the government and come up with an amendment to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act which defies common sense and sends the worst possible message to industries everywhere.

This amendment to the act means that a thoroughly efficient, thoroughly renewable industry is being denied the opportunity to make use of its waste. This amendment to the act defies common sense. Why, in heaven's name, would a government want to spit on itself in this way? Obviously it is because of the Greens, who have never let a job, particularly a job in regional Australia, get in the way of ruining an industry. They have never done that and they are certainly running true to form today.

I, and the coalition, thoroughly support this motion. This amendment defies common sense and imagination. In my own electorate there is a forestry industry—it is not native, but it is a huge plantation forestry industry—so what kind of message does it send to that industry? The current act does not allow the harvesting of old-growth forests, or anything else for that matter, to be used for this renewable purpose. It can only be done with the waste product of normal harvesting. I cannot stress enough that if common sense is a measure, then it has gone out the window with this amendment. I do not care what electorate you are in. There would be more electorates in Tasmania that are going to suffer than anywhere else.

If we want people living in the regions at all, we certainly do not want a government run by the Greens. As I said earlier, the Greens have never let a job, particularly a job in regional Australia, stand in the way of destroying an industry. That is their sole purpose with this amendment. This amendment is designed to make a legal industry, acting in accordance with all the laws, regulations and forestry agreements, less profitable in the eyes of the Greens so there will be no industry at all. I do not know if it ever crossed the minds of any of the Greens to get out into regional Australia and see how important the forestry industry is there. I talk about my own electorate in this—I cannot help it, because we are full of renewables, whether agriculture, the plantation industry, the forestry industry or whatever. What kind of a message does it send to anyone in regional Australia when a government walks away from its own policy on renewables and walks away from the whole reason that it is bringing in a carbon tax, supposedly? That they are willing to put this amendment up underlines the fact that the whole carbon tax is a charade. Why in heaven's name would you put up a tax which you are saying is to reduce emissions and then turn around and move an amendment to a current act which will negate the ability to have renewables? I guess only this government would know, but certainly the Greens know.

I just hope that the mover of this motion has the backing of his fellow Independents. As to the member for New England, for example, I can tell you that 90 per cent of his constituents would find the lack of common sense in this amendment to the act to be totally reprehensible. I can tell you that they would in most of our electorates. If the Australian people fully realised what this amendment did, in terms of totally letting common sense go out of the window, to simply give the Greens a win, to try and destroy an industry, then I wonder what they would say. And I hope that, if anyone does vote for this amendment and against the motion, they have got the guts to go back to their electorate and say, 'I failed you, but I did it to stop the government losing an act.'

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This of course is a debate concerning a motion moved by the member for Lyne to disallow the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Regulations 2011 (No. 5). The government opposes the motion to disallow those regulations. The government and I, in my role as minister, have high regard for the member for Lyne and we have worked very closely with him in relation to the clean energy package that was announced in July last year. However, this is one area where we do take a different approach from the member for Lyne's to this specific issue. In implementing its plans for a clean energy future announced on 10 July last year, the government recognised the importance of ensuring that all of the elements of the plan work together to maximise the combined benefits for our society, our economy and our environment.

We had enormously wide-ranging discussions in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee over an extended period of time looking at all issues: emissions reductions in our economy, the nature of the renewable energy technologies that are deployed, the operation of renewable energy legislation and regulations in our economy and the incentives that they give, and a whole host of other matters. The regulation that is before the House that is the subject of the disallowance motion by the member for Lyne was a product of all of those considerations. So I emphasise that the government looks at this regulation as part of the overall clean energy package and the way in which the entirety of the package comes to operate. With that in mind, the government is determined to provide support for bioenergy investment while, at the same time, ensuring that native forests are afforded appropriate protection. It is very important when you look at the overall policy settings to try and get that balance right.

A carbon price will encourage the use of woody biomass as an energy source because the combustion of biomass for electricity generation or heat energy will not attract any liability under the carbon price mechanism. Therefore, generators that use biomass, including wood wastes from native forests, will become more cost-competitive relative to generators that use fossil fuels, which will be subject to the carbon price. Of course, this is part of the entire concept of carbon pricing: it is to put a market signal into the economy with respect to the combustion of and emissions from fossil fuels, such that there is a change in the relative position of different fuel sources and energy sources in our economy. That market signal is intended to direct investment towards lower emissions fuel sources, and we believe this regulation sits squarely within that context.

The carbon price will drive a fundamental transformation of our energy sector, with Treasury modelling estimating $100 billion worth of investment in renewable energy in the period to 2050—$100 billion worth. In the government's Clean Energy Future plan, the forestry industry also bears no liability for logging and liquid fuel emissions from forestry operations because they are not covered.

There are also some potential opportunities for the industry in relation to the Carbon Farming Initiative. Indeed, at the recent United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations dealing with the treatment of forest management, several months ago in South Africa, the international accounting rules were on a pathway to be altered in a way that would strengthen the incentives for opportunities under the Carbon Farming Initiative with respect to forest management.

Also, as part of our clean energy future plan, and giving effect to the agreement reached within the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, the government has amended the Renewable Energy Target regulations to exclude biomass—a subject of this debate, obviously—from native forests as an eligible renewable energy resource. This exclusion encompasses, to be clear, products, by-products and waste associated with or produced from clearing or harvesting of native forests. Native forests are important for biodiversity and store large amounts of carbon. Excluding electricity that is generated from native forest biomass from eligibility under the Renewable Energy Target scheme removes the potential for the Renewable Energy Target scheme to provide an incentive for the additional burning of native forest biomass for bioenergy, even where this burning is a secondary use. In the context of the benefits of bioenergy from the carbon price, the additional incentive from the renewable energy target could increase both the primary and the secondary purpose use of native forest wood, which could lead to unintended outcomes for biodiversity and the destruction of intact carbon stores.

The government recognises, of course, that investments may have been made in the past on the basis of the renewable energy target rules which previously did allow the eligibility of wood waste derived from native forests and has put in place transitional arrangements to preserve the previous rules for existing power stations that are already accredited to use native forest biomass as an energy source. In doing so, my department has consulted very extensively with industry to get those transitional arrangements right. To make that clear again: those power stations accredited for the use of this material under the Renewable Energy Target scheme have transitional arrangements put in place that continue to allow them to earn benefit from the investments they have historically made. The explanatory memoranda I published as minister in relation to these particular regulations contain, in regulation No. 4, in detail, those transitional arrangements. They are very important in respect of a number of the accredited generators under this scheme, and that is a very important point to note in the context of some of the contributions that have been made.

It is also important to recognise that renewable energy certificates can continue to be created from electricity generated from other wood waste and energy crops, such as oil mallee, woody weeds, agricultural wastes and wood from certain timber plantations. So there are products that can continue to generate renewable energy certificates. Nothing in relation to the regulations subject to the disallowance motion prohibits the use of biomass for the purposes for which it has been applied and has, under the standing situation, also generated renewable energy certificates. It can still be used, and incentives are changed by the carbon price coming into effect from 1 July.

While biomass derived from native forests is no longer recognised under this regulation as an eligible renewable energy source under the Renewable Energy Target scheme, those changes do not—as I made the point a moment ago—prohibit the use of this biomass for bioenergy. I would not want anyone to gain the impression from listening to the debate that that was not the case. This wood waste can continue to be used for the purposes for which it has previously applied. However, it would not, under these regulations, any longer generate renewable energy certificates. Bear in mind, once again, that there are quite important transitional arrangements put in place for generators that are accredited under the scheme.

The government considers that in its totality the clean energy future plan, including the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Regulations 2011 (No. 5) that are the subject of this debate, achieves the right balance for our nation and for renewable energy providers to continue to move towards a cleaner energy future. We therefore do not support the motion that has been moved by the member for Lyne.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the motion for disallowance put forward by the member for Lyne in relation to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Regulations 2011 (No. 5). I congratulate the member for bringing this very important motion to the attention of the House. The motion the member has put forward is in line with the coalition's forestry policy on wood biomass and renewable energy. It was stated in the lead-up to the 2010 election that an incoming coalition government would reintroduce amendments to the renewable energy legislation, allowing for wood biomass to benefit from energy incentives available to other renewable energy sources.

Our support for the motion before the House today is entirely consistent with that policy position. However, the government's position on this issue is intellectually inconsistent, politically inconsistent and also environmentally inconsistent with the government's stated objectives. There is one party that has been consistent, and that is the Greens. The Greens have been consistent in their approach to this issue, because it is consistent with the Greens approach to destroy jobs in the native hardwood timber industry throughout Australia. So that is a consistent approach. The Greens will never be satisfied until they shut down the entire native hardwood industry in this nation. So the motive of the Greens in pressuring the government to this position is well understood.

It concerns me that we have an example, once again, of this government doing the bidding of the Greens at the expense of all other considerations. As I just said, the position being taken by the government in this is intellectually, politically and environmentally inconsistent with its objectives. It concerns me that we have got to the stage where we have Labor members opposite not prepared to stand up for the blue-collar workers in the timber industry that they pretend to represent in this place. It should not surprise me, though, because we have at least 40 members opposite who rely on preferences from the Greens to get themselves re-elected. So while this may not necessarily be an issue for some of the metropolitan members of this place, it is certainly an issue for many of the regional members and it should be an issue for every one of the Labor Party members who pretend to represent blue-collar workers in this place—and I am talking about members right throughout Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania and of course Western Australia.

I am concerned that the government's amendment and the source of the disallowance motion by the member for Lyne is clearly discriminatory to the native-forest-harvesting industry. It seeks to omit any biomass derived from native forests, be they privately or publicly held, from being eligible for renewable energy credits under the Renewable Energy Target scheme. I think the member for Calare belled the cat quite well in his presentation earlier today when he referred to the lack of common sense in the government's position, because this amendment put forward by the government simply provides an opportunity for the Greens to claim another victory over the Australian Labor Party. It is deliberately designed to harm the native hardwood timber industry at a time when that industry is facing many other challenges. I simply cannot find a rational reason for the government's approach.

I know the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency just tried to explain the government's position. I would have to suggest to the minister, in his presence, that his heart really was not in it. He tried to justify the exclusion of biomass from the native forest industry for renewable energy certificates. I listened intently, but I am not sure it was the most passionate defence of a government policy that I have ever heard from the minister.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It may be harsh, but it is true. In his heart, he knows that this amendment is simply indefensible, both from the perspective of his so-called clean energy package and from the perspective of a person who I generally believe cares about blue-collar workers and the future of the timber industry. I just could not get a sense that anything he said indicated that he was particularly passionate about the position his government was forcing him to adopt.

My concern is that some members are not listening to the debate as closely as they should on this particular issue and that the House does not quite realise that the use of biomass as a by-product from the native forestry industry is part of the economic model for the future viability of the timber industry. That is not to say that anyone is going out there suggesting—sorry, the Greens are going out there suggesting that people will go out and cut down forest for the pure purpose of generating electricity, but putting aside the Greens for a moment—this is anything other than a by-product or a waste product from the harvesting of native timber. There are already protections in place so that you cannot harness timber for the sole purpose of generating electricity and attract any of these renewable energy certificates. So that protection already exists in the legislation. It is simply not viable, and not particularly sensible, for anyone to go down that path anyway. Anyone in the hardwood timber industry is looking for the highest possible yield they can get from any given sawlog. The whole focus of the hardwood timber industry is trying to find value-adding opportunities where they can then get the maximum possible yield from an individual log. It would simply make no sense for them whatsoever to cut down trees for the sake of the biomass industry. The renewable energy certificates that were attached to the previous position of the clean energy package would assist in adding to the viability of the industry.

There is a classic example in my electorate with the timber mill in Heyfield. I do not have the exact figures—I am going from memory but I am pretty close to the mark. It processes about 150,000 cubic metres of regrowth ash from Victorian forests per year. It is a very big timber mill and is a viable operation on a world scale at 150,000 cubic metres. All its sawlogs are certified under the Australian forestry standard. There is a whole range of international and national standards that it meets. There are about 200 direct employees at the Heyfield mill. Sixty per cent of Heyfield's output of high-value hardwood is sold to Melbourne, to customers employing about 22,000 people. This is a very impressive operation at Heyfield.

In addition to that high-value end of the operation, where it is selling a range of products into European markets and into Melbourne, it also has the capacity to generate enough sawdust to provide eight megawatts per annum in its power station at the site. It has the capacity to do it, but it has not proceeded with this plan in the past because the running costs and depreciation associated with the electricity generation would result in a cost of 19c per kilowatt hour. The renewable energy certificates would return approximately 4c per kilowatt hour, making the price of electricity 15c per kilowatt hour. At this stage, Heyfield is currently purchasing its brown coal power for about 8c per kilowatt hour. Currently, only one-third of the sawdust is used for heat and steam generation to kiln-dry the timber and the remaining two-thirds is sold to the potting mix market. There is an opportunity here, and I have provided a classic example at a very local level in my electorate, to help ensure the future viability of that operation—as I said, this is not going to be the only reason the Heyfield mill keeps going—if it is in a position to access the renewable energy certificates and go down this path. For the government to exclude this obvious form of renewable energy is, I think, ridiculous.

Government members interjecting—

No, I did not suggest that the minister himself is ridiculous; I suggested that the government's position is ridiculous. I have said it is intellectually inconsistent with his government's own position on a whole range of other areas. It is clear to me that this is not about a climate change agenda but about fulfilling the Greens agenda for the native hardwood timber industry. With the waste classified as renewable energy, a business like the Heyfield timber mill can then compete more readily with exports. Without the change, business costs at this particular mill will be driven higher and the mill may then put itself in a position which is unsustainable.

I put it to the House that this is exactly what the Greens party wants out of this legislation. The Greens' political agenda is to shut down the native hardwood timber industry. I congratulate the member for Lyne for highlighting the inconsistency in the government's approach by bringing this motion of disallowance before the House because he raises a very important point. I am disappointed that there are not more members from regional parts of Australia from the Labor Party prepared to come in here and debate their case. They should come into this place and explain to me how the timber workers in their electorates will support them in this decision, because I am afraid that they will not. The timber workers I have met with want to remain viable in the industry into the future. I am very disappointed that members opposite are not prepared to come in here and defend their position. What we have seen is a very half-hearted attempt by the minister to defend their position, when I think in his heart of hearts he would prefer to be going down the path that the member for Lyne wishes to take the parliament here today.

In making that point, I encourage all of the crossbenchers to support the member for Lyne in his position, just as the coalition is supporting him in his position. I particularly encourage the member for New England because I believe he is a man who does understand an industry like the timber industry and how its future viability can hang by a thread. If we are going down this path, where the government is going to exclude them from a clear opportunity to be viable in the future, it would be disappointing if the member for New England were not to support his colleague the member for Lyne on this issue.

In the time I have left, I reflect briefly on a couple of points. The member for Lyne referred in his contribution to the current trade deficit in wood and paper products of about $2 billion per year. This is another example where, if we come into this place and are prepared to pass legislation, regulations or whatever it might be that discriminates against the native hardwood timber industry, we need to understand the downstream ramifications of doing that. We currently have in this country a deficit of about $2 billion in terms of the wood and paper products we bring in. There is legislation before the House now on whether we are going to take a stronger line in regard to products from illegal harvesting of timber in other nations. The point I am trying to make is that we have a sustainable hardwood timber industry in this nation which is heavily regulated, yet at the same time we are making it more difficult for that industry to compete with imported products.

This motion put forward by the member for Lyne and supported by the coalition will perhaps make it fractionally easier in the future for the hardwood timber industry in this nation to compete with these imported products from timber which is not necessarily harvested to anywhere near the same level of certification as our own timber industry is on a daily basis. Our industry already faces many challenges: resource security; cheap imported products; illegally harvested timber that I have just referred to; the carbon tax, which I believe will make it less competitive; and an extreme green element in the community pursuing policies like this which are completely inconsistent with the future interests of our community.

In the time I have left I want to mention a letter that the member for Lyne thoughtfully distributed to all members. In that letter he attached a document signed by 49 recognised forestry scientists and leading forestry practitioners. I know that members receive a lot of correspondence but, in a free plug to the member for Lyne, if you can find in your files this letter with the document signed by 49 forestry scientists, dig it out. Do yourself a favour, as Molly Meldrum would say, and get the letter out and actually read what they have to say, because this letter is probably one of the most compelling bits of evidence that you will see in this place for some time.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Careful!

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I say that with all sincerity because I think it strongly makes the case, in a very succinct way, for members who perhaps are not necessarily that familiar with the hardwood timber industry. It explains what is at stake here. So I congratulate the member for Lyne for moving this motion for disallowance. I condemn the Australian Greens party in particular for continuing to pursue this great myth that in Australia we are down to our last tree and that the chainsaws are out to get that as well. We have a very sustainable hardwood timber industry in this nation. It is worth fighting for, and I congratulate members on this side of the House who are prepared to stand up and fight for the timber industry today. What concerns me about the Australian Greens is that that party can only survive when they are fighting to save something. As soon as they save one coupe in my electorate you will have a spokesperson for the environmental movement out there saying, 'That's a good start but now we need something else.' They are never satisfied. The Australian Greens are never satisfied because they survive as a protest party that have to be saving something.

When it comes to the Australian timber industry, it is time for all members who care about the future of blue-collar workers and regional communities to say, 'Enough is enough.' We have an extensive reserve network in this nation and we have a sustainable hardwood timber industry that is worth fighting for. So I encourage those members opposite to support the member for Lyne and, in particular, I encourage members of the crossbenches to support their colleague in this motion for disallowance. Do the right thing by the Australian timber industry and, most importantly, do the right thing by the Australian timber industry workers and their families who depend on this place and the members in this place to finally stand up for workers and give regional communities a chance.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept the comments made by the member for Lyne earlier that this disallowance motion arose from members and employers in his electorate approaching him with a situation where perhaps there was a small amount of waste associated with their operations that they thought could be turned into renewable energy. But this is much bigger than that. This is a regulation that will not apply simply to the odd employer in the electorate of the member for Lyne; it will apply right across the country. It goes to the heart of the economics of chopping down trees and burning them and counting that as renewable energy.

Firstly, there is nothing stopping the business in the electorate of the member for Lyne, or businesses anywhere else, from putting that material, if it is genuine waste material, to a use that generates energy, but they should not be paid for it. That is fundamentally the question. To quote Judith Ajani, the point about the economics of this that is overlooked in all the contributions we have heard so far is that 'sawn timber stopped driving Australia’s native forest logging in the 1980s and woodchip exports are no longer driving native forest logging'. We have a situation where the export market for woodchips is collapsing. As I said, for hardwood we have had that general shift in the whole economics of the industry away from native forests to plantations.

The only way we could continue the perverse action of burning our native forests and counting that as renewable energy is if people are given a perverse subsidy, and that is what the motion by the member for Lyne would do. It would enable these operators and any other operator who wants to enter the market, and I will come to that shortly, to get paid for what is fundamentally an environmentally and economically unsustainable industry. We are at the point where those two are converging. It has been recognised that this is environmentally and economically unsustainable. Of course, the people who want to make money out of burning down forests and counting it as renewable energy are looking for a lifeline. This motion gives them that lifeline and that is why they are lining up behind it, together with the opposition.

It will be possible for up to 50 per cent of the value of a project to be counted as renewable energy if this regulation is not allowed to stand. It is important to focus on and tackle the myth that it is somehow about some small proportion of waste product. I have heard the member for Lyne and others say that the high-value rules will address that. That is economically simply not the case. It is very possible to have the vast majority of an operation going into pulp or chips to be burnt for waste, to have the vast majority by volume, and still have the majority of value being done through the high value, through the hardwood. For example, the point that the Australian Forest and Climate Alliance make in the letter that they have circulated is that in East Gippsland pulp logs are sold for a royalty as low as 11c a tonne with the top quality regrowth pulp logs being sold for about $2.50. With that value in balance it is very easy to still have a majority of value at the high end, as the member for Lyne puts it, but the majority of the volume would still come from cutting down forests and burning them for renewable energy. That is what this regulation will stop.

It is not only a perverse economic incentive but a perverse environmental incentive, because we will be burning what are recognised as some of the world's most carbon dense forests. That is why some have been led to speculate that this could in fact increase greenhouse gas emissions. As we know—and this is happening in Tasmania and would be allowed to continue to happen if this regulation is not allowed to stand—when you burn high quality carbon stores and carbon dense stores like our native forests it takes a long time to replace that. That is why the plan that this regulation seeks to forestall has been described by Andrew Mackintosh, the Associate Director of the ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy, as 'Pythonesque'. He says that it is climate policy plan that is incapable of lowering emissions but that could increase them, that will result in no net gain in the amount of renewable electricity generated and that will cost taxpayers millions per year.

We know that there are people waiting to get a subsidy to burn large parts of the Tasmanian forests and count that as renewable energy. We know that because the letter that was referred to by the member for Gippsland is one of the most astounding pieces of evidence to ever have been put before the parliament. It is co-signed by a number of people, including some from the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania. Of course they want this. They are going to get an economic benefit out of it. But we know that it is not going to impact just Tasmania. We know that in Western Australia, as reported in the Australian last week, some Karri trees—Western Australia's tallest and among the world's tallest—are already classified as forest waste and turned into woodchips for a market that no longer wants them. Instead of saying that this is madness and that is a market that should be phased out, this motion will give that industry a lifeline and allow those Karri trees to continue to be burned.

It is simple economics. If you give people a subsidy for something, you will create an industry around it. While I accept that the member for Lyne is acting on the basis of people within his electorate coming to him, there are people right across this country who are rubbing their hands at the prospect of another subsidy, because it will make projects viable that would otherwise have been unviable because the economics and the environment were heading in the same direction. We should not allow the continued logging of high conservation value forest. We should not allow threats to habitats of native species. We should not further undermine biodiversity in areas that are already under stress.

One point that is also critical for me is that, as the minister referred to, this was something in the Clean Energy Future package, which came out of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. It is on page 129 of the document. It says:

The Renewable Energy Target regulations will be amended to exclude biomass from native forest as an eligible renewable energy resource. This includes products, by-products and waste associated with or produced from clearing or harvesting of native forests, subject to appropriate transitional arrangements for existing accredited power stations.

It was there in the deal. We had some talk before about respecting the work of parliamentary committees. That parliamentary committee did some outstanding work. People with differing points of view found a consensus. There are things in that document that if I personally was writing the package would not have agreed to. I would not have agreed to extensive sandbagging of polluting industries. We had a different view on petrol. But the Greens have not come back in here and said, 'We didn't like that bit of the deal, so we're now going to seek to carve bits out.' That is an important principle in this parliament, where we all often come to agreements that are not exactly as we would like but that arise out of people with differing points of view talking and agreeing on what is common. When we do that, we should stick with it. That is why I cannot support the motion of the member for Lyne.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to support the disallowance motion moved by the member for Lyne. I do so for three reasons. Firstly, because this motion moved by the member for Lyne is about avoiding perverse effects. There has been much discussion about perverse effects but there are some very basic facts for those who care about emissions and the level of greenhouse emissions arising from Australia's economic activity to consider here. Secondly, there is deep, strong, credible and widespread support for the disallowance of this motion from those who care about our overall emissions level and those who care about the sustainable operation of an industry that has widespread support around Australia. Thirdly, this motion is also about electricity prices and ensuring that we do our best to reduce the average electricity price paid around Australia. For all of those reasons, the coalition and I in particular strongly support the continued use of woody biomass, where it is in waste form, as part of the Renewable Energy Target and as a source of credits for renewable energy credits.

Let me begin with the issue of perverse effects. Much has been made in this debate of the letter to the member for Lyne from the 49 recognised forestry scientists and leading forest practitioners. I want to quote one element. I note that the signatories represent universities from around the country, including Murdoch University, the University of Melbourne and many others, including many of the highest quality institutions in the country. It is not a group which would be assumed naturally to support one side or the other of parliament. It is a group to which enormous weight must be given. In my judgement, the key phrase in the letter, relating to the perverse effects of not using wood waste from the harvesting of native forests, is: 'When not used for biomass fuel, processing residues are often distributed on landscapes or buried and burnt near mills where, like harvest residues left on the landscape, they decompose to greenhouse gases without any greenhouse gas mitigation benefit. This misses the opportunity to provide energy for society, increasing our dependence on alternative energy sources, including fossil fuels, or more expensive renewable energy sources.' Within that one paragraph are two critical facts: firstly, much of this woody biomass or wood waste—I use the term 'wood waste' deliberately—is allowed to decompose by being turned into landfill, which in turn decomposes, not just to methane, but to other gases with high greenhouse potential. The net effect of not allowing the current practice to continue is that global emissions and Australia's emissions will go up, because a waste product is allowed to decompose instead of being utilised—and we have not even got to the economics of it. There is no offset, no mitigation and no avoidance of emissions; it adds to emissions. This, by the way, is one of the reasons that the use of woody biomass is fundamental to renewable energy programs right across Europe.

It is also clear, both from practice and from the work of the 49 foresters, that if it is not sent to landfill this waste wood would be burnt as a by-product, being treated and disposed of, to no electrical or societal benefit. Again, there would be a high level of emissions but no benefit from avoided emissions from other activities. In that respect, we see here a clearly perverse effect in relation to Australia's overall emissions and global overall emissions. That is not my evidence; that is the evidence of 49 independent scientists from around the country, including some of the most pre-eminent forest and carbon scientists in Australia, if not the Southern Hemisphere.

It has been the position of both sides of parliament until now that using wood waste was a desired outcome, because it avoids the problem of landfill and therefore avoids the perverse effect of emissions being generated with no positive benefit. But let us look at support, firstly, for industry. The 1,200 members of the Institute of Foresters of Australia, the IFA, an organisation committed to sustainable forest management, support the use of native forest residues for energy regeneration. These are residues; they are waste. They are things that would otherwise give off emissions if they were not used properly. Secondly, as has been noted, 49 eminent Australian forest scientists have provided their weight in supporting the continued use of native forest residues through the renewable energy target, which was a bipartisan position until July of last year. Thirdly, the members of the government's own committee that supported Seeing the Forest Through the Trees, the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, all agreed. Those committee members were the member for Lyons, who was the chair, the member for Bass, the member for Corangamite and the member for McEwen. They all supported the continued use of native forest waste or residue as a component for generating renewable energy credits under the renewable energy target. Those four government members of the committee concluded, on the same day this change of regulation was introduced by the government, that the regulation was not justified. If there could be a greater humiliation for the government than there has been on this policy issue, it is hard to imagine. The government's own members, who were specifically tasked to inquire in detail did not believe it. They did not believe their minister. They did not believe all those who would push this view. It is a simple test for those members: do you stand for your beliefs and findings and will you vote against the decision of the government to ban the very thing that you said was desirable?

Multiple environment groups around the world have supported the use of biomass waste and woody biomass residue. The World Wildlife Fund in concert with the European Biomass Association has called for 15 per cent of energy generation in OECD countries to be generated from the use of biomass by 2020. This is not a modest figure; this makes what occurs in Australia seem almost irrelevant. It goes further. When you look right across the European landscape, you see something even larger. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007:

In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest—

and I underline energy—

will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit.

To complete the package, the Clean Energy Council in Australia has said:

[It] believes the exclusion of native forest biomass as an eligible renewable energy resource under the RET is an example of the lack of understanding and support needed to harness the full potential of bioenergy resources in Australia.

Wherever you go in Europe you will see biomass used—for example, Belgium's target for 2020 is 13 per cent; biomass contributes one-third of that. The EU 'counts on heat and power from biomass to play a critical role in meeting its "202020" targets'. That is, 20 per cent by 2020. So there we go. That is the view around the world, whether it is in science, in industry, or in the ALP in this country. Up until a few short months ago, and even now, its four leading members in this space all supported the continued practice of using waste rather than burning waste or pushing it into landfill where it will produce methane with a greenhouse warming potential of over 20 times that of CO2. If you head to Europe and the IPCC you will see that the support for this practice could not be stronger.

When it is clear that there is a perverse effect and that there is overwhelming support, the last reason is a very simple one. It is about lower electricity prices. What this motion is really about at its heart of hearts is that it was designed, firstly, to do its best to help destroy an industry—and there are many members on both sides of this chamber who understand that. But even more so it says, 'We know that there are forms of renewable energy which are too high a cost to be justified if wood residue is able to go in there; therefore, we want to drive up the average cost of electricity to try to get to those highest cost forms of renewable energy.'

I have supported, believed in, committed to and engaged in helping to push through—I even negotiated with the current minister, and I thank him for that—the 20 per cent renewable energy target. There are those who are critical of it; I am guilty as sin of supporting it. But it was not about finding the highest cost for renewable energy; it was about finding the lowest cost for renewable energy. If we are moving into that space, we need to do it on the lowest cost basis. I think every member of this House knows this motion of the government's which has sought to be disallowed by the work of the member for Lyne is going to drive up electricity prices rather than drive them down. For that they should be condemned. For all of those reasons, it gives me great pleasure to support with every fibre of my being the disallowance motion of the member for Lyne.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will speak only briefly to the motion before the House. I agree with the general substance of what the member for Lyne has suggested and I have listened with interest to other members in the House. I agree with the substance of what has been said by those who are going to support this. If it were in another form, I would be voting for it.

The reason that I am not supporting the member for Lyne's disallowance motion is that I feel compelled to support the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee agreement from whence this regulation has come. It is on those grounds that I cannot support it. I feel that I made an agreement. I heard from my office the member for Melbourne speak some moments ago. There are parts of that agreement that he disagrees with, there are parts that I disagree with, and I am sure there are parts that the minister at the table disagrees with on a personal level. But it was an agreement that was reached for the longer term benefit of what we believe our community requires through the various arrangements in the clean energy suite of legislation.

So even though I do not disagree with what the member for Lyne is saying, I find that because of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee agreement I am unable to support his motion. If it were introduced in another form—and a few members have mentioned the parliamentary committee that has looked at this—I would look very seriously at supporting it. But, as I said, I cannot support the disallowance of the regulation which was part of the agreement that was reached.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say that I am disappointed that the member for New England cannot support this disallowance motion because I think that it is very much in the national interest. Because we still have issues with what the carbon tax will do to the dairy industry and the meat industry, I would have hoped that the Independents would have been doing all they could to ensure especially rural and regional Australia are not severely disadvantaged by these bills. I would have thought that there would have been the ability for the member for New England to support the member for Lyne on this motion, because I feel it is going to be extremely difficult for the committee to do anything.

The committee, of which I was a member, produced the report Seeing the forest through the trees: inquiry into the future of the Australian forestry industry. As a new member of parliament, this is really the first committee report that I have been involved in. In many ways it was incredibly refreshing because the bipartisan way the members of the committee went about producing this report was something that should be commended. It shows that all members can work together to achieve a report that everybody agrees on. I take this opportunity to commend the chair, Dick Adams, for the fine job he did in chairing the committee while we went about this report, the deputy chair, Alby Schultz, and the member for Corangamite, Mr Cheeseman. We also had a member from Tasmania in Geoff Lyons. We also had George Christensen, Rob Mitchell, Tony Crook and me. We did a lot of work. We visited a lot of places. We also took evidence here in Canberra from a lot of people. One of the things that struck me throughout the hearings was that those on all sides were prepared to ask questions on all types of evidence, and we were then able to bring that all together and agree on recommendations. We covered diverse issues in this report, including managed investment schemes. I would recommend that all members of the House look at the committee's recommendations on managed investment schemes, because I think they show a very good way forward.

I think everyone on the committee was struck by the evidence we received on the use of forestry biomass. I am pretty sure that we took that evidence on a Wednesday afternoon, when constituents of the member for Lyne and members of the forestry industry appeared before us. We asked about what would happen with the off-cuts from native timber, given that the approach seemed to be that those off-cuts would not be able to be used for biomass. We were told that the majority of it would be put into landfill and that, over time, as it decays, it lets off nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide is one of the most harmful CO2 gases. Here we were, looking at a piece of legislation that is meant to reduce CO2 emissions, yet by its very nature it was actually going to increase it.

Mr Windsor interjecting—

That is the evidence that we heard. I would be happy to provide that evidence to the member for New England. We were all struck by the absurdity of what will occur unless we can get the parliament to agree to this disallowance motion.

I recommend that honourable members and anyone who has an interest in this matter look at this report, Seeing the forest through the trees, particularly chapter 7, which addresses using forestry biomass. It is quite a detailed chapter and it outlines the type of evidence that we heard. For instance, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry told us:

Biofuels and bioenergy can play an important role in expanding the range of renewable energy sources available in Australia. Australian state and territory governments have adopted comprehensive frameworks to ensure that environmentally responsible forest management practices underpin the use of wood residues for bioenergy.

So there are good practices in place. We also heard from Bioenergy Australia, who said:

During the energy recovery process, the carbon dioxide bound in the biomass is released to the atmosphere. Bioenergy is regarded as renewable, when the biomass resource consumed in the energy conversion process is replenished by the growth of an equivalent amount of biomass. Under the Kyoto Protocol bioenergy is regarded as carbon dioxide neutral.

The Institute of Foresters of Australia on cogeneration stated:

With most mills lucky to recover 40% of log volume, generating power using mill residue as a fuel source creates two economic solutions to what would otherwise be expenses. An expensive aspect of processing in the softwood industry is seasoning and drying, using kilns. The heat generated in cogeneration can be used to drive seasoning plants while augmenting power supplies.

We also visited my electorate and met with Mr Andrew Lang of SMARTimbers Cooperative in Lismore. Andrew is very much an expert in this area and is leading the way. He was able to give us a small demonstration of how native timber can be used to generate renewable energy. He told us what occurs in northern Europe:

The pattern in the Scandinavian countries is to use the heat energy for district heating (and for district cooling in summer). In Brazil and India the heat energy is commonly used by the generating industry, as well as some of the electricity.

So it is common practice in particular in Europe and it is a growing practice in India and Brazil. Other countries in the world are using this source of renewable energy, so it seems absurd and ridiculous that we would not do the same.

Australian Forest Growers suggested that funding be made available for:

… research, development and extension into biofuel, bioenergy and Biochar technology, including upscaling the technology to a commercial scale. This upscaling must include options for regionally based utilisation of biomass at sufficient scale to be economically viable yet small enough to be effectively utilised locally.

They would like to see more funding put into this area, because they see enormous long-term benefits in it. So it is not just a matter of renewable energy credits being available; if we can get the technology right we can use it a lot more, particularly in regional areas, because it can be done on such a scale that regional areas can capitalise on it.

As outlined in its report, the committee believes that bioenergy from the forestry industry presents a promising opportunity. The report states:

Using the principle of cogeneration, it is also possible to ensure that as much energy as possible is captured and used from the use of biomass.

…   …   …

As noted above, there remains a significant amount of work to be done by the industry, in order to identify the barriers to expansion of bioenergy, and to ensure that a secure fuel supply is maintained.

The report further states:

As for the question of native forest waste products being used to produce energy, the Committee is aware that recent policy change is yet to be fully implemented.

We were not quite sure which way the government would end up going on this issue. The committee then recommended that it was of the view that:

… under any version of the RET (or similar scheme), bioenergy sourced from native forest biomass should continue to qualify as renewable energy, where it is a true waste product and does not become a driver for harvesting for native forests.

All sides of the committee, once again, were of the view that:

… under any version of the RET (or similar scheme), bioenergy sourced from native forest biomass should continue to qualify as renewable energy …

That is the bipartisan report's recommendation and is spelled out in particular in recommendations 15 and 16 of the report. I ask all members to look at those recommendations.

I wish that the member for New England could be right in that there would be a way, other than this disallowance motion, for this to be brought into the parliament. The sad thing is that I cannot see a way forward. My view is that all members of this committee put these recommendations on the table and this was as far as all members could go. The hope was that this would lead to a very sensible approach and, in particular, might support the member for Lyne in bringing forward this disallowance motion. So, if there is another way forward, we on this side would like to hear about it and I think the committee would love to hear about it. My worry is that politics will get in the way and that we will not be able to achieve what will be a very sensible outcome.

I do not always agree with the member for Lyne and I do not always agree with the member for New England but on this issue it would be very good if they could put their heads together and come up with a way where we could ensure that common sense did prevail, because at the moment it is not going to prevail. There are a lot of people especially in rural and regional areas who are looking at this as a way forward. It enables those people who like to put plantations on their agricultural land to use the wood waste from those so that it adds to the income of family farmers. If the member for New England would like to talk to Andrew Lang I am sure he would be glad to show him around and show him the innovative work that he is doing in this area in adding to his farm income by using this and trying to develop it as a second income to his family farm.

Mr Windsor interjecting—

It does not make the economics add up. If he can get the RECs it does. That is the important point on this. I would like to see a common-sense way forward on this. The last thing we want to see is this timber end up in landfill. I will conclude there. I am disappointed that it looks like we will not get a common-sense outcome on what I think is a very sensible proposal put forward by the member for Lyne. I would like to take the time once again to commend my fellow committee members who put forward this report. It was a very good bipartisan report and I call on the government to look at the recommendations in it and to act upon them.

Peter Slipper (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that the motion be agreed to.

In accordance with the principle that decisions should not be taken except by a majority and the principle that legislation should be left in its original form, my casting vote is for the noes.