Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move coalition amendments (1) and (2) listed on sheet 7120, revised, together:

(1)   Clause 27, page 43 (lines 6 to 9), omit paragraph (4)(j), substitute:

  (j)   the project does not involve the permanent clearing of native forest; and

[permanent clearing of native forest]

(2)   Clause 27, page 43 (lines 27 and 28), omit subclause (6).

[consequential—permanent clearing of native forest]

Firstly, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me add my congratulations formally in this place regarding your election to the role. I look forward to working with you. I am sure you will discharge your duties in a way that is befitting to the chamber.

I just want to make a couple of comments in relation to the amendments. This is quite an important issue and it is receiving a deal of misrepresentation in the Australian community at the moment. Disappointingly, it has been pushed very hard by some activists and particular interest groups. It relates to the capacity of Australia's sustain­ably managed native forests to store carbon over time. It is very important issue to discuss. I mentioned in my speech on the second reading debate that the government has effectively limited the capacity of this legislation to achieve what it could achieve, and this is another example. Ruling out the carbon sequestering capacity of our native forests that are sustainably managed over time severely limits the capacity to store carbon in our natural landscape.

Amendment (1) says 'does not involve the permanent clearing of native forest'. I understand that Senator Xenophon is sensitive to this issue. This is not about permanently clearing native forests for another purpose; this is about sustainably managing and regrowing our native forests over time. In fact, any credible forest scientist will tell you that you will sequester more carbon over time by sustainably harvesting the forests. We need to recognise the carbon stored in solid timber products that are manufactured from that timber, like the magnificent timber furniture that we see around us in the chamber. All of the timber furniture in the chamber is, in fact, a carbon sink. It stores carbon at about 0.8 of a tonne per cubic metre of timber. The sustainable management of our native forests over time provides an opportunity for sequestration and further take-up of carbon in our natural landscape. It is not just me saying that; the IPCC also says that. In fact, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation and the United Nations Forum on Forests also say that. In the last week, 80-odd Australian forest scientists wrote to the government to say that there is a flaw in their Climate Commission report when it says that the sustainable management of Australia's forests can store more carbon over time.

These are eminently sensible amendments for the government to consider. They do not lock out our native forest industries. They actually dispel some of the myths that have been peddled against our native forest sector. I look forward to the government's response, because it is one of the elements that can assist this country to meet its targets. I am not sure whether the government are aware, but the projections are that some 40 to 50 per cent of the Australian plantation estate will not be replanted in coming years, which puts a significant hole in their carbon accounting. I do not know whether they have done the numbers on that yet—I would be interested to hear whether the minister has those figures—but some 40 to 50 per cent of the Australian plantation estate may not be replanted due to a range of circumstances, but here we have the opportunity to sustainably manage our native forest estate to take up more carbon. It is backed by the IPCC, the UN's Food and Agriculture Org­anisation, the UNFF and credible Australian forest scientists.

I would be very interested to hear the government's support. I am not talking about clearing forests for other use; I am talking about regrowing forests. We know that we do that very well in Australia. In fact, in Tasmania some of our regrowth forests that have been regrown from clear-fell and burn—in the words of Senator Bob Brown, they were 'destroyed forever'—are now being claimed as having high-conservation value. That is how well we do our forestry in Australia. We are recognised globally as managing our forests very well for the sustainable timber and the timber products that can come from them. I look forward to the government's support for these amendments.