Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Hansard source

The government opposes these amendments by the opposition. The proposed amendments would mean that native forest wood waste is not reinstated as an eligible source of renewable energy under the RET.

Our concern is that this provision from the opposition, which would mean that the reinstatement of biomass from native forest wood waste as an eligible source of renewable energy was removed, is counter to many things that many in the opposition have said previously, and, more importantly for us, is counter to the policy we took to the last election and to the commitments we have given in this regard. The opposition also seeks to add a provision to the legislation that prevents the eligibility of biomass from native forest waste as a source of renewable energy.

As I said in my closing remarks, the use of native forest for the primary purpose of generating renewable electricity has never been and never will be eligible to create certificates under the scheme. Let us again make it crystal clear for anybody following this debate and for anybody concerned about the future of native forest—as I expect many people with an interest in this debate will be—that the use of native forest for the primary purpose of generating renewable electricity has never been and never will be eligible to create certificates under the renewable energy target scheme. Under the proposal we have before us tonight, eligibility was and will continue to be subject to several conditions, including that it must be harvested primarily for a purpose other than energy production. We are clearly talking here about waste, as Senator Macdonald made clear before, as Senator Lambie made clear during the debate, and as many other senators have made clear. We are talking about wood waste products, not about it being harvested for the purpose of renewable energy.

One of the objectives of the RET is to support additional renewable energy generation that is ecologically sustainable. Our government is seeking, consistent with the policy we took to the last election, to reinstate native forest wood waste as an eligible source of renewable energy, because there is no evidence that its eligibility leads to unsustainable logging or has a negative impact on Australia's biodiversity. But there is evidence that by allowing this you would ensure that such waste does not rot, is not otherwise burnt, and does not otherwise end up causing emissions when it could instead have been used in a productive way to generate electricity. The safeguards that were previously in place for a decade, from 2001 through to 2011, were, and still are, sufficient assurance that native biomass will be harvested in a sustainable way and that the regulations are underpinned by ecologically sustainable forest management principles that provide a means for balancing the economic, social and environmental outcomes from publicly-owned forests.

We want to put back in place the pre-November 2011 regulations that established eligibility for native forest wood waste as a renewable energy source. As was the case under those regulations, which operated for that decade from 2001 to 201, the regulations will require that the eligibility is subject to a number of conditions. Let me detail those for the Senate. The biomass must arise from a harvesting activity where the primary purpose is not energy production. Further, the biomass must either be a by-product or waste product of a harvesting operation approved under relevant planning and approval processes and that meets the high-value test or be a by-product of a harvesting operation carried out in accordance with ecologically sustainable forest management principles. The biomass must meet ecologically sustainable forest management principles in a regional forest agreement or, if no such agreement is in place, meet equivalent principles to the satisfaction of the minister of the day.

The Clean Energy Regulator, who, I think, as an entity is broadly well regarded across the chamber in a number of ways, will be tasked with undertaking a rigorous assessment of the applications by power stations for accreditation to use native forest wood waste. In determining the eligibility of native forest wood waste as a renewable energy source, the regulator would verify that, if the forest management framework under which the harvesting operation is conducted is a regional forest agreement, the harvesting has been carried out in accordance with the ecologically sustainable management principles in that regional forest agreement; or, if the harvesting operation is not conducted under an RFA, that the harvesting is carried out in accordance with ecologically sustainable forest management principles equivalent to those of a regional forest agreement, to the satisfaction of the minister. The power stations must provide a statement of the ecologically sustainable forest management principles related to the wood waste.

The regulator would also test that the use of wood waste for energy production is not the primary purpose of the harvesting operation. The regulator would be verifying that the existence of the sawmill and its operating licence is appropriate; that, where applicable, the high-value test is satisfied; and that there is an auditable trail of documentation in place, from the source of the wood waste to the power station.

The regulator would also undertake sample checks of the registration numbers of wood waste trucks and the weighbridge documents for the supply of wood waste to ensure that all is above board and satisfies the requirements in the supply of that wood waste. The regulator also has the power to conduct spot audits of power stations that use wood waste for energy production.

Once the power station is accredited, having jumped through all of those hoops, having met the tests that have been applied, it can then create large-scale generation certificates. If the LGCs are being created using wood waste, several data validation checks are completed as part of a generation data assessment process. These include a requirement for the power station to retain an auditable trail of documents that demonstrate compliance with the eligibility requirements—such as identifying very clearly the type of wood waste, whether it is biomass, sawmill residue or a by-product of a manufacturing process; the origin of the wood waste; and the amount of wood waste delivered to the power station—including the details I spoke of before pertaining to truck registration numbers, weighbridge documents and the like.

I want to make it clear to all that these are robust safeguards. These are safeguards that, it was demonstrated over a decade, do not have any negative impact on the operation and use of native forests. They are safeguards that allow for the use of product that would otherwise go to waste—product that would potentially otherwise be burnt, to no end, or left to rot, to no end. Instead, we are providing the opportunity for that product not to be burnt for no purpose, not to be left to rot for no purpose, but to be utilised in a sustainable way for the generation of electricity within the operation of the renewable energy target.

This matter has been debated in the chamber many times over the years. The Australian Greens have always sought to make an issue out of it because of course there are no circumstances in which the Australian Greens support any form of native forest logging. Frankly, there do not seem to be any circumstances in which the Greens are inclined to support any form of logging activity or any forestry activity at all. There are probably few circumstances in which they are interested in supporting any economic activity at all. So we have seen this debate run before as a proxy for debates about how native forests are managed, and that is all it is. It is a smokescreen. It is a proxy. It is the Greens, as they have done historically, suggesting as part of some type of dubious activity that the use of this waste is somehow encouraging greater use or logging of native forests. That is not the case. We have very strict management regimes in place around how native forests are used. The regional forest agreements provide a sound framework for that. And, as I have emphasised, all of the regulations to date—all of the previous regulations and those proposed for the future—make it crystal clear that the waste can only be utilised as waste for energy purposes and that the primary purpose of any harvesting must not be energy production.

The Labor Party used to agree with us on this topic. For many years, they defended the inclusion of native forest wood waste as one of the eligible activities. For many years, they stood by and defended that. It was only during those unfortunate three years—unfortunate for the nation and unfortunate, frankly, for the Labor Party—that they were in a coalition government with the Australian Greens that they relented. This is one of the issues during that three-year period that the Labor Party stepped back from and let the Greens have their way on. Sadly, the Labor Party have not worked out that that did not work for them; that that was a disastrous period not only for the country but also for the Australian Labor Party; and that they would be well advised to go back to their old policy, the one they had before they got into bed with the Australian Greens, that supported sound and sensible management of native forest wood waste.

Let me highlight some of the arguments the Labor Party used to make in this regard, before their agreement with the Greens. Back in 2009, Senator Penny Wong—who, at that stage, I think was Minister for Climate Change and Water—said:

I would make the point that this native forest biomass has been an eligible source under the current MRET since 2001.

Senator Wong was quite correct. It had been and continued to be for another couple of years. She was defending it at the time. Senator Wong went on to say:

There are additional eligibility criteria in relation to the use of native forest biomass, including restrictions on the areas where the native forest wood waste can come from in order for it to be used in generation that is eligible to create RECs.

At that stage, back in 2009, Senator Wong was very clear there was an eligible source and the additional eligibility criteria, and the additional tests that were applied, were appropriate. Of course, what we are trying to reinstate are the criteria and the tests that applied when Senator Wong was endorsing it in 2009.

In 2010 Senator Wong was continuing at that stage to defend this very legitimate activity and this very legitimate definition. At that stage, she did call out the Australian Greens for what this debate actually was. She said: 'I always find it interesting that you feel the need to do that, Senator Brown.' Of course, it was Senator Bob Brown at the time. Bob Brown had said: 'Penny Wong is a prodigious supporter of the destruction of native forests.' Senator Wong rightly said: 'That was an extraordinary inflammation of the debate without any factual basis.' And that is quite right. It is, of course, an example of the fact that, at that time, the Australian Greens, as they had consistently, and continue to do so, used this as a proxy war over native forest management altogether.

The tragedy is that the Labor Party did not stand by the position that Penny Wong took consistently and, indeed, that is still the position of the Tasmanian Labor Party. Senator Singh, who has moved these amendments, should really be listening to Mr Bryan Green, the Tasmanian Labor leader. He wrote to the shadow environment minister Mark Butler to strongly put forward the case for a compromise on the inclusion of biomass in the RET. Mr Green is right, Penny Wong was right, our government and party today are right, the Labor Party are, sadly, wrong on this. Sadly, they are standing by a position they adopted when they were in bed with the Greens. They would be wise to withdraw these amendments. They would be wise to support the government in having native forest wood waste included as an eligible source with all of the protections that we are putting forward.