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

Exactly the same tests, indeed, as Senator Colbeck rightly acknowledges. I have already highlighted the direct correlation between the test Senator Wong was talking about in relation to the consistency with a regional forest agreement and the ecologically sustainable principles that applied there; or, if there is no RFA, an equivalent test. But equally the same direct correlation applies in relation to the primary purpose test that is put in place. Senator Wong spoke of the primary purpose test, saying that the wood waste must be primarily harvested for a purpose other than biomass for energy production. Indeed, what I told the Senate just before in relation to this is that the biomass must arise from a harvesting activity where the primary purpose is not energy production. It is very clear. Further, Senator Wong highlighted the high-value test and went into some of the detail of the definitions that apply to that high-value test. As I have highlighted in this debate, the biomass must be either a by-product or a waste product of a harvesting operation, approved under relevant planning and approval processes, and must meet a high-value test. As Senator Colbeck rightly interjected before, we are seeking to put in place the same regulations, the same tests, the same standards that worked so effectively for so long before the unholy Labor-Greens alliance, the previous government, stripped them out.

As I highlighted before, it is not just the former Labor Party—the Labor Party of 2009 or 2010, or really any time prior to them doing this deal with the Greens in 2011—that they are inconsistent with today and that the amendments which we are debating are inconsistent with. They are also inconsistent with the Tasmanian Labor Party of today. Mr Bryan Green, the Tasmanian Labor leader, on 8 May this year—just one month ago—said:

I have written to Shadow Environment Minister Mark Butler to strongly put forward the case for a compromise on the inclusion of biomass in the RET.

We are not talking about large-scale power stations in the middle of the forest burning trees to create electricity.

He of course is dead right: we are talking about a product that will be harvested anyway and it is harvested for other purposes, but the waste, the offcuts, the by-product does not end up going to waste.

We are putting in place an incentive, an opportunity, for those waste products to be used in an ecologically responsible way, to make the most out of those waste products—so that they are not left rotting on the floor, so they are not thrown into a fire for no purpose, but so that they are actually used to generate electricity and so they are put to some good use. The timber will primarily have already been utilised for a range of the purposes such as: the creation of high-value products like sawlogs, like veneer, like poles, like piles, like girders, like timber for carpentry or craft use—high value purposes that this wood would have been harvested for and must have been harvested for, if any of those offcuts or that waste is to be used as part of the renewable energy target criteria.

I think it should be clear to all in the chamber not only that we have strong safeguards in place—because we do, incredibly strong safeguards—and that we have the evidence to support the safeguards—because we do and those safeguards operated effectively in a decade spanning from 2001 to 2011—but also that the Labor Party is once again being completely inconsistent in the way in which it is applying their policies. Tasmanian Labor is arguing for the coalition government's position; Tasmanian Labor is in lockstep, it seems, with the Tasmanian Liberals, like Senator Colbeck, rather than Tasmanian Labor senators, like Senator Singh. Of course, Labor seems to want to continue its unfortunate relationship with the Greens, and that is what Labor is doing with its amendments. It also continues to ignore the cries of some from the Labor Party were arguing that it should be maintained—even in 2011 and even when the Labor Party was getting into bed with the Greens and removing the eligibility provisions that had operated with safeguards in place for a decade.

I look to Dick Adams, who at that stage at least was recognising the value of bioenergy sourced from the native forest biomass. He was part of the House of Representatives inquiry that recommended 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 true waste product and does not become a driver for the harvesting of native forest. Sadly for the Labor Party, it did not listen to that sort of advice; sadly for the Labor Party, it did the deals with the Australian Greens; and, sadly for the Labor Party, that meant that it went into the last federal election and only managed to win one of the five seats in Tasmania. Labor paid a price for turning its back on sensible forestry policy and on sensible policy relating to renewable energy—policies that were demonstrated to work and to have the effective safeguards in place. If it had any sense today, the Labor Party would be withdrawing this amendment and would be supporting the government's proposal to re-include the eligibility criteria for forest wood waste and to make sure that we have an effective regime in place, as our government intends to have.