Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I just want to make a few comments and I'll have some questions, Minister, in relation to some of the interactions within the bill. But I want to go back to some comments that you made with respect to the exemption for the RFA process in particular. I happened to be here—I think I'm the only one who was—when the RFA bill was passed. I remember quite clearly the delight of the forestry industry, because the exemption that was placed into the act, with the passing of the RFA legislation, took away the continuation of green lawfare that was imposed on the industry. With every particular harvest they wanted to undertake they had to go through a separate environmental approval process. That's why that process came about; it was because of the green lawfare of environmental groups who wanted to use that to cost the industry out of existence. That's where it came from.

You made some comments with regard to my former government leader in the Senate Robert Hill when the RFA legislation was passed—that was the background to that. I remember why. I remember the impact on industry by environmental groups, who we know don't always tell the truth. We know that because a court recently found that they actually fabricated evidence in one particular case where they were looking for an outcome. But it was done to mitigate the impact of that green lawfare.

I'm very keen to understand if the operation of the new system will continue to allow industry to operate on a reasonable basis so that they are not on a coupe by coupe basis, for example, required to come back for environmental approval. This sector already operates under an environmental standard. It's called Australian standard 4078 for sustainable forest management. I would be very curious, Minister, to understand how that standard, the Australian Forestry Standard—benchmarked globally against other forest standard systems; established through the principles of ISO 14000—will that be applied? How will industry be able to manage a reasonable process for their operations without constant interference and interruption? This will be an important part of what happens into the future.

There's a good reason why people in my home state of Tasmania don't trust the Labor Party with respect to this. I go back to Graham Richardson, I go back to Mark Latham and I go back to former minister Tony Burke. That's why I'm concerned about this. We have good reason not to trust them, and I would be very keen to have assurances and some understanding of how the industry, with the work it has already done to establish the standards under which it operates, that are benchmarked globally and that operate under scrutiny and regular auditing, can continue to operate on a sustainable basis and not be priced or costed out of the market by continuous challenges through green lawfare.

We know that's what will happen. That's the method of operation that these green groups utilise. We know that they're not always honest. Courts have found that to be the case. What guarantees do we have that the processes that they have in place will work properly with the new system and that they won't be continuously interrupted on a microbasis as a part of the way they conduct their business? All of the states, particularly the two RFA states, have good forest management systems and forest approval systems to ensure that they do comply with the Australian forestry standard. It's bemusing to think that the government is proposing that we will have to establish a new standard when we already have one.

The minister said earlier that the industry is moving more and more towards the utilisation of plantation timber. That's certainly true in the context of structural timbers. They are more cheaply grown and developed, and the way that manufactured timber works these days is that it's not just about the timber that provides the structural strength. So having enough capacity within the plantation industry is extremely important for the forest industry in this country. In fact, demand for timber in this country is projected to double by 2050. That's really important. But so too is the native forest industry. It's important to the people, the workers and the communities in my home state of Tasmania, and I know it's important in a number of others. I know that, from talking to my friends in the farming community, they are very concerned about whether their private forests will still be able to be appropriately operated. Of course, the forest standards will apply to those, so how does that work? How do our private foresters, who are operating a native forest private industry, ensure that they still have the basis of an industry to work with?

One of the things I have to say that I lament in my home state of Tasmania and that occurred in the nineties, when we were moving much more towards plantations, was the conversion of native forest to plantation. It was a very difficult period of time in my home state. When we talk about the comparison between the plantation based industry, which I know the minister accepts is important, and a native forest based industry, one of the things I now understand, having worked very closely with people in the forest industry and forest scientists in particular is that, when you compare a plantation forest with a native forest, a native forest is better for biodiversity, water quality—I know the minister is concerned about that; he's made that point a number of times during his presentations today—and carbon storage. It actually stores more carbon. It uses no chemicals. At the end of the day, it produces a higher value and higher quality product. We're sitting amongst it today. If the native forest industry folded, you wouldn't be able to build what we enjoy today in this place because the timbers would not be available.

I know that's what some in the environment movement want, but, quite frankly, that is the wrong response. It's against the science, and it's an ideological and philosophical perspective. Now, that's fine; I don't object to people having their ideology and their philosophy. But, if we're going to do this based on proper science, then the attributes that I've already listed are really important. In that context, there is a genuine case for the continuation of a strong native-forest based industry, because it's basically a natural forest based process. Are there considerations that need to be made with respect to native species, endangered species and all of those things? Absolutely, there are, but they are already built into our forestry standard. The Australian forestry standard already incorporates those things.

Minister, how do you intend to ensure that the industry has the capacity for continuous flow and not the possibility of interruption after interruption, which is basically designed to inhibit their operations? We know that that can happen, and that's why we had the exemption in the first place. Also, there's the Australian forestry standard and the chain-of-custody standard that works with it, which is also an important element, that ensure timber that is being sold in our marketplace is sourced appropriately. It's a very important piece of work, which Minister Burke started, which I continued and which has been followed since. But they're important questions— (Time expired)