Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Duniam, for that very long question. I also want to put on record my thanks to Senator Duniam in this chamber and shadow minister Angie Bell for their constructive approach through these negotiations.

The truth of the matter is that, over the last few months, and particularly over the last few weeks, I have had many, many, many meetings and phone discussions with a number of representatives from the coalition—not just one—as well as, of course, having many, many conversations with representatives of the Greens. That's what you do. When you're seeking to pass legislation, you speak to all sides to understand what the concerns are, what you're prepared to address and what you're not prepared to address. I do recognise the effort that Senator Duniam in particular has put in to seek a deal with the government. We were not able to reach that agreement because of differences of opinion about key matters. That is a key reason why we have now undertaken to pass these reforms with the support of the Greens Party.

I will make the point, as I have publicly this morning, that, of course, we have accommodated a number of amendments to be moved by the Greens in this chamber, but, in addition, we insisted on a number of amendments being made to this legislation to deal with legitimate concerns that have been raised by business groups over the course of the debate and in the Senate committee hearings in the last couple of weeks. That's why we feel so confident about saying that these reforms are a balanced package which deliver for both the environment and business.

I understand that earlier there was a statement or question from Senator Duniam about the definition of 'unacceptable impacts'. I'm advised that the government's amendment on this comes very close to the amendments being proposed by the opposition, but there are some differences. It's not entirely the same, Senator Duniam, but I understand there's a fair degree of alignment there. I couldn't tell you exactly which words, but we can get them to you.

I might also just call out a little bit of hypocrisy that we heard from Senator Duniam and his colleagues this morning about this. All of a sudden they're criticising the government for working with the Greens to pass these reforms urgently today. Senator Duniam well knows that the coalition had been absolutely willing to work with the government to pass these laws today had he been able to strike a deal. It's not Senator Duniam's fault that a deal was not possible, but he knows that the government was prepared to pass these reforms with the coalition and was in active discussions with the coalition about that well into yesterday and last night. So it's a little bit hypocritical of Senator Duniam, but I understand he's got a job to do to reclaim some ground for the coalition.

On forestry matters, I want to make one thing extremely clear, and that is that the government, through these changes, is not shutting down the native forestry industry. I'm a little bit disappointed to hear Senator Duniam, who I do respect—I mean, I know we're not allowed to accuse people of lying in this chamber, so I'll say that Senator Duniam has completely misrepresented and fabricated what the government is doing right now. We have been telling that to the industry, as we were speaking to them this morning. Members of the industry and workers in the industry, who we'd been working with through their union, were very concerned to hear, through the coalition, that we may have been seeking to do something through this legislation that we are not. You may have heard the Greens express disappointment that we have not agreed to shut down native forestry, so, unfortunately for Senator Duniam, the facts don't back up his arguments.

We are not shutting down native forestry. We are not shutting down plantation forestry. What we're doing today is requiring forestry that's conducted under regional forestry agreements in both Tasmania and New South Wales to meet the national environmental standards in the same way that every other industry is required to do and in the same way we are now requiring the agriculture industry to do when it comes to land clearing—the same rules, the same standards that apply to the mining industry, to renewable energy and to housing developments. What we are doing is delivering on the recommendations of Professor Graeme Samuel in his review, which was presented to Sussan Ley when she was the environment minister five years ago and which she and the coalition embraced at the time, where he recommended that, when it comes to regional forestry agreements, the national environmental standards should be applied in the same way they are to every other industry, and that's what we're doing through this legislation. Professor Samuel also recommended that regional forestry agreements be accredited under the new laws, and that's what we're doing. We are doing nothing more and nothing less than implementing the two recommendations that Professor Samuel made when it comes to regional forestry agreements in the review he presented to Sussan Ley, the former environment minister, who embraced his recommendations. So that's a little bit more hypocrisy there from the coalition.

What we are proposing is to make this change over an 18-month period and to work with the industry as that change around standards occurs. I will also note that there have been a number of representatives of the forestry sector who took part in the Senate inquiry and have made other public statements about this over many years who have said that forestry that occurs under regional forestry agreement meets very high environmental standards. So if that is the case, as the industry believe—and, being a former forestry minister and having worked with the industry in that capacity, I've got no reason to disbelieve the industry when they say that they meet very high environmental standards—they should have every confidence that they can meet the new National Environmental Standards that we are asking them to comply with, in the same way we are asking the mining sector, the renewable energy sector and the housing development sector to do that—and we are also, as a result of these changes, asking the agriculture sector to comply with the standards, at least in relation to some of their activities. That's what we are doing. We're not doing what the coalition, for their own cheap political gain, are accusing us of doing. We know the coalition have tried to wage a culture war in Tasmania over decades by misrepresenting policies and the future of that industry. What I'll say is that only a Labor government will stand by workers in the forestry sector and in every other sector to ensure that their jobs are secure and that the industries that they work in remain strong and grow into the future.

I should also make the point—because this is not widely understood by people who don't follow the debate around forestry closely—that members of the coalition like to talk only about native forestry and what the impact of these changes will be on native forestry. The changes we are making are to regional forestry agreements, which do include native forestry but also include plantation forestry. So there's nothing about singling out native forestry for special or unspecial treatment. The changes we are applying are to regional forestry agreements, under which native forestry and plantation forestry occur.

In addition, we have announced today a $300 million Forestry Growth Fund, which is all about supporting the industry to grow. It's in the name of the fund. This is not about closing things down; this is about opening them up and growing them. We know—and, if any of the coalition senators actually bothered to get out and look at the industry, speak to the workers and go to the mills in the way that I have and that all of our Tasmanian caucus have, they would know—that there are sawmills and other processing facilities in Tasmania and New South Wales, the RFA states, that need new investment to make sure that they can continue growing and employing people in those regional communities into the future. That's what we want to see happen, and that's why we've put $300 million on the table. I invite the Tasmanian government to join us in putting some investment into this industry rather than criticising what we've done. If they cared so much about that industry, they might want to put their hands in their own pockets to support those workers and those industries. But we put $300 million on the table today to invest, for instance, in retooling mills and installing new, modern equipment. I've seen such equipment in some Tasmanian processing facilities, and it has been funded by Labor governments, because we want this industry to keep moving up the value chain; to have more jobs, not fewer jobs; and to meet the environmental standards that the industry say that they already meet. The industry say that they need to maintain their social licence by demonstrating they meet good environmental standards, and this is another opportunity for them to do so. This is about more jobs, not fewer, and a bigger industry, not a smaller one.