Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been a very active day in the parliamentary processes. I believe this report, Seeing the forest through the trees, has come at an important time for the forestry industry. The debate on forestry has been raging for the last 20 years, and it is time to look properly at the future of the industry. The House committee has certainly done that. Its report reflects the nuances of the discussion on forestry. The title comes, of course, from the saying, 'You can't see the forest for the trees', meaning, in this case, that people have been focusing too much on the details and have lost sight of the bigger picture of forestry and the importance it has for this nation—for the states, the regional centres and rural Australia. We need to look at the big picture of forestry because it is the mainstay of many areas of the Australian economy—it has been so in the past and will continue to be so into the future. It also has an important role to play in the world's efforts in dealing with excess carbon emissions.

There is a lot to do around the use of wood. When I look around this room I see how much carbon is stored here in wooden products—in our furniture and in our panelling. We have make sure we are measuring the storage of carbon and recognising where it is stored.

There is a great future for forestry. It can help with the storage of carbon. Also, it is a renewable resource whereas resources such as plastic and steel, which contain an enormous amount of embedded energy, are not. The forestry industry does not use much energy converting wood into what we see in front of us in this room, so it presents a great opportunity. We import about $2 billion worth of forest products, but we do not want to be taking wood from other parts of the world, especially countries in our own region, which certainly do not have the same environmental standards as we have in this country.

The report also focuses on the time when I believe we started to really get on top of forestry policy. The National Forest Policy Statement came about in 1992, and from that grew the RFA processes and the regional forest agreements which meant that we focused on regions to make sure that we maintained the different species of each region. We wanted to make sure that we had a lasting process based on science so that we could continue to have a good forest industry into the future, and that is what we have done. The report focuses on renewing RFAs and on making sure they are modern and that they deal with the issues we will need to deal with in the future. For this report the committee consulted widely with many communities and all aspects of forest industry. We certainly looked at downstream processing and how that has changed. We looked at how the peelings from small logs that come from thinnings are now turned into really good products. There are opportunities for building large pieces of wood from small pieces by joining them together, and we saw that the economics of all those things work very well. Those things can be done in regional Australia in the sawmilling industry that we presently have.

Through innovation there are lots of opportunities for new products that will take us forward but we also need to have a look at how we grow wood. We need look to the future and decide how to encourage investment in the forest industry—whether it is through plantations or supporting rural Australia through our farming communities. I think 70 per cent of the Australian landmass is owned privately and there is a lot of wood there that can come into production, but it can also store carbon into the future. We need to find the right policy settings for that. Farmers certainly need extension work and there is the aspect of meeting the future needs of the Australian industry. We need to help farmers take advantage of those opportunities and reach the potentials available through the storage of carbon and the production of wood.

We need to look at the way we build plantations. People look at plantations as being monocultures when really that is only one part of what a plantation can be. There can be many species in a plantation. Farmers looking at growing wood can do it in different configurations on their farms. We had a good discussion within the committee about bringing forward opportunities from Caring for our Country to encourage that sort of policy direction. Where a farmer might plant three rows of trees to protect a river or creek bank, maybe we could go out to 10 or 15 rows and fence it, therefore building a whole wood lot in that place. These are innovative ideas that we should be able to achieve. But farmers will need help in extension, in finding the right business model, and, of course, to find the opportunity, as an enterprise, to be able to turn a dollar and pay their way.

When we were taking information and evidence it was quite interesting. It was pointed out that many farmers have the opportunity not to make a cut at a certain time. They have a lot more flexibility, and wood gives them opportunities outside the normal agricultural cropping cycles—the turning off of lambs or beef cattle or whatever—so their incomes can be stretched out.

There are lots of opportunities into the future but we need to look innovatively. Governments certainly have a role to play in getting some of these policy directions right. In the committee we touched on the arguments that come up in terms of land use—forestry versus other crops—and we received evidence that there are overdone arguments that do not hold up. There is one per cent of the Australian landmass under plantation. So some arguments against plantations do not make much sense, although plantations certainly have an effect in a local area and should be done in a proper, sensitive way to meet the needs of the community.

What species is grown is very important. We certainly came across areas where, during previous times, when we were trying to meet the needs of the 2020 Vision project, trees of the wrong species were planted in the wrong area so that we did not get the right outcome—the proper outcome that we could have got for the nation and for this industry. We need to make sure that we get those things right. We need to have the policy directions that pull things together and make them work. This is a very good report—I certainly hope. It is a very important report. It is also a report well done. I am very proud to have been the chair of the committee. I am very proud of the people who put in so much, including the staff of the secretariat. I believe we have done very good work that will go on to help governments and oppositions form good policy positions into the future. We wanted to make sure that waste from the forest industry could be dealt with for the best economic benefit for the nation. We based the recommendation on that being waste only—that we do not go into native forests and use them as the basis for, say, driving a power station. The waste from sawmills and the timber industry should be used fully, for the best economic need, as they do in other parts of the world. Europe and South America, for instance, are driven by the greener side of politics, and bio-energy is one of the big renewable energies. So we need to make sure that we are on board for that and not left behind as a nation.

There are some very good recommendations and some very good work in this report. I am very proud that we have been able to pull it together, and I believe that it will serve the nation well.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his contribution. Before we can proceed with the debate, I have been advised by the Clerk that there is a technicality we must rectify in relation to seeking leave to speak. Firstly, I ask the House if I can proceed to rectify that technicality.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By all means.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. It is required for the honourable member to seek leave to have participated in the debate.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to have spoken again in this debate.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you, in retrospect.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has tabled this report, which makes 19 recommendations into the Australian forestry industry. The committee inquired into the prospects of the industry, including opportunities for and constraints upon production, opportunities for diversification, value adding and innovation, the environmental impacts of forestry, the potential for energy production and land-use competition.

The future prospects for forestry, according to the report, are huge. As an industry, it can and will provide for many other industries, nationwide. There are exciting new avenues for investment and innovation opening up to Australian forestry. Forestry has the potential to contribute renewable energy to the Australian economy and to improve land management practices across the agricultural sector. The Australian construction industry will be supplied with more building materials, which, in turn, will bring about more job opportunities. The chance for timber as a building product will increase as we move into a more carbon constrained world. Many Australian timbers are prized for their unique qualities and over time further markets for these timbers will surely develop. Timber can be engineered to be used in many different applications and as a renewable and carbon storage building material it has a clear advantage over many other building materials.

The demand for timber in the construction industry is expected to increase in the years to come. The forestry industry is well placed to benefit, obviously, from this increased demand. In addition to the inherent value of Australian timbers, new investments and new methods of processing will enable the industry to add value to all products that come out of Australian forests. According to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the average national consumption of wood products is 22 million cubic metres per year. By comparison, around 27 million cubic metres of logs are harvested in Australia each year. However, Australia still imports a large amount of wood products and has a trade deficit in wood products—totalling $1.9 billion in 2010. According to Australia's forests at a glance 2011, Australia imported $4.2 billion worth of wood products in 2010 and exported $2.3 billion worth in the same year.

The committee believes that the forestry industry needs greater certainty about possible demand and supply scenarios in the decades to come. The forestry industry has one of the longest lead times in the Australian economy. It will benefit from a better picture about how the market might look into the future and policy needed in this area. Forestry is a key component of the Riverina economy. This is certainly so in the Tumbarumba and Tumut shires. It has long been so. The towns are heavily reliant on the wealth generated by the softwood industries, particularly involving the Hyne timber mill at Tumbarumba and Visy at Tumut. This weekend, the Prime Minister is due to open Visy's first waste-to-energy plant at its Coolaroo manufacturing and recycling plant in Melbourne. The event is expected to be attended by more than 2,000 people, according to yesterday's Australian. The Coolaroo energy-from-waste plant will reduce Visy's emissions by 70,000 tonnes a year and divert 100,000 tonnes of waste which would have gone to landfill. In a clean and green environment, which we all want, that has to be seen as a very positive thing. It will reduce the gas used in the manufacturing and recycling plant by half and 10 per cent of the energy consumption. Again, that is an extremely good thing.

The plans of Visy's executive chairman, Anthony Pratt, follow his commitment four years ago to invest US$1 billion in paper recycling and waste-to-energy infrastructure at a Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York. Last year, Visy's American associate Pratt Industries commissioned a US$60 million energy plant in Georgia which converts waste from its manufacturing into gas. Mr Pratt and his company are visionaries. They do great things right across this country and certainly great things for my electorate in the Riverina, particularly through the Visy pulp and paper mill at Tumut.

The new waste-to-energy plant in Australia, which is likely to be located adjacent to Visy's Tumut pulp and paper mill in southern New South Wales, will be three times the size of the US facility, and that has got to be a tremendous thing both for the Riverina economy and for the Australian economy. It will provide baseload power, unlike other renewable energy technologies such as solar or wind power. In this day and age, when we have people such as Anthony Pratt willing to invest in those sorts of things, that is good. This report for the forestry industry is also a positive one and I commend it to the House.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with the comments of the member for Riverina in relation to Visy. The Coolaroo plant is in my electorate, and I very much look forward not only to its contribution to the environment; it is a major employer in my local community.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hear, hear!

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry entitled Seeing the forest through the trees. I want to quote a couple of things from the report. The first is from A Whitney Brown, writer and comedian, who said:

… They give us two of the most crucial elements for our survival:

oxygen and books!

The other is Henry Abbey's poem. It is very appropriate and I would like to have it recorded; I thank the secretariat for including it. The poem is as follows:

What do we plant when we plant the tree?

We plant the ship, which will cross the sea.

We plant the mast to carry the sails;

We plant the planks to withstand the gales--

The keel, the keelson, and the beam and knee;

We plant the ship when we plant the tree.

What do we plant when we plant the tree?

We plant the houses for you and me.

We plant the rafters, the shingles, the floors.

We plant the studding, the lath, the doors,

The beams, and siding, all parts that be;

We plant the house when we plant the tree.

What do we plant when we plant the tree?

A thousand things that we daily see;

We plant the spire that out-towers the crag,

We plant the staff for our country's flag,

We plant the shade, from the hot sun free;

We plant all these things when we plant the tree.

Australia has 149.4 million hectares of forest, comprising 147.4 hectares of native forest and two million hectares of plantations. These forests cover about 21 per cent of the continent. That is about eight hectares of forest for each Australian, one of the highest areas of forest per person in the world. The world average is less than 0.6 hectares of forest per person. Australia has about four per cent of the world's forests. I have recently witnessed firsthand the devastating effects of uncertainty in the forest industry in my own electorate of Bass. I have spoken in this place before about Scottsdale and the north-east of my electorate of Bass. This is an area that has, in the past, been heavily reliant upon the forest industry. This region has faced a period of substantial uncertainty, with forest downturn in Tasmania. This saw the loss of many jobs in the area, which had a widespread impact on my local community. But the assistance provided in this report will begin to regain a level of certainty and direction for communities such as Scottsdale.

With a range of climate and soil types, the north-east of Tasmania is suitable for a range of agricultural production, being the recipient of a significant and reliable rainfall and being assisted by the federal Labor government with respect to several irrigation schemes. Forestry is a major sector of this region. In fact, in 2010, 26 per cent of the region's employment came from the agricultural and forestry sectors alone. As pointed out by many submissions to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, the forest industry in Tasmania is currently undergoing some substantial changes. This is largely due to the announcement of a 'Statement of principles to lead to an agreement', which was signed on 14 October 2010.

The central aim of the process, beginning with the statement of principles, was to resolve the conflict over forests in Tasmania, to protect native forests and to develop a strong, sustainable timber industry. There are a number of parties to the statement of principles. It is important to note that neither the Tasmanian government nor the Australian government were parties to the statement. However, the Australian government has welcomed the new relationship between industry, union and environmental organisations to develop the Tasmanian forest statement of principles to lead to an agreement as a positive step towards balancing the conservation and sustainable development and management of Tasmania's forest resources. It is important to have the recommendations on the record. Recommendation 10 states:

The Committee recommends the Australian Government lead a process through COAG to create a national plan for plantations, to ensure that:

Recommendation 11 states:

The Committee recommends the Australian Government:

Recommendation 13 states:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in concert with state and local governments, provide immediate and ongoing financial support to local organisations that provide extension services for farm forestry, particularly through the Caring for our Country initiative.

Recommendation 19 states:

The Committee recommends the Australian Government lead a process of discussions with all state and territory governments, to consider national approaches to:

most importantly—

A persistent theme of the inquiry focused on the need for research and development of the forestry industry. These calls came from industry, community and environmental organisations, as well as from academics. This need was identified across all areas of the industry, including native forestry, plantation forestry, farm forestry, production development and energy generation.

Many submissions to the inquiry noted that many plantations have not been managed for sawlog production. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry submitted that less than 10 per cent—perhaps no more than five per cent—of hardwood plantations are managed for sawlog production. The remaining 90 to 95 per cent of hardwood plantations are managed for lower value products, such as woodchips.

Another issue I wish to outline is that there is considerable agreement that managed investment schemes did little to support long-rotation sawlog plantations. Evidence, however, suggests that it might be able to do so in the future. As noted by Ian Ruscoe of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, legislative change in 2007 was aimed at ensuring long-rotation plantations could be supported by MIS.

Throughout this report the committee has focused on new forestry opportunities, both for today and for the future. The committee firmly believes that the future of the Australian forestry industry is bright and looks forward to seeing those in the industry take advantage of those opportunities.

May I take this opportunity to thank the secretariat, for their hard work; the committee chair, the member for Lyons; and those who took the time to make submissions to the inquiry. I would like to thank all the witnesses who provided evidence to the committee during the inquiry and those who took us on informative site visits. During the course of the inquiry, the committee were impressed by the passion and commitment of individuals and groups throughout the forestry industry.

New methods of forestry planning and management are continually making an impact on the forestry industry, and this will enable the industry to be more efficient and flexible in the future. This inquiry has come at an important time for the forestry industry, especially in my home state of Tasmania. We were privileged to visit some of Australia's timber communities to talk about the future of the industry.

Forestry in the future will be about putting the right trees in the right places for the right reasons. Australia must be able to plan for the future of the forestry industry. As the poem said at the start of my speech:

What do we plant when we plant the tree?

We plant the ship, which will cross the sea.

We are moving to a great future for forestry, but it must be planned and we must get the right trees in the right places for the right reasons. One of the most important aspects of any inquiry is to spend time listening to people talk about the things they know best. I firmly believe that, with the right policy, the industry has a bright future and will continue to play an important role in Australia's economy, particularly in rural and regional Australia. I say again: we should plan to put the right trees in the right places at the right time for the right reasons for Australia.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to congratulate the member for Bass, on a poetic contribution, the member for Riverina and the member for Lyons, all of whom have a great interest in the subject of forestry. I am very proud to be a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry and to have had a place in this inquiry. The inquiry, as has been said, has come up with this fantastic report, Seeing the forest through the trees, which has made 19 recommendations.

The inquiry was tasked through its terms of reference to inquire into the forestry industry, looking at different aspects, including:

Opportunities for and constraints upon production; Opportunities for diversification, value adding and product innovation; Environmental impacts of forestry …'; Creating a better business environment for forest industries … ; Social and economic benefits of forestry production; Potential energy production from the forestry sector … ; Land use competition …

The final one was obviously an interest of mine, as I come from a sugar-growing region where there have been some issues over that, but I have to say that I came to this from my part of the world without a great deal of expertise in or knowledge of forestry. It was heartening to see the number of submissions and people who came before the inquiry from industry sector groups basically saying that there is a bright future for forestry. The one thing that they said needed to happen was that government also have the view that forestry is viable as an industry and to put plans in place that ensure the industry's viability into the future. The recommendations that have came out of this inquiry in the report certainly pave the way for a bright future for forestry. If they are adopted by government, then they will provide a sound basis for the industry into the future.

Recommendation 1 calls on the government, through the COAG Standing Council on Primary Industries, to lead a process to assess and report publicly on the likely wood demand-and-supply scenarios over, say, the next 40 years. We are also calling on the COAG council to consider and report publicly on whether this nation should aim for self-sufficiency in wood supply. There is strong support for that concept within the committee.

Recommendation 3 calls on the government to run public information campaigns to promote timber and wood products as replacements for more energy-intensive materials. There has been a concerted negative view of forestry over a long time—it has been thought that it is a bunch of people just chopping down trees and doing nothing for the environment—but the fact is that wood products consume the less energy than most products out there on the market. That needs to be factored in. The general public need to understand that wood is not an anti-environmental product. There are groups out there at the moment such as GetUp which are really flogging this angle and running campaigns against legitimate commercial operations such as Harvey Norman. They are basically campaigning against wood products. That is why it is very important that the government look at a public education campaign on the subject.

The other thing we recommended along these lines is that COAG create a number of national plans, including a national plan for plantations to ensure that appropriate species are placed in appropriate locations and that there is appropriate infrastructure in places where plantations are planned. We have again called on the government, through COAG, to develop a national plan which would enable infrastructure for farmed forestry to be funded and constructed—another very important part of the mix if we are to have a viable forestry industry in the future.

The final recommendation of the report—and I certainly have not listed them all; there are 19 of them—was for the government to hold discussions on national approaches to farmed forestry and future wood product supply and demand. I suggest that that would have to be done through COAG. All of these things are vitally important. The report also looked at RFAs, regional forestry agreements, which have been controversial in the past. But the way forward that has been suggested here would reconcile the conflicting interests. We have said that the RFAs should be renewed, incorporating an evergreen extensions process. Ensuring that the industry has that longer term would provide security. The committee has called for new RFAs to be in place for at least three years before the expiry of the existing agreements and for a new regime within RFAs for ongoing monitoring and periodic assessment.

Another thing within the report which is mentioned a number of times is the concept of social licences, obviously for regional areas where there is forestry. There are certain impacts on the community, particularly where new plantations are being planted, so the concept of social licences is discussed. It is something where we think the industry itself needs to look at it and then come to some agreement on what is acceptable when setting up in a new location to get that social licence with the community. I fully support that concept.

One of the things the committee has recommended, and this is an extremely important aspect, is that native forest biomass be considered a source of renewable energy under the renewable energy targets. It is immensely important that that be taken into consideration.

The issue of conflict in land use has been an issue, particularly in my electorate of Dawson, which is historically known as a sugar-growing area. It ranges from Mackay through Proserpine and the Whitsundays and up through the Burdekin to Townsville. I think my electorate would be the largest sugar-growing electorate in all of Australia. We have had an experience with forestry and I have to say it probably has not been a good experience. The experience was one that was driven by managed investment schemes. The committee has certainly taken what I think is a fairly reasonable, but hard, view on managed investment schemes. I want to give some background to some of the issues that occurred in my electorate on this matter. Canegrowers is the peak body for sugar farmers in Australia and I want to read a section from a submission they gave to a previous inquiry of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into agribusiness MISs and the impact they had. They said:

MIS investments can use their tax advantages to bid for prime agricultural land to the detriment of existing industries. In the case of the sugarcane industry, ongoing viability of a region depends on the availability of sugar milling capacity.

That means land and cropping land.

If a significant proportion of a sugar mill supply area is alienated, the mill would become uneconomical and would close. Cane cannot be transported economically more than about 60km, so unless there were another mill in that radius, all growers in that area would thereby have lost access to growing their traditional, high-value crop.

That particular problem was causing a great deal of angst to growers in the Sarina, Proserpine and Burdekin areas, which are all within or near my electorate. We have seen MISs go belly up with the problem they had. I think there were fundamental flaws with the whole thing.

The report from the inquiry has recommendations in regard to managed investment schemes. The committee said that the government should be looking at whether or not they think that long-term rotation plantations are an appropriate part of policy in terms of forestry's future; whether it is necessary and appropriate for government to provide incentives in that regard; and whether MISs are the best mechanism for reaching that objective. If they still do think it is then it needs to be seen whether or not it can be altered to make it much more effective. If it cannot meet that objective, why are we still doing it?

The submissions we received and the statements made by people who fronted the inquiry—some were from within the industry and others were talking about the impact of the industry in their community, and when I say industry I mean MIS forestry—said that there were problems such as inappropriate species planted in inappropriate places, dislocation of other industries and a range of different issues. Finding the balance in terms of where forestry should be, where MISs should be and where there should be other agricultural pursuits is something that I know the committee was very mindful of.

I commend most of the report. There is some stuff about the carbon tax in there and implications regarding that that I do have an issue with, but, all in all, I welcome the report and hope that governments look at the recommendations into the future.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to commend this report to the House. Like the previous speaker, I do not agree with everything in it but I agree with the overall nature of it. I would like to thank all committee members for their contribution to this and I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the secretariat for the very good way they managed the process and all the logistics around it.

The report has come up with a number of recommendations. I would like to step through those recommendations because I think they are important and go to the heart of what is in the report. The first recommendation is:

… the Australian Government, through the COAG Standing Council on Primary Industries, lead a process to assess and publicly report on likely wood demand and supply scenarios over the longer term …

By 'longer term' we mean over the next 40 years. We would like to see this process completed within 12 months. That was one of the clear things that we heard evidence on: there should be a public process which should include both state and federal governments to report on what Australia's future timber demands are going to be. That would help coordinate and plan for what occurs within the industry and how the government can help and facilitate as a result of that plan.

The second recommendation is that, once again, through the COAG Standing Council on Primary Industries, there be:

… a process to consider and publicly report on whether Australia should aim for wood supply ‘self-sufficiency’.

I do not think that we should get too hung up on the end result. The main thing is that we look clearly at where Australia wants to head with its timber production, what our overall aims are and what the overall policy settings, from both the federal and the state levels, should be to achieve that.

Recommendation 3 asks the Australian government to:

… run public information campaigns to promote timber and wood products as replacements for more energy-intensive materials.

That is something that we need to do because, sadly, the green movement has captured the view of timber, logging and the whole process of forestry. There is a real need for us to re-educate, especially young Australians, on the whole timber process—how user-friendly and renewable timber products are. We really need to get the balance back in this argument. We have been chopping down trees since Adam and Eve and we need to continue to do so. As long as it is done in a manageable way, in a renewable way, we can and should continue to do it; yet, sadly, I get the feeling that the Greens would be very happy if not another tree was chopped down in Australia. This is a problem that I think we need to address sensibly. Both major political parties could usefully look at something around this and say, 'Let's go out there and look at what the timber industry has to offer Australia.'

The fourth recommendation is:

… the Australian Government develop robust national standards quantifying the carbon stored in different products made from harvested trees, including the duration of storage and policy implications of those standards.

Once again, a fairly sensible recommendation. We can look around at all the timber here in the Main Committee chamber. There is carbon stored in all the wood product here. We should be able to see the benefits of that. We are not causing severe environmental harm by chopping down a tree; if you replant that tree and you use the timber wisely, you are actually storing carbon. We have to make sure that we take notice of that, and that is a sensible part of the public debate on how we can make sure that we use timber successfully and also promote timber as being an environmentally friendly product.

The fifth recommendation of the committee was that the Australian government, as it develops a mature Carbon Farming Initiative regime, consider the capacity for additionality, the capacity for permanence and other ways for the CFI to support the forestry industry generally. This recommendation is not very clear cut—we have to be very careful in this area. But there are real opportunities when it comes to farm forestry. This is where the use of additionality and the use of permanence can, if we get the policy settings right, benefit farm forestry.

With farm forestry, I am not talking about a plantation of a single species in a vast area; what I am talking about is a farmer using 10 or 15 per cent of his land for tree plantations whereby he can actually increase the productivity of that land by the sensible plantation of timber and then that timber can value-add to his property because in 20 or 30 years time he can rotate that timber. It can be hardwood timber which goes into mills. If done sensibly this is an area where we can get farming communities and the timber communities working together. When it comes to additionality, when it comes to permanence, if we get the settings right, this can be very good. If we do not, sadly, there is a worry that the CFI could lead to more single plantations, and we heard a lot of evidence that they were put in at the wrong time at the wrong place and have not benefited anyone. If we get this recommendation right, there are some real opportunities there.

Recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 9 are around native forestry. Once again, this report sets clearly what should be defined as a 'native forest' and what should be defined as an 'old-growth forest'. We need to stick to these definitions and we need to stick to them in our regional forestry plans. We are seeing timber communities being driven out of forestry under regional forestry agreements because of the continual redefining of what is a native forest and what is an old-growth forest. The more they are redefined, the more our timber industry is going to rely on plantations, which is then going to create land use issues between farmers, between the timber industry—and we are already seeing land use competition when it comes to mining. We have got to get this balance right. But we have to make sure that, where forestry has been occurring, we let it continue. Let us not define an area which has been forested as all of a sudden being 'old-growth' and 'native' so those timber industries and timber communities who want to go in and harvest that product can no longer do so. I am hoping that that will be something which comes out of that series of recommendations.

Recommendations 10 and 11 are around plantations. To me these are the most important recommendations which have come out of all this work—and obviously that is very much a personal view rather than a committee view. Recommendation 10 states:

The Committee recommends the Australian Government lead a process through COAG to create a national plan for plantations, to ensure that:

Recommendation 11 states:

The Committee recommends the Australian Government:

The evidence we heard on MIS was quite damning. It is not working. It might have led to investment in regional and rural communities when it started, but that investment was driven by corporates looking for a tax advantage, not by the long-term interests of regional and rural communities. My view—but it is agreed by the committee and by all sides—is that the minimum we need to do is to review and relook at this. I hope that the government will be doing that, and I will be doing everything I can to make sure that the coalition does that.

This policy needs to be reviewed, and seriously reviewed. We have stepped out the process by which that should take place, and I will now be doing everything I can to make sure that that happens. MIS needs to be reviewed. We need to take evidence to see whether it is continuing to do what it was designed to do. My strong belief is that it is not. We need to relook at this whole area. That is what the committee has recommended, and I would hope that all sides will be looking at doing that now. Recommendation 11 of this report is a very important recommendation.

My view is: if we can get the long-term investment incentives right, we will see farm forestry continue to grow, with all the environmental benefits that that will bring, instead of one sector, the timber sector, competing with the farm sector in a way which I think does no good whatsoever to either side. Farming communities suffer. And, if you look at what is happening currently, especially in the area that I represent, the electorate of Wannon, you will see MIS plantations, trees, being ripped out of the ground and burnt. That is not doing anything for the timber industry either. We need to relook at this policy area. We need to get it right. My view is also that, following on from our committee's work, we really need a committee somewhere to look at recommendation 11—take it by itself, look at it and have a full review of what needs to happen in this area. We need to look at whether we need long-rotation plantation investment and to encourage that investment.

Recommendations 12 and 13 go to farm forestry. I was particularly glad to host the committee in the electorate of Wannon and to look at some of the farm forestry practices there. I think these have enormous potential. In my view we are going to see farm forestry grow, because you can continue to farm successfully by adding a little bit of diversity by putting plantations into 10 to 15 per cent. The evidence overwhelmingly was that this would increase the productivity of the farm plus increase the future income of the farm itself. So it is win-win, and it is an area where I think we need to see enormous growth. It is an area where, if we get the Carbon Farming Initiative correct, we could see a lot of growth. And it is something which I will continue to speak up on and to push.

I am running out of time so I will look at part 7, which includes recommendations 15, 16 and 17, to do with forestry biomass. The evidence we heard on this was overwhelming. We have these policy settings wrong. We are not encouraging biomass use as a renewable form. We are all, at the moment, beholden to the Greens and their ideology. It is ill-founded. It defies logic. It defies what the Greens are pushing as a movement in Europe, where they are encouraging biomass. It is the largest renewable energy source in Europe. That we are not doing that in this country beggars belief. We have to look at the absurdity of this policy, especially when it comes to the carbon tax—taxing carbon usage in the timber industries and then not allowing the use of biomass. Those timber offcuts are now going to go into landfill and release the worst kind of CO2 emission, nitrous oxide. How you could have a policy in place which is going to lead to this is—there are no other words to describe it—beyond belief.

Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Georganas, I will leave it there at recommendation 18 in the chapter 'Forestry into the future' and the rest of the report. I think the timber industry does have a strong future in this country. If we get the policy settings right we will see that happen. What we have to do is change the way the timber industry is viewed. We have to get education into our schools to see the merits and the environmental friendliness of the industry, change the way it is perceived and change some of the policy settings. The timber industry's future is bright. (Time expired)

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with some pride today that I rise to speak on the Seeing the forest through the trees inquiry undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry November. Up front, I would like to put on the record my thanks to the secretariat, who did a first-class job in assisting the committee in undertaking its deliberations. I think the forestry industry has a very bright future in Australia—albeit it is an industry that has been going through and will continue to go through significant innovation in the way in which it conducts its business, particularly as in many parts of Australia we transition out of more traditional native forestry into more plantation and on-farm or private land forestry. That has been taking place for some time and will continue to do so.

I was delighted with the efforts that the committee put in, particularly in terms of farm forestry. Farm forestry has a very bright future, particularly if we get the policy settings right at a national level. I would like to highlight a very successful group in my part of the world, the Otway Agroforestry Network, which has been advising fellow farmers of the benefits of farm forestry for some years. Indeed, I have seen firsthand many farmers who have planted out their properties to the tune of 15 to 20 per cent without affecting the productivity of their properties or reducing stock on their properties and, as a consequence, have provided themselves with a long-term investment which they are able to take advantage of in more challenging years—and they have done so particularly over the last 10 years through drought and the like.

The real strength of an agroforestry approach, particularly if it is supported by government, is having in place a peer mentoring service, where farmers provide advice in an extension sense to other farmers. That is a far more powerful model than having extension provided by bureaucrats. Farmers providing advice and support to other farmers is an inherently stronger model. It is a model that will provide an opportunity for farmers not only in terms of being mentors but also in giving them access to people in their area that they trust who have a lot of practical experience in agroforestry. There is a real opportunity, particularly in marrying agroforestry with more traditional landcare. I use a practical example. Farmers, perhaps through a traditional landcare grant, might choose to fence off and plant a creek bed. Moving that fence 15 or 20 metres further into their properties provides an opportunity for farmers to plant a number of rows of hardwood timber—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:30 to 12:04

After such a long break I am not precisely sure where I got to in my contribution—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Trees.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was talking about trees, as was quite rightly pointed out. There is no doubt that forestry has gone through and will continue to go through quite substantial innovation and change of practice as we continue that journey of transition out of more native forestry, which we have been doing. I was reflecting on the important contribution that agroforestry can make to Australia's wood security as we move forward. Not only is it good practice for farmers to undertake agroforestry where appropriate on their land; if it is done appropriately and with strong peer support in place, it can provide opportunities for farmers to diversify their own practices and provide support to fellow farmers in their communities. I think we have certainly been seeing that in a very strong way down in south-west Victoria, where agroforestry has been providing a useful additional income stream to farmers there. I would be hopeful that the work undertaken by the Otway Agroforestry Network can expand to other parts of Australia, where peer support mentoring can be put in place and agroforestry can take root. There are of course opportunities that will come from the Carbon Farming Initiative which will help support the extension of farm forestry throughout this nation, particularly in areas where farm forestry has been more marginal in the past. If developed properly and thought through and implemented appropriately, the Carbon Farming Initiative can provide additional support.

I do want to again make reference to the role that the Caring for our Country program can play in coupling agroforestry or farm forestry with Landcare to provide real opportunities for environmental gain, particularly where farmers might have been fencing off and planting out watercourses for environmental reasons. If we could have some practical arrangements put in place, where fences could be extended further into properties by perhaps 20 or 30 metres, it will provide opportunities for additional rows of trees to be planted for commercial gain. Leaving the Landcare arrangements in place and appropriately harvesting the farm forestry rows where appropriate is something that we can continue to work through in the Caring for our Country arrangements to ensure that they do work appropriately, and of course marrying up the arrangements under the Carbon Farming Initiative.

Comments have been made throughout the report, and certainly the committee received an enormous amount of evidence, on the taxation treatment of forestry. I think there are mixed views around the table on what taxation treatment for trees that have been planted has done for regional Australia. My view is that, in a broad sense, it has led to a very substantial additional planting of timber on private land, but there is and has been conflict between corporations—looking to plant, particularly, blue gums down my way—and farming communities. Of particular concern to some farmers is that they are having to compete with corporations on an unequal playing field, particularly around taxation. Further work and reform can be undertaken in this area to ensure that forestry does not have an unfair advantage over farming communities when it comes to acquiring a property. We need to think carefully about that as we move forward. We also need to consider carefully the taxation arrangements we have in place, which certainly has led to a very substantial increase in what we call short-rotation timber, which is predominantly grown for woodchip; predominantly the harvest can be secured after 10 or 15 years. That has done wonderful things for the woodchip market, but it has not helped with producing timber for structural purposes, tables or whatever. We do need to think carefully about whether additional arrangements can be put in place to encourage long rotation of timber so that we can work through a process to secure Australia's long-term forestry, particularly recognising that we will continue that journey of transitioning out of native forestry.

This inquiry has appropriately recommended additional work that needs to be undertaken at COAG, involving all the states and territories to continue to secure Australia's future wood independence. That is certainly something that I strongly endorse. A lot of work will be required, and I certainly hope that there is strong cooperation between the states and territories on this matter and that we continue to undertake that work. I very much look forward to having a discussion with the forestry minister to see how he might work through the recommendations within this report. There are some very strong opportunities moving forward. I recommend the report to all members of the House.

Debate adjourned.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to clarify for everybody who might be out there listening, the House has been suspended. As the House is not adjourned, the Main Committee can continue. We will continue until this report is done. Then we will adjourn the Main Committee.