Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This report deals with the Tasmanian forestry industry development and assistance programs. It is vitally important that this report be read in full by anybody seeking to comment on it. We have unfortunately had mischievous comments from the Australian Greens reported by the media suggesting that somehow there was something untoward about this very important and vital program. I draw honourable senators’ attention to paragraph 3 of the report, which quite clearly states that the regional forest agreement:

... increased the existing Tasmanian forest conservation reserve system by 17 per cent, bringing the total reserve system to 2.7 million hectares or 40 per cent of Tasmania’s total land area.

That is the very interesting finding of the Auditor-General in relation to this.

In the next paragraph, the Auditor-General goes on to talk about the then Liberal-National Party coalition policy for the 2004 election which outlined the further preservation of high-conservation forests from logging, coupled with investment assistance to ensure the continued viability of forest and forest related industries. The support the government offered at the time was: the Tasmanian Forest Industry Development Program, with $42 million; the Tasmanian Country Sawmills Assistance Program, with $4 million; and the Tasmanian Softwood Industry Development Program, with $10 million—totalling $56 million.

At paragraph 10, the Auditor-General found that, as of 30 November 2007, 184 applications had been received and 88 had been approved by the ministers, and payments were made on a reimbursement basis. The Auditor-General found a sound framework for assessing and approving applications for the three programs. What he did find was that, however, in practice not all processes and procedures were followed—something which the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry fully accepts.

But, importantly, in paragraph 18—and honourable senators will forgive me for referring to this, but it reflects directly on my handling of the portfolio at the time—the Auditor-General says:

In the absence of advice to the contrary, it would be reasonable for the Ministers—

and I was one of those—

to expect that the assessment process undertaken would demonstrate that the proposed expenditure they were approving represented the efficient and effective use of public money, and met the requirements of the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations.

They are the findings of the Auditor-General—pure and simple—and no Green spin will overcome that basic finding of fact by the Auditor-General.

It is a pity that the new minister so lacks interest in the vital forestry area that he did not deem to comment on this Auditor-General’s report, which concluded that a sound framework for assessing and approving applications for the three programs existed—that is at paragraph 62—and that the department ‘effectively promoted the programs to potential applicants within the industry’.

In paragraph 64, the Auditor-General tells us:

While not yet fully implemented, the industry development programs have met the Government’s objectives by leveraging significant investment from industry participants and assisting forest industry companies to adjust to the changing nature of the timber resource in Tasmania.

You see, what we have in Tasmania is the lock-up of nearly 50 per cent of the total land mass for conservation reasons, and that has been accepted by the timber industry. But that also means that the timber industry has to restructure. It is only fair and reasonable, if they are denied access to a resource that they have had access to for generations, that there be public support to enable that transfer to occur. Indeed, if anybody were genuinely interested in getting the forest industry out of old-growth forests you would have thought that they would have supported this very sensible and balanced approach. I think everybody in this chamber does, other than—you have guessed it—the Australian Greens.

The Auditor-General made three recommendations aimed at improving the administrative effectiveness of the programs. For the Auditor-General to investigate something and not come up with some reason or some area for improvement is, I think, to ask the impossible. This is about as mild a report as you can possibly get from the Auditor-General. What this report has shown is some administrative defects which the department fully accepts. The good news is that, as a result of these defects, not one single grant has been suggested by the Auditor-General to be not worthy of being funded. All he is saying is that the technical process was not fully followed, but that does not mean that any one of those grants should not have been made. Indeed, all the applicants went through a very, very strenuous process, and the committee making recommendations to me and, might I add, the state Labor government in Tasmania were unanimous in all their decisions.

The forest industry is vital to the economic and social fabric of not only my home state of Tasmania but many areas of Australia. It is also vitally important for the environmental wellbeing of our planet. Too often we have heard the nonsense—and we heard it just a few moments ago again from Senator Bob Brown—about the impact of forestry on greenhouse gas emissions. The simple fact is that the Australian Greenhouse Office—that is the body that has the scientific expertise to comment on these things—has said that the forest industry is in fact carbon positive. It is the only area of our economy that is in fact actively cleaning up the atmosphere as we speak, and yet the Greens have a manic determination to destroy this fundamentally important industry. What is more important is this: if you do not use forest products for your building or your packaging, you use alternatives such as plastics, aluminium and steel. Are they renewable resources? No, they are not. How are they made? With a huge amount of energy, leaving huge carbon footprints all over the world and, indeed, even in our nation, Australia.

So anybody listening to this broadcast should be assured that when they buy something wrapped in a paper or timber derivative they are, in fact, doing the environment a favour because they are using a genuinely renewable product. If they are using wood in their building exercise they are, in fact, putting down a carbon sink rather than a sink of CO emissions as with concrete, steel or aluminium. Timber genuinely is an environmentally friendly product. It is renewable. It is basically a mixture of sunshine and water with a few nutrients. It really is a marvellous product. I was delighted to be the minister for forestry—for a relatively short period of time—but the forest industry—

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time granted for this debate has expired. Do you wish to seek leave to extend the time of the debate?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.