|
senate vote 2024-09-09#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-09-15 08:43:42
|
Title
Bills — Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024; Second Reading- Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 - Second Reading
Description
<p class="speaker">Paul Scarr</p><p>I rise in relation to the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, which concerns illegal logging of timber and the importation of such timber into Australia. This is a deeply concerning issue. It is absolutely imperative that Australia does its bit to make sure that timber which is illegally logged is not used in the Australian market. From that perspective, I certainly support the principles contained in this legislation proposed before the Senate.</p>-
- The majority voted against a [second reading amendment](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/28062/&sid=0000) introduced by Tasmanian Senator [Nick McKim](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/nick_mckim) (Greens), which means it failed. The amendment would have added the words below to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill).
- ### Amendment text
- > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:*
- >
- > *(a) each year around 300,000 hectares of Australia's native forests and woodlands are lost to logging and land clearing,*
- >
- > *(b) Australia's native forests are among the most carbon-dense in the world,*
- >
- > *(c) if Australia ceased all logging of native forests, the avoided emissions alone would be close to what is needed annually (15.5 Mt CO2) to achieve our national target of a 43% reduction on 2005 levels of emissions by 2030; and*
- >
- > *(d) the [Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1370), which will repeal the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002 and amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to remove any and all exemptions they provide for native forest logging, should be brought on and passed".*
<p>I want to speak first in relation to some general matters and put these on the record. The first is that USAID has estimated that the scale of illegal logging and the market for products from illegal logging is somewhere between—no-one really knows how much—US$50 billion and US$151 billion a year. This is a significant issue. The existence of this illegal market has a number of very negative consequences for the whole world, actually—for where the illegal logging occurs and for the broader community of nations. I want to run through those consequences, first in relation to bribery and corruption. Quite often, the organisations pursuing that illegal harvesting of timber show efforts to use bribes to corrupt government officials, law enforcement agencies et cetera to allow them to engage in illegal logging. Quite often, this illegal logging in other jurisdictions is accompanied by bribery and corruption. The environmental cost, on the face of it, is clear and apparent. If you do not have regulated, sustainable timber harvesting with a strong regulatory overlay, then you will have an environmental cost. You will have timber harvested inappropriately to the detriment of the environment. Third, there's the economic cost. In many cases and in many countries, that cost is to traditional owners, who have interests in the timber being harvested. Because it's being harvested illegally, they don't get the economic benefit from the harvesting of that timber. They miss out on the royalties from the illegal timber that's harvested, and they also miss out on the economic opportunity of having a sustainable industry in their regions, and that's also extremely detrimental.</p><p>The second point I want to make—and I believe this very strongly—is that Australia should not be in a position where we have to import timber from overseas. We should be able to grow and harvest all our own timber within the borders of our own country. We should not have to import timber from overseas. Unfortunately, we're moving in the wrong direction in that regard. Various state governments have adopted policies that have had a negative impact on the timber industry within our country—our sustainable timber industry, our regulated timber industry. We're now importing timber from overseas, from countries that have less regulation, to the net cost of the environment.</p><p>I want to give you some figures in that regard. We now import $5.5 billion worth of wood products annually. That's astonishing, for a country that's had, for over a century, a very strong timber industry. A 2022 study by Forest & Wood Products Australia said we're going to double those imports by 2050. That was even before the Victorian government brought forward the native forestry ban by six years, from 2030 to 2024. Just to give you some context, there are 132 million hectares of native forests in Australia, and only 0.06 per cent are subject to logging. That's six in 10,000 native trees subject to being harvested during the course of a year. And, where they are harvested, there are obligations with respect to regeneration. So, from my perspective, it simply doesn't make any sense for Australia to be importing timber and wood products from overseas. We should be sustainable as a country.</p><p>I have some experience in these matters from my time in Papua New Guinea, where I lived and worked as a lawyer between 1999 and 2001. I saw examples there of producers who did the right thing, who complied with regulations, and those who were on the other side of the equation. I'm aware of the tactics, the strategies, used by some of those companies, individuals who were doing the wrong thing, and they're terribly disturbing. My concern is that when Australia moves to decrease its production of wood products and to import more timber from countries like Papua New Guinea, Indonesia or wherever it is, those countries have less ability to enforce regulations and govern the industry. There's less governance in those countries because they've got fewer resources, which is going to lead to a worse result for the environment.</p><p>The coalition, in government, recognised these issues and undertook a number of initiatives, and that should be noted. This was something the previous government, the coalition government, was very concerned about. It included instigating, in 2021, the review of the sunsetting of the illegal logging prohibition regulation. The sunsetting was scheduled for 2023, and we brought that forward to 2021 to ensure a rigorous examination of the rules. Secondly, an independent review conducted by KPMG in 2015 examined the impact of the illegal logging prohibition regulation, specifically on small business. A statutory review of the act was undertaken in 2018 by the then Department of Agriculture and Resources. And, indeed, at the 2022 election the previous government took to the election a dedicated policy commitment to allocate $4.4 million to strengthen Australia's fight against illegal logging and stop illegal timber imports from undercutting Australian producers.</p><p>I'm very pleased that Senator Duniam was successful and that the coalition was successful in its advocacy that this bill be referred to a Senate committee inquiry. That was incredibly important, and I'm very pleased it went through that committee process, which raised a number of issues in relation to the proposed regulation. It's one thing to have an aspiration, a well-intentioned principle, a well-intentioned policy proposal where you want to address an ill in society, but it needs to be practical, it needs to be efficient, and you've always got to be guarded against overreach and to make sure the rule of law is sustained.</p><p>In that respect, there were three issues that were identified through the committee process, including, firstly, the unworkability of and substantial costs associated with the proposed new requirements for so-called mass fibre testing—that goes to practicality. We've got to regulate the industry, but it needs to be practical. Secondly, there was the requirement for importers to directly verify and validate the legitimacy of a far higher number of their timber purchases, even for repeat imports of exactly the same products from exactly the same exporters. That obviously begs the decision of why someone who's importing the same timber products from the same exporter should have to go through the same process again and again at additional cost—that raises the efficiency issue. And, thirdly, there are the dangers associated with the creation of a new strict liability criminal offence, and the accompanying proposal to name and shame individuals and organisations and prosecute in accordance with the new provisions of the act—which, again, goes to rule of law issues. Whenever you've got strict liability offences, it raises issues which the Senate as a house of review needs to consider.</p><p>Having said all that, I again congratulate Senator Duniam in relation to the work he's done in this regard. There was engagement from the forestry minister in relation to these issues, and I would like to acknowledge that. This is the way the system's meant to work. Legislation is put forward in the lower house, it comes up to the upper house and it goes to a Senate committee, which will review that legislation and seek to improve it. In this example, there has been positive engagement between the minister and the coalition in relation to these issues, and that has led to positive outcomes. I want to specifically acknowledge that and, in particular, as I always seek to do in this place wherever I have an opportunity, I'd like to acknowledge the departmental officers who have been involved in that process for the hard work that you've all, no doubt, put in in relation to the process. I want to place that on the record. Thank you very much.</p><p>In summary, I think we're in a better place now having gone through the Senate review process. I congratulate everyone who's been involved in that process and I end on this note. Australia should have a sustainable timber industry. We should have our own timber industry. We shouldn't have to import timber from overseas. It's far better that timber is harvested in a country which has a very strong rule of law and has the resources to manage a resource that is very sensitive and needs to be managed very carefully. It's far better to do that than to import timber from countries which don't have the benefit of these advantages which Australia has.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|