Skip navigation

Pages tagged "Vote: in favour"

FOR – Documents — Health Care: Private Hospital Sector Financial Health Check; Order for the Production of Documents

Anne Ruston

I seek leave to move an amendment to general business notice of motion No. 626 relating to an order for the production of documents.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, by no later than 11 am on Thursday, 19 September 2024, the final report of the Private Hospital Sector Financial Health Check.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

The government opposes this motion for the simple reason that the minister has not been provided with the final report of the Private Hospital Sector Financial Health Check, so there is no document to provide. Private hospitals are an important part of the Australian health system and an important partner for public health providers. We are working closely with the sector on the financial health check, and the minister and his department have appreciated their close cooperation in that work. The minister has said publicly that this has included the sector providing highly sensitive commercial-in-confidence information. As such the government is unlikely to be in a position to release the full report once it's provided. However, the minister has indicated he is hoping to publicly release a form of the report which will not breach the faith of the companies who provided that commercial-in-confidence information. If Senator Ruston wishes to request a briefing on the matter she is interested in, I'm sure the minister would look to assist.

Nick McKim

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Nick McKim

The Greens will not be supporting Senator Ruston's motion at this time. But I want to place on the record that we will reconsider this position if the government has not provided the report to the public by the next Senate sitting week. We understand that the Department of Health and Aged Care is preparing this report for public release and intends to publish it in the near future, and we urge Minister Butler to ensure that the department releases the report as a matter of priority.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 626, standing in the name of Senator Ruston, as amended, be agreed to.

Read more

FOR – Bills — Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Amendment (Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission) Bill 2024; in Committee

Larissa Waters

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 2852, revised:

(1) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (line 4), before "The", insert "(1)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 41, page 44 (after line 30), at the end of section 24CU, add:

(2) If the decision-maker proposes to refer a preliminary serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(e), the draft report must set out proposed suggestions for the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.

(3) Schedule 1, item 41, page 47 (after line 20), after subsection 24CY(2), insert:

(2A) If the decision-maker decides to refer a serious breach finding to the Privileges Committee of a House of the Parliament under paragraph (1)(d), the decision-maker must make suggestions as to the type and nature of parliamentary sanction the Privileges Committee should recommend that the House impose.

(4) Schedule 1, item 41, page 58 (after line 6), after subsection 24EA(1), insert:

(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include any suggestions made by the decision-maker under subsection 24CY(2A).

(5) Schedule 1, item 41, page 59 (after line 6), after subsection 24EB(1), insert:

(1A) If the decision of the Privileges Committee is not consistent with any suggestions made by the decision-maker (see subsection 24EA(1A)), the report mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) must set out the reasons the Committee did not endorse those suggestions.

As I mentioned in my earlier contribution, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission are the ones who will have undertaken the investigation into a parliamentarian, found that they have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct and written a report. These amendments would require them to make a recommendation as to the sort of parliamentary sanction that the privileges committee should impose on that parliamentarian who's been found to have committed a serious breach of the code of conduct.

As I went through before, at the moment, you've got a situation where, unfortunately, because of the Constitution, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission can't discipline parliamentarians. Only parliamentarians can do that. Only the chamber can do that. So the system that's been proposed and agreed to between the two big parties is that the privileges committee is the one to perform that function. They're not people who are trained in dealing with trauma and they're not investigators; they're parliamentarians. So the very least we can do is give them trauma training. I again reiterate to government that that must happen. Otherwise we could see some serious miscarriages of justice, as my colleague Senator Faruqi referred to, with a bunch of non-diverse people on that committee. But also the IPSC should be required to make a suggestion to the privileges committee. It can only be a suggestion because the privileges committee can't be told what to do by IPSC because of the Constitution. But the folk who have done that primary investigation and who formed a view that there's been a serious breach should give the benefit of that knowledge to the privileges committee in the form of a suggestion as to what sort of parliamentary sanction should apply.

It will still be up to the privileges committee to decide what to do, but they will at least have the suggestion and the benefit of the wisdom of the IPSC. That's exactly what this amendment does. It says, 'You've got to at least make a suggestion.' The privileges committee, of course, can choose to depart from it. But, if they do choose to depart from it, this amendment also says that the committee should explain why they don't think that suggested sanction is appropriate. This is because, at the moment, there's a perception—and I fear that that perception might become a reality—that this is not a transparent process and that there are not going to be the strongest possible decisions taken by the privileges committee not only to discipline parliamentarians who breach the code but to deter others from breaching the code in future.

I assumed—perhaps naively—that this wouldn't be a problematic amendment. It turns out that this is such a big deal, and we're not going to get support from anyone on it. What a crying shame! Please let's make this system work more effectively. Please let's ensure that the privileges committee can be armed with the best information to make the right decision. Given that we can't tell them what to do because of the Constitution, at the very least let's give them the best information to make the right decision. Aren't we meant to be setting the standard here? Shouldn't we be making sure that the best-quality decisions are made for not only the delivery of justice but the appearance of justice, both of which are important?

I commend this amendment.

Jane Hume

The opposition will be opposing this amendment, noting that the privileges committee shouldn't be directed, or shouldn't be bound, in a deliberation. But I note that, before, Senator Waters suggested voluntary trauma informed training for privileges committee members. It's not something we would have a problem with. Again, it would need to be voluntary because the privileges committee should never be bound or directed in any deliberation or any action, and that's certainly not something we would stand in the way of. It's not appropriate for it to be put into legislation, but it's certainly something that should be considered.

Katy Gallagher

The government won't be supporting these amendments, either. I agree with Senator Hume that trauma informed training may be very sensible for privileges committee members, considering the new roles that they are taking with this legislation. We would leave that up to the privileges committee, but we'd certainly see the sense, Senator Waters, in ensuring that that training is available to members of the privileges committee. On the broader point, this is clearly a disagreement about how the system should work, essentially, and we've had lots of discussions about this. I don't come at the establishment of an IPSC and the role of the parliament to enforce or impose sanctions on parliamentarians from a lack of faith in that process.

I think, Senator Waters, you come at it with an approach that starts from a point of lack of trust, whereas I'm coming from a point where I trust. And I think the responsibility of all of us in this place is to make this system work. To make the system work means that, when a finding of a serious breach of the code of conduct is made—and there are safeguards in the legislation that require the privileges to report—that is accountability, because they have to report. It will be clear that, by reporting, they have been considering a serious breach of the code. If they were to consider a serious breach of the code and say, 'Nothing to see here,' then that is open and clear for the public to see, and they would have to defend that decision. It is a responsibility on all of us to make sure that members of the privileges committee are trained and understand their responsibility and do all those things, but we have confidence in the system that we are establishing here. I don't come at it from a view that there is some inherent problem with privileges considering what the sanction should be. The legislation itself sets out what some of the sanctions for serious breach of the code should be. That in itself I think is also very clear and transparent for people. On this amendment, accepting your position, we fundamentally disagree. I think we're coming at it with a different view of how the system will work in operation.

Larissa Waters

I have just a brief retort to that. Minister, it's not about your level of trust in privileges. Surely, it needs to be about the level of trust that staff in this building have in a process that will finally exist to potentially hold their boss to account if their boss has committed harassment, assault or bullying against them. I take your point, but I just want to push back and say that it's very easy for us in these privileged positions to have confidence and trust, but unfortunately the system hasn't worked for so long for people with less power and privilege than we have. I commend the amendment.

Katy Gallagher

On that point, I would say again that the responsibility falls on all of us to make sure that trust is there. If this system is to work and have the confidence of staff, MPs and senators—let's face it; all of our colleagues have to trust it—then the responsibility falls again to all of us to make sure that's the case.

Jane Hume

I want to ask the minister some questions about the appointment of commissioners. Can I confirm, Minister, how the commissioners will be appointed?

Jess Walsh

Minister, if you would not mind, resume your seat for a moment. It might suit the chamber if I put the amendments moved by Senator Waters before moving to other matters. Senator Faruqi?

Mehreen Faruqi

I just have a question on Senator Waters's amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I'll come back to you, Senator Hume.

Minister, can you tell us how people of colour, people with disability, First Nations people and other diverse people can trust committees that are made up of all white members, and what are you going to do about that?

Katy Gallagher

The appointment of members to privileges committees is a matter for individual parties. For example, if the Greens political party wanted to appoint you or another member of the Greens to privileges, that's a matter for the Greens. I disagree that people representing the groups that you have outlined in your question can't have faith in a process that it is being overseen by senior and professional members of parliament. Again, it's our responsibility and those members' responsibility to make sure people are dealt with fairly through the process we are establishing by this legislation today.

Mehreen Faruqi

Minister, those committees are dominated by Labor and the coalition. Are you telling me that you won't even consider diversity on those committees? I mean, I can't trust white people making decisions all the time. A full committee with no diversity making decisions on issues of racism—that is illogical. It is illogical to do that. Would you consider, at least, that these committees should have some diversity and that Labor and the coalition have the vast majority of members on those committees and there are enough people in parliament, in your parties, to be able to have more diversity in those committees?

Katy Gallagher

The matter of who gets appointed to those committees is a matter the parties. That is as it is on every committee in this place. The broader point that you raise is that the committees themselves are not the investigators of complaints.

Well, you can shake your head, Senator Faruqi, but they are not the investigators of the complaints.

You said—

Mehreen Faruqi

They are enforcers.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! The minister has the call.

Katy Gallagher

You asked the question. If you have another question, that's fine, but you asked how you can have faith that someone would perhaps make a finding of racism. For a start, the IPSC would undertake to investigate the complaint. If they were to find that there was a serious breach of the code of conduct then that matter would be handed over to the privileges committee, but the privileges committee does not investigate that; they determine a sanction. That is the big difference there. So the point you raise wouldn't happen, because the privileges committee is not conducting the investigation. If there was a finding of a breach of the code based on racism, that would be determined by the commissioner undertaking the investigation.

Mehreen Faruqi

I don't think I spoke about investigation. It is that the committee will be enforcing sanctions, and that's the issue here. It's beyond me, and I'm flabbergasted that you can't actually say that the committee does need more diversity. Some diversity exists in this parliament, and more people with lived experience of these issues should be deciding what the enforcement should be. It's not that hard, Minister. If we want to change this place, we need to make it more diverse. Why can't you just say, 'Sure, we can look into this'? That is one of the cruxes of the problem: the privilege that people have had which has been entrenched for such a long time.

I ask you again: will you consider that those committees need to be more diverse to make a more just and considered decision on experiences of people who, at the moment, don't have a place on that committee?

Katy Gallagher

I can take responsibility for the government members, and, representative of the most diverse group of politicians in this parliament, we consider all of those matters as routine, Senator Faruqi. I don't need to give an undertaking, because we are the most diverse group in this parliament, and we consider all of those things as part of our core operations.

Jess Walsh

The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

Read more

FOR – Documents — Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force; Order for the Production of Documents

Jacqui Lambie

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes that orders for the production of documents nos 541, 550 and 568 relating to the final report of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force twenty-year review have not been complied with; and

(b) until the Senate resolves that the orders have been satisfactorily complied with, the Minister representing the Minister for Defence be required to attend the Senate at the start of proceedings on the first day of each sitting week to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the orders, and that:

(i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and

(ii) any such motion can be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

The government will be opposing this motion. The government has been transparent in making clear to the Senate in writing and in statements that this review will be released when consultations have concluded with stakeholders, including Defence, other agencies and the families of ADF personnel who have lost their lives while serving.

Offers for Senator Lambie to be briefed and to read the review remain. Motions of this nature are not constructive for the Senate's ability to scrutinise the government's legislative program. Other avenues exist under the standing orders to raise these matters.

Sue Lines

The question is that notice of motion No. 586 standing in the name of Senator Lambie be agreed to.

Read more

FOR – Committees — Selection of Bills Committee; Report

Matt O'Sullivan

I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024, the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 November 2024".

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report, as moved by Senator O'Sullivan, be agreed to.

Read more

FOR – Committees — Selection of Bills Committee; Report

Sue Lines

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

Read more

FOR – Committees — Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee; Reference

Sue Lines

Yesterday evening after 6.30 pm a division was called on the motion moved by Senator Rennick relating to a proposed reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. Senator Lambie, are you seeking something?

Jacqui Lambie

Madam President, I intend to vote differently. I would like to remove one of the parts from that motion and split it. I would like paragraph (f) to be put separately.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rennick, relating to a proposed reference to a committee—minus (f), as asked for by Senator Lambie—be agreed to.

Read more

FOR – Documents — Department of Home Affairs; Order for the Production of Documents

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Paterson, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, by no later than 10 am on Monday, 16 September 2024, a copy of all advice provided by the Department of Home Affairs to the former Minister for Home Affairs, the Honourable Clare O'Neil MP, and the former Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Honourable Andrew Giles MP, relating to the issuance of visas to Palestinians in response to the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

Senator Paterson's motion highlights the lack of trust in our security agencies the opposition has demonstrated throughout the debate on this issue. The opposition is recklessly asking the government to table advice from our intelligence and security agencies in relation to the Middle East. We've acted in accordance with the advice of our security agencies on this issue. The personnel and the processes that underline that advice remain the same as when the opposition were in office. Rather than engaging on the cost of living, the Liberals seek to drive fear and division in our community.

Senator Paterson has talked of a social cohesion crisis. These types of motions and the coalition's dog whistling are what is causing it. We urge the crossbench to send a message to the opposition that enough is enough. Leave our intelligence and border agencies to do what they do best, which is to keep us safe. Our visa processes are strong. The system has multiple checks built into it, and referrals can be made at any point. This is the same visa system that existed under those opposite.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 592, standing in the name of Senator Paterson, be agreed to.

Read more

FOR – Documents — Department of Industry, Science and Resources; Order for the Production of Documents

Pauline Hanson

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, by no later than 10 am on Tuesday, 17 September 2024, the expert analysis of the viability of the Laminaria and Carollinea oil fields used by the Australian Government to decide to decommission the Northern Endeavour facility and remediate the Laminaria-Corallina oil fields and infrastructure.

Katy Gallagher

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Sue Lines

Leave is granted for one minute.

Katy Gallagher

The government will be opposing this motion. The decision to decommission the Northern Endeavour was a decision taken by the former government in 2021. It may be the case that the former government's decision to decommission the N orthern_ _E ndeavour was informed by expert analysis, but we don't have access to advice provided to the former government and no documentation of the type described has been furnished to the Minister for Resources, the Hon. Madeleine King MP. We oppose the motion on that basis.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 604, standing in the name of Senator Hanson, be agreed to.

Read more

FOR – Bills — Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024; Reference to Committee

Wendy Askew

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 November 2024.

Sue Lines

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

Read more

FOR – Bills — Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023; Second Reading

Nick McKim

This bill, the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023, seeks to put an end to the outdated practice of destroying biodiversity by the industrial logging of our native forests, which also, of course, contributes massively to the breakdown of the planet's climate that is happening as we speak here today. This bill seeks to put an end to the practice of logging public forests in Australia by repealing the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002, closing a massive loophole in our environment laws.

How do we find ourselves here today in 2024 still debating whether industrial native forest logging, a mendicant and massive loss-making industry that only survives because of the rivers of gold that flow into it from Commonwealth and state coffers, should continue? How do we find ourselves in the middle of the twin crises of climate breakdown and ecological and biodiversity collapse debating whether industrial native forest logging should be allowed to continue to massively contribute to both of those travesties? How do we find ourselves here today having to defend magnificent, carbon-rich, biodiverse old growth forests? How do we find ourselves here today having to debate whether trees that were already ancient when Europeans arrived to colonise this country over 200 years ago should be clear felled and fed into the woodchip machines? How do we find ourselves here today debating whether we should keep logging the swift parrot into extinction—that beautiful little bird? How do we find ourselves here today having to debate whether the Leadbeater's possum habitat should continue to be logged or whether masked owl habitat should continue to be destroyed?

I'll tell you how we find ourselves here today, colleagues. It's because the establishment parties in this country—those parties that are becoming harder and harder to tell apart—still support all of those practices: the destruction of nature, the breakdown of our climate and the destruction of the Aboriginal cultural heritage that exists in the very lands and forests that are being logged. They still support the ongoing public subsidies to a mendicant industry for base political purposes and because they are captured by the logging corporations in the same way that they are captured by the big fossil fuel, supermarket and banking corporations—and the list goes on. The agents of corporate profiteering in this place continue to refuse to take action to defend our forests, protect our climate and look after the Australian people and, in fact, people right around the world.

RFAs had a stated threefold purpose. That purported purpose was to protect biodiversity, secure employment and provide resource security, but RFAs have comprehensively failed to deliver on all three of those purported purposes. Firstly, on resource security—an epic fail. They sought to provide resource security by logging in guaranteed volumes of sawlogs and woodchips, but markets have moved on. People now want ethically sourced wood. They want their wood to be from plantations or from recycled timbers and, at the very least, they want their timbers certified by acceptable certification schemes. What they don't want are timbers sourced from destroying native forests. We are in the early stages of a climate catastrophe, and we continue to fell at an industrial scale. We continue to devastate our carbon-rich native forests for low-value products that very quickly release their carbon back into the atmosphere—all made possible by government subsidies.

In terms of employment, again, this is a mendicant industry. In my home state of Tasmania there are more newsagents than there are people who work in the native forest logging industry. This industry can only survive because of taxpayer largesse delivered and facilitated by the establishment parties in this place. In Tasmania, the Liberal state government is trying to open up 40,000 hectares of high conservation value native forests that were actually protected under the Tasmanian forest agreement, an agreement that was ripped up by that very same Liberal government. In Tasmania, we currently see truckloads of unprocessed native forest timber being transported to mainland Australia, again with subsidies from the taxpayer, via the Freight Equalisation Scheme—yet another government subsidy for an industry that is financially unviable.

But the greatest failure of RFAs is their failure and inability to protect biodiversity. RFAs enable a carve-out from our environment laws. Let's be very clear about that. If a forest is being logged under an RFA, it is not protected by the already very weak environment laws that exist in this country. Labor made a promise to the Australian people in the lead-up to the latest election. That promise was that they would fix our broken environment laws. What have they done? They have broken that promise. Never trust Labor on the environment. They've broken that promise, and not only that; you've got the Prime Minister floating the prospect of a dirty deal with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, to further weaken our already broken environment laws which even in their current form do not exist to protect our environment but to facilitate the destruction of nature. It is absolutely unacceptable for Labor to break a solemn commitment they gave to the Australian people to fix our broken environment laws. Worse than that, they've started engaging in a backsliding way with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, to facilitate further weakening of our environment laws for the benefit of climate and nature destroying corporations. That is what is going on at the moment.

There is a pathway to passing stronger environment laws through this parliament if Labor would get on board and engage in a good-faith way with the Greens and the crossbench. There is a pathway to fixing our broken environment laws so that they actually do the job that most people think they exist to do, and that is to protect nature and our climate. The pathway is for Labor to engage in good faith with the Australian Greens and the crossbench in this place and to actually sit down and work through a proposal that will strengthen environment laws, protect nature and protect us from contributing to the breakdown of the climate. That is what Labor needs to do. Of course, the reason we know that our environment laws need to be improved is an independent review of the EPBC Act led by Professor Graeme Samuel. I do note that the Samuel review recommended repealing the RFA exemptions—that is, bringing logging back within the ambit of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Of course, if it was back within the ambit, at least consideration would need to be given to the fact that, for example, swift parrot habitat in Tasmania is being destroyed—absolutely flattened—and that beautiful little parrot is being logged into extinction. But at the moment, because of the carve-out for RFAs, those matters aren't even considered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

What we Australian Greens want to see is an end to native forest logging in Australia. It is an outdated practice, it should be condemned to the last century, and it should end. It should end to protect the cultural heritage that exists over all of this country. We still have significant unfinished business in terms of the treaty or treaties with First Nations people and making sure their cultural heritage is adequately protected and respected in this country. Native forest logging should end, because it is a massive contributor to the climate crisis. Native forest logging should end because it is destroying biodiversity in the middle of a biodiversity crisis. Native forest logging should end because it is a crime against nature. What a travesty it is that environmentalists here in Australia are currently being arrested, prosecuted and in some cases jailed for defending our forests. Meanwhile, the people who should be prosecuted—the people who are facilitating the logging of these forests by the ongoing public subsidies into a loss-making industry and by the political protection that the industry enjoys—are not being prosecuted. They're going scot-free and making an absolute motza from the destruction of nature and the destruction of our forests. Native forest logging should end because it is condemning multiple species to a slide into extinction. Native forest logging should end because it is a mendicant industry that cannot survive without massive public subsidies. Native forest logging should end because it's a carbon bomb. What happens after the utter swathe of destruction is cut through beautiful, magnificent forests is that helicopters fly over them and drop napalm-like substances into the forest and it goes up in smoke and flames—a massive carbon belch into the atmosphere.

People are dying around the world because of climate change at the moment. The United Nations is warning that the planet is losing its capacity to sustain human life, and yet somehow the establishment parties in this place still think it's okay to publicly subsidise the destruction of our native forest, the destruction of nature and the breakdown of our climate in the year 2024, when the science is settled.

We know what we're doing. No-one in here can claim that you don't know what you're doing. You all know exactly what you're doing. You're behaving in a psychopathic way, where you are prioritising profit over the potential future survival of these species. That's what you're doing. These are beautiful forests—our magnificent forests. There are the amazing, complex, beautiful creatures that live in them—the complex web of life that is the ecosystem of these forests, much of which is unseen because it is giant fungal networks underground. There are giant populations of things like earthworms and beetles right through to beautiful, precious birds like the swift parrot and the masked owl. This complex, awesome web of life is being destroyed because the Labor and Liberal parties are captured by profit. They are captured by the big forestry corporations, just like they're captured by the big fossil fuel corporations.

Anne Urquhart

The Australian government does not support the repeal of the RFA Act. The government has committed to supporting the ongoing operation of RFAs while also strengthening environmental protections. This will be achieved by applying new national environmental standards to RFAs. The Australian government is committed to providing a framework that allows sustainable native forestry to occur. The government is committed to continuing to work with stakeholders towards applying new national environment standards to regional forest agreements. This will support the ongoing operation of RFAs whilst strengthening environmental protections.

Our forest product industries are vital to our regional communities. They directly employ 51,000 people, and tens of thousands more jobs are indirectly supported by this sector, which contributes nearly $24 billion to the national economy each year. The benefits of a competitive, sustainable and renewable forestry industry in our regional communities should not be underestimated. It delivers positive economic, social and environmental outcomes. In addition to employment and income throughout the supply chain, it also underpins the social networks and the fabric of many of our regional towns and communities.

Australia's native forest management is sustainable and does not lead to deforestation. Our native forests are regenerated after harvesting. Repealing the RFA Act and terminating RFAs will not end native forestry, as these are state government decisions. Rather, terminating RFAs will mean forest operations will be subject to EPBC Act assessments, potentially at the coupe level. This may undermine the landscape-scale approach taken to forestry approvals under RFAs.

Repealing the RFA Act will result in industry uncertainty that could lead to job losses and mill closures in regional areas. This, in turn, could compromise the future of many of our regional towns and constrain our ability to prevent and respond to bushfire effects through the reduction of the skilled workforce and machinery required for quick responses to fires and fire mitigation operations. Repealing the RFA Act will lead to increased administrative costs for forestry operators and for governments, and that will result in backlogs and possible delays in forestry approvals and in assessing applications for wood exports.

The Australian government is expanding Australia's plantation forest estate, but plantation wood is not able to replace the high-quality wood sourced from native forests. Because of the choice of species and site and short rotations, most Australian hardwood plantations do not develop the same size, strength and appearance properties as wood sourced from native forests. It would place further pressure on domestic supply chains for products that are able to be sourced only from native forests and create an increased dependence on substitutes—imports—for native hardwoods from places where forest management standards may not be as high and where wood production may be associated with deforestation and illegal logging. These are some of the many reasons the Australian government does not support the repeal of the RFA Act.

Long debate text truncated.

Read more