Page 3573 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 18 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As a starting point, let us at least separate the logging of native forests from this debate. Logging of native forests, especially old growth forests, is very damaging to the environment, to sensitive and high-conservation value native ecosystems, and it has a negative effect on climate change mitigation, as old growth trees take literally hundreds of years to grow back. We also know that most native forests that are cut down actually become woodchips, pulp and pallets, all items with short lifespans.
Very little native timber currently ends up as timber for building materials. Thus many of these wood products end up in landfill in different forms, either discarded pallets or chipboard, and then break down in the landfill, releasing carbon back into the atmosphere. If we leave these old, carbon-rich forests as they stand, as intact forests, they play an incredibly important role in carbon storage. But as soon as the trees are cut down the carbon is being released.
The Greens, of course, have a long and proud history of fighting to protect native forests in Australia. The ACT has had quite a different perspective on native forest logging to some of our regional and neighbouring jurisdictions, as we have never had native forest logging here in the territory, only ever plantation forestry. South Australia and Queensland have also only had plantation forestry for many decades now. However, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia continue to log old growth and high-conservation value forests, despite all the science being very clear for many decades now, as well as the bottom falling out of the market once plantation forests boomed internationally.
The ACT Assembly has debated this issue before and has a history of supporting native forest protection. In 1995, when the issue of timber and native forest logging was debated, the Assembly agreed that “the ACT government should adopt a policy of purchasing timber products that are recycled or sourced from plantations wherever possible”. Organisations like the CFMEU in the ACT have also traditionally actively supported the native forest protection movement, understanding that these protections would still allow the growth of the plantation sector and, importantly, the related jobs that go with that.
The Greens do not accept that native forest logging is a sustainable activity and it is not appropriate that it is discussed in this motion in a context of renewable resources, sustainability or climate change mitigation. I note that Ms Cody’s motion refers generically to forests, wood products and Australian forestry products and it does not really specify that she is talking only about sustainable plantation forests. If it were only about sustainable plantation forests I believe that would be quite a different discussion, which I will go into in a moment. However, as the motion stands, we do not support the various assertions in this motion relating to or that could be related to the logging of native forests.
The clause in Ms Cody’s motion which refers to forests providing habitat for flora and fauna suggests that Ms Cody is in fact referring to native forests in her motion. Native forests absolutely support a diversity of flora and fauna. They are vital habitat for biodiversity, and the very survival of our planet depends on keeping these ecosystems intact.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video