Dr WOODRUFF, question to MINISTER for BUSINESS, INDUSTRY and RESOURCES, Mr ABETZ
If your climate-denying agenda was not already obvious to Tasmanians, yesterday it reached new heights. State Growth employees were told the retrograde forestry industry was being realigned to sit within, of all places, Renewables, Climate and Future Industries Tasmania (ReCFIT). ReCFIT claims to, ‘Help Tasmania reach its vision for reliable, sustainable and renewable energy development and climate action’. Do you agree climate action means reducing the risk of human-caused climate change, not accelerating it through native forest logging and burning?
ANSWER
Honourable Speaker, one of the wonderful things about our regrowth forest sector is that it embeds carbon in the wood product. Things like this lectern and bench are carbon sinks. The trees take carbon out of the atmosphere as they grow. If one harvests a tree and then replants a tree, the new growing tree takes more carbon out of the atmosphere than an old-growth tree that sits there for a long time.
We will not be seeking to do anything other than maintain a sustainable forest industry, which is so jobs-rich and vital for our regional communities. Keep in mind that Australia, a country with such a huge landmass, is a net importer of wood product. That is irresponsible for us as an Australian nation.
What we are now doing, courtesy of Green agendas in Victoria and Western Australia, closing down the regrowth forest sectors in those states, is importing hardwood from Brazil. What a great environmental outcome that is for the world. Anybody in this place ought to ask the question, do we support the harvesting of timber from Brazil and with bunker fuel importing it into Australia, or having our own locally supplied timber for the uses that we put wood to, and in so doing creating vital jobs in our regional areas? That includes the electorate that the Leader of the Greens and I have the honour of representing, Franklin, down the Huon. It is vitally important to the township of Geeveston and places like that.
What the Greens’ policy will do is seek to have them unemployed. What has happened down in those areas is that the aquaculture sector – which they also condemn and seek to close down – are providing alternative jobs. If you close down forestry and close down aquaculture, what would you have them living on? The other member for Franklin, my colleague, Jacquie Petrusma, is absolutely correct. It would be nothing.
Do we as a government support the forest sector? Yes. Do we believe that it should be in the Department of State Growth under ReCFIT? Yes, we do. That is why we did it.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Dr WOODRUFF – A supplementary question, Speaker.
The SPEAKER – I will hear the supplementary question.
Dr WOODRUFF – I draw the minister to the question. Do you agree climate action means reducing the risk of human‑caused climate change, not accelerating it through the emissions from native forest logging and burning?
The SPEAKER – The minister did answer the preamble quite extensively, but I will draw him to the question.
Mr ABETZ – I would have thought that it was very obvious from my answer that the regrowth forest sector takes carbon out of the atmosphere.
Dr Woodruff – The biggest emissions in the state, releasing more emissions every year than from transport.
Mr ABETZ – If we are concerned about the extent of carbon in the atmosphere, one should be supporting a forest sector which sequestrates carbon out of the atmosphere.
Dr Woodruff – It will take 50 years.
The SPEAKER – Leader of the Greens, you got a question and a supplementary, thank you.
Mr ABETZ – We then harvest it in carbon banks such as this, then grow a new tree in its place that will take even more carbon out of the atmosphere. I do not think I can be any clearer than that.
