Dr WOODRUFF question to MINISTER for BUSINESS, INDUSTRY and RESOURCES, Mr ABETZ
Recent research from Australia’s leading swift parrot experts show more than a quarter of this lovely parrot’s habitat has been disturbed, degraded or permanently deforested since the year 2000. The research demonstrates production forestry is the main driver pushing this swift parrot to extinction – not bushfires, not climate change, not invasive species, but forestry. Not surprisingly, the removal of important swift parrot breeding forest has doubled since this government introduced the Rebuilding the Forestry Industry Act in 2014.
Again and again you have told parliament and the media that your government listens to the science. Well, the science is telling you that your native forest logging is killing the swift parrot. Do you accept that this government’s policy is responsible for driving the swift parrot to extinction, and will you listen to the experts and end production forestry in swift parrot habitat?
ANSWER
Honourable Speaker, the answers are no and yes to the member’s questions. I do not believe that forestry is driving the swift parrot extinction, and, like always, we will listen to the experts. For those in the gallery who might not know – I understand the Greens know this, but they see it as an inconvenient truth – every single coupe of forestry that is harvested is subjected to the Forest Practices Authority considerations of all the environmental matters that should be taken into account, such as whether or not the particular coupe contains habitat which is important for our threatened species, be it the masked owl or be it the swift parrot.
Just the other day, I took myself to Bruny Island to see where Sustainable Timber Tasmania have converted – I forget how many – hectares of pasture to blue gum for swift parrot habitat. Do we get any comment from the Greens welcoming that move?
Mr Winter – They could not get the ferry to get over there.
Mr ABETZ – and acknowledging that if STT did not do that, they could have delivered even bigger profits to the Tasmanian people. What do the Greens do? They attack Sustainable Timbers Tasmania for not making enough profit and return for the people of Tasmania. What Sustainable Timbers Tasmania does is use some of its profits for growing blue gum swift parrot habitat. There is not a single word of encouragement from the Greens, which tells me everything I need to know. Their crocodile tears for the swift parrot are about fundraising for the Bob Brown Foundation, an organisation that does not pay tax, might I add, and is a multimillion-dollar money-making machine. If their unwitting donors were to learn that Sustainable Timbers Tasmania was actually planting habitat for the swift parrot, their donations would diminish overnight. That is why that is an inconvenient truth for the Greens and for the Bob Brown Foundation.
They come into this place with their statements, but the facts are there for all to see. I indicate to the member that forestry does not occasion that which she asserts. That is false, that is wrong, and what is more, we have a Forest Practices Code that ensures that the habitat of any endangered species is well and truly protected.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Dr WOODRUFF – A supplementary question, Speaker?
The SPEAKER – I will hear the supplementary.
Dr WOODRUFF – The research that the minister just referred to are not my statements. They are research published in the Nature journal. You said just then, minister, that the coupes are subjected to environmental assessments to consider whether they have a swift parrot habitat and to make sure that they are protected. Because the evidence shows the decline in birds because of your forestry activity, do you accept that the laws need to be changed, that they are not working and obviously are not protecting swift parrot habitat?
The SPEAKER – The member’s time for asking the supplementary has expired. I call the minister on the supplementary, it does arise from the original question.
Mr ABETZ – The evidence is overwhelmingly clear, and that is that forestry has not been responsible for the demise of any of our threatened species. Land clearing –
Dr Woodruff – We have just shown you that paper.
The SPEAKER – Leader of the Greens.
Mr ABETZ – Land clearing for the purposes of subdivisions, housing, dare I say it, agriculture as well, when you remove trees and do not replant them – and that is why, might I add as well, native forestry is so good. Whilst the Greens would now seek to assert that plantations ought to be the way to go, they are sterile monocultures at the end of the day, whereas native forestry replicates that –
Dr Woodruff – Just because you say black is white does not make it so.
The SPEAKER – Leader of the Greens.
Mr ABETZ – and allows nature to rehabilitate. That is why when we have regrowth forestry in this state, the Greens say ‘this is old growth forestry, worthy of protection’, which tells me and informs me that we do forestry exceptionally well.
The SPEAKER – The minister’s time for answering the question has expired.
