Wednesday, 29 May 2024

Bills

Sustainable Forests (Timber) Repeal Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Richard RIORDAN (Polwarth) (14:52): I rise absolutely to speak on this adjournment motion, which is an affront to so many regional Victorians, whether you are in Gippsland at the pointy end of this callous decision or you are in my part of the world in western Victoria, where so many families and elderly people are going to be left suffering because of the lack of availability of firewood. To think that this government, which says it looks after the poor, it looks after the workers, it looks after communities – it simply does not. They have brought this bill to us today and they are cutting it off. They are not letting everybody who wants to talk on this bill put their case forward, stand up for their communities and raise with this government the absolute ridiculousness of this bill.

The fact that we are going to imagine that we can continue to live the way we do, with the use of firewood in people’s woodboxes, in their slow-combustion heaters and their open fires, which so many regional Victorians do – where is that coming from? We look around this beautiful chamber, surrounded by timber. If we built this chamber today, this would be imported from an Indonesian rainforest. This government places so little value on the capacity of a modern First World economy and society, which Victoria is, to say, ‘We can’t manage forests. We can’t manage forests in a sustainable, modern way to provide the resources that we need.’ Instead, we are saying Finland can do it, Norway can do it, Canada can do it, the US can do it – all sorts of other equal countries can do it.

Pauline Richards: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I would just like to invite the member to come back to the question, which is whether we adjourn the debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is on relevance, I take it, and the member had strayed into debating the bill, not the adjournment question.

Richard RIORDAN: It is easy to stray into debating the bill, because we are being denied the right to speak on the bill. Thirty per cent of my electorate is in fact forest, and it is forest that has been wonderfully managed for decades, if not a hundred years. It has been well managed, and it provides a livelihood. These are important issues that we have a responsibility in this place to fully put on the record, to fully discuss, and this government is seeking to gag it. Why are they gagging it? The transparency on the gag is so there. This government does not want to be exposed for what it is doing to hardworking, innocent country people. It was bad enough that they promised that by 2030 they were going to kill off this industry. They sort of half-promised that we would get plantations in place. They sort of half-promised there would be transitions, but instead they rushed this legislation in. They have just literally told, I think it is, member for Gippsland South, 15,000 families around regional Victoria, who are now just waking up to it this year, that after 30 June that is it – all gone. They have got heavy equipment; many of these operators have millions of dollars of loans and equipment that they now do not have a use for. This government has not thought of that.

They have not thought through these things, and that is why we do not want to suspend the debate on this bill. These issues need to be tabled, and this government needs to put them on the record. We saw when the debate was continuing that the government were so ashamed of the presentation of this bill that they were all only doing little 2-minute vignettes. They have no respect for country communities, no respect for an industry that helped build this country – no respect for any of that. They have no respect for the people who, guess what, cannot go and afford the environment and energy minister’s $6000 electric heaters to put on the wall. That is because the minister does not realise so many people in country Victoria do not have power connections and they actually rely on firewood to keep warm. They just cannot get that.

Pauline Richards: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, once again I ask that you bring the member back to the debate that we are having on whether we adjourn.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to continue on the adjournment motion.

Richard RIORDAN: It is important that we do not support this adjournment motion. Every member of this house has a right to be heard on this appalling legislation. We have a right to list the concerns of our constituents. We have a right to raise the fact that this state will now be relying on the importing of timber and timber products.

Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (14:57): I do rise to speak on this adjournment motion, and I support the motion. It is deeply disappointing, I think, to be in this position. There was a very robust, respectful and really important debate that took place prior to the luncheon interval regarding the bill itself. In that debate there were a number of very substantive and important contributions by members of the parties opposite, including the members for Gippsland South, Gippsland East, Narracan and Morwell, who made very considered, important contributions on the part of their communities. I think it is deeply disconcerting that this motion represents such cant and hypocrisy. To hear that members on this side somehow engage in vignettes, as the member for Polwarth suggested, I think really disparages the conventions of this place whereby there was an agreement that the house would move to considering the budget after lunch. It is a really important piece of debate, as we know, the take-note motion on the budget. I know the Manager of Opposition Business has been very keen that members should have the opportunity to debate the budget and to contribute to the take-note motion. So it is disappointing to hear the stunt and the verbal attacks that those at the table are seeking to engage in, which I think diminish the substantive quality of the debate that took place on the proceeding bill itself.

I am conscious this is a very narrow procedural motion, so I am not going to retread my own contribution to the debate, but I do want to reflect that it was an important debate. It was one that talked about the timber communities in Victoria and the importance of supporting those communities and of respecting the contribution that they have made and that VicForests has made to the stewardship of our forests.

In that debate I think there was some consternation at the way in which Greens members sought to disparage those communities and sought to diminish the importance of the support for those communities. The reason I think that is germane to this narrow procedural debate is that the actions of those at the opposition bench similarly disparage the debate that was occurring –

Ellen Sandell: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a procedural debate, not an opportunity to verbal other members of the Parliament.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Melbourne. Yes, the member had strayed. I think he got the cue to come back. Please do so.

Iwan WALTERS: I did indeed, Deputy Speaker. It is indeed a narrow procedural debate, and the point I was merely seeking to make is that the debate itself that has been brought on by the actions of the Manager of Opposition Business I think diminishes the substantiveness and importance of the debate we had earlier.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I do not think the member understands that this debate is about a motion moved by the government.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member was on the adjournment motion and is to continue.

Iwan WALTERS: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. The member well understands, but it appears the fish are biting today. What I was merely suggesting was that I support the motion to adjourn debate in order that we can proceed to the take-note motion upon the budget. In the debate that was held earlier the contributions from those opposite, particularly the National Party members in Gippsland and other parts of Victoria, were very respectful, important contributions to the debate. I propose, as the members of the government do, that we now proceed to move on to considering the budget – the take-note motion that I know those opposite are very keen to debate. I am looking forward to hearing their contributions to see, as I said previously, whether they can grapple with that tension between wanting to spend more on everything and having no taxation to pay for it. I will leave my contribution there. I support the motion.

Ellen SANDELL (Melbourne) (15:01): I would like to speak on this procedural motion. We will not be supporting the adjournment. There are many members who still wish to contribute to this debate, including three members of the Greens. It is a very big, important matter that we are discussing here, and I think we should have adequate time. In particular I would just like to put on the record that we requested consideration in detail for this bill, and we were told that there would not be time for that, yet we are being asked to adjourn this debate so that we can move on to government members making their budget take-note motion speeches. Those could be done at any point. They could be done in future meetings of the Parliament, whereas we need consideration in detail on this bill. A consideration-in-detail stage of a bill should be general practice in this place, yet I think we have had it maybe two times, or not even, since we started this term of Parliament. Last term of Parliament I think we had it two times in the four years that we were in here.

It is a pretty bad practice in terms of transparency and integrity of the Parliament to never actually go to the third-reading stage of a bill. That is the stage where members have a chance to get up and ask the minister directly questions about a bill. It is very important for members who were elected by their communities to come here to scrutinise legislation. That is our job. That is what the community expects us to do, and yet the government are using their numbers in the Parliament to ram through changes that mean that we cannot do that job. I just do not think that is good for democracy. We should be able to get up here and ask questions of ministers about how those bills are going to impact the communities. There has been a lot of talk in this debate about community members impacted by this bill. But we have a lot of questions about exactly how they will be impacted and exactly how the government is going to ameliorate those impacts, and we cannot ask them. We cannot ask them of the minister because the minister will not front up for a third-reading stage. We have the time to do it if we continue to debate this bill and not adjourn it.

Often when we ask for consideration in detail, as we did in this instance, the government says we can do that in the upper house, but the minister is not in the upper house. The minister is not in the other place; the minister is here. Both ministers who are responsible – the Minister for Environment and the Minister for Agriculture, who is responsible for forestry – are actually in this house. They should be required to answer the questions, not just send their staff members in to whisper answers in the ears of unrelated ministers in the upper house because the ministers here do not want to front up because they are not up to it, as has been said in the chamber today. They are not up for it. They do not have the background. They have not done the details.

I think that Victorians expect a government with ministers who are able to front up and defend their own legislation, and if they are not able to do that, well, what is going on? So we reiterate our call for consideration in detail on this bill. We ask the government to reconsider their adjournment of this matter so that we can continue debate – go into third reading. We can ask all of those important questions that I outlined in my speech. I have got a lot of questions I want to ask.

I want to know where the billion dollars went that this government has given to the logging industry to move to plantations when they have not actually moved to plantations. They have moved to logging in national parks and logging in old-growth forests in Tasmania. Where is that billion dollars? I expect the Victorian government to know the answer to that, and that is what I could ask if we did not adjourn the debate and we kept debating it. I want to know why Forest Fire Management Victoria is not subject to the same environmental surveying and environmental regulations and laws that VicForests was, poor though they were. Why is their own department able to go in and log hollow-bearing old-growth trees that are known to house critically endangered species without any rules or requirements?

Juliana Addison: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, on relevance, it is a procedural matter.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member had strayed a little from the motion.

Ellen SANDELL: I was merely making the point that, on the procedural matter, the reason that we are not supporting the adjournment is because we have requested to go into consideration in detail to ask these very important questions that the Victorian taxpayers deserve to get the answers to and the Victorian community deserve to get the answers to. These are questions that the government is refusing to answer.

If the minister will not front up to Parliament and give those answers, what have they got to hide? Why are they hiding the answers to these very important questions from the Victorian community? I think that Victorians should expect that their ministers would front up, defend their legislation and answer these important questions from members of the opposition, the crossbench, independents and Greens who have been elected to come in here and scrutinise legislation. We are not being given the chance to scrutinise legislation. We are not given that chance in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, where we have 5 to 10 minutes to ask questions of ministers either. I think it is absolutely outrageous, and that is why we will not be supporting the adjournment.

Assembly divided on Belinda Wilson’s motion:

Ayes (48): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson

Noes (28): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Sam Hibbins, David Hodgett, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson

Motion agreed to.

Debate adjourned until later this day.