Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 2:47:26 to 2:53:26
The department outlines the 18-month timeline for accrediting state forestry systems and the potential impact on existing certification standards like FSC.
Topics: Forestry, EPBC Act
Speakers: Speaker 8, Speaker 25, Speaker 12, Speaker 17, Speaker 1, Speaker 18
>> there any proposed changes to draft? >> That's I think that's commentary that Minister W made yesterday around his intention. Yeah. Are there any proposed
changes? >> Uh well, DQ will have to speak to the the consultation process that they're undergoing. I think the consultation on the the first two matters of n uh the matters of national environmental significance and the offset standards. I think that consultation process is currently open.
>> Okay. >> Just sorry just to jump in there. I think I think my understanding is that's just closed just now and that um I think DQ yesterday were talking about a number of submissions that they've received on uh the consultation for those standards and so I think you know as my colleague was saying DQ will will work through that um in in their sort of advice then to minister in setting the final
standards. >> So effectively you in a process sense you can't start doing a gap analysis
until you know what the standard is. Um I think that can't we can't complete the gap analysis until we know what the final standard is. >> Um but we've got a draft that we can work with with states.
>> Okay. So what's the time frame for finalizing so that industry can invest with confidence utilizing the funding that's on the table to having that process completed. So when are we going to know in a Tasmanian perspective what the new hoops are or a New South Wales perspective what the new hoops are. >> Yeah. >> As to what is actually going to occur.
>> So obviously there's the statutory timeline of the middle of next year um which is I guess the the 18 month before the RFA exemption um finishes. um we're minded and we're certainly working really hard to um I guess kind of complete arrangements with states around accreditation processes such that it's earlier than that. We're definitely taking that as a kind of a maximum rather than um than what we intend to to to achieve as a timeline. Obviously, it's dependent on states um and and the work that they need to do as well, but from our perspective, we're there to support them, work with them to I guess accredit those systems sooner rather than later. >> I don't have a a timeline a kind of a more granular timeline than that though.
>> So, the the maximum time is the 18 months that we talked about last estimates. >> Yeah. Um but it it would have to be in everyone's interest to get it sorted as quickly as possible. I would have thought. >> Agreed. >> I mean are you doing any assessment how it on how it might impact on certifications that exist already? Um, so I'll defer to colleagues whether
that's come up with >> No, we're not, Senator. Although, and it hasn't come up in conversations with states yet. Uh I I think in a principal sense it's unlikely to affect certification arrangements because um the changes as at least in so far as they relate to sustainability criteria under certification would be an increase rather than an an erosion of um the standards that are in place for the forestry operation. uh I am conscious that there there there may be consultation requirements for for states but at the moment it's not it's not come up in conversations with the states yet.
So you're talking about an increase in environmental requirements
an increase or certainly Senator and sorry to cut you off not a diminution I suppose is um so the the national standards exist and we would not expect under the national standard.
>> I would I would agree with that. I was just just a bit worried about ratcheting things that would impact on the viability of the industry. That was all that was the that was why I was concerned at the language. Um so the the two certification systems that run here in Australia, there's no assessment as to how they might um be affected by the process. I mean FSC is probably more a political process than it is a certification process. you go around the c go around the world this the standard of FSC certification varies on the jurisdictional aspects whereas um the other standards is um again standard based and and refers back to the Australian forestry standard which is why I keep on asking the questions on on that. Are there any um proposals around or need for modifications of the Australian forestry
standard? >> Not at this stage, Senator, but it's something that I think we'd look to have as we continue to discuss with RFA states and their forest industries themselves. would be happy to work through any concerns and with the certification agencies as well. Any concerns they might have that and and as to whether the standards themselves need
adjusting. >> So, you want to just give an indication how many more you got in this topic? >> No, >> colleagues just want to ask a couple.
>> Yeah, I've nearly finished. >> Thank you. >> All right. And and so I I will leave it there.
>> Thanks.