❓ A WA parliamentary question probes the economic justification for subsidizing native forest logging and requests a committee inquiry into its costs and benefits. The Premier acknowledges past debates, emphasizes the protection of old-growth forests, and expresses reservations about another inquiry, while affirming support for the remaining industry and its workers.
AnsweredQoN 118Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NATIVE FORESTS — LOGGING
The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia believes that Western Australia will need 400 000 additional workers in the next seven years. Federal Treasurer, Hon Wayne Swan, MP, agrees that this is an enormous challenge, and a task force, chaired by Hon Gary Gray, MP, is working with the resources sector to source these additional workers. According to the Minister for Forestry, 2 500 jobs are dependent on the logging of our native forests, and we know that logging costs the taxpayer more than the revenue received for the logs produced. (1) Putting aside the environmental harm it causes, what is the economic justification for WA taxpayers continuing to prop up the native forest logging industry? (2) Will the Premier support a parliamentary committee inquiry into the costs and benefits of the logging of our native forests? Mr C.J. BARNETT
The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia believes that Western Australia will need 400 000 additional workers in the next seven years. Federal Treasurer, Hon Wayne Swan, MP, agrees that this is an enormous challenge, and a task force, chaired by Hon Gary Gray, MP, is working with the resources sector to source these additional workers. According to the Minister for Forestry, 2 500 jobs are dependent on the logging of our native forests, and we know that logging costs the taxpayer more than the revenue received for the logs produced. (1) Putting aside the environmental harm it causes, what is the economic justification for WA taxpayers continuing to prop up the native forest logging industry? (2) Will the Premier support a parliamentary committee inquiry into the costs and benefits of the logging of our native forests? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Alfred Cove for the question. (1)–(2) Members who were members 10 years ago recall that there was a protracted debate in the community and the Parliament about the logging of native forests The environmental—or conservation—side of that argument won and won handsomely, and that now has bipartisan support, which is appropriate. Because of the forest agreements as they were finally put into place, 99 per cent of the native old-growth forest is protected. That is now enshrined. However, the remainder of that industry—not old growth; the one per cent—is still a significant industry. Some 2 500 people work in that industry, and those people live and work locally in the South West. I think the industry still has a viable and sustainable future. Forest is, by definition, a renewable resource, and the best areas of forest are now protected and preserved forever. With reference to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia’s claim that there will be 400 000 jobs: there will certainly be very strong employment growth in this state over the coming years. I doubt that that will equate to 400 000 jobs in seven years. I think we need to, again, keep our feet on ground and not have, what I would consider to be, an exaggerated statistic. However, there will certainly be great demand and there will be issues of skills shortages, particularly in areas such as the Pilbara. With respect to a committee inquiry, I do not believe, to be honest, that much will be gained from a costs–benefits study of native forests. If a committee such as the economics committee chose to have a look at the state of the industry 10 years after the forest agreement, that may be of interest. I do not have any objection to that. I think the industry is very much smaller now than it was; nevertheless, it still employs 2 500 people, and that industry and its workers have this government’s support. I do not believe the case has been made, nor is there a really strong reason, to have yet another look at the industry. It is a very much smaller and sustainable industry, and it is one, now, that, although smaller, is an important part of the industrial structure of this state.
(1) Putting aside the environmental harm it causes, what is the economic justification for WA taxpayers continuing to prop up the native forest logging industry? (2) Will the Premier support a parliamentary committee inquiry into the costs and benefits of the logging of our native forests? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for Alfred Cove for the question. (1)–(2) Members who were members 10 years ago recall that there was a protracted debate in the community and the Parliament about the logging of native forests The environmental—or conservation—side of that argument won and won handsomely, and that now has bipartisan support, which is appropriate. Because of the forest agreements as they were finally put into place, 99 per cent of the native old-growth forest is protected. That is now enshrined. However, the remainder of that industry—not old growth; the one per cent—is still a significant industry. Some 2 500 people work in that industry, and those people live and work locally in the South West. I think the industry still has a viable and sustainable future. Forest is, by definition, a renewable resource, and the best areas of forest are now protected and preserved forever. With reference to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia’s claim that there will be 400 000 jobs: there will certainly be very strong employment growth in this state over the coming years. I doubt that that will equate to 400 000 jobs in seven years. I think we need to, again, keep our feet on ground and not have, what I would consider to be, an exaggerated statistic. However, there will certainly be great demand and there will be issues of skills shortages, particularly in areas such as the Pilbara. With respect to a committee inquiry, I do not believe, to be honest, that much will be gained from a costs–benefits study of native forests. If a committee such as the economics committee chose to have a look at the state of the industry 10 years after the forest agreement, that may be of interest. I do not have any objection to that. I think the industry is very much smaller now than it was; nevertheless, it still employs 2 500 people, and that industry and its workers have this government’s support. I do not believe the case has been made, nor is there a really strong reason, to have yet another look at the industry. It is a very much smaller and sustainable industry, and it is one, now, that, although smaller, is an important part of the industrial structure of this state.
(2) Will the Premier support a parliamentary committee inquiry into the costs and benefits of the logging of our native forests? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for Alfred Cove for the question. (1)–(2) Members who were members 10 years ago recall that there was a protracted debate in the community and the Parliament about the logging of native forests The environmental—or conservation—side of that argument won and won handsomely, and that now has bipartisan support, which is appropriate. Because of the forest agreements as they were finally put into place, 99 per cent of the native old-growth forest is protected. That is now enshrined. However, the remainder of that industry—not old growth; the one per cent—is still a significant industry. Some 2 500 people work in that industry, and those people live and work locally in the South West. I think the industry still has a viable and sustainable future. Forest is, by definition, a renewable resource, and the best areas of forest are now protected and preserved forever. With reference to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia’s claim that there will be 400 000 jobs: there will certainly be very strong employment growth in this state over the coming years. I doubt that that will equate to 400 000 jobs in seven years. I think we need to, again, keep our feet on ground and not have, what I would consider to be, an exaggerated statistic. However, there will certainly be great demand and there will be issues of skills shortages, particularly in areas such as the Pilbara. With respect to a committee inquiry, I do not believe, to be honest, that much will be gained from a costs–benefits study of native forests. If a committee such as the economics committee chose to have a look at the state of the industry 10 years after the forest agreement, that may be of interest. I do not have any objection to that. I think the industry is very much smaller now than it was; nevertheless, it still employs 2 500 people, and that industry and its workers have this government’s support. I do not believe the case has been made, nor is there a really strong reason, to have yet another look at the industry. It is a very much smaller and sustainable industry, and it is one, now, that, although smaller, is an important part of the industrial structure of this state.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for Alfred Cove for the question. (1)–(2) Members who were members 10 years ago recall that there was a protracted debate in the community and the Parliament about the logging of native forests The environmental—or conservation—side of that argument won and won handsomely, and that now has bipartisan support, which is appropriate. Because of the forest agreements as they were finally put into place, 99 per cent of the native old-growth forest is protected. That is now enshrined. However, the remainder of that industry—not old growth; the one per cent—is still a significant industry. Some 2 500 people work in that industry, and those people live and work locally in the South West. I think the industry still has a viable and sustainable future. Forest is, by definition, a renewable resource, and the best areas of forest are now protected and preserved forever. With reference to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia’s claim that there will be 400 000 jobs: there will certainly be very strong employment growth in this state over the coming years. I doubt that that will equate to 400 000 jobs in seven years. I think we need to, again, keep our feet on ground and not have, what I would consider to be, an exaggerated statistic. However, there will certainly be great demand and there will be issues of skills shortages, particularly in areas such as the Pilbara. With respect to a committee inquiry, I do not believe, to be honest, that much will be gained from a costs–benefits study of native forests. If a committee such as the economics committee chose to have a look at the state of the industry 10 years after the forest agreement, that may be of interest. I do not have any objection to that. I think the industry is very much smaller now than it was; nevertheless, it still employs 2 500 people, and that industry and its workers have this government’s support. I do not believe the case has been made, nor is there a really strong reason, to have yet another look at the industry. It is a very much smaller and sustainable industry, and it is one, now, that, although smaller, is an important part of the industrial structure of this state.
I thank the member for Alfred Cove for the question. (1)–(2) Members who were members 10 years ago recall that there was a protracted debate in the community and the Parliament about the logging of native forests The environmental—or conservation—side of that argument won and won handsomely, and that now has bipartisan support, which is appropriate. Because of the forest agreements as they were finally put into place, 99 per cent of the native old-growth forest is protected. That is now enshrined. However, the remainder of that industry—not old growth; the one per cent—is still a significant industry. Some 2 500 people work in that industry, and those people live and work locally in the South West. I think the industry still has a viable and sustainable future. Forest is, by definition, a renewable resource, and the best areas of forest are now protected and preserved forever. With reference to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia’s claim that there will be 400 000 jobs: there will certainly be very strong employment growth in this state over the coming years. I doubt that that will equate to 400 000 jobs in seven years. I think we need to, again, keep our feet on ground and not have, what I would consider to be, an exaggerated statistic. However, there will certainly be great demand and there will be issues of skills shortages, particularly in areas such as the Pilbara. With respect to a committee inquiry, I do not believe, to be honest, that much will be gained from a costs–benefits study of native forests. If a committee such as the economics committee chose to have a look at the state of the industry 10 years after the forest agreement, that may be of interest. I do not have any objection to that. I think the industry is very much smaller now than it was; nevertheless, it still employs 2 500 people, and that industry and its workers have this government’s support. I do not believe the case has been made, nor is there a really strong reason, to have yet another look at the industry. It is a very much smaller and sustainable industry, and it is one, now, that, although smaller, is an important part of the industrial structure of this state.
(1)–(2) Members who were members 10 years ago recall that there was a protracted debate in the community and the Parliament about the logging of native forests The environmental—or conservation—side of that argument won and won handsomely, and that now has bipartisan support, which is appropriate. Because of the forest agreements as they were finally put into place, 99 per cent of the native old-growth forest is protected. That is now enshrined. However, the remainder of that industry—not old growth; the one per cent—is still a significant industry. Some 2 500 people work in that industry, and those people live and work locally in the South West. I think the industry still has a viable and sustainable future. Forest is, by definition, a renewable resource, and the best areas of forest are now protected and preserved forever. With reference to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia’s claim that there will be 400 000 jobs: there will certainly be very strong employment growth in this state over the coming years. I doubt that that will equate to 400 000 jobs in seven years. I think we need to, again, keep our feet on ground and not have, what I would consider to be, an exaggerated statistic. However, there will certainly be great demand and there will be issues of skills shortages, particularly in areas such as the Pilbara. With respect to a committee inquiry, I do not believe, to be honest, that much will be gained from a costs–benefits study of native forests. If a committee such as the economics committee chose to have a look at the state of the industry 10 years after the forest agreement, that may be of interest. I do not have any objection to that. I think the industry is very much smaller now than it was; nevertheless, it still employs 2 500 people, and that industry and its workers have this government’s support. I do not believe the case has been made, nor is there a really strong reason, to have yet another look at the industry. It is a very much smaller and sustainable industry, and it is one, now, that, although smaller, is an important part of the industrial structure of this state.
With reference to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia’s claim that there will be 400 000 jobs: there will certainly be very strong employment growth in this state over the coming years. I doubt that that will equate to 400 000 jobs in seven years. I think we need to, again, keep our feet on ground and not have, what I would consider to be, an exaggerated statistic. However, there will certainly be great demand and there will be issues of skills shortages, particularly in areas such as the Pilbara. With respect to a committee inquiry, I do not believe, to be honest, that much will be gained from a costs–benefits study of native forests. If a committee such as the economics committee chose to have a look at the state of the industry 10 years after the forest agreement, that may be of interest. I do not have any objection to that. I think the industry is very much smaller now than it was; nevertheless, it still employs 2 500 people, and that industry and its workers have this government’s support. I do not believe the case has been made, nor is there a really strong reason, to have yet another look at the industry. It is a very much smaller and sustainable industry, and it is one, now, that, although smaller, is an important part of the industrial structure of this state.
With respect to a committee inquiry, I do not believe, to be honest, that much will be gained from a costs–benefits study of native forests. If a committee such as the economics committee chose to have a look at the state of the industry 10 years after the forest agreement, that may be of interest. I do not have any objection to that. I think the industry is very much smaller now than it was; nevertheless, it still employs 2 500 people, and that industry and its workers have this government’s support. I do not believe the case has been made, nor is there a really strong reason, to have yet another look at the industry. It is a very much smaller and sustainable industry, and it is one, now, that, although smaller, is an important part of the industrial structure of this state.
(1) Putting aside the environmental harm it causes, what is the economic justification for WA taxpayers continuing to prop up the native forest logging industry? (2) Will the Premier support a parliamentary committee inquiry into the costs and benefits of the logging of our native forests? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for Alfred Cove for the question. (1)–(2) Members who were members 10 years ago recall that there was a protracted debate in the community and the Parliament about the logging of native forests The environmental—or conservation—side of that argument won and won handsomely, and that now has bipartisan support, which is appropriate. Because of the forest agreements as they were finally put into place, 99 per cent of the native old-growth forest is protected. That is now enshrined. However, the remainder of that industry—not old growth; the one per cent—is still a significant industry. Some 2 500 people work in that industry, and those people live and work locally in the South West. I think the industry still has a viable and sustainable future. Forest is, by definition, a renewable resource, and the best areas of forest are now protected and preserved forever. With reference to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia’s claim that there will be 400 000 jobs: there will certainly be very strong employment growth in this state over the coming years. I doubt that that will equate to 400 000 jobs in seven years. I think we need to, again, keep our feet on ground and not have, what I would consider to be, an exaggerated statistic. However, there will certainly be great demand and there will be issues of skills shortages, particularly in areas such as the Pilbara. With respect to a committee inquiry, I do not believe, to be honest, that much will be gained from a costs–benefits study of native forests. If a committee such as the economics committee chose to have a look at the state of the industry 10 years after the forest agreement, that may be of interest. I do not have any objection to that. I think the industry is very much smaller now than it was; nevertheless, it still employs 2 500 people, and that industry and its workers have this government’s support. I do not believe the case has been made, nor is there a really strong reason, to have yet another look at the industry. It is a very much smaller and sustainable industry, and it is one, now, that, although smaller, is an important part of the industrial structure of this state.
(2) Will the Premier support a parliamentary committee inquiry into the costs and benefits of the logging of our native forests? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for Alfred Cove for the question. (1)–(2) Members who were members 10 years ago recall that there was a protracted debate in the community and the Parliament about the logging of native forests The environmental—or conservation—side of that argument won and won handsomely, and that now has bipartisan support, which is appropriate. Because of the forest agreements as they were finally put into place, 99 per cent of the native old-growth forest is protected. That is now enshrined. However, the remainder of that industry—not old growth; the one per cent—is still a significant industry. Some 2 500 people work in that industry, and those people live and work locally in the South West. I think the industry still has a viable and sustainable future. Forest is, by definition, a renewable resource, and the best areas of forest are now protected and preserved forever. With reference to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia’s claim that there will be 400 000 jobs: there will certainly be very strong employment growth in this state over the coming years. I doubt that that will equate to 400 000 jobs in seven years. I think we need to, again, keep our feet on ground and not have, what I would consider to be, an exaggerated statistic. However, there will certainly be great demand and there will be issues of skills shortages, particularly in areas such as the Pilbara. With respect to a committee inquiry, I do not believe, to be honest, that much will be gained from a costs–benefits study of native forests. If a committee such as the economics committee chose to have a look at the state of the industry 10 years after the forest agreement, that may be of interest. I do not have any objection to that. I think the industry is very much smaller now than it was; nevertheless, it still employs 2 500 people, and that industry and its workers have this government’s support. I do not believe the case has been made, nor is there a really strong reason, to have yet another look at the industry. It is a very much smaller and sustainable industry, and it is one, now, that, although smaller, is an important part of the industrial structure of this state.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for Alfred Cove for the question. (1)–(2) Members who were members 10 years ago recall that there was a protracted debate in the community and the Parliament about the logging of native forests The environmental—or conservation—side of that argument won and won handsomely, and that now has bipartisan support, which is appropriate. Because of the forest agreements as they were finally put into place, 99 per cent of the native old-growth forest is protected. That is now enshrined. However, the remainder of that industry—not old growth; the one per cent—is still a significant industry. Some 2 500 people work in that industry, and those people live and work locally in the South West. I think the industry still has a viable and sustainable future. Forest is, by definition, a renewable resource, and the best areas of forest are now protected and preserved forever. With reference to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia’s claim that there will be 400 000 jobs: there will certainly be very strong employment growth in this state over the coming years. I doubt that that will equate to 400 000 jobs in seven years. I think we need to, again, keep our feet on ground and not have, what I would consider to be, an exaggerated statistic. However, there will certainly be great demand and there will be issues of skills shortages, particularly in areas such as the Pilbara. With respect to a committee inquiry, I do not believe, to be honest, that much will be gained from a costs–benefits study of native forests. If a committee such as the economics committee chose to have a look at the state of the industry 10 years after the forest agreement, that may be of interest. I do not have any objection to that. I think the industry is very much smaller now than it was; nevertheless, it still employs 2 500 people, and that industry and its workers have this government’s support. I do not believe the case has been made, nor is there a really strong reason, to have yet another look at the industry. It is a very much smaller and sustainable industry, and it is one, now, that, although smaller, is an important part of the industrial structure of this state.
I thank the member for Alfred Cove for the question. (1)–(2) Members who were members 10 years ago recall that there was a protracted debate in the community and the Parliament about the logging of native forests The environmental—or conservation—side of that argument won and won handsomely, and that now has bipartisan support, which is appropriate. Because of the forest agreements as they were finally put into place, 99 per cent of the native old-growth forest is protected. That is now enshrined. However, the remainder of that industry—not old growth; the one per cent—is still a significant industry. Some 2 500 people work in that industry, and those people live and work locally in the South West. I think the industry still has a viable and sustainable future. Forest is, by definition, a renewable resource, and the best areas of forest are now protected and preserved forever. With reference to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia’s claim that there will be 400 000 jobs: there will certainly be very strong employment growth in this state over the coming years. I doubt that that will equate to 400 000 jobs in seven years. I think we need to, again, keep our feet on ground and not have, what I would consider to be, an exaggerated statistic. However, there will certainly be great demand and there will be issues of skills shortages, particularly in areas such as the Pilbara. With respect to a committee inquiry, I do not believe, to be honest, that much will be gained from a costs–benefits study of native forests. If a committee such as the economics committee chose to have a look at the state of the industry 10 years after the forest agreement, that may be of interest. I do not have any objection to that. I think the industry is very much smaller now than it was; nevertheless, it still employs 2 500 people, and that industry and its workers have this government’s support. I do not believe the case has been made, nor is there a really strong reason, to have yet another look at the industry. It is a very much smaller and sustainable industry, and it is one, now, that, although smaller, is an important part of the industrial structure of this state.
(1)–(2) Members who were members 10 years ago recall that there was a protracted debate in the community and the Parliament about the logging of native forests The environmental—or conservation—side of that argument won and won handsomely, and that now has bipartisan support, which is appropriate. Because of the forest agreements as they were finally put into place, 99 per cent of the native old-growth forest is protected. That is now enshrined. However, the remainder of that industry—not old growth; the one per cent—is still a significant industry. Some 2 500 people work in that industry, and those people live and work locally in the South West. I think the industry still has a viable and sustainable future. Forest is, by definition, a renewable resource, and the best areas of forest are now protected and preserved forever. With reference to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia’s claim that there will be 400 000 jobs: there will certainly be very strong employment growth in this state over the coming years. I doubt that that will equate to 400 000 jobs in seven years. I think we need to, again, keep our feet on ground and not have, what I would consider to be, an exaggerated statistic. However, there will certainly be great demand and there will be issues of skills shortages, particularly in areas such as the Pilbara. With respect to a committee inquiry, I do not believe, to be honest, that much will be gained from a costs–benefits study of native forests. If a committee such as the economics committee chose to have a look at the state of the industry 10 years after the forest agreement, that may be of interest. I do not have any objection to that. I think the industry is very much smaller now than it was; nevertheless, it still employs 2 500 people, and that industry and its workers have this government’s support. I do not believe the case has been made, nor is there a really strong reason, to have yet another look at the industry. It is a very much smaller and sustainable industry, and it is one, now, that, although smaller, is an important part of the industrial structure of this state.
With reference to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia’s claim that there will be 400 000 jobs: there will certainly be very strong employment growth in this state over the coming years. I doubt that that will equate to 400 000 jobs in seven years. I think we need to, again, keep our feet on ground and not have, what I would consider to be, an exaggerated statistic. However, there will certainly be great demand and there will be issues of skills shortages, particularly in areas such as the Pilbara. With respect to a committee inquiry, I do not believe, to be honest, that much will be gained from a costs–benefits study of native forests. If a committee such as the economics committee chose to have a look at the state of the industry 10 years after the forest agreement, that may be of interest. I do not have any objection to that. I think the industry is very much smaller now than it was; nevertheless, it still employs 2 500 people, and that industry and its workers have this government’s support. I do not believe the case has been made, nor is there a really strong reason, to have yet another look at the industry. It is a very much smaller and sustainable industry, and it is one, now, that, although smaller, is an important part of the industrial structure of this state.
With respect to a committee inquiry, I do not believe, to be honest, that much will be gained from a costs–benefits study of native forests. If a committee such as the economics committee chose to have a look at the state of the industry 10 years after the forest agreement, that may be of interest. I do not have any objection to that. I think the industry is very much smaller now than it was; nevertheless, it still employs 2 500 people, and that industry and its workers have this government’s support. I do not believe the case has been made, nor is there a really strong reason, to have yet another look at the industry. It is a very much smaller and sustainable industry, and it is one, now, that, although smaller, is an important part of the industrial structure of this state.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.