Hansard

Conservation and Land Management Amendment Bill 2025

Second reading

Resumed from 21 May 2025.

Mr David Bolt (Murray–Wellington) (4:36 pm): I am the opposition's lead speaker on the Conservation and Land Management Amendment Bill 2025. I am sure that many members would love to be here—they are obviously very busy today. If they knew I was speaking, I am sure that they would have rushed back to the chamber! Thank you all for listening this afternoon.

On face value, this bill will entrench the government's earlier decision to end commercial native timber logging and harvesting in Western Australia. The Liberal Party will not be supporting this bill. At first glance, the bill might seem benign and a little bit of a tidy up—a legislative bookend, you might say, to a policy that has already been enacted. But if we scratch beneath the surface, we see something else entirely. This bill is more symbolic than it is necessary. It refers to forest protection, but its logic will allow for thinning and clearing for mining. The bill closes the door on a sustainable forestry industry in the South West, not for environmental or scientific reasons, but simply because the government, with its large majority, can do so. I am not going to debate whether or not native logging should have ended; that decision has already been made. We are here to examine why the government feels that it is necessary to legislate now and what that means for our environment, economy and communities of the South West region.

What is the bill about? In summary, the bill's purpose is to update Western Australia's conservation laws to reflect the state government's 2021 decision to end large-scale native forest logging. We all know and remember that period of time; it caught a lot of people by surprise. The bill also includes some minor amendments to improve the administration of the law. But the key change in this bill is the ending of logging as a forest management purpose. The most significant change is the removal of timber production as a purpose for managing state forests and timber reserves. Previously, the law allowed for forest areas to be managed sustainably, and they were logged for over 100 years.

Unfortunately, this bill removes that option forever, meaning that commercial native forest logging would no longer be a valid purpose under the act. Many remember the consternation this caused for the industry when it was announced. However, the bill still allows for the removal of fallen or cleared timber in specific circumstances. For example, it can be salvaged during conservation activities or when land is cleared, particularly for mining, fire protection and ongoing forest management. I will get to that a little later.

Let us talk a little bit more about the bill itself. Many of us share an understanding of the importance of and a love for our forests. The karri forests, the resilient jarrah forests and the cool green canopy of the South West are places of deep cultural, ecological and economic value. In my previous role in local government, I was on the record for many years supporting the protection of areas around our beautiful forests, particularly in Dwellingup. I have been a strong advocate for the community's aspirations for Dwellingup to make sure that mining is avoided and that much of the land is held for the enjoyment of future generations. It is not that we do not want the forest to be managed well. It is about making sure that we have the right plan for places worth protecting. For many years we did protect them, not by locking them up so nobody could get in there or by managing them other than well.

Today's debate about seeking to legally enshrine the end of native forest logging in Western Australia is not something that I am really happy with. Let us be honest: this bill is quite unnecessary. It is inconsistent and rather ideological. It is really like a Claytons bill—the bill you have when you do not really need a bill. Many members may remember the Claytons ad or maybe I am showing my age. Claytons was the drink you had when you were not having a drink, but maybe it is a lemon, lime and bitters in the modern era. If you want to look cool, you order a lemon, lime and bitters instead of a "real" drink. This is the bill you have just to look good, but it will not do anything really other than that. Its only real purpose is to tie the hands of future governments, and it blocks any attempt to rebuild a small, sustainable timber industry. It still allows widespread clearing—particularly, that clearing can be for mining or ecological thinning, as we are calling it now. The bill actually removes timber production on a sustainable-yield basis from the list of purposes for managing our state forests. It blocks any future regulation that could allow native forest timber production. I am not really sure why we want to do that. It is not because we believe that that is not a proper use of the forest. It redefines timber production to exclude salvage and ecological thinning; those are allowed to remain but are conveniently vague in interpretation. It also makes minor amendments and updates, such as adopting gender-neutral language and allowing remote meetings, but we do not have an issue with those.

What is the problem with the bill as it stands? This policy is already in place. Native logging stopped in 2024, and the forest management plan already excludes logging, so no legislation is really required. I contend that the bill's real intent is to lock in the decisions permanently, regardless of future science or any community will to do the opposite. There is an argument for protection. The government claims that the act will protect two million hectares, but it will protect them from what? The bill will still allow mining. Every day in Dwellingup and Boddington, we see mining companies clearing large areas of the forest, and this bill will still allow that to occur. It will allow ecological thinning to continue but without any viable industry to support it.

Fuel loads are rising due to a lack of active management. We saw that in the last two years in forest areas where fires were raging hotter than ever. We are protecting forests from sustainable use, not from real risks. We just need to look at the recent issue in the tingle forest where prescribed burning by Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions likely cost over 100 mature trees. That issue was outlined in an ABC story this morning. These forests need active management. Logging was part of the active management program, and the people who did it did it very well.

There are myths about unsustainability. Forestry Australia and others say that the decision lacks evidence. We all know that properly managed forests support biodiversity. They store carbon and they also create jobs when it is done well. Ending native logging even led companies like Simcoa to consider importing coal for its silicon production. This would increase emissions, not reduce them. There has been a legacy of good and sustainable management. The foresters once managed forests with balance, and the forests thrived. We only have to look at towns and shires like Nannup and Manjimup to see that they still have 80% forest cover. The communities valued that resource, and they looked after it for many years. These forests exist because of the timber industry, not despite it. What will we lose because of this bill? We are losing families and generations of skilled workers in the timber industry. These communities now have no clear future, unfortunately. A niche sustainable industry is now gone, and the opportunity to do forestry better is also gone.

The inconsistencies of this bill keep stacking up. Thinning is allowed, but there is no real plan to use that timber properly. Logging is banned, but bauxite mining continues. Transitional packages are failing, and bushfire risks continue because they are not being actively managed. We could have had a better different way. We could set sustainable harvest limits based on science. We could support small, high-quality timber operations and actively manage forests for health and biodiversity. We should not let any ideology trump good policy. Unfortunately, that is what we are doing here.

We have also seen quite a bit of trouble with the transition of this bill. As of January 2024, commercial harvesting of native karri, jarrah and wandoo forest had already ceased. The policy's aim to protect biodiversity, mitigate climate change and preserve ecosystems are commendable and supported by many parts of the community, but the execution, unfortunately, has been far from smooth. The decision was made with limited consultation and, again, it was a surprise to many. It was without a clear transition plan, and the government has been playing catch-up ever since. Many in the industry and the community were blindsided. Even though the government committed $80 million under the Native forestry transition plan, there are still serious concerns. That workforce transition plan included $10,000 in voluntary exit payments, redundancy support of up to $45,000 and retaining JobSeeker assistance, but, unfortunately, there were delays in the rollout, casual workers and owner-operators fell through the cracks, and retraining is pointless without real job opportunities, especially in regional communities where those jobs do not exist. There was also a plan for business transition support, including payments based on contracted volumes, grants of up to $225,000 for redundancy and clean-up, and $50,000 for winding up operations. That all sounds pretty good on paper, does it not? In reality, the paperwork and approvals were very complex, and smaller family-run operators often missed out. Several mills trying to pivot to plantation timber did not get the support they really needed.

Of course, let us talk about the affected communities. Communities like Nannup, Manjimup and Greenbushes were not just economic participants; they were stewards of a skilled sustainable workforce. The government has promised $350 million for softwood plantations to replace trees for industry. However, we all know that plantation trees take many decades to mature. Therefore, that industry is not going to be anywhere near what it needs to be for many decades into the future.

Meanwhile, unfortunately, regional towns are left with no clear alternative industries, and development grants are not a substitute for a real economic plan. I want to highlight the real issue here, which is the double standard of this bill. It is logging versus mining. On one hand we can say that logging is not suitable for our forests. The government says it is protecting our forests, yet clearing continues every day for bauxite mining, often in the very same regions that we are locking up. This inconsistency undermines public confidence. If forest health matters, then all threats should be treated equally. The Forest Industries Federation of Western Australia supports ecological thinning as a tool for forest health; but, when I spoke to its members, they had real concerns as well.

Supply is the real issue here—supply uncertainty. There are no clear guidelines to make business plans possible. If you do not know what the volume is, how can you commit millions of dollars to invest in an industry when you do not really know what the volume or the contract terms are going to be? We know that ecological thinning is about removing the thinner logs, which are unsuitable for traditional sawmills so are not going to be of any value to anybody. We see contractual issues with the transition from logging to thinning being very much mishandled. FIFWA urges the government to resolve these problems if ecological thinning is to be effective. We know that ecological thinning will be an important part of forest management going forward. We urge the government to work with industry to understand what that looks like and give some life and longevity to the industry, so businesses that want to get involved can invest properly and have a way forward.

This bill was introduced into the upper house, and it was interesting to read some of the comments from the debate. When Hon Matthew Swinbourn, the Minister for the Environment, introduced the bill, he presented it as a logical next step following the 2021 decision and the Forest Management Plan 2024–2033. He claimed it was about health and resilience. There is no question that our forests matter and no question that old growth needs protection; however, this bill, as I have said before, is not a necessity. Logging already ended through ministerial directives. I think the minister is here in the house today. This bill is not about implementation; it is about entrenchment, unfortunately.

The opposition's concerns were led by Hon Dr Steve Thomas. He gave an eloquent and emotional defence of the timber industry, which he has been championing for years. He stood in front of it for many years, supporting its claims. He called this bill the "nail in the coffin" and, unfortunately, he is right. It ensures that no future government can revive even a small, scientifically backed, community-supported timber sector, without having to battle the two houses of Parliament. We know and expect that in the future it will be nigh on impossible.

This is not environmentalism. It is an ideological insurance by this government. Hon Ayor Makur Chuot passionately defended the bill as a legacy of stewardship, but her words do not resolve its basic contradictions. If trees are worth saving, why are they being cleared for mining but not used by local woodworkers? If thinning is fine, why is scientific, sustainable harvesting not supported? Hon Neil Thomson highlighted in his comments the hypocrisy that timber cannot be harvested for furniture but it can be cleared for mines. Transition packages may sound good, but they do not offset the economic hit. Unfortunately, symbolism cannot replace a pay cheque and you cannot feed your family on ideology. Hon Neil Thomson rightly said that unions and government walked away from the forestry workers. That is not a transition; it is abandonment.

There were words from Hon Dr Steve Thomas on fire risk. Minister Jarvis argued that thinning for mining will better serve the local markets, but she admitted there will be less wood for the market. We did not need to choose between mass export or total closure. A smaller, value-added sustainable industry was still possible. Ignoring fire risks is dangerous. Overgrown forests are a disaster waiting to happen. Silvicultural thinning was once a standard and it still should be. I remind people of the tingle forest fires down south, where I think the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions was doing what it could to mitigate fire risk. We see the challenges of doing that well and the issues of the damage that is done. We are going to need ongoing active management of these forests. The more we have locked up, the more challenges there will be for our team in DBCA, and others, who are trying to do the right thing and manage fire risks.

In summary, this bill will remove timber production as a legal purpose for forest reserves. But, as I said before, it will continue to allow timber salvage for safety, conservation or mining. It will update some language to be gender neutral and, of course, an important thing is that it will allow remote meetings of the Conservation and Parks Commission. We all know that is so important. My final words are that this bill will not save our forests. It does not serve science and it does not support South West communities. It is unnecessary, inconsistent and ideological. As I said, it is a "Claytons" bill, brought in after the fact to make a reversible policy irreversible. There should have been a balanced position. To be clear, the opposition is not calling for unrestricted logging. None of us want that.

We are not dismissing the need to preserve our forests. I know that as much as anybody and have fought for that support. We support meaningful consultation with traditional owners and environmental experts. Unfortunately, this bill in itself is not about forest health; it is not about climate action and it is not good public policy. It is one of those bills that is all about politics. It is about locking in a decision that has already been made and ensuring it cannot be challenged without a legislative mountain to climb. Why would we want to do that when we know that technology and science will change in the future and we need to be able to make nimble decisions? My cynical view is that it is about winning votes in Perth, while regional WA loses livelihoods, heritage and ongoing hope. This bill says to the people of the South West, "Your voice doesn't matter. Your industry doesn't really count."

This is not the way forward. We should aspire to be better. We should aspire to sustainable management, not permanent bans; environmental stewardship, not political grandstanding; and scientific integrity, not symbolic entrenchment. For all of the reasons that I have outlined, the opposition cannot support the bill as it stands. We should leave the door open for a smarter, more honest conversation about the future of our forests. I commend my comments to the house. Thank you.

Mr Bevan Eatts (Warren–Blackwood) (4:58 pm): I rise today to speak on the Conservation and Land Management Amendment Bill 2025 and to reiterate some comments by the member for Murray–Wellington. I rise not with political bluster, but with a heavy voice of a community that feels forgotten. They are communities like Manjimup, Nannup, Northcliffe and Greenbushes, whose stories have been intertwined with our native forests for generations. When the McGowan Labor government announced the end of native forest logging, it aimed to protect our native forests. But, in reality, the Labor government is once again changing policy without understanding the consequences.

This closure does not just mark a policy change; it marks a loss of identity, the loss of hundreds of regional jobs, the loss of small businesses, the loss of a sustainable supply of high-quality timber for our homes, the loss of people and equipment who helped defend us against bushfires, and the loss of trust in a government that promised transition but delivered silence. On top of all this, it has introduced risk—biosecurity risk, with the move to import wood from overseas risking the introduction of more biological pests like the shot-hole borer, and the risk of increased bushfires and a lack of people to fight them. The Conservation and Land Management Amendment Bill is not a conservation milestone. It is the legislative burial of a proud, sustainable industry that gives formal effect to a political decision that had no scientific foundation and no economic foresight, a decision that has hit the South West of WA silently, under the cover of misguided environmental protection.

Let us talk facts. The Forest Products Commission currently holds certification for sustainable forest management for native forests until 29 June 2025. This is an independent, internationally recognised standard that affirms that our forestry practices meet stringent environmental and ecological benchmarks. One must ask: if the government claimed in 2021 that native forestry was unsustainable, why was this certification not immediately revoked? Why is it still valid right now, as we speak? Is the government admitting that the claim was fake or false, or is it simply ignoring the evidence in favour of a political narrative? When Hon Dr Steve Thomas asked the Minister for the Environment to table any scientific reports justifying the shutdown of the native forestry industry, the answer was simple: there were none. Not one piece of publicly available peer-reviewed science has been presented to show that WA's forest industry was unsustainable. In fact, the Forest Products Commission remains certified for sustainable forest management even today. That is an independent, internationally recognised certification that this Labor government chose to ignore.

We must be honest about what we have lost. In towns like Nannup and Manjimup, the native timber industry was not just about jobs; it was the backbone of the community. It supported schools, local shops and apprenticeships. It brought intergenerational knowledge: people who knew the forest by heart and lived and breathed forest health, biodiversity, fuel management and timber recovery. With this bill, what do we replace that with? We replace it with uncertainty and ecological thinning trials that do not recover timber, and with forest thinning, followed by chemical thinning, using chemicals—an imported chemical solution to a problem we used to solve naturally through harvesting and controlled burns. These are areas that this government wants to convert into national parks—areas that also serve as critical water catchments. Yet here we are in WA, applying chemicals across native forests with virtually no long-term study into the impact on these ecosystems and no examination of its potential transmission into domestic water supplies. There is no transparency and no public reporting, just quiet application of a potentially harmful substance to some of our state's most sensitive natural areas.

Let me be clear: this is not conservation. This is chemical management of a natural system that we once had the capacity to manage holistically, and we did it with the very machines that, until recently, also protected us from catastrophic fires. Now those machines are being sold. The contractors who used to thin forests and cut firebreaks have shut up shop. In previous fire seasons, forestry crews and machinery were on the frontline, including bulldozers, excavators and operators who could work 24-hour rotations. These were trained timber workers who supported the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions in sustained bushfire suppression efforts across multi-day fire events. They knew their forests and terrain intimately. They were trained in safe and effective fire suppression and the work done at DBCA to maintain fire front capacity. These were the machines and people DBCA called on.

This model worked; it worked because there was mutual respect and shared responsibility. Now we have lost that. Since the closure of the native forest industry, most of these trained personnel have either left the region or transitioned to other sectors, particularly mining. Their highly specialised machinery, designed not just for logging but also for essential fire support, road clearing and emergency access, is largely gone. To make matters worse, many private earthmoving contractors, once engaged for similar emergency roles, have also shut down or sold off their gear as demand has disappeared. We have not just lost trees; we have lost the operational infrastructure that kept our forests and communities safe from bushfires. Now we have gathered the capacity, we have turned the lights off on the very people who made our forests safer.

Let us talk about something else as simple and essential as firewood. Following the native forest ban, concerns have emerged about the availability and affordability of quality firewood for heating homes. Although it would be inaccurate to say there is a total shortage, the Forest Products Commission is stockpiling wood for this purpose. The reality is more complex. The issue is not quantity, but quality and equity. High quality firewood, particularly jarrah, is being funnelled exclusively to one recipient: a foreign-owned company producing charcoal. This company has been granted access to premium timber at a preferential rate through a non-competitive negotiated agreement. Meanwhile, local firewood operators are expected to compete for what remains—often lower-grade marri and karri—transported from distant sites like Manjimup and sold at significantly higher costs. The government's approach has prioritised deals with big business over the survival of local small firewood suppliers. This disconnect is striking. Even the Forest Products Commission website refers residents to a list of timber and firewood businesses, last updated in 2022, many of which have since closed. This is not just a matter of supply; it is a matter of fairness. It is about whether the government will support regional livelihoods or will continue to make decisions in isolation from those who understand the industry best.

We need answers. Why are small operators being priced out? Why is jarrah firewood being monopolised by one foreign-owned company? Why has government support failed to keep up with the realities of what is happening on the ground? What is more, we now import timber that might be milled in countries without environmental controls, and timber that might carry biosecurity risks like the shot-hole borer. We swapped local management of a sustainable industry for an opaque global supply chain, and we added freight emissions on top of it. Surely we have had enough damage delivered through imported pests and disease. Look at the vast damage to our community through the loss of urban trees in public icons like Kings Park and Hyde Park. Perth already has the lowest tree canopy cover of any of the capital cities in Australia, and we are ramping up that biosecurity risk. This does not just affect Perth; shot-hole borer represents a high risk to the conservation of species like marri, banksia and paperbark, which are highly susceptible, as well as to our avocado industry. We should be able to use our abundant timber resources without putting ourselves at risk from imported pests.

Let us not forget the story written into the very walls of this place. I invite the Acting Speaker and members of this house to look around at the jarrah panelling lining this chamber. It is magnificent. It is timber harvested from our South West forests by generations of foresters, millers and craftsman. This Parliament itself is a monument to the proud tradition of native forestry in Western Australia. Across the South West, artisans and craftspeople have used native timbers like jarrah, marri and sheoak to create furniture, musical instruments, heritage restoration and artworks that tell our state's story.

These timbers were harvested sustainably, with care and respect for the resource. The closure of access to special new timbers does not just impact industry; it severs the hands of artists who have spent decades working with this material. With just a touch of irony, perhaps the Minister for Forestry might reflect on this given that her own winery proudly features the very native timbers that her government now denies others.

Let us talk about what is not in this bill. The is no transition plan. There is no commitment to supply specialty timbers. There is no assurance that high-valued logs from mine sites will be recovered or made available to artisans. There is no public reporting framework for glyphosate use and there is no fire mitigation workforce strategy, yet this government will stand in front of the cameras and call this reform under the cover of environmental protection. It will say that we are leading the nation. What we are leading is the deliberate dismantling of a workforce, a regional economy and a tradition of sustainable forest use. The Conservation and Land Management Amendment Bill 2025 should be called what it is: the conservation and land mismanagement bill.

I am not against conservation or change, but I am against hypocrisy, and this bill is riddled with it. We could have achieved a science-based balance. We could have included native forestry in our carbon plans. We could have trained the next generation of forest managers to do the ecological thinning that produces usable timber and fuel reduction outcomes. Instead, we got silence, secrecy and a political decision dressed in environmental language.

This disallowance is not just about a bill; it is about the future of forest management in Western Australia. It is about restoring a voice to the people of the South West, calling for evidence over ideology, and saying enough is enough to city-centric policymaking. The government fails to understand the land it governs. I urge members in this place to look past the talking points and consider the reality. The bill does not protect the forests; it isolates them. It abandons those who once cared for it and it creates risks we are only beginning to understand. I move to disallow this CALM amendment bill.

Mrs Magenta Marshall (Rockingham) (5:12 pm): I rise today to speak in support of the Conservation and Land Management Amendment Bill. As members already know, in 2021, former Premier and member for Rockingham Mark McGowan announced that the state government had made the historic decision to protect our Western Australian native forests and end native logging from 2024. Although I was not a member in this place at the time, as a WA member of the Labor Party and campaigner, it was an announcement that I was immensely proud of. Our native forests are beautiful and unique, and they are particularly important in the fight against climate change. That historic policy announcement will mean that millions of hectares of forest will be protected for future generations to enjoy, which is an incredible legacy.

The amendment bill we are discussing today will make amendments to the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 to support this policy announcement. At the end of the day, this policy is about returning our native forests to a healthy state and preventing our beautiful 100-year-old hardwood trees from continuing to be chopped down and sold commercially. Our state's South West native forests, made up of karri, jarrah and wandoo trees, are important for biodiversity, conservation, tourism, recreation, water supply, industry and cultural heritage. Ending the practice of native logging in Western Australia is a significant step towards preserving our state's unique biodiversity, mitigating climate change impacts and promoting sustainable forestry practices. This is a crucial step towards prioritising environmental conservation and recognising the long-term benefits of preserving natural habitats over short-term economic gains. We cannot stick our heads in the sand, like others do, and refute the impacts of climate change. Protecting these forests is a critical step in the fight against climate change. Our South West native forests store approximately one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, equivalent to roughly 116 years worth of annual emissions for every car in Western Australia, and we cannot continue to chop them down. Our vast native forests play a crucial role in mitigating these impacts. They act as carbon sinks by absorbing the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in the trees and soils. When these forests are logged, not only is the carbon released back into the atmosphere through the process of harvesting and decomposition, but also the ability of the forests to capture carbon in the future is compromised. Preserving native forests is essential for maintaining carbon balance and helping our economy transition to net zero.

We are following the science. Native logging has been shown to have detrimental effects on biodiversity. Many of Western Australia's native forests are home to a diverse array of plants and animal species, some of which are found nowhere else on earth. Any practice of logging disrupts these ecosystems, leading to habitat loss and fragmentation, which can result in the decline or extinction of species. By ending native logging, the state government can protect these invaluable habitats and safeguard the biodiversity that depends on them. It is the government's responsibility to make these tough decisions that benefit our state and to support local industries and workers to transition. This decision was made due to the increasing impacts of climate change, the importance of maintaining biodiversity and forest health, the need for carbon capture and storage, and declining timber yields. As part of this transition, the government has undertaken a range of actions that promote greater resilience in our South West forests by adding more than 400,000 hectares of karri, jarrah and wandoo forests and nature reserves, national parks and conservation parks.

We all know that there is a growing public awareness and demand for sustainable practices. As an example, even before our government banned single-use plastics, the rise in consumers using reusable coffee cups and containers was evident everywhere we went. That demonstrates that the broader community is increasingly concerned about the impacts of the products they use and the environmental footprint of those products, including timber and wood products. This transition away from native logging and towards sustainably managed plantations or alternative materials is meeting community demand for responsible resource management.

I also want to talk about how protecting our South West forests will also support and enhance local tourism opportunities. There is a strong long-term economic argument for the ending of native logging. Although logging may provide short-term economic benefits through timber sales and employment in the industry, these benefits are outweighed by the cost of environmental damage, the loss of ecosystem services and the potential for negative impacts on industries such as tourism and recreation that depend on intact and undamaged natural landscapes. By conserving our native forests, we are supporting alternative economic activities that are compatible with environmental conservation and contribute to long-term economic resilience in the regions. That is what our government is prioritising. While ending commercial native forest logging, the Cook government has invested a record $350 million to expand Western Australian softwood timber plantations to create and support sustainable jobs. This is about supporting the workers and families during the transition. The transition to sustainable forestry practices and alternative sources of softwood timber provides an opportunity to create new jobs in industries such as plantation, forestry, ecotourism, and restoration ecology. Through this funding package, our government is investing in this retraining and in support programs for affected workers. Also, as part of this transitional funding, a variety of grants and millions of dollars have been made available to community development projects that will support workers and families, stimulate the local economy, create sustainable jobs and attract new businesses. It is intended that this funding will help transform these former timber towns into thriving places to live, work and visit.

The logging ban strikes a balance. As we have heard, limited forest clearing will still be allowed for approved mining and infrastructure projects as well as limited ecological thinning. As part of this policy, it was announced that from 2024, any timber taken from native forests under the ban exemptions will stay in Western Australia and be divided up between those who need it. This means that any trees cleared from forest management activities or approved mining operations will be available for products such as artisanal products, firewood, high-value furniture or joinery. Any trees that are removed out of necessity will not be wasted.

I would also like to discuss the cultural significance of native forests to Aboriginal communities in Western Australia. These native forests hold deep spiritual and cultural value for many Indigenous peoples who have been the custodians of this land for thousands of years. We are honouring those cultural connections and ensuring that Indigenous knowledge and traditions are respected and preserved for future generations.

In my community of Rockingham, there is a strong interest in conservation and the appropriate management of our natural requirement. For members who may not be aware, Rockingham has the beautiful Point Peron, which is a popular coastal haven known for its stunning natural beauty and rich biodiversity. Filled with windswept cliffs, serene beaches and thriving ecosystems, this recreational park embodies the beauty of our local landscape. Having grown up enjoying Cape Peron over the years, I deeply understand and respect its irreplaceable value as a natural sanctuary and recreational retreat. My mum grew up down our way, fishing at Point Peron with her brothers and sisters, and I have my own fond memories of my childhood spent there walking the trails, checking out the World War II bunkers and spotting crabs, seals and dolphins. This is why I was really proud that in late 2023, the Cook Labor government granted class A reserve status to Cape Peron—the highest level of environmental protection—in recognition of its high community and conservation value. Preserving Cape Peron is about not only safeguarding its natural beauty, but also ensuring that future generations can relish the same landscape and cherished memories that I and many others from my community have had the privilege to create there. The community has been asking for class A reserve status for Cape Peron for decades, and our government is delivering on this because we listen and engage with our communities.

Stage 1 of the class A reserve involves approximately 66% of Cape Peron, or approximately 120 hectares, transferring from class C to class A reserve. The staged approach to establishing a class A reserve intends to add extra areas to the reserve once there is greater certainty about future land use and roads that are subject to current work by government agencies including the Department of Defence for HMAS Stirling and the City of Rockingham. We are now furthering our commitment to protect and enhance this natural beauty with the release of the Cape Peron Recreation Master Plan. Over a period of 12 months, the master plan was developed by the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions through extensive stakeholder consultation, including a session hosted in my office with stakeholders from the region. Our plan sets out the future management objectives of the reserve and provides clear direction for enhancing visitors' experience of Point Peron in a way that is culturally and environmentally appropriate. The plan sets out many opportunities to boost the amenity of Point Peron that will also encourage sustainable tourism to Rockingham. These include improved lighting and surveillance at the western cape car park; additional car parking, toilets and picnic facilities and a permanent vendor stall; three different sites that were previously cleared for development many decades ago to be made available for the provision of short-stay accommodation, with any new accommodation within the region to be low impact, and short-stay tourist accommodation in those cleared areas such as the former Returned and Services League of Australia caravan park site at Mangles Bay; the installation of dual-use footpaths and pathways to connect the reserve with the Rockingham foreshore and Shoalwater Bay; and the commitment to continue working with traditional owners to retain cultural heritage sites within the reserve and develop further Aboriginal tourism opportunities such as yarning, tours and art. I look forward to working on that with local Noongar elder Steve Jacobs from In Culture Tours. There will also be the rehabilitation of Bush Forever sites in the reserve, including the former Swan Brewery site, and the provision of a visitor node and wayfinding signs throughout the reserve.

Last year, I was really proud to secure $1 million in the 2024–25 state budget for the first round of upgrades and implementation of this plan, which includes the toilets and pop-up cafe facilities. The future of Cape Peron had previously been a longstanding unresolved issue in the City of Rockingham. This class A reserve status provides certainty to our Rockingham community in knowing that the area will be protected from inappropriate development, moving on from the previous proposal for a marina and permanent residential development to preserving the cape for generations to come. I mention this as I believe this is just another demonstration of our government's commitment to conservation, tourism and economic diversification.

I am coming to the end of my contribution. This legislation highlights our investment into Western Australia's sustainable future. By transitioning more of the forestry industry to sustainable timber products like softwood, we are continuing to support construction industries and our regional communities. The implementation of this native forest policy through the Forest Management Plan 2024–2033 has been the subject of extensive engagement with key stakeholders, with the community and industry all involved in the process. It is backed by science and research.

I am proud to be part of this government, which is supporting conservation, tackling climate change and taking it seriously, protecting cultural values, respecting Indigenous rights and boosting regional tourism. This native logging decision represents a forward-thinking approach to resource management that balances economic development with environmental stewardship and cultural preservation. This bill facilitates the appropriate management and protection of our south west native forests. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr Dave Kelly (Bassendean) (5:24 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Conservation and Land Management Amendment Bill 2025. I am proud of the decisions that have been made by consecutive Labor governments in protecting our native forests. The community was extremely supportive of the Gallop government's decision in 2001 to end the logging of old-growth forests, and that decision has certainly stood the test of time. The Barnett government came in and had an opportunity to reverse that decision, but it knew that it was ultimately the right decision to protect our native, old-growth forests. That decision was widely supported by the Western Australian community. In those days, I was not a member of Parliament; I was just a committed member of the Labor Party. I am very proud to have been a member of the party that began the protection of our old-growth forests.

The decision that the McGowan Labor government made while I was the forestry minister to end commercial logging in our native forests is also a decision that I am very proud of, and I will address a few points that have been raised by members opposite.

Members opposite talked about the loss of jobs and said that the decision was made with disregard for the impact on employment and on families, workers and the community. I am not going to put up with any of that from members of the Liberal or National Parties. I have been in and around politics way too long to do that. I have seen the attitude of the Liberal and National Parties to workers in this state across a whole range of industries. The National and Liberal Parties have shown time and again that they are more than happy to remove the employment security of workers in this state, not just in one industry, but so many times before.

Most people know that before I came into this place, I spent a considerable amount of time in the trade union movement. I saw—

Several members interjected.

Mr Dave Kelly: One just has to say the words "trade union" and members opposite start to flex and twitch! I will tell this to members opposite. I represented a union that represented some of the lowest paid workers in this state, many of them in industries in which the predominant characteristics were that they were most likely part-time, female and low paid workers, and I saw Liberal and National governments hop into the working conditions of those workers time and again. I say this for the edification of the member for Nedlands, who has taken a keen interest in these matters. During the last dying months of the Carpenter Labor government, we negotiated a deal with that government to introduce minimum rates of pay for cleaners in government buildings. Those workers were employed by contractors—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Lorna Clarke): Member for Churchlands, I do not think it is appropriate to be trying to engage in conversation with Hansard. Please allow them to do their job. Member for Bassendean.

Mr Dave Kelly: Thank you very much. These were cleaners employed to clean government buildings. We negotiated an arrangement whereby the government would put in place minimum rates of pay for those cleaners equivalent to directly employed cleaners in schools. At that stage, we had cleaners in government buildings like Dumas House being paid significantly less than a cleaner in a government school. The government agreed to implement minimum rates of pay in all government cleaning contracts. Alan Carpenter called the election early, before that deal was implemented. The Liberal and National Parties won that election, and one of the first things the then Treasurer, Troy Buswell, did was to cancel the pay rise for cleaners in government buildings. What a miserable decision for an incoming government to make! It showed the government had no regard for cleaners in that industry.

An example that still sticks in my mind is about a woman called Mrs Flowers. She worked in a contract cleaning company. She did three jobs. In the morning and in the evening she did a shift in private industry and during the day she cleaned a government building. If she had gotten the pay rise for her government job, she said she would have quit her other cleaning job and been able to spend time with her grandchildren. That was the importance of the deal that we had delivered. The Liberal–National government cancelled that pay rise for cleaners, and Mrs Flowers never got to spend that extra time in her later years with her grandchildren.

Time and time again, members opposite make those decisions. In opposition, I was the shadow Minister for Water when the former member for Central Wheatbelt cut job after job out of the Water Corporation. Hundreds of them were in regional WA. They were secure, well-paid government jobs, delivering an essential service. The National Party Minister for Water at the time cut those jobs out of regional WA. It was just extraordinary. So, my point is that I am not going to be lectured by members of the Liberal and National Parties about making government decisions that do not consider the workers who they will impact, because time and time again that is what the opposition has done when in government.

Most of the members opposite are new. Is there anyone in the chamber now who was in the last Parliament? No. They are all new so I can tell all my old stories, and they will be new for all of them! My point is that the Liberal and National Parties have in their DNA that they will not take care of working people in this state, and what was different about us when we made the decision to end logging in native forests is that we looked after the workers who were affected. The $80 million transition package that we put on the table was something we had negotiated with the Australian Workers' Union, which represents workers in that industry. If it had been the Liberal Party or the National Party in power, they would have played hardball with workers in that industry. But we did not. We sat down at an early stage and negotiated a package for those workers. I take my hat off to the AWU; it did not support the decision and wanted the industry to continue, but when it became clear that the government had made the decision, it sat down with us and negotiated a package, which included direct redundancy payments and retraining for workers in the industry. I am not saying that none of the workers in the industry came out of it feeling as though they wished we had not made that decision. I get that. With any change, there are going to be people who are unhappy. We sat down with the union that represents those workers and worked constructively to come up with a package. We listened to them say what they thought was necessary and we delivered. I do not remember widespread protest at the decision from the workers in that industry. As I said, the union certainly was not happy, but once the decision had been made, it negotiated a package. That is the difference between us on this side and the Liberal and National Parties.

Not only did we negotiate a package for the workers directly involved; we also had a very significant business transition package. Nearly $30 million of the $80 million went directly to businesses. I have not got my notes here from a few years back, but from memory there were direct payments to employers who wanted to exit the industry and also payments to employers who wanted to continue in maybe a different form. Again, we sat down with the industry association and negotiated a package. We did that early and, you know, we listened to what industry wanted, and we delivered a package.

The third pillar of that transition package was community packages. People who had ideas about how to improve their community came forward. The former member for Warren–Blackwood, Jane Kelsbie, did a lot of work with a lot of those grants, and they were greatly received. I did not see the current member for Warren–Blackwood knocking back that grants program. I am not sure. Did he apply for any? I am not sure.

Mr Bevan Eatts: No, I didn't. But I assume the $150 million payment to the Australian Workers' Union—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Lorna Clarke): Members! It is not a debate. Member for Warren–Blackwood!

Mr Bevan Eatts: He asked me a question; am I allowed to say anything?

Several members interjected.

The Acting Speaker: Members! Not in so much detail. It is not a debate across the chamber; it is through the chair.

Mr Bevan Eatts: May I ask a question through the chair?

The Acting Speaker: I think you need to read the standing orders again to see on what basis you could do that. You had your opportunity to speak.

Mr Dave Kelly: We sat down and negotiated a comprehensive package. The direct worker package was $19 million, the business package was almost $30 million and the industry package was another $30 million.

When change takes place, we on this side of the house understand what it is like to be a worker, we understand what the community wants and we certainly listen to what business wants. At the end of the day—

Mr Peter Rundle: What about Parkside? You brought them here and then pulled the rug out.

Mr Dave Kelly: The member for Roe comes in here and he talks a bit of nonsense, and he just added a bit of that to Hansard. I will just get it on the record. Parkside Timber coming over to Western Australia was not at the request of the Western Australian Government. Parkside is a huge business that is in not only logging in Queensland but also operating shopping centres. It is a big corporation. It came over here because it believed there was a business opportunity. There was no contact with the state government before it made the decision to come over. Before we made the decision, Parkside actually came to us—this is on the record; The West Australian reported it—asking for, I think, a $20 million grant, because it said its mills were unprofitable. Now, that was before we made the decision. Parkside came to us saying that its mills were unprofitable and it wanted a $20 million grant. I think it was around $20 million. I said that there was no way that we would give a handout of that nature to a business the size of Parkside. When we made the decision to end commercial logging, Parkside jumped up and down and said it was going to lose a hell of a lot of money because its mills were actually making so much money. One of the directors was quoted in The West Australian as saying that the approach to get $20 million from the government was really them just trying it on. Parkside had shrewd businesspeople. They knew how to make a profit. At the end of the day, talk to me about the impact on workers and the impact on the community, but I am not going to be upset about a very large corporation like Parkside. They will sleep well. They were given a good deal when the industry ended.

Mr Peter Rundle interjected.

Mr Dave Kelly: Talk to me about any other issue, but do not talk to me about Parkside.

The decision was based on science. We were looking at the new Forest Management Plan 2024–2033. One of the key issues in that plan is the yield going forward. We on this side of the house accept that climate change is real but many Liberal and Nationals WA members still do not believe in climate change. Climate change is real. The impact on the South West is profound. We just have to look at the declining rainfall across the South West. It has been significant since the 1980s. For example, Perth used to get virtually all its water just from the rain that fell out of the sky. About 400 gigalitres of water used to fall out of the sky. It used to run into our dams.

(Member's time extended.)

Mr Dave Kelly: If 70 to 80 gigalitres of rain goes into our dams, we have had a good year. That is because of the decline in rainfall due to climate change.

Why are so many towns in the South West connected to the articulated water? Why do we no longer rely on local dams, such as the dams in Denmark or Manjimup? Why can we no longer rely on those dams for our drinking water? It is because it does not rain as much in the South West as it used to. We can see it in our drinking water. It has an impact on the forests. Trees do not grow back as quickly when rainfall declines.

The forest management plan that has been prepared for another decade, not for 12 months, shows that the forest yield was not going to be enough to continue commercial logging in our native forests. That is a summary of the science as to why that decision—

Mr Peter Rundle: There wasn't too much science in the consultation. The Premier just stood up and announced it one day.

Mr Dave Kelly: That is right. The member for Roe said there is no science but when we explain the science to him, he wants to change the topic. It is called deflection. The science says that the native forests in our South West are being adversely affected by climate change, declining rainfall and warmer temperatures. That means that the regrowth in our native forests are not at the rates and levels they were previously. We have the science on one hand. Members opposite may be in denial but lots of members of communities in the South West said to us that the value of our native forests is in things like tourism, not logging.

The existing level of employment in the tourism and hospitality sectors in the South West is significant. The communities in the South West are telling us that we are undervaluing our native forests for the value that they have for industries other than logging. The decision was based on science; it was based on the alternative economic importance of stopping commercial logging in our native forests by the end of 2024. I understand that that is difficult for some people, but the $80 million package was significant.

The other commitment we made, which was also incredibly significant and something that the Liberals and the National Party never did, was to invest in plantation forestry. In my view, plantation forestry is the future for forestry in the South West. The amount of $350 million to grow that industry was significant. If we listened to members opposite, we would think that plantation timber is like the junior partner and native logging was the predominant part of the industry. Again, I might be a bit out but native logging in the South West accounts for fewer than 20 per cent of the forestry jobs in WA. Employment in plantation timber is already in the majority. The $350 million commitment that we made to the forestry industry is absolutely huge. Some of the mills relying on plantation softwood that already exist in Western Australia are absolutely significant. I understand that up until August last year, we had already purchased 25 properties covering 8,800 hectares, with that $350 million, which will now be planted with softwood. Plantation timber in the South West is a job creator. It is something that can be done. I was going to say that it is not rocket science. I simply do not get why members opposite do not recognise the very significant commitment that we made to softwood plantations in Western Australia and do not understand that it is the future of the timber industry. We can protect our native forests not just as a carbon sink but as an economic basis for things such as tourism and hospitality and we can have a vibrant forestry industry based on softwood plantations.

Members opposite made comments about the supply of firewood. When we made the decision to end commercial logging, it was predicted that Western Australians would basically die of cold. Obviously, that has not happened. Jarrah is a very special timber. I know that people in the South West are not used to it. We have a cheap supply of jarrah. It is a great timber to burn in fireplaces. It is the wood of preference for a lot of people. Marri and karri are also suitable to be used for firewood. Those timbers are in good supply. The preference might be for jarrah but I think over time people will understand that other woods are available for firewood. That adjustment will be made.

What else was I going to say?

Several members interjected.

Mr Dave Kelly: The member for Central Wheatbelt has come into the chamber, so I might go back to the job cuts and the Water Corporation for him.

Mr Lachlan Hunter: They thought you were such a good water minister, they put you on the backbench.

Mr Dave Kelly: Yes, that is right!

With all these issues about forestry, one of the recent decisions that I have enjoyed most was the result in Bullwinkel. I know the member for Central Wheatbelt, the shining star of the National Party in Western Australia, said at one of her first press conferences that she was going to be the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. She could not even win the seat of Bullwinkel, which encompassed not a little bit but her whole home patch, the state seat of Central Wheatbelt. The shining light of the National Party in Western Australia could not even win the seat of Bullwinkel. All we have now is a bit of yappity yap from the not-quite-so-shining star, the current member for Central Wheatbelt.

A member interjected.

Mr Dave Kelly: Yes, that is right. Someone has already made the comment about the National Party having traded down in the seat of Central Wheatbelt. Because the member is here, I just thought of it all of a sudden. I know how hard he worked on that campaign as strategic adviser.

In the five minutes I have left, I will go back to the bill. One of the points that members opposite made in the debate was that this bill is just about politics because the decision has been made and that there is no need to amend the legislation to prevent commercial logging in our native forests, which is effectively what this bill does. It puts a legislative full stop under commercial logging in our native forests. The opposition was saying the government does not need to do this and the fact we are doing it is just a political stunt in moving a legislative amendment. I would say it is quite the opposite. The people of Western Australia overwhelmingly supported the government's decision to end logging in our old-growth forests. I think the people of Western Australia overwhelmingly support the decision we made to end commercial logging in our native forests. It is appropriate that we amend the legislation to give effect to that decision. It prevents the National and Liberal Parties saying nothing before an upcoming election and—

Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Central Wheatbelt.

Mr Dave Kelly: The National Party won six seats in a 59-seat Parliament and its members think that was a win. I have to say that shows their aspirations in this place.

Amending this legislation prevents members of the Liberal and National Parties from not being up-front with the people of Western Australia before an election, but then getting elected and reintroducing logging without a mandate and without having to come to this Parliament to change the legislation. This means any future Liberal or National Party government that wants to reintroduce logging in our native forests will have to front up to this Parliament and they will have to change the legislation so that its decision is open to public scrutiny. That is what this legislation does. It is not a political stunt. It is about putting in place the legislative full stop that will stop a future Liberal or National Party government from trying to reverse this decision by stealth. At the last state election, they came in here and said they did not like what we had done, but I do not remember them making an election commitment that if they had won, they would have reversed the decision. I do not remember that. The previous Leader of the National Party said they would make a public statement before the election, but then she moved on.

This legislation is important because it means that this decision, which is so warmly supported by an overwhelming number of members of the Western Australian community, is protected from a future Liberal–National government trying to replace it or repeal it by stealth.

Mr Peter Rundle (Roe) (5:54 pm): I think I need to say a few things here in response to the former Minister for Forestry, but the first thing I want to point out is that the member for Warren–Blackwood, sitting diagonally behind me, is here as a result of the government's forestry package.

I can remember sitting here when former Premier Mark McGowan just announced it one day, absolutely out of nowhere with no consultation with anyone in the industry or anyone in the communities in the South West. I think it was just after or just before question time and everyone was in a state of shock. Those timber milling families and timber communities could not believe it. The former Minister for Forestry talks about Bullwinkel and other things. I am talking about Warren–Blackwood—one of those three one-term wonders, I suppose we could call it, member for Central Wheatbelt. I said several times in the previous Parliament when the previous member for Warren–Blackwood was sitting over there that "It's not right." It was not fair on the previous member for Warren–Blackwood that the government basically signed her death warrant with that policy. That is exactly what happened. That is exactly why the current member for Warren–Blackwood is sitting in this Parliament today, apart from the fact that he is also a very good community person and very well respected in Manjimup and many other towns throughout the South West. I wanted to point out that Premier McGowan stood up here and made that announcement to cater to the voters of Fremantle. Then we saw what happened; it did not even cater to the voters of Fremantle. The member for Fremantle nearly got rolled. It was catering to the voters of Fremantle, but the timber milling families with 100-year-old businesses had nowhere to go. The compensation package—seriously—is not on. It is not good enough—nowhere near it. Very little has been done to help out those families.

I want to point out that one compensation package was handed out. Who was that to? It was $150,000 to the Australian Workers' Union for managing the transition so well. I think some of the members opposite know how much I like unions. That one was pushing the friendship a bit too far—$150,000 to the Australian Workers' Union with money that should have been given to those hardworking families and industries in the South West. In fact, Leader of the Opposition, it reminds me a little bit of the former precinct legislation that meant we could not have gatherings in any of the five precincts around the metropolitan area, including Mandurah and Northbridge and the like. But, funnily enough, a union meeting could be held. There was one rule for one group and another rule for unions. It is not good enough.

I have a couple of other points. As I was trying to point out to the former minister, the minister encouraged Parkside Timber to come to Western Australia. All sorts of promises were made and then the rug was pulled out with the decision. The other thing I want to point out, which the former minister mentioned, is the 8,800 hectares of farmland. This is one of the things that we are up against in the seat of Warren–Blackwood and the seat of Roe as well. I am sure the member for Central Wheatbelt is interested in this. Out the other side of Darkan, where we have good quality agricultural land, it is being chewed up by softwood forestry and the farmers there cannot compete. They do not have the chequebooks to compete with the $350 million package that the former minister was talking about.

These are the issues. We need to keep good quality agricultural land in farming. Even though this government does not seem to appreciate it, agriculture is the second-largest export income industry in Western Australia.

Mr Lachlan Hunter: They even have a parliamentary secretary, member for Roe.

Mr Peter Rundle: That is right. Or a policy, I understand, going to the election. I just wanted to make those few points because agricultural land is so valuable in Western Australia.

One thing I will agree with the former minister on, because I have seen it on my farm as well, is that the climate is drying in the South West corner of Western Australia, but the minister is off the mark on most of those other elements.

I want to give a little bit of history about the fact that Premier McGowan stood up here one day. There was no consultation. Once again, let us create the city–country divide. Let us create another policy that drives regional voters away from the Labor Party, as it did in Geraldton, Albany and Warren–Blackwood. This government has created the country–city divide. As for the firearms reforms—what a mess. With the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Bill, the South Coast Marine Park and banning live exports, this government has really taken the wind right out of the sails of the whole agricultural industry and it needs to have a good hard look at itself.

Mrs Lisa Munday (Dawesville) (6:00 pm): I would like to make a small contribution to the debate on the Conservation and Land Management Amendment Bill 2025. This bill not only protects the lungs of our South West, but also breathes life into the future we want to leave behind for our kids. Using an analogy that I am pretty comfortable with, as someone who spent nearly two decades working as a paramedic and psychologist, I have learnt that prevention is always better than a cure, whether it is in the human body or in the environment in the world. We are healthier when we protect what is vital before it breaks down. Everyone agrees and knows that preventive health is the best way to go. In saying that, our South West forests are vital. They are home to ancient ecosystems that cannot be replaced. They support biodiversity, feed our water catchments, draw down carbon and nurture tourism, recreation and cultural heritage. I think everyone who lives in WA has been for a holiday at some point in the South West. They are part of our identity in Western Australia, to not just look at, but also essential to our health and resilience in the face of climate change. The amendments are not lip service, but necessary. They seek to remove the outdated legislative provisions that treat our native forests as a commercial timber supply and focus on forest health, traditional owner stewardship and biodiversity protection.

In my own community of Dawesville and throughout the Mandurah region, we see how climate change is already biting. There are longer dry spells, bushfire risks and loss of habitat. I see the emotional toll it takes, particularly on our young people. I remember when I was standing in 40-degree heat over 14 days, young people came up to me saying, "If I vote for you, what will the Labor Party do for the environment?" We talked about plastics, we talked about the environment and we talked about the cancellation of logging. So, yes, I owe it to them. I owe it to my nieces, who are constantly asking me what we will do better for the environment.

I lived in Manjimup in a previous life years ago when I was in the banking industry. I would take my son Alex for a walk in the forest around the diamond tree area in Manjimup a few times every week. We both loved it. There was a trail walk there. It was a great break for me because he was about three years old back then and needed to work off the energy. Every now and then I would hope to lose him in the forest but unfortunately I never did. He always came back! That is probably a good thing, really. He pretended he was waiting for Thomas the Tank Engine and we used to call it "Henry's Forest". When I walk through our local bushlands down south in places like Denmark and Manjimup—25 years ago, I did not even consider it, but I do now—I think about how the decisions we make in this place echo across time. I also hope that the things we do and the work we do here now means that the forest will still be there in 100 years to come when we are long gone.

The end of the large-scale commercial logging in native forests, announced in 2021, enshrined the Forest Management Plan 2024–33. It was a fantastic moment, and this bill locks that in. My best mate in the other place of the 41st Parliament, the previous member for Warren–Blackwood, Jane Kelsbie, was a huge driver of this. It helps to remove timber production as a legislative purpose for state forests and ensures that regulation can no longer prescribe logging as a forest use. Instead, it allows for necessary forest management like clearing for fire protection, approved mining or forest health. It also supports remote-meeting capability for the Conservation and Parks Commission, making our governance more modern and flexible. It is something I am always glad to see legislated.

When I was quickly writing this speech, I looked at the speech in Hansard by Hon Jackie Jarvis from the other place. She spoke quite eloquently and probably way better than I could. I will quote directly from Minister Jarvis's speech. Talking about the current member for Warren–Blackwood, she said:

He stood up in Denmark during the election campaign and said that he would not advocate for the return of commercial logging. The opposition's own shadow spokesman for forestry has publicly said in a very public forum in Denmark, that he would not advocate for the return of commercial logging, so I am very confused about the stance of the alliance or the coalition or whatever members opposite call their little partnership over there, because he said that very clearly in Denmark. Members can make all the claims they like that the logging decision led to us losing the seat of Warren–Blackwood. I will say that Jane Kelsbie, the former member for Warren–Blackwood, received the most number of votes whilst the Liberal and National candidates were bickering with each other. I think each received about 21% and 22% of the vote. Yes, they can add it all together and do whatever they like, but do not say that this forestry decision cost Jane Kelsbie that seat, because it is quite simply not true. I think the incoming member for Warren–Blackwood, the shadow spokesperson for forestry, knew that, and that is why he stood up in Denmark and said that he would not advocate for the return of commercial logging. Members opposite probably need to get their stories straight between their alliance partners.

As we know, the ending of native forest sawmill operations was difficult. We know that most of the large timber mills have closed. As I said, we know that, sadly, people lost their jobs. I give a special shout-out to the team at the Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation, who did a magnificent job working with those workers, and, probably more importantly, the team at South West TAFE, who were on the ground in those towns on a weekly and then monthly basis, working to help people with their CVs and helping them to retrain. A large majority of the older workers transitioned to retirement, but, as I said, I met with those workers personally a number of times. They were happy with the payout they received; they were happy with the support they received. They have all either found other work or transitioned to retirement and were grateful for the additional funding and support that they received from the government.

As we know, native forest sawmill operators received a compensation package—the $80 million just transition package. Again, I give a shout-out to the former member for Warren–Blackwood, who sat on the native forest transition group and, within the first few weeks of meeting, actually lobbied the government for more funding. The funding went from $50 million up to $80 million as a base for that native forest transition group. I have a document here, Protecting our native forests: Native Forestry Transition Plan: 2023. I have tabled it in this place before. It went through the transition plan and notes that the decision to end the logging of native forest will preserve at least an additional 400,000 hectares of jarrah, karri and wandoo forest, protecting nearly two million hectares of native forest for future generations. It outlines what the plan looks like. It notes that we had this fantastic native forest transition group, which was initially started by the then minister, Dave Kelly, and then I had the opportunity to meet with them regularly. The funding that was given out was well received. We had the worker transition payment, which was $10,000 for workers who decided to exit the industry early. We then had a base payment of $30,000, plus a payment of $1,000 per year of service, up to 15 years' service, on top of any statutory redundancy payments that were received.

I have to say that the Cook Labor government and probably the then McGowan Labor government did everything and anything it could to make sure people were looked after. I also pulled some of the speech of Jane Kelsbie, the former member for Warren–Blackwood, from Hansard. She stated:

Sustainably produced WA plantation timber will play a key role in our climate change battle. Plantation timber is renewable and has the potential to sequester millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It is estimated that the government's $350 million investment will provide an additional 33 000 hectares of softwood timber plantation.

…

… 50 million pine plantation seedlings will be grown and managed from Manjimup.

Over a 10-year period—from 2009 to 2019—5 728 hectares of softwood pine was planted in WA.

… Meanwhile, a measly 1 404 hectares was planted under the Barnett government, over eight—yes, eight!—years.

History tells us the woeful tale under the Barnett Liberal government when we had periods of no softwood seedlings being planted. Under the Liberals, in 2010, five hectares were planted; in 2011, five hectares; and in 2012, zero hectares were planted—not one. Yet … the member for North West Central … On 8 September in this place, he said that it takes 25 years to grow a pine tree. We know that. We know that we need to get cracking, because when the previous government was in power, the industry was being decimated. That government was eyeing off the east coast to supply timber to the construction industry.

Back then, Jane Kelsbie met with all the mill owners and forestry workers, as the honourable member Hon Jackie Jarvis stated. Ms Kelsbie continued to do so right up until the election. As I said, it was not the native forest issue that lost her the seat; it was the division of votes between the Liberals and Nationals because she won the primary vote. It continues:

The scientific evidence is clear that climate change has resulted in a decline in the yield of timber from the state's native forests, a slower than expected regrowth of native timbers and the loss of habitat and biodiversity. If we continued along the same path, the declining yield of native timber, meaning less sawlog and other bole volume of timber from a given area of forest, would mean that larger areas of forest would need to be harvested to fulfil contracts. … It was apparent that business as usual was simply not an option.

For some, the historical announcement of the McGowan Labor government that it would stop commercial-scale logging in south west native forests was unpalatable. For others, it was a reason to celebrate. It is totally understandable that industry stakeholders have many questions and want clarification …

I speak to Jane quite a lot and I know that that was one of her big moments. The biggest thing that she took out of this place was to end the logging.

Before I sit, the member for Mandurah and I are part of the Bindjareb Djilba Protection Plan, and we meet on a regular basis with all the departments pertaining to the Peel–Harvey estuary. We look at the environment and the policy plans in the Mandurah area. I want to take a moment to speak about a very important person who passed away very suddenly last month. As co-chair with the member for Mandurah, I thought it would be nice to put his name in Hansard. Probably the best way I can do that is to read the Peel-Harvey Catchment Council's (PHCC's) Facebook post about Steve. It states:

Vale our dear Dr Steve Fisher.

It is with the heaviest of hearts that we share the news that on 28 May, Steve collapsed suddenly and was unable to be revived. Our hearts are broken for Steve's wife Anne, his four treasured daughters and his grandchildren (he was so very proud of them).

Few people have made such a huge impression and contributed so much to our Ramsar wetlands and our community. Steve was much much more than our Senior Scientist, he was a friend, mentor and inspiration.

Steve's favourite part of his job PHCC—

The Peel-Harvey Catchment Council—

was working with school kids - he inspired many and continue to volunteer with school groups. His communication skills meant that he could explain science with passion, humour and clarity, whether it was to grade 6 kids or Members of Parliament and Ministers.

Steve connected with so many sites networks and universities, to bring science for managing and protecting our wetlands. He made himself available to community organisations, school groups and so many more.

Thank you Steve, you made a huge contribution and will not be forgotten.

With much love from your PHCC family …

As well as from us of the whole Mandurah community.

The Labor track record here speaks volumes about the Labor government's old-growth protection. It refers to the 2001 Plan for Our Parks initiative, which added more than 6.5 million hectares to our conservation estate. It was the largest initiative in WA's history. We also backed in huge investment in tourism and in the Aboriginal ranger program, which not only protects the country, but also restores pride, jobs and healing for our traditional landowners. I give a huge shout-out to the Winjan Aboriginal Corporation in our area. It is a great example of the change and the difference that can be made in our electorate. With that, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr David Scaife (Cockburn—Parliamentary Secretary) (6:14 pm): It is a privilege to rise to contribute on the Conservation and Land Management Amendment Bill 2025. This is a bill that gives legislative effect to the Labor government's commitment to ending commercial native logging in Western Australia. As the member for Bassendean said, it puts a full stop at the end of that commitment, and it makes it very difficult for a future government to unwind that commitment because it would need to give it legislative effect. It is a legacy matter, and so I just want to pre-empt some interjections here. I will be going through some history. There will be a little bit of a history lesson. There will be some History Channel today. I know that may get some interjections from the member for Churchlands. I know it hurts his head a little bit to do history lessons. I know that it bores him. I know that he defaults to his class clown state of rest on these things, and he has got to pipe up.

Mr Basil Zempilas interjected.

Mr David Scaife: I am just pre-empting. If the member for Churchlands were listening, which he was not—

Mr Basil Zempilas interjected.

Mr David Scaife: Of course, the problem is the member for Churchlands was not listening. He was not listening because I said that I was pre-empting interjections from him with all this, but he was too busy in conversation, and this is why I made the point. He has to default into the class clown behaviour because we are going to do a little bit of the hard work. We are going to do a little bit of the policy history. We are going to do a little bit of the policy research. We are going to do a little bit of the public policy development as part of the discussion of this bill. The member for Churchlands is free to leave the chamber if he is not able to contain himself while we are having that debate.

The reason that I have to go through the history and the legacy of this matter is that this is something that, as members have said before, builds on an achievement of a past Labor government, which was the Gallop government's commitment in the lead-up to the 2001 state election to end old-growth native logging in WA. Can I say at this juncture a big congratulations to the parliamentary secretary on introducing her first bill into this chamber and on bringing it through. It is a really exciting thing. My first bill in this chamber was the Reserves Bill 2024, which was not nearly as interesting as this bill. I do not want to over-egg it, parliamentary secretary, but it is a significant thing in your career to be the member of Parliament who introduces the legislation into this chamber that gives the legislative effect to ending commercial native logging in Western Australia, and I congratulate you on it.

I love talking about the Gallop government's commitment and achievement in ending old-growth logging in Western Australia. It was an enormously popular decision made at the time. It was a difficult decision but an enormously popular decision and one that has stood the test of time. I am always happy to talk about the achievements of past Labor governments, and they are many. We are a great party when it comes to social reform, environmental protection and economic and industry development. I love talking about the achievements of former Labor governments, and this is the next step in an achievement of a former Labor government. I want to acknowledge the member for Carine because in a debate the other day on an education bill the member for Carine said that he was only too happy to talk about the Barnett government's legacy in education. I applaud that. I think it is great to have pride in the history and the legacy of one's party. I do not necessarily share that pride in the member's party, but it was great to see a member of the opposition stand and speak in defence of the Liberal Party's history because that has been lacking from the leadership of the Liberal Party.

It has been quite surprising to me to see the member for Churchlands wash his hands of any decision that was made by the Barnett government. Anytime we raise that issue, and we saw it before with the member for Bassendean, we get these interjections that say it was nine years ago and it was nothing to do with him and he was not here in the chamber. I never thought I would see the day when a Leader of the Liberal Party would publicly in this chamber, in a hallowed place for politics in Western Australia like this, vociferously and repeatedly just wipe his hands of anything to do with a Liberal government—the last time the Liberal Party was in government. Therefore, I give credit to the member for Carine.

Mr Basil Zempilas interjected.

Mr David Scaife: I think my point at the outset is being proven right now about the class clown behaviour. But I give credit to the member for Carine because he stood and was willing to take ownership over the decisions that his previous government had made. He was willing to defend them. He was willing to spruik them in this place, and I think that is a credit to him. I think the member for Carine is a future Leader of the Liberal Party, personally.

I reckon it could be sooner rather than later. I will just say to the member for Carine: the former member for Cottesloe used to do this to me as well; I apologise for the kiss of death that I used to get from David Honey as well on this. David Honey used to say these things. I know it is not always welcome—

Several members interjected.

Mr David Scaife: "Where is the transcript?" the member for Churchlands said. It is called Hansard, everybody! It is the official record of the Parliament of Western Australia! The member for Churchlands should go and do some of that research that he seems so allergic to in this place. I mean, honestly. It is absurd.

Mr Basil Zempilas interjected.

Mr David Scaife: The member for Churchlands seems to be paying very close attention! I think I have been living rent-free in his head for months, in fact. I am waiting for the invoice for all that free time I have spent in his head! It is gloriously easy, in fact, to get under the skin of the Leader of the Opposition. To think that this is the man who puts himself forward as the alternative Premier of Western Australia!

Point of order

Mr Liam Staltari: I am grateful for the flattery from the member for Cockburn and, perhaps, the kiss of death. We have a fantastic Leader of the Opposition. But just a genuine point of order on relevance, if I can: standing order 78. Surely this should trend back towards logging.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Magenta Marshall): Thank you, member. I will not uphold the point of order, but I will ask the member for Cockburn to bring his debate back to the bill at hand. Thank you.

Proceeding resumed

Mr David Scaife: Thank you, Acting Speaker. I am only happy to. I do like to engage with interjections in this place if they are constructive, because I think that that is in the spirit of debate in this chamber. But certainly, I will turn back to the bill. It is a great legacy for this government, building on the legacy of a former Labor government.

I want to turn now to the issue of local leadership; there is always a need in these difficult transitions. I know that the member for Collie–Preston is going to speak on this bill, and she is someone who will speak with much more authority than I can about local leadership in a community that is going through economic transition. I know that it is an enormously difficult job. It is much harder, I think, for communities that are reliant on industries, whether it is coalmining and coal-fired power generation or commercial logging. It is a much more difficult challenge than people who represent metropolitan electorates give it credit for.

I also want to acknowledge Jane Kelsbie. Jane was a friend of mine; I know she was a friend of many members in this chamber.

Ms Jodie Hanns: Is a friend!

Mr David Scaife: Sorry, Jane is a friend! Quite right—she is a friend and she was a member. I saw her just the other week, and what impressed me, seeing Jane, was the energy she had. I think it is quite easy in the wake of an election defeat to probably feel pretty deflated about the whole thing, but Jane just had so much energy about her and so much positivity. I just want to acknowledge Jane's work in this area, because she did the tough work of going out to forums, going out to communities, and meeting with people who were not happy with the decision that the government made. I acknowledge that there are people who are affected by this transition and are unhappy with it, but Jane fronted up and spoke to those people. Nobody can criticise Jane and say that she did not do that. She put the work in.

I am not going to denigrate the efforts of the member for Warren–Blackwood. He is new, and he was rightly elected by his community to represent it and put their views. I think the position he put in his contribution to the second reading debate on this bill was entirely reasonable, even if I did not agree with all of it, but I do not think there is any need to dance on the graves of former members, which is what has happened a little bit around this debate. I am talking about some of the interjections from the member for Central Wheatbelt. I like the member for Central Wheatbelt. He has a great corporate history in his party, but I do not really think the member for Central Wheatbelt thinks that the National Party winning the seat of Warren–Blackwood on a margin of 1.8% is something to crow about. I honestly do not.

Mr Lachlan Hunter: A win's a win.

Mr David Scaife: A win is a win; I do not disagree with the member for Central Wheatbelt. A win is a win, but my point is that he has not just been celebrating a win; he has been shouting it from the rooftops and dancing on the grave of the former member. I am not sure that he, as someone who has been around politics for a long time, would think that the National Party winning Warren–Blackwood on a margin of 1.8% is something to do hallelujahs about.

I will say that my family has a long history in that electorate. When the member for Warren–Blackwood is coming into Nannup on the Vasse Highway with Warren Road on the left, he will see what is now Nannup Brewing Company. That used to be Nannup Motors. That garage was owned by my grandparents. It was started by my great-grandfather and it was run by my grandparents Roy and Rhoda Roe for many, many years. It is where my mother grew up. I spent a lot of my childhood in Nannup; I know that town really, really well, and my family is deeply connected to that town. It was one of those beautiful things about small country towns that on the day of my Pop's funeral, a bunch of businesses closed and put up signs on their doors saying that they were closing for the morning because of my Pop's funeral. Those sorts of things will always stick with me.

But you know, Nannup is an interesting town because it is a town that points to this transition that is happening in the South West, and the transition that is happening around the timber industry. Nannup was, historically, a timber milling town. It had other industries—surrounding agriculture and the like—but it was a timber milling town. That is not so much the case anymore. Over time, that industry had declined naturally, not just because of government decision-making, and it has transitioned to other things. It has repositioned itself into arts and culture. The Nannup Music Festival is big event on the Western Australian arts calendar. It is a tourist town now, as well, and it has moved into all of those economic opportunities that come with arts, culture, tourism and hospitality and the like. It is not easy; it takes decades, but it is a town that I have seen change enormously in my lifetime. I would just say to the member for Warren–Blackwood that I understand that one of the difficult jobs he has is being the steward of an electorate where there are towns that are in that transition. But rather than just railing against decisions that he disagrees with—and I respect that he and some of his constituents disagree with them—I would encourage him to look at the ways in which he can manage his community through that. What can he do to be an advocate like Jane? I know he will be his own man, but Jane went out there and tried to navigate a really important state government policy—not necessarily one that everyone agreed with—to try to find a way to bring people along on that journey and to support workers through the economic transition, which is something that I know Jane Kelsbie was really passionate about. I accept that that is the challenge ahead of the member for Warren–Blackwood. It is always hard in Parliament, in the sort of bearpit of the chamber where we are throwing political barbs, but I think he will find that discreet, considered contact with the minister on this issue would be well received and well supported. I have known Hon Jackie Jarvis for many years, as someone from the South West like she was, and am saying on behalf of the minister that I think that there would be a willingness to work in good faith, if that was reciprocated.

The last issue I want to touch on is an issue that was raised by the member for Murray–Wellington in his contribution to the second reading debate. He talked about bauxite mining operations in the northern jarrah forests. Again, this is another thing about forestry and protection of the northern jarrah forests, and it is about industries in transition. I thought it was a little strange, because he seemed to be saying that the state government should ban bauxite mining in the northern jarrah forest, which I was a bit surprised by. That seemed to be the logical conclusion of what he said. That concerned me because bauxite mining in the northern jarrah forests provides significant feedstock to the alumina refineries in Pinjarra and Wagerup in his electorate, which employ hundreds—and indirectly, thousands—of people. It would take me by surprise if the member for Murray–Wellington was advocating for that.

That might need to be clarified in future. I also know that electorate really well. I am very happy to identify as a failed candidate for Murray–Wellington, back in the day in 2013. I have been there, members, when it was not so good for our side.

Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.

Mr David Scaife: That was a really proud moment for me and I do not quite know why the member for Central Wheatbelt needs to check. I grew up in Australind in the southern part of that electorate, which is still a neglected part of that electorate. I ran there. I know that electorate quite well, and so I think there probably has to be a point in debate—not necessarily on this bill, but at some point—where the member for Murray–Wellington needs to clarify whether he is saying that bauxite mining should end in the northern jarrah forest, because that is one of the really difficult issues that the government is dealing with at the moment. How do we balance sustaining an industry in bauxite mining and in alumina refining but at the same time contending with the challenges that are posed to drinking water catchments and environmental conservation in those northern jarrah forests? It is a really tricky issue and that is the hard work of government. The hard work of government is having to sensitively and in a considered way address challenging, complex, wicked problems, as the member for Butler called them in her first speech.

On that note, I want to say again how proud I am to be part of a government that is continuing this legacy of conservation and of protecting our native forests. I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on introducing this bill and I commend it to the house.

Mrs Lorna Clarke (Butler) (6:31 pm): I rise this evening to make a contribution to the debate on the Conservation and Land Management Amendment Bill 2025. Before I start on the substance of the bill and some of the points that I want to make, I will reflect on some of the points that have been made by previous speakers to some extent, in that I am quite disappointed with some of the comments from the other side, from the Liberal and National Parties. These sorts of transitions, which we have seen in many different parts of the world in different eras—whether it is closing the mines, which Thatcher did in the United Kingdom; changing car manufacturing in Victoria; or just transitions that people like Steve McCartney from the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union have been so influential and powerful in driving—are really, really difficult for the people who are involved in them, the families and the workers who have a sense of identity connected to what they do. This is why I was a bit surprised. I thought those who represent these people would understand it with a little more nuance and complexity and would understand with more empathy the history and the detail and perhaps be more constructive.

I fear that sometimes the comments made in this chamber give people false hope. They think that things are going to change. They think that there might be a U-turn on a policy or a decision and industries that have been going through a transition might open up again. That is unfair and a little bit cruel, actually. I just wanted to make that comment. It is rich to be lectured to about workers from that side of the chamber. They really do get so upset when we mention the word "union", don't they? I do not really understand why, I must confess. Again, they need to look at the history of the union movement and what it has done for their constituents, for the families in their electorates and for wages. What the union movement has done for this country and the structures within this country is an amazing Australian story. Before I forget and before I run out of time this evening, I acknowledge Brad Gandy, Branch Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union, and the former officials and particularly AWU organisers who would have been on the frontline when this kicked off, when consultations occurred with the government and when those packages were put together. They would have played an integral role in what would have been a really emotional and sometimes traumatic time for many people depending on how old they were as this industry transitioned.

There was a very clear reason why we did it. It is always Labor governments that do this, and it is usually around the environment and climate change. It is never a Liberal government, and it is certainly never the Greens party, who vote it down because it is never extremist enough. It is always Labor that delivers these sorts of reforms to protect the state's native forests. This bill is not just a stunt or grandstanding. I will leave that to those opposite who are quite focused on the media. It is actually a substantive piece of legislation that will change the rules and ensure that large-scale commercial timber harvesting in the South West native forests will cease. It is really important and as a previous member also said, it means that people will not have a false hope that this could revert. This is the way forward and this is the way the economy is changing and we bring everyone along with us.

Part of this is also fantastic. When I first moved to Western Australia from London, what I thought was unique about this place was twofold. It was the nature of the environmentalism in this state. It is hard to encapsulate how it works and how it is, but it is integrally linked into how we view mining in this state, that we have areas of pristine natural beauty that we will protect, areas like Yanchep National Park in my electorate, and Bush Forever areas. I drove past a beautiful Bush Forever site in Alkimos the other day that I must confess I had completely missed one night while I was focused on doorknocking. There is a very strong environmental movement in Western Australia that is also a really practical and pragmatic environmental movement—perhaps when you take out some of the extremism from the Greens. It is one that acknowledges that we are going to have to have trade-offs, that we are going to have to look at things like ecologically sustainable development and make that development sustainable in the long term. We see it when we look at things in the mining sector and water management and I think we see it here. To glibly say that the work has not been done, that there was not consultation and that it will change things overnight is not fair and is really not reflected in the second reading speech or the explanatory memorandum. I am so glad that the member for Cockburn went through the history. I am sure members can then read that in Hansard.

I also acknowledge some of the other minor changes that are perhaps not minor. I am not sure whether anyone has commented on this yet. I was going to make the point that in some of these bills we are changing gendered language to gender-neutral language such as "he" to "they" or "chairman" to "chairperson". This is really important. When I was in my 20s, I never really thought it was important. I thought women were equal, so why would we need to do any of these minor language changes? Why does it matter? As I have gotten older, and as I have seen misogyny and sexism in so many different workplaces and been astounded, actually, all these little language changes make a huge difference. It is really important that we fix this up in every piece of legislation as it comes before us.

The other element is around the governance, which is really important. During the COVID pandemic I gave numerous pieces of advice as a lawyer to a range of different companies and organisations around whether they could meet online. Often their legislation did not allow for it and that created huge problems. To have that online flexibility is important. It is always important to be at the table for those sorts of meetings, and for the flexibility for working women. We saw from the response to the federal opposition—former opposition leader Peter Dutton's idea about working from home and changing that—that there was a pretty strong and visceral reaction across the country as women in their 30s and late 20s basically said, "No way; this is how I make my working life work. This is how I have three kids and a fly-in fly-out husband and I use online meetings and work from home to make this work."

I look now to the Whip. I will not reserve the rest of my time. I know that many members have made good contributions on this bill and there will be some even more impressive ones tomorrow, I think, from those who are working in these electorates and on the front lines dealing with this economic transition by working with families and unions to make sure that we move forward on this.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr David Michael (Leader of the House).