Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to take my place in this debate. Can I say right at the outset that I agree with Senator Milne that areas of genuine wilderness that are recognised as genuine wilderness should be protected and should be respected. I agree with Senator Milne in that case. But what we should not have is what we had here in Australia last year, and particularly in Tasmania, where a political process that excluded the community brings about a political result that actually includes areas that should never have been listed in the first place. It is very clear that that is exactly what happened.

History shows that that is what happened. In fact, Senator Milne and her Greens colleagues were saying prior to 2008 that the forestry operations that were happening in these areas we are now talking about were degrading the values of the wilderness estate in Tasmania. They made that complaint to the World Heritage commission, that the forestry operations in the areas just outside the boundaries of the existing estate were diminishing the values inside the estate. So the World Heritage commission sent a monitoring mission to Australia to assess the claim made by the environment groups and the Greens that the forestry operations outside the boundaries, in the very areas that we are talking about now, were diminishing values inside. So the Greens try and have it both ways. It is a consistent process that they undertake. But this is what the World Heritage commission said in 2008. This is not the Australian government, this is not Tony Abbott, it is not me, it is the World Heritage commission, who sent monitors out to check the claims of the Greens. It said:

The area managed under the TWWHA management plan provides a good representation of well-managed tall Eucalyptus forest and there is similar forest outside the property which is also well-managed, but for both conservation and development objectives. The threats to these forests from production forestry activities are well managed and there no need for the boundary of the property to be changed to deal with such threats.

So that is the World Heritage commission passing judgement on the claims of the Greens and the environment movement and this boundary.

Subsequent to that Peter Garrett, then environment minister, in 2010 said in response to the monitoring mission from the World Heritage Committee, 'We will not extend the boundaries any further.' That was a decision of the Australian government in 2010 under the stewardship of then minister Peter Garrett. So not only have the claims of the environment groups at that particular point in time been debunked by the World Heritage commission, the Labor Party in government at the time said we would not be extending World Heritage area any further.

We then had a political process that shut-out large sections of the community that disenfranchised large sections of the community, that took away people's livelihoods. It was a poor and bad political process, driven by Minister Burke, who went into the Tasmanian Legislative Council and said, 'I'm not sure if I'm actually going to do this,' and then walked into a press conference and announced the nomination for an extension of the Wilderness World Heritage Area. I mean, you could not believe a word that man said!

And the same goes for the Greens. In fact, the Greens have said that the values of these areas have been destroyed. Vica Bailey, who I think is in Doha at the moment, said of one of the areas that we are currently considering:

The forest at Mother Cummings was pristine oldgrowth, with all the associated environmental values. Logging has removed these values. Although a so-called forest remains, these unique values are gone.

That is the voice of the Greens themselves. So it is not just us saying that the forestry operations outside the old boundaries have degraded those areas, it is also the Greens themselves. The Greens will say anything to get an argument across. Bob Brown, before he was a senator, when he was campaigning against hydro dams in 1981 was actually arguing for coal fired power stations! We regard hydro-electricity these days as a very valuable renewable energy. But Bob Brown preferred coal fired power stations to hydro-electricity in 1981 when he was arguing against the construction of hydro dams in Tasmania! The Greens will say anything they like. In fact, in this very place, the Greens voted against Senator Bob Brown's own words. Senator Bob Brown, at that time, said new forest, regrowing forest, had a whole range of values. We put those words into a motion and tested it on the floor of the parliament. Senator Brown and Senator Milne actually voted against their own words. They would say absolutely anything to get their point of view across, and they will change their view as it suits.

As I said, genuine wilderness, whether it is the Tasmanian forests or the Great Barrier Reef, should be respected and protected. Minister Hunt has done a great job, in my view, in putting in place a long-term plan to sustain and protect the reef. I congratulate him for doing that. In Tasmania the Greens have one objective, and that is to destroy the Tasmanian forest industry. In fact, the Greens movement in Tasmania has asked the World Heritage Commission to list an extra 806,000 hectares as Wilderness World Heritage Area, not just 172,000 hectares as was put in last year.

I have an assessment of genuine wilderness in Tasmania that was conducted by the Tasmanian government in 2003, defining those wilderness values under a methodology established by the National Wilderness Inventory. It is interesting to note that those areas are well inside the existing boundaries, particularly along the eastern boundaries that Senator Milne is talking about. In fact, when the estate was first listed, the buffer zones were put inside the boundaries. That is clearly demonstrated. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to table a map of what is genuine wilderness, as established by the Tasmanian government under the National Wilderness Inventory guidelines, so that it is actually on the record.