Senate debates

Wednesday, 13 September 2006

Committees

Senators’ Interests Committee; Documents

4:25 pm

Photo of Bob BrownBob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the Standing Committee of Senators’ Interests for deliberating on this matter and for finding that Senator Abetz had no case when it came to warranting a reference to the Privileges Committee. What has arisen as a result of the approach by Senator Abetz—and I will come back to it in a moment—is a reprimand, at minimum, of Senator Abetz for breaching confidentiality, which is a far more serious thing, I might say, than any of the potential charges that Senator Abetz levelled over my fundraising to defend the Wielangta Forest in Tasmania.

Let me start at that point. Some years ago it seemed to me that the Wielangta Forest of 10,000 hectares—with its rare, ancient and endangered species, including the wedge-tailed eagle, the Wielangta stag beetle and the swift parrot, all of which are federally listed—ought not be destroyed because it would be a breach in many ways of this nation’s heritage rights and this government’s responsibility to protect those nationally endangered species. In the absence of anybody else doing it, I as a senator for Tasmania took on the interests of my constituency to challenge this matter in the Federal Court. I can say that after 37 days of hearings—I thought it would be three days at the outset—the costs of that court case are going to approach half a million dollars for me. If costs are awarded, it will be a much bigger sum, I should imagine, because Forestry Tasmania has been defending the case and it has been joined by the Commonwealth and the state.

This is a matter of huge public interest and responsibility. I did not take it lightly and I did not have the wherewithal to carry through with that case without assistance from a very willing, committed and devoted public to those forests. Having undertaken the campaign, I set about getting public assistance in order to stay in the court and not be knocked out simply—as other people in Tasmania have been—by a lack of funds in seeking justice for the forests and wildlife. I have to thank from the bottom of my heart everybody who has donated and will continue to donate as we raise funds to pay for this case.

That said, yes, I was late in beginning to register the matter to the pecuniary interests committee, but I have put all the information before the committee. It was not drawn to my attention that I was late. I made a commitment voluntarily to put all this before the committee when it was arguable that it may not have been necessary. Senator Abetz, as Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, has effectively joined the court case on behalf of the Commonwealth and taken me to task for fundraising. I point out to the chamber that I am up against a Commonwealth which had a revenue last year of $231 billion, a Tasmanian government with $3.4 billion and Forestry Tasmania with an operating revenue of $185 million, and not one of the entities, including Senator Abetz, has been exposed to one dollar of personal risk—nothing at all. That is a very different circumstance to the situation I am in where I personally take responsibility. Through the prodigious work of staff and people who have assisted we have raised money, and I have put all of that fundraising on the record.

As soon as I did that, of course, it alerted the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Abetz. I submit that this has been driven by his own personal interest in defending the loggers of Tasmanian forests, not least Gunn’s Pty Ltd, whose intention it is to stay logging in Wielangta Forest with all the consequent destruction that will occur. Senator Abetz is curiously missing from the chamber today. Senator Lightfoot was sent in to defend the indefensible action that Senator Abetz has taken in this case. Let me refer to a couple of the cases in point.

Mike Emery was apparently an anonymous donor who came into a bank and put $10,000 into this fund. Now, I have seen him once in the last few years. He is a scientist, he is not rich, he loves the Tasmanian bush and he has put $10,000 into trying to protect the Wielangta Forest, through this legal avenue. If only the commitment that he has for Tasmania were to be replicated by Senator Abetz.

If you look down the list, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, as you know and as the committee has pointed out, I needed to name no-one. There are no rules to say people should be named. I have volunteered their names. But when you look down the list, which I just read today, a staffer of mine has put $300 in. My neighbours up the road at Liffey have put in $300. The elderly lady who lives next door on the down side has put in $1,000. My neighbour in Hobart, in fact my landlord, has put in $1,500. So there you go: my doctor gave $500; my lawyer gave $10,000; and Dr Connie Harris, that fantastic fundraiser in North Sydney, gave $2,000 from her own funds. Tara Hunt, who was described by Senator Lightfoot as a Canadian living in the United States, but who actually lives in Randwick, gave $20,000. That is the only donation which needed to be registered if we were talking here about donations to political parties. And why is that? Because Senator Abetz earlier this year moved legislation in here so that no donation of $10,000 or less to political parties and politicians election campaigns had any longer to be disclosed.

We opposed that. I continue to oppose that but what gross and petty hypocrisy from Senator Abetz that he comes in here and says, ‘I’ll protect my interests and my party’s interests by allowing anybody who donates $10,000 to us to be hidden.’ Then he brings before this committee donations of $300, $1000 and a couple of hundred dollars from citizens because they went to a bank and their names were not registered. I might add I have traced all those donations except one and that is the $1,000 that Senator Lightfoot spoke to. It was put into a bank on the mainland. I do not know who that was. That has no influence over me, but I love the person who donated it. Thank you, whoever you are, anonymous friend of Australia’s forests and wildlife for donating to this worthwhile fund. I note also that Senator Abetz, in his letter to the committee, has said:

I ask the committee to determine that the acceptance of anonymous donations in excess of $300 should be disallowed and that any such amounts inadvertently received be payable to the Commonwealth as occurs with anonymous donations received within the purview of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

Anonymous donations of up to $10,000 can be, as I said, given under that act.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add “and asks the Government to legislate that gifts or donations to members of parliament or political parties of $300 or more, which are anonymous, be payable to the Commonwealth for disbursement to Australian charity”.

Let me take on Senator Abetz directly. Let us test whether the government wants to have anonymous donations of up to $10,000 given to the Treasury for disbursement to Australian charities. Let us test whether Senator Abetz really meant what he said or whether he was just simply carrying out a vendetta. (Time expired)

Comments

No comments