Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

We do not know what is in that groundwater around Tasmania. I challenge Senator Colbeck to produce any results that show water quality assessment of groundwater—consistently taken and monitored—in Tasmania over the last 20 years. That has only started in the last couple of years under pressure. You cannot get water quality groundwater testing consistently conducted across Tasmania.

I want to get to the Director of Public Health, Roscoe Taylor, who has said consistently since the Australian Story broadcast: ‘I need to see your results. Send them to me.’ Well, they were sent. A paper published at a scientific conference held in Spain on the impact on human cell lines was sent to Dr Taylor in 2008 by Dr Bleaney and Dr Scammell. Dr Taylor had that in 2008 but he did not open the file. When he said this week, ‘Oh, well, I will look at it, I need to see the research,’ he did not have to look any further than his own files to find that research. It has been there since 2008. So why would I trust an inquiry set up by the Tasmanian government, overseen by an Environment Protection Authority which looked at this in 2005 and said, ‘There is no problem, it comes from native forests, it is natural, therefore even though there are toxins we are not going to investigate further’? Why would I think that that was going to come to any other conclusion than that presided over by the current minister, who says the problem is caused by fresh water—‘There is too much fresh water; that is what kills oysters, all that fresh water going down the George River’?

There is a real problem in Tasmania. There is no transparency. There is a far too close relationship between the Tasmanian government, Forestry Tasmania and the private forest industry and there is no independence. Why should a community have had to fight so hard to have an investigation of toxicity in their water supply? You would think that was basic human health delivery and service from a government. But, no, not in Tasmania. If it comes to a choice between seriously looking at the forest industry and banning the chemicals on which it relies or actually exposing the human health consequences, then it will not happen in Tasmania. It did not happen under the previous premiers of Tasmania—Premier Bacon, Premier Lennon—or now Premier Bartlett. It is not happening, it will not happen and you could not trust it to happen because of their relationships with the forest industry.

We have heard Premier Bartlett saying now he is concerned. Where was the concern in 2005 when the EPA discovered there was toxicity but there was no need for further investigation? Where is the concern now when we discover that the file exists in the public health offices, that nothing has been done about it and that it was not opened until the media ran this story and shocked people? Quite apart from all this, the reason an investigation by the Senate is absolutely necessary is that now the whole country knows that the George River in north-eastern Tasmania has high levels of toxicity. The country will know, when the research comes out, that there are pulses in that river of a chemical cocktail going down. It will also know, contrary to what is being said, that the toxicity will be found right through the water column, not just on the surface, as has been suggested.

When the whole of Australia finds all that out, the reputation of Tasmania will be on the line. It should be in the interests of this parliament to clarify this as soon as possible and address it in a transparent and open way. I can tell you, whatever the EPA in Tasmania finds out, nobody is going to believe it because of their history of failure to address this issue in the past. That is why it needs to be an independent inquiry. What the community wants is an independent inquiry, not one under the auspices of people who have failed the community in the past and who have demonstrated a complete lack of concern about the impacts of forestry, chemical use in the forest industry, the breeding programs by forestry and so on.

Tasmania prides itself on a reputation of clean, green and clever. It prides itself on a reputation of clean air, clean water and uncontaminated soil—no thanks to either the coalition parties or to the Labor Party. That positioning has come from the Greens. That positioning has come from the campaign essentially to save the Franklin River. It was out of that that the global reputation began to be established and it was throughout the Wesley Vale campaign that I coined the phrase ‘clean and green for Tasmania’. We brought out our business and industry strategy saying Tasmania’s future reputation should be based on high-quality products, clean air, clean water, uncontaminated soil, an island where human potential knows no bounds, where creativity comes from the natural environment, where protection of the natural environment builds for the future. That was the Greens positioning, Greens business modelling and positioning, and now every export market out of Tasmania depends on that modelling, thanks to the Greens. It has been Liberal and Labor in Tasmania who have been jeopardising the branding for years because they continually undermine the authenticity of the brand by overlooking the pollution that goes on, whether it is from the mining industry or from the forest industry or from the widespread use of chemicals, and because of the refusal to have an open and transparent regime.

The reason we need this inquiry, and we need it to be fast, comprehensive and independent, is that this has to be clarified as a matter of urgency. Our export markets are going to be saying now, ‘Tasmanian product is dependent on a clean brand internationally and now we have evidence to show that the George River in north-east Tasmania has a high level of toxicity.’ We also want to know from the point of view of the people in St Helens. This is a small fishing town in Tasmania. It has no heavy industry. There is no reason you would expect why there is a cancer cluster of the nature that there is in this town. You cannot explain it. How can you explain all these cancers occurring in a fishing village where there has been no history of those cancers, where there is no heavy industry and no obvious forms of contamination? Why are cancers that you would never never or rarely see as a doctor all turning up in one community?

This has to be investigated for public health reasons. It has to be investigated for the sake of people who live in that community now and want to know what the future is for their water supply. But it also has to be investigated because of the reputation of Tasmanian product—everything from oysters through to beer. One of the ads for one of the breweries is ‘There’s something different about the water in Tasmania’. That is going to turn on that company very fast unless we get an inquiry to find out what is going on.

There is confusion about the genetic processes and what has been going on in the research. On 9 November 2000, Senator Brown asked about this issue. On that particular day, Senator Herron, the then Minister for Health and Aged Care, confirmed the Forestry Tasmania website statement by telling the world that research by the University of Tasmania was genetically transforming Eucalyptus nitens and Eucalyptus globulus. Since then they have talked about their genetic improvement programs. So it is hardly surprising that people have become confused about what genetic improvement is as opposed to genetic modification. The industry has said it is involved not in genetic modification but in improved selective breeding—genetic enhancements, if you like—which is normal in all agricultural production processes. The issue here is: what are they being improved to do? Is that increasing toxicity? Is that toxicity impacting on human health and wildlife and ecosystem health? As they are spraying triazines in Tasmania, in combination with other chemicals, what impact is that chemical cocktail having? That is why we need this inquiry.

Senator Colbeck says, ‘Let’s put the science before the politics.’ One could almost choke hearing him say that, given the behaviour of the coalition when it comes to climate change. The world’s leading scientists everywhere are telling us about the impacts of climate change and Senator Abetz declared yesterday that he is an agnostic on the science. There are plenty on that side denying the science—denying, denying, denying. They are most certainly not putting the science before politics when it comes to their position on global warming. That is pretty evident. They have not done so on just about every other issue and they are not doing it now. If they were genuinely interested in getting to the facts of the matter as quickly as possible, they would be calling on the Tasmanian government to institute an independent inquiry—independent of government.

The reason the government in Tasmania is so on the nose is the lack of transparency. For years and years people have wanted to know what is going on in the little cabal between the Tasmanian government and the bureaucracy. We saw it with the grants in the forest industry. The Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts got together with the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania and recommended who should get the grants. In fact, the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania managed to get some of the grants for themselves through that process. There is no line in the sand, as the Premier of Tasmania put it, between him, his office and Evan Rolley in his department. Then there is a link from Mark Addis, from the Forest Industries Association, straight across to the bureaucracy that is heading up resources. They are all there, all mates together. They are all one phone call away.

There is no degree of separation in Tasmania when it comes to the forest industry, the Tasmanian government, the bureaucracy and the Premier’s office. That is why you cannot trust the EPA in Tasmania to conduct an investigation of the kind that needs to be made. The Senate should start that process. Tasmania’s producers deserve it. Tasmania’s community deserves it. Public health deserves that we have an inquiry as quickly as possible but also that we insist that there be an independent inquiry. As I indicated earlier, why would you trust the EPA to look into this now when the EPA said in 2005 that although there was toxicity it was from native forests—which it clearly is not—and therefore they would not investigate further? I think it really demonstrates who is calling the shots here.

Senator Heffernan was running around after the program aired the other night, saying, ‘We have to have an inquiry!’ Clearly, he was quashed by Senator Abetz and Senator Colbeck from Tasmania. He is not in here now, but he was absolutely motivated about it. He rang the other night and said, ‘We have to have an inquiry.’ I hope Senator Heffernan comes in here in a moment to tell us about how the Liberal Party and Senator Abetz prevented him from coming in here to speak or to support an inquiry. Where is he? He is quoted in some of the media on this, which says that people must support Senator Heffernan’s inquiry. Where is his inquiry? It is nowhere, because Senator Abetz is taking his directions from the forest industry in Tasmania. No doubt Senator Colbeck is too. No doubt Senator O’Brien will be taking his directions from the Tasmanian Premier. They will be hoping that all this suddenly goes quiet until 20 March, when the election will be held in Tasmania. They will not want to see an independent inquiry getting started in that time. This Senate has an obligation to public health, to the health of our wildlife and to the health of the ecosystem to do something about it. (Time expired)