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

I would like to make a contribution to the report presented by the Environment and Communications References Committee. My first point is to refute what Senator Milne has just put before the chamber. It needs to be remembered that the Greens are an anti-forest industry party. Their primary objective is to destroy the forest industry in Tasmania. That has been proven by their actions over a long period of time. It surprises me that the Labor Party have not learned their lesson and continue to align themselves with the Greens political party in this report.

Despite the accusations of Senator Milne, we know that this whole process was a political process. This whole extension was a political process put in place by former minister Tony Burke, who walked into the Tasmanian Legislative Council and said, 'I don't know whether I will actually go ahead with an application for an extension', and walked out the door to a press conference where he announced it. This was one of the most dishonest acts of this whole dishonest process, this whole sham forest deal process that was inflicted on the people of Tasmania by the Greens and the Labor Party. This was the politicisation of a corporate deal that was done behind the doors between the Greens and Gunns, and then put into a political process and imposed on the people of Tasmania. It is an absolute disgrace.

Senator Milne talks about the lack of science around this process. But let us remember that the Greens are an anti-science party; they are an anti-industry party; they are an anti-people party. So let us remember those things to start with. Let us look at the real science around this. The wilderness report done in Tasmania by the Tasmanian government in 2003 does not include these areas. In 2008, the World Heritage Commission came out here on a special mission in response to allegations by the Greens that forest activities outside the then wilderness World Heritage boundaries were diminishing that wilderness. They said that these areas did not need to be included and that the forestry activities were not diminishing the values.

Now the Greens say that those areas that they were then claiming had been destroyed by forestry activities should now be included because they have wilderness World Heritage values. They cannot have it both ways. They always try to have it both ways. They said when the forests were being logged that they were being destroyed forever. Now they are saying that they can be repaired. How are they going to repair them? Using exactly the same methods that the forest industry would have used to regenerate them. The hypocrisy that we see in the arguments is quite astounding.

The World Heritage Commission should take note of the reasonable submission that has been put in by the Australian government. It should take note of the dissenting report in respect of this submission, because it is well founded. It is well founded on their own facts and information.

Debate interrupted.