Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Bob Brown moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of this Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion no. 458.

I do that in the wake of some procedural differences with the opposition. We have just seen the Greens agree to an amendment from Senator Cash to a Greens motion, after a series of amendments put by the Greens were blocked by the opposition during the week. We have a motion on forestry up for formality, which responds to a motion by the opposition which was given formality and the opposition again block it. We have here a very precious opposition, which want to be able to put motions up expressing their view of the world but become quite dictatorial in the reverse way—they do not like an alternative viewpoint being put forward.

This motion states that the Senate condemns the coalition for seeking to deny Tasmania $270 million of assistance following the agreement between the Gillard government and that of Premier Giddings in Tasmania for forestry transition. Mr President, you will know that last year the forest industry in Tasmania was in collapse, with hundreds of jobs lost and all three export woodchip mills closed because of predicted market forces coming to bear. The industry sought talks with the conservation movement. Out of those talks came an agreement—and that agreement did not involve the Greens—and a subsequent agreement a couple of months ago between the Premier of Tasmania and the Prime Minister that will see an estimated $270 million flow to Tasmania to help move the logging industry operatives who can no longer operate into other productive pursuits.

This follows the billion dollars put into this failed industry in Tasmania over the last 25 years, not least $240 million under the Howard government as a result of the 2004 election. That was overseen by the then forest minister, Senator Abetz, who leads the coalition here and who has done a complete reversal. He put that money into Tasmania, and goodness knows where it went because it failed to produce the result in terms of ending the haemorrhage of jobs and small sawmills from the industry.

Now there is a proposal to actually get results to aid industry operatives and the opposition want to block it and have been crying blue murder. No wonder Senator Abetz is not in the chamber, because the coalition senators are saying: 'We don't want this money coming to Tasmania. Let it stay with Treasury and be used for some other purpose. Let's deny those Tasmanian contractors and small businesses, including small sawmills, who cannot see viability in front of them, their opportunity to get out of the industry and move to other productive forms of contribution to the Tasmanian economy.'

Up comes this proposal and the coalition say: 'No. Block the money going to Tasmania. Block assistance to the industry. Block the proposal for 430,000 hectares—and it should be 578,000 hectares of high-conservation value forest—to be protected.' It is no to everything from the Abbott-Abetz front—no to Tasmania being given assistance; no to helping an industry in perilous trouble; no to recognising the Tarkine, the Great Western Tiers, the great valleys of the southern region, Bruny Island, the north-east highlands and Wielangta, to name just a few. The proposal forms part of the suite of being productive, job-creative, small-business rich and investment-attracting. In Tasmania, the tourism industry employs 35,000 people while the logging industry is below 2,000 and dropping rapidly. What a curmudgeonly negative attitude towards Tasmania from the coalition senators. It is quite extraordinary. Let them go to Tasmania and explain that to the voters of Tasmania. They will get a very negative reception in return, I would think.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason the coalition have denied formality for this motion is that we would like the opportunity to debate it. There is no urgency to deal with this motion now, as Senator Brown has put on the table. It is not urgent that we effectively debate a motion right now, or pass a motion right now to condemn the opposition. The opposition's position on forestry in Tasmania is very, very clear and very well understood by the community in Tasmania. In fact, that has been well and truly communicated to us. So there is no urgency to suspend standing orders to deal with this now. This matter can quite sensibly be placed on the Notice Paper and debated at an appropriate time.

We see Senator Brown continue to dishonestly misrepresent the situation in relation to forestry in Tasmania. Small sawmills were not in crisis. Small sawmills were not losing market share in Tasmania prior to the commencement of these negotiations in Tasmania. One big operator was having problems which caused other issues to flow through to the logging contractors in particular. The rest of the industry were not doing too badly, but they are in real strife now because the Greens and their ENGO colleagues want to close down the industry. That will be the impact of closing down 430,000 or 572,000 hectares of Tasmanian forests. It will close down the industry and it will create a crisis for small sawmillers and small family businesses in Tasmania.

For Senator Brown to suggest that we do not want to see the contractors assisted in this matter is completely and utterly dishonest. The coalition actually led the way in respect of supporting contractors in Tasmania. We put $20 million on the table at the last election to assist contractors. We put the money up first. The Labor Party had no intention of putting any money on the table. The Greens did not put any money on the table. Within two hours of announcing we would put up $20 million, Minister Burke came out and said, 'We will match the opposition's policy.' That is what Minister Burke said. So do not try that one on us, Senator Polley. You were well and truly behind the eight ball. You did not want to be left behind by the coalition being proactive in support of contractors, and then you screwed up the process of allocating funding. Senator Brown's motion to suspend standing orders at this point in time is certainly not urgent and it should not be passed. But the dishonest misrepresentation of the Tasmanian forest industry is quite profound.

Senator Brown is trying to climb to the high moral ground about process in this place when he has just voted with the Labor Party to deny this chamber the opportunity to properly scrutinise 19 pieces of legislation in the way that the Senate usually works. Senator Brown comes in here and accuses the opposition of trying to deny process, yet he has just voted with the government to stop the Senate, through its committee process, properly scrutinising 19 pieces of legislation. He sidled up to the government and they sent it off to a joint committee, which he has been quite happy for his party to take the deputy chair of, with a government chair. He makes these accusations, yet only 10 or 15 minutes ago in this place he voted against allowing the Senate's committee process to do what it is described as doing on the Senate's website. The hypocrisy surrounding this is just extraordinary.

Senator Brown complains about the money that has gone into the Tasmanian forest sector—he mentioned it just a minute ago—and now tries to condemn the opposition for trying to stop this really dodgy agreement that has been struck by the Prime Minister and the Tasmanian Premier. If you do not close an industry down, you do not need to compensate it—that is the bottom line. We support funding going to the contractors. We have said that since day one. As I have said, we led the process. But if you do not cut a $1.4 billion industry in half, which is what is happening here—they are carving about $700 million a year out of the Tasmanian economy through this process—you do not have to put any money for compensation on the table. What is being offered to Tasmania is $7 million a year for 15 years in compensation for $700 million a year of economic activity. There is no urgency to deal with this right now. (Time expired)

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I firstly indicate that it was the government's position that we would support the motion standing in the name of Senator Bob Brown. I would also like to make the point that it is unusual for formality to be denied in the manner that it was, and certainly to be denied without any warning. I think all senators in this place comprehend that there is a network of conventions and understandings that ensure this chamber is able to work and work effectively and I make the point that denying formality on this occasion and in this manner does, to my mind, go against those formalities and make the management of this place more difficult rather than assisting it. Having made that point, I conclude by saying the government will not support a suspension of standing orders.

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

I rise to support the motion for the suspension of standing orders so that this matter can take precedence. I note that Senator Colbeck from the coalition moved a motion on Tasmanian forestry but two days ago, considering it was urgent. When the coalition want to talk about Tasmanian forestry matters, it is urgent, it comes on in this context and formality is granted. But when anybody else wants to discuss the Tasmanian forests and the intergovernmental agreement, suddenly it is not urgent and it does not need debating. What is more, the coalition at that point denied leave to amend the motion. Not only did they deny that; they are now here denying a motion formality in exactly the context they raised theirs a matter of days ago.

I want to put on the record a number of things in relation to this. This motion basically points out that the coalition is denying any money to Tasmania to facilitate a transition out of native forest logging, which the industry wants. That is the point: the industry wants the transition out of native forest logging.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No they don't.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They do not.

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

It may interest Senators Abetz and Colbeck to know that the woodchip mills were closed in Tasmania—gates were locked; trucks stopped moving—well before the logging industry approached the conservation movement to say: 'We need to end this. We need to come to an agreement. There is no future for this logging industry in the way that it is operating.'

Senator Colbeck proudly says that before the election he put $20 million on the table and the government matched it. Yes, and where did the $20 million go? It went to the contractors to keep the wheels turning and the chainsaws going for another few months and then stop. The money went to subsidise ongoing work, but only for a few months because it was not enough. If you are going to do this properly you have to sit down and negotiate an outcome, which is what has been happening over the last few months. For Tasmania to make this transition there needs to be money spent in rural and regional economies to build some resilience, to build an alternative future. The money which the coalition is objecting to being spent in Tasmania will be overseen by Minister Crean, looking at rural and regional development in Tasmania to provide alternative jobs, alternative futures, in those communities.

I am very pleased it is on the record that the coalition do not want the money spent in rural and regional Tasmania creating new jobs and new opportunities long term. They want to spend another however much—if anything at all—to keep an industry going when there is no market for it. There is no market for native forest woodchips. It has collapsed.

In terms of sawn timber, in 1993-94 softwood and plantation timbers overtook native forests in sawmill industries in Australia. There was and is no future in this industry at that scale. Senator Abetz oversaw expenditure of $240 million between 2005 and 2010—he was the minister in the initial stages—and in five years the $240 million was gone and the industry was in chaos, and the upper house today is saying Forestry Tasmania is insolvent. It would be insolvent if it were a private company but it is not; it is a government business enterprise. What this process is going to do is prop up an organisation which has so badly mismanaged Tasmania's forests over such a long period of time. If the coalition want to assist Tasmania, they should support this Commonwealth money going into Tasmania because it would help to reposition the regions. Those communities are crying out for the money and they will be very interested to know that Senator Abetz and Senator Colbeck do not want money spent in rural and regional Tasmania to build an alternative future for people—to help them to get out of an industry which has no market for its products.

The Triabunna woodchip mill is locked, shut, gone—after spending $240 million, the gates are locked. You have to ask how much incompetence there is here when the Commonwealth fails to see the writing on the wall for the native forest industry around the world. When are you going to get real about the fact that just because you have an ideological commitment to destroying native forest that does not mean the rest of the world wants to buy the product? And when are you going to get real about the fact that, if the world does not want to buy the product, you have to assist people in making the transition? That is the sensible thing to do for the future. That is where this money is being directed. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are discussing whether or not there ought to be a suspension of standing orders in relation to this issue. The simple fact is that Senator Colbeck did have a motion earlier this week relating to payment, as I understand it, going from Commonwealth coffers to contractors rather than to Forestry Tasmania. That was a matter of urgency. Can the Greens explain why it is a matter of urgency to try to ram a motion through this place which will do nothing for the forest industry, only condemn the coalition? That is all that the Greens motion says. Even your most ardent supporters back in Tasmania would say, 'This is taking it too far.' It is, yet again, Senators Brown and Milne overreaching in circumstances where they have sullied themselves with a $1.6 million donation—the biggest donation ever in Australian political history. They have become soiled and involved in what is occurring in the Tasmanian forest industry.

Apart from the Greens' acceptance of that donation, which has sullied them and leaves them without clean hands, there are other issues at stake. We do not want this money spent in Tasmania, because the timber industry does not want this money being spent for what would be, in effect, their own funeral. It would be their funeral because they have been killed by the policies of the Greens-Labor governments in Hobart and Canberra. The people in Tasmania want our environmentally sustainable, jobs-rich, wealth-creating industry to continue.

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

There is no market—1,300 jobs gone.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne thinks that by mere repetition she can make a falsehood into a truth. That does not work. You can keep on repeating that there is no market for native forest woodchips, but why is it that Eden in New South Wales is expanding and selling more and more native forest woodchips? What the Greens assert is completely false, but they think if they repeat it often enough it will become accepted within the community. As long as the coalition is in this place, we will ensure that those falsehoods are exposed on every possible occasion.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have not run out of puff, have you?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, in fact I am reading a very good note from Senator Ian Macdonald, who is suggesting to me—and I will make this suggestion—that we are happy to debate the Greens in relation to these matters at any time in this place. What the Greens are promoting for and on behalf of their donor, the biggest donor ever in Australian history—$1.6 million—is the lock-up of 500,000 hectares of Tasmania. They want to lock up not only its forest values, but its mineral values and its tourism values. These are to be denied to future generations for the mere sum of $270 million. Work out what that is per hectare. Where else could you buy land at that price—just the land value, not even including the timber wealth, the mineral wealth and the tourism wealth and potential? That is why Senator Doug Cameron's union in Tasmania, the AMWU, and the Australian Workers Union are in lockstep with the coalition on this—and it is very rare for them to be in lockstep with us—because the workers of Tasmania know, the contractors of Tasmania know—

Senator Cameron interjecting—

When Senator Cameron and I are in heated agreement, it must be a rare day and the stars must be aligned. I am not sure, though, that Senator Cameron still looks after the workers' interests as he used to. But that is a debate for another day.

We are a country with a lot of land—millions of hectares. We have a lot of land with a lot of timber and the Greens continually want to lock it up. It is a good natural resource—renewable, recyclable and biodegradable. The Greens say, 'Do not harvest our own.' But do we still need wood products? Of course we do. Where do they come from? As Senator Colbeck said, they come from the Solomon Islands, from Indonesia, from South-East Asia. Because of Greens policies, we have seen a 50 per cent increase in those sorts of imports while they try to close down our industry. It is not economic sense; it is not environmental sense.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is only a personal view—I cannot speak for the coalition—but I am inclined to think that the coalition should support Senator Brown and that we should put this on as a priority and immediately have the debate. I urge my colleagues to seriously consider that—there is such a lot which should be said about the Greens political party and the way they have destroyed a sustainable industry in the state of Tasmania. It was a state that used to have a very good industry. It created a hell of a lot of employment, it attracted tourists there and it was a way of keeping forest fires at bay—the forestry tracks helped ensure that when a fire started it could be put out. What the Greens want you to do is to get rid of all forestry tracks. So when fires start there is no way of putting them out and the fires will then destroy 10 times as many trees as the forestry industry might have ever harvested. So these things I think do need to be debated and it is the Greens-Labor alliance that is proposing that we set aside standing orders and set aside the regular order of business and have this debate now. They seem to think it is urgent and I think it is probably urgent that a lot of Australians listen to a serious debate on the forestry industry.

I would like to challenge the Greens—and hopefully if the debate goes ahead we could do this—on just how many jobs they have lost. I would like to challenge the Greens to tell me how many of these native forest trees have been destroyed by fire over the years as compared with those that have been sustainably harvested by the forestry industry. That is a statistic I would love to know.

I would also like to hear from the Greens why they believe that Australia should import logs that are unsustainably harvested from elsewhere in the world, from places that have real environmental problems, in lieu of harvesting from what was recognised worldwide as one of the best forestry management systems anywhere—Australia, which has a very proud reputation in forestry and in forestry management. We have some magnificent timbers. Have a look around this building, Mr President, and you will see mainly Tasmanian forestry wood. But if the Greens have their way they will shut it down.

Mr President, I can tell you, because I was right at the forefront of this at one period in my career, that the Greens ask for something, you negotiate it, they come back, you stop there, you think that is the end of it and we are over it. But they get that little concession and then—as soon as everyone has gone back to sleep, as soon as peace has settled on it—they start again. And they will keep going until they shut down the whole forestry industry in Tasmania and the forestry industry in Victoria—or what is left of it—and the forestry industry in my state of Queensland–or what is left of it. It is an incremental thing to destroy this country and destroy a very significant industry in this country.

Mr President, I would like very much to have this debate. I am speaking as a private senator and I do not know what arrangements there are for business today. I understood the Labor Party wanted to deal with some bills but their partners, the Greens, think that this motion is far more important. On this occasion—and heaven forbid that I should ever agree with anything that the Greens political party says—I would be inclined to support them. I know my colleagues and those who manage business on this side have other matters to consider and, of course, I will go along with whatever they say. But I certainly hope that sometime we can have this debate and it seems to me that now would be as good a time as any. So, Mr President, to me it is a good idea but I leave it, of course, to those who are in charge of running this place to make the final decision. (Time expired)

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Brown's) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [13:23]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Question negatived.