Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I just wanted to confirm that, despite this bill being taken as a whole, we can still vote on the amendments before the committee separately.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we'll deal with each amendment independently, unless the Senate grants leave.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (5) on sheet QL133 and table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to our amendments:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 13), after paragraph (p) of the definition of primary production business, insert:

  (pa) a business of operating:

     (i) a wood processing facility; or

     (ii) a wood fibre processing facility;

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 11 and 12), omit the note.

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (after line 12), after subsection 474.46(2), insert:

  (2A) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1), the defendant does not bear an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (2), despite subsection 13.3(3).

(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (lines 9 and 10), omit the note.

(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (after line 10), after subsection 474.47(2), insert:

  (2A) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1), the defendant does not bear an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (2), despite subsection 13.3(3).

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to ask the minister a few questions about how we arrived at the place that we're currently in. Firstly, can you confirm that these amendments were actually suggested to the government by the Australian Labor Party?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | Hansard source

We went through an inquiry process, and, as I said in my summing-up speech, there was a lot of advice given to the government through that process around amendments that would clarify the bill for certain people out in the community. The government have taken on board that advice from a range of sources and are tabling amendments to reflect that.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm presuming you understood the ordinary, English-language meaning of the words that I used in my question, so I'll just narrow it down in case it was confusing for you. I'm specifically asking about the first amendment on sheet QL133 and whether that amendment had its genesis from the Australian Labor Party.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | Hansard source

The government have put amendments before the Senate. We have talked to an array of senators and community members throughout the inquiry process, and the amendments sit before the committee.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

We can talk about this for quite some time, if you like. It's totally up to you. I'm simply asking you a question that I'm entitled to ask—

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: I want to know the relevance of this to the amendment that has been put forward by the government in relation to this bill.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, but there is no point of order in that respect.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'll ask you again. I don't know why you're finding this a difficult question to answer. I've asked it twice, and you've failed to answer it twice. This amendment was obviously not in the original bill, so I'm simply asking you whether this amendment was proposed or suggested to the government by the Australian Labor Party—yes or no.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, I'm going to speak slowly because you haven't been able to understand what I've said the last two times you've asked this question. I am tabling government amendments to the legislation. This is not unusual. As a government, we take on board feedback we get through the committee process and other discussions and willingly amend our legislation, when required. Government have drafted these amendments. They are tabled before the committee. That is how we want the amended bill to proceed.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

All right, well, I'm going to take that as a yes, it was suggested to the government by the Labor Party, because you haven't denied it despite being given three opportunities to deny it. You can use whatever form of weasel words you like, but it is clear that the Labor Party suggested this amendment to the government because, if they didn't, the government would have simply got up and said no. I want to be clear about what the Labor Party is doing here; I want to be very clear about this. In suggesting this amendment to the government, the Labor Party have actually sold out the environment movement in this country. They have sold out people who want to protest to keep our forests standing. They have sold out people who want to protest to look after our biodiversity. To state the bleeding obvious, we are in the middle of a climate emergency and a biodiversity crisis on this planet. If the bloody ALP, covering up for the government and suggesting amendments—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, resume your seat.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

that actually make it harder for the environment movement to keep the carbon in the forests.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator McKim! Senator Watt, a point of order?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, a point of order: yet again, it seems that the extreme Greens party have forgotten that there's actually an LNP-run government—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: What's your point of order, Senator Watt?

My point of order is on relevance. Yet again, we see from the Greens that their only intention is to come in here and bring down Labor, rather than to stand up for the principles that they say they believe in. It's pathetic.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Because of the interruption, Senator McKim, I'd ask you to refrain in future from using language that I may deem unparliamentary.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

So, you've got the Australian Labor Party 'fern hooking' the environment movement in this country—cutting them off at the knees. After many of us watched some elements of the environment movement go into bat so hard for the Labor Party in the last election—so hard. They backed in the Labor Party—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) | Link to this | Hansard source

By running against us!

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Some elements of the environment movement backed in the Labor Party.

Senator Watt interjecting—

You know, Senator Watt, and they know who they were. And boy did that backfire on them massively. And here you've got the Labor Party repaying that favour that some parts of the environment did them during the election campaign by coming in here and suggesting to the LNP that they should move this draconian amendment to an already-draconian bill that the Labor Party used to oppose but now, in the new Labor way, support.

I want to be very clear about what this parliament's just witnessed. This parliament's just witnessed the Labor Party voting against its own recommendations from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. That's what the Labor Party has just done, by voting against the Australian Greens second reading—

Senator Watt interjecting—

I'll take some aspect of that loud interjection, despite the fact that I didn't hear it.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) | Link to this | Hansard source

That you're an idiot?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Resume your seat for just a moment, Senator McKim. Senator Watt, I'd ask you to withdraw.

I withdraw. He's a buffoon, a—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: No, Senator Watt—you'll withdraw unreservedly.

Okay, I withdraw unreservedly.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Watt.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

And I will take whatever interjection, because I actually want to read it in Hansard later, to see what Senator Watt called me. But what we know is that during the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee the Labor Party recommended that this bill be withdrawn and redrafted to rasp some of the rough edges off it and then resubmitted to that committee for inquiry. That is exactly the wording in the Australian Greens second reading amendment that Labor voted against. The term 'gross hypocrisy' doesn't even come close to describing the Labor Party's behaviour. And now, to compound their sins, they have suggested to the government moving an amendment that broadens the definition of primary production business to include the business of operating a wood processing facility or a wood fibre processing facility—in other words, a woodchip mill.

So, Minister, given that this amendment that the Labor Party suggested to you has somehow magically now become a government amendment, I've got some questions that I want to ask you about it. Firstly, would this include any wood processing facilities or wood fibre processing facilities on public land?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Chair. I wanted to let Senator McKim finish his diatribe before I got up to point out that, in fact, it was not Labor that proposed amendment (1).

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Watt, you have the call. This is not a point of order. You're making a contribution to the debate.

Okay, I'll do that later.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Would you like the call?

Yes, I would. Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately Senator McKim and his colleagues in the Greens never like to let the truth get in the way of a good political wedge against Labor. I would like to point out that, in fact, it was not Labor that proposed amendment (1), which I understand is the one that he is most exercised about. So I'm sorry to disappoint you, Senator McKim. You might have to find another reason to try and wedge Labor rather than focus on a government that is pillaging the environment that you say you care about. But keep coming after us; that's fine.

We did, however, propose amendments (2) to (5), which go to issues of press freedom. The Greens say they care about press freedom, but it was Labor that moved these amendments. Labor did not propose amendment (1) but will support it, it having been proposed, because it simply fixes a small anomaly in the bill, which currently includes a range of facilities as primary production facilities, including agriculture businesses, fish processing facilities and abattoirs. Sorry to disappoint you: we didn't propose the amendment. Your conspiracy—

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

But you're supporting it.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) | Link to this | Hansard source

We are supporting it. Unfortunately, your conspiracy theory on this occasion is not true, but I'm sure we won't have to wait very long to see another one. So good luck, and I look forward to it.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to make a short contribution and add my voice to what Senator McKim said about amendment (1) on sheet QL133. The government's amendment is to shield more businesses from scrutiny, and this is exactly the scope creep that the Greens have been warning about. Who knows how many other big businesses will be added to this list? It's going to be an endless list, from what I can see.

But we know this government have an anti-protest agenda. They would quash all dissent if they could. We know this government's vision for Australia—they want a country where there is no sign of protest, where no dissent is permitted and where no voices different to the government's exist, because all environmental activists and all animal welfare activists have been gagged and censored.

And shame on the Labor Party for standing shoulder to shoulder with the government on this anti-protest agenda. You came in here. You talked the big talk. You put in additional comments to the committee, highlighting the very flaws in this bill. You made grandstanding speeches in the chamber, and yet you sat there with the government and waved in this anti-protest bill and you're going to sit with them again to expand the scope of this bill. Shame on you.

I end by saying that, sadly, Australia is becoming a poster child for the gagging of animal rights and environmental activists. The Greens will never stand for this. We will oppose every single attempt to silence dissent and protest in our country, and we will be the real opposition to this government's destructive agenda.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Faruqi. Before I call Senator Watt, I remind all senators to address their comments to the chair. Senator Watt.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) | Link to this | Hansard source

I might add a little bit more in terms of the reasons for Labor's support of amendments (2) to (5), which, as I say, go to matters of press freedom. As Labor speakers on this bill have made clear, while supporting the general intent of this bill to better protect farms and farming communities from unlawful trespass by extremist protesters on their land, Labor has been concerned that this bill may have the effect of criminalising the actions of journalists who are only seeking to do their jobs in the public interest. This could include merely reporting on matters of unlawful animal cruelty.

As I noted in my speech in the second reading debate, evidence to the Senate committee inquiring into this bill from numerous submitters, including the Law Council of Australia and Australia's Right to Know Coalition, was that, as presently drafted, the protections in this bill are inadequate to protect public interest journalism. We've been pressing for an amendment to address these concerns and are pleased to have been able to reach agreement with the government on this amendment. It's another good example of what can be achieved by a party that is interested in governing and interested in good legislation—and I am referring there to Labor rather than the government—rather than grandstanding, as we're seeing from the other corner of this room.

Like so many Australians, over recent months I have been concerned to see the Morrison government's lack of respect for the public's right to know about unlawful activities and the government's willingness to use the criminal law and the police to seek to intimidate independent journalists and whistleblowers who seek to expose wrongdoing. We in Labor have been concerned to ensure that this bill will not add to the threats to journalists and media organisations which fulfil a vital role in our democracy. Amendments (2) to (5), in our opinion, will achieve that objective, and they therefore have Labor's support.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to address a couple of the questions raised in the debate thus far on the amendments and the reason the government is putting forward a wood-processing facility and a wood-fibre-processing facility. Contrary to the Greens' claims, this is an incredibly positive amendment. The bill currently covers saleyards, abattoirs and aquaculture facilities. To suggest that our foresters and our forest industry—70,000 Australians are employed in the forest industry, which is worth $23 billion to this economy—can't be protected from the illegal criminal activities of trespass, harassment and intimidation is a joke. This is not about lawful protest; this is about people who are inciting harm. Our forest industries are incredibly productive. We have the most sustainable forest industries in the world. We should be standing up for our forest industries, which are completely sustainable, and ensuring that they can continue to provide much-needed employment in rural and regional areas. Covering these sorts of facilities, as we're covering aquaculture, abattoirs and saleyards, is not a huge expansion; it's just understanding that primary production in this country includes farming, fishing and forestry. That is the definition, so it all makes intense sense.

In terms of Senator McKim's question about public land, because this goes to incitement of trespass, it has to be on private land or public land that's leased, if that answers your question.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to ask a question to the minister. I heard you say that provisions relating to the protection of forestry operations only apply to private land in Tasmania. I'm sure you are aware that most of the industry, and most of the problem, is on crown land, not private land. Why doesn't this bill offer any protection for these businesses, especially in Tasmania?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, you raise an issue that has been a great topic not just with public forestry but with fishing in public waters as well. These are two areas that are controlled by state governments, so it would be inappropriate for us as a federal government to go into that space. But I would encourage state governments, as the Labor Party contribution earlier went to, to think about how we protect primary producers—our fishers and foresters, in the main—from this type of behaviour when they're on public land. But, to answer your question: as you say, if private enterprises are leasing the crown land for that processing facility, they'll be covered; otherwise it will be up to state governments to deal with that.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept that you cannot trespass on public land and so you cannot incite trespass on public land, but it's not just trespassing that is the problem. What protections does this bill offer against private property damage or disproportionate economic harm to legal forestry operations on crown land?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, Senator Lambie, you raise a very good question, and one that we've also grappled with. This does deal with the trespass per se, but you can't trespass on crown land. So it won't cover that type of activity.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, perhaps I could assist Senator Lambie and point out something that is fundamentally missing from this debate. Senator Lambie, you actually don't need to stop people trespassing on crown forestry land, because the government has essentially pinged that in this legislation anyway, because woodchip mills and wood-processing plants are privately owned on private land, but they use a public resource.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | Hansard source

That they pay for.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

You have put new protest laws in place in this country with a stroke of a pen, no doubt driven by my Tasmanian colleagues Senator Abetz and Senator Colbeck. Let them come into this place if they want to argue that case or point me wrong; I'm very happy for them to do that. You have taken this and expanded it to a completely new point in Australian protest laws.

The World Heritage extensions in Tasmania, the 180,000 hectares of World Heritage forests and the World Heritage forests before them, are now the pride of my state and one of its No. 1 tourist attractions, not to mention the lungs of the earth that soak up carbon in a time of climate crisis. They were protected because of forest protesters. Many of the protests that led to their protection occurred on woodchip mills and wood-processing plants on private land.

Everything else in the Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019 refers to private production being potentially processed on private land; this is completely different. This is a massive extension and overreach of this legislation. It's political opportunism par excellence by my fellow senators from Tasmania who've always opposed forest protesters who are simply trying to save forests for future generations; forests that are rich and diverse in their ecosystems, and forests which sequester carbon. The No. 1 thing the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in their last two reports that we need to do to act on climate to reduce emissions is protect our existing forests and plant more trees. It cannot be any clearer than that.

What the government has done today has taken away any chance that forestry protesters have got to protect those forests. It just happens to be a coincidence that in Tasmania, in about six months time, nearly 400,000 hectares of high-value conservation forest—which I, and especially Senator McKim, spent years negotiating with the Labor Party to have permanently protected—will be ripped up by the Tasmanian Liberal government. The forests were put in temporary protection. In six months time, 400,000 hectares of some of the world's most pristine rainforests are up for grabs. And, now, Minister, in introducing this legislation and tacking on what you say is a 'small minor amendment', backed up by the Labor Party—a 'small change' to the scope of this bill, you say—you have now turned your back on future generations that need these forests protected.

Senator McKenzie, while I'm on my feet, I wanted to ask you—because I heard your contribution in the second reading debate—whether you were aware of a pig farmer in Tasmania called Gary William Oliver and whether you were aware of his case from 2009. I'd like to tell you about it. In Scottsdale, an animal welfare advocate had been tipped off by employees, who were too scared to speak out, about appalling animal welfare practices on this man's farm in Tasmania. This animal advocate did trespass, did go onto the property, and did film these pigs. The footage was shown all around the country and it was absolutely appalling and very confronting. I will tell you why I'd like you to hear this story, Senator McKenzie—through you, Chair.

This animal rights activist didn't want to be named. She wanted to remain anonymous. She went to the RSPCA—and this is why it was controversial, because the RSPCA then said to her, 'We're not interested. We're closed for the weekend. Don't want to know about it'. She was so distraught by the footage that she had taken and what she had seen that she fronted up at the Scottsdale Police Station and said to the constable and the sergeant on duty: 'I've broken the law, I've trespassed, but I've got nowhere else to go.' The policeman sat her down and said, 'Right, well, we'll have to take you into custody. We're going to have to charge you.' She said, 'Will you look at this footage?' The police did that, and they were so appalled and so confronted by it, they said, 'Get in the car; we're going out to confront the farmer,' and they arrested him.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Exactly. That went to the magistrate—and, believe me, pig farming's a big business in Scottsdale; there are a number of big pig-farmers—and the magistrate said, 'If that is what industrial pig farming is all about, it's not viable; it is just not viable if animals are treated that way.' That led to a lot of changes—changes because of the bravery of one woman who was prepared to flout the law because of her beliefs.

How can you come here and say that that kind of conviction to look after animals—and, ultimately, the reputation of these farmers and their industry, because most farmers do do the right thing—should be penalised? How can you stand in here and say that that kind of behaviour is somehow misguided, or it's terrorism, which is what I've heard Senator Hanson call it? It's one good individual, one human being, trying to do the right thing—

Government senators: No, it's not.

It absolutely was in this case. These laws will now make it a lot more difficult for those who actually care about animals. This is also about the reputation and the sustainability of these businesses, particularly in the face of meat alternatives, which I've heard you talk about and seen you Tweet about, which are becoming very popular. These are the kinds of things that the industry needs to be aware of. If someone feels deeply about an issue of animal welfare and no-one else is able to investigate it, and people are too scared to blow the whistle—I'm appalled at the level of debate in here about good people just trying to do good things, regardless of what you say.

In this case, it led to good, and the right outcome was achieved because of one brave individual who happened to be an animal welfare advocate. I just wanted to put that on record, and you can get up and talk about it if you like. I wanted to make you aware of that particular case, and there are others like it.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the minister, once again I'm just going to remind senators to please address your comments to the chair. We don't want to personalise these things. If you refer to other senators, it's not as 'you'; it's as their name and so forth. That way we will maintain a peaceful and orderly Senate.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | Hansard source

In the effort to maintain a peaceful and orderly Senate, Temporary Chair Bernardi, I shall address my remarks through you. I wanted to assure Senator Whish-Wilson that this bill doesn't deal with trespass, because this place can't deal with trespass. This bill deals with those who would seek to incite others to criminal activity. If they're seeking to incite people to criminal activity, which is trespass, harassment, intimidation, biosecurity risks, damaging stock, damaging property—criminal activities—then they will be charged. On the issue you speak about with respect to the forests, as Senator Watt said earlier, 'Don't let the facts get in the way of a good emotional argument from the Greens.' I have to agree with my good friend Senator Watt. We don't agree on much but we do agree on this.

The idea, as you stand up in this place and say, that the bill before us and the amendment before us will somehow decimate our world-class forestry management system, the sustainable harvesting of beautiful Australian hardwood and plantation forest, is an absolute crock—an absolute crock. It does not do that at all. What this bill does is criminalise inciting others onto private property to damage property, so people can go about their lawful business. To suggest it's going to shut down our beautiful World Heritage areas or somehow stop people lawfully and peacefully protesting and expressing their views in this country, again, is not true. It is not what the bill says or does; the bill is about those who seek to incite others to behave illegally.

Finally, on your issue of the piggery in Scottsdale, quite frankly I think it says more about the RSPCA in Tasmania than anything else—that they didn't take seriously a genuine animal welfare issue that was brought to them in a timely manner. It should have been taken seriously. They should have acted. That is why they're a source trusted by communities around the country on animal welfare issues. But, no surprise, it happens to be the weekend they're not interested in actually prosecuting what they're set up to do. Again, trespass is a state law issue, and I think state governments need to—as I said in my comments—ensure their trespass regime is robust enough and has protection around disclosure of information, particularly around animal welfare issues. But they also need to ensure that there are hefty fines and that our judiciary, instead of handing out a $1 fine for somebody that closed down a law-abiding business, actually seeks to uphold the law in meaningful ways. I hope that's of assistance to the Senate.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson made a comment that I called them terrorists. I certainly did. I also called them ratbags, idiots, morons and a few other words. The definition of terrorism is:

The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

And that's exactly what it is—and it is not only political aims but also their own personal agendas: because they are vegans, they don't want to eat meat, so no-one else should be eating it. This has nothing to do with what Senator McKim said about the piggery in Tasmania. I totally agree that if animals are treated that way, sure, it should be investigated, by all means. This legislation has nothing to do with that. We saw the footage where they went into abattoirs and locked themselves to the pipes. They stopped the plant from doing its work. They have taken animals. They actually had to negotiate so they could pack about 30 of the sheep in their cars and take them away, just to get rid of them and off the premises. We've had a cafe shut down because of intimidation and threats, and the business said, 'We can't deal with this.'

This has nothing to do with the welfare of animals. The animals are being looked after. There is no problem there. Any Australian will stand up and fight against animals being mistreated in this country. All Australians do. But Australians are actually fed up with this. This legislation has ended up on the floor of this parliament for us to try to do something about it because the judges have been too gutless to hand down decent fines to deter these people from carrying on and inciting violence and terrorism. We have to give the people of this country assurances that they can live in safety and security and run their businesses according to the law. We have not protected them enough through our judicial system. That's why I support this law.

By introducing amendment (1) to include a wood-processing facility—why wouldn't we? Haven't we seen over the years where these protesters have actually gone onto private plantations and hugged or tied themselves to a tree so people can't do their job? It has nothing to do with World Heritage listing of forests in Tasmania, because the people don't want to see that happen.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it does.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair, the comment earlier from Senator Whish-Wilson was, in his own words, 'World Heritage listing'—that they can't be touched; they're World Heritage listed. Again, the Greens are speaking through their hat. They come out fearmongering. They never put facts on the table to put a decent argument and debate about this. It's all about emotional issues. Talking about the piggery is not dealing with what this legislation is all about. It's not dealing with trees that are going to be cut down in a World Heritage listed area. Old-growth forests are not going to be touched. It's about new plantation trees that we need to have in Australia, and this is why—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Hanson! It being 11.45, the committee should report progress.

Progress reported.