Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Hansard source

We will be back, my friend! The envoy was missing in action. But then we go to something very simple: this minister’s promise on eight occasions through himself and his friends to bring a case before the International Whaling Commission. On 20 May 2005:

Our challenge to the Howard Government is to prepare a case now for the International Court of Justice which will bring the international public spotlight on Japan’s claims.

On 24 May 2005, somebody who now occupies the Prime Minister’s chair:

The Howard government must initiate a case against Japan in the International Court of Justice.

Mr Rudd and Mr Albanese, on 19 June 2005:

The IWC will not stop the … slaughter.

On 20 June 2005:

The Howard government should take Japan to the International Court of Justice to end the barbaric slaughter of whales once and for all.

On 18 July 2005:

… must act immediately to take Japan to the International Court of Justice.

On 19 May 2007, the minister’s own words:

… take Japan to international courts such as the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to end the slaughter of whales.

On 20 May 2007:

… take Japan and any other country necessary, to court in the International Court of Justice ….

And, on 20 May 2007, he said that the IWC had not worked.

They appointed an envoy to go to the IWC but what have we found today in Senate estimates? Not only was the contract initially for six months but we had a six-month envoy one year late. We have also found $1,800 per day—and I do not begrudge him his per diem—with total fees $79,000, total flights $80,000 and additional costs all adding up to about $309,000. Now, under pressure, it seems the government may extend it for another three months, but here is the rub, the whaling envoy for whom $300,000 has been paid, for whom an international court case has been abandoned, is not going to go to the International Whaling Commission. No, the whaling envoy does not go to the International Whaling Commission. My advice is to send the whaling envoy and leave the minister at home. This is ultimately about who gets the job done.

We had a minister who promised, not just once, but through himself and his colleagues not just twice, three, four, five, six or seven times, but on eight occasions that Australia under their leadership would take Japan to the International Court of Justice. Strangely it never happened. All of these other things never happened. Now we see that for all the money they have spent on an international whaling envoy, whose personal credentials I do not disparage at all, the envoy is not going to the International Whaling Commission meeting. What an extraordinary situation. We have a promise, a pledge, a commitment and ultimately what we have is a failure, a deception, a distortion, an abandonment and an international whaling envoy who does not go to the International Whaling Commission. But his contract is being extended to deal with the Sunday Telegraph headline. Just in case anybody missed it, the Sunday Telegraph headline sums it up very nicely—the editorial, ‘Garrett betrays the whales,’ and the article, ‘After eight months Garrett acts as whale envoy breach of promise.’ Breach of promise and betrays the whales. Never can we say that it has been better or more succinctly summarised. But that is only one part of today’s news.

What we also saw was a very significant beginning. I say significant because we raise the issue of what was said on the floor of this parliament, in this chamber, in question time on 12 May. I would guess that we have not heard the last of this issue—maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong—but I suspect we have not heard the last of this issue. What the minister said to this House in this place on 12 May was very simple: when he was asked during question time in relation to logging activities in the New South Wales Central Murray State Forests he stated:

It is particularly important for me to confirm to the House that no stopwork order has been issued by the department.

That was clear, it was simple, it was categorical. We took him at his word that no stopwork order had been issued. The words were not even ‘was ever’. This was an issue about ‘it has not happened’ and we look at what was the case. In this letter from an assistant secretary in the minister’s own department what we see very simply is something slightly different. In this letter from the assistant secretary of his department dated 1 May 2009, 11 days before he stated that no stopwork order had been issued, there were a few inconvenient phrases. I say ‘inconvenient’ because in the letter, addressed to the Murray-Darling area manager of Forests New South Wales, we find that the department has made the following statement as to what must happen by 31 May 2009: ‘Cessation of the use of Australian group selection across the south-west New South Wales Murray-Mildura management area.’ That is one. But then even more expressly, by 31 May 2009: ‘Cessation of all harvesting operations in the Central Murray State Forests Ramsar site until further advice from the department or referral of the wider operations.’

In anyone’s language this was a stopwork order, unless of course a cessation is not a stop. That is a bit perhaps like a temporary deficit. What we have is a cessation, a stopwork order. And we have a denial that any such order was ever issued. This of course was preliminary because if this did not happen we are told everything, anywhere would also be stopped. So it was clear and categorical that these activities must be stopped and they must be stopped by 31 May because if they are not stopped we will stop everything.

I discussed this with the Leader of the Opposition. We looked at the idea from him as a former environment minister of what a stopwork order is. He looked at it. He knows this type of thing. He used to issue them. He said, ‘Oh, we have a stopwork order here. I had to look at these things. I recognise that type of action. It is a legally binding commitment. It is a statement from one tier of government to another. It is a statement from the minister through his department.’ But more than that, the current minister did not deny that it was him; he denied that even his department had issued a stopwork order. Yet we see that this letter, this piece of evidence, shows that a cessation of work was ordered by 31 May. That is clear, it is absolute; it is without doubt a stopwork order.

I would simply make this point. What we have seen today is not just a whale envoy who has been harpooned but we have seen porkies over parrots and we have seen a minister place his future on the line because we will return to this issue. You may well look very carefully at the transcript over the weekend but let us be clear that this minister has made statements to this House which are clearly and categorically untrue.

See this speech in context