Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I am happy to respond, if the government’s only defence is that put by Senator Heffernan. Frankly, we are seeing a disgraceful attitude to the scrutiny process of this parliament. Let us be absolutely clear on this. This is a decision the government took effectively in the dead of night without consultation. This is a decision which will have a substantial effect on the rural communities this government claims to champion. This is a decision which has been the subject of criticism by governments and coalition or Liberal Party oppositions in other states and territories around this country. This is a decision which will put people out of work and businesses out of business, subject to any transitional arrangements which are as yet unannounced.

This is a decision which will take millions of dollars out of country towns. It has been suggested to me that the olive industry puts $10 million a year into the town of Boort in Victoria. Although they were not non-forestry MISs, we saw on the Landline program that the forestry MISs caused a substantial change to the prosperity of the town of Bombala in southern New South Wales, not too far from here. These schemes have their benefits and indeed they may have their costs.

So what is the problem with having an inquiry to look at that? It cannot order the government to do anything. It cannot make the government change its position. But what it can do is get us the facts. When you boil down the government’s opposition, it comes down to this: the government does not want the facts known. The government does not want people to know the impact of its decision. It will come out. There will be people who will tell us over time what the effect will be. They just will not get the benefit senators get of saying what they think under parliamentary privilege.

It will come out. Eventually the numbers that lie behind the government’s decision will come out. Frankly, it would have been good to have them on the record by now, rather than the unauditable commentary from Senator Heffernan about the cost. Those sorts of matters will remain a bit of a mystery. No doubt we will tease them out over time. If Labor wins the next election then all will become clear. But, frankly, it is a bit hypocritical of the government to talk about what these schemes cost the budget. Senator Heffernan described them as rorts—tax rorts, he said. But why is this different to some of the government’s funding programs that have been otherwise described as rorts? The difference is that the government claims political patronage when it makes grants to regional communities. We do not oppose them all, but some of them have been absolute rubbish, utter rorts, an abuse of process and a waste of money.

The government has been guilty of rorting the public purse for electoral advantage, by its own direct decision. It is not frightened to do that. No doubt it is going to do it again this year. It has a lot of programs stored up. We are waiting to see the flood of announcements, the cheques being signed and the allocations. And that is all right, according to the government.

But what about initiatives that can create businesses in communities, can create real jobs in communities and can get the wealth flowing through the community? This is not just me talking; there are members of the coalition parties in state parliaments around this country pointing to this decision and saying it is an outrage. This includes Senator Parry’s state colleagues. You would not see a more dismissive release than that from his colleague the agriculture spokesman in the Tasmanian parliament, a member of the Liberal Party, castigating the federal government for the decision. So it is not just the Labor Party saying that this is an outrageous decision. If you read the papers, you know it is also members of the government’s own backbench, whether it is the outspoken member for O’Connor or others.

There are a number of people on the government’s backbench who are openly critical and some who are privately critical. It will be interesting to see how many of those have the courage of their conviction to take that short walk across and vote for the inquiry and pursue a better outcome, pursue their belief. But we will see what happens; we will see whether the government is able to get all of its members voting for it. We will see whether the courage of their conviction comes out in the vote.

Labor does not require any member to support any particular proposition. I am not surprised the Greens would prefer that this was an inquiry into all managed investment schemes, because they would want to attack the forestry managed investment schemes, which have been allowed to continue. We did not oppose that decision. What we do oppose is the hypocrisy of the approach that this government has taken to this. We would like the facts on the table. We are presenting the Senate with an opportunity to try and get those facts on the table and give people a say. The government may well scuttle across to this side of the chamber and vote no and prevent the inquiry and to silence the communities they claim to represent, but in the end they should not expect that those communities will forgive them for it.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator O’Brien’s) be agreed to.