Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Hansard source

You are an exaggerator. You think more highly of the Labor Party, Senator Macdonald, than they deserve. It was one question. From 1998 through to 2007, they asked 34 questions, which is pretty good, until you realise that, out of those 34 questions, 30 were asked in the last 12 months. So from 1998 until about 2006, you had year after year where the Labor Party did not ask a single question in this place during Senate question time on this issue. In fact, from 1998 to 2007, we asked more questions, as dorothy dixers, on this topic to try to get the public debate going on these issues than the Labor Party did. To those journalists who continually write and say the Labor Party have stolen the march on the Liberal Party and the National Party on this: just look at the documentation, the raw data, not the propaganda. If they looked at the raw data, they would be interested to see that we have had a constant, steady approach on this. The Labor Party ignored it, then saw it in the polls and ramped it up and tried to become the hero on the issue. We have constantly been the friend of the issue and continually husbanded the issue, as it should be, not taken the big, lavish approach that the Labor Party have taken on this issue.

One comment that Senator Macdonald made is that the forest industry, unfortunately, on the basis of each electoral cycle has had to confront the silly arguments in relation to forestry. That is why this legislation is so important—because it will allow the forest industry to become more proactive in defending itself and getting out correct information. Some of the difficulties the forest industry is facing today are shown in the Senate report on this legislation. The fact that the Labor Party and the Greens have signed off on the coalition minority report clearly indicates Labor and the Greens are in a coalition together, working together. They have already agreed to exchange preferences in New South Wales—that is already known—without any forest policy on the table. The forest policy is being developed; it just has not been put on the table as yet.

I also indicate my very real concern at what happened at the national Labor conference in relation to forestry. The Labor Party under Kevin Rudd has now backtracked from the very sensible position Mr Beazley had. All I say to the forest industry is: be very careful. Mr Mark Latham had a foolish, silly, stupid forest policy. Who was the architect of it? His political love child, whom he parachuted in to the seat of Kingsford Smith: none other than Mr Garrett. Keep in mind that Mr Beazley was wise enough to sideline him as shadow parliamentary secretary for the arts or something. Mr Beazley repudiated the Latham forest policy. As soon as Mr Rudd became leader, Mr Latham’s political love child, Mr Garrett, was put straight into the environment portfolio, and a very keen defender of the forest industry, Mr Martin Ferguson, was deliberately pushed out of that portfolio. Mr Rudd did not want too much robust discussion within the Labor Party on this issue, so the defender of the forest industry was sidelined, pushed aside deliberately so Mr Garrett would have the greater say in this area.

This report that the Labor Party has signed up to is just nitpicking in its desire to delay legislation and to inflict on the industry and the body concerned extra red tape and more cost so that the amount of money they can actually spend on research, development and active campaigning will be minimised. That the Labor Party would get into bed with the Greens should not surprise anybody, because it has been happening for far too long—and under Mr Rudd’s leadership it is clearly happening again. Today might even be the six-month anniversary of Mr Rudd’s elevation to the leadership. I am not sure if it is, but we must be getting to around that time. And do you know what? During those six months I think the Prime Minister has visited my home state of Tasmania on at least two or three occasions. I think Mr Rudd has as well, and so have Mr Downer and a whole host of cabinet ministers and shadow ministers—with one exception. Who do you reckon that might be? Who has difficulty in coming to the state of Tasmania in his position as a senior shadow minister? Mr Peter Garrett—although he and Mr Rudd promised the Tasmanian people that, before they made their decision at the Labor Party national conference, they would come to Tasmania and listen and learn. Clearly Mr Garrett does not need to listen and learn. He has already made up his mind, and that is why he has not visited Tasmania during that period.

That aside, another, unfortunate, issue confronting the forest industry is this celebrity cult, where just because you are an actor you all of a sudden become an expert to make commentary on forest practices. Or, as I had occasion to indicate recently to an Institute of Foresters of Australia conference at Coffs Harbour, because you are a well-recognised author of novels, you are then written up in newspapers as somehow having authority to comment on forest practices. I posed the question: how many newspapers would print articles from a forester saying, ‘With all my forestry credentials on the table, I now seek to critique this novel’? They would laugh the forester out of the place and say: ‘It is ludicrous. You have nothing to bring to the table.’ But, if you happen to be a writer of novels, you have everything to bring to the table and you are reported.

So it was, in a way, disappointing to read that Mr Ian Thorpe, for whom I have great respect in his capacity as a world renowned swimmer, came to Tasmania and, unfortunately, fed himself on a diet of Senator Bob Brown and other green activists.