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

This question by the Australian Greens should be seen in the context of the submission co-authored by Senator Milne and Peg Putt to the Resource Planning and Development Commission, in which they asserted that ice caps would melt, that police corruption would increase and that child abuse would increase—and the list goes on and on—in their manic opposition to a pulp mill in Tasmania. Having been laughed off the field by their fellow Tasmanians in relation to that, they then, through their friends in the Wilderness Society, took a Federal Court action. Keep in mind that whenever anybody takes legal action against the Greens or their cohorts it is to be condemned as an affront to democracy but that they of course issue writs like confetti.

Just the other day they had their comeuppance in the Federal Court when His Honour Justice Marshall indicated that the process adopted by my colleague the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Malcolm Turnbull, was proper and was the right approach under the appropriate legislation. The assertions by the Australian Greens and the Wilderness Society that Mr Turnbull should be considering other matters was completely rejected by the court—indeed, every single ground brought by the Wilderness Society in their fight against Mr Turnbull’s approach to this was thrown out by the Federal Court. What that shows to the Australian people, and especially to the people in Tasmania, is that the Federal Court has now given a clean bill of health to the process that has been undertaken by my colleague Mr Turnbull in assessing the pulp mill.

The federal government has three general areas it needs to concern itself about in relation to the pulp mill: the first is migratory species; the second is endangered species; and I think the third one—if I might say without prejudicing issues—and the one that has the most interest in it, is the ocean outfall. That matter is currently being considered by the minister. He is getting expert advice in relation to that. As the Federal Court proceedings have shown quite clearly, Mr Turnbull wrote to Gunns asking them about alternative approaches to dealing with the ocean outfall and at this stage I would say to the honourable senator that she has to wait and see the outcome of that. I will not be pre-empting anything that the minister for the environment might say in relation to this.

Having said that, I give a brief analogy to help those listening in—and, I live in hope, also hopefully Senator Milne—to gain a better understanding of how this process works in relation to real life. Sure, there will be effluent coming out of the mill. When Senator Milne arrived at Parliament House today I assume she arrived in a motor vehicle. There were all sorts of noxious fumes coming out of the exhaust of that vehicle. If those exhaust fumes would have been put into that vehicle and not just dispersed into the great atmosphere, Senator Milne would not have lasted very long. So the real question for all of us to consider in the context of the best scientific advice is to see what the dilution of these effluents will be in Bass Strait, and that is what we are seeking good, sound, top order, scientific advice on. (Time expired)