Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The government do not rule out the concept of an inquiry into issues relating to the George River in Tasmania or other related matters. But we do think that it is appropriate that there are proper scientific examinations before this thing becomes the political football that, clearly, if you listened to Senator Milne’s speech, it would be intended to be, were the Senate to initiate the inquiry. There are a few points that I want to touch on. Suffice to say we will not be supporting this motion at this time.

I noted from Senator Milne’s speech that we are enjoined not to trust the Tasmanian government. I thought there was a democratic process going on there at the moment, an election campaign in which the Greens were campaigning to become the government. So do I take it from the speech that Senator Milne has given up on the chances of the Greens becoming part of the, if not the, government? Is that what I should take from the speech? Or is this part of the campaign leading up to the Tasmanian election on 20 March? I am not sure what to make of it. I do not want to jump into the bed of conspiracy theorists, but you would have to say that Senator Milne and Senator Bob Brown agree with all of the suggestions that were made in Senator Milne’s 20-minute contribution.

She talked about cancer clusters, which I understand have been the subject of an examination by Dr Roscoe Taylor. Despite the attempts to blacken Dr Taylor’s name, he is a fairly respected practitioner and the Chief Medical Officer in Tasmania. I understand he has looked at medical records held by Dr Bleaney. He or members of his department are on the public record as saying that there is no evidence that can be ascertained from Dr Bleaney’s records that shows a disproportion of particular types of cancers there compared to anywhere else. But I am no expert on that and, if we are going to start examining that, how do we examine it without access to all the medical records in that area? It is a very difficult problem and something that I suggest the Senate committee would not be able to do.

On the question of the coalition’s position on climate change, I share Senator Milne’s concerns that, on the one hand, talking about carbon sequestration in trees, as Senator Colbeck did, and, on the other hand, voting against the motion is a bit hypocritical. But didn’t the Greens also vote against the bill? If the five Greens sitting in that corner had crossed the chamber and voted with the government, we would have passed the legislation, but they chose not to. So I think it is a bit rich for the Greens to talk about hypocrisy on climate change when that was the Greens position on that vote.

On the question that was raised about triazines, the fact is that some sections of both forestry and agriculture use triazines on genetically modified canola, and there is a fair bit of that in Tasmania. There is also a fair bit of that in other parts of the country. On the other hand, there is a significant part of the green movement that says, ‘We should not have GM canola; we should only have non-GM canola.’ But the regime for that uses triazines. So there are a lot of points of difference that I could raise with the contribution that has just been made.

I go back to what Senator Colbeck said earlier. This matter has been put in the public domain by the Australian Story program. My understanding of the reports is that there was an allegation on the program that there is a toxic cocktail which is attributable to plantation Eucalyptus nitens in the foam on the Georges River and that that is having deleterious effects on both the oysters in Georges Bay and human beings. This is a very serious allegation. Quite properly, the Chief Medical Officer, on behalf of the Tasmanian government, has said, ‘I’d like to look at this, and we’re prepared to investigate it.’ I am told that, according to reports, the response was, ‘We’ll go and see our lawyers.’

I have said in this place that I find that to be a remarkable response from a group who have been prepared to go public with an allegation which damages the reputation of Tasmania while saying: ‘We won’t give you our research; go and see our lawyers. You’ll also have to satisfy the third party involved before we’ll give you the research.’ Until and unless there is a preparedness to share their research and allow it to be investigated, as Senator Colbeck said, not just by scientists and medical practitioners in Tasmania but also by those in other parts of the country or even internationally, I would be very reluctant to support the idea of jumping into what is clearly going to be a very political exercise on behalf of the Greens, pursuing their opposition to forest industries generally and besmirching the reputation of Tasmania, before we have had a chance to have access to some peer reviewing of the allegations that have been made and some proper scientific assessment of this catchment and others. Eucalyptus nitens are not only in the Georges River catchment. The suggestion in the allegation is that this will be a very widespread problem if it is a problem in that catchment.

I would much rather we have the benefit of properly conducted research if the Senate committee is going to have a look at this. What is the next step in the proposition that we have an inquiry—that somehow the Senate funds the research? At the end of the day, maybe that would be necessary, but I would much prefer that the public health bodies around this country were involved in that before it became a political football.

The government will not be supporting the reference to a committee of this matter at this time. We do not reject the concept in the future after those steps have been taken. If Senators Milne and Brown are worried about what the Tasmanian government might do, I guess they are giving up on Mr McKim’s chances of being part of the Tasmanian government in any capacity following the election on 20 March.