Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm directing my remarks to the chamber. It shows how low these anti-salmon campaigners are prepared to go in their campaigns. It was a deliberate act, a disgraceful act, yet this individual continues to head up the anti-salmon campaign from the Greens in Tasmania and lead the campaign. Someone with any real genuine nature would resign from that position. But this is what we deal with.

I find the suggestion that people in this chamber would love to have an inquiry into this particular matter equally shallow. A few weeks ago, I introduced into this parliament a piece of legislation that would deal with the circumstances that brought about the current events we're dealing with in Tasmania in respect of the way the EPBC Act operates. The bill was referred to an inquiry. And what did Labor and the Greens do? Labor and the Greens teamed up to decide there would not be any public hearings on that piece of legislation, and then Labor and the Greens again teamed up to ensure that that inquiry would not occur before this sitting fortnight so the legislation could not be debated during this sitting fortnight.

When we talk about who really cares about industry and how the EPBC Act operates, let's look at what people have actually done rather than what they have said. At every attempt to have a genuine conversation about this, Labor and the Greens have teamed up to say no. It's not unusual; it's what happens on a regular basis. Let's take the opportunity to look at the circumstances that brought these events about—the uncertainty that communities in my home state are feeling, an uncertainty that has not been resolved by this government despite the opportunities to do so—and see what people are really doing. Their actions show that. The $28 million that was dropped by the Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago was designed to do one thing: shore up his job and try and get jobs for a couple of Labor mates in Tasmania. That's what the $28 million was designed to do. But, as the mayor of West Coast said, it doesn't give salmon workers in his community in Strahan what they really want, and that is certainty.

Let's go right back to the beginning on this matter. Three environmental groups, one of them the Environmental Defenders Office—who, as we've heard today, can't be taken seriously with respect to their representations—wrote to the Minister for the Environment and Water seeking a reconsideration of a decision made by a Labor minister over a decade ago. Rather than saying, 'No, we're not going to reconsider that decision; everybody move on,' the environment minister, to protect her seat in Sydney and Labor seats in Melbourne, Brisbane and other places where they're under challenge from the Greens, decided to pander to organisations like the Environmental Defenders Office, who a court judgement has found have no credibility in the evidence that they provide. They pander to those organisations and create this uncertainty for the industry.

All that the salmon workers in Tasmania want is certainty in relation to whether their industry will have a long-term future. That's all they're asking for. The $28 million is fine, and it buys three years of oxygenation of Macquarie Harbour over and above what's already being done through the trial program, but it does not provide certainty to this industry. At every attempt to gain an examination of this matter, what has happened? Labor and the Greens have teamed up to say no, and here we are again today with exactly the same circumstance. It's all very well to throw on a fluorescent coat saying, 'I'm a salmon champion,' but, if you can't deliver the one thing that the salmon industry wants, call yourself what you like.

All of the things that we're talking about here today have happened during the term of this government and this parliament. It doesn't matter whether you're sitting in the upper house or the lower house; if the environment minister won't take any notice of you in the upper house, why would they take any notice of you if you're sitting in the lower house? It's the same people but a different chamber. Why are we expecting to get a different result? They'll spend $28 million of taxpayers' money but, any time there's an opportunity for a proper investigation of it by this chamber, they say no.

I say to the workers in the salmon industry: have a close look. I know they do. I was down in Strahan a couple of weeks ago talking to them about the skate, and they do care about the skate. They want Macquarie Harbour to be a good environment for their industry to work in, and they know that, with the good practices they observe, it can be. Despite over 100 years of mining, inflows and other impacts that are occurring in the harbour, they know they've got good environmental practices. They know they can have a sustainable industry, but they won't be given this certainty and they won't be given the opportunity to have a say to this parliament because Labor and the Greens keep on saying 'no'.

We will continue to persist with this matter, and it will be a matter that, frankly, the Tasmanian people will make a judgement on. Why do we know that? Because they tell us so, and it's actually quite reasonable that they do. It's their jobs that are at risk. It's their jobs that have been put at risk by the environment minister, who made the decision to review something that a Labor environment minister decided over a decade ago. They did not need to make that decision in the first place. They could have said 'no', but they didn't. We'll get all sorts of arguments from the other side of the chamber about what the process needed to be, but the reality is that the minister for the environment could have said 'no' to the application to review these decisions and should have. We all could have moved on.

The industry itself has stumped up significant funds to support the maugean skate. Nobody wants to see that particular species go into extinction, despite the rhetoric we hear from some people. What the industry does know is that you need clean water to have high-quality and healthy fish. They want and they need a clean and healthy environment. That's a really important part of what they do and what they need to ensure an ongoing industry. Let's forget the rhetoric. Let's forget the dog whistling that we hear from some people in this debate about the foreign companies and international business, who play an important role in our economy; it's all designed to try and denigrate the businesses that are involved. We know the Greens just don't like industrial practices or businesses. We know they just oppose all those sorts of things: 'Big is bad.' We know that's the case. But I would have thought more of the Labor government.

What this motion seeks is the opportunity for the industry to have its say to this place. The tragedy is that on a number of occasions this place has been given the opportunity to do just that. But what has happened on each of those occasions? Labor and the Greens have teamed up to say 'no'. The Labor Party say they support the industry. We know the Greens don't; we get that. But what confounds people in my community is why the Labor Party is saying 'no'. My private member's bill is not designed to be a wedge document or anything of that nature. It's a simple piece of legislation to put in place a framework to ensure circumstances like this don't happen again. There can be reviews of the EPBC Act and decisions under it, but there's a process to do that that involves the states and territories. It's a simple piece of legislation. But what do the Labor Party and the Greens do? They punt it down the road. They don't want it debated in this place. The salmon industry are watching it all really closely because they also have other environmental approvals. They're concerned that the same culprits who had a crack at them the first time will come after them again. They want to have some assurance, as do miners and other players, to be frank, that an environmental approval given by a government has some level of surety.

I would have thought that that was a reasonable thing for them to have. I would have thought that that would be something they could have. But that's not what the Labor Party and the Greens want. They don't want public hearings into that piece of legislation. They don't want it debated in this place and they've bumped it off down the road. It'll be interesting to see what their view on it is because that will be another indicator to the people of Tasmania and the salmon industry of what they think about that industry and the decision-making process that they might go through.

Labor can spend as much taxpayers' money as they like, but my community saw through that in a heartbeat. The community on the West Coast saw through that in a heartbeat. They said, 'The money is great, but what we want is certainty for our industry, our jobs, our community and our workforce.' That's what they would like to see. And Labor has given them one thing: another year of uncertainty. Last Christmas we had this conversation, and all industry wanted for Christmas was certainty. They want the same thing this year: certain for their industry. But guess what? We're going to be having this conversation again next year and waiting to find out whether or not certainty will be provided. We think it should be. We think that the industry should be given a chance to have their say. That's why this motion is on the table before us today. That's why we believe it should be supported. That's why we're prepared to stand up and debate the matter and put some facts on the table, rather than the conspiracy theories about the industry that we hear from the Greens in particular.

We genuinely want this industry to have a strong future. It's a significant industry for our state. It's worth over a billion dollars a year. It employs a lot of people and produces a high-quality product. We think it's fair that they not only have certainty but also have the opportunity to have their say to this parliament and express their views. That's why this motion should be supported.