Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—This statement is read on behalf of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. The order arises from a motion moved by Senator Brown as agreed by the Senate on 21 June 2005. It relates to correspondence concerning deductible gift recipient status for environment groups. The minister wishes to inform the Senate that he considers this request to be an unwarranted diversion of resources away from the government’s key role of protecting the environment. The minister would like to inform the Senate that the routine process for assessing an application from an environment group for deductible gift recipient status requires input from the proponent and relevant ministers. Once a decision has been made, this is duly conveyed to the applicant in question.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—As I understand it, the usual custom and practice in this place when we are going to debate matters like this is that the opposition is actually informed. I am having a great deal of difficulty discovering anyone in the opposition who was informed that this matter was going to be raised. Therefore, it is a little unusual to be presented with the information in this way and just have to accept on face value what is being said when I cannot even actually recall exactly what the parliamentary secretary said. Perhaps the government could take on board that, if we are going to throw all the niceties, custom and practice and stuff out of the window, life can get difficult. Although the government has the numbers and can make its presence felt, life can get very difficult indeed. It has already been a bit bumpy here today, not due to those of us in this part of the chamber, I would have to say. I would hope that this is not going to be the way that we are going to treat all returns to order from hereon in.

Kay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I have obviously been relieving Senator Ferris. I am not sure whether she believes it has been discussed. I have asked her if she can just come in and comment. The reason may be that Senator Ferris has just returned from Baghdad and I have been trying to fill in for her. I am probably not the most experienced whip that has been in the chamber. We usually cooperate and advise people, as you know. I think this might have been an oversight rather than some attempt to railroad what was going on in the Senate.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—The customary practice in this chamber, until recently, has been that the opposition would be given notice of a ministerial statement. It has been the customary practice to at least advise us that there would be a response to a return to order. This is a circumstance in which one has had to glance up at the screen and discover that the government is making a statement on matters which we have had no advice on whatsoever.

I think there is gross discourtesy in that approach. One can only presume that the government has something terrible to hide when it has to sneak in here in this manner to drop these sorts of statements on the table, particularly in circumstances in which the government is refusing a return to order on the grounds of an unwarranted diversion of resources away from the key role of protecting the environment. If ever there was a catch-all expression, it is that one. It is a proposition that essentially says that the government does not want to answer this question, does not want to deal with this issue, because its key role is to protect the environment.

What does that mean? One can only presume that the matter that has been raised before the chamber is difficult for the government. There is correspondence concerning deductible gift recipient status for environmental groups in which the government made a statement that the Friends of the Earth and the Australian Conservation Foundation should only get deductible gifts if they were to agree that they would not campaign against the government. Those are the circumstances of this particular matter—that their taxation deductibility would be conditional upon their political acquiescence to the wishes of the government. What an extraordinary proposition.

I think it would have been reasonable for the matter to have been dealt with in the manner in which the senator who originally moved this return to order had sought. We have a circumstance now in which the government simply refuses to advise the Senate as to the reasons why the government does not wish to comply with this return to order. Frankly, this explanation of an unwarranted diversion of resources away from the government’s key role of protecting the environment is totally unacceptable. It smacks of arrogance; it smacks of contempt. You have a circumstance in which the government seeks to sneak in with this sort of statement without even bothering to advise the opposition that it intends to make it. I think it is totally inappropriate for the government to act in this way.

I would have thought that, even if the minister does not have the decency to tell us what is going on, the government whips’ office could have made a simple courtesy call to our whips to advise us that this was coming through. It is totally unacceptable, and it is a measure of the way in which the standards in this chamber have fallen. It is the manner in which the government, with its complete control of this parliament, is now seeking to essentially abuse the power it has. It has an all-powerful position in this parliament and does not even bother to make a phone call to say it is bringing on such a matter.

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I seek leave to make some comments on Senator Carr’s statement.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, had you concluded your comments?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had not.

The Acting Deputy President:

Did you have a point of order, Senator Ferris?

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did have a point of order, but it related to Senator Carr’s comments. Since he completed making the comments as I stood up, I withdraw that point of order. However, I seek leave to make some remarks in relation to the comments that Senator Carr made.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Ferris, I believe Senator Carr had not concluded his comments.

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that case, Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: we gave leave to Senator Carr to make some comments in relation to this matter. While he was making the comments, I clarified the matter with the acting opposition whip. It is now clear that the comments that she made initially were based on a misunderstanding. That was that she was unsure whose return to order statement was being made.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Webber interjecting—

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I could finish clarifying the matter, this return to order is a return lodged by Senator Brown, and therefore the response to the return to order was to be given to Senator Brown, not to the opposition. I thought the clarification that I made to Senator Webber had settled the matter. This diatribe from Senator Carr is based on a total misunderstanding of the facts of the matter.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Ferris, I take it you are clarifying the original issue and your point of order is that that would clarify the process?

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Correct.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: as Senator Ferris has just explained, the statement was meant to come to me. I think it would help if everybody who wanted a copy of the statement was informed. I see one coming and thank the person involved very much.

The Acting Deputy President:

I believe that has been circulated now.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That wasn’t a point of order, Bob.

The Acting Deputy President:

It was an assistance to the process, Minister. Senator Carr, have you concluded your comments?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I have not.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Carr, I remind you that you were given leave for a short statement.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was giving a short statement, which was rudely interrupted by those people over there who do not have the decency to make a phone call.

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: we gave leave for a short statement even though the leave for the statement was based on a misunderstanding of the whole process. If Senator Carr wants to abuse this privilege now then we will have a debate about that.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, in terms of your short statement, is it relevant to the existing process?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a simple proposition. I would have thought it would be appropriate for the Government Whip to advise our whip that the minister is going to make a statement, whether or not it was originally in response to a return to order moved by Senator Brown or any other senator. Frankly, if the minister is going to make a ministerial statement the opposition is entitled to know that it is coming on. You basically tried to ambush us and that is what I say to you: this is a matter of deceit.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Yesterday I asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Campbell, to explain the failure to produce the documents relating to the proposed pulp mill in Tasmania which were sought on 12 May last year, and then in a separate order from the Senate on 14 June last year. Then there was a third motion, which is not mentioned in this statement, to do with deductible gift recipient status for environment groups on 21 June. These are eight or nine months old and the government has not responded to the Senate order for the production of those documents—and it should. By the way, the minister told me before question time that he expected that he would be making a statement at the end of question time. He did not and that is why I was not here. I waited for it but he did not make it and here we are at half past five in the afternoon with the statement landing without further warning to me.

The documents that the Senate required from the minister were all the correspondence from January 2002 to the present between the minister, his staff and department, and Gunns Pty Ltd relating to be proposed mill in Tasmania. That was repeated on 14 June. What we have here is a very simple operation, that is, a presentation to the Senate of the documents between the minister, his staff and department, and Gunns Pty Ltd and then, in the second matter, between the Prime Minister and Gunns Pty Ltd. Amongst other things, the Prime Minister has committed $5 million to Gunns Pty Ltd regarding the pulp mill. The original statement was that Gunns would get this after the go-ahead for the pulp mill for various matters to assist Gunns. However, there has been no go-ahead for the pulp mill—the matter is still under assessment and will be at least until next year. But in the run-up to the election the Prime Minister repeated the offer of $5 million and he has now paid half of it with no conditions attached, so far as I know, and none to be forthcoming.

What is more, when we look at the gift register that was published at the start of this month we see that some tens of thousands of dollars—I think it was $40,000 but I stand to be corrected on that—went to the Liberal Party at about the same time. We have got a ‘no strings attached’ gift from the government of $5 million of taxpayers money to Gunns, the biggest company in Tasmania with a billion-dollar turnover and last year more than $100 million profit, and $40,000—if that is the correct figure—going from Gunns to the Liberal Party. I ask you, do we not need a public explanation to avoid the clear implication that this is a corrupt process that has been entered into here? When the government says: ‘We won’t show you the documents,’—the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the CEO of Gunns and principal private shareholder that is, John Gay, or the board—you have to wonder what it is the government does not want open to public scrutiny. The minister says it is a fishing expedition. That completely besmirches the Senate process whereby we have this ability to seek documents from the government on matters of important public interest, and this is one of them.

The documents should be brought into the open air. There is a stench about this process and it needs to be cleared up. Today’s cover-up by the minister on behalf of the Prime Minister will not do. It simply adds to the appearance that there is something fishy, something that stinks, about this process and it is public money that is involved. It is not as if there is some process here where accountability is needed from a parliamentary outcome. No, this is not a parliamentary outcome. Nobody in this place has voted for this largesse to Gunns. The Prime Minister made that decision personally in the run-up to the election, and Gunns made a decision at board level to give the Liberal Party quite a handsome gift at about the same time. Now they say that they will not show us the documents. We do not even know when the Prime Minister met Mr Gay or other board members or representative of Gunns. They are not planning to show us that let alone what the past Minister for the Environment and Heritage did, because it was Senator Hill who was in that portfolio at the time this request was made.

Yet there is this arrogant dismissal from the minister of this proper request for information by the Senate. It is not just about the money that has changed hands here; it is about due process. It is very important, because the government has given support to a pulp mill before public consultation and the proper process involving the Resource Planning and Development Commission in Tasmania have anywhere near run their course. The public has a right to see how the government has come to the decision that it will support this massive pulp mill, which is going to destroy old growth high-conservation value forest in Tasmania. That is what is on the agenda here: the destruction of the very forests that the Prime Minister indicated to the public of Australia at the last election he was going to protect. The announcement consequent to the election showed he was going to do nothing of the sort. He is not protecting forests in the Great Western Tiers, the Blue Tier, the magnificent Upper Florentine Valley and the Styx Valley, which the Premier of Tasmania says he saved. Today they have entered into a new part of that national heirloom with their bulldozers and chainsaws under the aegis of this Prime Minister, who told the public that he was not going to do that.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, you sought leave to make a short statement. Will you be much longer?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I will not be much longer, but let me say that this matter—

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you are abusing the privilege yourself!

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator opposite said that I was abusing privilege. At least he is admitting to this abuse of privilege by the government. That is coming from the minister on the front bench at the moment. It is an admission to what is going on here—that is, abuse of privilege and the snubbing of this Senate.

The fact is that it is not the minister who came in with this statement today; Prime Minister John Howard is covering up and saying, ‘I won’t level with the public.’ Here we go again. It is a disgraceful message to the Senate from the Prime Minister of this country on the eve of his—and my—10th anniversary, which will be tomorrow—

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Congratulations on your anniversary tomorrow!

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you doing something?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am having a chocolate cake, and you are welcome to come around. The matter before us is extremely serious. I am referring to the arrogance and hubris of this Prime Minister to allow a statement to be sent to the Senate today saying: ‘Get lost. If you want information about why I have given $5 million of taxpayers’ money with no strings attached to Gunns Pty Ltd, get lost. I will do what I like, and you will have no scrutiny.’ That is a disgraceful way to treat the Senate.