Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In recent times there have been accusations of violence in the forests of Tasmania between workers and protesters. Violence and other unlawful conduct need to be condemned—and condemned outright. They cannot and should not be condoned.

I was reminded the other day of an incident, I think in 1995, when protesters, having been unable to gain entry to North Forest Products offices at the old Marine Board Building in Hobart—a heritage building, by the way—sought to burn down the wooden doors. Police were called, the fire was extinguished and no-one was charged because ‘they were just protesters’. Not surprisingly, this attitude breeds resentment. It was a silly and irresponsible response by the authorities.

Similarly, the so-called Florentine Camp has been allowed to remain in place for some 2½ years, blocking an access road. The camp is an eyesore. It is a clash of blue and green plastic tarpaulins, corrugated iron, burnt-out car wrecks, 44-gallon drums, black plastic, with numerous chopped down saplings held together by ropes that create the imagery of a spider’s web, and a free-standing kitchen sink. In short, the place is a mess, a junkyard. It looks worse than a shantytown with, you have guessed it, camp fires burning wood in an area the protesters describe as being ‘vital pristine wilderness’. I seek leave to table three photographs of that camp site.

Leave granted.

I thank the government for the leave. Amongst the protesters is a person who has been there for 2½ years on welfare—that is, courtesy of the taxpayers. This brief scenario raises a number of salient issues. Why has the protester on welfare been allowed to be on welfare for all this time? When the allegation of welfare is put to the protester, we are given the response: ‘I do what I have to do.’ I call on the welfare authorities to breach this permanent professional protester who is living on welfare. I also ask: why has this been allowed to go on for 2½ years? I also inquire as to how authorities can allow car bodies to be dumped in state forests. I am sure that if any other Tasmanian tried it they would be charged, as they should be. But, here again, why have authorities refused to act?

Similarly, how have the relevant health authorities and officers approved the toilet and sanitary facilities for the past 2½ years? I hope they have not. So why haven’t they taken action? It is the same with the camp fire, it is the same with the illegal structure and it is the same with the lack of helmets. Where is the occupational health and safety standard? When confronted, the protesters tell us they follow most of the rules, suggesting, therefore, that they do not follow all of them. That, of course, is more than apparent, especially from the photographs that I have tabled. My plea to those in authority is to ensure that all people are treated equally before the law. Just because they are protesters does not put them above the law or allow them to avoid welfare, trespass, hygiene, littering, fire-planning, occupational health and safety and other rules and regulations—let alone their ethical responsibilities.

I note that another protest group, the front group, Investors for Tasmania, who took legal action against the forest company and spectacularly failed both at first instance and on appeal, are now disbanding the organisation before court orders can be pursued in relation to the costs that were awarded against that organisation. If company directors were to behave in such a way, they would be named and shamed—and, might I say, quite rightly so; they should be. Can I invite the same action in relation to those that set up this front organisation so that they personally would not have to bear the consequences of their failed court action?

One of the great things about Australia is that we have a right to freedom of speech and a right of access to the law. But those rights, like all other rights, have countervailing obligations, and those are to act within the confines of our laws and to act ethically. People being confronted with clear breaches of the law that are not dealt with by the authorities has the potential to breed vigilantes—people who believe it is appropriate to take the law into their own hands in what they perceive to be the absence of action by the authorities. The authorities have a responsibility to ensure that that does not occur.

The Senate will be aware of my concerns about ABC bias and the culture within the ABC on a host of issues, including the portrayal of forestry, especially in Tasmania, where the ABC has had to admit breaches of very fundamental and basic journalistic standards. At Senate estimates, the ABC has been regrettably reluctant to admit to these problems and to address them seriously.

Well, I have news for the ABC. During the Tasmanian Stateline program on Friday, 7 November 2008, Tasmanian viewers were given another ABC insight into forestry, which was actually fair and balanced. I congratulate the ABC for it but, on reflection, I should not need to. Fairness and balanced reporting should be the accepted standard. It should be the norm.

Tasmanian forest workers deserve to be allowed to go about their duties and workplaces unhindered. I wonder what the outcry would be if a couple of machines blocked The Green Shop in the city of Hobart, if half-a-dozen workers stood in the doorway of the shop blocking access—for 2½ years, might I add—and getting paid welfare for their trouble. I think we all know what would happen. Fairness, equity and balance are on a two-way street. The passion with which one holds a particular view is not licence to break the law by blockading or engaging in violence. I say to the authorities: if you do not want retribution, if you do not want vigilantes then deal with the initial illegal activity, which is, regrettably, responded to by some who are frustrated at officialdom’s inaction.

The forestry sector in Tasmania has to continually live with these sorts of frustrations in circumstances where it is recognised worldwide as being a world-class industry. Indeed, just recently I had the pleasure of having dinner with some PEFC people from all around the world, from Europe, Asia and elsewhere. Having observed Tasmanian forestry, these experts, who undertake classification of forest practices, were overwhelmingly impressed by the way that we do forestry here in Australia, particularly in my home state of Tasmania. It is a matter of regret that that visit was hardly noted by the media in my home state or elsewhere in Australia, although, in fairness, the ABC’s Statewide Mornings program with Tim Cox did put on Mr Michael Clark, the Chairman of the PEFC worldwide to give some explanation in that regard.

The Tasmanian forest industry has a lot to be proud of and has a lot of genuine individuals engaged in it. It should not have to face the sort of confrontation that Camp Florentine has now provided and aggravated for the past 2½ years. I call on the officials in Tasmania to ensure that it is disbanded.