Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) to a question without notice asked by Senator Milne today relating to logging of old growth forests.

I rise to take note of an answer from Minister Ludwig in relation to the logging of forests and, in particular, what is going on in Tasmania. I asked the minister what he knew about the Tasmanian government's involve­ment in maintaining the ongoing operation of the woodchip mill at Triabunna. The minister said that he would have to take that on notice. I do not know why, because I went around to his office last week, briefed his office on what is actually going on and asked the minister to investigate the matter.

The reason is this. Here we have the Commonwealth negotiating with the Tas­manian government to develop a package which will protect high-conservation-value forests in Tasmania and assist the exit of logging of native forests. Tasmania is cap in hand to the Commonwealth, asking for a cheque yet again—more Commonwealth money. It is supposed to be exiting native forests, not entrenching logging in native forests. We knew Gunns was selling the woodchip mill at Triabunna, but what we were horrified to learn was that suddenly a company, Aprin Logging, took a couple of holding companies off the shelf—one company, Fibre Plus, had 24 shareholders and a valuation of $24—and bought a multimillion-dollar woodchip mill. Then we found out after the event that it depended on a loan from the Tasmanian government in order to clinch that sale.

Furthermore, we have Forestry Tasmania supposed to be supporting the Common­wealth in exiting native forests, but they must have provided a guarantee to that company that it will provide a supply of logs in order for Triabunna to have a source of timber. So what is going on? One govern­ment is negotiating with another government to get out of logging, and the Tasmanian government is facilitating logging through Forestry Tasmania. Now we discover that the Depart­ment of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts actually approached Aprin Logging and said, 'If you were to apply for a loan from the Tasmanian govern­ment, it is likely to be looked on favourably.' What sort of dodgy behaviour is going on in Tasmania in the logging industry at exactly the same time that the Comm­on­wealth is working with the Tasmanian government in order to get through a package which is supposed to be about a 100 per cent solution to the ongoing conflict in Tasmania's forests?

We have known for a very long time that there are very suspect dealings in the Tasmanian logging industry. We have known that Forestry Tasmania, while the rest of the public service has taken cuts and lost a number of employees, has continued to build its empire at the same time as it is in debt to the people of Australia for at least $130 million. It has only returned a matter of $7.2 million in tax returns or in dividend in all that time, and yet it got a huge amount of money—more than $145 million—from the Commonwealth. So it is living on borrowed time and borrowed money, and now we discover it is up to its neck with the Tas­manian government, with Aprin Logging and with Fibre Plus, and we do not even know who the operatives in Fibre Plus are. We do not even know who the principals are. Who are they covering for? Who actually has put up the rest of the money for Aprin Logging?

I urge Minister Ludwig to stand in here and say the Commonwealth will not give Tasmania one cent in a forest deal outcome until Aprin Logging, Fibre Plus, Forestry Tasmania, the Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts and the Premier of Tasmania come clean on their dealings and what is going on. I want to know from the minister exactly what he knows about it. Has he been discussing this with the Tasmanian government? What sort of duplicity is it to say you are trying to stop logging at the same time as you are trying to maintain a woodchip mill? There was another buyer for the woodchip mill. They had the money to pay in cash, and yet they were rejected in favour of this deal dependent on a government loan.

I would further like to know what ASIC is doing about this, because Gunns has an obligation to maximise its return to its shareholders. How can it say to its shareholders it is doing that if it does not take a cash offer for the woodchip mill and, instead, relies on an offer from a company which does not have the money and which needs a government loan? I would like to know what dealings have gone on, because this merely cements the image of Tasmania as being rotten at the core when it comes to logging and when it comes to the relationship of government with the logging industry in Tasmania.

Question agreed to.