Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) 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 Forestry Tasmania.

Today we saw the Greens' latest shameful instalment of an unconscionable campaign for gaining a commercial advantage for its multimillionaire mate Mr Wood, a man who donated $1.6 million to the Greens. The Greens have manically pursued the bid by Mr Wood against another commercial player for a particular property in Tasmania and their manic pursuit of this can only be explained in terms of the huge donation that they received.

Let us go through the facts. Before the last election Mr Wood made a donation to the Greens of $1.6 million, the largest donation ever in Australian politics. Fact 2: the donation was personally negotiated with Senator Brown, who said afterwards he was 'forever grateful'. Mr Wood said in relation to this deal that helping the Greens win the balance of power in the Senate was 'probably a good return on investment'. There you have the facts: Senator Brown forever grateful; Mr Wood saying that it would be a good return on investment. Here we have the Australian Greens now, not only day after day but week after week, pursuing the commercial interests of one Mr Wood. Be it at question time in this place, the address at the National Press Club, getting access to the minister's office or even answering a question at a press conference about foreign investment, what was front of mind for Senator Brown? It was the Triabunna mill that he wanted his mate to be able to buy.

Let us go through the chronology. On 11 June, Senator Brown issued a press release promoting his mate's business venture. On 15 June, he asked a question to help his mate's bid. On 16 June, he asked another question to help his mate's bid. On 28 June, Senator Milne told ABC radio that it would be inappropriate for the state government to assist the person or company that was bidding against their green mate. On 29 June, Senator Brown could not help himself—he had to raise this issue at the National Press Club. On 30 June, at a news conference on foreign ownership, he had to raise his mate's case yet again. On 4 July, Senator Milne pressed the minister in this place trying to demand that the competitor not be supported. On 4 July, she then took note of the answer to promote the case even further. On 4 July, she even said about the competitor to Mr Wood—the $1.6 million donor to the Greens—that it had 24 shareholders and a valuation of $24 to buy a multimillion dollar woodchip mill. How outrageous! I have done the business search, I have done the company search and Mr Wood has got a shelf company as well with a value of $60 for a multimillion dollar site. Oh my good­ness, what tangled webs we weave.

The Greens have been caught out. They condemn Aprin with a $24 shelf company bidding for this venture. If that is to be condemned, why should not the Greens' multimillionaire mate also be condemned for his $60 shelf company? The list goes on. On 4 July, one of the state Greens said that if the state government supports this venture they will bring down the state government. This is the sort of bidding that the Greens do: they hector and they lecture us on this side and elsewhere in Australian politics about the evil of donations and how they corrupt the political system, and here we have it writ large that the Greens have—and I see Senator Rhiannon in the chamber—democracy for sale.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hypocrisy for sale!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is hypocrisy for sale with the Greens, and I note the $1.6 million donation has not hit their website. The Greens stand condemned for their conflict of interest and they ought to fess up to the Australian people. (Time expired)

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a bit overwhelmed by that amazing litany of complaints and accusations by Senator Abetz around this issue.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not only me; it's a lot of Labor supporters too, Senator Stephens.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz has a continuing vendetta. I know that he carries the flagship for his state, but this ongoing conundrum for him is a little bit unhealthy.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My task is to defend my state. It is no conundrum at all.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can see that you do that, Senator Abetz, with great gusto. Today in question time we did hear some kind of explanation from the government around this issue. It goes to how we as a government and how we as a country can sustain forestry in Tasmania, given all of the challenges that there are within that industry, and how we can rationally consider how to support community and industry groups in working through the challenges of forestry in Tasmania. I know that much work is going on in considering the Tasmanian Forest Principles Agreement and in ensuring that people's concerns about specific private interests in the Tasmanian forestry sector can be part of the grand plan for that industry's sustainability.

When we think about the continuing argument on forest conservation and wood supply arrangements in Tasmania, we know that there are many positions and competing interests. For us as a government, the Australian government's and the Tasmanian government's responsibility is to ensure that the agreement preserves our high conservation areas and wood supply arrangements in a way that supports the communities as well. The kind of argy-bargy that is going on here in the chamber today around the question asked by Senator Milne does not do that case any good. It certainly does not help us to ensure that we look after the interests of the forest communities in Tasmania or that forest practices support sustainable forest use and conservation outcomes, which are at the core and the forefront of our considerations.

That we get consumed by this conflict between the Greens and Senator Abetz on this issue does not do the Senate any good and certainly does not reflect well on the interests we all share here for a prosperous Tasmanian future. When we think about the work that is going into the Tasmanian Forest Principles Agreement and the issues around Forestry Tasmania, ensuring they take responsibility for the wood supply contract, we know that we are really focusing on a sustainable industry for the long term and that we are trying to marry the social, economic and environmental considerations that are at play here and we acknowledge the challenges for Tasmania and not just the drought conditions that have been exper­ienced down there. There are the climate change issues that are part and parcel of our current debate. The main challenge we have with a state like Tasmania with a small population is making sure that we can do the things that need to be put in place to foster economic sustainability in a small state. So really, thinking through what has been part of Senator Abetz's contribution today, it does not help the argument for his state, for his economy, or for the communities that he is seeking to represent—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a shameful conflict of interest.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that you are very concerned about this perceived conflict of interest; you have taken this issue up in the chamber so many times, Senator Abetz. It really is pretty disingenuous. Senators here who are concerned about forestry in Tasmania should consider what the role of good government is. It is about how we actually deal with the issues and ensure that we have a very transparent and supported process of dealing with these major issues. (Time expired)

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, for as long as I have been in the Senate I, like you and others, have listened to endless hours of sanctimonious lectures by Senator Bob Brown and other Green senators but in particular by Senator Bob Brown about political donations. We have sat through endless hours of sanctimonious speeches by Senator Brown about the big end of town and its alleged relationship with major political parties. Yet now we discover that the party which Senator Brown leads, the Australian Greens, was last year the recipient of the largest political donation in Australian history—$1.6 million.

There is nothing of itself wrong with a large donation being received by a political party as long as disclosure obligations are met and the other requirements of the Commonwealth Electoral Act are met. But what makes this a particularly serious case, what makes this case approach the borders of corruption is that we now know that in public speeches both beyond parliament and within the Senate chamber Senator Brown and Senator Milne have sought to advance the commercial interests of that particular donor, Mr Graeme Wood. They did so yesterday in a question asked by Senator Milne and they did so again today in another question asked by Senator Milne of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig.

The background of this is that Mr Wood is seeking to bid for the purchase of a major industrial complex in Tasmania, the Triabunna woodchip mill. His competitor in that bidding is another consortium known as the Aprin consortium trading under the name Fibre Plus Tasmania. Mr Wood is in direct commercial competition with Aprin to acquire the Triabunna woodchip mill. Mr Wood last year gave $1.6 million to the Australian Greens. In the sequence of questions, comments and other public utterances which were recited by Senator Abetz in his contribution, Greens senators—all of whom I might say have absented themselves from the chamber for this debate—have asked questions in order to damage the interests of the Aprin consortium and therefore of necessity to advance the interests of Mr Graeme Wood and his company.

When Senator Abetz and I in the opposition allege that there is a direct conflict of interest we do not do so lightly, but the facts do not admit of controversy. Of two competing commercial parties Mr Wood and Aprin, one of them, Mr Wood's company, paid $1.6 million to the Australian Greens last year, and in the months since and as recently as question time today a series of questions and statements have come from Greens senators—and in the Tasmanian parliament as well by Greens members of the Tasmanian parliament—seeking to damage the interests of Mr Wood's commercial competitor. There is a direct relationship between these events. Senator Brown, if he had any spine, would come into the Senate chamber and explain himself.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Could I congratulate you on your election as Deputy President. I look forward to working with you in that position. I just find this absolutely amazing. For the last few weeks we have had the coalition saying that the economy was on the brink of destruction because of a carbon price yet when they have an opportunity to actually raise these issues on the floor of parliament what do they do? They run and attack the Greens. They run and attack Senator Bob Brown. It just shows you how disingenuous this lot are. The important things for Australians now are to get a price on carbon, to make sure that households are assisted and to make sure that our industry is ready for the future. But what do we get from Senator Abetz? We get this vindictive hate campaign against Senator Brown. It is well known that you have this campaign going against Senator Brown. You come here to run these arguments. If there are any issues of misappropriation or wrong­doing then you should go to the appropriate authorities. This place should be dealing with the real issues, the important issues for Australians, and those are to ensure that we get a price on carbon and position this country for the future.

I find it absolutely hypocritical for the coalition and the Liberal Party, of any party, to talk about shelf companies and some problems in relation to funding. It does not take very long to find out some of the issues that the Liberal Party have been involved in over the years. Maybe they can explain to us what happened with Gerard Industries in South Australia with a shelf company in Hong Kong feeding money to the Liberal Party. Maybe, Senator Bernardi, you want to explain that if we want to talk about propriety in relation to elections. Maybe you want to talk about Gerard Industries and Hong Kong shelf companies. That might bring some light into the chamber.

Maybe Senator Abetz might want to talk about the payment by the Liberal Party for advertising for the Exclusive Brethren in Tasmania. We do not hear much about that, but it was reported in the press that the Liberal Party had bills sent to them for advertising to attack transgender Australians. That is what it was about: a minority group, the Liberal Party attacking them, the Liberal Party getting the bill and who paying the bill? The bill was paid by the Exclusive Brethren in Tasmania. So the hypocrisy just pours out of the Liberal Party when it comes to issues of getting funding outside of the appropriate process.

I tell you now: we did not hear much said about the Liberal Party taking money from big tobacco. You would put your electoral position before the health of Australians, so do not come here lecturing anybody about the implications of front companies for donations when you guys are prepared to take millions of dollars off of big tobacco—when it is clear that you are up to your neck in front companies. It is quite interesting. When they are doing the bidding of the Exclusive Brethren in Tasmania and Gerard Industries are the front company for the Liberal Party in Hong Kong, it is pretty rich for them to come here and talk about donations to any other party. It really is the pot calling the kettle black. I bet that in the future you will see how much money the mining industry has poured into the Liberal Party to oppose climate change in this country. You are hypocrites. You are a rabble. (Time expired)

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We see firsthand the sensitivity of the Labor Party over their coalition partners. They cannot even come in and address the specifics of the question that is put before the chamber; they have to have a rant and then run. For Senator Cameron to talk to the coalition about tobacco when it has been disclosed that the Minister for Health and Ageing has approached big tobacco for personal donations for her own campaign really demonstrates what we are talking about here today. It puts them in line with the point that we are making about the approach of the Greens, who, having taken a $1.6 million donation—the largest ever donation in Australian political history—now come into this chamber on a regular basis asking questions on behalf of the backers.

It is really quite extraordinary that they might do that, but as part of the process of doing that they misrepresent the issue that is being dealt with in Tasmania's forests at the moment. Senator Milne asserts that there is a clause within the process that excludes any new contracts. Senator Milne is talking about something that is history. It is something that has been superseded by the signatories agreement signed a couple of weeks ago. So Senator Milne is behind the times and does not know what she is talking about but continues to represent the interests of this major donor. In fact, the plant that is being spoken about is specifically referred to in the signatories agreement as continuing into the future. Part of the signatories agreement that Senator Milne referred to in her question to Senator Ludwig today is referred to as a vital piece of infrastructure for forestry in Tasmania and is written into the agreement as a continuing piece of infrastructure.

Regarding the other point that Senator Milne made about no further agreements, the next paragraph says it is recognised that there may be new players that take up existing allocations. So Senator Milne not only misrepresents the process but then comes in here to represent the interests of a $1.6 million donor to the Greens. It is not only Senator Milne and Senator Brown, as has been indicated by Senator Brandis; Mr Booth and Mr Morris in the Tasmanian parliament today also asked questions in relation to this matter on behalf of their major donors. The really disappointing thing is that there seems to be some form of acceptance, perhaps even from the govern­ment, that the only way to protect Tasmania's forests is to lock them up, but as part of the process the ENGOs are claiming 28-year-old regrowth from clear-fell and burn as high conservation value—a clear demonstration of how well forestry is done in Tasmania, a complete misrepresentation of the industry that is going on here by the Greens on behalf of their donors but also, in a broader sense, in the Australian com­munity, where they completely misrepresent the forest sector and the forest industry in their own interests. My suspicion is that this particular donor has been sucked in, unfortunately, by these misrepresentations of the Tasmanian and Australian forest industries by the Greens, and has been convinced to make this huge donation—$1.6 million, the largest-ever donation in Australian politics personally negotiated by Senator Bob Brown—yet continue to attempt to represent the interests of that donor in this particular case. In typical Greens style, they try to diminish the reputation of all of those involved. They tried to diminish the reputation of Aprin Logging. No, that is part of the Greens tactic: attack the person, diminish their reputation so anything that they possibly say in public will not be taken any notice of, and so the Greens can continue to go out and peddle their propaganda.

It is really disappointing that continued misrepresentation of the negotiation process in Tasmania is put into this place by the Greens. It is very disappointing that the government will not stand up to the Greens in respect of the value of our native forest industry in Australia and it is most disappointing that there is not one member of the Tasmanian ALP in this chamber. (Time expired)

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

I was going to suggest I might have been taking note of a different answer but, in view of the previous speaker, I am assuming we are taking note of an answer from Senator Ludwig.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct, Senator Milne.

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

I am very pleased to hear through you, Mr Deputy President Parry, that Senator Colbeck aligns himself to Forestry Tasmania and to the Aprin Logging deal in relation to the purchase of Triabunna. I think, when the truth comes out about this, everybody will be running a mile from having anything to do with it.

What have we got? We have got a scenario where Gunns wants to sell the woodchip mill and needed to do so by 30 June and could not get anyone in the forestry industry to buy it. The forestry industry wanted that woodchip mill to continue in complete defiance of the forest principles process, which is meant to be resolving the longstanding conflict in Tasmania's forests.

Then what have we got? We have got Forestry Tasmania, a government business enterprise which is supposed to be support­ing the Tasmanian government in the forest principles process, doing some deal with Aprin Logging to provide them with a wood supply so that it would be viable for them to purchase the woodchip mill. Then we discover that the Tasmanian department of economic development has let it be known that should Aprin Logging ask for a loan it would be favourably looked upon.

And what do we find? They then apply for a loan from the Tasmanian government to buy a woodchip mill for which Forestry Tasmania has given them supply, and now we discover in the Tasmanian parliament that Forestry Tasmania has entered into a profit-sharing arrangement with this very same company. The joke about that is that a profit-sharing arrangement will be a loss-sharing arrangement. Forestry Tasmania has posted yet another loss, another $6 million loss. It is lose, lose, lose. It is in debt and, if it were a private company, it would be insolvent. It has had to get letters of comfort from the Tasmanian Treasurer in order to even keep operating. That is the state of Forestry Tasmania.

Aprin Logging, we now discover, does not have the resources in order to buy this mill; it has done it through a shelf company, which has set up Fibre Plus. It has got 24 shareholders and a capital of $24. A $24 shelf company buys a woodchip mill with a loan from the Tasmanian government promised with Forestry Tasmania putting up the wood supply agreement and, at the very same time, they are in negotiations with the Commonwealth saying, ‘Get out the Commonwealth chequebook; Tasmania needs the cash here to protect our forests.’

Who is being deceptive here? In the forest principles process, there is a statement that clearly says: no new contracts for logs—no new contracts. Yet Forestry Tasmania has just entered into a profit-sharing arrangement with Aprin Logging in relation to a woodchip mill. I would like to know, as I am sure the minister will need to know, exactly whether Forestry Tasmania has entered into any kind of agreement with Aprin Logging on that wood supply, because that would be in total contravention.

What is more: where did Aprin Logging get the rest of the money from? It has not got that sort of money. We do not know who the principals are of Fibre Plus, but it is about time the Tasmanian community did. Senator Colbeck may know, given his support for this arrangement. I do not know and I think the Tasmanian community deserves to know.

I asked the minister yesterday to guarantee that no Commonwealth money would go to Tasmania as a result of this forest principles process until we know what this deal is—and I believe it will be a corrupt deal—before the Commonwealth parts with a cent going to Tasmania, because this kind of dealing is what has given the Tasmanian logging industry such a bad reputation for such a long time. There is a cosy arrangement in Tasmania between politicians, the wood­chippers and this industry that has led to a disaster for the environment, a disaster for the Tasmanian community in terms of the state of the state and the finances there. Now we have got this deal going on and the Commonwealth is apparently oblivious to this particular deal. So let us hear what the Commonwealth is going to do about it.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to table an application for registration as an Australian company of the company known as Triabunna Investments Pty Ltd showing a paid-up share capital of $60: $30 from a Mr Graeme Thomas Wood and $30 from one Janet Heather Cameron.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

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

No. The form here and the proper procedure—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, is that a point of order?

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

Yes.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the point of order, Senator Brown?

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

The point of order is that if Senator Abetz cares to circulate the matter to seek leave then I would imagine, as a matter of course, we will be giving it to him, but he must observe proper procedure in this place and make that available before it is tabled.

Leave not granted.

Question agreed to.