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

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 359.

I do that because, while the opposition may single this motion out to be delayed, the Greens had no problem with assessing and voting on motions on exactly the same topic—two of them by the opposition last week. It may be that the opposition's Tasmanian senators who are in the chamber cannot deal with a simple motion that deals with the question of the current Tasmanian forest debate. The thing that rattled the opposition is that on this occasion the motion notes the negative carping and the continuously failing alternative options of the opposition itself.

We saw that on the weekend at a particularly nasty rally of a few hundred loggers in Hobart, which was addressed by the Liberal Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania. Most people stop tearing up paper at the age of five, but on this occasion the Liberal Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hodgman, tore up the Intergovernmental Agreement on Forests in front of a hooting crowd—a very tiny crowd—of self-invested pro-logging proponents in Tasmania.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on a point of  order: Senator Brown is able to speak to  the reason as to why the Senate should give precedence to this motion. He is  actually arguing the merits of the substantive motion. I ask you to call him to order.

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

There has traditionally been a lot of latitude enabled in these debates to suspend standing orders.

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

You are quite right, Deputy President. Senator Cormann needs to show a little bit of patience. The point I was trying to make is that if there is urgency in this motion, extra urgency has been engendered by the Liberal Party and its rally in Hobart on the weekend. The motion not only notes the ongoing attacks but also provides for the Senate to have an opportunity to condemn the opposition's failure to provide a constructive alternative for scores of contractors facing now market downturn in Tasmania. In my proposed amendment I previously had 'business ruin, closures of three export woodchip mills'—and that is the case at the moment—'and regional areas of Tasmania welcoming the development opportunities the package will provide'.

This is urgent, because at the moment, under the intergovernmental agreement, it is proposed that $276 million be given to Tasmania. The opposition wants to block Tasmania from having that money. In the urgent immediate term, some $70 to $80 million is going to contractors who do face business ruin, and that is a matter currently in progress. The opposition is saying that it does not want those contractors to get that money. It wants that $80 million to stay here in Canberra with the Gillard government, not with the contractors in Tasmania who are facing bankruptcy because this industry cannot exist without massive public supplements in the world market.

I remind the Senate that this is an industry that has had $1 billion in public largesse—a lot of it coming out of Canberra—in the last three decades, in which time it has shed more than 5,000 jobs, closed scores of small mill operations, failed to carry out the community extension we would have expected and failed to have a proper ministerial overview of the self-invested and industry oriented activities and failure of proper administration of Forestry Tasmania. If the opposition are aiming to get a debate on this this afternoon—and I hope they are—then bring it on, because we will be wanting, in the full debate of this urgent matter, to discover Senator Abetz's role in the administration of $250-plus million of public money that the Howard government gave to this failed industry in 2004. I am sure my colleague Senator Milne will be able to come up with some specifics there that might properly, in this public debate, be accounted for by the failure of administration of public funds by the last Liberal government, and indeed— (Time expired)

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

It is indeed pertinent that Senator Brown sought to have this matter debated—or I suppose he did not, because he just wanted to go through without having any debate and without having his assertions questioned before this chamber. I am sure that my Tasmanian colleagues do not want to run away from any debate on this matter, because we are quite proud of our support for the forest industry—unlike the Greens, who continue to misrepresent it and to denigrate it and to attempt to destroy its markets with misrepresentation and misinformation.

It is important that this particular matter be aired properly. Far from being a nasty campaign that was conducted at the weekend, it was in fact attended by some 2,000 people—as has been reported in the media—which was very strong representation from the local community. And it was not just about logging, I might add. It also included some apple growers from down the Huon, who were concerned about the way that the government had treated them. It included a lot of other community representatives—in fact, there were some doctors there who were concerned about the impact on their local communities and the impact that the misrepresentation that the Greens had been putting forward were having on their local communities. So it was much broader than just the logging industry. Of course, they were there—and they are quite happy to admit that they were there.

Senator Brown forgets to acknowledge the fact that there was yet another rally in Smithton yesterday, where over 1,000 people turned out to express their concern about the impact of this sham deal that is being conducted in Tasmania. The facts around this deal are continuously misrepresented by the Greens. They want to lock up a further 572,000 hectares of Tasmanian forests immediately. The fact is that the Tasmanian community were lied to repeatedly by the assertion that this was a 'peace process'—a complete and utter sham. We were told that this was a peace process that would bring peace to Tasmania's forests, and yet the day after the intergovernmental agreement that Senator Brown wants to support was signed we had protesters in the forests. What an absolute joke. What a disgrace that the Greens want to represent this intergovern­mental agreement as a peace process. They think this is a good thing and yet the day after, having represented all through the negotiations that this was a peace process, you find protesters in the forests at Ta Ann in Smithton, chaining themselves to equip­ment—basically invading workplaces. Then the Greens' leader in Tasmania comes out and calls them heroes and congratulates them on this breach of the law. And then they have the nerve to complain when they are given a 12-month good behaviour bond and an exclusion from the Circular Head district for three months—I mean, give me a break. Then we have the ongoing campaign against Harvey Norman that is being run and supported by the Greens through this process.

Peace in the forests—what an absolute joke. The Greens say that they are happy to support this process, but of course they are then saying that, after they get the 572,000 hectares, they want the lot. They want to close down the entire native forest industry in Australia, not just Tasmania—they want to go for the whole lot. So any suggestion that we should be condemned for trying to put the brakes on a process that is the precursor to closing down the native forest harvesting sector all across Australia is a complete and utter farce, quite frankly. And I am more than happy to defend that. I am more than happy to stand up for the forest sector.

I received emails from people in the boat-building industry over the weekend. Seventy per cent of the remaining accessible timbers for the boat-building industry are in the 430,000 hectares that Senator Milne and Senator Brown want to lock up straightaway. Ninety per cent are already locked up: they are already conserved, they are already put away to be looked after in existing reserves. Seventy per cent of the remaining accessible timber is in the 430,000 that the Greens want to lock up straightaway. And then of what is left, when you go to the 572,000 hectares, that takes up 93 per cent of the total available timber for Tasmania's boat-building industry. I am sure the Greens don't—well, perhaps they do want to see that closed down.

This is a sham deal. There is no question: this deal is a complete and utter sham, and it should be torn up. Tasmania can do much better than this, and it should be standing up for a better deal. (Time expired)

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

I rise of course to argue that this is an urgent matter. The reason it is an urgent matter is that the people who Senator Colbeck and Senator Abetz say that they are supporting are the people who are waiting for the Commonwealth money to come through to support them at this time because they have said they are going broke, they are losing their homes, they are the ones suffering at the moment and they want the money. And Senator Abetz and Senator Colbeck are saying this is not an urgent matter, that the money should not flow and that they oppose it.

Let me go through it for you, Mr Deputy President. It was because the native forest industry is in collapse in Tasmania that the logging industry approached the conserva­tion movement to try and work out a way of exiting native forest logging. In 1993-94 plantation timber started to overtake native forests in terms of sawn timber. That is the reality. So the issue here is, as the CRC on forestry pointed out recently, that 1,300 jobs were lost in the native forest industry in Tasmania during the time that Senator Abetz gave them $250 million of taxpayers' money—and they still managed to lose 1,300 jobs! Forestry Tasmania still managed to lose money in a wildly successful operation of squandering public money. And now the forest industry has signed up to this. The CFMEU supports this deal. They represent the loggers in the industry. They represent the workers in the industry and they are saying, 'That is it. There is no future in native forest logging. We have to get out. We have to transition. We need the money to transition.'

And where are people hurting most in Tasmania? It is in the regions. What has the Commonwealth set aside money for in this deal? Regional development. So what Senator Colbeck and Senator Abetz are saying is, 'No money to the regions.' Let us assume for a moment that the coalition gets its way, that Senator Abetz and Senator Colbeck are successful, and we say, 'Okay, the deal if off. All gone.' What happens is that the woodchip mill stays shut. It shut not because anybody closed it but the company controlling it closed it because it was not longer economic to operate. That is why it was closed.

The forest industry is in decline and the chip mills were closed The contractors' wheels stopped last year and the minister, Minister Ludwig, gave them something like $22 million at the end of last year to keep the wheels turning. But that ran out, because we were actually paying them to run their trucks, paying them to cut down forest they could not actually sell, and they are now broke. A total of 1,300 people lost their jobs in spite of Senator Abetz giving them $250 million. And now the Commonwealth has come back saying, 'Right, this is an end to it. This is where we finally get some solution here. We are going to pay people to exit the industry and we are going to put money into regional development.'

What we need is diversification in the regions. Of all the regions, Smithtown desperately needs diversification. McCains has just left Circular Head. They desperately need new investment in that region and they need it particularly in dairy processing. Part of this regional development money can go to building new facilities in Circular Head. If the coalition do not want it, fine. It stops today. No money goes into Tasmania. All those people broke now remain broke. They lose everything and there is no exit package for them. That is what the coalition is arguing for: no exit package and no regional development money, on the basis, they say, that the industry is sustainable. It is not sustainable. It is going out the back door, which is why those mills closed and why the industry approached the conservation movement. This is urgent because, if the coalition, who are standing up there in the rallies saying to the loggers, 'We will tear this up today,' do that, those people they say they represent will be broke and will lose their trucks, their businesses and their houses. They are going to lose them one way or the other, but this way at least the government is providing some cash for those people to exit the industry. That is the key issue.

We do not want to see good money going after bad, but we do want to see a proper transition out of native forest and proper investment in the regions in Tasmania for diversification. That is what this is all about.

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

Yes, the opposition does oppose the intergovernmental agreement, as does the fine craft and design sector of the industry in Tasmania, as does the Tasmanian Minerals Council, as does the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, as does Timber Com­munities Australia (Tasmanian Division), as does the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as does the Tourism Industry Council, as does the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania and as do the Greens donor, the AMWU, and the Australian Workers Union. If we as a coalition have to side with the trade unions and the business interests and the small sector of this industry then we are proud to stand with them shoulder to shoulder.

We make no apology for our stance in relation to the intergovernmental agreement, which is all that it is, as the name says: an agreement between two governments, two governments that were both conceived in deceit. First there is the Gillard-Brown government, which came to power on a promise of 'no carbon tax', and there is the Gillings-McKim government, which got into power promising that if the Liberal Party won a majority of votes they would advise the Governor to allow that party to form government. On both occasions Labor and the Greens got together and broke election promises. That is the record with which Senators Brown and Milne come into this debate.

But the gall of the Greens. We have in this motion the concern about three woodchip mills being closed. Well, who closed one of them? Senator Brown's biggest donor, a $1.6 million donation that he personally negotiated, and Senator Brown indicated publicly that he hoped to get benefits out of it, as did the donor. And the donor has got a benefit out of it by picking up a woodchip mill for $10 million, which is a lot cheaper than the vendor was wanting to sell out for. But of course we now suspect that part of the deal is that he gets a cheap site in Tasmania on the basis that the Greens support Commonwealth funding for Gunns, to the tune of $23 million. So, if you have a choice of an extra $6 million on the purchase price or $23 million from taxpayer funds, you cannot blame Gunns for going for the $23 million. That is where the Greens have cheated the Australian taxpayer through this very grubby deal.

And of course the purchaser of the Triabunna woodchip mill refers to Triabunna and Tasmania in the most patronising of terms as 'Melbourne's back yard.' That is indicative of the Greens' mentality to my home state of Tasmania. They think of it as their plaything, their back yard. Something you enjoy when you want to enjoy it and then forget about it for months on end when you do not want to know about it and when you do not want to mow the lawn and look after it. That is the example that the Greens are setting to all Tasmanians about the way that the Australian Greens represent the people of Tasmania. It is just their plaything. It is their backyard. It is something with which to have fun with their extreme ideology. Some of us in this place are willing to stand up for the workers. I must say it is a very rare occasion when this particular senator at a public rally can stand shoulder to shoulder with a representative of the Australian Workers Union and shake hands afterwards knowing that we are agreed at least on this fundamental issue. The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union similarly agrees with the stance that the coalition has taken.

We as an opposition are more than happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with the overwhelming majority of Tasmanians who see this grubby deal as nothing but a deal to keep Ms Giddings as Premier and Ms Gillard as Prime Minister. In the Tasmanian government, the Greens minister does not have enough money for schools, hospitals or police but they have $276 million to buy out a wealth-generating, jobs rich and environmentally sustainable industry. We fully oppose— (Time expired)

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are times when in your room you see something happening and you think, 'That is the biggest load of rubbish I've ever heard in my life'—when I hear about the Greens and this all-pervasive view of green jobs. In a recent visit to Tasmania, I saw exactly where Greens economic policy ends up and it is called Scottsdale. That is what Green economic policy looks like—the promise of green jobs and the delivery of poverty. That is what they deliver—poverty. Where are the outcomes for people after you have closed down one of the greatest mechanisms of renewable wealth that is the forestry industry? The Greens do not believe in the renewable wealth of the forestry industry; they believe in social security. That is exactly where it ends up. This is Bob Brown's nirvana. This is the halcyon uplands. This is where it all ends up after you have closed everything down. I ask Bob Brown: where are the green jobs for Scottsdale? Where are the green jobs that once were supplied by the logging industry? What has happened to those people?

Then we have Lara Giddings. 'There will be peace in the forests, peace in our time,' she said as she waived her piece of paper at the foot of the plane. She is willing to compromise anything for the most fanatical group of people to bring about what is their desire, which is to shut everything down. Every time the Greens touch something, they are shutting it down. They are shutting down the fishing industry. Why? Because fishing is immoral, fishing is illegal. Someone who wants to fish is below contempt. Look at the live cattle trade. What do they do? They shut it down the live cattle trade. They do not want anybody making any money out of the trade of live cattle. Murray-Darling Basin—what do they want to do? Shut it down. We can live as a nation of kitchen renovators and people who file paper. Of course, there is a great future there! Then what is left open they will shut down with the carbon tax.

It would be comical and amusing except that they are running the government. That is where it becomes a bit of a problem. What is this wondrous deal they have for themselves in Tasmania? If they can, they are going to push the forestry industry out into the farming land. That is right—so they can shut down the farmers and spread the disease. So they take out the renewable economics, which is the logging industry, and then persecute farmers.

One day the Labor Party are going to stand up for working people. One day it is going to happen. One day they are going to walk in here and start standing up for working families, reclaiming the heartland of what was once this great party. One day the Labor Party is going to stand up against these people, because the Greens are going to absolutely destroy you. You know that. Where we are now, where the nation is now, where your polling is now is a reflection of their policies.

It is great if all you need is one person in 10 to vote for you. About 10 per cent vote for the Greens. About 13 per cent believe that Elvis is still alive. This is the form of policy mania which has infected you people because you are run by Dr Bob Brown. So, Dr Brown, we go back to the people of Scottsdale and look at their economic outlook. There is a halving of the value of houses in Scottsdale. When there is no money, there is no future, but the Greens do not care about that. As long as they can sit happily in Hobart at the 'Manic Monkey Cafe' and make their way through the day pining about what might be in their new nirvana, as long as every decision you make is shutting something down, as long as every decision you make makes people poorer, as long as everything you do is—

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Well, where are the green jobs? Where are they? There is a question. We search them here, we search them there, we search for them everywhere, but there are no green jobs. It is like the yowie or the abominable snow man. Something discussed but never found is the green job. I was in Martin Place the other day with a whole coterie of Sydney in front of me but I could not find one person with a green job. I know they are there somewhere. I know they exist. I have not lost hope. I am looking vainly for them but instead of the green jobs what I am going to find is a giant rip off and it is named the Australian Greens. (Time expired)

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know those opposite get excited at the drop of a hat, but this is a little ridiculous. Let us come back to the debate. Senator Cormann identified that it is actually about the suspension. He then went quiet when his own lot got up and started talking about the substantive issue.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your coalition partner set the precedent. Why didn't you jump up and raise a point of order? You're just too weak.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He remains a little embarrassed about his contribution but it is there in Hansard to read. We are debating the suspension, not the substantive matter. The record clearly shows—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't hear you when your coalition partner was on his feet.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you finished? Your contribution is very unhelpful—as it always is.

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

Order! Through the chair, Senator Ludwig. And those on my left will cease interjecting.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Mr Deputy President. We support Senator Brown's motion 359. The opposition continue—and they have demonstrated again—their complete opposition to the Tasmanian Forest Intergovernmental Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the state of Tasmania. Why? Because they do not want measures like the Australian and Tasmanian governments providing up to $85 million to provide employee assistance, retraining and relocation. They do not want $276 million to secure jobs, diversify the Tasmanian economy and provide for the ongoing sustainability of the forest industry. They would rather sit on the other side and blow out the argument—rant and rave and complain. That is a very good characterisation of the opposition. That is all they can do. Rather than be constructive, rather than put their minds to how we can support Tasmania, rather than consider this, all they want to do is complain, complain and complain.

We are not dealing with the substantive issue today. We are dealing with a motion to suspend standing orders. The government will not agree to the suspension. I know that will disappoint Senator Brown. The reason the government will not agree to this suspension is that we know the opposition were playing petty politics with this motion anyway by not supporting its formality—

Senator Colbeck interjecting—

They are still complaining. They do not realise that we are about substantive reform. The opposition continue to harp. That is all the opposition can do. We will not support the suspension, on the basis that there is legislation that the government wants to proceed with today and there will be time to debate this in the future. It will go to general business as a conse­quence of the silly actions of those opposite, who simply do not want to debate it, do not want it to matter.

Senator Colbeck interjecting—

Then I am sure you will commit general business on Thursday to this debate. Let me hear that you commit general business on Thursday to this debate. I do not hear you agree to that. You do not want to debate it at all. Why don't you commit general business on Thursday to debate this? You will not do that. Why? Because you do not actually want to debate it; you want to use the suspension, because you have only got five minutes in you to be able to argue about it. That is all—only five minutes.

Senator Colbeck interjecting—

Well, you have had your five minutes and you still cannot keep silent, because all you want to do is interject. You are completely hopeless at it in any event.

The reality of the matter is that we will get on with government business. The opposition would rather up-end this joint, would rather not allow the proper process to continue. Those opposite only want to complain. It is a culture of complaint that you have developed in opposition that you now continue with unendingly. It is a pity that you do not turn as much energy to policy development as you do to the culture of complaint that you have now developed.

An agreement between environmental organisations and the Tasmanian forestry organisation on the Tasmanian Forests Statement of Principles—

Senator Colbeck interjecting—

nd you now have demonstrated that all you can do is interject. You cannot engage in the substantive debate. It is about a suspension. I heard nothing from the other side to argue their case. All they want to do is harp and take a negative, carping approach.

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

Bring it on!

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me understand this. You will agree that this debate be dealt with in general business on Thursday, because that is where it is able to be debated? I do not hear you. (Time expired)

Question negatived.