Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning Australia's credit rating, fisheries industry meetings, the Macquarie Island Marine Park, native timber harvesting in Western Australia, PricewaterhouseCoopers and a meeting of infrastructure and transport ministers.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the documents produced in relation to PricewaterhouseCoopers, I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

These documents have literally just been produced by the government and by the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport in response to an order for the production of documents the Senate passed regarding texts and/or similar messages between AFP Commissioner Kershaw and PwC partner Mick Fuller, who of course was also a former police commissioner in New South Wales and is also a close friend, a mate, of Australian Federal Police Commissioner Kershaw. The order for the production of documents required the production of all communications between the AFP Commissioner and his mate Mick Fuller, the partner in government relations, actually, in PwC, from 1 July last year to the date of the order. That was of course required because over almost the whole of that period—indeed, we now know this from a meeting commencing 28 July 2022—the AFP Commissioner was intimately involved in the crafting of a contract for PwC to review the Australian Federal Police operations in the ACT.

We now know from the documents that have been produced that Commissioner Kershaw actually attended a meeting on 28 July 2022 with his mate Mick Fuller. It was described as:

An introductory meeting to outline the identified need to undertake a comprehensive independent review of the AFP's delivery of policing services to the ACT government—

And, get this—

This informed PwC's consideration of whether they had the capability to undertake the work and would submit a formal quote.

The meeting, of course, was not minuted. So two mates get together—one the AFP Commissioner, the other a former New South Wales Police Commissioner, now a senior partner in government relations at PwC—in an unminuted meeting to work out how PwC can get money from the AFP, to cobble together the best possible way that PwC can make money off the AFP. There was no tender and no public discussion. It was just two mates, some other partners from PwC and the chief operating officer from the AFP coming together to work out how they can give PwC more money and also, at significant public expense, to try and reshape the future of the Australian Federal Police operations in the ACT.

Then there was another meeting on 5 September 2022 between Kershaw and Fuller, another meeting on 13 October 2022, another on 2 November 2022 and another on 1 December 2022. When we asked Commissioner Kershaw in budget estimates if he'd ever put in a conflict-of-interest declaration in relation to the contract and his contacts with his mate when he was crafting the contract for him, we got the most arrogant possible response from Commissioner Kershaw. Brushing it off—he didn't have to do that! He didn't have to put that in! Integrity wasn't for him—that kind of integrity measure! He was the Australian Federal Police Commissioner; he could do whatever he bloody liked! He'd didn't put a conflict-of-interest form in. He was having meeting after meeting with his mate about a contract for three-quarters of a million dollars and he was in the initial meeting actually shaping the contract—the Australian Federal Police Commissioner and his mate Mick Fuller, partner in PwC.

If you want to know why we had that previous debate about PwC and why Senator Pocock and other senators on that committee are so indignant about the breach of public faith and the absolute breaches of conflict of interest, we've just got the answer now in these documents produced. This is PwC using its mates, inveigling itself into, in this case, the heart of the Australian Federal Police and manipulating those contracts and those mateships to actually form the contract—without a tender and any public discussion—and sucking in another quick three-quarters of a million dollars out of the public purse.

If you want to talk conflicts of interest, who's now investigating whether or not PwC was in breach of its obligations and in breach of the law? Who is investigating that? The Australian Federal Police. That's the same organisation the commissioner was in, hobnobbing with his mates, giving them money. If it was an episode of Utopia you would say: 'That is way out of line. That couldn't possibly happen. It's implausible.' But, no, that's the very recent reality.

All of that, I might add, was on this government's watch. I am not saying the conduct is only related to this government's watch, but this all happened on this government's watch. You can't say this is something that happened in 2018 or 2016. This has all happened in this financial year under this government. It's extraordinary.

But it gets even more interesting when you look at the documents that have been produced. One of the things that I was concerned about in budget estimates was what, if any, other communication had happened between Kershaw and Fuller, the current and former police commissioners. Now, of course, one of them is a PwC partner. One of the reasons we wanted to know the full breadth of the communication was to establish the extent of the conflict of interest, the extent of the friendship and the extent of the communications that they were having while they were crafting the contract and notionally managing the contract together. What did we get from the government? We got a public interest immunity claim. They won't produce the full extent of the communications between Kershaw and Fuller. They refuse to produce them. We got told: 'I note the extraordinary scope of the order relating to the production of private communications without limit as to subject. The production of these documents could unreasonably infringe the privacy of individuals and would not be in the public interest.'

All we asked for were the communications between the current Australian Federal Police Commissioner and the current partner in government relations at PwC, who was his mate and a former police commissioner. We only asked for them from 1 July onwards while this whole contract business was being undertaken. That's what we asked for and what the government is refusing to produce, hiding behind a public interest immunity claim and saying it's not relevant. I can tell you now it's 100 per cent bloody relevant. What on earth else was passing between these two while they were crafting a contract, manipulating the arrangement, getting a three-quarters-of-a-million-dollar contract sorted out and having taxpayers pay for it. Then the one bit of information we did get from Kershaw about the exchange was this. I asked:

Have you had any communication with Mick Fuller since the PwC scandal broke?

Kershaw said:

I have had one SMS from Mick.

He said 'Mick'. I asked:

What did it say?

Then Kershaw said this:

He's disappointed with what's occurred. As in the conduct, not of him of course, but of the firm.

That's what Kershaw said in estimates. But what do we find now in the documents that have been released? The government says the exchange, on 24 May 2023, was:

Mr Fuller: 'Just saw news re referral. Will give you some space so not too complicate your life'

Commissioner: 'Ok thx mate

That's not what he told estimates. Do we need to continue this investigation? Absolutely. Do we need a spillover hearing on this? 100 per cent. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the document relating to native timber harvesting in Western Australia, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I will kick off and have a bit of a yarn about that because this issue is incredibly important. I cannot underscore enough for Australians exactly what is happening here in this country. We are dealing ourselves out of a sovereign capability, and that is the ability to supply our own timber needs. We know that demand for timber products that have the structural and appearance characteristics that are derived from native timber can only be sourced from that resource—from native timber forests—but we're finding, across the country, that Labor governments are shutting this industry down, not based on science but based on emotion and not based on fact but based on fiction. Again, a Labor government in Australia, the Western Australian Labor government, has made a decision to shut down this industry.

I quizzed the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Watt, at estimates about this—about exactly what correspondence he'd had with the Western Australian Labor government. Indeed, I asked him the same about the Victorian Labor government—about what correspondence, meetings and discussions he'd had with them. Very little, it would seem. I will point out for the chamber's benefit that we sought documents relating to both the WA native timber cessation decision and the Victorian decision, but we only got the Western Australian set of documents, not because the government didn't want to comply—they didn't want to comply with either—but because the Australian Greens didn't want to allow us to see those documents. Why would they want to hide such documents? What is there that we shouldn't be seeing?

A pattern is emerging. We've seen it at a state level. We've seen it in Victoria. Most alarmingly, we've seen it in Western Australia, and it's extremely alarming. The Australian government stand idly by, and what do they do? Not enough. The documents that we were provided with in response to the order for the production of documents reveal a government that is all concern but absolutely no action—all words and no response. There is nothing to actually aid this industry. Going through these documents, it becomes clear that the warning signs have been handed to this government, but they've chosen to do nothing.

It was a bit rich for Assistant Minister Chisholm to come in this place and give me a chip for not having stopped the Victorian Labor government from shutting down the native forestry sector. I tried to ring Daniel Andrews the night he made the decision, and I'm still waiting for a return phone call.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did he take your call?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He didn't take my call and he never returned it. I called him on the night. A good colleague of mine from Victoria provided me with his mobile number. I've still got it. But he never returned my call. I'm still waiting. I don't expect I will get the return call. I don't know who or on what planet you'd have to be to think that Daniel Andrews is going to return a Tasmanian Liberal senator's phone call.

He wasn't going to, because he had no ability to justify what he was doing and, of course, he didn't care, as demonstrated by the fact that they have brought forward their decision in Victoria to shut down native forestry seven years ahead of schedule, with seven months notice. 'Hey, forestry contractors, you know the millions of dollars you owe on your equipment that you've got long-term finance and lease agreements in place with? We do not care about that. And you can find a way out of this mess yourselves'—that's the nature of the arrangement we see in this country.

The documents that were provided in response to this order for the production of documents make it very clear to the government that—and I'm quoting from these documents—'Australia's plantation estate is not able to replace the type and quality of wood produced from native forests.' This is not some made-up document; this is advice to government from people from the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment who understand what they're doing. Those who disagree with this advice seek to besmirch those who provide the advice—the independent, frank and fearless public servants in this country with whom I have worked. They're not wholly owned subsidiaries of industry; they are public servants who do a good job and provide accurate advice to government. This is the advice that they provided to government, which has been ignored, which is of great concern to me.

It outlines the concerns that many industry participants and the union movement have around the eligibility criteria that the Western Australian government have put in place for their transition package. The CFMMEU Manufacturing Division is not supporting either the WA or the Victorian government decisions to end native forest harvesting and is critical of the support—something that again has fallen on deaf ears. There's a note in the minister's speaking notes that he looks forward to discussing these decisions with his state counterparts in the near future. This was in an address that he gave to the CFMMEU.

The documents go on to highlight a range of concerns the minister should be aware of. They advised him to seek an understanding from the Western Australian minister of how the Western Australian government intended to deal with increased bushfire risk. This is something we have touched on but have not properly acknowledged. When you shut down management of a particular type of land, especially forests, you know what happens—you lock it up and throw away the key, fuel loads build up, and the chance and prospect of wildfires are vastly increased. To add to that problem, forestry contractors, who, with their equipment, not only manage the forests but assist in fighting fires, are no longer there. They've packed up and left town. They've probably declared bankruptcy, because of the haste with which the government is moving in Western Australia and, indeed, in Victoria.

Of course, the document does state that the Australian government does not support the WA decision to end native forestry by 2024. Normally, when we don't support a particular course of action, we take action to do something else. I'm struggling to see where, in any of these documents or in any element of what the government has responded to my concerns with, the government have taken action to deal with this, to stand up for the workers who are going to be left out on a rock, like a shag, with nowhere to go, no prospect, no future. As others already said in the previous debate on my matter of urgency, which Labor and the Greens teamed up to vote against, footy clubs will fold, schools will close, the hearts of communities in regional Australia are going to be ripped out as a result of this. We are going to see tumbleweed blowing down the streets of these towns. That is not something to be proud of; that is something to be ashamed of. That's not the vision I have for the future of our country, particularly in regional Australia, tumbleweed blowing down the streets of these once beautiful and proud regional towns. But that what's we're going to have—tumbleweed! That's their response to what is a sustainable industry.

We were promised that this government would usher in a new age and era of transparency. The documents I have don't provide any detail around what the government intends to do. There's a lot of black ink in here, I might add. There are pages of black ink on something I thought was pretty innocuous and something the government says they stand behind me on. But there's no transparency, there's no plan for jobs and there's no plan to assist with the cost of living. And, you know what? It's going to make it bloody hard to pay bills when you don't have a job. That's what the Labor Party is doing to forestry workers across the country. I tell you what; it's something I'm going to be watching very closely—less tumbleweed; more jobs.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to quickly associate myself with the remarks of my good friend Senator Duniam. I want to make a point that hasn't been made today. If you close down the native forestry logging industry in this country, all you are doing is moving the activity offshore. That is all you are doing. I'm saying that as someone who lived and worked in Papua New Guinea for over 2½ years. I know how the logging industry was conducted in Papua New Guinea by certain operators, not all of them. There were some very good operators, but there were also other operators who didn't give one ounce of care about the environment or about occupational health and safety. They gave absolutely no concern. That is what you're doing. That is what these Labor state governments are doing when they're shutting down the industry in Australia; they're simply moving those jobs and that activity offshore.

I will never forget attending a paper chip mill in one place offshore—I won't say where—and seeing a worker who had absolutely no occupational health and safety equipment, wearing a pair of songs, trying to push a log into a revolving blade. I had to walk away when I saw it. I was visiting the site. I asked the operator: what are your workplace health and safety statistics like? The manager said, 'Well, we do have problems, but the workers sell their helmets and their occupational health and safety gear, their PPE, so we can't stop that.' I've never, ever forgotten. It was one of the worst things I've ever seen on any industrial site in 25 years in the private sector, and that is what is happening. We're shutting down the industry here, but the industry is going to go offshore, in developing countries where they don't have the same standards we have.

We have a sustainable industry here, and it's in the best interests of all of those involved in the industry and all those communities which Senator Duniam referred to for the industry to be sustainable, just as it's in the best interests of our farmers to farm in a sustainable way. That's why it's so disappointing to see the state Labor governments taking this short-sighted attitude with respect to what should be a vibrant industry in this country.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.