Christine Milne Transcript: Mining tax, budget, Tasmanian Forest Agreement, asylum seekers

CHRISTINE MILNE: (inaudible) that the mining tax isn’t on the table. So it is now incumbent on the Prime Minister to come back out and make another statement about what is on the table and what is not on the table when it comes to revenue-raising. She has got an obligation to tell the Australian people why it is that she protecting and putting kid gloves around the mining industry when they can afford to pay and instead telling the rest of the country that the revenue-raising has to be had from their pockets and that single parents, that people on Newstart, that everyone else is going to have to suffer the Gina Rineharts of this world don’t have to.

Yesterday at the mining hearing in Melbourne Professor Ross Garnaut, Professor Quiggin both said there was absolutely no reason why you wouldn’t put a 40 per cent tax across the mining industry consistently, why you wouldn’t include gold for example, they identified as a major flaw in the mining tax the royalty rebating system. All of those things the Greens have put on the table. Equally we’ve said it’s time to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies to the big miners, not to agriculture but to the big miners. And what the Government must now do, the Prime Minister, Wayne Swan and Penny Wong, instead of playing a tag-team game should come out and say, when they said everything was on the table that wasn’t true. Ministers are already ringing journalists saying actually this isn’t on the table, that isn’t on the table, well let’s have some honesty about what is on the table and what isn’t, and a clear explanation to the Australian people as to why we should consider in the Parliament raising money from everyone else but not the big miners. That is the key question for the Prime Minister to answer today.

In Tasmania after many years and deliberations it is now clear that the Tasmanian Forest Agreement 2012 is dead. It died in the Upper House when the Legislative Council in Tasmania took a chainsaw to this agreement and destroyed its integrity. There is no other way of looking at what has happened. Even the signatories acknowledge that what is now before the Parliament is not in letter or in spirit anything like what was agreed. Tony Mulder who moved one of the devastating amendments in the Upper House has subsequently said that his intention was to take the Federal money, watch the deal fall over and take a sword to the environment outcomes. And that’s precisely what the Legislative Council has done. So make no mistake, the Legislative Council destroyed this Tasmanian Forest Agreement in which so many people had put their hopes, their faith, hours of work, years of deliberation and it’s over. What is now going to happen in the Tasmanian House of Assembly is a raking over of the ashes, trying to find in the devastation something to salvage.

Well the one good thing that has been salvaged already regardless of what they do over there the World Heritage nomination. The Federal Government has nominated those fantastic high conservation value forests on the eastern boundary of the World Heritage area to be World Heritage and that will go before the World Heritage meeting in June this year and that is going to be something for us all to celebrate, after some more than 20 years of deliberation.

But frankly as the leader of the Australian Greens there is no way that I am prepared to see pulled out of the rubble that’s come before the House of Assembly the absolute desperation salvage. There’s no way that there are some fundamental principles that can be countenanced. So the first one is the Legislative Council has put off into the never-never the reserves which were supposed to be immediately protected. The second tranche has been put off until October 2014 beyond the next federal and state election. It is on the never-never and it is particularly on the never-never because it doesn’t even require that the legislation be repealed for the whole deal to fall over and for the 300,000 cubic metre sawlog quota to be restored, all it takes is for a minister to do nothing. Not to act in the specified timeframe revokes the entire piece of legislation.

But equally as the leader of the Australian Greens there is no way I can countenance the idea that the community’s freedom of speech will be curtailed – the freedom to protest, the freedom of speech to be curtailed. There is absolutely no way that you can say to the Tasmanian community if you have a protest, if you speak out about the rubble and the mess that’s been created then the Legislative Council through the special council that’s been set up can determine that reserves will not be gazetted. That just simply is unacceptable in a democracy. You cannot see the community’s freedom of speech curtailed in that way. Equally it is a nonsense to say that a minister must take the advice of an unelected special council, especially one that has, it’s just an appointed special council, it’s going to be stacked with the logging industry, but a minister has responsibilities and a minister must be subject to judicial review through the courts and they simply don’t have the power to say to a minister that you must take the advice of an unelected appointed council. And it is this unelected appointed council which will be the jury as to whether the Tasmanian community has behaved appropriately or not. What sort of nonsense is that. It is also ridiculous to put in a provision that says that according to the special council or anyone else areas that have been protected if any indeed beyond the first tranche ever get protected can be logged for special timbers and that all the residues, that is woodchips associated with that, can then be generated. So you are putting in jeopardy anything that has been protected will be vulnerable.

The other big problem with it is the idea that you can say that an area that has been assessed as worthy of protection as a reserve will not be reserved unless a third party, the Forest Stewardship Council, is blackmailed into saying that Forestry Tasmania can get certification. This is an international organisation, the Forest Stewardship Council, the Legislative Council is bringing Tasmania into disrepute globally. If Forestry Tasmania want Forest Stewardship Council certification then they have to change their practices to earn it. The Legislative Council cannot blackmail the FSC into giving certification or else the conservation movement and people who care can’t have reserves that are scientifically determined and valid as reserves. These are things which we simply cannot accept and in fact it’s an absurdity. Anyone looking at this would say this is absurd. And there is no way as leader of the Australian Greens that I could see allowing a precedent of this kind to be set to suggest that other states around the country might think it was a good idea to set up such anti-democratic processes and attempts at blackmail as the Legislative Council have done. So as of now if this legislation passes in the House of Assembly then clearly this in my view the Tasmanian Forest agreement is over, finished, done, dusted and we are now going to see a convoluted scrambling around in the ashes trying to salvage something and the only durable thing that will be salvaged is the World Heritage nomination. But even then I wouldn’t put it past the Legislative Council to try and scuttle that in the month or so before the World Heritage committee actually meets to discuss it.

JOURNALIST: The signatories and the State Greens are supporting it though, doesn’t that put you of at odds with your state counterparts?

CHRISTINE MILNE: no it doesn’t. My Tasmanian counterparts will determine whatever they do in terms of the salvage operation but I can tell you that you that across the Australian Greens and the Tasmanian Greens we are all agreed that the Tasmanian Forest Agreement is dead. It was killed in the Upper House and the signatories also acknowledged it is dead in terms of the spirit and the letter of what was agreed. Let’s go back through the process – there was a process, the signatories agreed, the Parliament translated that into legislation which went before the Parliament. It was unamended in the Lower House in terms of those principles but the Legislative Council destroyed it. So we’re all agreed, the deal is dead, there are differences of opinion that may emerge. I have heard what the signatories have had to say and frankly putting your faith in Forestry Tasmania is an extraordinary turn of events and I say that because Forestry Tasmania has already breached the spirit of the deal just as the Federal Government was buying out forest contractors, Forestry Tasmania was extending the contracts that they have to take up the difference. So taxpayers’ money was going out the backdoor to pay out contractors and Forestry Tasmania was extending the contracts. So what Forestry Tasmania has to say they stand on their record and they have not been restructured. But that’s up to the signatories, they can do as they like, the agreement is dead.

JOURNALIST: Will this deal achieve peace?

CHRISTINE MILNE: No, the forest peace deal is over. The original deal was what was designed to try and bring about a lasting end to the debate on forests in Tasmania. But the Legislative Council destroyed it. They are the ones who have ripped up the peace agreement, the Tasmanian Forest Agreement and they are the ones who have laid it to waste, and left now a legacy of what will just be a scrambling around in the ashes to try and salvage something.

JOURNALIST: But isn’t that something better than nothing?

CHRISTINE MILNE: The issue here is when you are scrambling around in the ashes trying to salvage something it comes to the issue of principle. The fact is these reserves will never be delivered, they are on the never-never until after 2014, October 2014, beyond a state and federal election. But equally as I said it can be overturned at any time by a minister just deciding not to proceed with those reserve orders.

JOURNALIST: So saying that you think it’s completely dead, how strongly do you like to see it rejected in the Lower House?

CHRISTINE MILNE: Well it doesn’t matter what they do in the Lower House because it’s just going to set up a convoluted process that people are going to fight over indefinitely. It has already died so whatever they do in the House of Assembly now unless it went back to the Upper House unamended and they took on the Upper House and maintained the original agreement, if that happened well then let’s talk about that. But it’s clear from the signatories’ statement this morning that they are prepared to abandon their original deal and just work in the ashes.

JOURNALIST: Do you regret criticising the legislation before the signatories had even arrived at their decision?

CHRISTINE MILNE: Not at all, in fact it was obvious to anyone who assessed what was going on in the Legislative Council that the Forest Agreement was dead the minute that the leader of the Government in the Upper House backed the Mulder amendment. The minute that the leader of the Government gave away Lara Giddings’ position that she was prepared to sell out the integrity of the agreement, it was clear what the Government would do. So from that point it was over and I think there should have been a stand taken against the Legislative Council and for the forests and the integrity of the agreement at that time. It didn’t happen and now we are in where we inevitably were going to end up.

JOURNALIST: Do you think environmentalists are naïve for believing the reserves will happen even if they’re not legislated?

CHRISTINE MILNE: It is clear to me that the reserves are on the never-never. Saying that the reserves in the second tranche won’t be considered until after October 2014, after a federal and state election is absolutely out there in my view, that says they will never be achieved. But equally saying that either House of Parliament can reject it on the basis of a criticism that the community might be speaking out too much or somebody might have had a protest somewhere, jeopardising that freedom of speech and right to protest inevitably this is over. It is a fantasy to think that those reserves will ever be delivered beyond the first tranche and that is why the only salvageable thing here is the World Heritage nomination and I congratulate the Federal Government for putting that nomination into the meeting in June and I look forward to those forests going onto the World Heritage list.

JOURNALIST: Doesn’t this kind of put you at odds though with the State Greens? They will back the legislation this afternoon so essentially they are backing the environmental signatories yet you are not.

CHRISTINE MILNE: I’m saying that the agreement is dead and I have no doubt that they also believe it is dead. Everyone who reads this sees quite clearly that the minute the Legislative Council tore up the fundamentals of the agreement and the environmental NGOs have said that this morning. What is now before the Parliament isn’t the Tasmanian Forest Agreement, it is a remnant, it is the burnt ashes of what went up to the Legislative Council and they’re into a salvage operation. Whatever people get out of a salvage operation they get out of it, but the agreement is dead and that is something which everybody, the ENGOs, the Tasmanian and the Australian Greens all agree on.

JOURNALIST: Given then that Prime Minister Julia Gillard is now horribly short of cash will you be petitioning her, lobbying her to pull some of the money that’s on the table for the TFA as it isn’t going to achieve what it said it was supposed to surely that money could be better spent elsewhere than propping up the logging industry I think you would say.

CHRISTINE MILNE: Well certainly the Australian Greens have argued throughout this process, Bob Brown did before I took over the leadership and then I did subsequently, that the money ought not to be flowing into Tasmania until the conservation outcomes are delivered, that there should be tranches where you get conservation outcomes and money flowing in. The forest contractors’ grants were paid, Forestry Tasmania extended the contracts. What now happens in terms of federal funding with that legislation will happen, that will be part of the ongoing agreement but the fact of the matter is the agreement as such is dead. All of the assumptions that were made about where the forest industry goes the future just aren’t on the table as even Terry Edwards I believe has said this is going to be a long, drawn-out, convoluted process and goodness only knows what happens but clearly we’re in a federal election year and I think the Commonwealth will take whatever action it chooses, they will make those decisions, but it is Lara Giddings who directed no doubt her leader of Government in the Upper House to be part of blowing up the integrity of the deal.

JOURNALIST: You’ve just said that the conflict won’t end, surely it’s a waste of taxpayers’ money if the Federal Government continues to pay out this $300 million and we don’t see peace?

CHRISTINE MILNE: Well that’s a decision for the Commonwealth and the Tasmanian Government to make, how the money is spent. Clearly it was my preference to see Forestry Tasmania restructured. The industry restructured, that money needs to be spent if it is going to flow into regional development, not as Tony Mulder would say take the Commonwealth dollars, rebuild the industry on the back of subsidies, and take a knife to the conservation outcomes, that would be a very bad outcome for Tasmania.

JOURNALIST: But you won’t be asking the Prime Minister to pull the funding at all?

CHRISTINE MILNE: I’ll be talking to the Federal Government about the budget this year, but I’m not entering into the negotiations between what the State and Federal Governments do over funding, I will consider whatever is on the table after the debate in the House of Assembly and whatever else is determined but clearly I have taken the forest exit grants through a Senate Committee process and I will be watching very clearly how every cent is spent.

JOURNALIST: Are you disappointed with people like Phil Pullinger and Vica Bailey for saying that they will continue to back the deal when clearly it doesn’t deliver what environmentalists hoped it would?

CHRISTINE MILNE: The signatories to the agreement will do whatever they think is best and they are entitled to do that, I just don’t agree with outcome that they have reached. The forest deal was destroyed in the Legislative Council and at that point there should have been a standing up to the Legislative Council. Now there is a salvage strategy at best, a picking over the bones of the dead body and they will do that in good faith, but it doesn’t alter the fact that the investment of time and energy, the aspirations and what was agreed are all gone.

JOURNALIST: Four Corners last night exposed problems for children with offshore processing – do you have any thoughts on that at all?

CHRISTINE MILNE: The Federal Government must close down the Manus Island and Nauru detention centres. They must bring families home from Manus Island by the end of this week and come up with a plan about when they are going to close both offshore detention facilities. This detention system is cruel, it is completely lacking in compassion and it is what the Greens said would happen when the legislation was raced through the Parliament last year. We stood up then and said that deterrence doesn’t work, people are running away from persecution. They have suffered immeasurably and so this is not going to deter them from coming but what it does do is to demean every Australian to know that our Government is making vulnerable people suffer and live in appalling conditions and that is not something that I think the Australian community actually supports. So I’m calling on the Prime Minister to bring those families home from Manus Island by the end of the week, about 100 people are involved out of approximately 300 people there I think, and they need a plan to shut down both of those centres as soon as possible.

JOURNALIST: Penny Wong has also been dismissive of the Greens saying that they’ve never seen a tax that won’t go up – doesn’t that show that show that the Federal Government isn’t prepared to discuss that?

CHRISTINE MILNE: What Penny Wong said today was to completely avoid the question of if everything is on the table is the mining tax on the table? Are fossil fuel subsidies on the big miners on the table? She went in a strange direction but the fact of the matter is our ratio for tax is lower than the average in the OECD, far from being a high taxing country, we are not. We need to raise money for nation-building programs, I completely agree with that and it’s been the Greens who have identified throughout that we’ve got a revenue-raising crisis and we’re the ones saying let’s raise the revenue. What Penny Wong, Wayne Swan, and the Prime Minister have to do is say now at a press conference what is on the table and what is not. It was wrong for the Prime Minister to come out and say everything is on the table when clearly she had no intention of making the richest in Australia pay a fair share. The miners have been out with their advertising campaign again. Last time they spent $22 million on advertising and saved themselves $40 billion and meanwhile single parents around the country are paying and people on Newstart are stuck living below the poverty line. So the question to the Prime Minister is –when you said yesterday everything is on the table, why didn’t you tell the Australian people everything and everyone is on the table except for Gina Rinehart, except for Rio Tinto, except for BHP, except for Xstrata?
Christine Milne Australian Greens Leader