Ms BADGER (Lyons) – Deputy Speaker, as if we needed further evidence that this was something coming from the federal Liberal Party and a bit of One Nation in the Senate, they are debating a motion from Senator Richard Colbeck for this exact same thing. The difference is that they can have the power to compel these people because it is largely a federal matter. The real inquiry could look at the serious overarching questions that remain about whether there was anything untoward in some of the grants that happened prior to the sale.
There are serious community concerns over Rushy Lagoon, but there are several elements to that. Yes, there is the question over the process of the sale which, as we’ve heard, has already taken place. There were also questions about what was actually going to be happening at the property. Gresham House did say, rightly or wrongly, that they were unable to talk about it due to the process underway, but they are out at the moment doing briefings. We hear that it is too late for the community to get that information now, but it is available and I thank them for the briefing the Greens received, I can’t remember if it was early this week or last week.
We have heard a lot about the agricultural side of Rushy Lagoon, but there’s more to it. There is also a Ramsar site there. That’s incredibly important. That’s a site of international significance. The north-east Aboriginal community talk a lot about the cultural values of the site, too. They’ve had concerns over what’s happening with the sale of the site and what would happen to their heritage that’s contained within it. I do understand now, finally, they’re able to have those conversations with Gresham House to help better understand what the future of that site is going to be.
I’d been told, and was under the impression, that when we were going to be looking at the motion before us, that it would just be about things related to the state, which was an interesting concept in terms of what could just be related to the state that we could look at, so it’s an open proposition to have. However, it is so largely to the Commonwealth and the federal government that it’s really difficult to imagine what we’re actually going to be doing and what the outcome would be.
Conversely, the motion that was put forward to the Senate at least actually had some things that it’s really questionable that it’s not in the motion before us. It’s pretty clear why this is political, because the Senate motion talks about the impact on biodiversity for the north‑eastern part of Tasmania, if vast parts of it were to be converted to radiata pine plantation. That’s a fair thing that you might want to consider in a biodiversity and climate crisis. Why isn’t this government interested in it?
The Senate inquiry proposal was around also looking at local water tables and how that might change with a radiata pine plantation, and also the consequences on the incredibly important Ramsar wetland site. Why don’t the state liberals care about any of that? They are incredibly important components of this, but no, all we have before us is an incredibly political proposal for an inquiry.
I do want to note, as a part of the community concerns, the tremendous work that was being done by TasFarmers, who pulled everyone together. I acknowledge that when they had a public meeting and they talked about an inquiry that the community might want ‑ this is a few weeks ago now, before it was settled ‑ that was about a federal inquiry, because that’s where the answers will actually come from, not from the state inquiry.
Also, I want to talk a little bit about some of the questions the minister raised around the site and how it would be used and what the future might be. Again, we’ve heard they are not questions that would even be answered through this inquiry. Even if we could get some of these federal bodies in, they’re not going to be able to answer that. It’s a question for Gresham House who, like we say, you can go and meet with now and get that information. Yet, like any private company developing something, you have to take that at face value. However, if you don’t trust them, for whatever reason, it doesn’t mean that you go and set up a parliamentary inquiry about it. I’ve got serious questions about Firmus’s business model. I’m not proposing a parliamentary inquiry into it, though, because it’s inappropriate. Because we can’t, unfortunately.
As I said, there are numerous other facets to this than just what’s been put forward, and I understand – and the Greens also have questions over that process that took place ‑ but this is not the way to get those answers. There are other ways to go about it. We should be pursuing some of those answers, but by ‘we’, I don’t necessarily mean the Tasmanian House of Assembly, be that through other mechanisms. We’ve all got colleagues in the federal parliament that could be asking these questions, who should be asking the relevant questions as well, rather than politicising this.
If the government wanted to come back – and I note that this inquiry terms of reference, it’s not as though it was workshopped around the rest of the parliament for something that we could all agree on, on something that all of our communities have concerns about. It was put out in a media release. Well, that is the wrong way to go about it. Irrespective of our values, at least what we have seen from the crossbench and opposition is a serious and genuine attempt to work together where we can, or if we want to get a serious inquiry up that we try and find common ground so that we can agree on it in the House. That didn’t happen with this. It was dropped in a media release.
If the government want to come back to this place with a different inquiry, one that genuinely looks at land use in the climate and biodiversity crisis, one that helps better identify how we will protect prime agricultural land – though as we’ve said, that’s also subjective and conceptual at this point, let’s define what it actually means ‑ there is absolutely scope to do that. That is something that we would welcome, but it is going to involve genuine collaboration, not politics like this.
No, we will not be supporting this motion, and I do want to put point out, in addition to zero collaboration, that’s pretty cheeky under 2(a) just to nominate yourself as chair of the committee as well. That’s a decision that should be put to the committee itself, if it were to be established, but I hope it is not. Thank you.
