STATEMENTS BY SENATORS
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania) (12:55): On 10 March this year, TasFarmers wrote to me—and a number of other colleagues and government ministers for that matter—and expressed concerns with respect to the proposed sale of Rushy Lagoon in north-eastern Tasmania to a foreign investment company. Rushy Lagoon is a 22,000-hectare, irrigated beef and dairy farm. It's highly productive and exceptionally good at what it does, but the proposal that sits in front of the government right now is that this sale will be subsidised by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to convert this 22,000-hectare, irrigated beef and dairy farm to grow trees.
This is an absurd proposition. I forwarded this correspondence from TasFarmers to the Treasurer on 19 March. I know that the Treasurer received the correspondence directly from TasFarmers.
A number of other ministers—the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who is a Tasmanian—have received it as well. I further wrote to Dr Chalmers on 11 May and expressed my concerns about this sale being subsidised by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. I don't necessarily have a problem with foreign investment.
Foreign investment is an important thing for our economy and has had a very positive role over time. But the fact that this foreign investment is going to be subsidised in a market-distorting manner by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to convert a 22,000-hectare, irrigated—so there's been a lot of investment in infrastructure on this property—beef and dairy farm to grow trees is absurd.
It is distorting the local market. TasFarmers's letter to me and to others said that they are very concerned about the conversion and the impact on agriculture in the region. It's a large dairy-producing farm, so the impact on the viability of milk pick-up through the north-east has been raised.
There are also questions being raised about the viability of beef processing in northern Tasmania, where there's a large beef-processing plant at Longford, and the loss of the stock that comes off this property into that is also a concern. But the distortion of the agricultural land market is the primary concern of both the local community and TasFarmers. What really concerns me is that none of those letters have received any response from members of government.
TasFarmers's and my letters have all been ignored by the government—zero response. There is no way known that this sale which will be subsidised by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is in our national interest. It's not in our interest.
The government is developing a national food security plan to convert a 22,000-hectare, irrigated beef and dairy farm to grow trees. It does not make sense. Why should we be subsidising the sequestration of CO2 for foreign companies and foreign businesses in Australia, which would be subsidised by the Australian taxpayer, at the expense of growing food for Australians and for our export industries?
Why would we be doing that? Here's another nasty little curl to the whole situation. One of the executives on the board of the Foreign Investment Review Board that's considering this is also a board member of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
Explain to me how we get a fair deal. How do we get an unbiased deal when you've got this cross-pollination between these two organisations? How is the conflict of interest being managed by this government?
They refuse to answer any questions. They refuse to answer any of the questions and all of the concerns validly raised by TasFarmers and by members of the local community in the north-east. Everyone else is being silent.
My letters and TasFarmers's letters are all being ignored by the government, and this sale is not in Australia's national interest and should not be supported by the government. (Time expired)