Senator BARNETT (12:45 PM) —I stand to speak about the importance of the Meander dam and the most recent revelation regarding the actions of the Tasmanian Conservation Trust and the green lobby in Tasmania to appeal the recent decision by the Howard government to give that dam project the go-ahead. The Howard government's go-ahead for the Meander dam is subject to strict environmental conditions. The decision genuinely boosts protection of the Meander Valley environment while giving a large boost to our rural economy. The federal conditions are so strict that, when they were announced, the conservation movement was moved to question whether the state government could meet the strict criteria. I can think of no better endorsement of the conditions stipulated by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp, and his department, Environment Australia. On behalf of the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team, I would like to congratulate Environment and Heritage Minister Dr David Kemp and his department, Environment Australia, for a sound, historic and unimpeachable decision that protects the environment as well as providing a boost for our rural economy. This has been through a thorough approval process involving the most stringent assessment by the government's Environment Australia. The strength of the conditions placed on this approval for the dam is testimony to that.

The Tasmanian Conservation Trust, in that regard, have won an important victory by ensuring that the two governments, the federal government and the state government in Tasmania, have in place a regime that makes sure the dam does not unduly harm the environment. But today I am making public some information I have received that confirms that the Tasmanian Conservation Trust is now fundraising to help pay for an appeal against the decision by Environment and Heritage Minister Dr David Kemp. In my view, this action is futile and a misuse of public donations. The Tasmanian Conservation Trust, in their efforts to raise these funds for the appeal, say that these donations will be tax deductible. On behalf of the many Tasmanians that I represent, and on behalf of the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team, I will be objecting to the wrongful use of these donations for such a purpose.

The Tasmanian Conservation Trust have a right to pursue such action, but I believe it is politically immoral. They are considering a Federal Court appeal based on the process and based on their reading of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and their reading of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. They have every right to request—and it is my understanding that they have requested—the statement of reasons for the decision, as have I. They are an interested third party and they are entitled to that statement of reasons. That will be made available on 18 October. As an interested party and as a senator for Tasmania I have also requested that statement of reasons and will be considering it carefully. I have no doubt that it will be consistent with the decision made by Dr David Kemp and with the outline of his reasons that he expressed in my office when he made the decision some weeks ago, setting out the environmental conditions and the strictness of those conditions before the Tasmanian and the Australian public.

The Tasmanian Conservation Trust will then have approximately 28 days under the act to appeal and, as I say, they are now raising funds to pursue that appeal. I have requested publicly and privately that they desist from such an appeal. There are a number of reasons why I caution the Tasmanian Conservation Trust and request that they publicly state they will not proceed. The reasons are: the decision is a great outcome because the dam has received the go-ahead but in a way that preserves our environment, especially the spotted-tailed quoll and the Epacris, which is a heath plant, which may have been threatened. However, I want to caution the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, and for that matter the Australian Democrats, if they plan to launch an appeal against the Meander dam decision or to oppose other similar water projects. I do so because I believe there is a fine line between the legitimate scrutiny of land use decisions and playing destructive politics for purely political objectives.

It disturbs me to discover that the trust is starting to raise funds for an appeal against the Meander dam decision. I understand that effort is now well under way. I reiterate that I will be opposing most strongly their efforts to use that money and to make it tax deductible for those people who wish to provide donations. The Australian government's approval process was a tortuous and thorough challenge for the Tasmanian government, and it involved a stringent assessment. The spotted-tailed quoll and the Epacris will now receive even stronger and better protection as a result. I am confident there is no basis for any appeal, and I am happy to provide a copy of Dr Kemp's decision to anyone who would like it. It is also available on my web site at www.guybarnett.com. As I said, I understand the statement of reasons for the decision will be available from 18 October, and that will indeed be made public.

I call on the Tasmanian Conservation Trust to now consider their position very carefully, given the damage to the Tasmanian economy that land use debates have caused in the past. From 1973 Tasmanians have been politically divided over resource and land use issues, starting with the flooding of Lake Pedder, then the Franklin River, then Tasmanian forestry operations—shamelessly straight after the Franklin dam saga—and even value-added projects such as the giant Wesley Vale pulp mill project in 1988-89.

The Tasmanian forest debate has involved a High Court battle between the federal and Tasmanian governments in 1983 and indeed in 1987, numerous inquiries, and in 1997 the regional forest agreement resulting from the work of both federal and state Liberal governments at the time, and federal and state Labor at the time and since in terms of support for that agreement. I acknowledge that and thank those who have supported those agreements.

Despite the much-heralded RFA process, the forests in Tasmania continue to be misused as the environmental battleground for votes and political supremacy in both the Tasmanian and Australian parliaments. I am not saying that all environmental scrutiny is bad. In fact, some of it has been good for the environment. However, since the early 1980s Tasmania has been used by both Labor governments and minor parties at a federal level as a battleground for the hearts and minds of voters in the bigger states who are not directly affected in any adverse way because the battles are not in their backyards. This has been disastrous for Tasmania. Just ask Tasmanian Premier, Jim Bacon. I have heard him lamenting the damage done to Tasmania's investment reputation and credibility because of environmental-cum-political campaigns.

You now have 40 per cent of Tasmania locked up in reserves, national parks or World Heritage areas, but still the environment remains one of the key battlegrounds between political parties and interest groups in Tasmania. We have a chance to change the politics of the environment with the Meander dam decision, because, thanks to Environment and Heritage Minister Dr David Kemp and his department, Environment Australia, we have a sound and unimpeachable decision which is good not only for the farmers and the rural community but also for the environment in the Meander Valley. Unlike previous years, when investors took one look at environmental politics in Tasmania and took their business elsewhere, the Meander dam project stands out as a beacon for the resolution of environmental conflict. Dr Kemp's approval will add $53 million per year to the Tasmanian economy and 150 more full-time jobs, with an extra $5.5 million in wages each year, primarily in the Meander Valley region.

The Australian government decision will: ensure protection for endangered or threatened species in the area; provide a reliable water supply for industrial and domestic irrigation; improve the health of the river, especially its lower reaches; reduce the risk and damage of flooding and drought; and provide a new source of clean and renewable hydroelectricity—in fact, enough electricity to power a town the size of Deloraine, which is in the heart of the Meander Valley. It will also boost farm exports and accelerate value adding. It is these things that we have been pushing for for many years. Finally, it will provide scope for new and improved recreational activities. As a keen trout fisherman, I am looking forward to the opportunity.

The state government's second and last submission to Dr Kemp was far superior to its submission to the tribunal last year. These efforts can be acknowledged, and so can the scrutiny by the Tasmanian Conservation Trust. I make no apologies for having joined the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team to lobby hard for the dam, because my family farmed on the banks of the Meander River for 40 years, and therefore I know of the floods in the winter and the lack of water in the summer. I support carefully planned development, when it has been subjected to stringent economic and environmental scrutiny. I believe the Australian and Tasmanian governments have done everything humanly possible to secure a project that is both economically viable and compatible with the environment. As I said earlier, environmental conditions imposed by Dr Kemp will in fact strengthen the protection for the Epacris and the spotted-tailed quoll.

I am sure that a legal campaign by the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, the Democrats or anyone else in the green lobby would fail, but their actions would, in my view, be economically disastrous for our state. It would be purely a case of playing environmental politics for the sake of votes and blocking a project, with no regard for Tasmanians, the environment in the Meander Valley and the benefit to the Meander River itself. The conservation movement will not endure and broaden its support base in Tasmania while it misuses legitimate land use issues for pure political gain. Scrutiny of the Meander dam by governments, by the legal sector and by the community has been beyond reproach. It is now time to stop the political conflict and move on.