Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (1:10 PM) —If anything is `purely political' it is this resolution. This latest series of antics by the federal government is not the first time they have attempted to impede the processes in New South Wales and Queensland. If we go back to early September, there was a bit of exhibitionism from the then minister, John Anderson, in a press release entitled `Federal coalition does not support Beattie government's bid to close down native forest industry in south-east Queensland' and in another entitled `Anderson says Carr government should be fair dinkum on regional forest agreements in northern New South Wales'. These press releases continued ad nauseam. So we have seen, over a period of time, an attempt for purely political purposes to essentially undermine and politicise this process.

It was interesting that the previous speaker spent very little time on the employment aspects, something those opposite tend to focus on. The Australian people would not have too much time for the rhetoric of those opposite, who have sat there like stunned mullets over the last three years while tens of thousands of Australian people have been thrown out of the Commonwealth Public Service.

In a reasonable, objective, middle-ground comment on the performance of this government, Mr Dorber from the NSW Forest Products Association said of that first attempt to scuttle the process:

Given the resources (both financial and human) possessed by the Federal Government, we cannot accept the explanations now being offered for this serious failure to provide useable data within the negotiation process.

The person who represents the vast majority of the sawmillers and the industry—regardless of how often people shake their heads over there on the other side—is on the public record essentially saying that the attempts to scuttle this process in New South Wales and the lack of data which is now complained about has come from those opposite.

One would think, from the contributions today, that nothing has been done by the state government with regard to the question of the long-term viability of the industry. For some reason, they do not talk about the $10 million under the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Program to upgrade operations at four North Coast timber firms: Kempsey Timbers, Hurford Hardwood, J. Notaras & Sons and Machin's. They do not talk about the $18 million over the next five years for the purchase of timber from private property to maintain adequate supply during the transition stage of the agreement. They do not speak of the 61 new jobs in the thinning of hardwood plantations and regrowth forests. There is no comment on the 25 new jobs to expand eucalypt plantations in the region by 2,000 hectares a year. There is no discussion of the 10 new jobs to undertake detailed timber resource inventory operations. No-one speaks of the $2 million to develop a biomass energy plant at Walcha based on pine plantation thinnings and timber waste.

What we are seeing over here is essentially a politically orchestrated campaign to make sure this issue hangs around until the next state election. If the broad mass of reasonable people in this country—the people who want a sensible outcome in forestry policy—were hearing the rhetoric of both sides of this debate, and if they wanted any confirmation that this is a reasonable outcome, they would be interested in the comments here today about how dreadful this is for the forestry industry and how dreadful this is for the sawmillers.

It is interesting to note what those on the other side of the debate are saying about this supposedly dreadful outcome for the North Coast sawmillers. A newspaper that is very dear to a few North Coast members, the Northern Daily Leader, on 14 November carried a headline entitled `Greens claim 20-year plan ignores science'. In that, the North East Forest Alliance attacks the New South Wales state government, saying it:

. . . did another dirty deal with timber industry groups to sell out oldgrowth forest, wilderness and numerous endangered species.

That is what the Greens and the environment movement are saying about the outcome. Yet here today we have people on the other side saying how lamentably pro-conservationist and how green this outcome is.

Similarly with the Australian of 13 November: `Greens declare war on Carr'. A few moments ago we had a speaker alleging that this process was designed to buy off the green movement—that it is part of a nefarious plot designed to get green preferences at the next state election. It does not seem to be working too well, does it? I quote from the article:

. . . conservationists claim the Government abandoned plans to lock up hundreds more hectares following pressure from unionists and timber groups.

So they do not seem to have got the message too clearly that this is all for them. I refer again to the Forest Products Association's comment about the federal minister's performance:

Wilson Tuckey Playing Political Football

While it is heart-breaking for workers who go through the process, at least the state government is offering a support base, unlike the federal government, which appears to be trying to score political points.

We are seeing these political points here today. The association also noted:

The federal government has not helped by walking away from the negotiation process. Minister Tuckey has also conveniently forgotten that he was the one to unilaterally suspend business exit assistance—

which, as we all know, is essentially hitting the employers, the owners and the industry. The Mayor of Walcha, Len Woods, in the same edition of the Northern Daily Leader of 14 November, said about one aspect of this outcome, this RFA:

It's great news for jobs in Walcha.

. . . . . . . . .

This decision will help bring some certainty back into people's lives.

The second way in which the package protects the future of the forest industry is that it provides them with resource security for a period of 20 years. This is a key outcome made possible only by compromises on all sides of the debate. In return, the New South Wales government is guaranteeing the industry a minimum of 269,000 cubic metres of high quality, large sawlogs a year—140,000 from the lower north-east and 129,000 from the upper north-east. As well, timber volumes will not begin to reduce to these agreed levels until January 2000, and then in two stages. The motion we are debating also claims that the New South Wales government's actions have `forced the Commonwealth Government to withdraw funding of $40 million'. This is a ridiculous claim.

The federal minister, Mr Tuckey, has suspended, not withdrawn, structural adjustment funding to New South Wales as a negotiating tactic with the Carr government, and nothing else. This action exposes the contradiction of the minister's position in this sensitive and complex debate. He claims to be about protecting the timber industry, virtually to the exclusion of all other legitimate considerations, yet he capriciously suspends Commonwealth funding that goes to that very same industry. No wonder the Forest Products Association is starting to mutter `with friends like these' about Minister Tuckey and those opposite who support him.

All the ministerial press releases, dorothy dixers in question time and private members' motions in the world will not alter the fact that the Commonwealth has to negotiate a series of regional forest agreements with the New South Wales government. Negotiations with New South Wales were well under way in the lead-up to the federal election when Commonwealth officials were ordered to halt discussions with their New South Wales counterparts.

As shadow minister, I have been trying to make some sense of the federal minister's conduct. I readily confess to being completely baffled by his performance. He claims, when he first comes in, that his door is always open to everyone, but he tells Commonwealth officials not to talk to their New South Wales counterparts. He is given the title of Minister for Forestry and Conservation, but he acts as if conservation and heritage values are anathema to him and expresses total opposition to further world heritage listings.

He pledges his commitment to the Commonwealth-state regional forest agreements process and then suggests he might develop a strange, unexplained backdoor agreement process. Through the media he calls on the New South Wales coalition to vote against the Carr government's forestry legislation, only to see them help secure the passage of the legislation through the state's upper house.

He professes to be acting within the framework of the national forest policy statement agreed with the states and the territories, and then tells the Sydney Morning Herald he supports a move towards a `whole-of-forest' approach to logging. Whilst this term is as imprecise as his other outbursts, it clearly implies that he wants to reduce the size of national parks in New South Wales and that he wants to allow logging to occur in national parks. Even the New South Wales coalition's spokesperson on forestry, National Party MP Don Page, has ruled out logging in national parks, so the minister is clearly out on a limb on this.

He has been out on a limb for quite a while. We have heard in here of the attempt to persuade the New South Wales opposition to get on its high horse about this legislation. The fact of life is that the New South Wales opposition has seen what most people in this country understand. That is, whilst we have a few National Party MPs and Liberals in here today criticising this initiative and criticising these agreements, the fact of life is that the broad middle-ground of Australia in this debate understands that, when the green movement is so critical of this process, when it is so unhappy with the outcome—and these people today are unhappy with the outcome—then quite frankly it is a sensible outcome.