Mr ADAMS (8:00 PM) —I have spoken on a number of occasions on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . I feel like an old gramophone record in which the needle is stuck and so I keep coming back to this piece of legislation. Tasmania has already signed the Regional Forest Agreement, with support from all the major players in the community and, I believe, with a reasonable relationship between the current Minister for Forestry and Conservation and our state parliament which will enable us to get on with developing the industry. This was demonstrated through a document signed in Hobart this year by the federal Ministers for Forestry and Conservation and for Environment and Heritage, and the state Ministers of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources and of Primary Industries, Water and the Environment.

The document talked about sustainable forest management in Tasmania and the fact that there is a commitment to implement ISO 14001 compatible environmental management systems and processes for production forests. Tasmania now has the mechanism for achieving the goals of the national forest policy statement, which includes the objectives of facilitating development of an internationally competitive wood and wood products industry.

However, this does not let the federal government off the hook to ensure that the best is done for all the states and not just Tasmania. I have some basic problems with the bill as it is currently drafted. I believe that the amendments need to be considered. These amendments relate to the specific commitments to downstream processing and value adding. On this side of the parliament, we believe that the forest agreements are intended to secure environmental, economic, social, regional, community and industry development objectives for two decades. If we are to do that, we must have some security in the legislation. We need to know that the process will not be derailed by the government going back on its commitments because it has not put it in writing.

We need to secure such objectives, but this is only possible through long-term bipartisan support. As I commented before, little consultation has occurred in the drafting processes of this bill. Some has occurred since the last presentation, and there has been an inquiry in the Senate, but it has been under protest and because so many people have had problems with the bill.

The opposition has constantly given in-principle support for the legislation, enactment of the objectives of the national forest policy statement and it has continued to reaffirm such support. However, I believe it is inappropriate to extend the benefits of this bill to any future RFA which purports to meet the objectives of the bill but in fact does not do so. This bill does not provide an adequate mechanism to allow parliament to review the adequacy of any future RFA. The RFA process in the enabling legislation is interwoven with the full implementation of the national forest policy statement and the wood and paper industry strategy and it cannot be considered in isolation.

Although the minister has made some verbal suggestions that give me the feeling that he would like to have some commitment in the legislation, I think his colleagues have been letting him down. I know what it is like in the party room when we are trying to get some agreement in difficult situations. Believe me, I have had a number of years of it now.

Forestry should be off the agenda, but it still lingers on. The reason seems to be because too many people are frightened of making a commitment to getting the industry moving. We need some sort of legislation so that we can ensure that the resource security granted to industry by these measures is complemented by government and industry commitments to investment, export jobs, value adding and downstream processing of Australia's forest resources. If we do not have it now, how can we ensure that the capital and jobs do not go offshore with the raw materials?

It is too easy at the moment to say that the global market sets the conditions for the ongoing use of our resources, but if Australia is going to continue to be at the forefront of change and improvement in the forest industries, we have to put our foot down on the continued pillaging of our country's resources. Government has a role to play and that role is vital.

I have mentioned before how important forestry is to this country and what value it is to us. Forestry has been part of our culture for generations, yet we import $2.5 billion worth of forest products per year. That is not good enough. We have to value add in Australia. It is not good that woodchips flow out of the country, passing shiploads of pulp coming in. We are losing in the process. All this government is interested in is the supply side of forestry. What is happening to developing a demand for our superior product?

The RFA can be a lever to encourage the states and industry to get involved in developing the industry. It is the only way to develop new jobs, new opportunities and new products. I think the minister, the honourable member for O'Connor, was sincere in what he said in Tasmania about wanting to ensure that there is a commitment to developing the industry. He said he would be prepared to fight in his party room for a good bipartisan decision on this. But he also said that he thought he could do it through agreements outside the RFAs, but it is too difficult to ensure resource security for industry in each stage because of the difficult pressures on the state governments. It would be a better move to incorporate some commitment to an industry strategy in the enabling legislation.

This has been going backwards and forwards through the parliament, and I know that I have spoken twice, or perhaps three times, so this must be the fourth time and we still have no legislation that has been passed by the parliament. We cannot sit down around the table and sort out a position that everyone can agree on. We need the industry development strategy. As I said before, we want to move away from the `harvest and sell' Australia syndrome and put in place a `harvest and make in Australia' strategy.

If we do not do something today, we will not have a wood and paper industry in Australia in 10 years time. There will be nothing left. Too many people have put years of their lives into this industry to throw it away now. They have come from all political complex ions too. Let us get down to putting an industry strategy into place at the same time as providing security to the industry with the Regional Forest Agreement. This is what the long and tortuous process that Tasmania went through was all about. We did not do it for our own entertainment. We wanted a viable and vital industry developing and providing jobs for those who currently work in the industry.

People are still being laid off; contractors are going. Only two weeks ago, announcements were made of many contractors in the north-west losing their jobs. These are people who have been in the industry for 20 or 25 years. The only job they have known has been contracting in the forests. Jobs like that are disappearing, because there is nothing in place to ensure a commitment to providing new employment as the industry restructures itself. We have to start thinking about the Australians that could be working in these areas, instead of putting people on the dole queues and trying to reskill them into jobs which are light years away from their traditional roots and capabilities. Can you imagine a middle aged timber harvester taking a job in a telephone call centre? Let's get real! Are we going to put these forest workers into a numeracy and literacy course for three weeks, a month, two months and then say to them, `Here is a job—in a call centre'? Of course not.

Jobs do not come out of thin air. The market is not going to look down and say, `Golly gosh, there aren't many jobs left in the timber industry. We had better start up a new manufacturing process.' Government has to intervene earlier in the piece and put in place some guidelines on the development of our raw resources. This is what the strategy is all about—letting other countries know that we can compete in developing the best paper, the most sought after veneer and crafted furniture, the most hard-wearing timber floors, et cetera. This is the task that we have to face. This is the task for government and for the minister at the table, the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. We have to help move this course along. This requires a strategy and a lot of hard work by those who seek markets for our products. They need some help. That is where good government comes in.

We need a wood and paper industry strategy. I challenge the government to say how they are going to get one going without including it, or at least some reference to it, in the legislation. If they can come up with something half reasonable, I am sure the opposition would not oppose it. The test for the government is to do so.