Mr TUCKEY (Forestry and Conservation; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister) (10:28 AM) —I want to speak briefly, because I think this segment of a three-part debate could be brought to an end with the agreement of the opposition, because there is plenty of opportunity to cover broader principles. This one is just specific to the issue of the advisory committee.

But a response is needed on Swifts Creek. Firstly, let me say something about the new state government in Victoria. We have had a meeting with Sherryl Garbutt, the new minister. It was very productive. We were impressed with her approach to it. I think the previous speaker was most interested in pointing out that the spokesman now for regional development, Mr Brumby, is also saying, `Let's get on with this process.' With due respect to the previous government of Victoria, they also had a very positive approach to RFAs. The issue of Swifts Creek revolves around the licensing of timber. The owners of the licence—which I think was Neville Smith—shifted the resource over to their other mill. In other words, until that situation is worked out by the state government, there is absolutely nothing that we can do.

I say to you that we implored both the previous Premier and minister to join with us in each putting up $800,000 for Mount Beauty to allow for re-equipping because of the difficulties they will have with resource. We were extremely disappointed that the previous government did not join with us, and I think they paid a price for that. But again the union movement came out and congratulated Lou Lieberman because we have stuck to that promise and the $800,000 is still there.

I want to quickly touch on the research issue. You raised two points. Those people that lost their jobs were primarily employed under a CRC. A CRC is seed money, and it means, of course, a cooperative research corporation. Its purpose is for the industry to fill the gap for continuation. The industry had some serious problems internally; they were arguing with each other about research levies. My response was to get them all in a room and sort it out with them, and they are now very happy with progressing a new system which we have agreed on. I hope that that will result in a much more substantial industry contribution which can be farmed out to CSIRO or someone else. One of the universities is very anxious to employ some of those people. I wrote to them the other day and said, `Get in with some of these sectoral groups and see if you can be their contractor.' Those opportunities have been addressed. But we have got to close on the simple point regarding this committee: it is going ahead.

The member for McMillan talked about delays. Delays? We sent the bill to the Senate twice. They only spoke for 29 hours on it the first time! How can I implement something until I know whether or not the legislation is successful? We gave it two tries. The opposition were determined to make sure that an appropriate compromise could not be reached. I saw the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the member for Jagajaga yesterday getting across issues and finding a compromise on something that I would say is very sensitive in terms of women's rights et cetera. They found a compromise. Why? Because the member for Jagajaga knew that it was better to get something that was as near as possible to what they wanted than to get nothing. Those are good opposition tactics. But you cannot say that your leader is allowing you to do anything associated with the RFA legislation. You knew from the time before that you could not get your proposal up but you refused point-blank to accept the alternative.

The fact is that, now we have got the message that it is all about blocking and not about contributing, we are going ahead and putting it together in exactly the form that we proposed anyway—and the first meeting was yesterday. We cannot do much more than that. But to suggest we delayed it is silly because quite obviously any minister would await the final outcome of the legislative proposal before they took up a non-legislative proposal. We are going ahead with it. We always said we would. What is more, the people that are meeting now have my personal invitation—delivered to them yesterday—to put to me the structure they want in that advisory committee. (Time expired)

Question resolved in the affirmative.