Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (11:32 AM) —The Minister for Forestry and Conservation spoke earlier about the arrogance of the Senate in perusing the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 and making a number of amendments. He has spoken of their arrogance in daring to move amendments to this bill. I think most people understand the Senate is a house of review, it is there for a purpose, and if there were ever a bill that needed review and needed some intervention by the Senate it is this bill. It gives guarantees of access to timber for 20 years. It makes the Australian taxpayer subject to paying compensation if things occur in a 20-year period. If unforeseen consequences force a change of policy in regard to access, the Australian taxpayer is going to have to pay these companies money. So for Christ's sake—

Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! Change your language, please.

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —If there is an area that needs this review, it is certainly this bill. We speak about arrogance. The minister essentially says that the public are mindless, they are stupid and they do not know what is going on in the debate about environmental matters. He says that the West Australian paper is incapable of putting a coherent, detailed argument, that it is all very simplistic and that—the public opinion polls in that state showing 70 per cent to 80 per cent of people disagree with the minister—the general public are wrong. The West Australian is wrong, Cheryl Edwardes is wrong, Richard Court is wrong, Hendy Cowan is wrong, the National Party as a whole is wrong—everybody is wrong except this minister.

We speak about arrogance. This is the minister who wrote to sawmillers in Queensland desperately saying, `Please give me some reasons to oppose what it happening in Queensland. I do not know the reasons, but please send me responses telling me what is wrong with this agreement so that I can actually oppose it.' We talk about arrogance. The minister is refusing to pay a variety of state governments of different political complexions. They are not all Labor. He is trying to intimidate them by withholding money. He is basically saying that he feels for these workers and that he is going to guarantee all these jobs. He knew from day one that the eventual outcome in Western Australia would mean that some people would lose their jobs.

He is part of a government that is trying the whole time to retreat from industrial relations conditions in this country that have existed over many decades. He is part of a government that seeks to slash workers' wages and reduce their conditions, he is part of the second wave, he is part of what this government is trying to do in relation to those people's living standards, and he has the temerity to come in here today and say that he is their big benefactor, their big protector. The fact is that when workers do lose their jobs they are not interested in why and the past. They are interested in their living standards for the future. They are interested in getting some redundancy payments. They are interested in retraining for the future.

This minister is part of a process which says, `First, we will reduce your living standards with industrial relations changes and, second, if you lose your job in this industry, we are not going to help you recover that job.' We talk about arrogance. In Western Australia, the minister talks about science. The fact is that Minister Cheryl Edwardes has been bellyaching in the last few weeks about the fact that scientists who were supposedly part of the process have now refused to put their names to this process. They are not signing up. A number of other scientists, supposedly part of this process, have said, `We weren't part of it at all.'

Mr Tuckey —Those are her words, not mine!

Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —Now he is disassociating himself from Cheryl Edwardes as well. The situation is that this scientific process in Western Australia which was so perfect has been repudiated by the state government, it has led to the break-up of CALM, it has led to a situation where they have walked away from the agreement and it has led to a situation where the scientists who were supposedly, allegedly and implicitly involved in this process have said, `We weren't.' That is what has occurred.

We also heard earlier today the government finally concede that this bill that cannot be amended and that is so dreadful can be changed and can be amended and that we can actually bring in the council. He has been dragged here. He has agreed at last to a council of sorts. He said in the course of the debate that he had no objection to forest data and that it is not the end of the world. He said that there was nothing wrong with it and that he offered it to us.

The reality is that it is overdue. It is time that the minister entered into constructive negotiations to try to get an outcome that will guarantee a bipartisan approach in this industry to make sure that, as he alleges he actually wants, there is a degree of certainty so that people will invest, train and construct new operations. It is time that this minister became part of the process to get a bipartisan agreement to make sure that Australian taxpayers have some control over the way that compensation is going to be paid and that they, through their representatives, have some say on these state agreements. The minister who says that there should not be any public scrutiny or any public control over this is the same minister who slags off the New South Wales and Queensland agreements. It is all perfect, except when he says there are things wrong with it.