Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard   

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 26 March 1987
Page: 1423


Senator WALTERS(6.23) —If there are no alternative forests available, can we do away with that clause? The Minister has assured me that no jobs will be lost, that the Government will stick by the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and that the priority will be given to all of those people in the timber industry and their jobs. Can we get rid of that clause altogether? Will the Minister agree to get rid of that clause that even suggests that, in the end, there will be some detriment to the Tasmanian timber industry? I refer the Minister to clause 8 (2), which reads:

(2) For the purposes of paragraphs (1) (b) and (c), the exploitation of forestry resources shall be taken to cause detriment to the Tasmanian forestry industry if that exploitation would, having regard to long-term trends in forestry operations in Tasmania as a whole and in the employment of persons in those operations, cause a diminution of those operations or that employment.

I feel that we cannot run the risk of that occurring in Tasmania, following the Prime Minister's assurances that it would not occur. So can we take out reference to the fact that there would be a lease detriment or a diminution?