Senator FORSHAW (11:06 AM) —Can I respond to the government's response to our amendments first, and then deal with the Democrats' proposed amendments. Senator Bolkus has more than adequately dealt with the furphy regarding the potential constitutional invalidity that was raised by the parliamentary secretary. I find it somewhat strange that the proposition has been raised and also the way it has been enunciated by the minister.

We know that Minister Tuckey is given to grandiose, rhetorical flourishes but his press release of 22 August, claiming that the Labor Party's amendments were constitutionally invalid, was really way over the top. When you read the Government Solicitor's advice—given the qualifications contained therein and the way in which the propositions were put seeking that advice—you quickly come to the conclusion that the minister has taken a proposition which says, `Here is a potential legal argument,' and has developed that, in his words, into an absolute; that is, that these amendments are constitutionally invalid. The point is that anybody at any time can put forward an argument. The question is whether or not there is a sound basis for that argument, and we believe there certainly is not.

Indeed, I find it somewhat ironic that this proposition is advanced when, as Senator Bolkus has pointed out, the whole basis upon which the RFAs have been negotiated stems from an intergovernmental agreement between the states and the Commonwealth under the national forest policy statement, which has been the criterion upon which the federal minister has supposedly—if he is carrying out his job properly—approached consideration of the RFAs. So that has been the basis upon which the state governments have negotiated the RFAs and, indeed—as I indicated earlier—that is the basis upon which the legislation has been brought before this parliament. To then turn around and suggest that somehow a court would find that of itself the objects clause, which refers to the fundamental basis of negotiating those agreements, invalidates the agreements when those agreements must comply with that fundamental basis of the legislation is really a nonsensical and circular proposition.

Also—and we will come back to deal with this issue later in respect of the disallowance provisions—there are suggestions that somehow section 99 will come into play because of discrimination between states that may have RFAs and states that do not, or states that have RFAs that have already been already signed off prior to the legislation being passed and those that have ones to come in the future. If that is the government position, if they are seriously putting forward that possible problems with section 99 could exist, then it can only follow that the whole RFA process has a big question mark over it. Why? Because the whole RFA process has recognised that, for instance, areas where an RFA is not agreed on by the end of this year will no longer have export licences for timber products. But, of course, the government do not argue that it is contrary to section 99.

Let me turn to some of the other points that were made by the government in respect of our proposed objects clause. The parliamentary secretary says that certain provisions are superfluous because they are covered by the definitions clause. The real point that is being made there is that you actually do recognise that these are criteria for which there should be some regard. So that cannot be an objection as to why they should not be included in an objects clause within the act. The more appropriate place to refer to a national forest policy statement and the criteria contained therein is in the objects clause, right up the front with the legislation where it is there for all to see. It is also argued by the parliamentary secretary that, because the government are proposing a wood and paper industry council to be established by the minister, this is unnecessary. There is even a suggestion that somehow the Labor Party was proposing this for some ulterior motive.

I will come back to this later when we deal with the specific proposal as to how such a council would be established. But let me just remind the government that the wood and paper industry council was established by the previous Labor government. It was an integral part of the entire process of the national forest policy statement and also the aftermath of that, as the various state governments, the federal government, industry and other bodies moved towards, first of all, making the assessments and then negotiating RFAs.

When the coalition government came to office in 1996, they abolished the wood and paper industry council. Minister Moore abolished it and established an alternative body called the Wood and Paper Industry Forum. That body has met only twice since this government came to office. It is regarded as a joke. Indeed, it was for the very reason that that body was not functioning properly that the government really had no regard for it and the Senate committee unanimously recommended the re-establishment of a wood and paper industry council. The government have now belatedly said, `Minister Tuckey will re-establish it and we do not really need to enshrine it in legislation.' We would have great concerns about any commitments given by Minister Tuckey in respect of the future of such a body if it were not established pursuant to legislation.

Further points I wish to turn to are those raised by the Democrats in their amendments. We do not support the Democrats amendments for the following reasons. Firstly, this is the Regional Forest Agreements Bill, and what we are dealing with here is a proposed objects clause that is based on the fundamentals of the legislation—that is, the national forest policy statement. We do not believe that the Democrats' amendments add anything to the objects clause. Further, in our view it is mischievous because the proposition advanced by the Democrats is one they have railed against time and time again. For instance, let me refer to Senator Bartlett's first speech in this parliament. I understand that Senator Bartlett had some responsibility for this area prior to his colleague Senator Greig being elected. On 11 November 1997, Senator Bartlett said:

It has to be acknowledged that there has basically been a joint effort by Labor and the coalition in doing so much damage to our nation.

I have to interpose here and say that I do not agree with a lot of this but, nevertheless, I will read it. He went on:

Both have willingly unleashed the scourge of uncontrolled and heartless market forces with no regard for the human, social or environmental cost. Both have embraced wholesale privatisation and been unparalleled perhaps in the world in promoting the idiocy of the level playing field and deregulated global competition with little regard for human rights or environmental damage. Both have championed GATT, the World Trade Organisation and, on a local level, the national competition policy.

I have to say that, if those are the sentiments of Senator Bartlett and the Democrats with respect to competition policy, I find it ludicrous for them to be suggesting that that should be enshrined as a principle in this legislation to which all RFAs must adhere to be valid. The point is that this process is an ongoing one, commencing, as I said, in 1992. It is about transition from an industry based on the production of timber products from native forests and plantation forests to, over time, we hope, one that increasingly relies upon plantations.

But the Democrats and, no doubt, Senator Brown want to jump that period of time straightaway. They want to put the industry, which currently relies upon native forests, out of business now. That is what the amendments are basically designed to do—that is, to set the high-jump bar so high that the industry cannot ever hope to jump over it. If you look at the proposals in the amendments, you will see that that is clearly what the Democrats are seeking to do. They are seeking to make it so uneconomic, so financially impossible, that the industry would have to virtually close down overnight.

The whole policy, the whole strategy, of the RFAs is designed to promote a balance between the conservation interests on the one hand and the interests of the timber industry and the communities that rely on them on the other, and to manage that transition over time in a sensible, orderly way. We do not deny that the principles of national competition have some relevance. But, equally, we all have to acknowledge that there are adjustment packages arising out of this process, financial assistance and so on, that are being, and will be, provided to the industry and to communities to adjust. If you are going to make the RFAs up-front conditional upon the sorts of principles that you yourself claim have led to such problems and having a huge social and environmental cost, then you are going to do great damage to many people. Frankly, as I said, we believe that these amendments are mischievous and, on that basis, we cannot support them. (Time expired)