Senator HARRADINE (11:21 AM) —I will speak very briefly as I know others might want to enter the debate. Through you, Mr Temporary Chairman Calvert, can I get some clarification from Senator Troeth. First of all, let me make it very clear that I am supporting the RFAs. There has been a good deal of work done in the state of Tasmania. As an aside, I am rather surprised that the legislation was not dealt with by 30 June, to be quite frank. I had expected it to be dealt with, but it was not.

If I understand the parliamentary secretary, she is referring to advice that the government has been given. As I understand it, that advice goes something like this: if the opposition's amendments go through, the legislation requires that regard must be had to the objects of the act. The suggestion is that, because the Tasmanian RFA was made prior to the objects of the act going into the legislation and the RFA therefore did not have regard to the objects of the act, under those circumstances it could be regarded as invalid.

There has been some discussion about the adequacy of that advice or the information upon which that advice was based. What I would like to know is: in all of the objects that have been put forward in the opposition's amendment, what precise objects has the Tasmanian RFA ignored? Could we go through the objects of the act suggested by the opposition's amendment, which says:

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a Regional Forest Agreement is consistent with the National Forest Policy Statement 1992 if it:

(a) provides for:

(i) the development of internationally competitive and ecologically sustainable wood production and wood product industries, maximising value-adding opportunities and efficient use of wood resources; and

(ii) the management of Australia's forests in an ecologically sustainable manner for a range of uses that includes tourism, recreation and the production of non-wood products; and

(iii) the maintenance of an extensive and permanent forest estate in Australia; and

(iv) the protection of nature conservation values in forests;

I have gone through these, and I cannot see one object for which regard has not been given by the Tasmanians. In my view, they have given a great deal of attention to those particular objects, as outlined in the amendments. Could the parliamentary secretary advise the committee as to what regard has not been given to which particular object?