Senator BROWN (4:47 PM) —Mr Temporary Chairman, you might care to rule on whether asking questions of Senator Hill in any way prevents the parliamentary secretary giving answers now. This debate is now. If the parliamentary secretary wants to put off the debate until Senator Hill provides the answers, I will be the first to support her, but I am not going to support a situation in which Senator Troeth says, `I'll give this committee'—not just me as the person who happens to be asking these questions but the committee—`fundamental information about the protection of forests in this country after this debate is over.' We have had too much of this in this debate. We have had too much withholding of information. We have had too much secrecy. These are the people's forests, and the people have a right to be informed about their fate. For a ministerial representative to say, `I'm not going to inform this parliament until the debate is over,' so that the debate has to be effectively blinkered, is just reprehensible.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson) —Senator Brown, I am ready to rule on the subject. You are entitled to ask the questions even though the questions have been placed on notice. As to the manner in which the parliamentary secretary responds, that is her prerogative.

Senator BROWN —Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. That leaves Senator Troeth totally exposed as being responsible. She has yet another chance here, after that ruling, to provide us with this information. A simple call to her ministerial colleague, if he has got the information, would be enough. What I do know is that that information is in the government's bailiwick; it has that information. It is, to say the least, a rude way to approach the debate in here to say, `I've got the information, but I'm not going to give it to the Senate chamber until after the debate is over.' I could say that means a vulnerability, that means that the government is not prepared to get into a fair dinkum and informed debate on this. That is pretty obvious. But I think it is worse than that. It is an affront to senators debating this issue if information which is available is denied in the course of the debate.

Senator Troeth or the government needs to look at democratic principle. As Ralph Nader said on a visit to this country many years ago—you might remember this, Mr Temporary Chairman Watson, because these words were uttered in Launceston—information is the currency of democracy. Here we have a democratic debate on behalf of the people on a matter that is of high public interest. The government has the information, but the government representative at the desk is saying, `Yes, but I'm not going to give it to you until after the debate is over.' That is a failure of responsibility, and it says that the government is not prepared to defend this untenable position—handing across Australia's forests for 20 years to the woodchip corporations—in light of the information that is available to it. People will have to judge that for themselves.

I have never struck this situation before in parliamentary debate. As far as I am concerned, it is a new low. I would not be making such an issue of this if this were not so important. Senator Troeth might think it is not important. It is to me, it is to the people who elected me, it is to my state and it is to many people employed in industries whose jobs depend on keeping those trees vertical, keeping those grand heritage trees there for people to enjoy into the future. For this deliberate withholding of information to come so early in this debate really shows that the government is being cavalier not only with the information but also with the interests of the people of this nation.