Senator SHERRY (11:16 AM) —I will be relatively brief because I did make a contribution in the second reading debate. It should be pointed out to the Senate and to those participating in the debate that Senator Brown is following the fairly well- worn tactic of stringing the debate out as long as he can. Some questions he asks are legitimate; others are spurious and an attempt to waste time and grandstand. That is a well-worn path that Senator Brown has followed for the best part of 20 years in respect of forests, at least in Tasmania.

Senator Brown used the word `lie' in reference to a number of comments that have been made in the debate so far. I do not take it that he was referring to me, but I think we need to analyse Senator Brown's use of that word. For example, he refers to firebombing and poisoning of forests after logging takes place. Senator Brown well knows that that is a gross misrepresentation of why the burning of areas that have been logged takes place. Senator Brown gives the impression that people move in and wilfully chop everything down, bring in the aeroplanes and bomb the face of the planet, then throw poison around willy-nilly, and that this is the face of forestry. But that is not true.

When you log an area of eucalypt forest and you are cleaning up afterwards, as Senator Brown well knows, you have to burn the waste to ensure regeneration of the eucalypt forest. That occurs not just in areas that have been logged; it occurs regularly in nature. The very viability of a forest is threatened ecologically if fires do not occur over significant periods of time. It is part of the ecosystem of eucalypt forests. That is why burning of forests occurs after logging takes place. I have seen areas of forest in Tasmania where burning did not take place after logging. They are an absolute mess. You do not get any sort of balanced regrowth.

What we are talking about with these RFAs is the identification of those areas that were put aside in reserves—world heritage and other areas—and that will never be logged. The RFA process is about identifying the areas that will be logged and those that will not be logged. That is the point of the RFAs—making sure that we have representative forests put aside that will never be touched. That is one of the central points of the RFA process. The RFA process does not open up every area of forest in Australia, particularly in Tasmania, to logging. That is simply not the case. Again, that is another gross misrepresentation by Senator Brown. He referred to 100-year-old trees. Yes, there are some 100-year-old trees that are logged in the area where logging is permitted, but there are many areas where, as Senator Brown knows, there are 100-year-old trees and 200-year-old trees that will never be touched.

In reference to the Tasmanian RFA, as Senator Brown well knows, the RFA process had its genesis in the Salamanca agreement that the environment movement signed up to close to a decade ago. Like all of the processes that you become involved in with some sections of the environment movement, when you get to the end of the day the environment movement pulls out because it will not accept the logging of any native forests in Australia. That is a fundamental philosophical position that Senator Brown and I will always disagree on. Senator Brown argues consistently that there should be no logging of any native forests anywhere.

If that were to be implemented in this country tomorrow, the consequences would be catastrophic for forest industries. At least in regard to Tasmania, of which I have some first-hand knowledge, in a state with 50 per cent of its land area forested, you can achieve a happy balance between the requirements of an ongoing sustainable forest industry and areas that should not be logged and that are appropriately put aside for world heritage, national parks and reserves. For that reason, I refute the claim of Senator Brown that by and large the community is not happy with the outcome in Tasmania.

The community by and large is happy with the outcome in Tasmania. Senator Brown's constituency and community is not happy, but they will never be happy until we get to the position that they want—that not one tree is ever touched. That is an extreme position that Senator Brown represents.

We have debated these issues in Tasmania, as Senator Brown knows, for the best part of the last 20 years. There have been at least 21 or 22 inquiries into forestry in Tasmania during that time. My hope is that the RFA process is the last such `inquiry'. I think that by and large the Tasmanian community are frankly sick to death of the ongoing debate about trees and forests and are generally satisfied with what has occurred in respect to the RFA. That is an overwhelming sentiment amongst the people that I represent. I would remind Senator Brown that at a federal level the Labor Party in Tasmania represents well over 50 per cent of the vote. It holds state government in its own right. The level of support for the Greens in Tasmania has started to decline, and I think that is a good thing. Senator Brown well knows my views about that. I just make those comments.

Senator Brown, as I said earlier, is fond of using extremely extravagant language, without explaining the true facts. He uses very emotive language, and I understand that is often done in politics. But when he starts saying people are lying and allegedly misleading this place, Senator Brown in some of his comments at least—his extravagant use of language—is grossly misleading. I would not use the word `lying'. But he is grossly misleading. As I think my colleague and the parliamentary secretary pointed out, these issues have been debated up hill and down dale—up every tree in Tasmania. There is not a square inch of ground in Tasmania that has not been studied time and time again over the last two decades. That is why, Senator Brown, there is no reason to be reconsidering the entire Tasmanian RFA process.

What is interesting about the outcome in Tasmania, at least, is that it shows that in almost every area of representative forest type well in excess of the 15 per cent criteria has been met. What would be the position if, after the RFA process, people wanted those areas that were in excess of the 15 per cent criteria reopened for logging? But no-one would suggest that. I certainly would not. In Tasmania we have 40 per cent of the state—about a third of the forest areas—in reserves, national parks and world heritage areas of various kinds. The Tasmanian community, after considerable public debate, angst and conflict, is relatively happy with that situation. Substantial areas of the remaining forest are available for logging on a sustainable basis and in an appropriate manner.

My sincere hope is that those areas will continue to be logged in a sustainable manner, because forestry represents about 15 per cent of the state's economy. At the same time, the tourist industry has continued to grow. There has been a growing interest in ecotourism, which Senator Brown is very keen on and I think is appropriate. There has been no decline in ecotourism in Tasmania as a result of forestry. You can have the best of both worlds. I am convinced of that. You can have a good outcome for the environment. You can have a good outcome for those whose interests lie in the use of the forests on a sustainable basis.

I will conclude on this point. Senator Brown continually makes the point that employment is declining in forest industries. Again, this is an example of Senator Brown's sweeping generalisations that are misleading. Yes, on the face of it, employment is going down in forest industries, with perhaps an exception in the furniture manufacturing and craft area. But that is because of technology and that is occurring in every manufacturing industry in the country. I think there would be very few exceptions. The conclusion Senator Brown then comes to is, `Well, it is not worth having any forest industry. It should end tomorrow because employment is declining in that industry.'

If we argue the logic of that, Senator Brown, we would say that tomorrow you shut down the textile industry and the car manufacturing industry and every other manufacturing industry because in all of those industries employment is continuing to decline as well. There is no logical position there from Senator Brown. I accept that employment has declined, but that does not mean that you do not continue to have an industry that makes a very worthwhile contribution to the `strength' of the Tasmanian economy. If you were to remove 15 per cent of the Tasmanian economy in one hit, as Senator Brown would want, the unemployment rates, which at the moment are the highest in the nation, would double overnight. Senator Brown's conclusions on that logic are just absurd.

I might say in passing—sorry, it is a long conclusion—that there would be significantly greater employment in the forest industries in Tasmania if the green movement had not opposed the Wesley Vale pulp and paper mill. I was living in Latrobe at the time when that debate occurred. I noticed that we, the Labor Party, copped a few brickbats for our approach on that. It is a complex story but we did lose an opportunity for what would have been, in my view, a very important contribution to the value adding of the woodchips that Senator Brown continually decries and criticises because the woodchips are exported. We could have had at least 50 per cent of the woodchips that are exported from Tasmania converted into pulp and paper in Tasmania. Senator Brown well knows that his movement was in substantial part responsible for that project not going ahead.

We had been criticised for our approach when we were in government, but I also just point out for the sake of accuracy that we had a state election called by the then Liberal Premier, Robin Gray, who thought he was going to win an election on the issue. He ended up losing seats and being in opposition. So there was a whole cast of players involved in that little episode at that time, including the then state Liberal Party, the Premier, Mr Gray, and the now Senator Brown—I accept that the Labor Party bears some of the responsibility as well. I say `little episode' advisedly, because it was a tragic loss for our state. I hope that those comments shed a slightly more balanced light than Senator Brown's comments. (Time expired)