Senator O'BRIEN (11:10 AM) —I have a couple of points I should put on the record which may assist the debate. The first point relates to whole native hardwood logs being exported from Tasmania. I do not know which particular logs Senator Murphy was referring to. I do know that a trial project is currently running whereby hardwood logs are exported to Korea and also to Finland for the rotary veneer peeling process. If the project is developed—and I understand that all indications at the moment are positive—the intention is to establish rotary peel veneer factories in the state of Tasmania to manufacture construction grade ply, which will be export as well as import replacement. That is the advice that I have, but that may not involve the logs in question. So there are valid reasons why hardwood logs would be exported. It may be that there are other areas where logs are also being exported.

As far as the federal opposition is concerned, the intent behind the opposition's philosophy on resource security for this industry is to confirm a long-term future within this country for downstream processing of the products of the forest. I have spoken to a number of people from the forest industry and it is our view that this cycle of regional forest agreements provides the opportunity for the industry to prove to the Australian community that it can provide a long-term and sustainable future for the forest industry, including substantial downstream processing of its product in this country, and that its performance over the lives of those regional forest agreements will have a significant bearing on whether agreements are renewed—and, if they are renewed, in what form they are renewed. I do not pretend to know which particular logs were sitting on which particular wharf at a particular period of time—that is impossible. I am sure Senator Murphy would appreciate that, but what I am saying is that there are reasons why whole logs might be exported, particularly as part of that process.

I also understand there is a process in train where a laminated interlocking flooring system, which is a commonly used floor covering around the country, is being trialled using Tasmanian hardwood as the top veneer of that particular product. That process is probably unlikely to find its way as a manufacturing process into Tasmania because of the economies of scale involved, at least at this stage. It would be my hope that the matter continues to be investigated and if there are opportunities for that sort of downstream processing it should find its way into the state.

But I reiterate that we see the process of establishment and development of downstream processing opportunities as integral to this cycle of regional forests agreements and therefore I agree with Senator Murphy that there are aspects of this legislation that are crucial to the process of establishing those opportunities. The industry tells us—and I am sure that they have told Senator Murphy and the government—they need to be able to assure the people who will finance those developments that they are not going to find a couple of years down the track that the resources have been so manipulated that they do not actually have the wherewithal to conduct a viable business in the industry. So security of the resource and the security that the Commonwealth will not capriciously breach agreements it has already entered into require the passage of this legislation.

Let me say in relation to the matters Senate Murphy raised, with regard to what he says are particular problems in particular localities with the administration of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement, that an amendment—I will come to that later—in our view will deal with the provision to this parliament of the opportunity to review those matters. If they are proven in the context of, for example, public hearings before a joint parliamentary committee, there would be, I think, compelling pressure on any state government to correct deficiencies in the operation of its regional forest agreement. I suspect there would also be compelling pressure on the Commonwealth, where it had the opportunity to do so, to require compliance with provisions of regional forest agreements in accordance with the necessary review clauses in particular agreements. We believe our amendments provide the wherewithal to do that. That view may not be shared by other senators but that is the view of the opposition. I look forward to the debate on that particular provision at the appropriate time and, hopefully, in the not-too-distant future and in the context of the conduct of this debate.