Senator BROWN (11:32 AM) —I will now continue with the letter from Mr Hayward to Senator O'Brien and the Crean opposition, appealing to them not to support this legislation but to intervene and ensure that good forest practices are instituted in Tasmania, where good forest practices, at the moment, are not the norm. Mr Hayward goes on to say:

I depart from the letter for a moment to ask the minister to respond to this committee on those job figures. He has said this is about jobs. The Prime Minister said the regional forest agreement was going to create 550 jobs in Tasmania. What Mr Hayward is saying is that, in fact, hundreds of jobs have been shed since the regional forest agreement was signed, even though the volume of forest being destroyed has dramatically increased. That is a challenge to the minister. I ask him to answer these questions in the chamber: where are the jobs that would be produced? Where are the jobs that have come from the massive investment of taxpayers' money and the so-called security which the regional forest agreement the Prime Minister signed in 1997 promised would be brought about?

Mr Hayward goes on in this very compelling letter to say:

something which Senator O'Brien, as shadow forestry minister for the Crean opposition, has done so far, but I challenge him now to answer them—

It is notable that this letter is addressed to Senator O'Brien. Senator O'Brien has been to see the Mount Arthur disaster and the breaches of the Forest Practices Code there but, consistent with the Tasmanian Labor Party and those sections of the forest industry which are totally malfunctioning in Tasmania, refuses to give an account of those breaches of the Forest Practices Code in this house and defends the process which allows those breaches to continue.

The letter goes on to say that Forestry Tasmania's:

at Mount Arthur, that is, north of Launceston—

We have a process here which is binding everybody's hands except the loggers'. This legislation continues and enhances the process at the highest level—that is, through Commonwealth legislation—where Mr Crean and Mr Howard together support a process of depriving citizens of their rights to defend their localities, their environments and their jobs from a marauding forest industry. Mr Hayward goes on to say:

which, I interpolate, was set up by the Bacon government—

That comes from Mr Hayward in Weegena in Tasmania, and copies were sent to ABC TV, ABC Radio National, the BBC, Channel 9, the Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age, Senator Ian Macdonald and House of Representatives member the Hon. Carmen Lawrence.

What an extraordinary indictment this is of the industry and of the political edifice which allows it to happen. What a demand this is in this letter for Senator O'Brien to respond. He shakes his head at the minister opposite. The nature of politics is that those who have the power can buck their authority to do the right thing by the populace, which does not have that power. The minister ought to know that one of the travesties behind this whole process is the system of largesse from the big industries to the big parties. This means that, in the wash-up, while 70 or 80 per cent—and, in some cases, opinion polls as high as 89 per cent in Western Australia— show public opposition to the logging of these forests, the tragic reality is that 90 per cent plus of politicians, the big parties included, support the destruction of the forests and will do so under this process here today.

The amendment is before the chamber to say, `There is a process here which many of us oppose'—I oppose it vehemently—`but, if this is the process that is to be implemented, let the industry stick by it.' The bill talks in grand terms about ecologically sustainable management, protecting forests and wildlife, reserving areas where there are rare and endangered species. The Greens amendment says, `Let's make that binding.' The bill itself says it is binding on the taxpayers of Australia to compensate woodchip industries if, somewhere down the line, they are denied the opportunity to destroy forests. We are saying: let the industry and the state governments who are employing the Forest Practices Code be bound by what they say in the legislation and all attendant documentation about their adherence to environmental principles. But, no, there are double standards here: give the industry the money, bind the taxpayers to give the industry the money but deny the taxpayers their wish that the forests shall be, if not protected, properly managed and don't put any impulsion into that.

The Labor Party—the Crean opposition— supports John Howard, the honourable Prime Minister of this country and leader of his party, to the hilt in this denial of the Australian people's wishes. This legal binding of the Australian people to give woodchip corporations huge payouts of millions of dollars if any forests that are currently unprotected are protected in the future. What extraordinary legislation! What an extraordinary get-together by the big parties to deny the Australian people their wish in this matter at the behest of big industry.

One hundred years ago, President Roosevelt in the United States said that we cannot have a functioning democracy until we get the influence of the corporate sector out of it. He would turn in his grave if he could see how politicians have failed to get rid of that corrupting influence. We have heard today about how it goes to the highest levels in Tasmanian politics. I will be introducing a bill for a thorough investigation into the lot; but you know what is going to happen: the Labor Party will again join with the Liberals to deny an investigation, because it is not in their interests to have their friends in the logging industry—who are getting their pockets lined at public expense through this legislation—open to public gaze and cross-examination.

There is widespread corruption in the industry in terms of adherence to even the law, and the Forest Practices Code is laid down in several states. It is a deplorable state of affairs. It may not be interesting to the media at the moment. Very often these matters are not covered by the media, because, on the one hand, there is massive advertising by the industry in the media, and, on the other hand, for an issue to be big it needs to be one in which the Labor Party puts a difference between itself and the government. On this occasion, the Labor Party in Tasmania is worse than the Nationals and the Liberals when it comes to the destruction of forests.

The Bacon government, and the real power behind the throne down there, Deputy Premier Paul Lennon, have a deplorable record when it comes to their obligation to manage these forests—if not in the public interest then at least according to the tenets of the Forest Practices Code. The numbers are not with the Greens, the numbers are not with Senator Murphy, and the numbers are not with the absent Democrats in this debate.

Senator Ian Macdonald —It is called democracy.

Senator BROWN —Go to the polls, Minister. You will find you are in the minority on this one. Neither Prime Minister Howard nor the Leader of the Opposition once raised this issue in the run to the election. They know how unpopular and on the nose the government's destruction of forests is.

Question negatived.

Senator Brown —I want it recorded that I was the only voice in the chamber that supported that call.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—Yes. Thank you, Senator Brown.