Senator IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Forestry and Conservation) (12:27 PM) —The government will not be supporting this proposal or any other proposal along these lines. As a result of discussions over a long period, the government has put in place in the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2002 as it is presented to parliament a series of measures which will provide for parliamentary scrutiny of the RFAs. I remind senators that sections 1 and 2 provide that a copy of the RFA must be tabled in each house within 15 sitting days of the commencement of the section or within 15 days of the RFA being entered into, whichever is the latter, except where the RFA has been tabled in that house previously. The bill goes on to provide that a copy of the amendment to the RFA must be tabled in each house within 15 sitting days, whichever is later. These are to be tabled after the RFAs have been agreed, and the agreements have been signed by two sovereign governments. Sections 4 and 5 provide that a copy of the RFA annual report must be tabled in each house of the parliament. The bill, as proposed, goes on to provide that a copy of any RFA review must be tabled in each house of the parliament, and the bill as it stands defines the RFA review report and the RFA annual report.

Those of us in this chamber know this, but anyone else not familiar with the workings of this chamber and the House of Representatives may not know that, every time these are tabled and every time a report is put in, there is opportunity everywhere for comment to be made and debate to be had and points to be raised. These chambers, of course, always have the ability to set up select committees or to refer things to existing committees, and so there is ample opportunity for full and adequate parliamentary scrutiny of every aspect of the regional forest agreements. So we will not be supporting this amendment or any of the others.

Senator Murphy —Will you support my select committee?

Senator IAN MACDONALD —I am not sure what you are talking about, Senator Murphy, to be honest. I should not say `no' off the top of my head because I am not aware of your proposal for the select committee. There is opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny and that has been deliberately written into the bill. We have heard the discussions over a long period and the previous proposals to put this bill through the parliament. The government is determined this time to get this bill through because of what it does for people's jobs, what it does for the families in the forest communities, what it does for small timber towns, what it does for certainty and security in the industry—which relates back to people, which relates back to the economy of the various states, particularly Tasmania, which is so reliant on this— and it takes away mischievous government intervention, which has been a great depressant of the industry over more than a decade.

We agreed over the last 10 years through negotiation, through consultation, through arguments and through debates between governments of all political persuasions that it was important to get this out of the political process and give the industry a chance, give those who rely on the industry for jobs—the small timber communities, the small country communities—a chance to get on with it. In spite of the best attempts of people like Senator Brown to destroy this industry, to destroy jobs, and to destroy small country communities, they are there. They stay there in confidence and in hope that once these RFA bills have legislative backing that will give them a sense of certainty and security, which they have not heretofore had.

We will not be supporting this or any of the other proposals unless there is some debate that causes me to change my mind. I have looked through them very carefully. I have had considerable advice on them and discussed them with the people in the small communities whose jobs are reliant on the provisions and those in the industry whose investments will create jobs. As a result of my consultations, we will not be supporting this or any other proposal. There are other perverse legislative impacts of Senator Brown's amendment which I will not bother to go into. With respect, these proposals are about gutting the bill and causing legal minefields that would make it unworkable and therefore contrary to the whole purpose of the RFA in the first place. That is why we will not be supporting these proposals.

I think it is important to again look at the purpose of the bill. Senator Murphy made the comment in his contribution that, if there is any suggestion of unconstitutionality of any proposal he puts up, the parliament should accept that and should leave it to the courts to decide. Unfortunately, Senator Murphy, governments do not have that luxury. We have to try to act responsibly. Where things are obviously not constitutionally appropriate then it behoves governments to deal with them at the appropriate time and not say, `We know it is unconstitutional, but we will let it go through and let some court determine it later.'

Senator Murphy —No, I did not say that.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —I thought you did.

Senator Murphy —You have not produced any evidence to prove that what I have proposed is unconstitutional.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —I am really not commenting on your proposal, Senator Murphy, because we have not addressed that in full yet. I thought you were making the general point that whether or not it is unconstitutional we should pass it anyhow because it is not for us to determine but for the High Court to determine. That is what I thought you said. If you did not say that, I withdraw my comments and apologise to you.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Forshaw)—Any comments should be addressed through the chair, Senator Murphy and Senator Macdonald.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —You are quite right, Mr Temporary Chairman. I make that general point in passing. Again I say to Senator Murphy that we think this bill is appropriate and it will achieve the intended purposes of this government, previous governments and state governments of all political persuasions. You think it has flaws, but passing this bill will give greater job security and greater encouragement for investment, which creates jobs, than rejecting it or having the bill filibustered to such an extent, as with the previous bills, that the will of the people will never be properly tested by a vote on the bill in this chamber.

There are some senators who know that the people who represent by far the great majority of Australians support this bill and want to get it through and attempts to stop the vote—and I am not suggesting this is you, Senator Murphy, because I accept your confirmation that that is not your purpose— are not helpful. Even if it has the flaws that you think it has—I do not agree with that—it is better than nothing. It is very important to get this through and to continue to address any other issues relating to forestry operations over which the Commonwealth government has constitutional jurisdiction henceforth as these issues arise.

Senator Brown or Senator Murphy spoke about a rare Tasmanian eagle. The stand of trees containing the eagles' habitat is retained but then it is fire bombed at a later stage so the eagles are destroyed anyhow. My advice is that the firing processes provided will take that into account and the fires will not damage this rare species.

I am also advised by Environment Australia that the particular species of bird is one to which the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act applies. I am trying to get advice about the complaints that have been made regarding the particular incident that the senator spoke about. If there is destruction of species that are subject to the EPBC, we would be very keen to know whether complaints have been made and, if they have, what has happened to them. If they have been dealt with inappropriately, then it certainly is something we should have been aware of. We would have appreciated it if the senator's office which made the allegation had brought it to our attention earlier. I suspect that this probably did not happen because so much of this debate goes on lies. I would like to accuse Senator Brown of lying, but that would be unparliamentary, so I will not.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —I am glad you recognise that, Minister. Otherwise, I would have had to draw your attention to it.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —The comments that he makes about there being logging in World Heritage listed forest would fall into the category of that definition because they are just wrong. I have challenged him about it. I know he says it all the time, but he usually says it in places where he is not challenged. I have asked him to name the World Heritage listed forests where he says logging is going on at the present time, but there has been no response; he has been caught out. He continues in that vein by alleging in this debate that I refuse to go and see a forest. I expect that sort of thing from Senator Brown, but people listening to the debate might get confused. They might not have heard on the day we were not on broadcast that I indicated to all senators that I was very happy to accept invitations. Senator Murphy has issued invitations and so have a lot of other people—people in the industry and conservation groups. I indicated right at the beginning of this debate that, as my time permits, I will be down there. I cannot wait to get on the skywalk that Senator O'Brien spoke about.

Senator Calvert —The airwalk.

Senator IAN MACDONALD —The airwalk. Senator Calvert tells me it is absolutely magnificent. I am very proud to learn that the Commonwealth government contributed to the airwalk with funds flowing pursuant to the RFA process and was something done by the Tasmanian government to encourage ordinary citizens, ordinary mums and dads and families to come in and have a look at these magnificent forests. But these are the sorts of activities that Senator Brown and his colleagues try to prevent anyone from doing. They think that the forests are only there for people who have five days during every working week not to work but to wander through the forests and enjoy these experiences. Great if you can get it, I guess. For the ordinary mums and dads who have to work, these airwalks are a fabulous way to let people experience the benefits of the forest.

I know from Senator Brown's contribution that he is anti-industry, antipeople, antijobs, anticommunity, anti any government and all governments. He even says that there is a conspiracy with the media and that everyone is against him. It is the sort of comment that people like Stalin and Hitler used to make— you attack everyone, you are antiestablishment, you are an anarchist, you disagree with everyone, you are the only one who is right. Well, that is not the way the world is. Most people, including this government, are genuine; we are trying to do the right thing by conservation practices, by the industry and by looking after jobs. This bill is part of that and that is why we are determined to get it through. (Time expired)