Mr STEPHEN SMITH (10:31 AM) —The opposition supports the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 in principle. In the course of my remarks, I will formally move a second reading amendment, which my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr) will second. At the conclusion of the second reading stage of the debate, I propose to move that the bill be referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs for consideration in detail prior to the committee stage itself.

When this legislation was introduced into the parliament—by leave from this side—on 30 June, it was said opposite that it was for introduction only. In the course of my remarks on that occasion, also by leave, I said that in principle we supported the legislation but we wanted to make sure the parliament got the detail right. We want to make sure that this legislation does not give sight unseen a blank cheque to RFAs that had not yet been signed, because there are some important parliamentary issues to be dealt with here. The amendment that is being circulated in my name goes to process, substance and detail. I will start with process.

The bill was introduced on 30 June, and it was said at the time that it was for introduction only. Here we are back for one day, back for a two-hour limited debate, and without the appropriate or the proper period of time being given to interested parties for consideration of that detail. For what purpose? This House and the Senate now come back on 31 August, so what is the rush here? What is wrong with giving substantive detailed consideration to substantive legislation? What is the point of seeking to ram through this House today legislation where the interested parties have not had the appropriate opportunity to consider the detail. If you are interested in long-term security and the consequent long-term benefits that go to industry, it is clearly the case that this legislation, if it is to be enacted by this parliament, ought to be enacted with broad or complete bipartisan support. So the House can ram this bill through today, and then what does the bill do? It sits there doing nothing until 31 August. So what is the rush? I suspect the rush is to deal with matters entirely unrelated to the substance and the importance of this legislation—that is, the forest and forest products industry.

I do not need to go any further than to refer to a submission I received from the Forest and Forest Industry Council of Tasmania on that point. The Tasmanian RFA is one of the reference points for this legislation. When the Forest and Forest Industry Council of Tasmania wrote to me on 10 July, the council said as follows:

While this legislation was due to be introduced by June 30th the lack of wide consultation with interested RFA Stakeholders suggested to us that it had been delayed.

Its introduction without this consultation meant that most groups have had no input into its content. In the event, this has suited some of those groups but raised problems for others.

I repeat:

. . . the lack of wide consultation with interested RFA Stakeholders suggested to us that it had been delayed.

This is from the Forest and Forest Industry Council of Tasmania, and the Tasmanian RFA is one of the reference points for this legislation.

As a result of the effective two-hour limit on this debate, we have all been asked to compress our remarks, so I will effectively halve my time. I will restrict myself to a number of substantive matters. I said on the introduction of this bill and now that, in principle, we support this legislation. Why is that the case? Why do industry and interested parties in this area want the legislation? Because they say—and I think it is a valid point—that, while there may be agreements between the Commonwealth and the states, the history of this industry is such that in the past such agreements have effectively been torn up. Legislative underpinning gives some added security. That is fine, but if the Commonwealth parliament is to enact legislation which underpins agreements between the Commonwealth and the various states, then this parliament ought to do that in a deliberative and careful way. If this parliament seeks to give benefits to agreements, some of which we have not yet seen, there also needs to be some way in which the parliament can take cognisance of those RFA agreements that we have not seen.

What is suggested by this legislation is that RFA agreements—nine of which have not yet been signed—take the benefit of this Commonwealth legislation. What is effectively being asked is that the parliament put its hand over its face by way of a blindfold and give to the nine RFA agreements that have not yet been signed, sight unseen, the same benefits it seeks to accord to three signed RFA agreements of which this parliament can take actual, imputed or deemed knowledge. At present we have three signed RFA agreements—East Gippsland, Central Highlands and Tasmania—and this parliament takes them as it finds them, but what do we do in respect of the nine that we have not yet seen? There needs to be some mechanism where this parliament can have cognisance of future RFA agreements.

The reason that the opposition supports this legislation in principle could not be found in a better place than the Australian Labor Party's national platform, which was adopted in Tasmania, appropriately in this area—and the member for Denison nods—and it was actually moved by me at the conference and seconded by him. Our platform says as follows:

Labor recognises the importance of the forest industries to the Australian economy and the need for their adequate environmental protection. Future development of forest industries must take place on an ecologically and economically sustainable basis, by ensuring the full implementation of the National Forest Policy Statement and the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy through Regional Forest Agreements.

There is a key point there—`by ensuring the full implementation of the national forest policy statement and the wood and paper industry strategy through regional forest agreements'. That goes to the second point of substance that I would like to draw attention to.

The great fundamental difference between those on the other side and us on this side, so far as this area is concerned, is that we have always seen the RFA process as a question of not just the balance between the environment and the economy but also ensuring that, as part of the RFA, inextricably interwoven with the RFA process, you had a commitment to industry development, a commitment to downstream processing and a commitment to value adding.

The full implementation of the national forest policy statement and the wood and paper industry strategy, when we were in office, was proposed to be driven by the Wood and Paper Industry Council. Those on the other side committed themselves to that in the run-up to the 1996 election. What did they do as soon as they were elected to office? They abolished it. It was only under pressure from us in the Senate that they reinstated a wood and paper industry forum, which has effectively done nothing. So the great difference between those on the other side and us is that we are fully committed to the full implementation of the national forest policy and the full implementation of the wood and paper industry strategy because we see that as an integral part of the RFA process.

The third point of substance I refer to is the notion of compensation. The compensation model which the legislation opens up is, in general terms, something that I am happy to have an open mind about and support but, on the government's own admission, this seems to require the reopening of two RFAs. It would be nice to actually have the opportunity to quietly contemplate what repercussions, if any, follow from the compensation model which the government has proposed to set up in this legislation. On its own admission, the government says, `To effect the model that we want, we need to reopen two RFAs and seek to have this compensation model reinstated into those.' What consequences follow from that approach?

The amendment that I have circulated reflects those concerns, and in the brief time available to me. I might quickly take the House through the amendment itself. The amendment, while not declining to give the bill a second reading, reinforces our commitment to the principles underriding this legislation, and:

notes that Regional Forest Agreements are intended to secure environmental, economic, social, regional community and industry development objectives for two decades;

This legislation and the RFA process, which we established, seek to establish that long-term security and certainty, but it is the long-term security and certainty which has a number of facets to it—environmental, economic, social, regional and industry development. The amendment also notes that:

. . . the securing of such objectives is dependent upon the policy certainty which can only come from long term bipartisan support . . .

And the process, which the government has placed on this legislation, puts that effectively in jeopardy on the detail. In the letter that I read to the House earlier from the Forest and Forest Industry Council of Tasmania, the council goes on to say to me in respect of the importance of the legislation:

Without strong legislation or with legislation on which we cannot agree we lose some of the benefit of the RFA.

So here we have the Tasmanian Industry Council stressing the importance of not just agreeing in principle but agreeing on the detail. The House is being afforded no oppor tunity to agree on that detail or even to consider that detail today. The amendment also notes our consistent support, in principle, for the legislative objectives sought by the bill. We make the point that we believe that:

. . . it is inappropriate to extend the benefits of this Bill to any future RFA which purports to meet the objectives of the Bill, but which in fact does not and expresses concern in this context that the Bill provides no mechanism to allow the Parliament to review the adequacy of any future RFA;

This goes to a central point: this parliament is being asked to enact legislation which confers benefits on an RFA, sight unseen in the case of nine. So what mechanism does the bill suggest for those nine RFA agreements which have not been signed between the Commonwealth and various states? For the parliament should have cognisance of those, the parliament should satisfy itself that a future agreement is to have the same benefit as three signed agreements are to have. So there needs to be some reasonable form of giving the parliament cognisance of these not yet seen RFAs by some form of parliamentary scrutiny, by some form of parliamentary cognisance. The amendment notes that the government has effectively:

. . . withdrawn plans to automatically provide financial compensation for adverse impacts if any caused by future Commonwealth action;

and I have made some comments in respect of that issue of compensation, and:

notes that the RFA process and underpinning legislation is inextricably interwoven with the full implementation of the National Forest Policy Statement and the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy;

This gets to the heart of the difference between those on this side and those opposite. We are absolutely committed to the full implementation of the wood and paper industry strategy and the national forest policy statement. Those on the other side are not. That is the key point of difference here, and that pervades everything in the differences between us.

You could not have found a better example of where these differences are crystallised than in the respective responses of those on this side and those on the opposite side to the proposed closure of the Burnie pulp mill on 1 October later this year. The amendment goes on to say that:

. . . as a consequence regrets that the Government has failed to progress the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy;

Having committed itself in 1996 in the run-up to the election to the full implementation of the wood and paper industry strategy, one of the first things it did in the course of the August 1996 budget was to knock over the Wood and Paper Industry Council. The amendment:

condemns the Government for its failure to introduce complementary industry policy measures to ensure that the resource security granted to industry by these measures is complemented by Government and industry commitments to investment, exports, jobs, and value adding to and downstream processing of Australia's forest resources;

In particular, this amendment condemns the government for its inadequacies in this area, most adroitly highlighted by their Burnie inaction. I will formally move that amendment. My colleague the member for Denison will second it in due course. I have indicated to the House that, at the conclusion of the second reading of the bill, I propose to seek to refer this legislation to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs for consideration and an advisory report by 31 August 1998. On the basis that, given the attendance at the House today, we are unsuccessful in these endeavours, we reserve our right, consistent with what I have said, to look at amendments in detail in the other place in due course. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that Regional Forest Agreements are intended to secure environmental, economic, social, regional community and industry development objectives for two decades;

(2) notes that the securing of such objectives is dependent upon the policy certainty which can only come from long term bipartisan support, and in this context the failure to consult on detail during the drafting process and bringing debate on now without providing adequate time for detailed consideration is particularly regrettable and not in the industry's long term best interests;

(3) notes that the Opposition has consistently given in principle support for the legislative objectives sought by the Bill and reaffirmed such support on introduction of the Bill on 30 June 1998;

(4) believes that it is inappropriate to extend the benefits of this Bill to any future RFA which purports to meet the objectives of the Bill, but which in fact does not and expresses concern in this context that the Bill provides no mechanism to allow the Parliament to review the adequacy of any future RFA;

(5) notes that the Government has withdrawn plans to automatically provide financial compensation for adverse impacts if any caused by future Commonwealth action;

(6) notes that the RFA process and underpinning legislation is inextricably interwoven with the full implementation of the National Forest Policy Statement and the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy;

(7) and as a consequence regrets that the Government has failed to progress the Wood and Paper Industry Strategy;

(8) condemns the Government for its failure to introduce complementary industry policy measures to ensure that the resource security granted to industry by these measures is complemented by Government and industry commitments to investment, exports, jobs, and value adding to and downstream processing of Australia's forest resources; and in particular

(9) condemns the Government for failing the Burnie workers facing retrenchment as a result of its inaction referred to above".

Mr Kerr —I formally second the amendment and normally would speak at this point, but my colleague the member for Lyons has commitments and has asked me to defer. I ask that that be permitted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —You are not requesting that the debate does not follow the usual course?

Mr Kerr —I do not mind how the debate is conducted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the member for Denison.