Mr LIEBERMAN (8:11 PM) —I am very pleased and proud to support the Minister for Forestry and Conservation in this legislation. The Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 was actually introduced in the previous parliament and it has been reintroduced recently, after the election, by the new minister. I congratulate him for his work and wish him well.

The legislation deserves robust and full support. It will give certainty to the industry, the community and all those involved in the management of our forest resource. That is something that is sorely needed in this country. The significance of the legislation is basically twofold. Firstly, it ensures that the key requirements of the Commonwealth's environmental legislation are satisfied by the signing of an RFA. Secondly, it provides a framework for industry to be compensated in the event of resource reduction during the currency of the RFA. Sadly, over the years, the industry and those working in it—the workers, the employers and the community around them—have been dealt very severe and harsh blows by governments of all political colours. (Quorum formed)

It is quite interesting to note the opposition's tactics to frustrate this debate. I would have thought it was in their interest to allow the legislation to go through speedily, because the constituents that they have lost and the union members that talk to me that I know very well in the timber industry are absolutely irate at the mismanagement of the industry in Australia during the 13 years of Labor.

Government members —It is very hard to hear.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash) —Order! Could I ask the honourable member to just stop for a moment. Can we inquire at the box? We cannot hear the honourable member speaking. Thank you. Try again.

Mr LIEBERMAN —I will try again. I hope that is better. In fact, one of my friends in the union told me the other day that on a stocktake of the last decade of Labor they felt that they had been seriously let down. This friend of mine in fact was a Labor voter and a very active member of the union. So they have lost a lot, and that is why I think that they should be supporting the excellent minister in the table in allowing this legislation to go through. They should not be calling quorums to interrupt the debate because, after all, this legislation is urgently needed in Australia. It gives teeth, effect and legal enforceability to the RFA. The Labor Party postures around Australia and says it supports the need for a RFA process and the benefits that flow from it, yet it is trying to interrupt this debate. That is a shame. However, we will press on.

I was very pleased to read the other day the Pulp and Paper Manufacturers Federation of Australia report of statistics indicating that fixed capital investment in the forestry, pulp and paper, timber products and related sectors increased by four per cent to nearly $4 billion last financial year. Sales by the pulp and paper sector were static at just over $3 billion and imports—and I emphasise this particularly—exceeded exports by $1.4 billion, with the trade deficit increasing slightly on the previous year.

It is obvious from those figures alone that we have a very great industry and a large industry in Australia. But, notwithstanding that, we have the remarkable situation where we actually have a trade deficit—that is, we import into Australia to supply our domestic needs a substantial amount of timber each year exceeding the amount that we export. You do not have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that it is rather strange to be going into the new millennium—not too long off at all—when our country has not yet reached the stage where it can sustain enough timber production for its own domestic needs and, of course, continue to win markets overseas and become an export provider, bringing income and wealth back to Australia as well as jobs for our people, including our young people, supporting our country communities.

I commend the approach of the minister at the table in providing what I think is probably the most innovative, pragmatic and open-door approach from the federal government to dealing with the hard issues in the timber industry—and there are hard ones. The government is fundamentally dedicated to ensuring that Australia addresses the deficit—that is, becomes a country which can produce on a sustainable and environmentally responsible basis its requirements and can win export dollars at the same time.

I thank the minister for releasing the document Australia's state of the forests report 1998. All members would have received it, and I commend it because it does provide data and information to educate people on both sides of the fence—those that are against the industry, for whatever reason, and those that are for it—and those that have to make policy decisions about its resource potential and the sensitive sides of it as well. I also appreciate the minister's open-door policy where he has said that he will be available to visit and to meet people who wish to make a contribution for or against the development of the industry or to address its needs.

In my own electorate of Indi, the timber industry has a long history. In north-east Victoria we have over many, many years gone through the process of the Land Conservation Council under the Victorian legislation developing extensive national parks, forest reserves and the like. That has been a painful process in many ways. Nevertheless, the industry and the community at large have worked hard together to identify resources and to try to give certainty to the industry so that investments can be made that the community believes are sound and so that people can plan their futures and get on with the job.

The other day I visited Mount Beauty Timbers in the beautiful Kiewa Valley at the foot of Falls Creek. It is a family company—the Addinsall family—which is well known and respected by both sides of politics and by conservationists and many others for its contribution to the timber industry. On the day that I visited, it had been visited by a large contingent of bureaucrats who were involved, at state and federal levels, in the RFA process. North-east Victoria, as my colleagues will know, is currently going through the RFA process.

I thank those public servants who were there for obviously listening very carefully and taking note on the ground, which is the best way to do it—kicking the tyres on the ground and not relying on all the research data that comes forward, although that is valuable too. They were listening to the people who work in the industry, the owners—the Addinsall family—their workers, the townspeople and others, all of whom have a great love of the environment, a respect for it and also a belief in their own skills and what they can achieve.

One member of the Addinsall family was explaining that they were very excited because they believed they were on the verge of winning a large export order to America. That is fantastic because, in the Mount Beauty area, we have gone through huge social and economic change. It used to be a large State Electricity Commission community where the big hydro-electric scheme was constructed but, with the passage of time, hundreds of workers have left that industry and the town and the community are looking for a new direction and certainty. Tourism is one of the areas in which they are moving.

These people want to keep their timber industry because they believe it can contribute to Australia's future and they can provide sustainable, responsible delivery of timber supplies. They believe they can win export markets and provide jobs at the local level. Sadly, in that community alone there has been long-term unemployment and young unemployed people. In the last couple of years there have been two youth suicides.

When I consider this bill and any other legislation that I come into contact with, I look at not only the sensible use of our resources and achieving sustainable timber production and export markets—all those things which, to my mind, we can do very well—but also how we can help the community adjust to the social and economic changes occurring in our country and globally and how, in particular, we can find careers, opportunities and work for our people and constituents in country areas, especially our young people. We know that the problem of youth suicide is linked in many ways to despair and the lack of belief that they have in the future due to the lack of employment opportunities.

I have a fair bit of fire in my belly about such legislation. I think this is the sort of thing on which the national parliament should come together and work hard to get the legislation through the Senate. I understand that once it is passed by the House tonight, it will go to a Senate inquiry. One of the Labor senators proposes an inquiry with extensive terms of reference by a Senate committee. I do not mind the Senate being a house of review and doing a check and balance—that is fine—but I do object to legislation that this country needs urgently being delayed unnecessarily.

I do not want to prejudge the senator too much, but I hope that when he reads what has been said in this place in the debate he will know in his heart and mind, every minute of the day in the Senate where he delays unnecessarily and unfairly legislation which has been tested—let us face it, both sides of politics in Australia have been involved in this process—that it should be enacted quickly and not delayed. I hope that he will heed that message and facilitate this minister's legislation and get it through.

These are the sorts of issues that we should be quite pragmatic about. We should insist on this, because the legislation and the ideas of RFA have been tested many times and are embraced by most responsible people in Australia as a sensible framework for working with the states, using Commonwealth environmental requirements and policies to produce a good outcome. Of course, along the way there are people on various sides of the fence who will say, `It is not working well. I'm not happy.' I have some letters from people in Tasmania saying, `The Tasmanian one is not working well.'

That is not an excuse to delay the basic core legislation in this parliament. If you have scientific evidence that shows that the RFA process in one particular area of Australia, in your view, is not working, make it available to the minister and to the people involved. Deal with it at the level where it should be dealt with and not at a rhetorical level that attempts to delay the whole process.

There have been too many lost opportunities in this country because we have not had that sense of purpose. It is like the tax reform package. No current member of the Australian parliament could surely justify delaying the passage of this major comprehensive tax reform. Of course there are differences of opinion as to parts of it and there is a fair bit of political bastardry amongst some politicians in this parliament to frustrate and bring it down for other agendas. The point I make is that that is on their heads.

Mr Kerr —Of course it is.

Mr LIEBERMAN —You cannot sustain, as your leader has foolishly committed your party, the opposition, to doing, total opposition to the tax package. I mention it in the context of this debate because those people in the regions of Australia trying to get employment and trying to build industries that are sustainable, such as the timber industry, know full well that the tax reform package is part of the process. It will, for example, take off business about $10 billion worth of tax.

It will reduce the cost of transportation, which is a big cost in the timber industry. The value added timber from the Addinsall family's Mount Beauty Timber Industries helps Italy deliver the finest quality parquetry floors in the world. Do you not realise the nexus between sound taxation reform—RDA legislation like this—proper strategic management and stimulating investment and encouraging people to get on and create jobs?

The longer that the Labor Party and their representatives in this parliament delay totally and comprehensively the tax reform package, the more they are striking a blow against a sustainable timber industry. They are striking a blow against the efforts of many hardworking Australians—employees, employers and union members—who are trying to build value added timber products, create exports for this country, reduce the trade deficit in timber and reduce the amount of timber that we have to import into this country.(Time expired)