Mr CAUSLEY (9:26 PM) —It always give me a lot of pleasure to follow someone whom I consider to be an academic speaking on a subject in this parliament. (Quorum formed) I noted earlier that the opposition, through the member for Reid, said that they were not going to oppose this legislation in the lower house but in fact would move some amendments. I listened with interest to the member for Denison. As the member for Denison comes from the state of Tasmania, I am just wondering whether he is having two bob each way. It seems to me that there could be a suggestion that, while the Labor Party will not vote against the legislation in the lower house, they might change their strategy in the Senate to let the members from Tasmania off the hook, because this is fairly embarrassing for those members in this particular instance.

I am amazed at the petty politics that is often displayed in parliaments. My presence in parliaments goes back quite a long time—over 12 years. I probably came into politics with the naive belief that whether you were in opposition or government, you were basically there to better the state or to better the country. I think far too much petty politics is played in terms of some of these issues in the parliaments.

This particular debate, as far as I am concerned, has gone completely off the track. I would like to go back to a little bit of the basics in forestry. I spent a lot of my youth around forestry and quite a considerable time as the minister for forests in New South Wales. There is no basic reason why forests cannot be managed on an ecologically sustainable basis. There is no obvious reason why they cannot also be very sustainable for the environment, both flora and fauna.

In fact, I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that with the science and the standard of the foresters that we have in Australia—and there are not many left in New South Wales, but they were very competent people—they have the ability to manage forests in such a way that the ecological values can be perfectly preserved. Quite frankly, I can draw your attention to many examples in New South Wales where national parks are destroying the environment.

With areas that were multi-use areas in the past, once the management of national parks takes over and these places are completely locked up with an overburdening of growth, I have seen national parks in my electorate, such as Yuraygir and Bundjalung on the coast, where savage fires in recent years have destroyed the koalas and the ground parrots. That fauna existed quite comfortably there in years gone by with the type of management that our grandfathers used in those areas. In fact, what was used was a controlled burning in autumn and spring to control the fuel, and that protected the area. We are now going back in a reverse cycle, if you like, to way back before the Aborigines, because the Aborigines controlled the environment in Australia with fire.

I think a book was written in New South Wales which said that the firestick never went out, and that is a very true example of the way the Aborigines looked after the environment of this country. We look back now and say that they were better managers of the country than we are. So I think we have to take a very close look at ourselves in this particular instance. We are importing into Australia $3 billion worth of forest products a year.

Members of the Labor Party are crying crocodile tears about the loss of some jobs in this particular industry. These jobs need not have been lost in the first place. Do not kid yourself about this particular exercise, which was brought in in good faith by the previous government, I believe, to try to get an agreement between the Greens and the industry so that at least you could have some security in investment. I do not believe for a minute that this is going to succeed because you are dealing with single-minded, narrow-minded zealots.

It does not matter what you put forward, they will not accept anything less than the total destruction of the native forest industry in Australia. That is their objective, and we are kowtowing to them. No government has been game enough to stand up to these people. Industry is disgusted with all sides of politics at the present time because they will not support investment and employment in this particular industry. I think we should all hang our heads in shame that we will not stand up and protect this industry.

Even after the New South Wales government has gone through the process—even though we disagree with the process—and has put forward what I believe is a totally unsustainable amount of timber for the industry, the Greens are not satisfied. The North East Forest Alliance and other groups on the north coast are complaining and asking for an inquiry. They are still not satisfied.

Mr Nehl —They will never be satisfied.

Mr CAUSLEY —They will never be satisfied, as the member for Cowper says, and I think we have to come to terms with that. Quite frankly, I would like to say to the executive of our government that I believe that when these people turn up at protests—and they are professional protesters who turn up at every protest—once they have been seen there more than three times, they should be taken off the dole.

Mr Laurie Ferguson —They should be shot!

Mr CAUSLEY —The member for Reid suggests that they should be shot. That is not our philosophy; maybe it is your philosophy. I believe they should be taken off the dole because they are professional protesters. Not only that, but I have anecdotal evidence that they are skiting about the fact that they are paid daily to go to these particular protests. Not only are they on welfare, and bludging off the rest of society, but the very workers who they are trying to put out of a job are fairly low paid workers who, if they were on the dole with three children, would be better off than they are working, but these people have pride and they want to work. And yet the Labor Party says that it is not prepared to stand up and support something like this that gives a chance to get some security back into the industry.

Let me talk about the New South Wales position, because it was raised by members—I think it was the member for Denison and the member for Reid. They said that the New South Wales coalition agreed with the government on this particular issue. Let me take you back through this because this is a typical exercise by a union based government. They have divided and conquered the industry in New South Wales. They have picked out favourites, and they have said to certain people in the industry, `We will give you some of this FISAP money'—up to $1 million of taxpayers' money in some instances—`but you have to borrow $2 million or $3 million of your own to put into value adding.' I will come back to that value adding. They have effectively locked these people in, because if they do not support the government they do not get the quota, and if they do not get the quota they go broke.

The New South Wales government has already broken hundreds of little people with no compensation. I would like you to have a close look at the FISAP process in New South Wales and at how flawed it is. I had a timber worker in my office only last week. He was a man who had worked for 20 years in the timber industry and, through no fault of his own, the business that he worked for took a payout because it was forced out with no quota. This man had worked for 20 years in the hardwood industry and, under the FISAP process, he should have been compensated but he did not belong to a union and, because he did not belong to a union, he is getting absolutely nothing.

I would like to take the member for Reid up to a little village in my electorate called Woodenbong—or even Urbenville next door—that depends entirely upon the timber industry and the grazing industry. And I would like him to tell timber workers who have worked there all their lives how they are going to be compensated. These are people who have been on very low incomes and who have bought a home for themselves—probably not of great value but it is a home—in a little country town. You tell me how you compensate those people when you take their jobs away from them. There is no reason why their jobs should have been taken from them because these forests have been well managed.

The argument put forward by the New South Wales government that they are overcut is spurious for this reason: they do not look at it until they have cut off certain areas. They have declared national parks and wilderness areas and reduced the area available to forestry. Then they say, `It is unsustainable.' Of course it is unsustainable, because of what they have done.

They are kowtowing to the chattering classes in the city. I suspect some of my National Party colleagues in Western Australia are doing exactly the same thing. I do not take much confidence from the fact that I hear the AMA being brought up as one of the opponents of a forest policy in Western Australia. For goodness sake, what would doctors know about forestry? I hope they would know more about medicine, otherwise they should not be practising. It is high time that these chattering classes in the city started to understand what goes on in regional Australia.

I notice that the member for Fremantle is going to speak next. I point out to her that I have seen her signature on the 1992 Forest Policy Statement. Let me tell you about the Forest Policy Statement, which you are reneging on at the present time. The Forest Policy Statement was a very good attempt to try to get some peace in this industry.

But what did the New South Wales government do? Instead of looking at the broad area of New South Wales with similar species—which can go from Wauchope practically up to southern Queensland—to preserve 15 per cent of that area, they chopped it up into little bits. They chopped it up in such a way that they are probably getting about 60 per cent of the resource that is available.

This process has been absolutely distorted to the detriment of workers, to the detriment of small business who have been kicked out on their ear with no compensation and to the detriment of Australia. I think the member for Reid and his particular supporters should hang their heads in shame, because we are not here acting as we should as Australians.

Mr Laurie Ferguson —You promised to explain why Armstrong voted with the government.

Mr CAUSLEY —I will explain to you anything you need, because I think I know a fair bit about forestry; I doubt that you know very much about it, from the electorate that you come from.

Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—

Mr CAUSLEY —I will tell you the reason why the National Party and Liberal Party voted with Carr in this particular instance. It is that Col Dorber went down to the parliament on behalf of the Forest Products Association and badgered people to vote for this. Why? Because, again, the FISAP process has been corrupted and the only people to get any support from the FISAP process are those from the Forest Products Association and the CMFEU. That is what it comes down to and it has been absolutely corrupted.

Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—

Mr CAUSLEY —Maybe you can tell me why some of this money has filtered its way into the CMFEU and the FPA. Why didn't it go to those people who needed the compensation? Why didn't it go to the businesses that have been forced out? Why didn't it go to the workers who have lost their jobs?

Because this process has been corrupted. It is a process aided and abetted by the New South Wales government.

I will come to the pulp mill situation and value adding. I know my Whip is getting excited, but I want to make a few comments about value adding. The little union representative in New South Wales—the minister who was, Mr Yeadon—says that it was all about value adding. Let me tell you about the value adding that is going on on the North Coast. Nothing new has come out of this. There are new processes about, but no-one has brought up any new process. All we are getting is more of the same—mouldings, flooring, which people were doing anyway. Can you tell me how that is new?

We had this ridiculous situation in Grafton where one mill put off 36 men. The minister came and paraded in the town, saying, `Isn't it great? We are going to provide up to 24 new jobs.' Thirty-six had disappeared! How ridiculous is this? We can go back to the rainforest decision when former Senator Richardson walked around North Queensland saying, `Oh, look, don't worry about it. We are going to compensate you.' What did they get?

Mr Katter —Nothing.

Mr CAUSLEY —Nothing. These are the promises that we get out of the Labor Party. The minister was attacked about the pulp mill at Tumut. This is something good as far as I am concerned, because this is new technology in a smaller type mill, and if that proves itself it will make a lot of opportunities across Australia.

I want to make a couple more comments. Plantations are not the panacea for the forest industries. They are a political ploy to try and assuage the chattering classes in the city. They are told you do not have to harvest native forest, that you can grow them. It is not correct. It cannot be done in the volumes that are necessary.

In 1991 I tried to get a world class pulp mill on the North Coast of New South Wales. The availability of resources were there at the time. But the Labor Party came up there campaigning against it. The former member for Page, Harry Woods, tramped the streets with the greenies with placards proclaiming `No pulp mill'. Now he is parading around New South Wales—supposedly as the Minister for Regional Development. He sold them out. It is all rhetoric and there is nothing behind it.

We had our opportunities, but the Labor Party would not allow us to do it. For goodness sake, get behind this. Give us the opportunity to put some security in this industry so that we can have a long-term, viable forest industry in Australia, so that we do not have to spend our money overseas importing these products. We cannot even guarantee where they are coming from. If we can get some cooperation, we might have some chance of getting a decent forest industry in Australia. It is the greatest decentralised industry in this country—and we have destroyed it. I believe, basically, that the Labor Party have destroyed it.