Mr McARTHUR (10:04 PM) —I am delighted that the shadow minister, the member for Reid, is indicating that the opposition are now supporting the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 by moving their amendments. I hope that Labor senators will follow that lead and support the amendments in the Senate because of the indication of the shadow minister.

I invite the shadow minister to come down to the Otways, get hold of his Stihl chainsaw and participate with his fellow workers from the CFMEU. Have a little talk to them about the jobs in the Otways and see whether the Labor Party's point of view on the whole process stands up. Certainly those union members are very keen to get the process concluded and to maintain their jobs in the Otways.

I would be interested to know the conversation between the member for Denison, who gave us a long dissertation—we know his interest in these matters—and the member for Lyons. What would the trade union members gain from those two conversations, and where would the member for Lyons stand on this issue? I am sure he supports the RFA that might maintain jobs in Tasmania.

As members would be aware, the RFA process has been concluded in Tasmania—satisfactorily to all parties—and also in East Gippsland, Victoria. Now the focal argument is in the Otways, in the seat of Corangamite. In that process, there are cultural and heritage workshops taking place. Discussion and public meetings are being undertaken. The objective in that area is to get a sustainable yield of 40,000 cubic metres each year. So there will be consultation among the environmentalists, the industry groups and Minister Tuckey, who is at the table, who I know has had his own chainsaw. He understands the issues, unlike the shadow spokesman. They are discussing the Victorian RFA process. There will be a social assessment at workshops taking place at the end of April.

The situation in Corangamite and in the Otways is that all groups are discussing these matters and trying to come to a reasonable, sensible outcome. Unfortunately, as things hot up in that area, conservationists have taken matters into their own hands, taken a public stance and prevented loggers—members of the CFMEU—from undertaking their daily tasks.

A letter in the Colac Herald, dated 20 January put this thing in stark contrast. Members of the unions are seeking to undertake their daily tasks and are being frustrated. This letter is from Councillor Alan Billing, Colac Otway Shire's representative and executive member of Timber Towns Victoria. He is a very sensible, understanding person who has a long association with the industry. He writes:

Enough is enough. The current situation in the Otways has gone too far.

The blockading and disruption of legal sustainable timber harvesting by a small group of misguided and ill formed economic terrorists is not supported by the majority of this community.

The timber harvesting operations in the Otways are in line with State Government policy.

It is managed under a strict code.

It is economically and environmentally sustainable.

It takes place in only a small percentage of native forest in the Otways.

It provides the broader community with the wood based products it requires.

The current illegal disruption is having a severe impact on contractors who are only seeking to do an honest day's work and provide the resource the community needs, and in doing that provide for their families.

That indicates the strength of feeling in the Otways at the moment, as the debate takes place on the RFA. I think all of us in the Otways and the electorate of Corangamite are looking to get the RFA in position, because it will provide certainty for both sides of the argument. It will provide for a small percentage of the Otways to be used for logging purposes.

As members would be aware, the RFA's outcomes reduce the uncertainty and they emerge—as members opposite have conceded—from the 1992 National Forest Policy Statement under a Labor government. Their position was to try to bring about some coordination between state and federal governments so that a final decision could be reached in a coordinated way.

It is worth putting on the record the main provisions of the RFAs and some of the issues that are incorporated in the agreement. The agreement was entered into having regard to assessments on the following matters: environmental values, including old growth wilderness, endangered species, National Estate values and world heritage values; indigenous heritage values; economic values of forested areas and forest industries; social values—that is an interesting one; that includes jobs and how the local community might be affected—and principles of ecologically sustainable management. The agreement provides for a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system. That incorporates a major understanding of forest matters, and there has been a lot of debate about that important aspect. The agreement provides for long-term stability of forests and forest industries.

As members would be aware, this agreement is reached using the JANIS report, which incorporates a benchmark of 15 per cent of the pre-1750s distribution in each forest community of protected species within the reserves and retention of reserves of at least 60 per cent of old-growth forest. All the conservation groups could not disagree with that. It also incorporates protection of 90 per cent or more of high quality wilderness and social and economic considerations. So the aims of the RFA are to provide for future forest management and an ecologically sustainable forest products industry. Who in this House could argue with that?

The legislation, which was before the House at an earlier stage, requires that Commonwealth compensation be paid if it intervenes in the RFA area. This compensation stands in its own right just in case a future government starts to challenge the legality of the RFA. This ensures that there is a security of the product—something that Tasmanians, people in East Gippsland and all foresters are very keen to see. If they make the investment, they want a security of product, and this part of the bill will ensure that future Commonwealth governments will not interfere with the process.

The removal of export control has always been a vexed issue. Commonwealth governments have used export control, particularly in relation to woodchips, to bring about control of forestry operations that are the purview of state governments. So the RFA is a genuine situation that will ensure a long-term position. So much so that the RFA that is agreed to by all sides of the debate is a final authority because the government has agreed to remove the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975, the Environment Protection Act 1974 and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. No longer will we have a backdoor approach by people who represent the conservationists, using legal processes to overturn an agreed RFA.

The process gives legitimacy to all players and, once this has been agreed to, will make sure that this whole process is not an ad hoc arrangement. Those of us who were here at that time saw the Keating government under considerable political pressure with the blockade because they adopted an ad hoc process. They identified coups that were on quarries and coups that were in Bass Strait. That was their approach.

The RFA process in the Otways in Victoria will ensure that it is a consultative process. It is a legitimate process, that will stand up in legislation both at the federal level and the state level. It will provide certainty for the loggers. It will provide certainty for the conservationists that their point of view has been taken into consideration. More importantly, as the minister at the table has advocated, it has a scientific basis. Science will be the basis of the argument by both sides, and that has been canvassed over the last 15 years or so.

When the agreement has been reached, it will be balanced and will ensure that there will be a sustainable timber industry in the Otways, in East Gippsland, in the Central Highlands and, hopefully, in New South Wales as the process continues. It will maintain the biodiversity and, finally, it will be a 20-year agreement so that the timber industry at long last will have some certainty and loggers will be able to invest in new equipment and union members will be ensured that their jobs are reasonably safe and that they can proceed with some certainty.

By November 1999, we in the electorate of Corangamite and the Otways would hope that the RFA will be signed. It will be agreed to by Minister Tuckey and it will even be agreed to by the member for Reid, who is sitting at the table. The agreement will be signed by Premier Kennett and by the federal government, and it will be a landmark decision of an RFA in Victoria which will ensure that the next process in Western Australia or Queensland can proceed.

I am delighted to support the bill and to say that this House will proceed to support it, and hopefully the Senate will see the sense of the shadow minister in supporting the broad thrust of the bill. I move:

That the question be now put.

Question put.

The House divided. [10.19 p.m.]

(Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)

Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

——

Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

——

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Details of voting will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Laurie Ferguson's amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. [10.26 p.m.]

(Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)

Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

——

Majority . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

——

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Details of voting will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.