Senator FORSHAW (7:43 PM) —Finally, at 17 minutes to eight on 9 August 1999, we get to debate the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 —a most significant occurrence. It is significant because this bill, on which we are commencing the second reading debate this evening, was first put on the Notice Paper at the beginning of this year. Indeed, late last year, the members of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs Legislation Committee were told that this legislation was so vital and so important that it needed to be debated and passed within the first week or two of this year's sittings. Because of that urgency, the committee had to consider the legislation and report by the first week of the 1999 sittings—that is, the sittings that commenced in February this year.

So the committee dutifully did that, notwithstanding the fact that it meant that the committee's deliberations had to be done over the Christmas-New Year period and that we had to truncate the public hearings to ensure that we could meet the timetable set by the government and by the Senate and notwithstanding that this was a piece of legislation that had extremely wide interest right across the community, particularly in regard to those areas where the logging of forests takes place.

We met the timetable set by the government and we brought our report in. There was, of course, a majority report by the government which said the bill should be passed unamended. There was a minority report by the Labor opposition which indicated that there should be some significant amendments made to the legislation. No doubt we will get on to those in the committee stage of the debate this week. There were also reports from the Democrats and the Greens.

That was back in February that we were set to debate this legislation. Since then, despite the legislation being on the program virtually every week and despite the fact that I have had this speech prepared and in the top drawer, what has happened? The government, at every opportunity that they had to bring this bill on, baulked. They refused to bring it on for debate, notwithstanding the importance of this legislation to the completion of the RFA process whereby all regional forest agreements are due to be completed by the end of this year.

Why has the government procrastinated and delayed? We have seen clearly the evidence, and it has been because of the incompetence of the Minister for Forestry and Conservation in this government, the Hon. Wilson Tuckey. The minister huffs and puffs and has spent most of this year roaming around the countryside making outrageous threats against state governments, against the ALP and against the Senate. Indeed, we have again recently seen the abuse that he hurls and the threats he has made against his own coalition colleagues in the state of Western Australia.

Let me quote what Minister Tuckey has said recently, in the last couple of days. This was an interview that was replayed on PM after the introduction by Mr Mark Colvin, the presenter, who said:

Australia is at war this evening, though not a shot has been fired. It's a civil war between Federal and State Governments, and the declaration came from the Federal Forests Minister, Wilson Tuckey.

Mr Tuckey was quoted as saying:

I got preliminary advice from other sources and, in fact, I've spent three hours on the phone. I got up at 3 o'clock in the morning in Helsinki to talk to people at the appropriate time here, and as I told them, if you proceed with this I quoted some words from Phantom of the Opera : `There will be war between us'. And that's where I stand on it.

That is what he said in respect of the decision taken by the Western Australian government.

Senator Quirke —Ironbar.

Senator FORSHAW —This is Ironbar Tuckey; this is Chainsaw Tuckey. That is what he said in regard to Premier Court and his government when they recently made a decision to revise the RFA that they had entered into with Minister Tuckey to, in effect, phase out logging in certain old-growth native forests by the year 2003. But, of course, not everybody takes Minister Tuckey's threats and outbursts seriously. We have learned to live with them on this side of the chamber because we know that it is all bluff and bluster and hollow threats, notwithstanding some form, which I will not go into, from the past. Even the Western Australian government are now learning that they cannot always take Wilson Tuckey's outbursts and threats seriously because, on the same PM program last Friday, 6 August, the response from the state Western Australian Minister for the Environment, Cheryl Edwardes, to Mr Tuckey was:

Well I think perhaps that is just Mr Tuckey talking, and we are really not interested in a fight with the government. The message we got very clearly from the local councils and the community yesterday was a positive one. They want proactive action in reinforcing and attracting investment to those communities for alternative employment opportunities and that is what we are about.

The interviewer, Joe Pritchard, asked:

Wilson Tuckey has said this is war between the federal leaders and the state leaders. Is it war?

Cheryl Edwardes replied:

Well we are not interested in a fight with the government, the federal government. We are more interested in getting on and helping those south-west communities.

Joe Pritchard:

Isn't Mr Tuckey being unhelpful by stirring up so much emotion?

Cheryl Edwardes:

Oh well, look, I think it is just Mr Tuckey talking.

We have a major problem developing in the forest debate in this country, and it is one that we on the opposition side are sad to see occur. We all know, irrespective of our particular political point of view, that the forest debate has been a heated debate for many years.

It is not an easy issue to resolve. Indeed, when we were in government we saw, assembled around this parliament, the trucks of the loggers blockading this parliament. We have seen time and again over the years this debate degenerate into slanging matches between representatives of industry, no doubt properly concerned about the future of their industry and the jobs of their employees, and the equally strong views held on the environmentalist side. It has never been an easy debate to try to stand in the middle of and resolve, but when we were in government we, with the cooperation of all the states, established a process for the development of regional forest agreements.

Unfortunately, with the current federal minister, who has now been in that position since October last year—pretty close to 12 months in that portfolio—what have we seen? We have seen the debate become divisive again. It has even got to the extent that it is divisive within his own party. We have declarations of war between a Liberal federal minister and a Liberal Premier and a Liberal government in Western Australia. That is the level that the debate has degenerated to.

And what have we seen in terms of results in that period? Not one RFA finalised since this minister has been in the position, except for the RFA that was negotiated in Western Australia and has since been revised by the Western Australian government itself. Yet this minister was put in charge of this portfolio specifically to get this process completed within the time frame set down: that is, by the end of this year.

That is the background against which this legislation now comes before the Senate. This is legislation that this minister has said, if it is amended by the Senate, he would prefer to withdraw rather than accept any amendments to it—once again, another threat. The problem is that, whether or not one regards Mr Tuckey's performance as being over the top, or whether he thinks he is funny and witty or making threats that he can carry out, or whether other people think they are threats that are hollow or that he is merely all bluff and bluster and talk, at the end of the day it does not really matter. What matters is that the proper process for negotiating RFAs is being undermined by the actions of an irresponsible, out of control minister, and the sooner the Prime Minister does something about it and him, the better.

I want to turn to the legislation and specifically to the proposals that the opposition will be bringing before the chamber in the committee stage. As we have said in our report of the Senate committee, the opposition supports the RFA process. That is a process that was developed under the previous Labor government and one which can deliver satisfactory, balanced outcomes for the competing interests within this industry. The process, of course, has its genesis in the National Forests Policy statement, and there are 11 goals of the National Forests Policy statement. I want to quote firstly the introductory paragraph, because it is important to bear it in mind when considering this legislation. This is what the National Forests Policy statement said:

The Governments agree that, to achieve their vision for the forest estate and to ensure that the community obtains a balanced returned from all forest uses, eleven broad national goals must be pursued. These goals should be pursued within a regionally based planning framework that integrates environmental and commercial objectives so that, as far as possible, provision is made for all forest values. The eleven broad national goals are as follows:—

and they are set out under the headings `Conservation', `Wood production and industry development', `Integrated and coordinated decision making and management', `Private native forests', `Plantations', `Water supply and catchment management', `Tourism and other economic and social opportunities', `Employment, workforce education and training', `Public awareness, education and involvement', `Research and development' and, finally, `International responsibilities'.

The first two of those goals, particularly conservation and wood production and industry development, are particularly critical. It is the RFA process which seeks to achieve the balance between, on the one hand, conservation and, on the other hand, wood production and industry development. The RFA process is about achieving these goals through proper scientific analysis and through assessment and negotiation with all the relevant stakeholders.

The problem, of course, is that some participants in the debate do not really believe in finding a balanced outcome between conservation on the one hand and resource security on the other. We reject that extreme position, whether it comes from those whom Senator Brown represents—and he has stood in this chamber and has attacked the position of the Labor Party, claiming that it is a sell-out to the woodchip companies, a claim which is totally erroneous and grossly unfair—or whether it comes from the other side, from Minister Wilson Tuckey, who is unashamedly pro-logging to the point of irresponsibility.

For instance, Minister Wilson Tuckey is on record as claiming that the commitment to protecting 60 per cent of old-growth forests under the JANIS criteria was only ever a target: it was never a firm commitment and was not something that he saw really ever had to be achieved. I know that he said that, because I heard him say it at the ABARE Outlook conference earlier this year in Canberra. Yet, if you look at the JANIS criteria, they clearly spell out that at least 60 per cent of old-growth forests will be protected—and, indeed, that figure can be expected to increase as plantations are developed into the future.

I have already referred earlier to the minister's attacks and criticisms of the states, such as the attacks he has made upon the New South Wales state government and the agreements they have negotiated on the North Coast forests, and his threats to withhold funding from the states—particularly from the state of New South Wales, because it happened to be a Labor state and he happens not really to agree with the politics of the Labor government. Consequently, not long before the state election, he was threatening to withhold the funding for the properly negotiated agreements in that state.

Of course, what happened? His threats were rejected. Indeed, even his own people and supporters within the coalition have rejected his views in that state, and the agreements reached between the New South Wales government and the industry have been strongly supported across the political spectrum.

In turning specifically to the amendments that the Labor Party will be seeking to move in the committee stage—we will be making some extensive comments in regard to them at that point in time—I particularly want to make some brief comments about some of the key amendments. We propose to insert an objects clause. That clause will reflect the provisions of the national forest policy statement. We propose to insert a provision whereby a wood and paper industry council would be established under legislation. This was a commitment made by and included within the wood and paper industry strategy and, indeed, was one which was carried on until this government came into office after the 1996 election and John Moore abolished the council.

But the most important amendment—which will no doubt be the subject of debate in the chamber—is our proposal whereby regional forest agreements would be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny by the federal parliament before they are given the final approval. We propose a system whereby RFAs, once in a draft proposal form, would be tabled in the parliament by the minister. A period of 15 sitting days would then be available during which a resolution disapproving of an RFA may be passed. If no such resolution is passed within the specified time, then the RFA would become operative.

There has been a lot of misinformation and scaremongering about this proposal. I want to make it very clear why we put it forward. Firstly, whilst the process of negotiating RFAs is the correct one, it is clear that not all of the stakeholders come to that process with clean hands and with a desire to bring about a balanced solution in accordance with the objectives of the national forest policy statement. You do not need any further proof of that than seeing what is happening in this debate in Western Australia at the moment. The situation is that an RFA was entered into between the state government and the federal minister. Within a matter of a couple of weeks the state government, because of the public clamouring and outcry, as well as the internal objection within that government to the provisions of that RFA, amended it. And so we have the minister saying that he is not going to accept it. That is a substantial reason for such an RFA to be subject to the final scrutiny of this parliament in an expeditious and timely manner.

It is certainly incumbent upon this parliament, when we will be giving future RFAs resource security for the next 20 years and committing in excess of $100 million of taxpayers' funds in industry support and restructuring, to have the final opportunity to scrutinise any RFA negotiated between the executive of the federal government and a state government. (Time expired)