Senator MURPHY (8:23 PM) —What can I say? Although I come into this place to make a contribution in regard to this legislation, one would think that I might also be able to say, after so many years of debate on this issue, that we are actually heading somewhere. Who would have thought that, after some 15 years, we would still be heading nowhere and that this particular process would be in just as big a mess—if not a bigger mess—today as it was 15 years ago? In looking at the Regional Forest Agreement legislation and the purpose for which it is intended, we firstly probably have to look at the Regional Forest Agreement process, the processes prior to that that actually brought regional forest agreements about and why those processes were put in place.

We know that the forestry debate raged for many years in this country and led to a process being introduced by the Commonwealth government known as the National Forest Policy Statement, which was the forerunner and mechanism through which Regional Forest Agreements would be developed. Part of that process, of course, was that we would see an end to the conflict in the forests and have an agreed process for the assessment of forests and ecosystems that were worthy of protection and, indeed, warranted protection, as necessary for the wellbeing of this country and its forests in the longer term and, hopefully, forever. Secondly, that process was to provide some surety and security for the people involved in the commercial aspect of forestry. We started off, I think, with very good will and intent but, as I said, here we are now debating resource security legislation and I have to say that, as a process, it has succeeded in doing neither of the things that I just mentioned.

It has failed to determine the environmental debate in regard to what forests shall be available, which shall not be available and which shall be protected. More importantly—particularly from my point of view—I think the Regional Forest Agreements that were supposed to provide security for workers in this industry are not going to give that security. Indeed, where Regional Forest Agreements exist today, those workers do not have security—not one little bit of security. I suppose that we have provided some security for some of the major companies involved in the industry, particularly for the export woodchippers. We have provided circumstances where they can enter into what are known as `wood supply agreements' that can last for many years, but what have we done for workers? What is happening to the workers and contractors that those companies used to front the public profile and run the argument and the case for security for this industry? Most of them are losing their jobs.

Is the RFA system creating new jobs? Is it causing new investment in the industry? One has to say no, not really; it is not doing that. I know that in my state forestry is such an important industry from a commercial point of view. It is the second largest manufacturing employing industry in this state. It should be the largest, but it is not. It will not ever become that until such time as governments—and I do not care of what political persuasion—are actually prepared to take up the issue and deal with this on the basis that it ought to be dealt with.

Head west, and the Western Australia government signed a Regional Forest Agreement with the Commonwealth that was supposedly run through all the scientific processes to determine which forests would be preserved and conserved and which would not, so that the people within the industry—the workers and contractors; not the companies—would be able to at least have some idea of what the future might hold for them. But no—what does Mr Court do? He reverts to the old political game: forests and old-growth forests are a political issue. The green Liberals say that we must preserve more of the forests, so we throw out the Regional Forest Agreement, which is supposed to be based on sound scientific knowledge. I am not going to purport to be an expert in that respect, but that was the name of the game. They were the processes put in place and agreed to, and yet they get ratted on.

There is not a Regional Forest Agreement in this country, either existing or proposed, that is going to deliver any security to workers in this industry. That is a shame because they are the ones whom we ought to have some feeling for. Of course, we must take account of the very important environmental issues that are involved with making decisions about which forests we are going to make available for commercial use. It is important that we make decisions based on sound science but also take account of the future of the forests of this country. What I cannot stand, and never will be able to stand, is the wanton waste that I see going on around this country in the commercial use of these forests.

As a nation, we ought to know that we have such great opportunities, particularly within the hardwood industry. We know that nations to our north and north-east have placed their hardwood forests under extreme pressure. Indeed, some of them have been virtually wiped out. We know that, in Papua New Guinea, the World Bank and the IMF have instructed the government that it has to change its practice with regard to its forests. Anyone who has been there would know. You can go through all of the Pacific nations and find the same problem. Although a small timber supplier in world terms, we at least had an opportunity to take some steps forward in this process. But what have we done? We have stuffed around with this issue for so long, vacillated and booted the political forestry football to and fro, that people are fundamentally fed up with the issue.

My prime concern has always been the workers in the industry and the opportunities that exist for states and this nation to proceed to have a better forest industry. I always thought governments ought to have played a positive role in industry development. We saw some aspects of that in the early days with regard to some industry plans that were developed by the former Labor government. In respect of forestry, I have to say, we did not do all that well. In my view, we used it wrongly as a political football for many years. We finally started to head in the right direction with regard to putting in place a process that was supposed to deliver outcomes—and I do not like to say this—for both views in respect of forests. As I said, it has failed, and it is going to continue to fail until such time as premiers, prime ministers and ministers responsible are able to put in place a process that will stick.

I have pursued the issue of forestry for a long time. Indeed, I have written to senators in this place from time to time about forestry related issues. As I said, I just cannot understand how we cannot get this right. It is not as though it is difficult. It just needs a little bit of initiative and willpower and some proactive efforts on the part of government. You can create a lot of jobs in this industry—and I speak from my own state's point of view more than any other because that is the state that I have the most experience with. We have recently had a review of segregation and utilisation practices in my state, and I am amazed at the fact that, despite the limited capacity of the reviewer and the fact that it was run at a time when forestry operations were basically at a standstill, that person developed a report that said that there were significant things wrong. We have had an industry growth plan proposed by the state authority, the Forestry Corporation of Tasmania.

By way of example, that industry growth plan proposed a certain number of things in terms of industry development, but primarily it proposed three laminated hardwood veneer lumber plants. Of course, people say, `That sounds like a reasonable idea.' Yes, it does, except that there is really not much market for hardwood LVL. Of course, if you ask any of the major consulting firms—that is, those that have any global experience—they will tell you that there is not a market because of the softwood competition and the fact that the market essentially requires softwood LVL. They will also advise you that to produce a new product and then put it into the marketplace could take as long as 10 years.

Of course, we have another aspect to the whole issue with regard to export woodchips. I listened to Senator Bartlett saying, `We want to stop the export of woodchips.' I do not disagree with that in respect of old-growth forests, but I say to Senator Bartlett, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that it is highly likely that those people exporting old-growth hardwood woodchips will stop themselves from that practice in terms of old-growth forests before we ever have any capacity at a governmental level, either state or federal, to come to grips with the issue and how the problem should be addressed. The market for paper and the paper manufacturers of the world will demand, and indeed are demanding, that the fibre that is supplied to them be whiter and younger. I would suggest that within the next three years we will see a self-declared end to the exporting of old-growth hardwood woodchips.

With regard to this bill, the opposition has proposed some amendments, one of which I have had a fair bit to do with—that is, the one going to a wood and paper industry council being established. The simple reason for my wanting that put into this legislation is this: regional forest agreements have no real review mechanism. There is a five-yearly review—not annual, but five-yearly—but that will be conducted by the participants to the agreement and primarily by the state authority.

What are the mechanisms for us as a parliament to make an assessment of the outcomes? How do we measure whether or not the commitments given by the state and the RFA are being delivered? We cannot. If a state does not deliver on its commitments, there is no process by which the parliament can debate the issues. In fact, once an RFA is signed, a state, for all intents and purposes, can cut down all of the trees available in its commercial forest area and ship them out as logs—and there is nothing we can do about it. At least if we have in this process a wood and paper industry council, set up as proposed by the opposition, it will provide for one small mechanism whereby some people representing workers will be able to be in there arguing the case for greater industry development.

I notice that the government has proposed a late amendment that says it will `set up a forest products advisory council' and that it will be `constituted in accordance with the regulations'. Of course, the Governor-General may make regulations prescribing matters `(a) required or permitted by this act to be prescribed or (b) necessary or convenient to be prescribed' et cetera. With regard to the establishment of that council, it `provides for the establishment of a council to be known as the forest products advisory council' and that `functions of the council in relation to the forest and wood sector are to be prescribed by regulations' and `the council is to be constituted in accordance with the regulations'.

We do not know what the regulations are. We do not even know whether workers will be represented on the council. On the record of the government, I have to say this: prior to the last election, you people gave a commitment to adhere to the national forest policy process, to adhere to the regional forest agreement process—and that included the establishment of a wood and paper industry council. It included a constitution for that council and, indeed, a membership list for that council.

But the government did not adhere to that; it set up a thing not dissimilar to what it is proposing to set up again. That particular forum established by the government I think met only twice. You only have to see the circumstances with which we are now confronted to understand the worth of that forum—because we have gone nowhere. I have to say that I would have expected more; indeed, the government members on the committee that dealt with this legislation—and I do not want to misrepresent them—certainly agreed that we did not want to have another forum that was of no value.

That is why it is of fundamental importance that the amendment for the establishment of a wood and paper industry council be incorporated into this legislation and that there be a requirement at least that it then be included in regional forest agreements, both those already in existence and those yet to come. That will be the only way that workers and contractors, people who have bought plant and equipment in this industry, will have some hope of getting some equity into the process for themselves. That is what this was intended to do. I do not think anybody intended ever to give security to export woodchip companies. I think both Labor when last in government and the current government said that on many occasions. In fact, I can remember the current Prime Minister accusing the former Prime Minister of being the king woodchipper. I know who is king of the woodchips, and it is certainly not Paul Keating. It is the Prime Minister, John Howard, who is king of the woodchips.

The existing minister for forests, try as he might, has not led this debate to where it ought to be going. I just hope that one day a government might be able to do that; I do not think this one will, and I am not quite sure whether we would.