Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some general comments to make before we come to the amendments that I propose to move. One could not help noticing that the connection between the comments made by the minister in his speech in the second reading debate and the facts was, as usual, quite strained. I suppose language is a curious thing. How a person who is older than another can be their love child is a curious thing that only this minister could concoct in his fervent attempt to get a line.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said ‘political’.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, political!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree. The minister’s language is sometimes curious and on many occasions his representation has little bearing on the facts. I am reminded that Senator Abetz launched an attack recently on Labor’s position on forestry, simply by misrepresenting the words in Labor’s platform. He did not put it out on his departmental website. He snuck it out on a Liberal Party—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is there.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it appeared there this week—some months after the statement, because I goaded the minister at estimates about the fact that it was not on his website. He excused the action by saying that he did not want to trouble his department on the weekend to put it on the website. It would be interesting to see how many press releases that were issued then now appear on the website. I am certain the officers would be offended if it were suggested that they did not work on weekends, because I know that they do.

Senator Abetz in that press release pressed his claims that Labor’s platform represented a resurrection of Mark Latham’s Tasmanian forest policy. As I said, it is a press release that appeared on the Liberal Party website. In that press release, Senator Abetz said:

... Labor’s commitment to “protect at least 60 per cent of existing old growth forest (increasing to 100 per cent for rare and depleted old growth), and 90 per cent or more of high quality wilderness” (Draft National Platform, 91) will inevitably result in more forest lock-ups.

I was very surprised that Senator Abetz did not recognise the figures that he quoted. Those figures appear not only in Labor’s platform but also on—guess what?—the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry website—the website of his own department.

Under the heading ‘Nationally agreed reserve criteria’, which the website goes on to explain are also known as the JANIS criteria, are the following nationally agreed targets for the conservation of ecosystems:

• 15 per cent of the pre-1750 distribution of each forest type
• 60 per cent of the existing distribution of each forest type if vulnerable
• 60 per cent of the existing old-growth forest—

this is from the minister’s department’s website—

• 90 per cent, or more, of high quality wilderness forests, and
• all remaining occurrences of rare and endangered forest ecosystems including rare old-growth.

If Labor’s platform recites those words and that means that they have resurrected Mr Latham’s forest policy, does that mean that so has the minister’s own department and therefore his own government? The facts have never got in the way of this minister presenting an argument.

The figures quoted by Senator Abetz from Labor’s platform represent nationally agreed targets for conservation, and the figures that Senator Abetz used to attack Labor are in fact the government’s own targets, adopted in regional forest agreements for various regions, signed by the Prime Minister. So it is little wonder that Senator Abetz chose not to put this press release on his ministerial website, because it so directly contradicts the very argument that he has been making. And, as I said, he came up with a lame excuse for the reason that it was not on his ministerial website: because it was released on a Sunday.

This is a minister who is particularly good at selectively quoting Labor’s platform. In his press release, he conveniently left out a passage of the platform that talked about all of those goals which, as I say, appear on the departmental website. Our platform went on to say:

This goal will be achieved through the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) process. RFA outcomes will vary from region to region in response to variations in community expectations and environmental concerns.

And, in the budget estimates, guess what? The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry had to acknowledge that this statement from Labor’s platform is consistent with the regional forest agreements, the very agreements that the Prime Minister has signed, the very agreements that this government has signed up to, the very agreements which Labor have committed to support in our platform. As I said, this is a minister who never lets the facts get in the way of a good story. He has been left in this regard without a leg to stand on.

In relation to the issues around this particular legislation, the minister would have us believe that, in the near five years that have elapsed since it was proposed that the process encapsulated in this legislation be given effect, the government has expeditiously done all things necessary to get us to this point. Frankly, I took the minister’s explanation for the delay as a reflection on the previous minister, Senator Ian Macdonald, who made a contribution. Frankly, I would have thought that the minister was suggesting that, if there was a delay, it was perhaps the responsibility of his predecessor, not himself.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, frankly you did. Frankly, the minister’s contribution left us with no concrete understanding as to the reason why, in an area where there is much established legislative precedent, much established precedent on the form of statutory funding agreements and much established precedent on the structure of the corporations necessary to be established—and indeed, at the committee inquiry into this bill, the department admitted that they had formulated the structure of the statutory funding agreement, and of course the company had formulated its arrangements, on the basis of the precedents established in previous legislation—it took five years to get to this point. No satisfactory explanation of that has been presented. We have had some glib presentations, a bit of an attempt to score a few political points, but no satisfactory explanation as to why it has taken five years to get to this point.

In relation to the question of whether the discussions that have taken place between the industry and the minister should satisfy the parliament as to how accountability should be dealt with, I would simply say that it is the opposition’s view that, where there are arrangements such as this that involve taxpayer moneys, and where there are arrangements such as this that, through this parliament, equip a private company with effectively a taxation power to apply to its own industry, there should be full and proper accountability to the parliament. That is not accountability to the executive—which is, as I understand it, what the government proposes to be the acceptable option—but full and proper accountability to the parliament. That means the regime which we propose to amend this legislation to achieve. It is a regime which we proposed in relation to the dairy industries model, a regime which a more reasonable minister has accepted.

The public will make their judgements on the outcome of this legislation ultimately over time. Some industries have had serious problems in relation to the operation of private organisations equipped with funds delivered by the taxpayer and by their industry under the force of the legislation of this parliament. It is the opposition’s view that those legislative arrangements ought to impose obligations upon any relevant minister—and we accept that, in the event that we were to win the next election, they are obligations that we would impose on a minister of ours. We accept that responsibility. Those obligations would require the minister to be accountable to parliament and to show the parliament that the operation of the agreements entered into between the minister and the corporation was being observed, that the arrangements were fit and proper in relation to that statutory funding agreement and the legislation and that, if there were any matters that the minister was not satisfied about, the minister would draw those matters to the attention of the parliament.

That is all we are asking for: that the minister and the body which is being equipped with taxpayer funds, and with funds levied from the industry under the authority and the force of this parliament, be accountable to the parliament. It does not sound like a very onerous responsibility, does it? So it would be surprising if this government took the view that it is not appropriate for taxpayer funds and parliament-authorised industry funds to be dealt with in the most accountable way to the parliament that authorised it. I wait to hear some responses to that. I move opposition amendment (1):

(1)    Page 15 (after line 12), at the end of Part 4, add:

17  Tabling of financial reports

        (1)    The industry services body must, within 14 days of lodging a financial report (the annual report) mentioned in section 292 of the Corporations Act 2001, give the Minister a copy of the report.

        (2)    The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 14 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report.

        (3)    In addition to the matters mentioned in section 295 of the Corporations Act 2001, the annual report must include the following details in relation to the financial year to which the report relates:

             (a)    the amount of forestry service payments and matching payments made to the industry services body;

             (b)    the amount of those payments that was expended;

             (c)    outcomes as measured against objectives that apply in relation to the industry services body.

18  Other reports

        (1)    The Minister must, as soon as practicable after the holding of each annual general meeting of the industry services body, cause to be prepared and tabled in each House of the Parliament a report in relation to the year ending on 30 June before the holding of that meeting.

        (2)    The report must include the following in relation to that year:

             (a)    a statement as to the amounts of charge imposed under clause 2 of Schedule 7, or clause 2 of Schedule 8, to the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999 and received by the Commonwealth on or after the transfer time; and

             (b)    a statement as to the amounts of levy imposed under clause 2 of Schedule 10 to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 and received by the Commonwealth on or after the transfer time; and

             (c)    a statement as to the amounts of levy:

                   (i)    imposed under regulations made for the purposes of Schedule 27 to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999; and

                  (ii)    identified by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph; and

                 (iii)    received by the Commonwealth on or after the transfer time; and

             (d)    a statement as to whether the Minister is satisfied, on the basis of information provided by the industry services body, that its expenditure of forestry service payments and matching payments complies with the funding contract; and

             (e)    if the Minister is not so satisfied—details of why the Minister is not satisfied that the spending does comply with the funding contract.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In responding very briefly, I simply refer people to the Senate committee majority report as to why it is not necessary to have this extra layer of bureaucracy and extra layer of cost that Senator O’Brien is suggesting. In relation to the alleged delay of this legislation, I simply say that as a government we always want to consult and get it right, rather than rush it. As Senator Ian Macdonald so ably pointed out, there was a lot of consultation that took place, and we now have overwhelming support of the industry sector in relation to this legislation.

In relation to the media release that I issued on the Sunday afternoon of the national conference of the Labor Party—just in case anybody thinks there is a point in it, and I do not think there is—I was over in Western Australia attending the conference of Timber Communities Australia. I had my media person with me there and, as he always does, he put out a very good media release and issued it to the media immediately—rather than going through the department and asking people to come into their offices et cetera, when we were able to do it by remote control from Perth. The fact that it was not put onto my ministerial website is a matter for which I have chastised my very capable media adviser, because we stand by our media releases. I also thanked Senator O’Brien during Senate estimates for pointing out this oversight to me. The media release was expeditiously put on my ministerial website, so nobody should be under any illusion that there was something about it that I did not want displayed on the ministerial website.

I turn to the targets that Senator O’Brien referred to in relation to percentages of particular forest types. This is what the Labor Party continually does: what they say is the truth, but it is only half the truth. It is what they do not say that is the material point in these debates. Sure, in setting up the regional forest agreements we had aspirational targets which were set out and signed off on. The only thing that Senator O’Brien talked about at Senate estimates, and again here today in this chamber, was the aspirations in relation to locking up. A very important part of the regional forest agreements was conservation, not only of the environment but of people’s jobs and local, regional communities. That is where you have to strike a balance. After many years of fighting and dispute within the Tasmanian community, we came up with a balance at the last election, which the people of Tasmania overwhelmingly signed off on.

I led the Liberal Party Senate ticket in Tasmania. Senator Kerry O’Brien led the Labor Party’s Senate ticket. Whilst undoubtedly each of us has a degree of personal following and other considerations, there is no doubt that the overwhelming support that I received for the ticket that I had the honour of leading was as a result of our balanced policy. As a result of the balanced policy that we submitted to the people of Tasmania, the Prime Minister has said, ‘No more lock-ups in Tasmania.’ I, honoured to be forestry minister, have also said that the government’s position is to have no further lock-ups in Tasmania because, having done all the equations for that agreement, we know that any more lock-ups would have meant loss of jobs.

Mr Rudd, we are told by Senator O’Brien, is fully committed to the Tasmanian community forest agreement. Why won’t he tell the people of Tasmania that if he is elected Prime Minister there will be no further lock-ups? Why won’t Senator O’Brien, the shadow minister for forestry, tell his own electorate of Tasmania that if he were to become forestry minister there would be no further lock-ups because a good sensible balance was achieved only two years ago? The reason is that they have done this deal in New South Wales to get Greens preferences, prior to the people of Australia being told what the Labor Party’s forest policy is. I think we can have a fair guess what it is if the Greens are willing to sign on to the Labor Party before even knowing what the publicly announced policy is.

That is why Mr Rudd and Senator O’Brien cannot tell us, and why Mr Garrett will not come to Tasmania, as he promised. He must be having a lot of bad hair days if he cannot come to Tasmania for this period of six months.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O’Brien interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know I am getting very close to it as well, but I still have a few follicles left. The simple fact is this: the excuses that the Australian Labor Party are providing simply do not stack up. In relation to the accountability of this the guarantees are there. The contracts will guarantee that. It is very similar to the situation we have with the egg industry. Nobody has seriously suggested that the egg industry has some serious deficiency because of its regime; similarly, nobody can make out the argument that the forest sector is going to have some problem as a result of the regime that is being proposed in this legislation.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will make a couple of points. The interesting thing in the conspiracy theories that the minister put forward is that he has no basis for them other than to advance them as the usual scare tactics of a government that has little to say on these matters. The curiosity with which the public must view these statements and the contortions that are necessary to come to the conclusions are mind blowing. Because we have not announced a forest policy and because there is some alleged agreement with the Greens about preferences in New South Wales, that must mean we have a forest policy! Because Mr Garrett is the environment minister, he is a major issue for Tasmanian forestry—but, on the other hand, why doesn’t Mr Garrett come to Tasmania to look at forestry! Which particular contortion are we supposed to focus on? If Mr Garrett is supposed to come to Tasmania and focus on forestry, is that because the minister expects that there is something in him seeing the industry which will be germane to more reservations, or something like that? I am not sure where the minister is coming from. The classic position of this minister is, when you do not have any facts to justify an argument, you throw a few scare allegations out there and base your whole argument on those scare tactics.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why did he make the promise? He made the promise! That is not my scare tactics. He scared Tasmania by promising.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister suggests that Mr Garrett scared Tasmania by promising to come there. This is the contorted logic of this minister in relation to that. When Mr Garrett comes to Tasmania he will be welcomed by the Tasmanian people; he is a very popular person. He will look at the things that he needs to see there and he will discuss matters in relation to forestry with Labor’s forest shadow minister; that person is me.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why haven’t you invited him? You do not have much pull.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we have another little jibe by the minister. Why have I not invited him? I do not need to invite him, but I have certainly spoken to Mr Garrett about these matters, and they are matters which are germane to the discussions between him and me. But Mr Garrett has been very busy. He has been dealing with the issue that this government has refused to adequately deal with for years, and that is the response to the latest iterations of the climate change debate and the fact that this government does not have an adequate response to the climate change issue.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So Mr Garrett has been busier than Mr Rudd.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Garrett has been busy dealing with the issue—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Busier than Mr Rudd?

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. I did not say that. I said Mr Garrett has been busy in relation to the issue of climate change and I am very comfortable with the way that Mr Garrett is handling his portfolio, including the portfolio of the arts.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for the Arts and Sport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We said nothing about the arts.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Interestingly, the Minister for the Arts and Sport is in here interjecting. I have had some serious representations from regional art groups talking about the pathetic response that this government has made to the need for funding in the budget.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, no, that was the Tasmanian government.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. They were talking about the federal government, actually. In relation to the budget, states like Tasmania have done particularly poorly, possibly because the new minister has very little pull with the Treasurer in that regard. You would have thought, given that he has been one of his acolytes, he would have had more say in how the arts fared in the budget, particularly for regional communities. Labor continues to support this long-awaited development in this legislation. What we do not understand is why the government, in this chamber on 27 March 2003, would be willing to support precisely the same amendments proposed by the opposition in relation to the Dairy Industry Services Reform Bill 2003 and the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy) Bill 2003. That was the debate—in committee, as we are now—in this chamber on 27 March 2003. Senator Troeth, representing Minister Truss, I think, at that time, in this chamber, indicated support for precisely the same propositions that I put up. What is different?

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She is much more sensible.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a different minister, yes, and the interjection from behind is that she is much more sensible. I will not disagree with that but, frankly, I suspect that Senator Troeth was carrying out the instructions of the minister responsible, Minister Truss, and Minister Truss agreed with the opposition proposition, which was, purely and simply, that there be provisions in relation to the tabling of financial reports in this parliament and that there be provisions in relation to what the annual report should say that were tabled in this parliament. In that case, those provisions were in relation to dairy service payments rather than forestry service payments, and in relation to matching funds, which are taxpayer funds, and the outcomes on which those funds were spent. Those outcomes are measured against the objectives that apply to the industry services body. The amendment does not sound too radical to me. It sounds as though it is eminently sensible for the body that actually authorises the company to collect these payments, and that authorises other payments to this company, to report back to it and to be the subject of appropriate scrutiny through this process on behalf of taxpayers.

The amendment also requires the minister to table other reports in relation to the industry services body that has been authorised by the legislation that is going through the chamber now. It talks about the amount of forest industry levy payments received and the amount of taxpayer funding received and a statement by the minister that says the minister is satisfied, on the basis of information provided by the industry services body, that those funds have been properly spent or, alternatively, that they have not been properly spent and the reason that the minister thinks that. That is all we are asking for. We are not asking for some radical imposition of obligations. Frankly, it is laughable to talk about this being a red-tape issue for the company. They already have to provide an annual report under the Corporations Law. All we are saying is that matters that would have to be reported to the minister under the statutory funding agreement should be reported to the parliament. This minister of this government does not want the parliament to see that information. He wants the information to sit only in the hands of the minister.

One has to ask the question: why would a minister be concerned to prevent the parliament from knowing whether the funds the parliament authorised have been properly spent, how much they were, what the matching funds were and whether the minister, or a previous minister—or a successor—was satisfied that the statutory funding agreement they signed was being complied with? Why would the government oppose that? Why would it be sensible for that to not be in the legislation, particularly when the government has previously agreed to it? I do not understand that. We have had a very glib statement saying that the egg industry has different provisions. If the egg industry provisions are not adequate, that is a different matter, but the opposition—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not conceded that they are; I said, ‘If they are.’ The opposition believes that in this case it is eminently sensible for provisions to apply that the government has agreed to in respect of similar bodies. The dairy industry is a significant body and one of the bigger industries in this country. If they are prepared to operate under that—and indeed they do—and it has not been an impediment to their operations, why would this be an impediment to the forest industry? I say that it would not be. The forest industry would be quite happy to be open and honest about how they are dealing with the funds that their community gave to them, as they would be in respect of taxpayer funds.

I did say earlier that the leadership the government has provided to this industry on certain matters has been lacking. However, in this regard, it is an easy proposition for the government to say: ‘Yes, we agree. We believe this industry has nothing to hide. We believe this industry will be very happy to have the statutory funding agreement between the minister and the government the subject of appropriate declaration and affirmation by the minister as well as in the tabling of their annual report.’ That is all we ask. One would not think it was much. One would not have thought it imposed a significant burden on the industry or the minister. The minister would simply be doing the job that he or she is paid to do, which is to be accountable to the parliament. That is all we ask.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very briefly, the issue in relation to our good friend Mr Garrett had a bit of an airing this afternoon. The simple fact is that he made a promise to the people of Tasmania to visit before the national conference. He did not. I think the people of Tasmania are entitled to an explanation as to why he has not visited. The reason given, that he is so busy he has not found the time, is interesting. Both Mr Rudd and the Prime Minister have been able to make multiple visits to Tasmania during that time—the excuse, therefore, is that Mr Garrett is busier than both Mr Rudd and the Prime Minister. I do not think that argument washes.

In relation to the current Labor Party policy, my media release that was issued on the day of the national conference of the Labor Party footnoted Mr Anthony Albanese’s media statement of 19 November 2004, when he was shadow spokesman in the Mark Latham era. I was able to point out how the wording during that period looked very similar to that which had then been ratified by the most recent Labor conference. The wording was that the Labor Party had ratified a policy of further protection—I repeat: further protection—of a list of Tasmanian forest types. As a result, they have further protection on the books. That is quite clearly in stark contrast—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell me what it means? You’re making it up. Make up some more.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What does ‘further protection’ mean?

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O’Brien interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it is for the Australian Labor Party to identify what they mean, and that is why we have said to the Labor Party, ‘Identify those further areas.’ And they will not. But the Greens have exchanged preferences with them, so the Greens know, but the Australian people and the timber workers do not.

In relation to the area of disclosure and that I might have something to hide—this nonsense of tabling a document in this place and so-called other procedures which would simply be extra red tape and at extra expense—ASIC requirements are that the annual report is publicly available and posted on their website, in any event. Therefore, it is available to every member of the public through that mechanism. If Senator O’Brien wants a personal copy delivered to his office because he cannot master the internet, that is fine; I will ask the department to personally provide him with one.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

FORESTRY MARKETING AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2007

Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.

Bill agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.