Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS (Jika Jika) -- The opposition has a number of problems with the bill, which allows for the
privatisation of the Victorian Plantations Corporation and the granting of perpetual licences over its plantations. The
government is proposing a trade sale either of the corporation as a whole or of any of its the three regional parts in
Gippsland, in the north-east and in the west. The sale involves about 170 000 hectares of public land, most of it state
forest, which is used for softwood and hardwood plantations and which contains 25 000 hectares of native vegetation.

Because of the size of the area, the privatisation of the Victorian Plantations Corporation is of concern to Victorians.

The VPC will be able to grant perpetual licences over its vested land, which will be able to used for plantation purposes
only. However, the licences will be able to be sold to new owners, and the licensees will be treated as private owners of the
land for all purposes, including the payment of all rates and taxes and adherence to the private section of the Code of Forest
Practices. The licensees will have to establish industry fire brigades under CFA control. All the plantation land has been
surveyed and mapped, and some recreation areas will be divested back to the Department of Natural Resources and
Environment. Tracks and roads will be divested to the Crown and declared public roads; however, many road reservations
will remain vested in the Victorian Plantations Corporation, as will extra parcels of land within or adjoining the plantations.

A number of issues need to be addressed, including the uses to which the land can be put, the lack of consultation about the
development of the proposal and the sale process itself. In order to elaborate, I move the following reasoned amendment:

       That all words after 'That' be omitted with the view of inserting in place thereof 'this house refuses to read this bill
       a second time until all details are made public and full public consultation has taken place regarding --

(a) which public lands will be licensed;

(b) the future of areas of native vegetation now vested with the Victorian Plantations Corporation; and

(c) the financial implications and evaluations of the proposals'.

Sitting suspended 6.28 p.m. until 8.02 p.m.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- The opposition will oppose the bill because the privatisation of the Victorian Plantations
Corporation is unwarranted and will result in a massive shift of public assets into private hands. Almost 170 000 hectares
of public land, $323 million worth of public assets and 120 full-time jobs are at stake. In 1997 the VPC's revenue was $70
million, with a profit of $30 million. The VPC produced 2 million cubic metres of softwood and hardwood from its
plantations which include 20 000 hectares of native vegetation.

The bill would result in a significant shift of public assets. During the delivery of its budget the government said Victoria is
no longer in a financial position where this sort of privatisation is financially necessary or justified. It said it had improved
the finances of the state and that Victoria was no longer experiencing the difficulties it had faced in the past.

In that context it is

difficult to understand why the government wishes to privatise state assets which have been built up over many years.

The opposition raises a number of concerns. The first concern is public access to what are essentially public lands. I raise
this issue in the context that traditionally many groups, including four-wheel drive enthusiasts, horse riders, shooters, deer
hunters and bushwalkers, have had access to our state forests. The government has not consulted the community on which
roads will be closed when the bill is passed; therefore, various groups are concerned about their future access to public
lands and whether existing arrangements will change after the privatisation of the VPC.

The second issue relates to native vegetation.

The plantations contain about 25 000 hectares of native vegetation, most of which is in gullies and on steep slopes,
especially in the Strzelecki Ranges. Conservationists are opposed to the privatisation of the land because native vegetation
will be removed from the so-called plantation areas.

Hon. W. R. Baxter -- Who is suggesting they will be?

Hon. R. M. Hallam -- Mr Theophanous.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- A number of groups. Had you consulted you may have learnt about them.

Hon. W. I. Smith -- Name them!

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- I will.

At least on this bill some government members are willing to contribute to the debate.

Hon. W. I. Smith -- Not too many on your side.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- In the last debate you did not manage to get even one speaker.

Hon. R. M. Hallam -- Look at your back bench. You don't have a member of your party in the chamber.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- The third issue relates to future public benefits from VPC land. The proposed legislation
will see Crown land which could have later been removed from VPC control for public use -- for example, the restoration
of native forests -- being privatised.

My fourth concern is the secrecy with which the change has been brought about -- although that sort of secrecy is endemic
under this government. No information has been released to allow a full public debate about the issues. Another substantial
legislative measure will be forced through Parliament without little debate.

The fifth concern relates to the many complaints received by the opposition about the VPC's breaches of the forestry code
of practice, which gives the opposition no confidence that things will change for the better after the VPC is privatised.

There has been strong opposition to the sale in South Gippsland, and there have been a number of demonstrations outside
Parliament -- and members will have noticed another demonstration outside Parliament today.

Unlike the government, the opposition has consulted a range of people about the legislation, including the Victorian
National Parks Association, Environment Victoria, Friends of the Earth, the South Gippsland Conservation League, the
Municipal Association of Victoria, the Victorian Local Government Association, the Country Fire Authority, the timber
towns, the Victorian Farmers Federation, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the Four Wheel Drive
Association, trail riders, the Federation of Walking Clubs, and the North East Victoria Forest Growers Co-operative.

The government talks about the extent to which it has consulted, but it has not identified a single group to which it says it
has spoken. At least the opposition can say it has consulted with a range of interested groups, which I have listed for the
benefit of members.

Members of those groups consistently complained that they were not consulted by the government. They were not
consulted adequately by the government -- --

Hon. W. R. Baxter -- You said they were not consulted, then you said they were not consulted adequately. Are you saying
they were spoken to?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- Mr Baxter, the Leader without Portfolio from the National Party -- --

Honourable members interjecting.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- The backbencher who pretends to lead the National Party makes another inane comment.
No wonder you were dumped by your party, Mr Baxter! It is a wonder they still pretend you are their leader when you are
sitting on the backbench.

Honourable members interjecting.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- The groups we consulted constantly complained about the lack of

consultation by the government. Mr Baxter, the so-called leader of the National Party -- --

Hon. P. R. Hall -- What do you mean 'so-called'? He is.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- It is a pity the government does not think enough of him to give him a portfolio -- but that
is something for your party to work out.

I will give an example of the lack of consultation. On 17 April the Friends of Gippsland Bush wrote to the opposition about
the legislation.

Initially the group pointed out that the timber industry maps bear no resemblance to the DNRE vegetation maps. The letter
says in part:

       It was noted that none of the legends on any of the maps contained the word 'plantations'.

       The terminology of 'plantation' is misleading. In many cases the vegetation is regrowth.

       However, this would mean that the vegetation found in these locations would be deemed as native vegetation and,
       under Victorian law

       a permit would be required to clear such vegetation

       the land would not be available for the establishment of new plantation sites.

The group points out that, through a sleight of hand, the government has sought to define many of those areas as
plantations when in fact they are nothing of the kind but are instead areas of vegetation regrowth. The letter goes on to say:

       Thus, through a process of deception, state forest is being transformed into 'hardwood plantation' to be divested
       by VPC for private development.

I look forward to Mr Baxter telling us what happened in his consultation with the members of that group -- if he bothered to
speak to them at all.

I doubt he did, because one of the hallmarks of the government is that it never speaks to people who may have different
points of view from those it wants parroted in this place. The Friends of Gippsland Bush also said:

       An urgent independent inquiry, to establish the validity of VPC claims based on well-informed, expert advice, is
       needed before the process of consideration of matters contained in the bill proceed.

That is exactly what the opposition is saying. The bill ought to be withdrawn until all those affected are fully consulted and
the matters raised by the opposition and concerned groups have been addressed. The group talked about vegetation types
and the availability of softwood:

       In January 1996, Australian Paper Plantations (APP) claimed, in their submission to the panel appointed to hear
       applications by that company to clear 2000 ha of native vegetation in the Strzelecki Ranges, that the area applied for
       consisted of 'scrub'. The definition was rejected by the panel in their deliberations and subsequent
       recommendation.

       The minister for planning, Rob Maclellan, at the launch of the timber harvesting certification system in July 1997,
       quite deliberately chose to perpetuate the myth by again choosing to describe the vegetation of the Strzelecki
       Ranges as 'scrub that must be cleared to create the bigger picture'.

The community group, which is concerned about our environment, also said:

       Studies conducted by BIOSIS Research, resulting from the agreement between Friends of the Gippsland Bush Inc.
       and APP, prove that both statements are incorrect.

Of course they are incorrect, because the government is seeking by deception to fell regrowth state forest. As the group
says, the Strzelecki State Forest comprises 61 000 hectares, which is a significant portion of the state's forests. Of that,
pine plantations cover 13 000, eucalypt plantations cover 7000 and native vegetation covers 17 000, and there applications
to clear over 3000 hectares.

In its letter the Friends of Gippsland Bush also said:

       VPC is contracted to supply 100 000 [cubic] metres annually for the next 15 years to Plant Hard Pty Ltd as sawn
       timber required for export.

       The definition that allocated 7000 ha of timber claimed by VPC to be plantation is presently being challenged.
       Clearing of the vegetation continues whilst the challenge is being pursued.

That is because the contract requires more than the area listed as eucalypt plantation to be fulfilled, which means native
vegetation will be used as well. This is the legitimate concern of a community environmental group. It should be taken
seriously rather than brushed aside in the way the government continues to do with a whole range of people who show
such concerns. The 1998 March issue 146 of the publication Environment Victoria news also discusses this issue and -- --

Hon. R. M. Hallam -- Who produces that?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- Minister, why don't you go and look it up? That way you can find out; perhaps you will
actually learn something.

I have it listed here, but I do not intend to waste my time trying to educate you on such matters. If you are interested,
Minister, you should look it up; you should take an interest in the environment.

Hon. R. M. Hallam -- You should know a bit more about it if you are to quote it as an authority and reference.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- I have advised the house of the name and the issue number.

Hon. R. M. Hallam -- But you do not know who publishes it.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- In this issue the Victorian state plantations are discussed. It includes an article by Kim
Devenish and Julie Constable, two Strzelecki residents who have an interest in the area.

They argue, as is their right, the VPC and the plantations and other forests should not be sold off. They further argue in this
article that if the sell-off goes ahead at least 20 000 hectares of VPC-held bush plus unsuccessful and inappropriate
plantations should be held back. Whether that occurs or not, they are unlikely to have much influence on this government.

Hon. W. R. Baxter -- They might if they put up a reasonable argument.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- It would be an absolute first for this government to listen to any argument, reasonable or
otherwise, Mr Baxter.

Hon. W. R. Baxter -- This government listens to logic.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- The only time this government listens is when it is absolutely pushed into a corner by the
state's legal processes.

The government was pushed into a corner recently in the Mitcham by-election when the people of Victoria told the
government what they thought of its Auditor-General and Workcover changes and how reasonable and rational they
thought they were; but that has not changed the government's view on any of those issues so I do not expect it to listen to
the community on this issue either.

Hon. T. E. Eren -- It listened on the gun lobby issue!

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- That is right. The gun lobby might have had a rational argument, Mr Eren. According to
Mr Baxter's definition, the gun lobby obviously had a rational argument because the government listened to it and decided
to walk away from the arrangements it had agreed to.

The government reneged on the deal it made in Canberra in a most disgraceful manner; the government caved in to the
pressure of the pro-gun control groups on the basis that, according to Mr Baxter, a rational argument had been put up.

Hon. W. R. Baxter -- Mr Eren's objection destroyed your hypothesis, that is for sure! One of your own backbenchers
destroyed your argument!

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- I do not think so, Mr Baxter; I do not think so at all.

Hon. W. R. Baxter -- I do!

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- The article states:

       The state forest was made up of 'blocks'.

       Examination of the detailed Strzelecki state forest maps that accompany the 1993 VPC act shows that where
       plantations were part of blocks, they were not mapped out separately.

       So instead of the plantation areas being selected out of these blocks for handing over to the VPC, it appears that the
       word 'plantation' was simply substituted for 'block' on the maps and the whole of the affected blocks handed
       over.

       These blocks may contain plantation, but they also contain a diverse range of mountain ash old growth and
       regrowth, messmate forest, acacia forest and rainforest.

The authors of the article point out that when the determination of the area to be controlled by the VPC took place it was
done on the basis of these blocks of land. Within those blocks were not just plantations but also parcels of land that
contained existing forest, old growth forest and some regrowth. It was not a case of the maps reflecting the plantation areas
at all; it was just an ad hoc application of what they considered the VPC ought to be in control of. In that way the area
which the VPC therefore controls -- and which is therefore the subject of this legislation -- includes a whole range of such
regrowth and old growth forest. That is why the authors of the publication believe the bill should be adjourned, and the
opposition agrees.

In correspondence with the opposition the authors indicated again that locals are still not happy about the land which was
included in the eastern Strzeleckis in 1993. They say:

       They were not informed then and since have only been shown a VPC map (displayed at the Foster Agricultural
       Show) which colours in the entire 40 000 hectares of the Strzelecki State Forest vested in them as either softwood
       or hardwood plantation. Locals know that this is clearly false.

Hon. W. R. Baxter -- This is on page 1401 of Hansard of 29 April.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- I am reading from correspondence which was sent to the opposition. I do not know what
you are reading from.

Hon. W. R. Baxter -- It is the Assembly Hansard of 29 April word for word!

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- Good on you, Bill! The same quote was used -- --

Hon. R. M. Hallam -- You are quoting Hansard from the other chamber most of the time.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- It is good to know that there is debate from both sides of the house.

Hon. Rosemary Varty -- It shows you have no debate of your own!

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- I continue the quote:

       These 1998 updated maps have not been in circulation long enough for the public to obtain access to them and put
       forward their comments. Local grievances regarding the inclusion of 20 000 hectares of native forest have so far
       been ignored by forestry and politicians. Responses to letters have been misleading and irrelevant.

       The new amendment bill adds extra land to the VPC's estate and divests 45 tiny areas which are mostly roads. No
       public forest has been divested; there has been no compromise.

That is what Kim Devenish and Julie Constable said.

Hon. R. M. Hallam -- Did they actually say 'no public forest has been divested'?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- That is what they say.

Hon. R. M. Hallam -- No public forest has been divested?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- Those two people are residents of the Strzelecki area and have a longstanding interest in
the issue.

The government proposes that Victoria should sell off a very important asset that was built up over a significant period
because of the foresight of previous governments in developing plantations under state control for the benefit of future
generations and to reduce the impact of clear-felling of native forest.

The government has decided to do a quick conversion into cash of an asset that was built up by forward-thinking previous
governments. The government pretends it is a good manager of the state when the only thing it has shown it is any good at
is selling things off. The government has behaved like an auctioneer with the state's assets under its hammer! The
government says it is a terrific financial manager because it has been able to flog off the SECV and all the other assets that it
has disposed of through privatisation in the period it has been in office. It never occurs to the government that those assets
were built up by previous governments.

If there had been as much mismanagement by previous governments as the current government claims, there would have
been no assets for it to sell off. The asset base of this state was very strong when Labor lost office in 1992. That asset base
was converted into funds by the current government through a program of privatisation.

Hon. W. I. Smith -- To pay the debt!

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- That is right. It was a process of paying off the debt, but the only reason the government
was able to pay off the debt was because Victoria already had the assets! It was not because the government went out and
managed the economy in such a way that it gradually paid off the debt or anything of the kind. All the government did was
sell! That is fair enough, but the government should not pretend the debt was reduced because of terrific management when
it was reduced by selling the state's assets!

The credit should go not to the seller of the assets but to the previous governments that built up Victoria's asset base to well
in excess of its debt level.

The debt of the State Electricity Commission under the Labor government in 1992 was running at between $7 billion and $8
billion. However, the SECV -- as was demonstrated by the sell-off -- sold for $22 billion! That represented a net asset for
the people of Victoria of $13 billion! The opposition is happy to debate Victoria's debt, a topic the government constantly
brings up, because it is time the truth was told. Whatever the debt was in 1992, it has been reduced not by the
government's management but simply by the government auctioning off the state's assets that were built up by previous
governments, including the previous Labor government. The State Electricity Commission was built up over approximately
60 years by previous governments. Its value had nothing to do with the government's efforts over 12 months to sell it off!

Exactly the same situation exists with the bill before the house. The bill proposes the sale of an asset built up by the
foresight of previous governments, including the previous Labor government, in establishing and maintaining a program of
establishing plantations in Victoria to replace native felling.

Hon. R. M. Hallam -- You opposed plantations on public land!

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- You have no idea what you are talking about. The previous government

supported plantations, and that is how these assets were built up. They did not just materialise from nowhere. They were
built up because previous governments decided to put them there. This government has decided to sell off the plantations in
one sweep. The bill involves more than just selling off the plantations; it involves a whole range of rights that accompany
plantations.

Traditionally, plantations are considered to be places accessible to the public. It was always envisaged that privately owned
plantations would revert back to the state at some stage in the future. The bill proposes significant changes to the existing
arrangements, and I would caution anyone considering buying a licence to be very concerned about the controversy
traditionally surrounding plantations. I am sure Mr Baxter has witnessed some of the controversy surrounding attempts to
clear-fell in areas considered by the public to be native growth areas. Anyone considering buying a licence with the
intention of clear-felling might discover that the area is not all designated plantation but contains areas of regrowth or old
growth forest and might find themselves in some difficulty.

Hon. W. R. Baxter -- Are you threatening to revoke the licences?

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- They may find themselves in conflict with those who traditionally oppose those sorts of
activities. You know very well, Mr Baxter, and I am sure the former minister for conservation knows that people become
very emotional about the felling of native forest. The problem is that the government has defined areas of native forest -- old
growth and regrowth -- as part of plantations. Any prospective purchasers of these licences will have to think carefully
about the uncertainties involved and whether they will have the ability to carry out their operations.

Hon. M. A. Birrell -- It is all subject to the code of forest practice.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- Minister, you probably know the number of times the code of forest practice has been
breached even by the existing organisations.

Hon. M. A. Birrell -- This was the code your government created when in power.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- We did not create the code for it to be breached. You were so inept as Minister for
Conservation and Environment that there were many breaches of the code. The number of complaints the opposition
received during consultation on this bill about those breaches suggests that the government obviously could not ensure that
the code was not breached. It is not an argument about the code itself; it is an argument about breaches of the code.

Hon. M. A. Birrell -- About enforcement!

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- About enforcement. You were unable to enforce it properly when the VPC was in its
current form.

Hon. M. A. Birrell -- That is not a case against the bill.

Hon. T. C. THEOPHANOUS -- No-one believes the government would make any effort to ensure private owners
followed the code. That is beyond the realms of imagination because clearly the private owners will have an even greater
imperative to make a profit. If there are to be a few breaches of the code here and there in order to ensure that occurs, the
private companies will do it. I do not know whether the minister is introducing more monitoring arrangements to ensure the
code is not breached. Although I am unaware of the government introducing any additional arrangements, I know that a
range of complaints have been made to the opposition about the code being breached.

It is vital that we consider the effect of plantation forestry on soil quality and stability. There is no requirement on private
operators to ensure that their activities have minimal impact on soil quality and stability. No-one has explained the method
and frequency of plantation felling, or of the rotation arrangements.

All of those issues have been swept to one side in the rush to sell off these plantations in order to make a few bucks which
the opposition does not think is necessary considering the government's budgetary surplus.

Few requirements are being placed on the prospective purchasers of these licences. The opposition strongly believes the bill
should be redrawn and proper consultation processes take place. The government could begin by consulting the list of
people the opposition consulted in the course of examining whether it would support the legislation. If the government
bothered to consult organisations, such as the ones I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution, perhaps it would have
formed a different opinion about the need for the bill.

The opposition believes the bill is unnecessary and strongly opposes the privatisation of Victoria's plantations. It is another
example of Victoria's heritage being flogged off by the government, with little thought

being given to the long-term consequences of its action on the environment and on the heritage of Victorians.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER (North Eastern) -- The house has just been treated to one of the more pathetic contributions by the
Leader of the Opposition. Apart from a brief excursion into the evils of the government because it decided to sell the SEC,
the Leader of the Opposition repeated word for word what the shadow minister in another place said on 29 April. As I said
by interjection earlier, if honourable members were to examine page 1401 of the Assembly Hansard of that date they would
see exactly what he was reading. The Leader of the Opposition was doing nothing more than regurgitating a portion of the
debate in another place. The house should have every right to expect, especially from the Leader of the Opposition, an
original contribution.

Hon. B. W. Bishop -- We would be surprised!

Hon. W. R. BAXTER -- We would be surprised, Mr Bishop. When I challenged the Leader of the Opposition on a couple
of points by way of interjection and caught him out, he knew he was caught out. His only response was to resort, as
always, to personal abuse. I can put up with the personal abuse, but I am getting sick of the line he uses. Some originality
at times may help us, but it is an indication of a shallow mind that time after time gives the same old shibboleth of personal
abuse.

Hon. P. R. Hall -- We have been hearing it for nine years!

Hon. W. R. BAXTER -- For many years, Mr Hall, and it is about time the opposition looked at its leader and elected a
person who at least would be prepared to give the house the respect that it demands and deserves. Although I listened to his
regurgitation, not once did I hear any logical argument about why the state should be growing trees and, in particular, pine
trees.

Why should the state bear the risk of this huge asset, especially in this day and age when the private sector is ready, willing
and able to do it. We did not hear any argument from the Leader of the Opposition on that point. He finished his
contribution by talking about the government destroying the state's heritage. One must bear in mind that the plantations are
98 per cent pine trees and little of it eucalypt. I thought that was a new definition of the state's heritage!

Somehow the pine trees are part the state's heritage. It is another indication of how little Mr Theophanous understands the
legislation or what is beyond the tram tracks of Melbourne. He defines an imported pine species as part of the national
heritage. The electors will have their chance in a year or two to pass judgment not only on the government but also on the
opposition.

I have great faith in the wisdom of the electors and I forecast that they will simply not endorse and accept an opposition that
displays the sort of ignorance we have seen tonight.

We have a further indication of the complete lack of understanding of the opposition with the railing against the closing of
roads as if somehow access was being denied! Mr Theophanous should come to my electorate in north-eastern Victoria,
beyond the tram tracks. He would find that most of the roads that are to be closed by the bill have never been opened! They
are simply lines drawn on maps 100 years ago across mountain tops and rugged terrain that have never been developed as
roads at all. He showed his ignorance when he talked about closing off access!

At first he said there was no consultation but I caught him out there. He then said there was inadequate consultation. He
admitted there has been consultation.

In my province, in Mr Hall's province and I am sure in Western Province this issue has been tossed around, debated and
consulted about for at least two years.

Hon. P. R. Hall -- More importantly, it's supported!

Hon. W. R. BAXTER -- Yes, Mr Hall. I have been negotiating with groups in my municipalities way back to the time it
was still the Shire of Upper Murray before the amalgamations. How long is it since that happened? Mr Theophanous said
there has been no consultation but I spoke to every group that approached me. I did not refuse to meet with or listen to the
submissions of any groups.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- How many sought to speak to you?

Hon. W. R. BAXTER -- I can honestly say a significant number of responsible groups spoke to me. It is also true that
some of those Mr Theophanous mentioned tonight did not seek to speak with me, particularly those from the Strzeleckis
and Gippsland. I would not expect them to bearing in mind that I represent another part of the state. But had they wanted to
put their case to me I would have listened.

This worthy legislation transfers the risk for growing, maintaining and managing thousands of hectares of plantations to the
private sector, which has demonstrated by its capacity in power generation, building City Link and virtually every
endeavour in this state that it can do it better than the government. It can

deliver a more efficient and effective result and the taxpayer should not have to bear the risk.

That is the principle reason for my enthusiastic support of the legislation.

To get to a more localised reason, my municipalities are over the moon because they will now collect rates from the
plantations. For example, although nearly all the area in the Shire of Towong is Crown land, a number of plantations will
be paying rates. Municipalities have complained for a long time about the fact that they provide roads, repair bridges that are
allegedly damaged by logging trucks and provide a whole range of services to the industry without receiving rate income.
Now they will get it. They are enthusiastic about that prospect.

Mr Theophanous also referred to native vegetation being destroyed. I thought he was well answered by the Minister for
Industry, Science and Technology who said the Forest Code of Practice was put in place by the former Labor government.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- I thought you said there wasn't any in the plantations!

Hon. W. R. BAXTER -- If you look in some of the gullies along the streams there is a buffer of vegetation. Not only
would the Code of Forest Practice prevent its removal but also the plantation owners, who are specialist millers, would not
want to remove that vegetation. They do not want to harvest eucalypt or hardwood trees. It does not make any sense at all!

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- What a fool you are!

Hon. W. R. BAXTER -- I have already explained to you that there are very few hardwood plantations provided under the
bill. It concerns the 98 per cent pine of plantations and specialists operators dealing in pine, principally radiata pine.

Mr Theophanous's statement that they will be logging hardwood trees for their mills beggars belief. That is not their activity
or their core business. It is not their speciality. They do not want to risk damaging their high-technology mills. Companies
like Monsbent at Benalla, Carter Holt Harvey at Myrtleford or ANM at Ettamogah are state-of-the-art world-class softwood
mills. They certainly would not want to introduce hardwood logs into their production lines. Mr Theophanous has built up
a straw man. But he did not realise it because of his total lack of understanding. You are a dud, as Mr Davis rightly
interjects!

I refer to fire suppression and fire prevention, a subject to which I alluded during debate on amendments to the fire
authorities act. There has been a great deal of concern, particularly in north-eastern Victoria, where large plantations are
surrounded by state forests. It may not be quite the same situation in Gippsland and it certainly is not the situation in
south-western Victoria, where many of the plantations are small and are surrounded by private land.

The bill provides for the Forests Act to be amended to remove those parcels of land from the definition of protected public
land and to make them part of country Victoria. By definition they will then come under the Country Fire Authority, which
has responsibility for fire prevention and suppression. That has caused some concern in north-eastern Victoria where the
number of volunteer firefighters is declining in low population areas. They are concerned that they may not have the
manpower, skills or the equipment to properly fight fires and in particular to carry out some of the prevention work.

There is no resistance to fighting fires. It is not as though volunteer firefighters are walking away from fighting them.
However, they question whether the proposed direct transfer of responsibility is the best way of handling the issue.

For example, if one looked at the steep terrain involved, one would realise that, as good as it is -- and it is probably the best
in the world -- the usual CFA grasslands fire truck is not necessarily the best vehicle to use in fighting plantation fires.
Toyota four-wheel-drives with tanks on the back -- in may area they are commonly known as slip-ons -- may well be more
appropriate units for fighting those fires. The Department of Natural Resources and Environment owns those sorts of
vehicles because it needs to fight fires in similar terrain, bearing in mind that under the act it is responsible for fire
suppression in native forest on Crown land.

In the north-east, if not in the other two plantation regions, it could be desirable for those involved to take account of the
fact that the bill requires a plantation owner to establish an industry brigade if the plantation is larger than 10 000 hectares.

Further, the bill gives the Country Fire Authority the power to require an industry brigade to be established on any
plantation larger than 500 hectares. Rather than having a system under which the CFA comes in immediately after the
industry brigade, it may be preferable if a contractual arrangement is made under which the Department of Natural
Resources and Environment is the next responder, bearing in mind that the department has the appropriate gear and the
statutory obligation to suppress fires on the adjacent land -- that is, state forest.

Firefighters are not being diffident about fighting fires, although they acknowledge that some of their people are not
experienced in fighting plantation fires. However, they have difficulty in accepting prime

responsibility for fire prevention in plantation areas if that means a big call on volunteers for preventive burning at
appropriate times of the year.

They do not believe they should be fighting fires in plantations when they do not have the training and when DNRE has the
skills, the manpower and the equipment to do the job. I am informed by departmental officers that the department would not
need to buy extra equipment if, along with the industry brigades, it were made responsible for fighting fires on the big
plantations in north-eastern Victoria because it already has the gear it would need.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- Was has that to do with the bill?

Hon. W. R. BAXTER -- Mr Theophanous, you demonstrate your total ignorance of the issues raised by the people whom
we consulted. If you had undertaken any of the consultation you talked about you would be aware that this is a big issue.
However, you did not undertake it, so of course you are not aware.

Hon. P. R. Hall -- And it did not come up in the Assembly debate.

Hon. W. R. BAXTER -- And it did not come up in the Assembly debate. To achieve the best outcome, it may be necessary
to have a regime in north-eastern Victoria different from the regimes that apply in the south-west and in Gippsland. I put it
to the minister and the Treasurer that a little more work needs to be done. There is no need for any amendments to the
legislation. Those involved need a contractual arrangement that sets up firefighting and fire suppression regimes that will
satisfy the volunteers, protect the plantations and not impose any additional demands on the Department of Natural
Resources and Environment. I leave that on the table for consideration during the sale process. It may well be adopted in
the final round of negotiations. Certainly the primary responsibility will be on the owner to provide an industry brigade, but
other aspects are causing concern. A solution is at hand, and I commend it to the minister.

Finally, I refer to the spread of weeds, particularly blackberries, in pine plantations throughout north-eastern Victoria and, I
suspect, Gippsland and other places. I am especially alarmed by the spread of blackberries in plantations in the north-east
owned by both the VPC and private operators such as Radiata Corporation of Australia, which has a large plantation at
Walwa. RCA is failing to uphold its legal and moral responsibility to prevent the spread of blackberries, particularly where
its land adjoins that of private landowners. A great deal of resentment is building up. During the sale process I want the
government to make it clear to prospective bidders that they have a responsibility to be good neighbours in the communities
into which they are buying.

I received a letter from the Prospectors and Miners Association of Victoria. The association is concerned that prospectors
and small miners will be denied access to plantation land that was previously Crown land.

I am advised that that situation will be no different to that which presently applies to VPC land. They will simply need to
seek the permission of the VPC and its successors, the private owners, to prospect on those areas. I appeal to the new
owners, whoever they may be, to grant that permission. It has been given freely by private landowners in the past,
regardless of whether they have had tree plantations or grazing land. Although the odd difficulty has arisen along the way, I
make that appeal not only because a number of people in our community derive an income from prospecting but because
many regard it as an enjoyable weekend activity. I would not want their access to be unnecessarily restricted by owners
taking a too legalistic view of their rights. I hope open access will continue.

I reject the opposition's reasoned amendment, which was argued without any logic at all. The government has thoroughly
thought through the process.

Rather than an arrangement based on freeholding the land, the licensing arrangement is a unique and appropriate solution. I
end where I began by saying that I see no reason why the taxpayers of Victoria should be growing pine trees. It is a job that
should be done by the private sector, which should bear the risk entailed in building on an asset that was established by
some far-sighted Victorians in different circumstances. Now is the appropriate time to pass that over to the people who
should properly bear the risk.

Hon. T. E. EREN (Doutta Galla) -- I oppose the Victorian Plantations Corporation (Amendment) Bill. The Leader of the
Opposition has put an excellent case against the legislation; but despite the opposition's comments the government does not
understand the concept of proper consultation before it pushes bills through this place.

The provisions of the bill cover 170 000 hectares of Crown land which belong to present and future generations of
Victorians. The government has no right, without having properly consulted the community, to sell assets which future
generations are entitled to access. The Victorian Plantations Corporation is the holder of a perpetual licence over a vast area
of Victoria. The opposition does not know what long-term

impact the prolonged use of the land will have on our plantations forestry. The bill should be stood over until the next
sessional period so that proper consultation can be had with the community.

Native vegetation will be desecrated by an increase in the number of plantations. Since 1993, when monitoring of the VPC
was carried out by the private sector, there have been numerous breaches of the Code of Forest Practices, as reported to the
opposition.

That monitoring should have been done by local government, but it has insufficient resources. The government is again
rushing legislation through Parliament without any concern for the community and without any understanding of the
long-term effects of the bill. Why is the government pushing through the legislation without any public consultation? The
opposition has had only two weeks in which to consult the community about the bill. Why could the government not spend
time consulting the community in the regions to be affected by the bill?

The bill is being pushed through in a bargain basement sell-off because the government wants to privatise the VPC without
having consulted the public. What will happen to the native bushland? Mr Baxter says the government consulted with the
community, but the consultation was minimal and not across-the-board.

Hon. W. R. Baxter -- Rubbish!

Hon. T. E. EREN -- The people on the steps of Parliament House today were proof that the government has not consulted;
otherwise, they would not have been there today.

Hon. W. R. Baxter -- That lot today would not agree with anything we did.

Hon. T. E. EREN -- The Leader of the Opposition put the case magnificently. This is another sell-off of public land
without public consultation. I oppose the bill and support the reasoned amendment.

Hon. P. R. HALL (Gippsland) -- I welcome the contributions made by Mr Theophanous and Mr Eren tonight because
earlier I thought I would make a relatively short contribution to the debate. But they have given me plenty to comment on,
particularly as their comments focused on the Strzelecki Ranges which are part of my electorate.

Later I will respond to the issues raised particularly by Mr Theophanous.

I shall detail for the house the context of my interest in the Victorian Plantations Corporation (Amendment) Bill which is
important for Gippsland because of the significant operations in my electorate of the Victorian Plantations Corporation.
About one-third of my electorate covers the operations of the VPC, in what it defines as its Latrobe zone. Much of that zone
concentrates on the Strzelecki Ranges, which divides the Latrobe Valley from the southern portion of Gippsland. The
Latrobe zone is capably managed by Mr Ian Hemphill, who manages a large number of direct VPC employees. The VPC
operations provide many indirect employment opportunities for those involved in timber harvesting and timber cartage. In
summary, the VPC operations in Gippsland are of significant importance.

The VPC owns a major plant nursery at Gelliondale in South Gippsland.

That nursery has demonstrated world's leading-edge practice in tree propagation research and I invite opposition members
to visit that nursery. In its contributions the opposition failed to mention any positives about the VPC operations and the
bill. Before I address some of the comments made by opposition members I will list three positives. The first is about a
new hardwood mill operation which now operates in Morwell. Planthard is the biggest hardwood sawmill operation in the
southern hemisphere. It sources about 100 000 cubic metres of hardwood timber for the VPC from the Strzelecki Ranges
hardwood plantations. That has been a significant economic development for all Victoria as well as having an impact
locally.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous interjected.

Hon. P. R. HALL -- Yes, they come from the VPC hardwood plantation. I shall address that issue shortly because Mr
Theophanous confused the issues.

The Planthard sawmill was established less than 12 months ago. It is operated by the Clarke family and employs between
90 and 100 people. The government was able to facilitate the development of that mill through its sale of a former SEC
stores building. Victorians should be proud of the hardwood sawmilling operations at that Morwell mill. I assure
honourable members that my constituents regard that mill as a magnificent bonus in their employment opportunities and its
creation of further economic activity.

I turn to a number of positive aspects of the bill not mentioned by the opposition. Mr Baxter said that for the first time the
VPC will pay rates to municipalities for its plantation areas. For years local councils have been arguing about the need to
collect rate revenue to provide the infrastructure for roads throughout the municipality. The VPC's rates will become an
important additional revenue source which local councils will be able to put into their roads infrastructure. I recall Mr
Baxter, in his former capacity

as Minister for Roads and Ports, initiating a timber roads study which recommended that rate moneys from plantations
should be directed towards local roads. This bill will enable rate payments to be collected by local government which, in
turn, will further improve municipal roads -- a positive measure resulting from the measure.

Fencing is another positive aspect. People in country areas often raise the cost of fencing the boundaries adjoining public
land. Currently, the state government -- or the commonwealth government, if it owns the land -- has no legal responsibility
to provide half the cost of building fences between publicly owned and privately owned land. People have been agitating
about that for sometime.

Under the bill the new licensees of the timber resource will be required to meet half the cost of fencing where the property
abuts privately owned property.

That will be a significant advantage for the people who own private land that abuts VPC land. It might be small in the
context of things, but it is an important initiative for the landowners involved.

I now turn to some of the issues raised by the opposition. Mr Eren asked what would happen to native bushland, and Mr
Theophanous asked questions about timber being taken from regrowth forest. I provide the following food for thought for
opposition members. Australia still has a current account deficit of something like $1.8 billion a year in the sale of timber
and timber-related products. That means that as a nation we are importing $1.8 billion more in timber or timber products
than we are exporting, which is to the detriment of many overseas countries. It is legitimate to say that some overseas
countries value their native timbers and land less highly than we do. In that sense we are irresponsible in accepting, for
example, cheap Indonesian paper imports and timber from overseas when we -- --

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- Your solution is to chop down ours?

Hon. P. R. HALL -- We are in that sense irresponsible when we have the land mass and the capacity to supply more of our
need for timber and timber-related products than we do. I doubt that the opposition would disagree about the need to
expand our plantation timbers and make better use of the existing timber plantations and other timber stands. Already more
than 12 per cent of Victoria's land mass is tied up in national parks, most of which are timbered.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- You want to cut it down, do you?

Hon. P. R. HALL -- No, I do not want to cut it down. In fact, I am proud of the government's record of increasing the size
of the state's national parks.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- You just said we shouldn't import timber but cut down our own!

Hon. P. R. HALL -- You are an impatient fellow! I am trying to set the scene -- and to give you some facts on which base
your arguments. The house tolerates your contributions for hour after hour. I am entitled to several minutes to establish the
basis for my argument. Victoria is well regulated, given its national parks and the number of protected stands of timber.

I now turn to the land in the Strzelecki Ranges. The majority of opposition's speakers focused not on the 98 per cent of the
VPC's operations that is dedicated to softwood production, which Mr Baxter told us about, but on the 2 per cent which is
dedicated to hardwood plantation and regrowth timber and which is concentrated in the Strzelecki Ranges.

Mr Theophanous said he was concerned that public access to VPC land would be denied given that the timber resource was
being licensed to private companies. As my colleague Mr Baxter said, many of the marked roads on maps are purely that --
marked roads which have never been opened and to which there has never been public access and never will be.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- Not all of them.

Hon. P. R. HALL -- No, but there is no doubt that there will still be public access to those roads that are currently declared
public roads, so that is not an issue. Those who have driven four-wheel-drive tractors over public roads to access VPC land
will continue to be able to do so. The gipsy caravan tourist operation in the Strzelecki Ranges will continue to have access
to public roads. There will be no change in public access to those public roads.

Mr Theophanous also referred to deer hunters and bushwalkers who have utilised those roads. At present, if you want to
go deer hunting on or bushwalking through VPC land you have to seek permission from the Victorian Plantations
Corporation. Once the timber resource on VPC land is licensed to private operators the situation will be no different -- that
is, if you want to go deer hunting you will still have to seek permission from the new licensees.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- But they are private operators. How do you know you will get it?

Hon. P. R. HALL -- History shows that people like Amcor are generous in allowing public access to their forests. Have
you ever talked to Amcor about it, Mr Theophanous? Every day people go walking, running and jogging in the forests. I
cannot see that the terms of access will be any different under the new regime.

Mr Theophanous said some conservation groups in Gippsland are critical of the legislation and that, in particular, Friends
of Gippsland Bush are critical of recent decisions by the minister to allow the regrowth of native vegetation on land owned
by Australian Paper. I do not believe the group Mr Theophanous has quoted is representative of all conservation groups in
Gippsland. I say that without wanting to provoke him or put him down. There is a distinct divide between two conservation
groups over the Australian Paper situation. One group has called itself Friends of Gippsland Bush, and the other, Friends
of the Gippsland Bush.

       An honourable member interjected.

Hon. P. R. HALL -- It sounds pretty complicated to me, too. Amcor applied to the Department of Natural Resources and
Environment to clear 3000 of the 7000 hectares of land it owned in and around the Strzelecki Ranges.

The department gave it permission to clear 1940, or thereabouts. Mr Theophanous was right. The matter went to the
Planning Appeals Tribunal. The minister went against the decision made by the panel he appointed and allowed Amcor to
clear the 1940 hectares. But let the record show that only 1940 of a total of 7000 hectares was cleared, so Australian Paper
was not greedy.

The government has recognised that Australian Paper needs to expand its plantations. By 2010 it wants to establish 15 000
hectares of new plantations for its fine paper machine at the Maryvale mill. As a consequence, representatives of the
government and Australian Paper recently sat down to try to work something out. The government representatives said,
'You own some land that is of important conservation value to the state. We own some land that we may be prepared to
swap with you.' A deal was struck between the Victorian government and Australian Paper to swap land.

Amcor, or Australian Paper, gave up almost 4500 hectares of land to the Crown. The government will now preserve that
land for conservation purposes. In return the government gave Australian Paper 2500 hectares of former SEC land for
plantation purposes. The people of Victoria have won a pretty good deal in that respect. They have received almost 4500
hectares of land for conservation purposes and have sacrificed only 2500 hectares of land formerly owned by the SEC and
which had no significant conservation value at all; most of it was cleared land. The government is serious about looking
after the values of conservationists in the community, in the Latrobe Valley and within the Strzelecki Ranges.

One of the conservation groups I mentioned earlier was in favour of 2000 hectares of land being cleared; the other group
was not.

That is why I say to you, Mr Theophanous, when you express the view that people have not been consulted and that
everybody is against these proposals, that is not true because opinion is divided, even amongst conservation groups.

Mr Theophanous tries to confuse us about plantations and native forest regrowth. I am often perplexed about the definition
of native forest regrowth. Is it forest that never again should be logged or is it forest that should be logged in the future? If
an area of land is cleared after 5, 10, 15 or 20 years, when are we not allowed to log it again? What happened since the
1939 fires in the Dandenong Ranges and around that area? Should we be logging that regrowth? That regrowth is now
almost 60 years old and is good solid mountain ash timber. It is regrowth timber. Should we be logging that regrowth in
national parks and preserving it because it has not been logged for 50 or 60 years? Little of the material in the Strzeleckis is
area that has never been logged. As you say yourself, Mr Theophanous, the vast majority is either plantations or regrowth.

I suggest there is strong argument to say that regrowth areas should be logged because we need that timber resource.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- Here we go!

Hon. P. R. HALL -- Do you say any regrowth area should never be logged? What is a plantation to you? Is it where trees
are deliberately grown in straight lines? Is that a plantation? Or is it where we go out into the forest now where there has
been timber production and seed is scattered by hand or air and trees grow naturally? Should that be an area we should not
log again? Plantations include regrowth areas that have been logged before and consequently they were resources that
should be available to the timber and paper industry of this state.

Hon. W. R. Baxter -- Hear, hear!

Hon. P. R. HALL -- Especially given the fact that over 12 per cent, or one-eighth, of the state is already national park and
significant areas of all biological

diversity are protected throughout the national parks system.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous interjected.

Hon. P. R. HALL -- You are happy to put words in my mouth all the time.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- You said log the Dandenongs where there was a fire 60 years ago; you would go up there and
log it!

Hon. P. R. HALL -- We are logging in some areas now, and the former Labor government was doing it, too!

Your department was happy to do it when you were a minister; you were happy to log the fire areas!

Hon. T. C. Theophanous interjected.

Hon. P. R. HALL -- What I am saying, Mr Theophanous -- and you refuse to listen to the argument -- is where the
government has declared an area to be a national park, not one person on this side of the house is arguing that area should
be logged again. That is why the government protects native parks area; that is why it protects areas of biological diversity.

State forests are a different kettle of fish. Where regrowth occurs in state forests there is no sensible argument to suggest
those forests should never be logged again. They should be; we need that resource. We as a country expend and have a
current account deficit of $1.

8 billion on timber and timber-related products; we need to use our existing resource and our plantation timbers and expand
on them. We must be sensible how we use our forests and not be dogmatic the way the opposition is. You would stick to
the greenest of arguments that come your way.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- I would rather be green than mean!

Hon. P. R. HALL -- Approximately 140 000 hectares of the Strzelecki Ranges is VPC land; 13 000 hectares are in pine
plantations; 17 500 hectares are in hardwood plantations; 3000 hectares are in roads or road reserves; 2500 hectares are
what is termed understorey species -- which most of us would recognise as pure scrub -- leaving a balance of 104 000
hectares, which seems to be the issue of debate with some of the conservation groups. Of that 140 000 hectares, 12 000
hectares are in gullies and stream areas or on slopes greater than 20 degrees which under the Code of Forest Practices
would never be logged anyway.

That leaves a balance of about 2000 hectares. My understanding is that 2000 hectares is land that has previously been used
for logging purposes anyway, so it is the regrowth area that Mr Theophanous is talking about. However, as I said, I
believe there is substantial, sound and logical argument that that regrowth area is capable of being logged, resourced and
utilised.

Mr Theophanous suggested the house should defer the bill and go through another consultation process because of the
controversy surrounding the legislation. I represent the Gippsland electorate, which is where the opposition says all the
controversy is. I advise Mr Theophanous and opposition members that no controversy exists; the vast majority of people
support the bill as sound, reasonable legislation.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- Didn't you see the demo today?

Hon. P. R. HALL -- Nobody talked to me or contacted me about it. The level of controversy does not exist. This is
sensible and logical legislation which is supported by the people of Gippsland and Victoria. That is why the reasoned
amendment is not accepted by the government. Victorians need to utilise the resources they have in the sensible and
balanced way that has been demonstrated to date, and will continue into the future. This is great legislation and I am pleased
to put on record my support of it.

Hon. K. M. SMITH (South Eastern) -- I also support the bill and speak against the reasoned amendment moved by Mr
Theophanous which is so typical of him; he puts forward reasoned amendments on bills he does not understand nor wishes
to understand.

The government is selling the licence to harvest a resource that is on government land and which will stay in government
hands -- and which will always stay in government hands! The government intends to protect native forests and any of the
parks in the area will be looked after. Mr Theophanous may scoff at that but he should understand that we do not want to
sell off all of the best parts of the bush. What we are talking about has been said time and time again tonight: 98 per cent of
what is being sold off as a resource is pine plantations. When the Labor Party was in office it had some responsibility for
the establishment of the pine plantations; is that right?

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- Yes.

Hon. K. M. SMITH -- You were happy to set that up! The government wants people to be able to harvest the existing
forests because all Victorians will benefit.

The government will not put our beautiful pristine forests under threat because that is not in the interests of the government
or Victorians.

The arguments put by the Leader of the Opposition tonight have been absolutely ridiculous. The decision to sell off the
business of the VPC does not necessitate the sale of public land. The sale is of the resource only. It is as simple as that. The
government will put municipalities in a position -- --

Hon. T. E. Eren interjected.

Hon. K. M. SMITH -- Hang on, you don't want to say too much! The government is trying to put local government in a
position where -- --

Hon. S. M. Nguyen interjected.

Hon. K. M. SMITH -- Don't you start, either! We saw your picture on the Sunday program trying to do branch stacking.
And it had nothing to do with tree branches!

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- What about you?

Hon. K. M. SMITH -- It had nothing to do with me. You were the big problem! No national parks have been sold off and
no-one has been granted a licence to harvest any of the resources in national parks. I make that very clear. All plantation
areas will be managed and looked after by the plantation corporation. The government is not saying, 'Here you are, boys,
go off and harvest as much timber as you like.' The land will be managed properly. The licence-holders will replant and
protect the resource they have because it will be in their best interests to do so, and it will be in the best interests of all
Victorians. Licence-holders will be watched all the time. I make that quite plain.

The bill also covers native vegetation in areas too steep and creeks and streams too difficult for licence-holders to access and
harvest. It must be understood that some permanent forests have already been harvested and contain regrowth.
Licence-holders will be able to harvest those areas. I have no problem with that. Mr Eren, I would not think you would
have any problems with that?

Hon. T. E. Eren interjected.

Hon. K. M. SMITH -- No, I would not expect it would, either. I think it is good that you support what the government is
doing. We just heard what Mr Eren said, Mr Theophanous. He does not think the government should be doing anything
with our native forest, and I agree with him. It is true, the government will not be doing that.

It must also be remembered that the land covered by the bill was put aside under recommendations of the Land
Conservation Council. The previous Labor government used to hang everything on what the Land Conservation Council
said. The current government is doing much the same thing; it is supporting what the council said about plantation timber.
The government is saying to people, 'You can harvest in areas set aside for plantations and pine plantations'. Ninety-eight
per cent of the area being harvested is pine plantation, not hardwood forest. It was interesting to observe some of the
arguments put up by Susan Davies, the honourable member for Gippsland West in the other house.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- A good member! She caught you out!

Hon. K. M. SMITH -- A good member for what? She has not put me out at all!

I am enjoying my time down there in Wonthaggi, and I will continue to enjoy it, particularly when the government has a
member down there representing Gippsland West who will be fair dinkum. Who else would sell newspapers saying,
'Forest sell-off! They are going to sell off all our Strzelecki ranges.'? Who would try to whip the Greens into a frenzy
down in Gippsland West? Not me! I would go and talk sense to them. Susan Davies is trying to whip the Greens into a
frenzy. Marie Tehan sent a letter to a Kim Devenish and a Julie Constable, a couple of Greens who were conned by Susan
Davies into thinking the government was going to allow bulldozers to go in and clean up from the Strzelecki ranges right
through to the New South Wales border! If you believe what Susan Davies said, that is what was going to happen. It was a
local beat-up by Susan Davies to upset the greenies.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- She caught you out.

Hon. K. M. SMITH -- Where did she catch me out?

The PRESIDENT -- Order! Ignore the interjections!

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- You know very well; with the shonky water purification deal you did.

Hon. K. M. SMITH -- You got caught out on that! It is interesting that Mr Theophanous stupidly touches on these
subjects, because it was proven again in this house that he cannot tell the truth. He said he had been to the CSIRO and that
it had given him information. When I produced a letter in this house that said it had not, he still could not believe that he had
not told the truth. He is the only man who has ever been found guilty of deliberately misleading this house on a number of
occasions.

We are not here to talk about Mr Theophanous again misleading the house. We are here to talk about the Victorian
Plantations Corporation (Amendment) Bill. The bill will allow Victoria's forests to be harvested by people who pay for a
licence to allow them to harvest Victoria's timber for the benefit of Victorians. Our forests will be protected by the
Department of Conservation and Land Management to ensure that licence-holders do not step out of line. They will be able
to harvest in an area set aside under an agreement put in place by Jeff Kennett and Paul Keating. The government is trying
to gain benefits for all Victorians. It does not want to see Victoria's native forests ruined and it will not allow that to
happen. The government's intention is to protect a Victorian resource by allowing it to be properly harvested.

Hon. T. C. Theophanous -- Who is paying for your third staff member to try and make you look good?

Hon. K. M. SMITH -- Mr President, Mr Theophanous is trying to have little digs at me, which will do him no good. It
does not improve his poor standing in this house. Instead of having a little dig at me, Mr Theophanous, do a bit more
research into the bill. It is too late now, but let us see you do a little more research than just reading out the speech made in
the other house. Let's have a look at it! What was said in the other house has been said again, word for word, by you in
this house. I fully support the bill and am more than happy to put my name to it. I am prepared to stand up and be counted
among those against the reasoned amendment moved by Mr Theophanous. He has no credibility in this house and never
will have, ever!

House divided on omission (members in favour vote no):

                         Ayes, 32
 Asher, Ms                 Hall, Mr
 Ashman, Mr               Hallam, Mr
 Atkinson, Mr              Hartigan, Mr (Teller)
 Baxter, Mr                 Katsambanis, Mr
 Best, Mr                   Knowles, Mr
 Birrell, Mr                  Lucas, Mr
 Bishop, Mr                Luckins, Mrs
 Boardman, Mr           Powell, Mrs
 Bowden, Mr              Ross, Dr
 Brideson, Mr             Smith, Mr
 Cover, Mr                 Smith, Ms
 Davis, Mr D. McL.       Stoney, Mr
 Davis, Mr P. R.          Strong, Mr
 de Fegely, Mr            Varty, Mrs
 Forwood, Mr             Wells, Dr
 Furletti, Mr (Teller)      Wilding, Mrs

                          Noes, 9
 Gould, Miss               Power, Mr (Teller)
 Hogg, Mrs                Pullen, Mr (Teller)
 McLean, Mrs             Theophanous, Mr
 Nardella, Mr              Walpole, Mr
 Nguyen, Mr

Pair
 Craige, Mr                        Eren, Mr

Amendment negatived.
House divided on motion:

                         Ayes, 32
 Asher, Ms                  Hall, Mr
 Ashman, Mr               Hallam, Mr
 Atkinson, Mr               Hartigan, Mr
 Baxter, Mr                 Katsambanis, Mr
 Best, Mr                                   Knowles, Mr
 Birrell, Mr                  Lucas, Mr
 Bishop, Mr                Luckins, Mrs
 Boardman, Mr            Powell, Mrs
 Bowden, Mr               Ross, Dr
 Brideson, Mr (Teller)            Smith, Mr
 Cover, Mr                Smith, Ms
 Davis, Mr D. McL         Stoney, Mr
 Davis, Mr P. R.           Strong, Mr (Teller)
 de Fegely, Mr            Varty, Mrs
 Forwood, Mr              Wells, Dr
 Furletti, Mr              Wilding, Mrs
 

                          Noes, 9
 Gould, Miss               Power, Mr
 Hogg, Mrs                Pullen, Mr
 McLean, Mrs             Theophanous, Mr
 Nardella, Mr (Teller)         Walpole, Mr (Teller)
 Nguyen, Mr

Pair
 Craige, Mr     Eren, Mr

Motion agreed to. Read second time. Remaining stages    Passed remaining stages.
Home