Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

By accepting such a vague definition we are going to end up with no cases actually ever able to be proven, because the laws in force in the place where the timber was harvested will be determined entirely by the level of corruption, or otherwise, in the administration concerned. It is as simple as that.

Are you going to tell me that in certain areas—in certain parts of Indonesia, for example—people are not going to hand out licences which will be consistent with the law of the place but nevertheless will be based on a corrupt regime? I still have not had an answer, and perhaps the minister can inform me why we would not go with the EU definition. What is wrong with going with a more specific definition that actually lays it out?