Senator FORSHAW (12:38 PM) —Likewise, the opposition will not be supporting this amendment. Frankly, I have never heard so much rubbish in all my life as has just been put forward in support of the amendment. One has to understand what protection of heritage and culture is all about. I was not aware that the European cultural heritage of this nation, which is some 200 years old—a fairly insignificant length of time in world history—was in any danger of disappearing. If anything, it is the reverse. European heritage and culture in this country is alive and well, and thriving. It is recognised daily. It is also recognised in this particular industry. I am sure that Senator Harris has heard of Timbertown, near Wauchope, a cultural heritage tourist centre that has been constructed to recognise that particular history—short as it may be against the standards of civilisation; short as it may be in this country. There you can go and see examples of what took place in what was a thriving industry in northern New South Wales. There are many other examples of the recognition of Australia's European cultural heritage.

I also have some difficulty with the concept of heritage being applied equally to both cultures, in the manner that Senator Harris put forward. It is false to suggest that it is unequal and somehow wrong to promote the protection and recognition of this country's indigenous heritage. After all, throughout the world, it is the indigenous culture and heritage of many nations that is specifically recognised because that is always what is in danger of being lost. The other point that Senator Harris made was that, by including this, we are somehow not treating all people equally. I do not accept that argument, because the maintenance of a timber industry is something that we support and promote. This legislation, together with our amendments, which dramatically improve it, and the RFA process itself are all about maintaining and promoting the timber industry in an ecologically, environmentally and economically sustainable form.

If that is not recognising the past 200 years of heritage in this industry, then I cannot think of anything else that would be. This legislation is very much about sustaining and promoting that industry, and I make no apology for having included in it the important objective of recognising that, hand in hand with promoting our great environmental heritage—the protection of old-growth forest, wilderness, endangered species, national estate values—we are promoting the maintenance of a sustainable timber industry while ensuring that indigenous heritage values are protected and promoted. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment.