Senator FORSHAW (12:06 PM) —I move opposition amendment No. 8:

Clause 5, page 4 (line 20), at the end of paragraph (d), add", except in so far as it applies to:

(i) a property included in the World Heritage List; or

(ii) a wetland included in the List of Wetlands of International Importance kept under the Ramsar Convention; or

(iii) forestry operations that are incidental to another action whose primary purpose does not relate to forestry.".

The amendment seeks to add those words at the end of paragraph (d) of clause 5, which states:

. . . section 6 of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983.

Let me outline our reasons for moving the amendment. One of the 11 national goals of the national forest policy statement is to ensure that Australia fulfils its obligations under relevant international agreements. Of course, we have ensured that that is reflected in the objects of this bill and that RFAs must have regard to those objects, including adherence to obligations under relevant international agreements.

The two key agreements are the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage under the auspices of UNESCO and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. These are binding agreements entered into by the Commonwealth government on behalf of the Australian people. They cannot be ignored, and their implementation cannot be simply delegated to state forest agencies.

Our amendment exactly mirrors the government's own environment protection and biodiversity conservation legislation, which has passed the parliament but has not been proclaimed into law. Our amendment needs to be made to this bill because the other legislation is not completely in place. Without our amendment this bill would totally exempt forestry operations in world heritage areas from Commonwealth protection pending the other bill coming into force. Given the government's performance on other world heritage matters, that is a risk that we believe should not be taken.

It is important to note that our amendment is narrower in its application than the 1983 World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. That act empowers the Commonwealth to also exercise planning controls over not just listed world heritage properties but also areas that are being nominated for world heritage listing or are subject to an investigation initiated by the Commonwealth into their world heritage value.

This is not to suggest that Labor believes that potential future world heritage forest areas should be overlooked; rather it is a recognition that the RFA comprehensive regional assessment process provides the appropriate mechanisms to examine whether other sections of RFA regions or areas are of world heritage value. Further possible world heritage nomination processes are explicitly addressed in some of the existing RFAs in Victoria and Tasmania.

So we ask the Senate to support our amendment for the reasons I have just outlined, and we specifically point out that if the government does oppose this amendment it is really voting against its own policy position and it will, unfortunately, be giving free rein to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Mr Tuckey, whose antipathy towards world heritage properties is on the public record.