Senator BROWN (5:09 PM) —Again, I am glad that Labor has an amendment here but I am sorry that it is not quite up to the mark. I think there is a reason for that. I know that Senator Bolkus is going to be on the side of the environment here but is not going to be able to say anything, because there are bigger forces at play in the Labor Party. The reason is that, if we required the federal minister to get an environmental impact assessment where there is clearing of more than 100 hectares of native vegetation rather than 1,000 hectares, as Labor's amendment would have it, you would involve not only the clearing of native vegetation in Queensland but also this devastating logging of native forests in Tasmania and in the mainland states. Because of the sheer density of fibre in those great forests of Tasmania, it is very likely that the clearing of 100 hectares of the Tasmanian forests will have as much impact as—if not more impact than—the clearing of 1,000 hectares of the native vegetation on the plains and the hill country of Queensland.

There is a blind spot within the Labor Party when it comes to Tasmania. The Labor Party is directed by the woodchip industry in Tasmania through the forest component of the CFMEU—I am sure this is new to you, Mr Temporary Chairman. That is what is happening in Tasmania. So we had the situation at the recent Labor Party conference in Hobart where, despite thousands of citizens protesting outside that conference in favour of an end to the destruction of the tall forests, a couple of union people inside were allowed to take the floor and make even worse—minor amendments—Labor's policy whereby the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, is hand-in-hand with Prime Minister Howard in supporting this destructive impact on Tasmania's heritage and its wildlife by the corporate woodchip interests. I add that Labor in Tasmania wanted an even worse settlement under the regional forest agreement than the Liberals. But since the regional forest agreement was signed in 1998, despite the promise by both Labor and Liberal of jobs, jobs, jobs—and over $70 million worth of Commonwealth money flowing in to the logging industry in Tasmania as a result of it—some 500 to 1,000 jobs have been shed; that is, workers in Tasmania have been sacked by the woodchip corporations and the CFMEU have never stepped off the footpath. Never at any stage did it complain about that. It was left to the Greens. It is not as if the job shedding of this industry, while it cuts down the forests at record levels, is giving a return to the Tasmanian people, who own the forests, because it is not. We are allowing these woodchip corporations to do that at the lowest royalty levels in history, dictated by the paper corporations of Japan. That is Labor policy and that is Liberal policy, and that is why Labor will not be supporting this Greens amendment on this occasion.

In view of the far more astute awareness of the Australian people, which is opposed by such a majority to this appalling destruction of forests, I think we have a long way to go in a political system where both the big parties support this destruction. I think that the Labor Party and Mr Beazley should hang their heads in shame for supporting this Howard prescription that allows this destruction of the forests. As I said last night, I for one will not be willing to see Greens preferences go to the Labor Party—they certainly will not go to the Liberals, if I have anything to do with it—in circumstances where they are pursuing the same Howard destructive policy towards the great forests of Tasmania and those of the other states of Australia—Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales.

Coming back to the amendment at hand, it is a failure of Labor policy that it is not supporting the Greens' amendment. The reason behind that is the woodchip corporations. This is Labor bending at the knees to the woodchip corporations. I know Senator Bolkus would be sympathetic to me on this score, but he cannot say anything about it because that is the way the policy has been arrived at—from the woodchip companies through the Labor hierarchy—and at this stage it does not appear to be amenable to changing that. I think it would be very sensible if it did change it. Certainly many Australian voters would come on side if it were to make such a positive move. It is an issue that is not going to go away, and I would recommend to the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, that he give it a lot of thought. He did not mention the word `forests' once at the conference in Hobart, but he is going to hear a lot about it in the next 12 months. It is on the agenda, and Labor has a great opportunity here to put some distance between itself and the destructive policy that Mr Howard pursued when he signed the regional forest agreement in Tasmania two years ago.