Senator BROWN (6:21 PM) —There was. The exemption for the purposes of the war was not listed under the public notices on the Environment Australia web site, as are other such exempt actions. I will give you the question again, to put this in context. I asked:

I further asked:

I asked that original question in June this year, and I wonder why it took some work to find out that in fact the minister had made that decision. In other words, why didn't the minister make that declaration public at the time, and why did the minister make the declaration anyway?

Again, what is the point of this legislation, the EPBC Act? There were enormous concerns about both the environmental and cultural heritage of Iraq at the time. The minister will remember some of the destruction of cultural heritage, which was obvious. It always takes a long while before the environmental impact comes through, but there are great worries about a whole range of things, obviously, when armies are invading a country. I ask why the minister made the exemption. Where do you draw the line? It seems that the exemptions are made domestically for social and economic parameters and that they are made internationally before the war is on and then you protect the site after the war is over—the minister has mentioned Gallipoli a number of times. When does the Australian government get to the stage of believing that it should protect environmental and cultural heritage, particularly of world heritage significance, and make sure that it is protected under all circumstances? After all, there is a 1954 code which says that such places should be protected in times of war.