Senator ALLISON (9:43 PM) —I rise to speak on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 . Other Democrats colleagues have spoken or will speak on the issues of jobs, plantations and the environment and on legal issues, and I will address other less considered forest values. The Democrats believe the RFA process discriminates unfairly against other important cultural values and social and economic benefits provided by native forests in this country. Forests account for an increasing amount of tourist dollars and, as a new market area is developed, more areas open up, providing more value adding to tourist experiences. Not only is the tourism industry a significant growth industry in native forest areas; it has a far better multiplier effect than the woodchip industry, and its services are delivered on site in the local area, rather than exported as a basic product.

It is hard to imagine an Australia without some of our most significant natural areas, and very often they do not enter our psyches as important until after they have been pro tected. Australians, I am sure, would not now tolerate the logging of Fraser Island any more than they would the wet tropics, and these places now attract hundreds of millions of dollars in tourism revenue. The RFAs, I would argue, have the potential to destroy infant and prospective tourist areas for a short-term—disgracefully underpriced—return. In my home state of Victoria, the state government sold timber from native forests for just 9c a tonne.

In terms of opportunity costs, the Democrats predict that the tourism industry will be one of the biggest losers in the RFA process. There was evidence in Western Australia that the tourism industry has been ignored by the WA RFA process as well, and their concerns about the RFA are well catalogued. Another witness suggested, not unreasonably, that the tourism industry could equally argue for compensation under the RFAs for the opportunity cost of areas that would be logged and mined.

Briefly, in terms of other forest uses, the Wombat Forest Society presented evidence that beekeepers would be significantly disadvantaged. They also pointed out that a large number of people rely on high quality water through that forest region, which will be detrimentally affected by logging, and that irrigators downstream would also be negatively affected. Logging continues in the Otways, even though many coupes are in water attachments. The evidence is clear that clear-felling reduces water production very substantially and for many years to come. Geelong's water supply depends on the Otways. The dams are very low at present and we cannot afford to lose the water generating capacity of this or any other forest.

It is not clear that compensation has been ruled out for parties affected by RFAs and, again, perhaps there is potential for future compensation claims on the Commonwealth as a result of these processes. The Wombat State Forest is quite close to Melbourne and I think it is fair to say it is highly valued by the surrounding communities. It was once selectively and sustainably logged by foresters who are now appalled by the clear-felling taking place, as are those thou sands of people who visit the area on a regular basis. The question is whether it is responsible for the Senate to vote on legislation that will certainly destroy areas of huge income potential which have the ability to create sustainable jobs in local areas, maintain water quality and generate wealth in return for one-off destruction and export of a primary product. The Democrats simply do not believe so.

The bill removes the capacity for the Commonwealth to require export licences for hardwood woodchips and other unprocessed wood from an RFA region. Even the CFMEU, not normally noted for being uncompromising protectors of native forest areas, disagrees with this provision of the bill and says that export controls should remain. The hundreds of thousands of people who have participated in forest marches, and written to state and federal governments over the last decade all think that woodchipping native forests has a significant impact on the environment.

Not only will large and ecologically significant areas be sanctioned for woodchipping, with no environmental regulatory control; the Australian taxpayer will clearly be paying dearly for this devastation. Woodchipping does not make money; it costs money, and plenty of it. In my home state of Victoria, five years ago the state made $40 million out of native forest woodchip export, but it cost $90 million in the process. That means Victorians paid $50 million to have our forests chipped in just one year.

It seems to me that state governments have a conflict of interest with regard to RFAs. The RFA process will be mostly controlled by state governments who have a vested and financial short-term interest in the outcomes. The RFA agreements have been controlled and negotiated, and will be managed by sections of state governments, and serious questions have been raised about their ability to provide objective assessment and regulation. One lot of evidence pointed to the Western Australian EPA bulletin No. 912 which produced a landmark report stating that there was a significant conflict of interest in the Department of Conservation and Land Management—

Debate interrupted.