Senator RIDGEWAY (8:27 PM) —I begin by prefacing this contribution as not being my first speech. The Regional Forest Agreements Bill 1998 , if passed, will guarantee the destruction of the last remaining vestiges of our natural heritage. Something of importance to me is that many places of great cultural significance to both indigenous and non-indigenous Australians will also be lost. I believe that we, as parliamentarians, need to be courageous in giving thought to this matter. We need to make decisions that will put in place the framework for future generations to enjoy a natural and cultural environment that is at least equivalent to the one we enjoy now.

Today we have heard from other senators about the serious flaws in the bill, particularly in terms of the negative impacts on our remaining biodiversity. One other matter that has yet to be addressed is the impact of that bill on indigenous Australians who, compared to many, have fared far worse in the regional forest agreement process.

In that context, the Democrats do not believe that the regional forest agreement should be enshrined in Commonwealth legislation until there has been genuine input from the traditional owners of Australia's native forests.

In my home state of New South Wales, the Aboriginal people entered into the RFA consultation process with both the state government and the Commonwealth government in good faith. They are now questioning why they even bothered. Aboriginal communities in Eden, the upper north-east region and the lower north-east regions formed their own management committees, they consulted with the elders of their communities and they developed detailed reports for the government's consideration prior to the finalisation of any RFAs. They met the consultation requirements of their own communities and adhered to cultural protocols, but they also adhered to the terms and conditions of the consultation process that was set down by the governments themselves.

But so far the documents that have been provided to the state and Commonwealth governments which outline the views of Aboriginal communities in New South Wales have not been included in the regional forest agreements. Not surprisingly, indigenous peoples in New South Wales are now asking the governments to explain why their input, the effort that they had made, has been ignored and why the process that offered some real benefits now seems like just a poor gesture. I believe that, in this era of native title and reconciliation, Aboriginal people have invested a considerable amount of time and energy in the hope that the regional forest agreements process would facilitate some genuine and meaningful negotiation between government and Aboriginal people.

The Democrats do not believe that this bill can be passed by the Senate. The regional forest agreements are not likely to stand the test of the next 20 years, as required by the bill, not only because they cannot provide an ecologically sustainable future for Australia's timber industry but also because they fail to recognise the common law rights of Australia's indigenous peoples. As I said earlier, we as parliamentarians need to give great thought and consideration to the decision that we are about to take and we must be courageous in that decision. We must make hard decisions that will deliver the best outcomes for the future of the country. The continued logging of old-growth forests is not in the best interests of our generation or future generations, and we will be judged on our decision in relation to this bill.

We have to challenge the rhetoric of what are often seen as self-serving interests who use forest workers as pawns in their game. The future of the Australian economy relies on sustainable employment opportunities in economically and ecologically viable industries. We cannot afford to protect jobs in an industry based on the wholesale destruction of a finite and irreplaceable resource. In my view, that is irresponsible, and we will be condemned by future generations if we do not act bravely to save the forests of Australia.

I think that we have already acted irresponsibly with the abundant resources this land has had to offer. There is no question that we have squandered unique species of animals, plants and birds by eliminating their habitats and driving them to extinction. We have consequently been the subject of national condemnation for what is an approach of slash, burn and rape. We have the ludicrous situation where private companies are encouraged to clear-fell old-growth forest in preference to using plantation timber. They are given every assistance and they are actively courted to increase their quotas and then seek a market for those quotas.

The compromised regional forest agreement process that has been conducted across the country is flawed. In New South Wales at least the reserve outcomes in the upper north-east and lower north-east regions fall abysmally short of what was identified as being required for a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system. Most of the national targets for wilderness, old-growth forest ecosystems and threatened species have not been achieved. I think we must give due consideration to that in our decision. There are at least 10 animal species and 126 plant species listed under the Commonwealth's Endangered Species Protection Act as either endangered or vulnerable. On average, those species have less than half the habitat they need for their long-term survival, with some of the most endangered species faring the worst. For example, I refer to an area identified as being required for the survival of the endangered Hastings River mouse, and a cuddly one it is. Only seven per cent is actually preserved.

So the New South Wales government has abandoned the concept of sustainable yield in the north-east part of New South Wales—even according to its own inflated estimates—by committing to grossly unsustainable quota sawlog volumes for the next 20 years. This overcommitment will result in a 44 per cent shortfall in resources over the course of the next 20 years, causing irreparable loss of biodiversity and condemning Australia's timber industry to a premature death. That is an important consideration in this debate.

In Western Australia we have the dangerous situation where the government agency charged with the responsibility for conservation and the preservation of our old-growth forest is also responsible for revenue generation and forest `management'. A more obvious conflict of interest than that would be hard to find. This must stop now if Australia is to meet its national and international commitments to ecologically sustainable development. The coalition government, both federally and in Western Australia, is deaf to its own rhetoric on jobs for regional Australia. By prolonging the inevitable transition to a plantation based and ecologically sustainable timber industry, the government has orchestrated the uncertainty and the unrest which currently prevail.

There is an ecologically sustainable alternative for the timber industry—namely, native timber plantations. A majority of Australia's processed wood needs are in fact currently being met by the plantation sector, and that demand will continue despite the heavy sub sidy of the native forest sector. What is most important, though, is that the plantation based timber industry is producing increased volumes of timber and generating export dollars for Australia. It is a growth industry that is highly mechanised, economically efficient and technologically advanced. The plantation based timber industry is where the government should be focusing its attention, to ensure that a smooth transition from native forest logging to plantation timbers can occur. This would provide a real and economically viable alternative for those timber workers whose future in native forest logging is bleak. If the government were to match its regional employment and development rhetoric with positive action, it would be addressing a number of issues which are holding back the plantation sector—not continuing to prop up a native forest sector which offers only declining employment prospects and ecological destruction.

So not only does the RFA legislation ignore the opportunities that are offered by the plantation industry but also it perpetuates financial subsidies to the native forest industry, significantly disadvantaging the plantation industry. A wholesale switch to plantation timber not only would offer a sustainable future for the timber industry but also would keep and, in many cases, increase employment in regional areas. The plantation industry has the added benefit of protecting our native forests and biodiversity and creating a stronger market for ecotourism and cultural tourism. The economic and social benefits from such a decision are obvious.

In the past decade almost no industry has escaped the need for restructuring to secure its long-term future in a changing economic and social environment, and this industry should be no different. Quite simply, companies have had to change with the times to survive. The practices of the past are no longer ecologically or economically sustainable. The native forest timber industry and its supporters have seemingly shut their eyes to this blinding reality.

Precise figures of the numbers of people employed in the native timber industry are carefully concealed and guarded secrets. For example, in the South-West of Western Australia, the most accurate figures we have are from 1997, when, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and answers to questions in parliament, direct employment in the native forest timber industry stood at 1,842. That represents less than three per cent of the total employment in an already declining industry. By contrast, it was estimated in 1995 that the plantation timber industry employed 1,520 people. At that time, and based on existing resources, it was estimated that employment in the plantation sector could double over the next five years. However, the full growth potential of the plantation based industry is being thwarted by an array of financial, political and corporate imperatives that are designed to favour the native forest timber industry.

But more significant than those figures are findings that alternative industries—such as tourism, plantation management, floriculture and viticulture—already make a more significant contribution to the economic profile of the South-West region of WA. Tourism in the South-West has been booming over the last 20 years and has enormous growth potential—if we save the trees. No tourist will want to visit the dismal sight of a clear-felled forest. According to the South-West Tourism Association and the Western Australian Tourism Commission, tourism employment in the South-West currently stands at approximately 10,000 people, and ecotourism is the fastest growing sector of the industry.

In closing, the wholesale destruction of our native forests must end now if we are to have a future for our children. Australia's environmental credentials cannot afford the further international condemnation that would certainly follow if we allow the ongoing destruction of our native forests. And each time the parliament passes legislation that ignores Aboriginal people it is an opportunity for reconciliation that is lost. The plantation timber industry workers must be given a fair go—there is no question of that. Aboriginal people must also be given a fair go and, in this context, all Australians must be given a fair go. So I do not believe that the Demo crats are wrong in not supporting this legislation.