Senator GREIG (9:37 PM) —I preface my speech by pointing out that this is not to be taken as my first speech. I was listening earlier to my colleague Senator Harris, who spoke of the phenomenon in Queensland where tourists were asked to point out the difference between old-growth forest and renewed forest. He argued that the vast majority of tourists could not see this difference or sense it or be able to point to it. I find that quite remarkable, having visited both old-growth forest and regenerated forest that is a hundred years old in Western Australia, in the south-west region around the Pemberton area. I can see the difference. It is an astonishing difference. It is a difference which manifests itself not so much in the type and age of trees but in the wildlife which is there—or rather which is not. But I digress.

I rise to speak on an issue which is very close to my heart, as it is for many thousands of my fellow Western Australians. After many years of steady but low-key public interest, the forest issue in Western Australia has reached a crisis point. People from all walks of life are now actively campaigning and protesting against the Court government's policy of clear-felling old-growth forests, burning jarrah for charcoal, and chipping marri, karri and tingle. Our political system is in turmoil. The Western Australian state government has failed all parties in the forest debate with its poorly devised regional forest agreement—or `really foolish agreement', as I prefer to call it—signed in May and its knee-jerk reaction amendments announced last month. The Western Australian state opposition is now at odds with its federal counterparts. The Prime Minister has spoken publicly to condemn his fellow Liberal and Western Australian Premier, Richard Court. The federal forests spokesperson, Mr Wilson Tuckey, has openly and very forcefully criticised Premier Richard Court and state environment minister Mrs Cheryl Edwardes, both fellow Liberals.

This is a make-or-break time for preserving what is left of our ancient forests, particularly in Western Australia. I support fully the conservationists' call for an immediate end to all clear-felling in old-growth forests. But what we are seeing instead is a round of political one-upmanship, with the forests being lost at an enormous rate while this toing and froing goes on. Not since Vietnam or the doomed Australia Card proposal have we seen such a public outcry of this magnitude. The signing of the Western Australian RFA in May and the secretive and corrupt process used to devise this flawed document have provoked passionate protest by ordinary members of the public—mums and dads as well as doctors, lawyers, schoolteachers and politicians alike. Earlier this year, some 30,000 public submissions were sent to the Western Australian environment minister, Mrs Cheryl Edwardes, whilst some 12,000 people marched in the street. But still the Western Australian government ignores the wishes of the public.

No longer are forests a concern for only a radical few. In a poll taken only last year, some 87 per cent of Western Australians disapproved strongly of the clear-felling in old-growth forests. Mainstream Australia now recognises that the logging of our old-growth forests is not the way to ensure a sustainable timber industry or a future for the next generation, and are mobilising at grassroots level to make their sentiments known. Australians of all political persuasions are calling for change, even within ranks of the Western Australian Liberals. These traditionally very conservative residents in leafy suburbia have responded on this issue. The `doctor, the dressmaker and the dame' epitomise the new forest defenders. Although we have come to associate forest protests with dreadlocks and bare feet, for every radical in the forest there are thousands and thousands of ordinary Western Australians—shop assistants, mechanics and accountants—who feel just as passionately about preserving what is left of our natural heritage.

During the recent Western Australian state conference of the Liberal Party held in Perth, rebellion within his own ranks was clearly demonstrated to the Premier but still fell on deaf ears. As many senators here in this house will be aware, we have a new party formed in Western Australia called Liberals for Forests. This single-issue party was formed by break away Liberals wholly and solely to send a clear message of protest to the Court government. But it has now taken on a life of its own as the vehicle for vehement opposition by suburbia against their own elected representatives who have failed to represent their clearly articulated wishes. Liberals for Forests now boasts over 1,000 members. The Premier's only response to its demands has been a half-hearted, ineffectual watering down of the original regional forest agreement, which has caused more problems than it has solved. In the last few days, we have seen armed, masked thugs take to the camps of forest protesters, destroying property and threatening lives. What sort of a government would tolerate this kind of violence? And yet by doing nothing to stop or prevent it, it is all but aiding and abetting such outcomes.

The WA state Liberals are split amongst themselves over this issue and, with a state election only 18 months away, they are treading dangerous ground. Premier Richard Court has no doubt been made aware of the political punishment his government will suffer at the ballot box if they do not heed the voice of the voters. These last-minute concessions do not go far enough, since nothing short of a complete renegotiation and an open and accountable process will satisfy the overwhelming majority of Western Australians.

Even the National Party has seen the light and is courageous in its pro-conservation stance, risking alienation from many of its country constituents and defying its coalition partners. It admits to having been being duped by the original RFA, believing a forest reserve meant `a reserve of forest'. Only after the Western Australian RFA was signed by all parties was it revealed that some one-third of all the reserve systems meant for old-growth and high conservation value forests actually comprised rubbish tips, gravel pits, weeds, a water storage tank and a cleared catchment area.

The government's pre-RFA hard-sell advertising claimed that the agreement would protect more than one million hectares of forest from logging, but of course there is no need to log sand dunes, swamps and rocky outcrops. One area described as old-growth forest was revealed to be 700 hectares of cleared farmland on Agriculture WA's Mount Barker research station. This grossly inadequate forest reserve system makes a mockery of public accountability over logging of our native forests and serves only to further undermine public confidence in the agreement.

Together with the Nationals, the WA state ALP has borne the brunt of public pressure and has completely back-flipped in its position. In the face of union criticism, Labor committed itself to a policy of phasing out logging in all old-growth forest by 2003, placing an immediate moratorium on the logging of high conservation value old-growth forest and placing these areas in national parks and reserves. Federal Labor and National Party members will be turning their backs on their state counterparts if they allow the passage of this RFA legislation. Labor in Western Australia is opposed to the RFA and is looking to their federal colleagues to support its new-found environmental conscience. The Australian Labor Party must bear equal responsibility for the consequences if it allows this bill to pass. This is Labor's chance to show solidarity with its state colleagues and to demonstrate just how serious it is about protecting old-growth forests.

The bill is nothing less than a ticket for the Commonwealth to abdicate its responsibility to the states. The Western Australian RFA bears witness to the appalling situation that can arise when hard fought environmental safeguards are ignored. This parliament cannot continue to ignore public opinion by passing this bill. If it does, it will answer to the electors with the political punishment it deserves at the ballot box. The Australian Democrats—together with the overwhelming majority of mainstream Australians of all political persuasions—support a long-term, sustainable and renewable forest industry.

State RFAs are designed to seal the fate of forests for 20 years, but if those agreements are not sound, are greedy in their quota allocations and are not based on sustainable levels of logging, then they not only seal the fate of our forests for 20 years; they seal it forever.

My recent trip to the south-west taught me many things, but what it brought home to me most importantly is that there is nothing like actually visiting the forest to bring home the issue of why it is so important to preserve for future generations the beauty that is our natural forests. These ancient forests are not a resource to be plundered; they are a resource to be left for our children. They are there for all of us to enjoy. Since their inception in 1977, the Democrats have argued that our native forests are there to be enjoyed by all Australians, and we utterly reject the notion of logging in native forests. We have argued and continue to argue that the future of Australia's forest industry lies wholly and solely in plantation timbers.

Debate interrupted.