Senator GREIG (6:09 PM) —I continue from where I left off yesterday and remind the Senate that this is not to be taken as my first speech. The Democrats will be presenting a set of amendments to the RFA legislation. For the reasons I have outlined, the Australian Democrats would like to see this legislation thrown out of this house and never seen again. As this is very unlikely, our amendments to this legislation are to make the RFA areas consistent with national competition policies, to make the agreements available for public comment, to include sunset clauses, to pick up our obligations under international environment law, to make the legislation subordinate to national environment legislation and export controls, and to oppose unlimited compensation.

We will also be presenting a number of amendments to the ALP amendments. I was quite astonished to read the ALP amendments. The ALP knows that, if the logging industry were forced to compete in an economically efficient manner and pay a fair market price for the resources it so greedily devours, it would have to get out of Australian native forests forever. The ALP must choose between the competing demands of old-growth loggers and the environment. It cannot have it both ways. Either you calculate the value of the forest in cubic tonnes or you look at its inherent value as a living treasure.

On close reading, the ALP's amendments barely acknowledge the concept of forest protection. We have a Wood and Paper Industry Council proposal because the ALP believes that forests are a free resource put there solely to feed woodchip mills. The native forest logging industry is one which should be wound down as soon as possible. Why the ALP wants to wrap the native forest woodchipping industry in cotton wool, protecting it from the real world, is beyond me. The economic and environmental arguments for not proceeding with the RFAs are irrefutable. The government and the ALP claim regularly that their policies are not about using industry policy to pick winners or, in this case, losers. But they are contradicting this mantra by continuing to subsidise an industry in decline, protecting it from real market forces and genuine competition.

We look forward to the support of all parties for our initiatives towards recognising the importance of the environment in the RFA legislation. It is unfortunate, but this legislation will not solve the forest issue. It will not make it simply go away, as the ALP and the coalition would like. They do not like the unrest in their parties nor the unedifying brawls on the front of newspapers. They do not like caucus and party room unrest nor fights between unions and business, and state and federal counterparts. They see forests as a bleeding sore that can simply be fixed with a bandaid solution that will last for 20 years.

The south-west of Western Australia is becoming the front line of the forest war. The first victim in this battle has been constructive dialogue, and now lives are being put at risk. The government must accept responsibility for this and for negotiating a poor and unfair agreement that is diametrically opposed to community wishes to preserve old-growth forest and halt the logging of native forests. The community is wise to this issue and will not give up. The sector will decline, and old-growth habitat will disappear. The community will get angrier, and politicians will be held to account. Come election time, we will see undignified seat scrambling and the odd new national park created. This will be followed by more outrage from the unions, and the cycle will repeat itself. The RFA will come back to parliament over and over again. This is why it is important that the major parties stop pretending it will go away and actually move to start protecting our remaining old-growth forests now.