Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Funny you should mention that. The Christmas Island Chamber of Commerce voted resoundingly against more rainforest clearing and native vegetation clearing. That is your economic argument for you. The future of this island is with ecotourism and with proposals such as the international research station, not clearing rainforest. You know what? We are going to run out of rainforest and phosphate at some stage, and then they will have no future at all. People do not want to go and see moonscapes. If you go up there, that is what you will see and that is what you will see increasingly if this proposal is allowed to go ahead.

How can we trust any company, if they have illegally cleared and if it is proved, and give them permission to go and clear more rainforest? It is ridiculous that in 2006 we could even be considering the clearing of absolutely unique, irreplaceable rainforest on this island on which a community will depend in the future. It is short-term economic thinking to increase a mine by clearing rainforest vegetation and increase the mining there for five years, when into the future people will be relying on the environment and ecotourism to sustain this unique environment. I am pleased that the minister is going to assess this illegal clearing, but I urge him to look at the bigger picture and reject any mining and any further clearing of rainforest on this island. If the government is investing in Christmas Island, it should invest in infrastructure and training that moves away from mining and into ecotourism and into proposals for international research centres that will make this island really the jewel of the Indian Ocean.

Question agreed to.