Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I am simply seeking the protection of the chair when I am falsely accused of something by a minister who came in for the final five minutes and did not realise that I had been here for the entire contribution by the member for Leichhardt.

Returning to the core focus of the legislation before the House, I want to focus on the fact that this bill very much goes to ensuring that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is protected going forwards. This builds on the review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in 2006, which played a large part in the direction of the former coalition government on these issues. This review received submissions from many interested parties across the country. There were 227 submissions and 36 consultations. The key focus of the review was to ensure that we developed a framework for protection of the Great Barrier Reef going forward.

This legislation, in large part, ensures the completion of that 2006 review—and the responses that the former government put forward basically accepted all the recommendations that flowed as a result of that review. Those proposed changes included the updating of the act to ensure that it reflected the development of the Great Barrier Reef and its accreditation as a World Heritage listed site. The coalition government in fact introduced the EPBC Act and ensured that any gaps in emergency management powers exposed as a result of the review process were closed. This new act also picked up on the decision of the former Howard government to move beyond a criminal penalty only system and provided for greater flexibility of enforcement options—for example, civil penalties for breaches such as fishing on an unintended basis in no-take zones—as well as ensuring that we have opportunity for reef recovery.

But the key aspect of the bill that I would also like to focus on is the recommendation that there be an expansion of board members from three to five. This is a fundamental and important point. In accordance with the previous government’s policies and this government’s policies, the coalition are proposing that one of those two additional places be filled by an Indigenous Australian and that the second position should be filled by an industry representative. It is important that industry does have a say at the table when it comes to the board of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. We know that historically there has been a wealth of experience on the GBRMPA board, but now we have added opportunity to ensure that we bring in two additional members. The first additional member will be an Indigenous Australian. The coalition are supportive of that and we support this legislation which enables that. But we will be seeking to move an amendment in the Senate, as has been foreshadowed by the shadow minister for the environment, to ensure that we also allow for an industry representative on the board.

The Great Barrier Reef attracts some two million visitors a year—and others contributing to this debate have highlighted this—and generates in tropical Far North Queensland about $2 billion of revenue. Across the country, and most importantly in the state of Queensland, some $6 billion of income is produced from people visiting the Great Barrier Reef. So we know the significance, from an economic point of view, of tourism for the Great Barrier Reef.

I have spoken with many tour operators who run day tours and the like out to the Great Barrier Reef, such as Quicksilver and Passions of Paradise, so I know that these tour operators have a very strong understanding of the need to conserve and protect the Great Barrier Reef. Tour operators who run reef visits, scuba diving and snorkelling on the Great Barrier Reef recognise that the protection of the reef is critical to their livelihoods. They recognise that the protection of the Great Barrier Reef is crucial if they are going to have a sustainable business case. In addition to that, those tour operators who attract tourists to the reef recognise the importance of making sure that those people who visit the reef do so in a sustainable way and do not damage it.

Tour operators, among others, have the most profound connection to the reef and the strongest desire to ensure that it is protected and able to recover when it is damaged through man-made activities or, for example, a crown of thorns starfish infestation. It is therefore important that industry has a place on the board. It is important that industry’s thoughts, views, desires, aspirations and wishes are incorporated with the board and that the industry has a voice on the board. That is why the opposition will move in the Senate to introduce an amendment to ensure that the additional board position is given to an industry stakeholder.

In terms of the coalition’s past performance in respect of protecting the reef and in order to get a sense of the significance of what took place over the 2003-04 period, it is important to understand the extent to which the various marine park zones prior to 2004 and afterwards have changed. The marine national park zone, which is coloured green on the various maps, prior to 2004 accounted for about 4.6 per cent of the marine park. After 2004 that was increased to about 33⅓ per cent. The buffer zone, which was about 0.1 per cent prior to 2004, was increased to 2.9 per cent as a result of those 2003-04 changes. The habitat protection zone, which was about 15.2 per cent prior to 2004, became 28.2 per cent as a consequence of the changes. The area that decreased most significantly was the zone referred to as the ‘general use zone’. This light blue zone on the various maps was decreased from just under 78 per cent to around 33.8 per cent. The key facet with all of this is that a greater balance was achieved between the areas available for general use and the areas that needed to be protected. So in that respect the former coalition government took very significant and meaningful steps to ensure the protection of the Great Barrier Reef.

This bill before the House reflects that work in some respects and the coalition is certainly pleased to be supportive of this legislation subject to the amendment. I say to all the new Labor government members that they should consider very seriously the amendment that the coalition will put forward with a view to building on that and incorporating that amendment into this legislation. That will improve the legislation. Industry does have something to contribute to this particular debate. Industry does have something to contribute to the preservation and management of the reef, and in that respect their voices should be heard by having a voice on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park board.

In essence, the coalition supports this legislation. I certainly support this legislation. I think that it is important that we do protect the reef to ensure its viability long term, and that it is protected to ensure that we continue to generate tourism interest in the Great Barrier Reef as well as attract tourists. We know that the tourism industry is doing it particularly tough, thanks to the billion dollars of new tourism taxes that the Rudd government has imposed. But hopefully, if we can continue to protect the reef to make sure that it is particularly attractive, it will continue to attract tourists despite all the new taxes that have been imposed by the Rudd government.

See this speech in context