Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

May 2012 will mark the 70^th anniversary of one of the most significant naval battles of World War II, certainly as far as Australia is concerned, as damage inflicted on the Japanese Navy altered the course of the war in the Pacific and in Papua New Guinea.

On 7 and 8 May 1942 allied and Japanese naval forces engaged in a ferocious carrier battle off the north coast of Queensland—a battle that has become an enduring symbol of the strong relationship between Australia and the United States. Three US navy ships—the destroyer USS Sims, the fleet oiler USS Neosho and the aircraft carrier USS Lexingtonwere lost in the battle and rest in Australian waters. The battle is commemorated each year by both Australians and Americans, and is regularly marked in Brisbane by visits of US warships.

The Coral Sea is now the focus of a campaign that advocates world wide the establishment of a small number of very large, world class no-take marine reserves aimed at providing ecosystem scale benefits and the conservation of global marine heritage—the Coral Sea being one such park. Former Australian naval chiefs, retired vice admirals David Shackleton and Christopher Ritchie, have leant their weight to this campaign, urging the Australian government to support the submission on a proposed Coral Sea Heritage Park sponsored by the Pew Environment Group, the Australian Marine Conservation Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation.

Not surprisingly, National Party Senator Ron Boswell has come out in opposition to the plan. Notwithstanding the involvement of distinguished retired Australian naval chiefs, the senator labels the linking of an environmental proposal with naval heritage as disgraceful. In contrast, I believe that such a heritage park would be a fitting tribute to those who lost their lives in the Battle of the Coral Sea and an acknowledgement of the special relationship between our two countries. The senator expresses concerns that such a park would mean an end to commercial fishing and the elimination of extractive industries. In both these matters, the proponents have done their homework. The two fisheries that would be affected, the northern portion of the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery and the Coral Sea Fishery are modest earners with a combined annual income of less than $10 million. The majority of licence holders in the fisheries have indicated their willingness to participate in a licence buy-out package in order to allow this proposal to go ahead, but it should be noted that three of the 13 or so participants in the Coral Sea Fishery remain opposed at this time. Game fishing within the area tends to take place within the existing Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, but there are a few charter fishing vessels—game fishing and otherwise—that do go into the Coral Sea. I am advised that the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, APPEA, have indicated that they have no strong view about the proposal to exclude the area. Although they would be naturally inclined to oppose the locking up of any area, on this one they are ‘leaning more towards neutral’.

So, in virtually ruling out any commercial opposition to this proposal, we should at least consider the benefits. First, as I said earlier, it would be a fitting tribute to those who lost their lives in the Battle of the Coral Sea. Second, as a relatively untouched or intact ecosystem, it is both rare and has what is regarded as high conservation values. Protecting such land-base areas is well established in principle and in practice. Third, to effectively conserve pelagic fish species which move large distances requires a large area. Fourth, the Coral Sea contains some 70 of the 440 demersal fish species found in the Coral Sea that are not found anywhere else on the planet. At a time when we bemoan the rapid rate of extinction of various species, this is of great importance. Fifth, while this is a distinct ecosystem to the Great Barrier Reef, there are synergies between the two such that a healthy Coral Sea is important for the continuing health of the Great Barrier Reef. Sixth, it is an important nesting and breeding area for sea birds, 14 species of which nest and forage there—including the threatened green turtle. And seventh, the spectacular underwater mountain landscape and remote reefs and caves, as well as providing refuge, breeding and feeding grounds for a large variety of ocean life, also provide outstanding opportunities to develop tourism products complementary to those on the Great Barrier Reef. The Coral Sea is acknowledged as among the top ten dive locations in the world.

While this is not an exhaustive listing of the benefits, when coupled with the very limited opposition remaining among those with commercial interests in the Coral Sea, these alone should indicate that there is a case worthy of consideration. A hundred years ago, in 1908, US President Theodore Roosevelt did two things relevant to this discussion today: he declared the world’s first marine park in Key West, Florida and, at the invitation of Prime Minister Alfred Deakin, sent 16 ships of the US Navy—the Great White Fleet—to Australia, thus beginning 100 years of naval alliance between our countries. There could be no more fitting symbol of that alliance than a marine park on the site of the battle where many lives paid great dividends for our country. (Time expired)

See this speech in context