Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2010. The coalition supports this bill. It builds on measures that we put in place in government to ensure that Australian Antarctic Territory is protected, that it is guaranteed not just for the present generations but for generations many decades and centuries down the track. Antarctica is a place of majestic beauty, and it is a joint responsibility of all sides of this House to take steps to protect it, to ensure and to guarantee that Antarctica will remain a pristine wilderness for generations and centuries hence.

This particular bill does a number of basic, simple things. It is not an enormous bill in and of itself, but it aims to amend the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980, a Fraser government bill, to broaden the definitions of flora and fauna protected and not permitted to be brought into Antarctica. In essence the key amendments are these: firstly, to give authority to the minister to include invertebrates as specially protected species, and it prohibits invertebrates being taken from Antarctica; secondly, it broadens the definition of certain natural organisms; thirdly, it increases the safeguards of specially protected species—for example, the amendments tighten the permit system for introducing organisms into Antarctica; and, fourthly, it strengthens offences relating to accidental introduction of non-native organisms by visitors to Antarctica. This adds a layer of additional protection to those already in place under the original Fraser government legislation.

The broader context is this: the Antarctic Treaty and the Madrid protocol set out the fundamental basis for an international cooperative regime for the preservation, maintenance and long-term protections for the great Antarctic continent and the waters around it. Australia is one of 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty. It was signed in Washington on 1 December 1959; it came into effect on 23 June 1961. Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the UK, the US and the USSR were all signatories. The aim of the treaty was to protect Antarctica from environmental harm and not allow the continent to be the object of international discord, and those objectives have largely been achieved. The governing body of the treaty, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, meets annually. It continues to sign new parties with 47 parties now signed on, which includes the 12 original signatories and 35 acceding states. Only 28 of these signatories are permitted to participate in decision making.

Against that background, I want to make it clear that we believe that the system has been working well. We are proud that the original international program was signed by a coalition government—the Menzies government—and that the legislation was brought in by the Fraser government and we are happy to add to and support the measures outlined in this bill. However, I would note that there is one element of discord—that is, prior to the 2007 federal election the Labor Party’s policy was:

… Labor … will support World Heritage listing—

for Antarctica—

working with other nations to give Antarctica the environmental status it deserves.

Questions were raised at the time as to whether or not there was serious intent behind that proposal. On 1 May 2006 Anthony Albanese, then shadow minister for the environment, issued a statement entitled ‘Make Antarctica a World Heritage Area, not a mine’. The statement said:

A Federal Labor Government will support World Heritage listing …

Not long after the election the policy was changed on the Labor Party website to:

… Labor will work to further strengthen the Antarctic treaty system, with particular emphasis on enhancing environmental protection.

The express, clear and absolute election promise was dropped. That sounds and feels like what has occurred with the more high-profile issue of whaling. The policy exists there in name—but the intention has been abandoned, the delivery has been abandoned and it will never occur.

In June 2009 Senator Wong, representing the minister for the environment, stated in response to questions from Senator Bob Brown:

… the benefits of a World Heritage listing have already been achieved or exceeded in Antarctica through the international agreement that comprises the Antarctic treaty system.

Nothing had changed since prior to the election. The policy was a fraud upon the Australian people. It was not the reason the election was won or lost but it was part of an ongoing and systemic pattern of misleading in relation to environmental issues. We have seen the collapse of the Home Insulation Program, with enormous human consequences; the collapse of the Green Loans Program; the termination of the solar rebate program, in direct breach of an election promise; and the express, clear and absolute breach of the election promise over whaling. It is important to point out to the House—this issue has not been widely known—that the Labor Party, prior to the election, promised that it would support World Heritage listing. It did so largely in response to the work of Geoff Mosley, a former head of the Australian Conservation Foundation, a person who is passionately committed to the long-term future of the Antarctic Treaty as well as the Antarctic wilderness area. The Labor Party made a promise that it never intended to keep. It broke that promise after the election. The very least that could happen is that it could apologise to Geoff Mosley.

I note that in June 2009 there was a Senate motion calling on the Australian government to ‘pursue the lead role towards inscribing Antarctica on the World Cultural and Natural Heritage list’. The coalition supported the motion. The Labor Party opposed the motion. It was the very thing that they demanded and promised prior to the election; it was the very promise that was broken after the election. That is simply to put in context the pattern of misleading and deceptive conduct. However, this bill is a positive bill. We support it. I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context