House debates
Wednesday, 20 June 2012
Matters of Public Importance
Marine Conservation
3:20 pm
Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source
The government's unilateral decree to lock up another 1.3 million square kilometres of our seas, more than doubling the number of marine reserves from 27 to 60, has nothing to do with sustainably managing marine environments or fisheries. It is just another empty gesture for the environment; but it is certainly a cruel barb for many coastal regions. This has a lot more to do with hooking a few Greens preferences at the next election or renting the Greens support for another week in this parliament than it has to do with anything about the environment—and that is the real catch. But it has real consequences for Australian commercial and recreational fishers and the regional communities which support them.
When 'lock it up!' is the government's approach to vast areas of Australia's territorial waters, is it any wonder that our supermarkets are overflowing with imported seafood? It is a remarkable fact that Australia imports a massive 72 per cent of the seafood we eat. For a vast island nation surrounded by sea, that is simply bizarre. We control much of the area of the planet's oceans. Australia's exclusive economic zone in terms of sheer scale is third in the world behind only the United States and France, yet we are not allowed to feed ourselves with our own fish. There is no doubt, of course, that we must conserve our oceans and be conscious of the breeding grounds and the seasons so that they can be sensibly harvested. Indeed, to swim or snorkel or dive on the Great Barrier Reef is one of the truly remarkable experiences of life. The wonders of our oceans and the reefs are truly awe-inspiring and they must always be preserved. Our fishing industry understands this only too well and is at the forefront of managing sustainable fisheries. Our recreational fishers and our marine tourism industries understand that the value of their entire industry is dependent upon having a sustainable environment, but they have been ignored.
The government's claim of consultation is a sham. Nor has there been any attempt to justify these new parks on the basis of science or transparent evidence. At no stage has there been fair dinkum feedback or a willingness to listen to the communities. Rather we have seen bureaucrats descend on communities and lecture people about what to expect. They have not been genuinely engaged in taking on board industry or recreational fishers or community concerns. In reality, the government has no appetite to negotiate on the details of its marine parks decree. The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has presented it to the people, the businesses and the community as a fait accompli, saying to take it or leave it. There is supposed to be a 60-day consultation period but in his media release on 14 June 2012 the minister said:
It's too late for people to say I want this line shifted or I want this zone painted a different colour.
The question now is very straightforward: do we go ahead with the most comprehensive marine park network in the world or do we not?
Minister, is there going to be a genuine consultation period or is there not? If your press release is be relied upon, then the issues are all closed, and the government is not going to even listen to the concerns of people who are affected.
The extension of Australia's system of marine reserves according to the Pew Environment Group is a consequence:
… of a determined coalition of 15 Australian and international conservation groups …
This coalition was made up of almost half foreign groups, funded from overseas and doing very little in their own countries sometimes about creating environmental and sustainable fisheries, but seeking to impose upon Australia an enormous addition to our environmental reserves.
Between them these sorts of people are opposed to virtually every element of human existence. They want to ban wild catch fisheries, yet they oppose virtually every aquaculture application that is ever proposed. They do not want us to eat meat, they do not want us to use farmed animals and they do not want us to harvest native animals. They do not want us to grow crops because crops might use water or fertiliser or chemicals. Well, what are we expected to live on in this country if every hectare of sea and of land is to be declared a national park?
Over the last 30 years Australia has led the way in developing management plans for the sustainable use of our fishery resources. Since the introduction of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, all Commonwealth fisheries have been required not only to guarantee the sustainability of the targeted fisheries but also to ensure the sustainability of the impact of removing target stock on other species. This might be the impact of predators of that stock or the impacts of bycatch populations. A comprehensive investment by Australia in the use of bycatch reducing devices and innovative fishing practices to eliminate the interaction of iconic non-target species like sea birds, turtles and seals have now been adopted and recognised around the world as the best sustainable fishing practice.
We do not see the propaganda of the Labor government and the Greens showing images of whiting or flathead or prawns. Instead we have pictures of seals, manta rays, turtles and seahorses. No-one in the scientific community would suggest that these are being exploited by Australian fisheries or that they are at risk in any Australian jurisdiction. The reality is the Australian people were taken aback when the government chose its location for this great announcement. It was an aquarium with a backdrop of stingrays and coral and conveniently passing turtles. These species are not at threat. It will be no surprise to both coastal communities and recreational fishers that they have never targeted any of these creatures by their activities.
No comments