Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Hansard source

It has been an interesting debate—at times, a test of patience, but an interesting debate that we have had on this. There has been some terrible and extraordinary misleading that has happened during this discussion. Let me deal with a couple of those issues first.

The first thing is that I have made clear for a long time in this parliament that the Commonwealth water areas where new protected areas were put in place in Western Australia were closer to shore. They were still in Commonwealth waters—certainly not at the beach line—but were closer to shore. The ones on the east coast and the rest of Australia were further from shore—some hundreds of kilometres, most of them. The ones in Queensland are a very long way from shore—a significant number of hundreds of kilometres before you get out into the areas where you cannot fish.

A number of speakers have sought to take issue with that, and they have referred to a number of areas that they found where there are protections. They have referred to areas in Tasmania—Freycinet was one that was quoted a couple of times in the speeches that we heard. True: closer to shore—but a restriction put in place by the Howard government. The area off Port Macquarie known as the Cod Grounds was put forward as an area. Yes—that one is close to shore. I was told that it was a very popular fishing spot for people near Port Macquarie, true. But it was put in place as a restriction in 2007 by the Howard government. We were then also told about the Solitary islands being one of the places—that they were closer to shore. Yes, and that restriction was put in place in 1993, and yet that is being argued by those opposite as though it is something brand-new that we are seeing for the first time now.

The truth of what has been done in the bioregional planning and the establishment of marine national parks is that we were determined, first of all, to get the science to identify the different bioregions—to identify the different sorts of environments and features that there were within the ocean. Then, whenever we could get that same area captured as environmentally protected—whenever we could get the same environmental outcome, but do it in a way that had less impact on recreational fishers and less impact on commercial fishing—we took that option. And I make no apology for taking that option. I do not know how anyone can say that there is a lack of scientific rigour if the process you follow is to say, 'We'll get the scientific data to identify the different features and to identify the bioregions, and then we will try to get the same environmental outcome while minimising the impact on people.' That is the right way to conduct your consultation; that is good public policy. It is something which people have pretended did not occur.

So we had extraordinary claims about the Perth Canyon, and a claim raised by the member for Dawson where he was saying, 'Here is evidence that there was no science.' I will tell you exactly what happened: the geographical feature and the nature of the bioregion was for the Perth Canyon. It is underwater, but larger than the Grand Canyon. If it were on land it would be known by all Australians—an extraordinary area. But there are three heads to the canyon, so the science identified the bioregional values of those three heads. But each of the three heads of the canyon had similar environmental values, so we said to the commercial fishing industry and we said to the recreational fishing industry: 'So long as one of these three heads goes into a high level of protection, or the areas around it, we get the environmental outcome. Do you have a preference as to which of the three?' I make no apology for making that offered to the commercials and to the recs. The commercial fishers came back and they said: 'Well, actually, there is one of those three heads that would have less impact on us. We would prefer that you chose that one.' The recs came back and the recreational fishing bodies said: 'We will not tell you which one. We will not provide you with that information'. So the one that went into highly protected was the one that the commercial industry had said was their preference to go into highly protected. And that is what happened. Then, afterwards, the recreational organisations came back and said: 'Oh, look, by the way, maybe we don't actually like the one you picked. Can we now have a talk about it?' The whole value of consultation is when people talk back. And it is a bit much to have the recreational sector from WA—or a minority of the recreational sector of WA—claiming that is evidence of lack of consultation, when it is the exact opposite. And do not pretend that it is evidence of lack of science, because the scientific values of the three heads of that canyon all matched up.

We had a similar situation with Geographe Bay. Geographe Bay in Western Australia is an area which is very popular for recreational fishers, and it is often the example that people point to where it is closer to shore. On the original maps that we had for the bioregions, much of the seagrass across that bay had similar environmental values. But when the recreational fishers came to us they showed us the locations of the boat ramps and they said, 'We don't want you to do anything but, if you are going to move these lines around that you have at the moment, can you do it in a way that they move away from where our boat ramp is, because at the moment you are going straight across in front of it.' So the lines were adjusted—not through a lack of scientific rigour, because the scientific values matched up no matter where you chose within that region; but through good consultation we made sure that we moved them to minimise the impact. That is the right way to conduct your processes.

As the member for Riverina probably knows better than most, I do not shy away from turning up to hostile public meetings. I know that the shadow minister for the environment wanted me to turn up to this one, in this photo, which he had advertised as having 1,000 people in attendance. Unless there is some strange game of people hiding behind cars the moment the camera turned up, that is not a rally of 1,000—and I table the photo. I would advise the shadow minister for the environment to spend some time with the member for Riverina: he knows how to run a demo. Also, don't pick a site that is 460 kilometres away from the nearest area that is locked up for recreational fishing. Not only is it 460 kilometres away; that is the nearest one, and that was put there by the Howard government.

The other argument that has been put consistently in the speeches we have heard from the opposition is that there is a lack of science. The shadow minister for agriculture, who has just returned to the room, right on cue—

See this speech in context