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

None of that ever occurred, in the eyes of those opposite. Within 100 kilometres of Australia's coastline, 96 per cent of our Commonwealth waters remain completely open to recreational fishing. I repeat: within 100 kilometres of our coastline, 96 per cent. Yet those opposite go and hold rallies trying to scare local fishers, without letting them know that the nearest no-take zone is 460 kilometres away—and it was put there by a Liberal government. This debate from those opposite has had deception every way through it.

There has been deception in every part of how they have argued it. But no-one should be deceived by the two other facts though, that marine protected areas work. In the Great Barrier Reef, where you have the multiple-use zones where rec fishing is allowed but commercial has been taken out, coral trout numbers tripled from what they otherwise are, but where you get the areas that are completely highly protected it goes to six times. In the areas that are highly protected as well, the crown of thorn numbers go down because you have got the improvement in biodiversity, and those crown of thorns numbers go down to a quarter of what they otherwise are. Lots of people have wanted to talk about fisheries management science. Fisheries management science is important, but it does not protect habitat, and what this is about when you establish a national park in the ocean is that you do not only protect individual species; you protect the habitat itself, and that gives you a way in which the fish species bounce back like they otherwise would not.

But be in no doubt: in the vote that we are shortly going to have, all of that is at risk and exclusions that have been part of these plans go out the window as well. We have before us plans that prohibited drilling in the Coral Sea. That gets disallowed if the vote goes through. We have rules here that prohibited drilling off the Margaret River area. That disappears as a prohibition if this goes through. We have areas that are highly protected—all of that out the window if this goes through.

But I am glad one thing in this debate. Those opposite kept referring to the super trawler. They are right. They have absolute consistency when the choice is whether or not you protect the ocean. Their choice is not to—our choice is to protect the ocean.

See this speech in context