Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion by the member for Leichhardt. It is rather a long motion—it took me a while to read it—but it deals with a number of very important points which have been the subject of significant national discussion over the last little while in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, Australia's most important environmental asset and one of the seven natural wonders of the world.

A significant part of the member for Leichhardt's motion deals with the issue of the poaching of turtles and dugongs, which are protected species, iconic species, in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area, or the marine park. I know that the member for Leichhardt has had an interest in changing the law to curtail practices that I think are generally accepted to be happening in that area—that is, the poaching of turtles and dugongs in a way not protected by the Native Title Act. There is general, very broad agreement across the parliament that traditional owners have the right to continue their traditional hunting practices, but there are practices going on in this area that go above and beyond protections under the Native Title Act.

I think I indicated to the member for Leichhardt when the bill was first introduced that we were happy to provide the support of the opposition to this bill. I understand the member for Leichhardt's frustration at the fact that the bill is not able to be brought back on because it seems to attract a very substantial number of amendments from minor parties and crossbenchers. Such is the nature of a robust parliament. I note that the member for Leichhardt, in his motion, calls upon the Labor Party to support the legislation in the parliament and to support it being called back on. The Labor Party have not moved amendments to this legislation, and we will support a vote on the turtles and dugongs provision as and when it arises in the House or the Senate. But equally, when amendments are presented by one party or another, or one crossbencher or another, the Labor Party have an obligation, as the government parties do, to take a view about them and vote accordingly. I understand the member for Leichhardt's frustration about that, but there is nothing much that we can do about that from opposition.

I do want to indicate on the record that the Labor Party, in government, took these issues very, very seriously indeed. A number of the programs that we supported are reflected, at least in part, in the motion by the member for Leichhardt, particularly our work as a government with state and territory governments—obviously the Queensland government—traditional owners and other stakeholder groups as well as commercial fishers in the area. We invested $7 million in Indigenous self-management and focused particularly on the development of community based sea country management plans with the support of traditional owner involvement. We also supported Indigenous ranger teams to remove ghost netting in the area. In broad terms, our approach was based on our respect for the customs and the traditions of Indigenous Australians, working with those traditional owners to get to a point which I think that, broadly, traditional owners and the government agreed upon.

I do want to say, though, about this area, following on from the comments by the member for Perth, that, while we support the thrust of this motion from the member for Leichhardt, there are still very, very serious debates—as I am sure the member for Leichhardt knows as much as anyone in this place—about the management of the reef. It is important that I say as the shadow minister for the environment that some of the commentary over the last couple of weeks has not been helpful in helping us to come together on those things which we can agree upon.

We should be able to agree upon the fact that the Great Barrier Reef is under significant threat by climate change. Every serious scientist in the area says as much. Indeed, page 1 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority outlook, which is the five-yearly report that the authority presents to the parliament and the government of the day, indicates that this is the most significant long-term threat. I understand the government's sensitivity about some of the public debate during the G20 meeting, but it is not helpful to try and present a united front from this parliament to the World Heritage Committee, for example, when basic scientific facts like the significant threat faced by the Great Barrier Reef from climate change are denied by very senior members of the government.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:32 to 16:00

See this speech in context