Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

Marine parks are a critical national resource not just for conservation purposes but also for the sustainability of fishing stocks. Australia's pre-existing network of Commonwealth marine parks strikes a good balance between the sometimes conflicting goals of environmental conservation, fishing rights and mining. My electorate of Mayo fronts some of the most prime marine real estate in Australia. Ecotourism and fishing contribute significantly to our regional economy, from dolphin and sea tours to fishing charters. Until the advent of the Abbott government, coalition governments had previously had a strong and proud record of building up Australia's network of Commonwealth marine parks, gradually established since the Fraser years, with major progress achieved in the declaration of 22 Commonwealth marine reserves over the course of the Howard government. This just makes it even more concerning that the coalition policy on marine parks has since undertaken a complete about face. In 2013, then Prime Minister Abbott suspended the operation of the entire Commonwealth marine park system on the pretext that there needed to be another comprehensive review of their operation. Why the review could not have occurred without a suspension has never been particularly clear to me. Commonwealth marine parks are comprised of multiple zones in accordance with the categories from the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The most critical zone, which provides the most rigorous marine sanctuary and conservation protection, is the marine national park zone. The first thing to note is that these draft management plans do not accord with recommendations of the two reports of the independent review completed in 2015. For example, the independent report recommended that the south-west marine park network, which is directly adjacent to my electorate, should receive a small percentage increase in its quantity of national park zones. However, the draft management plan seeks, instead, to reduce the national park zones by an incredible 40 per cent. Indeed, across the entire Commonwealth marine park system, the coalition's draft plans seek to reduce the national park zones by 40 million hectares. To put that into some context, that's an area twice the size of Victoria; it constitutes almost half of the high-protection national park zones.

I feel that this is an attempt to undermine the legacy of former coalition and Labor governments which have worked so hard to establish our current marine park network. The coalition government is disguising this decision as protection of commercial fishers' rights. However, all indications from the commercial fishers from South Australia are that they are very supportive of the pre-existing marine park networks and are cognisant that the marine national park sanctuaries contribute to the long-term sustainability of the Australian fishing industry. A number of the areas being opened up to commercial fishers have not ever been fished, and there are questions about how practical it will be to get to these areas, which are far offshore and remote from ports, to commercially fish them.

Even a cursory look at the coalition's draft plans indicates that this is not a story about fishing but a story about offshore mining interests. In short, it is about big oil. NXT understands that Australia's large oil and gas reserves are a national economic resource, and our intention is not to stop safe and legitimate mining activity. However, we also recognise that there are areas of high conservation value that need protection and that there are areas where it is unsafe to drill without the risk of a catastrophe. For example, we in the NXT have been very vocal in our opposition to deep-sea oil drilling in the Great Australian Bight, where independent modelling from the Wilderness Society has indicated that a major oil spill could spread across our coasts to as far as the north coast of Tasmania, out to New Zealand in the east and to Esperance in the west.

The government's draft plans are also based on a flawed process. When questions were raised by the Nick Xenophon Team in Senate estimates, we learned that over 54,000 submissions were made to the statutory consultation process conducted by Parks Australia in September and October 2016. The context of these submissions was kept secret on the basis that they were commercial in confidence, and for privacy reasons. However, we know that 99.9 per cent of those submitted were described as 'conservation', indicating prima facie an exceptionally strong level of support for maintaining or increasing the level of marine sanctuary and protection.

We understand the consultation process on the marine park management plans must still run its course. However, we reserve our position on the final management plans. It is fair to say we have grave concerns on the draft management plans that have been circulated, so we reserve our position and remain deeply concerned.

See this speech in context