Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition supports the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. It gives me great pleasure to speak on this legislation. It is in fact almost overwhelmingly our legislation. The previous government, when in government, completed a review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in 2006. The coalition cabinet then released a response accepting all the recommendations contained within the report. The bill is therefore largely and overwhelmingly the result of this and almost wholly the work of the coalition government.

I want to deal with this bill in two phases: firstly, putting the Great Barrier Reef in its broader social, environmental and historical context; and, secondly, dealing with the specific provisions within the bill itself. First, turning to the importance of the Great Barrier Reef—this majestic zone—to Australians, it is interesting to chart just how far we have come as a nation, as a people, and as custodians of the environment in our attitude towards the Great Barrier Reef, which is truly one of the world’s modern natural wonders. The reef is the world’s largest, and arguably the world’s most complex, ecosystem. It comprises not one continuous reef but approximately 2,900 individual reefs. It includes about 760 fringing reefs around islands or along the mainland. There are also 900 islands and quays within the boundaries of the current marine park. In short, the reef is one of the most visually spectacular and richly diverse ecosystems on the planet. We are its custodians. We are its managers. We are proud to have this responsibility and we work on a bipartisan basis across this chamber on this profound responsibility.

In 1969, however, the Queensland department of mines received an application to mine limestone on Ellison Reef, and legislation was drawn up to govern the granting of offshore oil exploration permits. In 1969 an oil company was granted a permit covering the entire reef. Soon afterwards, though, concern began to grow about the potentially catastrophic impact on the reef of any major future oil spill. The Royal Commission into Exploratory and Production Drilling for Petroleum in the Area of the Great Barrier Reef was held between 1970 and 1974. This resulted in the banning of petroleum drilling and a recommendation that a statutory authority be set up to protect the reef and regulate research and development within its boundaries and within its vicinity. At the same time, a committee of inquiry into the national estate deemed the reef to be of World Heritage standard and found that the Queensland and Commonwealth governments had a responsibility to preserve and manage the reef. It was a far-sighted act. It was early, visionary work by people who cared about our environment. If we play a small role today in continuing that work, this House is doing a service to and honouring those who took early action to protect the majesty of the Great Barrier Reef.

These recommendations subsequently received bipartisan support and resulted in the enactment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. Over the following 25 years or more, additional sections of the reef were progressively proclaimed to be part of the marine park. In 2004 the coalition government consolidated all sections into a single unit and introduced integrated zoning with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan of 2003. It was not without controversy. It took considerable leadership on the part of the then government. It took considerable leadership on the part of successive environment ministers, David Kemp and Senator Ian Campbell, but it has, I believe, made the long-term future of the Barrier Reef sustainable. It was strong work, it was courageous work and it was visionary work. I commend those two ministers; the Prime Minister of the time, John Howard; and all of those departmental officials and others who have worked to achieve this outcome for taking that step.

In order to get a sense of the impact and importance of that step forward in the period 2003 to 2004, it is worth while understanding the extent of the various marine park zones before 2004 and afterwards. The marine park zone, which is coloured green on all of the maps, prior to 2004 was 4.6 per cent of the marine park. Post 2004 it was a third, or 33.3 per cent. The buffer zone—the olive green zone—was 0.1 per cent prior to 2004 and was increased to 2.9 per cent as a result of the changes in 2004. The habitat protection zone, which is the dark blue zone, was 15.2 per cent prior to 2004 and became 28.2 per cent as a consequence of the changes. The area that decreased was the general use or light blue zone, which decreased from just under 78 per cent to 33.8 per cent. The important thing is that it was the marine park area, buffer area and habitat protection area as well as a small increase in the conservation park area which made this change. That was a gift from one generation of Australians to all future generations of Australians and to people throughout the world. It was an act of profound importance, and I pay tribute to all those who advocated for it and who brought it into being.

The park now covers around 98 per cent of the World Heritage area, and an additional one per cent is covered by the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Great Barrier Reef Coast Marine Park. The reef is one of Australia’s most internationally recognised tourist icons—if not, along with Uluru and the Opera House, Australia’s most recognised feature. Its value to the Australian tourism industry is immense—close to $6 billion a year. Recreational and commercial fishing generate hundreds of millions of dollars more in income. It would be difficult to overestimate the reef’s importance to Australia—to our sense of self, to our sense of who we are, to our belief in the environment and to our passion for this area—as well as its economic significance, its cultural significance to Indigenous Australians and its interconnected nature with the entire natural marine ecosystem.

Against that background, while the Great Barrier Reef has been well served by the Great Barrier Marine Park Act 1975, as the previous government found, it was in need of work in order to fill in some gaps and modernise it. In particular, the former Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, oversaw much of that transition, which delivered on a coalition election commitment to review the act and improve the performance of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The review consulted with a wide range of stakeholders with a diverse range of views. It held 36 consultations, considered 227 submissions and produced the basis for the changes which are incorporated in the act today.

I want to turn to the legislation itself. As I said earlier, the coalition support this legislation as it is—in fact, it is our legislation in large part. The previous, coalition government completed the review in 2006 and released a response accepting all of the recommendations. Proposed changes included updating the act to reflect the fact that the Great Barrier Reef had been World Heritage listed and the fact that the coalition government had introduced the EPBC Act, and to close any gaps in emergency management powers. The new act also picked up the coalition cabinet’s decision to move beyond a criminal penalty only system to allow for greater flexibility of enforcement options, such as reef recovery or civil penalties for breaches such as fishing on an unintended basis in no-take zones.

In addition, the bill expands the number of board members from three to five in line with our recommendations. One of those places, in line with the government’s policy, will be filled by an Indigenous representative under this legislation. We do not oppose that; we accept that and endorse that. In the Senate, however, we will move to ensure that there is an appropriate opportunity for industry representation as part of those five members.

I should note that there are also two other points which we wish to raise. Firstly, the timing of this bill’s introduction serves to highlight the fact that the Rudd Labor government’s legislative program is in disarray. I do not actually blame the department or even the minister’s office for this. I think they have acted in good faith. We were informed that the bill would lie on the table and not come in until after the winter break, and then the bill was brought forward at short notice. That is not catastrophic or a significant problem; it is simply an indication that there is a broader issue here in that the government have no legislative program for this House and they have had to bring forward a bill which would have been available to industry, the community, environmental groups and others to assess over the coming months. Secondly, the Rudd government need to ensure that there is, as I said, at least one person with tourism and other industry skills and experience on the board of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Overall, we are exceptionally supportive of this legislation. We think it is our legislation. There are a couple of changes in a couple of areas, but we are proud of the work which has been done on the coalition side. I want to acknowledge the great work of those within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the work of all of those who contributed to the 2006 review and the work of the department. Many people have worked on this legislation for many years. It is detailed, technical and a tribute to their work. Ultimately, the Great Barrier Reef is part of our environmental heritage and part of who we are as Australians, and it is our responsibility to protect it. We are custodians, along with Indigenous representatives, of this magnificent area of our water, our undersea and our marine life. It is a great honour to support it and to be able to say that, effectively, this is our legislation which we brought to this place—and, if there is bipartisan support, that is a good thing. That is why the coalition give our wholehearted support to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Flinders pointed out that the Great Barrier Reef is not one single reef but 2,900 individual reefs. Indeed, it covers an area of over 340,000 square kilometres. While he was saying that, I was reminded of just what an inane and absurd proposition had come from the former Minister for Small Business and Tourism, the member for McEwen—the suggestion that the Great Barrier Reef should be protected from global warming through the erection of shadecloth. She proposed to turn the Great Barrier Reef into the ‘Great Barrier Roof’ and cover those 2,900 individual reefs.

This year, 2008, marks the International Year of the Reef, an activity of the International Coral Reef Initiative, designed to continue the global focus on the importance of coral reefs to the health of the planet. The International Coral Reef Initiative hopes to strengthen public awareness regarding the understanding of threats facing our reefs and what we can do to counter those threats and take action on management strategies for conservation and sustainable use. This is an international partnership between governments, international organisations and non-government organisations to assist in preserving coral reefs and related ecosystems.

I take this opportunity to praise and support the work of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and also of others like James Cook University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science, which I think do an outstanding job in researching and monitoring the health of the Great Barrier Reef and making us all more aware of its importance, its outstanding attributes and the various threats to it. The marine park established under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act is now one of the largest protected marine areas in the world. It covers an area in excess of 340,000 square kilometres. It is widely recognised around the world as a model for marine management and conservation. These legislative changes in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 do not change the marine park’s zoning, but they do ensure that it delivers a high level of protection for the Great Barrier Reef. This is to be achieved through recognising the World Heritage status of the Great Barrier Reef; through applying a new, streamlined environmental impact assessment process; through an improved enforcement and compliance regime providing a wider range of enforcement options tailored to the circumstances; and through addressing gaps in emergency management. I believe that these legislative changes will form part of a robust, comprehensive framework for protecting the Great Barrier Reef.

The purpose of the bill is to establish a modern, robust regulatory framework that provides capacity for efficient and effective protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef into the future. We will now see a more modern framework for administration of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park that is aligned and integrated and that does not duplicate the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act or other legislation. We look forward to more streamlined environmental impact assessment and permitting processes; to an enhanced capability for investigation and evidence collection for a wider range of enforcement options, giving us a more targeted approach to enforcement; and to encouraging responsible use of the marine park as well as establishing new emergency management powers.

The changes proposed by the bill, as has been pointed out, address the findings of a 2006 review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. That review found that the act has served its purpose well over the past 30 years but needs to be updated and better integrated with other legislation in order to provide an effective framework for the protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef into the future. It is the intention that, as a result of these changes, we will have a comprehensive framework for securing the long-term protection of the Great Barrier Reef with a future-focused regulatory framework. It has been pointed out that the marine park act is now starting to show its age and that substantial updating is required to put in place a regulatory framework capable of meeting the challenges of the next 30 years and beyond.

This bill will update the act to reflect modern realities and approaches to environment protection and management. It will encourage responsible and ecologically sustainable use of the marine park by ensuring that appropriate incentives are in place and that management tools are available. We will get integration and alignment of the marine park act with other relevant legislation, notably the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and also the relevant Queensland legislation. This should reduce regulatory and administrative red tape and facilitate a more consistent and integrated approach to environmental regulation and management by both the Australian and the Queensland governments. The bill also enhances the capacity of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to respond to emergency incidents presenting a risk of serious harm to the environment of the marine park; it introduces an environmental duty, requiring marine park users to take reasonable steps to avoid or minimise any environmental harm associated with their use of the park; and it addresses a specific Labor election commitment to restore an Indigenous member to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

As I have had occasion to say previously, we should be under no illusions about the threats facing both the Great Barrier Reef and coral reefs right around the world. One of the most significant steps taken in relation to the Great Barrier Reef in recent times was that, back in 2004, a network of no-take marine reserves, protecting over 100,000 square kilometres of coral reef, was established on the Great Barrier Reef. Closing such a large area to fishing was socially and politically controversial, and I can well remember the previous member for Dawson, the previous member for Leichhardt and Queensland coalition senators attacking the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority over this issue. Given that, it is perhaps worth noting that there has been some work done to assess the effectiveness of the new reserve network. Researchers from James Cook University have found that there were significant increases in density of the major target species of the reef line fisheries in marine reserves in just two years and that the increases were consistent over an unprecedented scale, exceeding 1,000 kilometres. Their findings were that, after 1½ to two years of protection, the density of the primary target of reef line fisheries, coral trout, increased significantly in the no-take areas of Palm Island and the Whitsunday Islands—by over 60 per cent. There was also some evidence that the reserve areas are capable of replenishing stocks and of acting as nurseries for the fished areas. It is a point well worth making, because it was the controversy surrounding that issue which gave rise to the review, which has in turn given rise to this bill. It is good news that the no-take marine areas are working.

I also want to draw the attention of the House, as I have done previously, to the definitive work done by the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network back in 2004. That report is titled Status of coral reefs of the world 2004. I use the example of the Caribbean to give the parliament something of the flavour of what is occurring in coral reefs around the world, and this definitive work concludes:

Evidence is emerging of a definite, consistent and long-term decline in the status of coral reefs of the Caribbean. These are the conclusions of a group of researchers at the University of East Anglia, England, who analysed monitoring data from 263 sites from 65 separate studies spanning 3 decades ... The regional pattern of decline is alarming; with coral cover decreasing from more than 50% on average in 1977 to approximately 10% in 2001, i.e. a loss of 80% in 25 years.

…            …            …

Virtually all sites showed a decline in coral cover over the study period.

There was a massive loss in coral cover during the 1980s, particularly in Jamaica and northern and southern Central America.

According to a 2006 report, Coral reef conservation, approximately 20 per cent of the world’s coral reefs have been destroyed and show no immediate prospect of recovery. Of those remaining, one-quarter are under imminent risk of collapse and another quarter face long-term threat of collapse. In the magazine Science, in May last year, Terence Hughes, who is director of the Australian Research Council Centre for Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University in Townsville, indicated that if carbon dioxide emissions are not curtailed:

... we’ll eventually see reefs dominated by sea anemones and algae.

In other words, the coral will be gone. The biggest danger for reefs is bleaching and, despite the merits of various conservation initiatives, unless climate change is addressed these gains from local measures and local initiatives will be erased.

It is quite clear that coral reefs around the world are under massive stress and are suffering from a whole range of problems: issues of governance, awareness, political will, increasing populations, poor capacity for management and lack of resources. I believe that it is our obligation to ensure that this does not happen to the Great Barrier Reef. I think it is impossible to overemphasise the importance of the responsibility that we have—the duty that we have—to protect the Great Barrier Reef. We simply cannot sit idly by and allow its situation to deteriorate.

I noticed in the latest edition of the publication by the Marine Coastal Community Network called Waves that some work has been done on the Keppel region of the southern Great Barrier Reef. This lies at the mouth of the Fitzroy Rover catchment. The article states:

The region is made up of extensive fringing inshore coral reefs around 15 continental islands, east of Rockhampton in central Queensland. The Keppel region has a history of multiple disturbance regimes in the past, including coral bleaching and flood. In summer 2006, a severe bleaching event caused the loss of 37% of the live hard coral cover on reef flats and slopes in the region.

The article goes on to report:

Along with bleaching, temperature-induced ocean acidification may threaten the carbonate accretion capacity of the main coral species that form the structure of the Keppel Islands inshore reefs. The added threat of increased fishing pressure, coastal development and agricultural practices along the Fitzroy River make the Keppel reefs a priority for management intervention that enhances their capacity for resilience and regeneration.

It is good to learn:

A local community group, in conjunction with the Fitzroy Basin Association, has recognised and responded to the threats faced by the Keppel Islands fringing reefs by securing funding to map and monitor the reef biodiversity. The emphasis of the monitoring will be on reefs that are considered important to the local community and on those that are resilient to flood and bleaching. By engaging local divers, snorkelers and boaties, the community reef monitoring program is encouraging stewardship of reef management.

The situation facing the Keppel reefs is the kind of situation, writ large, facing the whole of the Great Barrier Reef and other coral reefs around the world.

There was a report earlier this month in the Age about John Veron. He got the nickname ‘Charlie’, which stood for Charles Darwin, as a kid because he was very interested in wildlife. His first dive was at the age of 18, and he says:

... the intensity of life—

underwater—

made the surface world seem suddenly pale.

I think he is right about that; it is a fantastic thing to go underwater and see the richness, diversity and intensity of life there. Dr Veron has logged 7,000 hours diving all the major reefs of the world. I understand that he discovered almost a quarter of the oceans’ identified coral species and he has compiled a catalogue of books, including the three-volume Corals of the world. But his latest book is different. It is called A Reef in Time: The Great Barrier Reef from Beginning to End. It is not a chronicle of the life of coral reefs, as his previous books have been. It is an anticipation of their death. Unlike the careful jargon that we have come to associate with scientists, it is:

... an impassioned, anguished eulogy delivered by a dear friend of the imminently deceased.

In the article Dr Veron says:

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, more than 25 million years in the making, is “an icon primordial wilderness” ... the greatest structure created by life on earth.

Dr Veron also says that once he would have considered the idea that it could die within the span of a generation or two as preposterous. He now says:

Twin assailants, both creatures of climate change, threaten the reef.

Dr Veron says that the first of those is the warming of the water, which causes the event we refer to as coral bleaching and which is quite well known. He says that the worst bleaching events that we have seen so far will become commonplace by 2030 and that by 2050:

... the only corals left alive will be those in refuges on deep outer slopes of reefs. The rest will be unrecognisable—a bacterial slime , devoid of life.

Bad and all as that is, he says:

The even greater threat is ocean acidification—the dissolving of carbon dioxide into the sea, forming weak carbonic acid. This is the climate change frontier to which science is swinging increasing focus, as alarm grows at the threat it poses to marine ecosystems and to human food supplies and economies.

What we have seen happening is the ocean’s appetite for carbon dioxide being exceeded and the chemistry changing. The acid levels can create conditions where the capacity of marine creatures to produce their calcium carbonate skeletons is threatened, and the consequences of this he describes as nothing less than ‘catastrophic’. He says that in the past there were five great extinction events that wiped out much of life on earth and that coral reefs were hit hard by all five of them because they were so closely linked to the carbon cycle. In the past these changes were not the result of human activity, but the issue now is that events which were previously stretched over time frames of billions of years are now happening at a rapid speed because of the increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He is extremely concerned about what he has seen. He says:

We are seeing the beginning of the global demise of reefs in the mass bleaching of corals ... by 2030, the worst year of bleaching we have had so far will be an average year, and by 2050 it will be a good year.

Dr Veron goes on to say:

If we do not curb the production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases effectively and within a decade, the Earth will enter an era (around mid-century) that will result in so much environmental chaos that humans will no longer have the capacity to keep on doing as they have done in the past.

Given that, it is certainly a matter of concern to me that we have seen statements from the opposition, including from the member for Flinders, who spoke previously in this debate, seeking to get a scare campaign going about emissions trading and effectively undermining much of the work that has been done to protect the Great Barrier Reef in the past and all the work that we need to do in the future to secure the Great Barrier Reef and other Australian icons from the impact of climate change. This is a good piece of legislation. It results from a review carried out back in 2006. It takes the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority into the modern era, and I commend it to the House.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Heritage, the Arts and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also support the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. I agree with the previous speaker, the member for Wills, and also the member for Flinders that this is very good legislation. It carries on the work of the coalition government, which was of course long committed to making sure that this magnificent wonder of the world, the Great Barrier Reef, survived. We have here an evolution in the legislation to protect and manage the Great Barrier Reef, one of the most important ecosystems and tourism destinations in Australia.

The Great Barrier Reef, while one of the wonders of the world, is hugely vulnerable. The member for Wills has, very rightly, just described the great threats to the reef at this time. Those threats of course include overfishing, climate change impacts and the hole in the ozone, which has caused UV problems—like bleaching—for quite a number of years now. There is the coastline run-off and other pollutants. There are the marine accidents that can occur, like an oil spill. And of course there are the introduced predatory species like the crown-of-thorns starfish, which can do, and is already doing, enormous damage—though some feel it is now somewhat under control, particularly in some parts of the reef. This reef is an enormous geographic extension along the east coast of Australia and it is many millions of years old. It is very much in need of active, ongoing management if we are to try to reduce the impact of some of the detrimental effects already occuring, like climate change and ozone layer depletion.

The Howard government undertook a review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act back in 2006. This review was very comprehensive and met a key election commitment of the Howard government to review and improve the act’s management arrangements for the reef. In 1975 we saw the first Commonwealth legislation to establish and manage the marine park. This was passed unanimously by the parliament of the day, a great act of bipartisan agreement.

In 1981 the Fraser government announced the successful listing of the reef on the World Heritage List. Over the next 25 years, over 33 sections of the marine park were formally proclaimed as protected. In total, the marine park is now 1½ times bigger than the state of Victoria, covering over 244,400 square kilometres. It also generates many billions of dollars in tourism trade annually, and that in turn supports some 350,000 people. It is unique and one of the world’s oldest coral reefs, and successive Australian governments have sought to protect it.

In March 2007 the Howard government, with the support of the Labor Party opposition, passed the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007. This bill implemented the key, urgent issues improving on the 1975 act, which was indeed showing signs of age. This included provision for the zoning plan process and for improvements in transparency and accountability. The changes to the zoning plan were initially for seven years; they will be extended to 10 years by this bill.

The House may be interested to know that the model developed to manage the reef is now considered international best practice and is emulated for other important reefs in the world. In 2004 an American legal commentator noted that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was an example of a ‘successful large-scale marine zoning project that allows for commercial use, recreational use and conservation’. This is a ringing endorsement of the work undertaken by the Howard government which is leading the way for reef management and protection into the future despite the enormous challenges of climate change, the growing pressures of human visitation and offshore demands, and the ongoing nutrition entering the marine environment.

This bill is important; we have to get it right. The first act, over 30 years old now, served this unique ecosystem well but it requires regular updates. While the opposition remain disappointed with the speed at which this legislation is being introduced into the parliament—because we believe there was more than passing interest from the industry and stakeholders wanting to comment further on the act—we support the bill in this place today.

This bill aims to establish a modern and robust registry framework that provides for the efficient and effective protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef into the future. The changes proposed by the bill are a response to the findings of the 2006 review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act established by the coalition. That review found that the act had served its purpose well but needed to be updated and better integrated with other relevant legislation, in particular the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, in order to reduce red tape and confusion and to close loopholes—in other words, to provide a more effective framework for protection and management of the reef.

Since this act was first passed in 1975 there has been a significant change in the scale, scope and nature of the challenges in securing the long-term protection of the reef—and I have already listed some of these. The initial act focused on the establishment of the marine park, and of course that has been well and truly achieved. Today a new focus is needed to manage the impacts of climate change on the reef along with those other human related pressures, like the growing tourism and the potential for accidents. We need to ensure common user provisions for the reef for tourists, residents and businesses but always ensure that at no time is the reef itself compromised.

Schedule 1 establishes a new objects section in the act. This reflects the changing focus of the act away from establishing a marine park to providing for ecological sustainability and best possible management practice. It identifies long-term protection of the environment, biodiversity and heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef as now being the primary objects of the act. The schedule also requires the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—or GBRMPA, as we commonly refer to it—to have regard to the new objects and the principles of ecologically sustainable use and the protection of the World Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef.

Schedule 2 makes amendments to the GBRMPA itself. It establishes a requirement for one member of the authority to be an Indigenous person. Given there are more than 70 traditional owner groups along the coast from Bundaberg to the Torres Strait, it is important they have input into the future direction of the reef and marine park. For example, the issue of Indigenous hunting of marine species using non-traditional methods requires sensitive consideration and discussion. It is just one of the many issues that our Indigenous original owners are concerned about, and they need to be at the table discussing the best ways to proceed.

The schedule also provides for the GBRMPA to conduct business outside of formal meetings, subject to an appropriate governance framework. On this point the coalition is also keen to see industry representation on the GBRMPA. Last week I met with the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators, AMPTO. They are one of the key representative bodies for tourism operators on the reef and the adjacent coastline. Members of such bodies could and indeed should make a very valuable contribution to policy formulation and the management of the park. A healthy, properly managed reef is essential for the success of the tourist operators, and it is important that we take on board the views of the evolving and changing industry.

Schedule 3 makes changes which will require the GBRMPA to publicly consult on any proposal to proclaim an area part of the marine park or to remove an area from the marine park by way of proclamation. It also updates the matters that must be considered in developing zoning plans and plans of management to build in better integration with relevant Commonwealth and Queensland legislation, particularly the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This schedule provides that a World Heritage management plan is not required under section 321 of the EPBC Act or a national heritage management plan under section 324X of the EPBC Act. This will improve integration and alignment of the two acts. It will remove the confusion, it will close loopholes and it will reduce the red tape and bureaucracy, especially given that 98 per cent of the marine park falls inside the World Heritage area.

Schedule 4 declares the marine park as a ‘matter of national environmental significance’ under the EPBC Act. As a consequence, the environmental impact assessment and approval requirements of the EPBC Act will apply where an action inside or outside the marine park has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment in the marine park itself. Further provisions will establish a single, integrated environmental impact assessment process under the EPBC Act.

Schedule 5 updates investigation and enforcement provisions to ensure that the provisions for the marine park are in line with those of the EPBC Act. It is about harmonisation, and that is of critical concern when too much time and energy can be lost in integrating parallel pieces of legislation which, at the end of the day, have the same objectives.

Schedule 6 goes on to make a number of changes to existing offence provisions of the GBRMP Act and establishes equivalent civil penalty provisions for most of those offences. It will not be the case in the future that someone who accidentally drifts a few metres across the marine park boundaries is in fact seen to have committed a criminal offence. The schedule establishes two new offences. One relates to the operation of a commercial fishing vessel in a zone where fishing is not permitted except for the purposes of transiting or anchoring in an emergency or as a result of an accident. The other provision relates to making a false or misleading representation concerning a person’s liability to pay a fee, tax, levy or other charge in connection with entry and use of the marine park.

The original marine park act was groundbreaking legislation. It was important at a time when little was known about the long-term management and sustainability of something as complex and amazing as the Great Barrier Reef. The original legislation provided for reasonable use to coexist with conservation, making the Great Barrier Reef a truly multiple-use park. This is important, but it also brings with it an enormously complex task in managing the various and sometimes competing interests of those who know and love the reef or earn an income from it.

Extending over 2,300 kilometres along the Queensland coast, the reef includes 2,900 individual reefs, 900 islands and cays and 70 distinct bioregions. These bioregions contain great biodiversity, including 30 per cent of the world’s soft corals, 30 per cent of Australia’s sponges and six of the world’s seven species of marine turtle. And they are the breeding areas and migratory routes for humpback whales and dugongs.

When the coalition signed off on the World Heritage listing of the marine park in 1981, the reef became internationally recognised as an outstanding example of the major stages of the earth’s evolutionary history, a significant example of an ongoing ecological and biological process, a superlative natural phenomenon and a source of important and significant habitats for in situ conservation of biological diversity. As we have already heard, however, the reef is now facing extraordinary threats, in particular due to climate change. It would be both an ecological and a human tragedy if on our watch we saw this reef destroyed.

This bill is an important part of managing the reef and doing all we can to make sure that generations to come enjoy the extraordinary biodiversity and sheer beauty of the reef. I repeat: the coalition supports this bill. It carries on the work of the Howard government. The first act lasted some 30 years. It has evolved to give us one of the best managed ecosystems in the world. But it is unfinished business, and we need to make sure that in the years to come we continue to have a bipartisan approach to what is one of Australia’s most important custodial tasks—seeing that the Great Barrier Reef survives. I commend the bill to the House.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. This bill, as other members have stated, is an important step in the ongoing conservation and protection of the Great Barrier Reef. It fulfils part of the election commitment of the Rudd Labor government to genuinely tackle sustainable measures for the protection of our environment. As a Queenslander I am proud of the magnificent natural resource that we have on our doorstep and understand the importance of conserving and protecting such a resource.

The Great Barrier Reef has significant environmental, social, economic and cultural values. In introducing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 into parliament, the Australian government stated that protection of our unique Barrier Reef is of paramount importance to Australia and the world, and conservation and protection of the Great Barrier Reef will be the paramount aim of the authority in all zones of the marine park. This act, in providing for reasonable use to coexist with conservation, established a multi-use approach to management, with an overarching conservation objective. This concept has underpinned management of the marine park. The benefits of protecting our environment are immeasurable. Decisions made by all levels of government must take all necessary steps to balance the environmental, social, economic and cultural values. These values do not necessarily need to be in conflict with each other.

The Howard government did not believe in this approach. They believed in fear campaigns, alleging that any positive move to address climate change would result in economic pressures. In opposition they continue to follow this approach. We the government take a different approach. We believe that the protection of our environment is important. Tackling climate change is one of the most nationally and internationally challenging areas, but it is something that must be done in a responsible way. This challenge must be faced head-on. There is no time to waste in our willingness to take issues to the nations of the globe. By signing the Kyoto protocol, Australia can now be regarded as a nation that is helping with the solution as opposed to one waiting for an answer.

I acknowledge the work of the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, who has immediately taken a proactive role in her diplomatic discussions with other countries on this important issue. I also acknowledge the work of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Hon. Peter Garrett, for his work on this bill and other important initiatives on the environment.

When we talk about the environment, we cannot do so without talking about climate change. Areas such as the Great Barrier Reef must be considered in the context of the changing nature of the environment due to climate change. Eminent scientists throughout the world have already reported on evidence of climate change resulting from elevated greenhouse gas concentrations. Since the beginning of last century, air temperature has increased by 0.6 degrees Celsius on average worldwide. In Australia, 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded. The temperature was 1.1 degrees Celsius higher than the average over the previous 30 years.

Levels of greenhouse gases continue to increase and therefore temperatures around the world continue to rise. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that the average global temperature will rise by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100. The Australian Greenhouse Office has worked with scientists to develop models that predict the future climate of Australia. They predict that Australia will warm by one to six degrees Celsius by 2070, a slight variation from the global average. We have already set out our plan for responding to this challenge: reducing carbon emissions, adapting to climate change we cannot avoid and helping to shape a global solution.

To tackle the threats to the Great Barrier Reef, including the effects of climate change and declining water quality, the government has committed $2 million to a reef rescue plan. The rescue plan will help protect one of the world’s great natural wonders, while benefiting local conservation and Indigenous groups, agricultural production, tourism, fishing and aquacultural industries.

What does this mean for the Great Barrier Reef? Changes in the climate that will directly impact the Great Barrier Reef include increased water temperature, increased sea level, increased severity of storms and cyclones, ocean acidification, changed rainfall and run-off and changes to the El Nino southern oscillation. The ecological consequences of climate change will be serious. Mass coral bleaching, which is caused by sustained high water temperatures, has already begun to increase in frequency and severity. The range of other potential impacts on the Great Barrier Reef are numerous, with many only just coming to light.

The Rudd Labor government is genuine about tackling climate change. That is why in the government’s first budget we have delivered $2.3 billion in funding to tackle climate change through initiatives across government over the next four years. Australians understand that climate change is one of the biggest challenges we face as a nation. The impacts of climate change threaten both our economic prosperity and our way of life.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Petrie will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.