Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia has recognised a duty to ensure the conservation, protection and transmission to future generations of its cultural and natural heritage. Australia has recognised this duty by becoming party to the United Nations Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. If we are complacent in the management of our places of natural beauty and ignore the effects of climate change, we will be unable to pass the Great Barrier Reef on to our children, and that would be a great tragedy. The Great Barrier Reef is a place of remarkable ecological variety and astounding natural beauty. With 2,900 individual reefs, 400 types of coral, 1,500 species of fish and 4,000 types of mollusc, it is one of the most significant natural habitats for in situ conservation of biological diversity on the planet. The reef is also home to threatened species of outstanding value from the point of view of science and conservation. It provides a breeding and spawning ground for unique coral reef associated species, including 43,000 square kilometres of seagrass meadows, which are vital to the future survival of the dugong.

Tourism involving the reef is central to the local economy. In 2005 there were 820 tourist operators and 1,500 vessels and aircraft permitted to operate in the park. In its February 2003 report on the reef, the Productivity Commission estimated that the economic worth of tourism in the Great Barrier Reef is over $4 billion per annum. The fragility of the reef means that it is particularly sensitive to the effects of climate change. Increases in water temperature, storm frequency and sea acidity have led UNESCO to warn of increases in coral bleaching and the possibility that the Great Barrier Reef could follow the trend in the Indian Ocean, where 50 per cent of coral reefs have died. It is distressing to think that an Australian icon such as the Great Barrier Reef might have a limited future as a consequence of human activity. If ocean temperature anomalies on the reef reach three degrees over a period of several months, which they may do given the recent intensity of the El Nino southern oscillation, UNESCO predicts widespread coral death. The oceans are also an important sink of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Increasing dissolution of carbon dioxide levels has acidified the water, slowing the growth of corals and weakening their skeletal structure.

For these reasons, the government has introduced the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. This bill gives new powers to the marine park authority to enable a better response to environmental issues such as climate change threatening the park. The purpose of this amendment bill is to modernise the administration of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and to facilitate the integration of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The bill also introduces new emergency management powers so the park authority may better respond to emergency situations. This amendment bill seeks to resolve any ambiguity as to whom the legislation applies. Section 5 of the bill clearly states that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act covers the Australia’s exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf is applicable to everyone within Australia, including foreign nationals.

The bill also updates the focus of the legislation. When the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act was drafted in the 1970s, concepts such as sustainable use and development did not have the currency that they enjoy today. This bill defines ecologically sustainable use and requires the marine park authority to act consistently with that objective. The amendment bill will encourage a greater respect for the park by introducing penalties for irresponsible use. This includes placing a responsibility on users to avoid or minimise any environmental damage associated with their activities. This is important because it raises awareness in the community of the effect of visitors to the park and encourages them to tread lightly. The old advice for visitors to land based national parks was to ‘take nothing but photographs and leave nothing but footprints’. The advice for visitors to the reef could be to ‘leave nothing but the wake of your boat and the bubbles from your scuba gear’.

The discharge of sewage from vessels has been a particular problem for the marine park authority. Nutrient and pathogen loadings caused by sewage can affect coral reefs and tropical seagrasses, particularly in bays and lagoons, which are less subject to tidal flushing. The bill’s provision that users minimise their environmental impact will help enforce requirements such as the directive that boats with 16 or more passengers travel one nautical mile from a reef, island or aquaculture facility before discharging sewage. This is part of a general aim to encourage users to self-regulate, sharing in the responsibility for the care of the park. This will also complement the Maritime Safety Authority’s ‘Stow it, Don’t Throw it’ campaign, which encourages people operating vessels to take their garbage and waste back home. Dumping is of particular concern on the reef as the large population of turtles and whales often mistake plastic bags for jellyfish.

Under the new arrangements the chair or a delegate will have greater power to carry out environmental impact assessments in relation to actions in the marine park. They will also take responsibility for certain statutory decisions associated with enforcement. This is intended to give the marine park authority a greater capacity to respond to breaches and play a greater role in environmental regulation.

This amendment bill is consistent with the Rudd government’s approach to federalism. It is an approach based on cooperation with the states and avoidance of unnecessary regulation. In line with this approach, item 25 of the amendment bill links this act with the Queensland legislation applicable in the park. Previously, if Queensland legislation governing fisheries was amended, the regulations under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act would also have to be amended. This has been changed so that marine park regulations simply require compliance with Queensland legislation in force from time to time. This renders the act easier to administer and reflects a commonsense approach to jurisdictional responsibilities.

You can well imagine the increased convenience that is going to flow from adopting this particular regulatory mechanism. It is obviously inconvenient to ensure conformity between state legislation and federal legislation if every time a state law is changed it is necessary to make new regulations under the federal act. The mechanism that has been adopted, which is a simple device to adopt Queensland law applying law in the marine park, is a far more practical approach.

Maritime safety is a particular focus in this amendment bill. The new powers granted to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to respond to emergency situations are intended to exist in conjunction with the powers of other emergency organisations such as the State Emergency Service and the Maritime Safety Authority. Australia is the world’s fifth largest shipping nation in terms of tonnes of cargo shipped and kilometres travelled and the Great Barrier Reef is one of the most sensitive marine areas in the world. Those two facts carry with them the possibility for conflict between protection of sensitive marine areas and very high levels of shipping. The marine park authority is partly responsible for balancing the reality of those two facts. This amendment bill reinforces the authority’s commitment to the continuous improvement of safety provisions and its disaster response capability.

Both Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people have strong connections with the sea country in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Clan groups have inhabited the region for over 40,000 years. Food from the sea has been an integral part of economy, culture and diet of Torres Strait Islanders, whose seafood consumption per person is among the highest in the world.

It is perhaps not well understand by most Australians that for Aboriginal people the sharp distinction that European culture makes between the land and the sea is a foreign concept. I have not spent a great deal of time with Aboriginal people or Torres Strait Islander people associated with the Great Barrier Reef but I have spent a considerable amount of time with Aboriginal people on the coast of Arnhem Land. In the time that I spent with people—particularly at Milingimbi and Elcho Island, which are on the Central Arnhem Land coast—one of the things that I found to be particularly powerful was the way in which people treated the sea as simply another part of their country. The naming of places and the stories that are associated with the land equally extended to places going far out to sea, for which there were not only names but in all cases a story to go with the named place as well.

In the Great Barrier Reef, traditional owners have played a significant role in improving populations of culturally significant animals, such as the green sea turtle or ‘Nam’ in the Meriam Mir language of the eastern Torres Straight islands. The turtle has an enduring place in the stories and ceremonies of Indigenous Australians passed down from generation to generation. Thanks to the efforts of the marine park authority and the Indigenous population, there has been a much greater recognition of the importance of the Great Barrier Reef as a breeding ground for the turtle population.

The traditional owners of the park also play a significant role in education. The Reef Guardians Program, offered to schools by the marine park authority, teaches students about the importance of the Barrier Reef as an ecosystem and the role of Indigenous people on the reef. This program is available to schools anywhere in Australia and is an important part of ensuring that the reef is preserved for future generations.

This amendment bill recognises the reef’s traditional owners by reinstating the statutory requirement that there be an Indigenous person with specific knowledge of and experience of Indigenous issues on the reef as a member of the authority. The previous government removed the Indigenous member requirement in July 2007, showing a particular and indeed striking insensitivity to the partnerships that had been built up between the traditional owners and the marine park authority. These amendments restore that requirement, ensuring that the management of the park will not only be responsive to Indigenous issues but benefit from the immense knowledge and experience the Indigenous community bring to the park.

This amendment bill modernises the marine park authority. It updates the framework and objectives within which they operate and gives them better tools to continue their excellent work. It provides for climate change, recognises Indigenous Australians and allows for the increasing number of Australians and visitors from overseas who are choosing to visit this spectacular natural phenomenon. Above all, this bill honours Australia’s commitment under the United Nations Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and will help preserve this place of pristine natural beauty. I commend the bill to the House.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The explanatory memorandum circulated with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 states that the purpose of the bill is to establish a modern robust regulatory framework that provides the capacity for the efficient and effective protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef into the future. As the member for Flinders said, the coalition supports this bill for one very simple reason: it is our bill. This is the legislation and the process that was actually introduced by the previous government.

As a new member of this House, I must say that I am a little disappointed. Prior to the last election there was much fanfare from the then opposition, and now government, about their grand agenda. But in the last sitting week before we go into the recess, the government are literally running down the clock. They have basically run out of puff—they have run out of a program. It was only a few weeks ago they were ramming bills through this place with the cooperation of the opposition in speaking arrangements and so on—there was a reduction in the level of scrutiny of bills as they passed through this chamber. But now we find ourselves with the government running off the legislative fumes of the Howard government to literally limp across the line in this last sitting week. They will be watching the clock all day today. We saw a long list of speakers with a passionate interest in the bills debated in the last couple of days. There is a long list of speakers to this bill too, as they run down the clock by padding out the program.

That said, this bill is of significance for the reason that the former government believed that it was of significance and put the process in place. Not only have we seen it with this bill, with which the government are taking on—in this case, wisely—a process put forward by the Howard government, but we have also seen it in relation to tax cuts, which was another item of unfinished business put forward by the Howard government. We put forward tax cuts in the election campaign and the government adopted them. I am looking forward to next year’s budget because I will be interested to see where the policy initiatives come from. They will not have the member for Higgins, Mr Costello, to rely on. They will not have the member for Wentworth, Mr Turnbull, to rely on. And, looking back to Senator Ian Campbell, they will not have him to rely on as they have in relation to this measure. It will all be up to them to put forward policy and legislation. It will be interesting when we get to the June sitting of next year to see whether there will frankly be much to do because the grand revolutionary change on education and the other things has literally run out of steam before it has got out of the station. So as we look at this bill today, I think we look at it in that context—a government running on the legislative fumes of John Howard and his great government.

The previous coalition government completed a review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and the authority in 2006. The previous coalition cabinet accepted all of the recommendations of the review and this legislation before the House is largely the result of the work undertaken by the previous government. At the time the report was released, the former Minister for Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, said:

... the Australian Government has recognised the evolving needs and challenges of safeguarding the Marine Park for the future. Meeting these requires up-to-date, relevant legislation and an approach that provides for continued protection for marine life and biodiversity, as well as for ongoing sustainable economic and recreational activity and engagement with business and local communities.

Members on this side of the House give their support to these changes. The Great Barrier Reef is a place of unique environmental qualities and keen human interest. The Great Barrier Reef is literally the world’s largest coral reef system. There is an interesting connection between the reef and my electorate of Cook because of its namesake, Captain James Cook. He chose to visit Kurnell and the landing place in Botany Bay on 29 April 1770. Then, on 11 June of the same year he found himself in the middle of quite a storm in the Great Barrier Reef, which he happened upon by chance. Seven days after the Endeavour ran aground they made it to the beach at the Endeavour River and stayed there until 3 August. A range of things took place there at the time. The whole discovery of the east coast of Australia was held in the balance right there at that time in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef as Cook and his crew set about repairing the ship to enable them to get underway again. There are reports of other explorers who may have come and gone along the east coast but, unless they took those discoveries back to their home countries and moved forward to make the great modern nation of Australia a product of that voyage, they account for little. In thinking about the Great Barrier Reef, it is, I think, important to understand the connection with James Cook’s discovery, which was not by plan but a matter of almost being shipwrecked. It forever sits in our history.

There are other reasons that the reef is a unique place for all Australians. It is unique because of its environmental qualities; it is unique because of its Indigenous heritage, as those opposite have said; and it is unique in terms of its heritage value to modern Australia. It is unique all around the world for all of these reasons and that is why people have such a keen interest in it.

In terms of its environmental qualities, it can be seen from space and it is the world’s biggest single structure made by living organisms. It comprises more than 2,900 individual reefs, 900 islands, and it covers a distance of more than 2,600 kilometres. The reef is home to over 1,500 species of fish, 400 species of coral, between 5,000 and 8,000 species of molluscs, 22 species of sea birds, 32 species of shore birds, 17 species of sea snakes, six species of marine turtles, a large number of dugong plus a great diversity of sponges, anemones, marine worms, crustaceans and many other varieties of marine life. I take the time to actually document this because this diversity is what we are trying to protect.

In 1981 the Great Barrier Reef was nominated for inclusion on the UNESCO World Heritage List by the Australian government. As part of the nomination statement, the ecological significance of the reef was put in the following terms:

Its enormous diversity is thought to reflect the maturity of an ecosystem which has evolved over millions of years on the north east Continental Shelf of Australia.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act is now more than 30 years old. The act provided for the creation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and for the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to manage the park. At the time, the government stated that the protection of our unique Barrier Reef was of paramount importance to Australia and to the world. The act had bipartisan support in the parliament and was groundbreaking legislation. It also established the concept of a multiple-use park and has been an exemplar for marine management and conservation.

What is implicit in that is that this is an area that is supposed to be interacted with by human beings. This is not something we completely lock away and shut out from any sort of human interaction. That act originally provided for the engagement and association with the Great Barrier Reef and for human enjoyment and interaction with that incredible place of creation.

The marine park covers 98 per cent of the World Heritage area and a further one per cent is covered by Queensland national parks. Over the 30 years since the legislation has been enacted more sections of the reef have been progressively proclaimed to be part of the marine park and an achievement of the previous, coalition government was the consolidation of all sections into a single unit and the introduction of an integrated zoning plan.

While the act has generally withstood the test of time, as with most environmental legislation it needs an overhaul to reflect current attitudes to the environment and the challenges of the present day. The bill is a direct result of a review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act that commenced in August 2005. The report arising from the review was publicly released in October 2006. The recommendations of the review were endorsed by the former government. In March 2007 the parliament considered the first stage of several amendments to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. The first bill provided stronger governance arrangements and improved transparency and accountability, specifically in relation to the zoning plan process. The current changes before the parliament were also foreshadowed. The then minister for the environment, the member for Wentworth, told the parliament there would be changes to better integrate the act’s environmental assessment, compliance and enforcement measures with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is the single largest of any Commonwealth or state marine protected area. The marine park extends over 344,400 square kilometres. There is significant economic activity undertaken within the Great Barrier Reef and the surrounding coastal areas. The reef coexists with tourism, recreational and commercial fishing, shipping, military activity and urban development. The Great Barrier Marine Park Act has successfully provided for a balanced approach between conservation and activity.

I would like to turn now to the tourism elements of, and interests in, the Great Barrier Reef. As members would know, prior to coming to this place I had the experience of being the managing director of Tourism Australia and have previously worked in the tourism industry in other roles. There are three things that people know about Australia in terms of the great tourism icons of this country. They are the reef, the rock and the bridge. When they show themselves in any news bulletin or any form of publicity relating to Australia these are the images that the world most commonly turns to.

Now, that is not what all of Australian tourism is about—it is certainly not the case—but those icons are focal points. What we see in the reef, the rock and the bridge are three very unique things about Australia. We have talked about the reef’s incredible environmental quality and biodiversity. We talk of similar things in the rock but we also draw in the unique Indigenous heritage of this country. The rock symbolises that heritage most significantly. The bridge—that is, the Sydney Harbour Bridge; not the Captain Cook Bridge or Tom Uglys Bridge in my electorate—talks of modern Australia: a modern place with modern cities, a modern way of life and a modern democracy.

These three icons go together to paint a very admirable picture of this country. In undertaking research into the views of international visitors to Australia, and reflecting on the comments I have made, I am taken by what I used to refer to as the trifecta of Australia’s attraction. That trifecta was: the people of Australia, the personality of Australians and the place. And when we are talking about the reef, we are very much talking about the place of Australia, because it is the place of Australia—its environment—which has contributed to who we are as a people. The lifestyle we live is the envy of the world. This is a function of the environment that we live in and our appreciation of it.

Those who come to Australia—particularly those who come from European countries, who tend to stay longer and spend more—are keenly fascinated and interested in the environmental quality of Australia. The Australian tourism industry is not the same as that in Cancun. The Australian tourism industry is not about high rise and lots of rooms; it is about environmental quality. It is about engagement with the people of Australia. It is about getting an appreciation of the heritage of Australia. This is what modern travellers are looking for when they come to this country. And this was the thinking that underpinned the campaign I was responsible for when at Tourism Australia.

There has been much comment about that campaign in the last few years. There was comment in this place recently by the Prime Minister who, when the campaign was first launched, was very quick to say on Sunrise on Friday, 24 February 2006:

But look, I saw them—

referring to the ‘So where the bloody hell are you?’ ads—

on TV last night. I think they’re great. This is a bipartisan thing. Tourism is a huge export industry for Australia. The international tourism numbers are coming down a bit at the moment and that’s why we have to get behind a major new push to freshen up Australia’s global image. I think it’s important we all get behind the campaign.

This campaign was designed to do something very different to previous campaigns. One of the biggest problems in the tourism industry is that it focuses on volume, not yield. Anyone in business will tell you that you can have the turnstiles clicking over but if you do not have the cash register ringing then you do not have a viable business. The purpose of the ‘So where the bloody hell are you?’ campaign was to appeal to a type of visitor who would come, stay longer, spend more and travel further around the country. That does not refer just to people who sit up the front end of the plane but also to backpackers. A backpacker will often leave as much money behind as a high-spending tourist in five or six days; it will just take them six months to do it. So, both of those types of tourists produce major economic dividends for Australia.

I put on the record that in the year previous to the year in which the campaign was launched—at the end of February 2006—there was a nought per cent increase in the inbound economic value: that is, the international tourism earnings of Australia. There was a nought per cent increase. At that time it was $19.7 billion. In the year following that campaign being rolled out that increased by 12 per cent to over $22 billion, and in the next year it increased by a further eight per cent to almost $24 billion a year. There have been criticisms of that ad, which by the way was voted one of the top 30 ads in Australia’s marketing history. When that campaign was launched we said that it was not about visitor numbers—visitor numbers could have, by all means, remained flat—but rather getting the spending to go up; and the spending increased by over $4.2 billion. The new government have brought that campaign to an end, and that is their prerogative. I look forward to seeing their efforts and I look forward to seeing what benchmarks they will put out there.

When you run a campaign you set out very clear benchmarks about what you hope it is going to achieve. What that campaign was designed to achieve was an increase in spending, and it achieved a more than 20 per cent increase in the international value of tourism. This was at a time when the Australian dollar was appreciating, making it even harder—the dollars that people were spending from overseas were worth less and less as they were spending them in this country so they had to spend even more. This was a major challenge that we had to face as we became more uncompetitive in that way yet we were able to lift earnings by more than $4.2 billion. That came with the force of the campaign and it also came with the force of the spend that we were able to put behind that campaign into a range of markets—there was a range of markets we really put the heavy dollar into. That was made possible by the significant investment through the white paper that was introduced by the member for North Sydney—the single largest investment in the tourism industry that has ever been made in this country.

The Prime Minister can waltz in here and make criticisms about a campaign which he supported and which, for populist reasons, he now opposes. I note that the Prime Minister recently went to Japan—and I know that the member for Moncrieff would know this as well—a market that has been absolutely struggling, and no advertising campaign is going to fix what is going on in Japan. The Minister for Tourism would understand that—he is the last honest man in the Rudd government. He understands the challenges of what is going on in Japan. When the Prime Minister went to Japan, a market which the member for Leichhardt would know is very important to his part of the world and the Great Barrier Reef, did he go and meet with tour operators at the embassy? Did he go and hold meetings with Qantas staff? Did he go and hold meetings with their counterparts at Japan Airlines and places like that in order to get more cooperative funding into tourism promotion for this country? No, he did not. He did none of those things. He scooted off. He scooted away from the tourism industry when he was in Japan. He scooted away, and here is another scooter—

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just not sure of the relevance of this to the bill before the parliament.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the honourable member to come back to the bill before the parliament, which is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is very relevant and I am glad the member for Leichhardt has raised the relevance of this.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will determine what is relevant. I ask the honourable member to address the bill.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Great Barrier Reef is the subject of this bill and my comments—which I began I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, before you entered the room—relate to the importance of tourism to the Great Barrier Reef. One of the single biggest markets over the last 10 to 20 years for Great Barrier Reef tourism has been the Japanese market. The Prime Minister went to Japan and completely scooted off in terms of supporting the tourism industry whilst he was in Japan. I found that every time I went to Japan as Managing Director of Tourism Australia the embassy up there and Ambassador Murray McLean were fantastic in helping bring together and support the tourism industry and in hosting various events and functions at our fantastic embassy there in Tokyo to support the tourism industry. So, frankly, this government have no credit to make criticisms of previous campaigns. They need to stump up their own cash on this. They need to stump up now with their own campaign. The campaign that was run under the incredible funding of the Howard government delivered a $4.2 billion increase in tourism revenue for Australia.

Jim Turnour (Leichhardt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The Great Barrier Reef is an iconic and important natural asset, and one of the most spectacular in the world. It is the world’s largest coral reef, covering over 344,000 square kilometres. There is no place on earth like it. It contains numerous unique and precious ecosystems and incredible biodiversity. It is a mecca for not only scientists and researchers but also tourists, who flock to the North Queensland region to view this beautiful and wonderful part of the world. It is therefore pleasing to be able to speak today in favour of new legislation that will secure the long-term management and preservation of the Great Barrier Reef.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 will establish a solid regulatory framework that is modern and equipped to deal with the future of the marine park into the longer term. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act is the primary act with respect to the way the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is managed and preserved. Among the provisions included within this act are: the establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Commonwealth authority responsible for the management of the marine park; the provision of a framework for the planning and management of the marine park, including zoning plans, permits et cetera; a framework that supports the prohibition of operations for the recovery of minerals in the marine park; requirements surrounding the pilotage of ships in prescribed areas of the Great Barrier Reef region; the collection of the environmental management charge and the implementation of enforcement measures as they relate to the Great Barrier Reef.

It has been 30 years since this act was first introduced and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was established. In 1975 this legislation was pioneering and innovative for its time and it set the foundation for a good framework that has seen this incredible natural asset managed in a responsible manner. There is strong consensus that this legislation has served us well over the past 30 years. However there is also strong consensus that it is now time to move this very important legislation into the 21st century and lay the foundation for the next 30 years.

Much has changed in the 30 years since 1975. The reef has received international recognition as a World Heritage listed area. We have enacted the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which greatly enhanced the role of the federal government in environmental regulations. The regulatory landscape in the fields of governance and financial management has also evolved. The introduction of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 has impacted on the operating environment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. We have also witnessed demand for access to and use of the marine park for commercial and recreational purposes increase vastly. Very importantly, we have seen the level of awareness of our environment heightened. Whether it be through science based research or anecdotal evidence, there is a strong shift towards environmental preservation, sustainability and education as we take part in the global effort to explore issues such as climate change and global warming. It is because of these factors that there is a strong need to amend the 1975 act to reflect the ever-changing landscape that is the 21st century. Given the integral role that the act plays in the protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef, it is sensible for the government to formally review the legislation and amend it so that it is a strong, relevant and timely piece of Australian law.

This legislation is part of a package of measures that the Australian government is enacting to support and protect the Great Barrier Reef. Critical to that is tackling climate change, one of the greatest social, economic and environmental challenges of our time. It is the challenge of our generation. In the Rudd government’s first budget, we committed $2.3 billion to help tackle the threats that climate change posed and to better manage and protect our natural environment. Tackling climate change is particularly critical to protecting the Great Barrier Reef, which as we know and as science has demonstrated is potentially under real risk and threat from global warming. This commitment is in stark contrast to the opposition of the Liberal and National parties, who for 12 years have neglected, and paid no attention to, issues in relation to climate change. They refused to accept that climate change was real, refused to sign Kyoto—which clearly demonstrates that—and would not commit to setting targets for cutting emissions. They effectively squibbed the issue of climate change. One of the reasons that the Rudd government was elected last year, and for the strong support that I received in my electorate, was that people were looking for clear change in this area. Protecting the Great Barrier Reef is very much about taking action on climate change.

Since being elected, the Rudd government has demonstrated commitment to this global issue. We are working towards the implementation of an emissions-trading scheme in 2010 and have set a national renewable energy target as a key measure for reducing the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. Of particular relevance to this bill, and to my electorate of Leichhardt in tropical North Queensland, is a $200-million commitment in the federal budget for the reef rescue package. This package, which falls under the new $2.25 billion Caring for our Country initiative, aims to address the impacts of climate change on the reef by improving the quality of water entering the reef from its catchment. The Great Barrier Reef rescue plan is a significant boost for the tropical north’s environment. We are lucky to have this amazing natural asset in reach, so it is important that a strong commitment has been made to combat the threats to the reef from land based sediments and nutrients and to preserve it for future generations. I am particularly pleased that the majority of that money, approximately $146 million, is earmarked for farmers and graziers to enable them to improve the way they manage their land and to reduce their impacts on the reef. Having worked with agriculture for most of my life and with many of those farmers, I know they welcome this commitment from the Rudd government.

The reef rescue plan is complementary to the bill we are presently debating. Together they provide a strong, comprehensive framework for the protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef. It is also pleasing to be able to note that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 has generated bipartisan support. It is reassuring to know that we are working in unison to ensure that this bill is passed as promptly as possible. The previous government, under the former Minister for Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, commissioned a review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 in 2005. Following that, a series of recommendations were proposed to strengthen legal, governance and policy frameworks relating to management and long-term protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I am pleased to advise that during this time, whilst in opposition, Labor supported these recommendations. Throughout the review, the government undertook an extensive consultation process. A number of organisations and individuals contributed to the review process, including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, numerous tourism operators, fishing representatives, natural resource management groups like my local Terrain NRM group and a range of environmental groups. I believe a solid legislative framework has been developed, in line with industry and community sentiments, as a result of these consultations.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 has important ramifications for my electorate of Leichhardt. Over 1,400 kilometres of Leichhardt borders the coast, and the Great Barrier Reef covers a significant watery expanse in this vicinity. There are numerous coastal communities located along this stretch, and many thousands of people rely on this asset as a means of income and a way of life. One obvious example is the tourism industry. Picking up some comments from the member for Cook a little while ago, we can bleat all we like about the ‘Where the bloody hell are you?’ campaign, but you have only to go to tropical North Queensland and talk to tourism operators or hear what the Prime Minister had to say about feedback from Japan and other parts of the world to know that that campaign was seen as a failure, and the member for Cook was responsible for that failure.

The tourism industry is fundamentally important to tropical North Queensland. It is also an important contributor to the national economy. Many foreigners associate Australia with the natural icon that is the Great Barrier Reef, and it is a major reason why they come to Cairns, Cooktown, Port Douglas and other places within my electorate. Tourism Tropical North Queensland estimates that the value of tourism to the tropical North Queensland region is over $2 billion. We have more than two million visitors a year, and the overall value to the Queensland economy, I understand, is approximately $6 billion. So it is a very important icon, not only from an environmental perspective but also from an economic perspective and a way-of-life perspective, for those of us who live in tropical North Queensland. As has recently been mentioned in this House, we have taken a hit recently with the cancellation of a number of flights between Japan and Cairns—180,000 or so seats. We are seeing a significant impact, with $100 million and, potentially, 1,200 jobs lost from tropical North Queensland.

I am pleased that while the Prime Minister was over in Japan we had the opportunity to talk about this issue, and he responded appropriately, committing an additional $4 million to go with the $4 million that the Queensland government provided—that is, an $8 million package. We are developing plans for the longer term, and I appreciate the interest the Prime Minister takes in tropical North Queensland and the tourism industry and the support that he has given us. I also particularly appreciate the work that the Minister for Tourism, the Hon. Martin Ferguson, has done. I appreciate their support.

I know that we have taken a hit up in Cairns, and that is well known within the community, but we are kicking on, we are striking back, and there has been a supportive response from the Cairns Post. I was talking to the editor of the Cairns Post today, Mr Mark Alexander, who was recently down here for an editor conference, and he was pleased to let me know that the local community and the Cairns Post are showing some leadership here and really want to continue to support the recovery of the local tourism industry. On the weekend they will be launching the ‘why we love it here’ campaign, where locals can get onto their website and put up 100 to 150 words about why they love it in tropical North Queensland.

And we do love it. I love getting out to the Great Barrier Reef, doing some snorkelling and the odd bit of sailing—I have had the great pleasure of sailing up the east coast. It is a fantastic initiative by the Cairns Post, and I am pleased that I will be able to get involved in that and put up what I love about the Great Barrier Reef, what I love about the Wet Tropics Rainforest, what I love about Cairns and the whole region, because it is a fantastic part of the world.

So that is a fantastic initiative by the Cairns Post. It will allow people from all around the world to click on and read directly about the real benefits of coming to tropical North Queensland from the people who live and experience and love the place, talking about how their families enjoy it, maybe some of the fishing they might do on the reef or some of the snorkelling or sailing activities that they might undertake. We have got some other fantastic icons up there, like the World Heritage listed rainforests. People might talk about the times they have spent there, walking through the bush, experiencing and enjoying the rainforest, or even just having a cup of coffee, lunch or dinner on the beach and walking on the sand with their families and friends.

Tropical North Queensland is a wonderful part of the world. Along with the Queensland government, the Rudd government is supporting the recovery of the tourism industry, and I am proud to be a part of that government. I also welcome the Cairns Post initiative to get locals involved by putting down why they love it in tropical North Queensland as part of its campaign to support the tourism industry.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has a very important role to play, because, putting aside the environmental importance of the reef, it is a very important economic driver of the region. So this bill is particularly important in terms of making sure that we protect not only the environment in tropical North Queensland but also that economic resource.

Comparatively, Australia has done a fair job of preserving the Great Barrier Reef when assessed against other reef systems throughout the world. We have learnt an enormous amount over the last 30 years and globally we excel in the field of science, being more aware than ever of the impact the human population has had on the environment. And we know that more can be done. We need to ensure appropriate action is taken in a timely manner, before any further degradation of the reef occurs. Failure to do so will see the abolition of an entire economy, an entire industry and the livelihoods of many in tropical North Queensland. So this legislation is very important, because it sets a framework for the management of the reef through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

I mentioned the Cairns Post and the fantastic job they are doing in supporting the tourism industry, but I have also been looking forward to talking a bit about some of the work that local tourism operators are doing to protect this local environment. Even prior to the loss of the flights between Cairns and Japan, they had been working to improve the green footprint of the tourism industry and ensure that the tourism industry is doing all it can to limit its impact on the reef and combat the threats of climate change. In an era when going green has taken precedence, there is real potential for operators and the community in general to capitalise on the reef as a symbol of the climate change movement and do so at an international level. Some tourism operators in the region are already looking to operate in a more environmentally friendly manner and market their greenness to their competitive advantage. Tropical North Queensland contains many coastal communities which are more susceptible to climate change, and they know our locals are quite protective of their reef. So I believe there will be strong support by the local industry and community in embracing such a concept.

The strong links between my electorate, our reliance on tourism and the integral part the reef plays in this clearly demonstrate the importance of this amendment bill to tropical North Queensland. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 will set a clear direction for the future management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. One of the most crucial aspects of this bill is the removal of the duplication and inconsistency that exist in the current legislation. More specifically, the impact that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 has had is a key matter that needs to be addressed and will be thanks to the introduction of this amendment bill by the Rudd government into this House.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is Australia’s centrepiece of environmental heritage legislation. It provides a legal framework for the way in which our nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecologically significant habitats and heritage locations are protected and managed.

As this act was introduced over 20 years after the Great Barrier Park Marine Park Act 1975, there is a real need to bring these two pieces of legislation into alignment. Both acts represent important objectives, and there are a range of issues in common; however, there are also a number of inconsistencies, gaps and overlaps. This can be restrictive in the practical administering of the legislation, making it quite bureaucratic, with a lot of red tape that can get in the way of effective implementation of the act’s provisions. We want to ensure that that does not get in the way of not only the management of the marine park but also the economic activity that needs to happen around the reef. For example, the amendment bill will address issues such as the way in which environmental impact assessments are undertaken, as well as enforcement action and penalty options. At present, such issues under these acts are inconsistent and poorly integrated with each other, which ultimately burdens business, community and general users of the reef.

Another specific aspect that demonstrates the age of the current marine park act and its inconsistency with provisions in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is that the 1975 act does not recognise the Great Barrier Reef as a World Heritage area, despite it being one of the first World Heritage areas to be listed on the international register managed by UNESCO and one of the best known in the world. There is no recognition of this status in the current legislation.

The Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981. Australia was the first country in the world to enact specific legislation to protect such areas, which are now covered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Recognising the reef as a World Heritage listed area translates to improved conservation power for our authorities. The reef is a marvel; it is a precious natural environment. With the knowledge we now possess about environmental impact and sustainability, any measure that will enhance the ability of our authorities to protect such areas should be encouraged. Technically speaking, the declaration of the Great Barrier Reef as a World Heritage area means that the current objects section of the 1975 act is now inaccurate given it is so out of date. The amendment bill outlines a new objects section that will bring this act into the 21st century.

A particularly important matter I would like to conclude on is the fact that this amendment bill will ensure that we again have an Indigenous member on the board of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. This was an election commitment of the Rudd Labor government and the government is honouring its promise to the Australian people, including the Indigenous people, not only in my region but all the way along the coastline of the Great Barrier Reef. With over 70 traditional Indigenous groups that have ownership and/or links to the land and sea along the coast from Bundaberg to the Torres Strait, it is logical and important that a member of the authority that oversees the management of the Great Barrier Reef is Indigenous. Traditional owners have an intimate knowledge of the local area which will prove invaluable to the ecological and cultural management of the reef. I am sure the Indigenous member on the board will contribute significantly to the effectiveness of the authority’s team.

Federal Labor has demonstrated their commitment to preserving the Great Barrier Reef. The passing of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is a key element in this effort. The Tropical North’s tourism industry is just one of the significant benefactors of the work that is being done by the government to bring this legislation to fruition. I look forward to working with my region and continuing close contact with the local marine park authority to ensure they are well equipped and supported in continuing their very important work. I commend this legislation to the House.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am certainly pleased to speak in support of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. I understand if the member for Leichhardt needs to scoot off, as we know he is fond of doing. In speaking to this bill, I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the issues that were raised by the member for Leichhardt. This bill at its core goes to the preservation of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. We know that this marine park is one of the key tourism icons for this country. There is no doubt that the Great Barrier Reef is up there together with Uluru, the Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge as being among Australia’s greatest tourism icons. Having said that, it is important to recognise that the legislation before the House is essentially, in full, coalition legislation. So, from a coalition perspective, we are pleased that the Labor Party has now sought to bring about this legislation and to introduce it.

With respect to the timing of the introduction of this legislation, I am a little surprised, as indeed are many on the coalition side, that this bill is currently before the House at this point in time. The reason it is slightly surprising is that the coalition was informed that this legislation would not be brought on until after the winter recess. But what we know is that due to the long lists of government speakers on a number of bills before the House the Rudd Labor government has got no legislative agenda. The Rudd Labor government is so light on in their pursuit of legislation, so bereft of any legislative agenda, they have brought this bill forward from after the winter recess to this, the final sitting week, because there is nothing else for the Rudd Labor government to talk about. We have bills in front of the House with two or three opposition members speaking and about 20 government members speaking as they desperately try to pad out, each and every day, their legislative agenda. So that is why this bill is before the House now. This bill is an important bill and its significance should not be lost even though the government has brought it on early. It goes to the core of ensuring that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is maintained in pristine condition as much as possible going forward.

We know this reef is the world’s largest and, I would argue, the most complex ecosystem on the planet. It comprises not one continuous reef; there are in fact around 2,900 individual reefs, with about 760 fringing reefs around islands or along the mainland. There are about 900 islands and quays within the boundaries of the current marine park. It is little wonder then that tourists from around the world—millions of them each and every year—come to Australia to have the opportunity not only to look at the Great Barrier Reef but also to interact with it. There is no doubt that interaction with such an incredibly unique ecosystem is in fact one of the key reasons why people spend thousands of dollars to travel to Australia to explore the reef.

The tourism industry, for which I have the privilege of being the shadow minister, is an industry that contributes about $24 billion a year in export income to Australia. I listened with great interest to the comments that the member for Leichhardt made with respect to Australia’s tourism industry, because we know, especially in tropical Far North Queensland, that the tourism industry is doing it particularly tough. We know, despite the comments that the member for Leichhardt made that the tourism industry is well served by the Rudd government, that the exact opposite is the case.

What we saw only a couple of months ago was this new Labor government impose a billion dollars of new tourism taxes on the tourism industry, on an industry that the member for Leichhardt said was crucial to ensuring that the reef would be visited and that the reef would be interacted with. So, if the focus of this legislation and a side benefit of this legislation are to ensure that the reef is maintained and protected and importantly that tourist operators have the chance to showcase Australia’s Great Barrier Reef to international tourists, you would have to wonder why the government would impose a billion dollars of new tourism taxes. That is hardly support for Australia’s tourism industry at a time when the industry is suffering the headwind of a high Aussie dollar.

In addition to that I would like to address another particular comment the member for Leichhardt made, because the member for Leichhardt himself acknowledged that the tourism industry in tropical Far North Queensland is facing tough conditions. The member for Leichhardt made a comment which I found extraordinary. He said that the way that the Rudd Labor government’s support for the tourism industry could be assessed and evaluated was on the basis of the government’s $4 million contribution to tropical Far North Queensland’s tourism industry. Let us get this in context. The Rudd government has implemented $1 billion in new tourism taxes and has made a paltry and miserly $4 million contribution towards the tourism industry. That contribution is in some way meant to balance the imposition of the new taxes. I am not surprised that the member for Leichhardt has left the chamber; we know that he does not like to stick around in this place very much.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were not here when he spoke.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I correct the minister at the table. I was here for the entirety of the member for Leichhardt’s speech. Like so many aspects of what the minister at the table says, she is completely wrong. What is extraordinary is that the minister at the table, who wandered in—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have addressed the interjection directly, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I ask the member to resume his seat. The honourable member for Moncrieff is ranging far and wide on a bill which has a reasonably narrow focus. I ask the honourable member to come back to the bill and address his remarks to it.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am addressing very directly every comment that was raised by the member for Leichhardt and drawing that back to the bill in the same way the member for Leichhardt did. I have not made a comment that has been contrary to what the member for Leichhardt has sought to do. In addition, in addressing the remarks of the minister at the table, I have been very directly responding to the minister’s allegation. The minister called me a hypocrite, which I found extraordinary—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member should not respond to interjections, and ministers at the table should not interject.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am simply seeking the protection of the chair when I am falsely accused of something by a minister who came in for the final five minutes and did not realise that I had been here for the entire contribution by the member for Leichhardt.

Returning to the core focus of the legislation before the House, I want to focus on the fact that this bill very much goes to ensuring that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is protected going forwards. This builds on the review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in 2006, which played a large part in the direction of the former coalition government on these issues. This review received submissions from many interested parties across the country. There were 227 submissions and 36 consultations. The key focus of the review was to ensure that we developed a framework for protection of the Great Barrier Reef going forward.

This legislation, in large part, ensures the completion of that 2006 review—and the responses that the former government put forward basically accepted all the recommendations that flowed as a result of that review. Those proposed changes included the updating of the act to ensure that it reflected the development of the Great Barrier Reef and its accreditation as a World Heritage listed site. The coalition government in fact introduced the EPBC Act and ensured that any gaps in emergency management powers exposed as a result of the review process were closed. This new act also picked up on the decision of the former Howard government to move beyond a criminal penalty only system and provided for greater flexibility of enforcement options—for example, civil penalties for breaches such as fishing on an unintended basis in no-take zones—as well as ensuring that we have opportunity for reef recovery.

But the key aspect of the bill that I would also like to focus on is the recommendation that there be an expansion of board members from three to five. This is a fundamental and important point. In accordance with the previous government’s policies and this government’s policies, the coalition are proposing that one of those two additional places be filled by an Indigenous Australian and that the second position should be filled by an industry representative. It is important that industry does have a say at the table when it comes to the board of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. We know that historically there has been a wealth of experience on the GBRMPA board, but now we have added opportunity to ensure that we bring in two additional members. The first additional member will be an Indigenous Australian. The coalition are supportive of that and we support this legislation which enables that. But we will be seeking to move an amendment in the Senate, as has been foreshadowed by the shadow minister for the environment, to ensure that we also allow for an industry representative on the board.

The Great Barrier Reef attracts some two million visitors a year—and others contributing to this debate have highlighted this—and generates in tropical Far North Queensland about $2 billion of revenue. Across the country, and most importantly in the state of Queensland, some $6 billion of income is produced from people visiting the Great Barrier Reef. So we know the significance, from an economic point of view, of tourism for the Great Barrier Reef.

I have spoken with many tour operators who run day tours and the like out to the Great Barrier Reef, such as Quicksilver and Passions of Paradise, so I know that these tour operators have a very strong understanding of the need to conserve and protect the Great Barrier Reef. Tour operators who run reef visits, scuba diving and snorkelling on the Great Barrier Reef recognise that the protection of the reef is critical to their livelihoods. They recognise that the protection of the Great Barrier Reef is crucial if they are going to have a sustainable business case. In addition to that, those tour operators who attract tourists to the reef recognise the importance of making sure that those people who visit the reef do so in a sustainable way and do not damage it.

Tour operators, among others, have the most profound connection to the reef and the strongest desire to ensure that it is protected and able to recover when it is damaged through man-made activities or, for example, a crown of thorns starfish infestation. It is therefore important that industry has a place on the board. It is important that industry’s thoughts, views, desires, aspirations and wishes are incorporated with the board and that the industry has a voice on the board. That is why the opposition will move in the Senate to introduce an amendment to ensure that the additional board position is given to an industry stakeholder.

In terms of the coalition’s past performance in respect of protecting the reef and in order to get a sense of the significance of what took place over the 2003-04 period, it is important to understand the extent to which the various marine park zones prior to 2004 and afterwards have changed. The marine national park zone, which is coloured green on the various maps, prior to 2004 accounted for about 4.6 per cent of the marine park. After 2004 that was increased to about 33⅓ per cent. The buffer zone, which was about 0.1 per cent prior to 2004, was increased to 2.9 per cent as a result of those 2003-04 changes. The habitat protection zone, which was about 15.2 per cent prior to 2004, became 28.2 per cent as a consequence of the changes. The area that decreased most significantly was the zone referred to as the ‘general use zone’. This light blue zone on the various maps was decreased from just under 78 per cent to around 33.8 per cent. The key facet with all of this is that a greater balance was achieved between the areas available for general use and the areas that needed to be protected. So in that respect the former coalition government took very significant and meaningful steps to ensure the protection of the Great Barrier Reef.

This bill before the House reflects that work in some respects and the coalition is certainly pleased to be supportive of this legislation subject to the amendment. I say to all the new Labor government members that they should consider very seriously the amendment that the coalition will put forward with a view to building on that and incorporating that amendment into this legislation. That will improve the legislation. Industry does have something to contribute to this particular debate. Industry does have something to contribute to the preservation and management of the reef, and in that respect their voices should be heard by having a voice on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park board.

In essence, the coalition supports this legislation. I certainly support this legislation. I think that it is important that we do protect the reef to ensure its viability long term, and that it is protected to ensure that we continue to generate tourism interest in the Great Barrier Reef as well as attract tourists. We know that the tourism industry is doing it particularly tough, thanks to the billion dollars of new tourism taxes that the Rudd government has imposed. But hopefully, if we can continue to protect the reef to make sure that it is particularly attractive, it will continue to attract tourists despite all the new taxes that have been imposed by the Rudd government.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the world’s largest coral reef, the Great Barrier Reef is not only an icon for all Australians, it is an icon for the world. The protection of 344,000 square kilometres of incomparable biodiversity and unique ecosystems cannot be left to chance and for obvious reasons the protection of our unique Great Barrier Reef is of paramount importance to Australia and, indeed, the world. This was a sentiment, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that was expressed in this place over 30 years ago by the government of the day when it introduced the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, and it is a sentiment that remains true to this very day.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, which the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 amends, has served its purpose extremely well, in my view. Like any other good piece of legislation, the act has given effect to the public policy considerations underpinning it. We need not look much further for evidence of this than the outstanding achievements of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority over many years and the international recognition in 1981 of the conservation value of the Great Barrier Reef following its inscription on the World Heritage List.

While the inscription of the Great Barrier Reef on the World Heritage List can be cited as an example of how well the act has stood the test of time, it also reveals one of the act’s weaknesses—its age. The act’s object, for example, does not contain a recognition of the World Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef. The provision of an object section within an act is not an exercise in symbolism; these provisions provide guidance to the untrained eye when constructing a section that may leave some room for interpretation. Members would be aware of section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 which underpins the importance of the objects or purposes within acts. This section states inter alia:

(1)

In the interpretation of a provision of an Act, a construction that would promote the purpose or object underlying the Act ... shall be preferred to a construction that would not promote that purpose or object.

With an asset as precious as the Great Barrier Reef, having sound environmental objects within the act would seem obvious, yet the act’s objects have not been suitably updated for decades. The act’s object section is a product of the time when the act was first drafted when the predominant focus was on establishing the marine park and developing administrative and institutional arrangements for management, and at a time when the Great Barrier Reef was not yet declared a World Heritage area.

Indeed, guiding environmental principles such as ecological sustainability and the precautionary principle had not yet emerged when the act was first enacted. The act has certainly been an exemplar defender of marine management and conservation. Nonetheless, it has been in place for over 30 years and many lessons have been learnt from the challenges of the past. The passage of time has meant the act has lost some of its gloss. Its fundamental integrity as well as its acceptance by stakeholders is essential if it is to continue safeguarding the interests of the Great Barrier Reef well into the future. The bill will insert a new objects clause that not only recognises the World Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef but also recognises the importance of applying environmental principles such as ecological sustainability and the precautionary principle to the management of the marine park, as I have mentioned. A new objects section that provides a modern, future-oriented focus to guide the administration of the act and management of the park is now an urgent necessity. In light of the fact that the marine park is now intensively used for a wide variety of purposes, including tourism, fishing, research, public enjoyment and defence training, the application of ecologically sustainable development and the precautionary principle to the marine park is long overdue.

Where there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage to the Great Barrier Reef, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. This principle should long have been central to the administration of the act and management of the marine park. Following the amendments contained within this bill, this principle will now provide a shining light on any proposed use of the marine park in the future.

This bill also implements recommendations 18 to 28 of the 2006 review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975—recommendations which we expressed bipartisan support for while we were in opposition. Without going into the detail of each of those recommendations, the measures will broadly improve the integrity of the act and the integrity of the processes that allow conservation to coexist with reasonable marine park use.

Schedule 3 of the bill clarifies processes that must be followed and requirements that must be met when developing zoning plans, proclaiming an area part of the marine park or removing an area from the marine park by way of proclamation. The introduction of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003, with its considerable scale and scope, affected many communities and stakeholders. Perhaps better than any other chapter in the act’s history, this example demonstrated the tension often felt by many stakeholders in the decision-making process. Managing the alternative uses of the marine park and responding to its long-term protection needs will become more challenging in the future. This bill introduces a requirement for the authority to publicly consult on the making of proclamations creating or amending the marine park, zoning plans or plans of management. This will enhance stakeholder and community engagement in the management of the Great Barrier Reef.

Schedule 4 of the bill establishes the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park as a ‘matter of national significance’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999. As Australia’s central piece of environmental legislation, it is appropriate that it governs any proposals that will have or are likely to have a significant impact on the Great Barrier Reef. This will ensure that a robust and best practice environmental impact assessment process is applied to any proposal that may affect the Great Barrier Reef in the future. The measures I have mentioned implement practices and procedures that are thoroughly transparent, clearly understood, engage with the stakeholders and assess the social and economic impacts of any changes affecting the Great Barrier Reef.

Schedule 5 of the bill provides amendments that will facilitate effective compliance with the act and allow a more tailored and targeted approach to enforcement. While criminal enforcement should and will always remain an option, amendments in this bill will enable the minister to impose graduated penalties that vary in severity according to the gravity of the contravention involved. Clearly, criminal penalties can often be an inappropriate and disproportionate reaction to regulatory breaches. The minister ought to have the tools to apply fitting and proportionate penalties that fit the particular circumstances—to ensure penalties are neither too lenient nor too harsh. The tools provided by this bill include the expanded availability of infringement notices, the introduction of civil penalty provisions and the introduction of alternative sanctions such as remediation, publicity orders, enforceable directions and enforceable undertakings.

Enforceable undertakings, for example, have been used with great success by a range of other regulators, including the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Enforceable undertakings provide a new approach to compliance that avoids, where possible, the spectre of a drawn out and costly legal battle. By endeavouring to promote a working relationship between the regulator and the regulated, it becomes possible to foster a genuine commitment to the act and to avoid similar breaches in future. That can only be a good thing for the barrier reef and for our country.

The bill also delivers on a Rudd government election commitment to reinstate the requirement for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to include an Indigenous member on the board. I note, on the question of board representation, that the previous government abolished automatic Indigenous representation on the authority under the guise of implementing recommendations from the 2003 Uhrig report titled Review of the corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders. In its defence, the Howard government may have cited the following conclusion from that report:

The Review does not support representational appointments to governing boards as representational appointments can fail to produce independent and objective views.

However, assuming Mr Uhrig’s conclusion is correct—and that is a legitimate question—it is interesting to note that his findings on the matter only made up one page of a 133-page report. It is important to note that Mr Uhrig also made the comment:

... there are no universally accepted structures and practices that constitute good governance.

The choice of governance model for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority should not be formulaic but should be driven by the objectives and stakeholders of the authority. There would not be many more worthy appointments to the authority than an Indigenous member with knowledge of or experience concerning Indigenous issues relating to the marine park. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are the traditional owners of the Great Barrier Reef. There are more than 70 traditional owner clan groups along the Queensland coast from the eastern Torres Strait Islands to just north of Bundaberg. Furthermore, for more than 60,000 years the traditional connection of Indigenous communities with the marine environment of the reef has been evident. It is right that the Indigenous community be represented on the authority.

It is important to note that the amendments contained within the bill complement measures such as the Rudd government’s reef rescue plan and our swift action to help protect the Great Barrier Reef from the impacts of climate change. It would be naive to view this bill and its measures to protect the Great Barrier Reef in the future in isolation from the destruction caused by climate change. The issue of climate change is the largest single challenge confronting the Great Barrier Reef. Reports from the United Nations have predicted the beginning of the end of the Great Barrier Reef within 13 years because of the effects of climate change. I have read reports that a three-degree rise in temperature could bleach 97 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef and that coral reef communities could be replaced by algal communities by 2030.

The effect of carbon dioxide upon the ocean waters is also starting to take its toll. Carbon dioxide when dissolved in water forms a weak acid. The Great Barrier Reef is under siege not only from rising water temperatures that cause coral bleaching but also, it appears, from rising ocean acidity. I saw that myself only a couple of years ago when I went out on the reef. I was terribly disappointed at the lack of colour from the coral on the reef. When you see it, it is certainly not what is promoted in all the tourist brochures that go all throughout our country and around the world as a great kaleidoscope of colour of marine life and coral. Just go there and have a look at it yourself. We know that it is in danger. It is quite disappointing. Despite the endless stream of evidence presented to this effect, the Howard government was unrepentant in its determination to sabotage efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Australians are entitled to ask why the Howard government ignored assessments from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Why did it ignore Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the Australian Research Council of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies? Why did it ignore warnings from Sir Nicholas Stern?

There is very little point worrying about the environmental impact assessments, zoning plans or enforcement mechanisms contained within this bill if the Great Barrier Reef faces extinction because of the effects of climate change. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd government has not ignored the scourge of climate change. Rather than taking a wrecking ball to the international community’s efforts to reduce the volume of greenhouse gas emissions, the Rudd government seized the moment and immediately signed the Kyoto protocol. The Rudd government is heavily committed to renewable energy and an emissions-trading scheme. Rather than trying to turn the climate change debate into a mutually exclusive choice between environmental protection and job creation, the Rudd government knows that the economic costs of not doing anything about climate change will be far greater than the economic costs of addressing it. Nowhere is this more obvious than with the Great Barrier Reef.

In conclusion, as I have already mentioned, the Great Barrier Reef currently supports many sectors, including the tourism, fishing, research, cultural and recreational sectors. The destruction of the Great Barrier Reef from the effects of climate change directly puts at risk tens of thousands of jobs and over $6 billion in gross domestic product each year. A government that is committed not only to reforming the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority but also to dealing with the onset of climate change is something the Great Barrier Reef deserves. It is something the Great Barrier Reef received with the election of a Rudd government and I commend this bill to the House.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. The bill will establish a modern and robust regulatory framework, providing capability for the efficient and effective protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef into the future. The bill implements recommendations 18 to 28 of the 2006 review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. That review found that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act has served its purpose well over the past 30 years but needs to be updated and better integrated with other legislation to meet future needs and challenges. This bill will establish a modern framework for administration of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park that is aligned, integrated and not duplicated with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and other legislation. This includes a new objects section, recognition of the World Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef and the application of principles such as ‘ecologically sustainable use’ and the ‘precautionary principle’. This bill will also establish the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act as the basis for environmental impact assessment and approval of actions in the marine park involving significant environmental impacts. This includes establishing the marine park as a matter of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act. This bill will also enhance capability for investigation and evidence collection, in particular by allowing inspectors appointed by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to use the investigation related powers of the EPBC Act for the purposes of the GBRMP Act. The relevant GBRMP Act powers are repealed.

This bill will also provide a wider range of enforcement options, allowing for a more tailored and targeted approach to enforcement. This includes new administrative mechanisms, expanded availability of infringement notices and the introduction of civil penalty provisions. This proposed act will also enhance deterrence and encourage responsible use of the marine park. This includes adjusting penalties to ensure they are neither too lenient nor too harsh, depending on the circumstances; the introduction of alternative sanctions, such as remediation and publicity orders; and the establishment of an environmental duty applying to marine park users, similar to that applying under state legislation. This bill will also establish new emergency management powers, allowing the authority to respond to incidents presenting a serious risk to the environment of the marine park. These powers will complement and be subservient to those of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.

As it happens, this bill also honours a Rudd Labor government election promise to reinstate a requirement for the authority to include an Indigenous member. I am particularly pleased to see this amendment because in my seat of Dawson we have the highest population of South Sea islanders gathered anywhere in Australia. It is only fair, right and just that someone from that large community in my electorate is on this authority to represent the interests of the traditional owners.

I asked the Parliamentary Library to do some fact finding for me on the coastline of the electorate, and I was quite interested with some of the answers I got back. As you travel through the seat of Dawson, you will see that there is one thing that we love to talk about, and that is tourism. We are passionate about international tourism and we have a slogan: ‘Queensland: beautiful one day, perfect the next.’ It is just like the Rudd Labor government! You just cannot beat this government, especially when there are two Queenslanders at the top of it—Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan. It is absolutely great leadership and great command. I am looking forward to this Sunday, when the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the vast majority of the federal cabinet are coming to Mackay to engage the local people and hear their concerns. The boundaries of the electorate of Dawson have been redrawn, so I asked the Parliamentary Library to find out how much coastline I actually have in my electorate. Mr Speaker, I was quite interested in the answer.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Dawson for my elevation to the position of Mr Speaker, but I am Deputy Speaker.

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. Perhaps that is a prophecy for you! You never know your luck—just keep wishing! I asked the Parliamentary Library to find out how much coastline I have in the seat of Dawson. The coastal boundary of my electorate runs from Mackay to the Ross River in Townsville. To drive it by road is 400 kilometres. I was most intrigued to find out from the Library that the coastline of Dawson is approximately 977 kilometres long. I am also informed that within the boundaries of my electorate are 144 islands. It is a great seat to represent and obviously there is rich diversity in the electorate, not only in the culture of the people who live there but also in the geographical terrain and, of course, the wonderful Great Barrier Reef itself. If you travel around Dawson you will see publicity that says we have 74 beautiful islands for you to come and visit. I suppose a lot of the other islands are just small islands. We have 74 islands which are key destinations for our international tourists.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you may know that I originally came to Australia in 1991 as a backpacker—and now I am a backbencher, which shows what you can do in this country.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are a very tolerant community!

James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very tolerant, indeed! I can tell you that it has been a long road, but it has been a good road. One of the main drawcards in coming to Australia was the Great Barrier Reef. I enjoyed my time in 1991. I was living in Sarina, which is just 30 minutes south of Mackay. In those days it was a small town of about 5,000 people and we had to travel into Mackay for our social life. In those days there was just one cinema. But how the times have changed! In 2008 there are now 20,000 people living in Sarina, and in Mackay there is not one cinema but 11. That gives you some idea of how things have changed. I have only ever lived in Mackay. One of the reasons that I love Mackay so much is because it is beside the Great Barrier Reef and we also have access to the beautiful rainforest in Yongala.

When we first came to Sarina, my wife at the time was a GP and she had applied to do a locum. She was told: ‘You’ve got two places you can choose to go. One is Alice Springs and the other is Sarina.’ We knew where Alice Springs was but we did not know where Sarina was. They said, ‘It’s on the Great Barrier Reef.’ That is what hooked us. They got us like fish and we just had to go. I never regret for one minute going all the way to Sarina. I have only ever lived in Mackay, and one thing I love to do is enjoy the hospitality around the islands on the Great Barrier Reef. I have enjoyed some of the best snorkelling I have ever had in the world, and I have snorkelled in many different places in the world. There is a beautiful island called Hook Island, which is the best-kept secret. There are cabins and camping facilities on the island. It does not have a flash hotel or anything like that, but the diversity of coral is amazing. There are three main types of coral around the island—stag, table and brain coral—and there is a rich diversity of fish there as well. Of course, there was nothing more inspirational to the people who made the film Finding Nemo than the Great Barrier Reef. What great publicity for the Great Barrier Reef that was. That drew many people from across the world to Australia, to Mackay and the Whitsundays to see the Great Barrier Reef—and that has been a fantastic success.

We have to look after our Great Barrier Reef. When I first went there in 1991, I went to Brampton Island. I snorkelled around and looked at the coral there and thought that it was beautiful. I came back a few years later—in 1993 or 1994—and had another look at the coral. I was amazed at the amount of bleaching that had taken place in a couple of years. We have to realise that there is a real issue with climate change in our world. We have a World Heritage site in the Great Barrier Reef. It is one of the world’s greatest natural wonders. We have to look after it.

This bill addresses the care of that reef. It addresses things like where you can or cannot fish and how people progress through it in vessels. It is very important. These provisions are up to date with global standards. As I said in my introduction, over the last 30 years we have been well served. But we have to review all laws from time to time and we need to make appropriate changes. The changes in this bill are such appropriate changes.

I spoke to Mr David Phillips of Mackay Tourism not so long ago. I asked him: ‘How can we attract more people to the beautiful region of Mackay, Whitsunday and Bowen?’ He said to me, ‘One of the greatest opportunities we have to get people to come and view our reef is the new film that is being made by Baz Luhrmann called Australia, starring Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman.’ I am pleased that the Minister for Tourism, Martin Ferguson, is very much on the front foot with Tourism Australia. We are working together to maximise all opportunities. One of the major locations, apart from Western Australia, was the town of Bowen in Central Queensland, which is right in the heart of my seat of Dawson. We are preparing for an influx of international tourism as a result of that film. The local mayor of the Whitsunday Regional Council, Mr Mike Brunker, is more than keen to take full advantage of that opportunity and to showcase our beautiful Great Barrier Reef. So we are very much looking forward to that.

There are educational opportunities as well. One thing that schoolchildren in the seat of Dawson love to do is to go on a school trip to the islands and explore the coral that is there. That is why we need to keep it in such good condition. One of the schools from the seat of Dawson is visiting me today. I met them at 11 o’clock this morning. That school is St Joseph’s Catholic School from Mackay. There are about 30 students down here. I would like to acknowledge their presence at the top of the gallery today. It is nice to see you, kids. I hope that you are enjoying our modern democracy.

I was most pleased to say to them that democracy is wonderful because we have new forms of democracy in action here, which a lot of people do not realise. The fact that we are streaming live over the internet means that you can view this speech right now live across the other side of the world. That is a wonderful new form of democracy, which opens up parliament to the world. That is a fantastic development.

The internet has also provided us with a great opportunity to monitor the Great Barrier Reef. Just recently—last month—Senator Kim Carr came to southern Townsville to the Australian Institute of Marine Science to launch and open a digital skin across the reef. What is this? This is a series of buoys that have been set up across the barrier reef. They have cameras looking at the reef monitoring it and broadcasting live to the internet, so anyone in the world can see the development. They monitor the change in the coral, temperatures and things like that. Isn’t that a wonderful thing? New technology enables new observation and research. We figuratively have a digital skin across the Great Barrier Reef. I welcome the help that new technology, innovation and science can provide in protecting the great natural wonder that is our Great Barrier Reef.

As I said earlier, it is wonderful for children to explore. One thing that children love to do is to go out fishing. They love to fish—and I can see that you do, too, Deputy Speaker Schultz. But I need to inform you that it is not a free-for-all. We not believe in just anything happening in the jungle. We have to have order and we have to help nature along. Sometimes, some people want to fish in areas where they should not. This bill addresses where people can and cannot fish responsibly. What we have found since measures have come in saying where people can and cannot fish is that fishing stocks are now increasing in number.

The people of Bowen love their fishing. They love to get out on the reef. I have been along to the Bowen Fishing Festival, and the number of fish that are caught is quite staggering. If we do not look after our fishing stocks on the Great Barrier Reef, we will lose another major tourist attraction, because fishing is a big money earner for the people of Dawson and particularly the people in Bowen.

Another major thing to do on the Great Barrier Reef is sailing round the islands. With the help of the state government in 2000, we have down in Mackay a fantastic luxury marina. It has hosted some fantastic boats from around the world. What is the reason they come? They want to get out on the Great Barrier Reef.

We have to look after the quality of water; we have to look after the quality of the reef; we have to look after the stocks of fish. It is in our national interest to do so. And it is not only in the national interest but in the international interest. When people think of Australia, they think of a few icons. They think of the kangaroo, they think of Ayers Rock, they think of the Sydney Opera House. On the natural list, they say, ‘We want to visit the Great Barrier Reef.’ I conclude by saying that we have a great natural treasure and we must treasure it and look after it, and this bill does so. Thank you.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to add my comments on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, which is a very important piece of legislation. I do so because we all recognise what a wonderful asset we are blessed to have in this country. I did not know until I heard it from my colleague the member for Dawson that, had it not been for the reef, he may not have ended up here in parliament. That is another aspect of this debate that is very interesting.

On a more serious note, the bill before us is necessary in order to put in place a new regulatory framework to ensure that we have the best management for the long-term protection and ecologically sustainable development of this wonderful icon. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 provided first for the creation of the marine park and it also established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. There is no doubt it was groundbreaking legislation at the time and I think we all agree that it has served its purpose well for over 30 years. But in that 30 years there has been a lot of change and the 1975 act really needs to be amended to keep pace with some of the modern issues and challenges facing the reef. For example, the earlier legislation did not recognise the World Heritage status of our reef and nor did it incorporate principles such as ecological sustainability and the precautionary principle. Both are principles that have been developed as we have moved forward to look at good environmental management systems. The bill is important also in that it establishes our primary legislation, the EPBC act, as the primary basis for environmental impact assessments and approval arrangements applying to the marine park. In doing so, as I read the bill, it importantly recognises that the Great Barrier Reef will now be considered a matter of national environmental significance, which, I believe, will provide a strong legal base for its protection for decades and generations to come.

I am also delighted that the bill addresses a specific election commitment made by the Rudd Labor government—that is, to appropriately and properly restore Indigenous representation on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which was deleted by the Howard government back in July 2007. As we know, there are more than 70 traditional owner groups along the coast from Bundaberg to the Torres Strait who have a long historical and continuing relationship with the reef. Obviously, their knowledge and perspective as people with such lengthy experience will be invaluable in achieving ecologically sustainable management of the reef into the future. Several years ago I happened to be in Townsville at the GBRMPA headquarters when the first agreement was reached between GBRMPA and one of the local Indigenous groups for the use of the resources on the reef. I know that GBRMPA plans to do more in this regard in the future.

I think all Australians understand how blessed we are to have use of the reef. That also carries with it an obligation to act as guardians of one of the world’s most important natural assets. The reef as we know it today has evolved over the 10,000 years since the last ice age. It is the biggest single structure made by living organisms and it is one of the most complex natural systems on earth. It is home to around 1,500 of the world’s marine fish species, a third of the world’s soft coral species, six of the seven species of marine turtles and, very importantly, it is home to one of the world’s remaining dugong populations, a species that has been listed internationally as being vulnerable to extinction.

So, as I said earlier, it is no wonder that its natural values are internationally recognised through its inclusion on the World Heritage List. Inclusion on the World Heritage List, I think, imposes an additional moral obligation on its guardians to protect it for generations to come.

The international recognition of this icon has supported substantial economic activity. My colleague the member for Dawson discussed some of the very important economic outcomes of the reef. The most obvious is the tourism it generates, which now underpins approximately $6 billion of income on an annual basis. We are aware too of the importance of other recreational activities and commercial fishing in areas so designated. The Great Barrier Reef is undoubtedly a great drawcard, not just for our own tourism industry but also for international tourists, because of its iconic status.

But as good as that is, the Great Barrier Reef also has the potential to be made an international symbol for the understanding of the impacts of climate change. In my contribution today, I want to address some of these impacts so that we have a good understanding of the fact that our policies and programs are aimed at preserving this iconic reef for future generations and at ensuring that, in the meantime, we have a coherent set of adaptation strategies to ensure that the huge pleasure and interest that is derived from the value of the reef is there in perpetuity. We know that the world’s scientific body of knowledge points to the fact that corals are vulnerable to thermal stress and that they have a low adaptive capacity. Increases in sea surface temperatures of about one to three degrees centigrade are projected to result in more frequent coral bleaching events. Climate change has a number of potential detrimental effects on coastal regions and on our reef. We are aware of this because we have lived through two large bleaching episodes on the reef—in 1998 and 2002. Eminent scientists warn us that by mid-century, on the current trajectory, we will be well above the line that we know causes temperatures to impact on coral bleaching. So that is a very significant factor that needs to be taken into account in our adaptation strategies.

Rising sea levels, which we also know from worldwide scientific expertise is projected to be a consequence of climate change, will also have an impact—not so much on the potential threats to a healthy coral reef but related impacts, such as temperature increase and increased turbidity which can negatively affect reef development. In addition, decreased decalcification rates due to increased atmospheric CO2 can reduce a reef’s ability to grow and keep up with the projected rates of sea level rise. I want to quote from a statement by Professor Iain Gordon from the CSIRO. We are lucky that we have eminent scientists focusing their minds and their research capacity on what is needed to protect the reef in its iconic status. Professor Gordon said:

… water quality has a negative impact on coral biodiversity and coral cover through a range of different effects … like smothering the coral and also by blocking light that is happening through silt and mud.

In addition, climate change and global warming will bring more extreme weather events. We have already witnessed the impact of cyclonic and storm activity in the northern part of our nation. It is predicted that there will be increased cyclone and related rainfall intensities. Much of this can cause damage to not just human and physical infrastructure but also the natural habitats that are very much part of the beauty of the northern part of our country. More intense rainfall events can also alter the nutrient loads of rivers and increase the risk of toxic algal blooms.

Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Great Barrier Reef in my capacity as Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts. I want to place on record my thanks to the chair of GBRMPA and the wonderful staff with whom he works for making our visit such a productive one and enabling us to better understand the consequences of climate change on the reef. However, I would also say that understanding the potential consequences means that with the passage of this bill we will be better placed to put in place effective adaptation strategies.

I also want to place on record and acknowledge the constructive work undertaken by the Australian Greenhouse Office in a very important report entitled Climate change in the Cairns and Great Barrier Reef region. When we look at the preservation of the reef into the future and for the benefit of future generations, we need to understand that development in Cairns and in the surrounding land areas has a significant impact on the reef, particularly on water quality. In that report, the Australian Greenhouse Office outlined a series of recommendations to ensure effective monitoring and climate change adaptation policies. I want to refer to a number of these because I think they are an important component of our plans for the future. The report pointed to the need for development of a high-resolution climate change projection for the Cairns and Great Barrier Reef region and development of regional model models of land use. This is very important because sugar cane farming, grazing and other agricultural uses of land along the coastline have a downstream impact on the quality of water and that affects the potential of the reef to remain one of the natural wonders. The report also points to the importance of development of spatial hazard and other vulnerability maps, a series of integrated assessment models, a cost-benefit analysis of proposed adaptation measures and improvements to long-term monitoring in the region—particularly in regard to determining regional rates of sea level rise—and provision of more appropriate data to improve our current understanding of biological processes and simulation of these systems. We are going to be very well informed by a great body of scientific knowledge that will help guide the Rudd Labor government’s efforts to protect and enhance the reef in its iconic status.

In the lead-up to the last election, as well as campaigning on climate change and the need for better adaptation and mitigation strategies, I was very heartened that the minister and the Prime Minister announced a specific package of $200 million known as the Great Barrier Reef Rescue Plan. This plan will help secure the reef from climate change and declining water quality. I am pleased that a substantial amount of funding was allocated to a new water quality grants scheme. The government has also made a commitment to extend the Reef Partnerships Program so that people engaged in agricultural activity can better appreciate the consequences of land use and its impact on the water quality of the reef, particularly from increased urban development and agricultural use. The government will be investing more funding to ensure that the reef water quality monitoring and reporting program can be enhanced. We have a $10,000,000 commitment to the Land and Sea Country Indigenous Partnerships program and we are committed to publishing an annual Great Barrier Reef water quality report card.

Professor Terry Hughes from James Cook University, who I had the opportunity to hear from as part of our visit to the reef, has importantly referred to some possible strategies for the future that we need to build into our thinking. He talks about the importance of the food webs on the reef. Zoning plans are an important component in ensuring that the food webs are not altered in a way that is deleterious to the coral formation.

Importantly, we need to give greater consideration to land use practices. I was concerned to see some of the plans for future coastal development near the hub of Cairns. This is not an issue just peculiar to the Cairns region; along the coastline people are starting to be quite anxious about the impact that unsustainable economic development and housing developments can have on our natural environment. I think the Great Barrier Reef and the Cairns region have been identified in a number of reports as particularly vulnerable hotspots. We need to ensure that land use practices are more sustainable in the future.

I think we are very fortunate that, with the scientific body of knowledge that is now accumulating with an emphasis on some of the vulnerable places in Australia—like Kakadu, Cairns, the Great Barrier Reef and others—we can now have more effective regional analysis and regional programs and responses to the hotspots that have been identified.

Having said all that and maybe dwelling too much on potential problems that may exist, I will say that we are well placed to ensure that with appropriate action we can continue to have a magnificent reef which is, by all accounts, very well preserved and protected compared to many reef systems elsewhere in the world. Obviously that is the way we want to keep it for future generations. The Labor government’s commitment of $200 million to the Great Barrier Reef Rescue Plan demonstrates the level of importance the Rudd Labor government is giving to the protection of the reef in order to build its resilience and to begin setting in place plans to deal with the impact of dangerous climate change.

In conclusion, the bill before us is a timely update of the powers that we extend to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The initial legislation was probably quite groundbreaking 30 years ago, but it does need to be updated. Very importantly, the consequence of this legislation will be to recognise the Great Barrier Reef as a matter of national environmental significance, which I believe will provide it with a strong legal base for protection. And that, together with a coherent range of adaptation and mitigation strategies, means that our generation will bequeath to future generations a world iconic reef.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I speak on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, I ask for indulgence to wish Red Nose Day a very happy 21st birthday for tomorrow, which is officially Red Nose Day. I want to acknowledge what SIDS and Kids have been doing to help stamp out Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Over the last 20 years, the death of infants through SIDS has reduced by something like 90 per cent, which I think we in parliament would all applaud. If I could be so bold, as I look towards the government minister, on behalf of all of parliament I wish to say, ‘Happy 21st, SIDS and Kids, for tomorrow.’

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fadden. I am sure all parliamentarians would support him in his sentiments.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and note that it is in fact our legislation. The previous coalition government completed a review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and authority in 2006. The former Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, oversaw that review 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 and considered 227 submissions. The coalition cabinet then released a response accepting all the recommendations. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is largely a result of this work by former Senator Ian Campbell and the Howard government.

The purpose of this now Labor government bill is to establish a modern and robust regulatory framework that provides the capability for the efficient and effective protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef into the future. Proposed changes include updating the act to reflect the fact that the Great Barrier Reef has been World Heritage listed, updating the act to reflect that the coalition government introduced the EPBC Act and closing the perceived gaps in emergency management powers. The new bill also picks 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 in no-take zones. In addition, the bill expands the number of board members from three to five, in line with recommendations. Under the bill, one of those places will now be filled by an Indigenous representative. In the Senate, we will also move to ensure that there is appropriate industry representation.

By way of background, the Great Barrier Reef is one of the world’s largest and most complex ecosystems. It comprises not one continuous reef but over 2,900 individual reefs, including about 760 fringe reefs around islands and along the mainland. There are over 900 islands and cays within the boundaries of the current marine park. The reef is one of the most visually spectacular and richly diverse ecosystems on the planet and, indeed, is visible from space. The reef represents one of the most amazing aspects of life: that where there is wind, wave and true buffeting the reef is most alive. Coral is brighter on the ocean side than on the mainland side. Where the coral has to struggle, it is the brightest. Perhaps there is a lesson there for the government.

Of course, the reef is also one of Australia’s most internationally recognised tourist icons. Its value to Australian tourism is immense. Reef related tourism generates close to $6 billion a year. Recreation and commercial fishing generate hundreds of millions more. It would be difficult to overestimate the reef’s importance to Australia economically, culturally and environmentally.

By way of history, we have come a long way as a nation in our attitude towards the Great Barrier Reef. In 1967 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 actually granted a permit covering the entire reef. Soon afterwards concern began, quite rightly, to grow about the potential for environmental catastrophe brought about by a major oil spill. A 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 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. These recommendations of course received bipartisan support and resulted in the enactment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. Over the following 25 years or so, more sections of the reef were progressively proclaimed to be part of the marine park.

I proudly say that no government in this nation’s history has done more to protect the Great Barrier Reef than the Howard government. This was done principally through a number of far-reaching and ambitious actions. Firstly, the Howard government passed the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in 1999—opposed by members opposite, can you believe it? This act gave the country its first national environment specific legislation in our history. One of the most significant impacts of the act has been to give the Australian government unprecedented powers to protect the Great Barrier Reef.

The second massive contribution to the protection of the Great Barrier Reef by the Howard government was the development of a new zoning plan for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park that ensured that one-third of the reef—a sixfold increase—will be protected in so-called ‘no take zones’, zones where no extractive activity can occur. Another great advance by the Howard government was in terms of protecting the biodiversity, and thus the resilience, of this national icon in the development in concert with the Queensland government of the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan.

The fact that the Howard government did more to protect the Great Barrier Reef than any other government is supported by the current government Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the member for Kingsford Smith, who I believe is actually absent from the country during the debate on his own bill. The member for Kingsford Smith, the current responsible minister, said on 10 May 2007—and I will quote so the government does not miss any of it:

… we certainly acknowledge that the significant protection of the Great Barrier Reef is one of the Howard government’s real environmental achievements.

Building on this great legacy, the Howard government then put together what Labor has now copied in the form of the bill we debate today. To get a sense of the impact and importance of this legislation that the Howard government put through, it is worth while looking at the extent of the various marine park zones before 2004 and afterwards. General use reduced from 77.94 per cent to being only 33 per cent. Habitat protection increased from 15.2 to 28.2 per cent, and marine national parks increased from 4.6 per cent to a staggering 33.3 per cent. The marine park now covers around 98 per cent of the World Heritage Area and an additional one per cent is covered by Queensland national parks and by the Great Barrier Reef Coast Marine Park. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is now by far the largest marine protected area in Australia. It extends over 2,300 kilometres along the Queensland coast and covers close to 344,000 square kilometres. The Howard government can be incredibly proud of the legacy it left the Australian people.

I will conclude on three simple three points. Firstly, I am staggered by the timing of this bill’s introduction. I believe it only serves to highlight the fact that the Rudd government’s legislative program is in disarray. On 18 June this year we were told by Minister Garrett’s office that the bill would be held over until late August. By the following morning, 19 June—clearly there had been a chaotic evening with the Prime Minister—it was announced that the bill was to be debated a few days later, whilst the responsible minister was overseas. Thus, this bill is being debated whilst the minister damages Australia’s reputation on the international stage over whaling. Instead of allowing the industry time to comment and review the legislation over the parliamentary winter break, the bill is being brought forward to fill a legislative gap because the chaotic Rudd Labor government cannot pull its legislative agenda together.

Secondly, the Rudd Labor government needs to ensure that there is at least one person with tourism industry skills and experience on the board of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Yet there has been a marked lack of consultation with the industry on this matter—yet another example of the government’s hypocrisy on broader environmental matters such as the destruction of the solar industry. Before the election, you could not see the member for Kingsford Smith without a set of solar panels strapped to his back, walking behind the caped crusader, Captain Chaos, the Prime Minister himself. And now, with the virtual destruction of the solar industry, a bill coming forward and the minister absent, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn: the legislative agenda of this government is in disarray.

Thirdly—and, may I say, most poignantly—this Prime Minister, the caped crusader himself, has only ever uttered the phrase ‘Great Barrier Reef’ once in his 10 years in parliament. On 8 September 2005, when the member for Griffith was speaking about the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy) Amendment Bill 2005, he actually snuck in the phrase ‘Great Barrier Reef’. But apart from that, in 10 years in this hallowed chamber—and he purports to be one of the great environmental champions; perhaps we can put a big ‘E’ on the cape of the caped crusader, Captain Chaos, for his purported environmental concern—he has not mentioned the Great Barrier Reef. It was only that one time and never in the context of its protection. I can only assume that the Great Barrier Reef is just not one of the Prime Minister’s ever-growing number of chaotic priorities. Notwithstanding that this government’s legislative agenda is in complete disarray, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is almost wholly the work of the coalition, which is why we seek to support the bill.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to express my support for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. I am a little disappointed by the member for Fadden. It is interesting that he said that this was the Howard government’s legislation. However, the Howard government did not enact this legislation; it is up to the Rudd Labor government to do so. I hope it is not the intention of the member for Fadden to criticise the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts for attending the International Whaling Commission meeting, because certainly many people in my electorate are very concerned and like the decisive action that the Rudd Labor government is taking on whaling around the world.

This is an extremely important bill that will encourage responsible and ecologically sustainable use of the iconic Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the most significant and identifiable parts of Australia. The importance of the Great Barrier Reef was recognised in 1981, when the area was internationally recognised with inscription on the World Heritage List. The great coral reef is by far the largest of any Commonwealth or state marine protected area, extending over 2,300 kilometres—approximately 300,000 square kilometres—and including 2,900 individual reefs. The biodiversity of reef inhabitants is amazing. The reef is home to 30 per cent of the world’s soft corals and 30 per cent of Australia’s sponges, and includes areas used for breeding by the humpback whale, the dugong and six of the world’s seven species of marine turtle.

If the Great Barrier Reef is not protected adequately then many of these diverse species may be lost forever. Among the key species under threat are the marine turtles. The Great Barrier Reef is one of the few nesting areas for the green, hawksbill and loggerhead turtles. This is a very important area for their breeding. Australia has some of the largest marine turtle nesting areas in the Indo-Pacific. The loggerhead and Olive Ridley turtles are listed as endangered and could become extinct if the threats to their survival continue. The other turtles are listed as vulnerable and may become endangered if these threats continue. The marine turtles are just one of the many species which contribute to the huge biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef.

I personally had no concept of the amazing ecosystems that existed at the Great Barrier Reef until I visited there on holiday. After putting on my lycra stinger swimsuit, I jumped into the water and quickly became absorbed by the ecological and biological surroundings on display. In fact, I was so amazed by the surroundings that I forgot to reapply my sunscreen and became severely sunburnt. However, this great national icon is under threat. The threat of coral bleaching caused by climate change and declining water quality needs to be addressed to preserve the reef long into the future.

The proposed changes before the House today complement measures already announced by the Rudd government to help protect the Great Barrier Reef. Threats to the Great Barrier Reef such as climate change and declining water quality will be tackled by the $200 million reef rescue plan announced in the 2008-09 budget. The funding will support land management grants to farmers and community groups and assist vital research. The rescue plan will help protect this natural wonder, while benefiting local conservation and Indigenous groups, agricultural production, tourism, and fishing and aquaculture industries. The combination of this bill and the $200 million in funding will establish a strong foundation for the future prosperity of the Great Barrier Reef. I congratulate the minister for introducing this important bill, which will create long-term security for the Great Barrier Reef by strengthening and amending the act.

Although the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 has served its purpose well over the past 30 years, a comprehensive update through this bill is required to ensure that one of our most significant environmental assets is preserved and enjoyed for future generations. The marine park is one of the largest and best-protected marine areas in the world, and now, more than ever, we need to ensure the appropriate action is taken to preserve this important environment asset.

The bill will establish a modern and robust regulatory framework that will provide capability for efficient and effective protection and ecologically sustainable management. The government is taking the vital steps to ensure the Great Barrier Reef can meet future needs and challenges. The bill will implement a number of recommendations of the 2006 review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. These changes will update and establish a robust framework allowing for the successful management of the Great Barrier Reef into the future. The bill will not change the marine park’s zoning, but the legislative changes will ensure it delivers a high level of protection for the Great Barrier Reef. The amendments will ensure that there is consistency between the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, thus eliminating unnecessarily duplication and ensuring that the two pieces of legislation are operating in a cohesive and integrated manner.

The amendments also recognise the World Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef and apply new streamlined environmental impact assessment processes. Furthermore, the bill seeks to improve the enforcement and compliance regime, providing a wider range of enforcement options tailored to circumstances. In addition, the amendments will enhance deterrence and provide encouragement for responsible use of the marine park. Finally, the bill establishes new emergency management powers to enable the authority to respond in conjunction with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to incidents that present a serious risk to the environment of the park.

The bill before us today is yet another example of the government delivering on its election commitments. The bill provides an essential framework that is required to ensure the Greet Barrier Reef’s vast benefits and environmental prosperities are realised. In addition to the Great Barrier Reef, there are many smaller reefs around Australia also with very fragile ecosystems which are under threat. One of these is in my electorate of Kingston. The reef at Port Noarlunga, although much smaller than the Great Barrier Reef, is a popular recreation area for many holiday makers in South Australia. The reef lies about 400 metres offshore. It is estimated that 6,000 scuba divers visit the reef each year. In fact it has been said that the reef at Port Noarlunga is one of the best land based scuba dives in Australia.

As a result of geographic isolation and cooler waters in the Gulf of St Vincent, the Port Noarlunga reef has developed a unique ecosystem. However, the Port Noarlunga reef faces some of the same threats that the Great Barrier Reef does, despite being protected as an aquatic reserve in 1971. The reef is subject to a number of costal outflows including the Christies Beach sewage outfall and the Onkaparinga River and local stormwater outlets. The water that flows into the sea is high in nutrients, therefore having a big impact on the local reef ecosystem.

Therefore, I welcome all levels of government which have showed commitment to recycle and reuse the waste water at the Christies Beach sewerage plant. Many of the projects that will come on line in the following years will lessen the amount of water that flows into the gulf and hence decrease the damage to the local reef and seagrasses. Protecting our reef systems all around Australia is extremely important. This bill provides an effective framework to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef is protected. I therefore commend the bill to the House.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to begin by endorsing the comments from the member for Kingston in respect to the Port Noarlunga reef. She is absolutely right about it being a special place for those people who live in the Adelaide area. I too rise to support the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. I commend the minister for introducing this bill into the House and I too point out that it is the Rudd Labor government that has introduced this bill into the House. I begin my remarks on this bill by quoting the opening statement of the 1991 House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment, Recreation and the Arts report titled, The injured coastline. A statement, which was part of a submission to the committee, was made by Paddy Roe, OAM, a Goolarbooloo elder of the Yawuru people. He said:

The Country now comes from Bugarri-Garri—

That is, the dreamtime—

It was made by all the dreamtime ancestors who left their tracks and statues behind and gave us our law, we still follow that law, which tells us how to look after this country and how to keep it alive.

The true people followed this law from generation to generation until today that is why this country is still good and gives us plenty, we never take more than we need and we respect each others areas.

Today everybody, all kind of people walk through this country, now all of us together have to respect and look after this land, and when we look after it the proper way, this land stays happy and it will make all of us happy.

That was signed Paddy Roe, Law-Keeper, Custodian, Broome Region on 7 February 1991. The Indigenous people of Australia certainly understood, valued and lived in harmony with the environment and we could learn a lot from them.

In my own lifetime, too much of the natural environment and landscape that I grew up with has been lost forever. I do not refer to areas of national or international significance. I make the observation, however, that the environment is changing around us and before our very eyes, in some cases for reasons beyond our control but in many cases because of human intervention. In isolation, the single loss of an environmental feature appears of no great consequence, but collectively the changes occurring are indeed significant. What is happening to our environment on a global scale should be of concern to us all and it is my strong belief that many of the causes of climate change can be attributed to mankind’s activities. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis 2005 report stated:

Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history ... This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth.

Concerningly, environmental mismanagement leads to an escalation in the rate of further destruction of our environment. That is what is occurring with the Great Barrier Reef and it is why action must be taken if we are to halt the growing threats to the reef’s survival.

The Great Barrier Reef is indeed the world’s largest and most complex coral reef ecosystem. It is much too valuable, with respect to its environmental value and its economic value, to allow it to deteriorate or even die. The minister and other speakers have all spoken of the value of the fishing and tourism industries which the reef sustains and I do not want to cover that ground again.

The gradual decline of the Australian coastline has been the subject of several national reports dating back to the 1970s. There are a number of common themes which emerge from those reports, but regrettably responses have continued to be fragmented and inadequate. Human impacts on our coastal waters associated with nutrient run-off, ship ballast discharge, clearing of coastal land, overfishing, discharge of sewage effluent, coastal mining activities, oil and gas drilling, recreation and tourist uses of our coastline and the man-made groynes, marinas, seawalls and breakwaters can all have and often do have serious environmental and ecological consequences over time. Whilst this bill focuses on the Great Barrier Reef, it does however begin to establish a model for a coordinated approach to coastal management. Firstly, it brings together all three levels of government. Secondly, it highlights the number of different government departments and acts of parliament which have to be coordinated in the effective management of our coastline. Thirdly, it begins to identify the land uses which ultimately impact on and cause damage to the coastline and to the coastal waters. In that respect it is quite often the case that what we do on the land is not apparent until many years later in the impact it has on our coastal waters. Part of the reason I guess for that is that, unlike what you see on the land, you cannot see what is happening to the waters themselves unless, of course, you are a scientist or a research person carrying out research activities. To most people, however, it is very difficult to understand the damage that may be caused by what we are doing elsewhere.

Whilst the Great Barrier Reef is in better shape than most other reefs, nutrient run-off and the loss of fish and marine mammals which graze on the seagrasses have been identified as two key threats to the health of the reef. According to the annual report of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, one-third of the world’s reefs have degraded in the past 30 years, making them of little use for tourism and fisheries. Commercial harvests of sharks and rays have increased fourfold since 1993. In 40 years the number of nesting turtles have plummeted 50 to 80 per cent. The coastal Queensland dugong population has dwindled to three per cent of the 1960s figure. Nutrient and sediment discharge has quadrupled over the last century. Those figures are concerning. Again, each of those changes in isolation would not be so disastrous but, collectively, they create an unhealthy environment for the reef, and I have not even included the risks associated with climate change. Much of the threat faced by the Great Barrier Reef is symptomatic of the lack of a national coordinated management plan for all of our coastal waters. It should be noted that our coastal waters cover a larger area than the Australian mainland, and are a source of significant environmental and economic wealth.

As I said earlier, this bill begins a process of coordinating the efforts of all three levels of government, the administrative agencies and the broader community in better managing our coastal waters. As Mayor of Salisbury, I had some personal experience in that process because the City of Salisbury shared responsibility for part of the Adelaide coastline in the vicinity of the area known as the Barker Inlet. Some eight years ago, I convened a summit which we entitled ‘Living on the Edge’. We invited to that summit the councils surrounding the city of Salisbury, a number of state government agencies including the EPA, SA Water and Primary Industries and Fisheries, some expert environmentalists, recreational fishers and other people with expertise in coastal management. The purpose of the summit was to coordinate a strategy to restore the health of the Gulf of St Vincent along the Adelaide coastline. The outcome of the summit was that a group came together which we referred to as the Barker Inlet and Port Estuary Committee. It was a group made up of representatives of all of those people that I mentioned earlier. Effectively, it was a group of all of the government agencies that had an interest in the management of the South Australian coastline and, as a result of that group’s work, action was taken to begin to reverse the process of degradation that had been occurring in and along the Barker Inlet where, for some 14 kilometres along the coastline and up to four kilometres into the waters, all of the seagrasses had pretty much disappeared and much of the mangroves had also begun to die.

As a result of the Barker Inlet and Port Estuary Committee, that work was commenced. Subsequently, it was followed up with the state government’s legislation of the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Act. Again, I had some experience in that, because I was on the advisory committee which advised the state government in the establishment of the act, and once the act was established I was also on the board. The purpose of that act was very similar to the objectives in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, and that is to preserve a natural asset. In the case of the Dolphin Sanctuary Act it was the Port River dolphin colony that was unique to the Adelaide coastline and to the city of Adelaide. Like the Great Barrier Reef, it was also at risk and for the same reasons as the risks that are threatening the reef. Again, it was a case of having to coordinate the activities of all the various government agencies that need to work together if we are going to ensure that our coastal waters are no longer placed at risk. For too long we have allowed polluted waters to drain into the coastline. We have incrementally destroyed our coastal vegetation, we have allowed too much land clearing and we have ignored the warning signs. It is indeed disappointing to see the responses from the opposition in recent days. The opposition did very little for 12 years and are now running a fear campaign against the government’s efforts to manage the long-term effects of climate change.

I have spoken on other occasions about the economic and environmental costs of global warming. Global warming also poses a real threat to the Great Barrier Reef. An increase in water temperature will have serious consequences for the reef, and predictions of temperature increases of between two and five degrees by the year 2100 will inevitably cause mass bleaching of the corals. To quote Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

We can’t prevent future bleaching except through international action on greenhouse gas emissions. In the meantime, it’s important to do whatever we can to minimise the damage and assist reefs through these difficult times.

Australian research fellow, Morgan Pratchett, effectively endorsed that comment when he said:

For reefs to withstand the rigours of climate change, they need to be resilient—able to bounce back after a severe shock such as a bleaching episode, an outbreak of disease or a hurricane. That means maintaining the richness and diversity of their assemblages of coral, fish and other animals.

These consequences, however, will be minimised if the human induced threats are reduced. Of concern is a report, only yesterday, from the Canberra Times science and environmental reporter, Rosslyn Beeby. Reporting on the International Whaling Commission’s latest scientific report, she notes:

The world’s coastal oceans are in crisis, with oxygen-starved “dead zones” increasing by a third in just two years as global temperatures increase ...

Dead Zones, caused by over-enrichment of waters by nutrients from run-off, sewerage and warming waters, represent “the worst-case scenario for coastal biodiversity” and are the “severest form” of ocean habitat degradation, ...

The number of ocean dead zones has grown from the 44 areas reported in 1995 to more than 400, with some of the worst oxygen starved areas extending over 22,000 square kilometres.

Recent figures from the United Nations Environment Program estimate that fertilizers, sewage and other pollutants, combined with the impact of climate change, have led to a doubling in the number of oxygen deficient dead zones every decade since the1960s. The worst affected areas are in tropical regions of the Atlantic Ocean west of Africa and the equatorial areas of the Pacific. Where does the Great Barrier Reef lie? It lies in the equatorial areas of the Pacific.

Report after report provides worrying pictures of the impacts of climate change, and it is important that governments act appropriately. It is disappointing to hear the responses from the opposition in recent days. The environment and the disastrous consequences which will result from government’s inaction on global warming is much too serious a matter to be used for political point-scoring. Or perhaps it simply indicates a very real ignorance by opposition members on the subject of global warming and climate change. But I assure members opposite that the overwhelming number of people I speak to understand the impacts of climate change and want the government to implement policies that provide long-term security for future generations.

As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, I recently had the opportunity to visit the Great Barrier Reef—along with the member for Throsby and others—and to see first hand the unique beauty of this World Heritage listed Australian iconic site, and to hear from a range of experts about the repercussions of continuing to allow the mismanagement of the coastal waters along the Queensland coastline.

This bill, thankfully, constructively responds to many of the matters raised with the committee during our visit there. I was particularly interested to hear from a local sugar cane grower about the better farming practices which he had implemented to minimise the nutrient run-off into the coast. It is indeed most encouraging to hear of local initiatives being taken by local people. They understand their local area, they care about their local area, they have extensive knowledge of their local area and they have a genuine interest in the future of their local environment. What they do not have, however, is the ability to coordinate the functions of the many government departments which oversee the wellbeing of their local area. They do not have the authority to police those who wilfully ignore the laws which have been put in place to prevent unnecessary damage to the coastal waters and the reef.

From my observation the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has done, and continues to do, an excellent job in managing the marine park. However, it is clear that the act under which the authority operates needs to be strengthened. That is what this bill does, and other speakers have made specific reference to how the bill does that. It is also important that we continue to monitor and carry out research on our coastline, certainly with respect to the areas surrounding the Great Barrier Reef. As I said earlier, one of the problems that all governments face is that when you cannot see a problem it is harder politically to sell to the community the expenditure required for the measures needed to rectify the problem. But that work can be carried out—money is needed, obviously, to do that—if we engage the right people and if we continue to monitor the waters through the research scientists are out there because they are capable of doing that.

Ultimately, managing the Great Barrier Reef is an ongoing matter. It is not something where you can put a particular practice into place and ensure that forever and a day that is all you need to do. When the Great Barrier Reef Marine Act was brought in in 1975 it seemed appropriate; today it needs to be amended and upgraded, and that is exactly what this bill is doing. The research dollars need to be spent if we are to continue to ensure that the reef remains healthy.

I want to finish off with a comment on the section of the amendment to the act which talks about having an Indigenous person on the Marine Park Authority because I started with a quote from an Indigenous person. It is important to have one of their members on the authority, not just out of respect to the Indigenous community but because they, for thousands and thousands of years, lived in harmony with this land and with our environment. They have a great depth of wisdom and knowledge about how we should be managing our environment. I welcome the input of the Indigenous person on the authority. We have an obligation to the people of Australia, to future generations and to all people on earth to preserve this unique wonder of the world, the Great Barrier Reef. I commend the bill to the House.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to start by saying how wonderful it is to see so many speakers participating in this debate. As someone who lives in a community adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef—in fact, I have lived on the Queensland coast for most of my life—I can say that it is very encouraging to see not only the priority that the protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef is getting from the new Labor government but also that so many of my colleagues on this side of the House and also on the other side of the House have indicated the importance of the Great Barrier Reef in their minds.

I also want to commend the government for acting so quickly to introduce this set of amendments, the second set of amendments arising out of the review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. That review took place in, I think, 2005. It is great to see, in the first six months of this government, that the government is acting to do everything it can to strengthen the management regime which underpins the protection of this incredible natural asset. As I said, these amendments implement the recommendations of that review.

It is true to say that, while the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has done its job in managing the marine park and advising governments over the last 30 years, the act that created the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the authority needs to be updated. The original act provided for the creation of the marine park and the authority, and the authority’s job is to manage the marine park and advise government on matters relating to the reef and the marine park.

Being a member from Queensland, I know that the people in my electorate are well aware of the important and good work undertaken by the marine park authority, and in fact Capricornia has a special place in its history. The Capricornia section of the reef, some 12,000 square kilometres, was first established as part of the marine park back in 1979. Of course today the marine park covers some 344,000 square kilometres.

As I said, the act has been in place for 30 years. In its day, in 1975, it was groundbreaking legislation; and it has served us well in the intervening 30 years. However the 2006 review into the act demonstrated that it was starting to show its age. Two of the most glaring examples of that are the facts that the original act predates not only the EPBC Act—the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—but also the listing of the Great Barrier Reef as a World Heritage area. Going back to the EPBC Act, at present that act, which was established in 1999, largely overlaps with the Great Barrier Reef Park Act—and these two pieces of legislation do not work as well together as we would hope. There are definitely improvements that can be brought about by bringing those acts into better alignment. There is also in the current arrangements too little flexibility for the enforcement of penalties for the range of varying infringement circumstances and inefficiencies in the way that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act allows for responses to emergencies that pose a serious risk of environmental harm. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 will address those issues amongst others.

The bill will put in place a 21st-century future focused framework for the efficient and effective protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef. It complements the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan, which was introduced in 2003 to provide a strong framework for protecting and managing the reef. This bill enhances the capability to effectively administer and enforce that framework so as to ensure its benefits are realised. This bill makes a number of changes to achieve those aims and I will just go through those one by one.

First of all, and significantly, the bill recognises the World Heritage status of the reef. The World Heritage values of the reef will be recognised in the objects of the act, and importantly the long-term protection of the reef will now be the primary object in the legislation. These changes will also ensure that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act will provide a modern framework to offer better management and protection of the reef in the 21st century. The act will now make specific reference to modern concepts such as ecosystem based management and the precautionary principle. The definition of these concepts in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act will now be consistent with that in the EPBC Act. This will also promote a fairer approach to compliance and offer fairer deterrence through a more tailored and flexible system of enforcement and penalties. The aim in these amendments is to reduce regulatory red tape. This involves better coordination between the state and federal management regimes. Another way that this will be achieved is to better align the act with the EPBC Act. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is now established as the primary basis for environmental impact assessment and the approval of activities within and affecting the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

I am particularly pleased to note that the marine park is recognised as a matter of national environmental significance. This means that actions having a significant impact on the environment of the marine park must be approved under the EPBC Act and that regime. This will be of great comfort to those of us living adjacent to the reef as we watch the pressures of development slowly but surely encroach on the natural beauty of the reef and threaten the future of its unique environmental values.

This bill also recognises the importance of having an Indigenous voice on the membership of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. This step of including this measure in this bill honours an election commitment made by Labor to reinstate a requirement for the authority to have Indigenous representation. As someone who represents a region of Queensland where we have seen what is I think the first, or maybe the second, management agreement between the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the state government and traditional owners, that is very significant to me. This bill will also complement the government’s reef rescue plan and other significant government measures to tackle head-on the effects of climate change. These are responsible and necessary improvements to the management regime for the reef and I am pleased to offer my support to this bill on behalf of a constituency which has a very close interest in this great natural wonder.

The Great Barrier Reef is the world’s largest and most complex coral reef ecosystem and is indeed one of our great national treasures, extending approximately 2,300 kilometres along the Queensland coast. A large chunk of that is in my electorate of Capricornia. It is because my electorate is blessed with being able to lay claim to a significant section of the unparalleled biodiversity that is the Great Barrier Reef that we in Capricornia are keenly aware of the challenges we face in safeguarding the reef for future generations. It can be said that Capricornia is a very diverse electorate. We are considered the beef capital of Australia, and the region’s coalmines provide an economic windfall for state and federal government coffers the likes of which this country has never seen before.

Of course my electorate also profits from the significant financial benefits of the reef. In Central Queensland we understand well the economic imperatives of protecting the reef, along with of course the important environmental imperatives. More than 63,000 people are employed in Great Barrier Reef tourism, fishing, and cultural and recreation related industries. This represents more than $6 billion in national gross domestic product every year, but of course most of that flows to the communities along the Queensland coast. I would also add that the large Aboriginal and South Sea Islander communities of Capricornia have their own strong cultural connection to the reef, and the coastal towns of Capricornia have that strong connection and love for our part of paradise.

As I said, we understand the benefits the reef brings to our communities, and we are also acutely aware of the threats to the health of the reef. We recognise the need to act if those threats are to be mitigated, and there is a distinct possibility that the worst-case scenarios depicted by scientists will become a reality in our lifetime. As we have heard from so many speakers, the reef has been identified as an area where the consequences of climate change will hit hard, and they are already in evidence.

We are fortunate in Australia that the Great Barrier Reef is well preserved. We are fortunate that those steps were taken in 1975 to recognise the value of the asset that we have in the Great Barrier Reef and that the management regime was put in place so that the reef is well preserved compared to other systems elsewhere in the world. This makes the Great Barrier Reef a drawcard for domestic and international tourists, but its iconic status also has the potential to make it an international symbol for the impacts of climate change. The eyes of the world are definitely upon Australia and how we manage the pressures that the reef is under.

Unlike the previous government, the Rudd Labor government is acting proactively to address climate change. The release of Climate change and the Great Barrier Reef: a vulnerability assessment and the Great Barrier Reef climate change action plan 2007-2012 and the $200 million reef rescue plan demonstrate the level of importance the government is giving to this threat. The reef rescue plan that Labor announced in the election was a very big part of my pledge to the people of Central Queensland. I campaigned very strongly on that initiative, and it was obviously very well received by communities throughout my electorate.

In Central Queensland we do not need the many reports and scientific papers to tell us about the impacts of climate change and the effect that it is having on our precious reef. Right in my backyard, in the Keppel region of the reef, just off Yeppoon and the Capricorn Coast, we have already experienced some of the worst bleaching events seen on the reef. I think it was back in 1998, or maybe 2000. We saw a precursor to what might lie ahead for the reef if we do not, firstly, do whatever we can to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of climate change and, secondly, do everything we can to enhance the resilience of the reef to cope with the amount of climate change that is now inevitable as a result of our activities over the last few centuries. It is well known that we have already lost 10 years in these efforts with the previous government’s refusal to take climate change seriously and to prioritise the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. I understand that back in 2002, despite the then Prime Minister signing off on the 10-year Great Barrier Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, no funds were actually forthcoming to make that plan mean anything on the ground. So we are really 10 years behind on what needs to be done to protect the reef and to prepare it for climate change.

I am pleased to say that that is no longer the case. The Rudd Labor government made it very clear in the election that we made the protection of the reef a priority. We made the announcement then of the $200 million reef rescue plan, which is very much about enabling all stakeholders in the reef to adopt better practices that enhance the quality of water going onto the reef and also to improve the resilience of the reef. The $200 million, five-year reef rescue plan includes grants to farmers, cane growers, Indigenous communities and landholders for improved land management. That totals $146 million. I am certainly working closely with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts to make sure that that money is available as soon as possible, because there is a great deal of interest in that program in my electorate. People want to accelerate the good work that they are doing to change land-use practices and to better protect the reef. There is also money in there for monitoring water quality and land condition and for investing in research and development. So, as I say, it was very well received in my electorate and is greatly needed if we are serious about protecting the health of the reef to prepare for climate change. In that context, the measures in this bill will provide a much more comprehensive framework through which the people of Capricornia can do their part to help protect the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef is indisputably one of the world’s most important natural assets and we in Central Queensland are well aware of the significant steps that are required to safeguard this asset for future generations.

I have already spoken of Capricornia’s close ties to the act’s inception back in the 1970s, but I would like to talk now about some of the things that the people of my electorate are engaged in right now to help safeguard the reef into the future. There are currently 14 schools in my electorate that very actively take part in the Reef Guardian Schools program. This is an action based environmental education initiative that engages schools to promote their ideas, initiatives and activities to communities and to encourage people in the school and the broader community to protect the reef and its supporting environments. I must say that I dread the times when I forget to take my green cloth bags to the supermarket in Rockhampton for fear of running into some of the students. They would be on to me about using plastic bags because that has obviously been a very big focus for some of the schools engaged in the Reef Guardian Schools project. Other initiatives include energy efficiency audits in the schools. One school came up with a range of measures to prevent cigarette butts entering our waterways and flowing out to the reef. I recognise that these students of today are the decision makers of tomorrow and the foundation stones of a sustainable future for the reef. I would like to commend the schools for the work they are doing to educate the rest of us and to work towards a sustainable future.

One of the reasons that the Reef Guardian Schools program is so popular in my electorate is the decision by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to open an office in Central Queensland to service Rockhampton and the Capricorn Coast. The presence of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority right in our region has brought the reef closer to us and increased the awareness in the broader community of the impact so many land based activities have on the reef and our collective responsibility and ability to take every step we can in our everyday lives to avoid indirect harm to the reef. The office has also provided a source of information about the zoning system and reef management practices. Importantly, it is a way for the community to interact with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and to provide feedback on the condition of the reef and the management processes that the authority undertakes.

I would encourage the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to maintain these growing ties with communities along the coast of Queensland and to continue to build relationships with the broad range of stakeholders whose activities impact on the reef and who want to be involved in its protection and management.

My electorate also has a significant primary industries sector, which has gone to significant lengths to put in place best-practice farm management for the benefit of the reef system. I have only recently returned from discussions with farming groups, and I am thankful for all the work they are doing to mitigate their impacts on the reef, whether it is through fertiliser run-off or other farming methods that have been in place for many years. I understand that changing these traditional practices has taken a very deliberate and active effort on the part of their industry sectors, particularly those involved in sugar and beef production, and I commend them for their actions. In this context I also want to acknowledge the great work of both the Mackay Whitsunday Natural Resource Management Group and the Fitzroy Basin Association for the leadership they demonstrate and the support they give to local landholders who want to know more about current best practice and sustainable land management.

Another important stakeholder group in my electorate is the recreational fishing sector. I think one of the good things that have happened in recent years is the closer interaction that we had seen between that sector and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, particularly through the zoning process and the opening of the office. One of the groups that work closely with the fishing sector is CapReef. They are currently preparing a submission to government seeking funding under the Coastcare community initiative—I think submissions close very shortly—and I will certainly be giving that group every bit of support that I can to ensure that they get the funding that they need to continue their important monitoring and education activities.

This bill demonstrates the Australian government’s commitment to securing the future of the Great Barrier Reef and strengthens our capacity to preserve this important feature of our nation’s and the world’s heritage for future generations. I welcome the government’s proactive stance on this issue and I will welcome the quick passage of this bill through both houses of parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008. We in Queensland love the Great Barrier Reef. It is sacred to our Indigenous people but it is beloved by all Queenslanders. Its wonder, its beauty, its colour and its majesty are so evident. The Great Barrier Reef is the world’s largest living reef system. Placed on the World Heritage List in 1981, the Great Barrier Reef is one of the seven natural wonders of the world. It is an extraordinary example of ecology, natural phenomena and biological diversity. It is a vast, interlinked web of life. All the plants and animals in the reef play a part in keeping this system healthy and strong. The relationships have been fostered and grown over many thousands of years, and we humans really are relative newcomers to the reef. The Great Barrier Reef is a fragile ecosystem, and we need to carefully manage it—not just for our generation but for the generations to come. We need to preserve the long-term health of the ecosystem that the Great Barrier Reef represents.

We know that fishing on the Great Barrier Reef is carefully managed by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, and they have been doing an excellent job in sustaining the Great Barrier Reef for generations to come. We know also that shipping poses a threat to the Great Barrier Reef because even before the time of Captain Cook, when there was Asian migration into the waters of the Great Barrier Reef, off the coast of the continent of Australia, they saw the benefit of the passage through the Great Barrier Reef in terms of navigation: it is easier to get through that area. Unfortunately, we have seen a number of tragic shipping accidents on or about the Great Barrier Reef.

Despite the best efforts of the Queensland department of primary industries and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, there have been problems in terms of fishing and, if we get it wrong, there will be an imbalance in the entire ecosystem chain. We do not want overfishing of certain species, because imagine what that would do to the Great Barrier Reef and the various ecosystems involved.

The pollution of water causes difficulties in the Great Barrier Reef, and it is caused by human activities—not necessarily by going through the Great Barrier Reef; tourism itself does not exert much pressure on the reef because it is so thinly spread over such a vast area. Tourism operators, in my experience, have a vested interest in maintaining the health of the reef and they act as a kind of watchdog at times in alerting the managing authorities to problems with the reef. But it is industrialisation and human activities which cause pollution of the water, and this is one of the greatest threats to the barrier reef. This has propelled around 300 of the reefs into the danger zone, because of poor water quality. Industrial waste adds to the worsening scenario. Of course, like human beings, coral can also get infections. Industrial pollutants such as copper have proved to interfere with the growth and development of coral, which is so critical to the Great Barrier Reef.

The Great Barrier Reef contributes enormously to the Queensland economy. Reef industries alone employ about 63,000 people and add nearly $6 billion to the Australian economy, so it is essential in terms of not just the environment but our economy that the Great Barrier Reef remains vital and vibrant.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan was first implemented in 2004. It has created a network of marine sanctuaries that stretch from the north to the south. It is the world’s largest network of marine sanctuaries and it covers about a third of the marine park. Scientists have identified about 70 distinct biological regions in the park and they represent a vast array of plants and animals. It is not just sediments and nutrients, fertilisers, pesticides, toxic chemicals, sewage, rubbish, detergents, heavy metals and oil that run into our rivers, into the ocean and into the Great Barrier Reef which threaten plants and animals; another great challenge is climate change.

We on this side of the House unequivocally believe that climate change is one of the great moral challenges for our generation. It is unequivocally the case that the earth is getting warmer. It is now warmer than it has been for 2,000 years. There is a vast body of research to that effect—that human activities which release into the atmosphere greenhouse gases cause such problems to our environment. Even small changes in our temperature can have a devastating effect on our natural environment. Just imagine the impact on coral bleaching that a one- or two-degree increase in temperature could have. The impact on plant and animal life would be horrendous.

The previous Howard government, as part of their election commitment in 2004, pledged that they would undertake a review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. I commend the Hon. Senator Ian Campbell for undertaking that review and fulfilling that election commitment. It seems that that was a core promise which was honoured. There were 227 substantive submissions received by the review from a wide range of interested parties, and there were 36 consultation meetings with industry, communities, government organisations and conservation groups. That report was handed down on 28 April 2006 with a number of recommendations. Those recommendations are being carried out today. It has been left to the Rudd Labor government to carry out the recommendations.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act was promulgated in 1975. That established the fundamental regulatory and governance landscape and operations for the management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In recent years we have seen lots of changes in the way we do things in terms of companies and associations and the way we do things not just in the private sector but in the public sector. We have witnessed a number of important pieces of government legislation. There was the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, which deals with commercial purposes and Commonwealth companies and authorities. It is appropriate that that particular piece of legislation alone deal with those sorts of entities. We also saw the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. These acts have an important impact on entities and companies in our public and private sectors. The Great Barrier Reef is affected by these sorts of changes in terms of its management and in terms of its operational aspects.

The Great Barrier Reef is an extraordinary place. It covers about 22 per cent of Queensland’s land area. Queensland has an enormous number of people living within 100 kilometres of the coast. My electorate of Blair is one such place. The people in my electorate holiday at the Gold Coast. We sometimes call the Gold Coast ‘our beach’ because we holiday there so often. The Sunshine Coast, Hervey Bay, the Fraser coast, Cairns, Townsville, the beaches at Bargara and others are places we visit regularly. We think of the Barrier Reef as integral to our holiday, as integral to our lifestyle in Queensland and as integral to the values that we hold dear in Queensland. It is iconic. It really is a place that Queenslanders hold as being sacred to their hearts.

Both the Queensland government and the Australian government, no matter who has been in power since 1975, have demonstrated a long-term commitment to work together to protect the reef. That has been evident in a collaborative approach. It is necessary because of course the Commonwealth has jurisdiction up to the low-water mark and Queensland has management for the fisheries within its coastal waters, including the marine park.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; it is a statutory authority and a body corporate. There is a chairperson, a person nominated by Queensland and two other members, a statutory consultative committee, other interested bodies, a number of reef advisory committees, and a number of local marine advisory committees. There are hundreds of staff employed by the authority. Both sides of politics have contributed and both levels of government have contributed to the management of the park.

The report of the review of the act found that, whilst globally about 27 per cent of coral reefs have been lost due to human activity, the Great Barrier Reef was in pretty good shape, and that is a credit to governments of all persuasions since 1975. But there need to be effective operational and institutional frameworks for the management of the place in the future.

The review recommended that a dedicated statutory authority responsible for advising and acting on behalf of the Australian government was necessary and stated that it was well founded that we had established one. It recommended that the body corporate should remain to provide a collective decision-making entity. It recommended that information in relation to monitoring, assessing and analysing should be brought together in a report on a five-year basis. I would urge whoever is in government in the future, no matter who that is, to adopt that practice. It recommended that there was a need for greater alignment of legislation between acts that governed the Great Barrier Reef and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. There are a number of overlaps and gaps. I have had a look at the legislation and I can see why the recommendation is needed.

We need to say what we believe about the Great Barrier Reef. We need to specify in our objects what we actually believe is necessary. We need to identify the concepts of ecologically sustainable development. We need to think about recognising and improving the role of the authority. We need to ensure that we do not duplicate legislation. We need to cohesively integrate our legislative frameworks. What we have done in the past 30 years is establish the marine park and the framework for the management, but we need to get the legal aspects right.

There were a number of recommendations in the review. This bill is carrying out recommendations 18 to 28. One of the things that I find interesting and am very pleased about is the recommendation that came forward about considering applying, when necessary, the national heritage management principles and the idea that we need to put plans in place. That is what this bill is all about.

This bill is a credit to the government, just as the 1975 bill was a credit to the Whitlam Labor government over the objections of the former National Party Premier of Queensland Joh Bjelke-Petersen. As a young teenager, I well remember Joh wanting to drill for oil in the Great Barrier Reef. It just seemed like he wanted to drill for oil everywhere, mine everything he possibly could and knock down every building he could. So I am pleased that, over his objections, the Whitlam government brought forward this ground-breaking legislation. The people of Queensland and the people of Australia were right to oppose the plan to drill. I think at that stage they grasped the importance of the reef to all Australians and to the world. It would be unconscionable today for the government to propose to destroy such an environmentally important natural asset by simply exploring for oil. When the legislation came through on 22 May 1975, it was proclaimed that it was all about the ‘protection of our unique Barrier Reef’ and it being ‘of paramount importance to Australia and the world’. Nothing much has changed in over 30 years. It remains unique and is still of paramount importance to Australia.

This bill establishes a modern framework for administration under the legislation to enable better management of the park in the future—streamlining environmental impact assessment and permit processes and enhancing our capability for investigation and evidence collection for the future. It also includes a wide range of enforcement options to better target and tailor our enforcement approach. It enhances deterrence and encourages responsible use of the marine park. It establishes a new emergency management power as well.

I just want to say how wonderful the Great Barrier Reef is for its marine life. I mention just a few examples. There are 5,000 to 8,000 molluscs, thousands of different sponges, worms and crustaceans, 800 species of starfish and sea urchins and 215 bird species, of which 29 are seabirds. It is home to diverse habitats ranging from fringed coastal reefs, mangroves, seagrass beds, sandy and coral cays, sandy- and muddy-bottomed communities, continental islands and deep ocean areas.

I think this bill is very timely. The old act is out of date. When I had a look at the act I saw just how very out of date it is. It does not recognise the World Heritage status of the reef and it does not incorporate concepts of ecological sustainability or the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle puts forward the common-sense idea that decision makers should be cautious when assessing potential environmental plans in the absence of full scientific facts. It is a well-established principle of environmental law and it has been on our statue books, in our courts and recognised for decades. Yet the 1975 act mentions nothing about it. This bill seeks to remedy this.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure it is contemporaneous. As the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts stated in his second reading speech, the bill is about placing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park on a modern footing. A lot has changed since 1975. Our society, our belief in the environment and our green beliefs have changed. John Grey Gorton, a former Liberal Prime Minister, once famously said, ‘We are all socialists now,’ and I think if he came back today he would say, ‘We are all green now.’ This bill is about protecting a green aspect, and we are doing that. This bill is about having the strongest legal basis for the protection of our environment. It promotes the responsible use of the marine park and encourages compliance with all relevant laws. I am pleased that it recognises the three-score-and-10 traditional owner groups which have had a profound and continuing relationship with the reef. I am pleased that they are going to be better involved by having at least one Indigenous person as a member of the authority.

The change to governance will enhance the management and improve the protection of the environment and particularly the Great Barrier Reef. It will maintain the health and resilience of the Great Barrier Reef and its ecosystems. It will do wonders in terms of the protection of so much flora and fauna and it will enhance this wonderful natural asset of Australia and the world. This bill is a great investment in helping provide security for our coastal communities and significantly benefiting both the Australian economy and the Australian environment. I commend the bill to the House.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 is important for two reasons. It is important in itself because it is about the regulation of one of the wonders of the natural world, the Great Barrier Reef. It is also important as an indication of how Australia is now becoming a world leader in marine conservation. The bill shows the sophistication we are developing in our approach to marine conservation. I am very proud of the direction we are heading in marine conservation and of the leadership we are now showing the world.

But I have to say that we need to place this in context, and the context is this: for over a hundred years the oceans of Australia and around the world have been subjected to increasing industrial harvesting techniques. It started off with more than one hook on a line, moved to nets, and has ended up with giant mother ships hoovering up vast populations of fish. Around the world today there is virtually no marine environment that has not been affected, including most Australia marine environments. The Great Barrier Reef itself is not exempt from that of course. To put it bluntly, the world has hammered its marine environment, with often only a veneer of respectable management. The marine environment, up until recently, was treated as an inexhaustible resource. It clearly is not. Many marine species, as we know, are now on the brink of extinction as a result. Many marine ecosystems are now very degraded. So the context is that we are coming off a low base. It might sound a little churlish, a little negative, to say these things when we are passing a very positive and groundbreaking piece of legislation in marine conservation, but it has to be said. We have done a lot of damage and we are just beginning to understand what we have done.

I want to talk today about what this bill does, to put it within the context of the history of impacts on the marine environment and the other important marine conservation initiatives Australia is undertaking. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park bill puts the act, which first became law in 1975, on a modern footing. It focuses on long-term protection and ecologically sustainable management. It introduces the precautionary principle. It will help protect the World Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef. The bill establishes the EPBC Act as the central environmental impact assessment system tool. The bill provides a clear and strong environmental investigation regime for the marine park through the EPBC Act. This bill strengthens enforcement mechanisms and introduces a more appropriate range of penalties including civil penalties.

I want to go back a bit to the underpinnings of the marine protected areas. Concern about what has been happening within our marine environment escalated more than a decade ago. Over-exploitation of marine biodiversity resulted in the marine environment being one of the first significant issues to be addressed by the parties to the International Convention on Biological Diversity. In Jakarta in 1995, at a Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Australia signed the Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity. Ultimately an international agreement was established urging the nations of the world to establish a ‘comprehensive, representative and adequate system of ecologically viable marine protected areas’. Thirteen years later, those deliberations resulted in this bill.

This bill progressing through the parliament is another important step for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef and it is the fulfilment of our international obligations of protecting marine diversity. The Great Barrier Reef is clearly one of the wonders of the natural world. This coral reef system extends for around 2,300 kilometres along the Queensland coast and covers over 344,400 square kilometres. It contains unsurpassed biological diversity and globally unique ecosystems. It is also of great significance, of course, to our economy. The international and domestic interest in the reef generates approximately $6 billion per annum.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which includes a range of different areas with different levels of protection, is now a flagship in terms of Australia’s leadership in marine conservation internationally. An increasingly sophisticated management system is being built around the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. There are carefully thought out and well-researched areas within the marine park that have specified protections. Some have limited fishing; others are no-take whatsoever areas; and some areas are complete no-go except for science use only.

Importantly, the management system relies on a lot of education, and the whole management system relies on an ongoing research base. And, most importantly, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is underpinned by very significant resources. It is not one of those park systems that has been declared with no resources, then been left to rot. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park system has a flagship environmental reserve management system. However, I would point out, with the indulgence of the Deputy Speaker, that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park legislation is only one aspect of Australia’s growing reputation for leadership in marine conservation around the world.

I would like to point out that in my own state of Victoria we have led the way in this area—and I know that would please you, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, being a Victorian. If we can boast a bit, we have done something that is quite remarkable; in fact, it is a world first. We were the first state in any country to establish a comprehensive, adequate, representative system of marine protected areas. No other state anywhere in the world has undertaken this. There have been particular parks declared here and there, such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the marine park in the Great Australian Bight, but never before has a comprehensive network of marine parks been implemented across a whole state. What we did in Victoria, in a process that took a decade, was to comprehensively survey and analyse the habitats and ecology of our marine environment and then put in place a network of marine parks and reserves of high integrity.

Just over six per cent of Victoria’s marine environment is now contained within the marine national parks, and they are all no-take areas. I would like to put on the record my thanks to the former Premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks, for his vision, courage and foresight in implementing this system of marine national parks and reserves. And it did take courage, as all big and significant decisions do. I would also like to put on record my thanks to another former Premier of Victoria, Joan Kirner, who kicked off this process and was still there at the end of the process lobbying hard for its completion. Thank you, Steve and Joan.

Before returning to the details of the Great Barrier Reef bill, can I say that the Victorian MPA initiative has led me to closely follow developments in marine conservation policy areas in other states, and what I see does concern me a bit. I see a hesitancy, maybe a fear of sectional interest groups, in other states in implementing the policy of establishing a system of comprehensive, adequate and representative marine parks.

In South Australia I have not heard much about no-take areas, which must be at the heart of any system. There seems to be a fear of talking about that. I know there are some very important waters in South Australia—on the Great Australian Bight, where the Commonwealth has established another MPA, and along both sides of the Eyre Peninsula and in some of the island areas. The government in South Australia are committed to marine parks, but the sectional interests are lobbying hard, just as they did when the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was declared. The Commonwealth showed fortitude, and the South Australian government need to show it now. I think I am right in saying that South Australia was the first Australian state to establish a coastal management act, a very significant piece of work, way back in 1975. They were our nation’s leaders in this area, but they have slipped back and need to take some bold steps to re-establish their leadership.

In New South Wales, in Western Australia and in other states, although there are increasing areas under marine reserves or marine parks, there are very small percentages of no-take areas. There seems to be a preference for marine parks which are largely ‘multiple use’, which everyone knows to be ‘multiple abuse’ marine parks—Clayton’s marine parks. No-take areas are like the control sample in a science experiment. They are the heart of the integrity of the system. I say to all Australian states who are nervous about the political consequences of marine conservation: think about our kids. Think about future generations. Show courage. Show leadership.

We are an island continent. We have a massive coastline, and a massive responsibility that goes with it. Let us make Australia the world leader in marine conservation. The Rudd government is showing leadership through this bill.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature is on record as being ‘deeply concerned’ by the slow progress made by countries to meet their commitments. Despite the repeated calls for urgent action and the increasing and overwhelming scientific evidence for protection of marine environments, overfishing and illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing persists and the plundering of sharks continues. Environmental quality continues to deteriorate from pollution and invasive marine species. These threats are aggravated by the ongoing and predicted impacts of climate change on the oceans.

The IUCN estimates that, unless progress is accelerated, the agreed international goals establishing representative networks of marine protected areas by 2012 will not be met until 2060. The IUCN analysis of data from five ocean basins reveals a dramatic decline in numbers of large predatory fish—tuna, blue marlin, swordfish and others—since the advent of industrialised fishing. The world’s oceans have lost over 90 per cent of large predatory fish, with potentially severe consequences for the ecosystem.

There is widespread public concern over the worldwide decline of our coral reefs, changes to temperate kelp bed communities, decline in seagrass beds and loss of salt marshes and mangroves. Although there are obvious examples of marine mammals and birds that have either become extinct or are considered endangered, little is known of this problem for the vast majority of marine animals, including fish and invertebrates.

Of course, it is not just the impacts of fishers and others involved in marine harvesting. The impacts of global warming have added a new layer of threats across a wide range of marine environments. Thousands of Antarctic marine species, adapted to constant temperatures over millions of years, now appear to be uniquely vulnerable in the face of predicted temperature change, new research has revealed.

Coral reefs, including the Great Barrier Reef, have been specifically identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as areas where climate change impacts will occur. We have already seen this through bleaching events. We are fortunate in Australia that the Great Barrier Reef is well preserved compared to reef systems elsewhere in the world.

The government is, of course, addressing the impacts of climate change through initiatives aimed at increasing the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef and through measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The government has also undertaken a Great Barrier Reef Climate Change Action Plan and a Great Barrier Reef Rescue Plan, underlining the levels of threat the reef and our marine environment face.

The Great Barrier Reef is an absolutely awesome natural wonder. But it is not untouched. The Great Barrier Reef is a reef system that has felt the impacts of industry, of human activity and of climate change. Like every other marine environment in the world, it has been impacted by human activity. Too often we hear the nonsense come up about the untouched environment of the Great Barrier Reef. In some parts of Australia the word ‘pristine’ must be the most abused word in the dictionary.

The Great Barrier Reef Management Authority, whilst acknowledging that there is still an enormous amount of information they do not know, have clearly stated that there are many species under threat along the Great Barrier Reef. These include: helmet shells, triton shells, clams, seahorses, pipefish, sea dragons, potato cod, Queensland grouper, barramundi, cod, whale shark, grey nurse shark, great white shark, freshwater sawfish, sea snakes, crocodiles, marine turtles, birds, seals, whales, dolphins and dugongs. That is the ‘pristine’ marine environment that we now know.

There are some enormous challenges to protecting species and protecting habitats. This bill is crucial to addressing those matters. It adds to Australia’s improving record in marine conservation; a record that has put us in a leadership group in the world on marine conservation. But there is still a lot more we can do. If I look at my own environment in Victoria—the Great Ocean Road, the Surf Coast, the Bellarine Peninsula—there are some magnificent reef systems and some magnificent places where all of us can participate in our environment. However, there are significant threats to those environments. I look forward to working with the Rudd government in continuing to protect our environment over the years to come. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.