Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Hunt speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 14 minutes.

Question agreed to.

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

The coalition support clearly, simply, absolutely a total ban on scientific whaling wherever it may occur. We support a total ban on commercial whaling wherever it may occur. There is no justification for scientific or commercial whaling in the 21st century. That relic of history has passed. That moment in time has gone. We now seek to ensure a global regime for protecting these great and majestic marine mammals, whether they are humpbacks, minkes or other whales, that find themselves threatened not just by current practices but by at this moment the potential resumption of commercial whaling. It is a trend, a movement and a proposal which we will oppose clearly and absolutely.

The coalition also support and propose international legal action against scientific whaling. We want to make sure, of course, that it is appropriate and effective, but our support is clear on this issue. We know that the International Whaling Commission is subject to corrupt practices and there has been a blind eye turned abroad and domestically to those acts and practices of corruption which go to the heart of the way the International Whaling Commission operates. I am sad to report that fact, but it is critical that we do so.

I want to set out three propositions today. Firstly, the International Whaling Commission in its current form is corrupt in its constitution and unacceptable in its practices. Secondly, we support international legal action, of course, on the basis that it is appropriate and effective. Thirdly, we have a very clear, strong and proud history, having set up the ban in 1980 on whaling in Australian waters and the Australian Antarctic Whale Sanctuary in 2000 under different coalition governments. That is our position. Our pledge is to fight consistently and persistently against commercial and scientific whaling in any form in any place and in every form in every place.

Let me make these points: there are elements of bipartisanship about the means and the objectives but there are points of disagreement about the effectiveness and the intent in the way in which this campaign has been carried on over the last 2½ years. First, it is absolutely clear that the Australian government has turned a blind eye over the last 2½ years to the corruption which has addled the heart of the International Whaling Commission. Let it be known that four years ago, as it became increasingly clear that the processes and practices of the IWC had been distorted and were no longer acceptable, the then coalition minister for the environment, Senator Ian Campbell, said on 22 June 2006 that there was corruption in the IWC practices and that there was clear evidence of vote buying.

I do not know whether he was the first such minister around the world to make those allegations but I do know that he made them loudly, clearly and courageously. In fact he has gone on in his post-parliamentary career to be committed to the practice of eradicating scientific and commercial whaling from the world in the 21st century. I quote his words because they were made four years ago:

“I think that some of the practices within the IWC over many years could be called corrupt,” he said.

“It’s been happening in the last couple of years, these sorts of practices have been going on for many years.”

What we see here is, very clearly, a strong and courageous statement that what was occurring in the IWC had to be exposed. Instead over the last 2½ years this body, which has been addled to its heart, has been used as a diversion from the fact that the government was in prolonged breach of its multiple pre-election promises to take Japanese whaling to the international court. We have seen the IWC used as a cover to imply action when in fact there has been inaction. Worse than that, there has been a blind eye turned to the practices which have so addled this international body.

We have seen that Australia has been a handmaiden to what is increasingly emerging as a shabby deal. The minister and I are in agreement that what is on the table now will see 13,000 whales slaughtered, will put humpbacks at risk, will see the risk of commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean and will see the continuation of scientific whaling. And Australia was at the table as the deal was being crafted. It was only after reports revealed that Australia was part of the negotiations which ultimately led to this deal that the government was forced to back away from it. They were part and parcel of an approach which would have allowed commercial whaling. We now see that the Australian government was caught out. They were handmaidens to a shabby deal and they made Australia complicit in developing a shabby and unacceptable deal for Australians of good faith everywhere.

What is about to occur in Morocco is a critical moment. We face a terrible risk that the more than two decades of international moratorium will be overturned and that commercial whaling will find approval. Australia must be successful in opposing this shabby deal. I am hopeful that that will be the case and I hope, sincerely, that we are not being softened-up for a defeat. I can only believe that there are enough countries of good faith to defeat what must surely be deemed as a retrograde step with regard to whaling. How have we come to this position?

The second point in relation to the International Court of Justice case is that there were five years of promises from the Australian Labor Party and from the minister in question. Going back to 20 May 2005, the then shadow foreign affairs spokesperson and now Prime Minister promised that they would take action, promised that there should be immediate action, promised on multiple occasions that on coming to government a Labor Party would take immediate action. What we now know of course is that there was no immediate action. We saw a series of different breaches. The Oceanic Viking, which had been promised, was delayed and delayed before making a brief tour to the south. The flights, which were to oversee the Japanese whaling ship, never materialised until the last moment. At that point there was no direct contact with any of the active whaling fleet and they were simply spotters. In other words the promises were never delivered.

Most significantly this year, as the government’s promise was postponed in February by the Prime Minister until after the next election, they came under increasing public pressure to finally live up to their promises and to live up to that which they had told the Australian people was a sacred duty. Firstly, on 16 March 2010 the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Julie Bishop, wrote to the foreign affairs minister and made it clear that the coalition saw no impediment to immediate action and that we need not wait until after the election. As long as the advice showed a reasonable chance of success the coalition would support immediate action. It was this pressure which was fundamental in causing the government to walk away from its decision to put the promise for whaling action back until after the next election.

Secondly, we know that on 22 May the bell tolled. It was made clear in media reports that the government had not provisioned a single dollar, whether through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Attorney-General’s Department or the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, for an international legal case on whaling. The government was caught out. It was that measure, along with the desire six days later on 28 May to cover up the $38 million mining ad campaign, which finally led to the recognition that there would be a case against Japanese whaling. But on 28 May this announcement about court action was made within eight minutes, I am advised, of the revelation of a $38 million mining tax campaign—$38 million for a mining tax advertising campaign in direct breach of a pre-election promise. It was made within eight minutes, so I am advised, of the announcement of this court case. It has every appearance of being a diversion.

Can the government advise why they have ignored the advice of Professor Don Rothwell and chosen the ICJ route rather than the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea? We are open-minded on that question. We seek genuine advice on that. We have asked for briefings. I know that in January the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wrote to the then Acting Prime Minister seeking briefings. We await those briefings and we await a briefing on why the ICJ was chosen over the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

I conclude with the coalition’s history and position. Our history is very clear. It was a coalition government which in 1980 brought the Whale Protection Act into force, ending the practice of whaling in Australian waters. It was a coalition government under John Howard that implemented the Australian Antarctic Whale Sanctuary, which took form and place and existence on 16 July 2000. A future coalition government has a very simple five-point plan on whaling. Firstly, we will pursue a total ban on commercial and scientific whaling. Secondly, we will pursue, and we support, international legal action to ensure that scientific whaling is eradicated. Thirdly, we support and will pursue a global whale sanctuary. Fourthly, we will implement a whale recovery program—and we will have further details on that as we approach the election. Finally, we will prosecute through diplomatic action an effective case for ending whaling at the grassroots level in Japan, something which has been ignored by this government. Those are the things we will do.

For those reasons, we believe Australia must be at the forefront of fighting against commercial whaling and scientific whaling, wherever it occurs. We believe that the government turned a blind eye to the corruption which has addled the heart of the International Whaling Commission. We urge them to fight against every element of the proposed shabby deal in Morocco. We will stand against whaling wherever it occurs, whenever it occurs.