George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Making Marine Parks Accountable) Bill 2012 is about motivation.

It goes to what the drivers are behind the declaration of a marine park.

It ensures that any government seeking to declare a marine park can adequately answer the question: why?

Why is this marine park being declared?

It is a perfectly valid question and it is a question the Gillard Labor government cannot adequately answer.

Using the same excuse that was trotted out for the carbon tax—'The Greens made me do it'—simply will not cut it.

It certainly did not cut it for anglers when the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities made the rushed declaration of marine parks two weeks ago.

Jim Harnwell, the managing director of advocacy group Keep Australia Fishing, which represents five million anglers, said:

There was no scientific rationale behind the government's moves to lock anglers out of 1.3 million square kilometres of ocean. We've been asking for years why we need to be locked out. However, Minister Burke has never yet answered our questions. All we can do is keep asking: Why are you doing this to us?

The best answer that Minister Burke could come up with was this. He said:

Australia's oceans support many of the world's endangered marine animals including the Green Turtle, the Blue Whale, the Southern Right Whale, the Australian Sea Lion and the whale shark.

Well, when dad takes the kids out fishing for the weekend, I really do not know how many blue whales they are going to take home or how they would cook a southern right whale or a sea lion for dinner, but the environment minister can now rest easy in the knowledge that the whales, the sea lions and the whale sharks will be safe from Australia's recreational fishers as long as they stay inside the marine park boundaries that he declared.

I am not actually sure that the minister understands what recreational fishing is all about.

Allan Hansard, the Director of the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation, was quoted in my local newspaper, the Daily Mercury, on November 16, asking this:

What does Mum, Dad and the kids fishing … do to the environment that warrants them being locked out of vast areas of Australian waters, whether the marine parks are five or 500 kilometres from a boat ramp.

He said:

Australia's five million recreational fishers applaud good science based conservation measures that protects our marine environment for future generations …

… However, the Government's Marine Park Plan lacks scientific reasoning and—

there is—

no explanation why Aussie recreational fishers are banned from marine parks.

If peer-reviewed scientific studies proved that a particular species targeted by recreational fishers, or commercial fishermen, for that matter, was an endangered species in the Coral Sea, then fishing families and the rest of Australia could probably understand bag limits and no-take zones.

But the Labor Party and the Greens are kidding themselves if they think locking a relatively small number of fishers out of an area already teeming with fish will make any environmental difference, because fish cannot read maps.

Owner of Mackay Reef Fish Supplies, David Caracciolo, describes the concept of the marine park as fundamentally flawed. He says:

If the idea of a marine park is to conserve the animals or stock in it, to me it is hypocritical …

… A lot of these fish are migratory, you could say we are farming them for other countries to benefit.

What is more, Lance Murray, the President of the Mackay Regional Recreational Fishers, points out the reserves would place pressure on nearby fishing grounds, meaning there would be more competition for recreational anglers.

He said:

What'll happen is commercial fishers are going to be compensated but that'll also add pressure to other areas, which creates a funnel situation.

The minister and his cronies have tried to pretend no-one fishes in the Coral Sea at iconic fishing spots like Marion Reef, because that is 300 kilometres off the coastline.

Well, if no-one fishes out there, if no-one is fishing in these areas, then why are we locking them up?

Here is a dose of the truth—taken from the Nomad Sportfishing Adventures, which takes people fishing out to Marion Reef, one of those areas which is actually going to be locked up. They say:

Throughout each year, we fish the entire 1500 mile length of this reef system, moving between the most remote areas of the reef, to ensure you the absolute best fishing every week.

Nomad's owner, Damon Olsen, says 'travelling way out to Marion Reef on a calm ocean is one of the truly special experiences in the fishing world'.

In his report on a trip to Marion Reef with Nomad, Glanville Heydenrych had this to say about a fishing spot the minister would have us believe no-one visits:

… without a doubt some of the best fishing experiences I have ever uncounted in the Coral Sea and feel blessed to be a part of it, it just makes you hope that we will be allowed to partake in fishing here in the future, trust me this is a place you want to visit and having the government close this beautiful part of Australia due to some political uprising is a disgusting shame to say the least!!! Everybody should have the right to have the opportunity to experience the beauties of the Coral Sea, I am one for sure who would love to go back there …

Mr Olsen, in his blog, apologises for making fishing political, but he goes on to say:

… there are times when you just have to stand up and be counted, as the alternative is to sit back and watch many of the areas you love to fish get closed over the next few months and years.

On one hand, we have the environment minister telling us how important it is to lock people out of the Coral Sea and, on the other, the same environment minister is trying to convince us that the closure is not going to affect anyone because no-one goes out there.

You cannot have this both ways.

In recognition of the fact that some of our fishing industry will be forced to close down, the environment minister is actually putting $100 million worth of compensation on the table—an amount that is widely regarded by the industry as desperately insufficient.

There is no compensation for the businesses behind recreational fishing and an inadequate $100 million on the table for commercials.

If that is all the fishing industry is worth—over a million square kilometres of ocean—then why is it being closed down?

Australia has some of the most underfished waters in the world and closing down our seafood industry will only increase imports from some of the world's most overfished waters. That is the height of hypocrisy.

How does the government determine that to be a good environmental outcome?

Damon Olsen, from Nomad Sportfishing, is all in favour of marine parks if they are done for a reason—for the right reason—which is what this bill before us will ensure.

Mr Olsen says:

All recreational fishing groups support closed off areas, but only when thorough scientific processes have shown that these closed off areas are required. The current process is closing off huge areas to recreational fishermen simply so the government can keep green groups happy and stay in power.

The massive problem that we face here is that Science has long ago been abandoned by the politicians, and they are now playing a game of drawing colours on maps simply to keep the powerful and well funded green lobby groups at bay.

He goes on to say:

I have a first hand example of this from the meeting with the federal environment minister. The current process is proposing to close off the main area of the Perth trench to all gamefishing activities, essentially shutting down the entire gamefishing industry and community in Perth. We asked the minister why this zone had been placed in it's proposed position. We were told that the minister drew that zone himself because they needed one in that area, and there was no information to tell him where to put it, so he just placed it where he thought was appropriate.

That is great! Science by felt pen!

Obviously, this bill was aimed to stop the reckless announcement made by the environment minister some 10 days ago, and some people in this place may have a concern that the declaration of the marine parks will negate this bill.

I want to signal my intention right here and now that, if this bill should reach the consideration in detail stage, I will move an amendment that will negate the declaration of the marine protected areas that was made by the minister earlier this month, and then he would have to follow the accountable processes that are set forth in this bill before the House to create any new marine park in Australia. That would include a range of things, from allowing this parliament to have a say on it by making it a declarable instrument and by also ensuring that there are community stakeholder advisory groups set up so that there is real consultation on this, not the fake consultation that the minister has put forward. There would also be scientific review panels established to assess the conservation value. All of these things are in this bill.

I would urge particularly the crossbenchers, who might think that this matter is put to bed with the minister's declaration, to think again. They still have the ability to negate what the minister has done. Instead of having marine parks based on the extreme green agenda and science by felt pen, they can be based on real science with real consultation, real accountability and real transparency, and this parliament can make decisions as it is created to do. Hopefully this bill will be accepted by this parliament. Hopefully this bill will restore balance. Hopefully this bill will make the marine parks process accountable, as it is intended to do.

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

Is there a seconder for the bill?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with delight that I second the bill for the member for Dawson.

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

I rise to speak in opposition to this proposed bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Making Marine Parks Accountable) Bill 2012, which represents a continuation of the coalition running interference on what is an historic achievement by the Labor government in announcing the final network of Commonwealth marine reserves.

I want to congratulate the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Minister Burke, who, on 16 November, announced that Australia's precious marine environments have been permanently protected, with the proclamation of the world's biggest network of marine reserves—that is, more than 2.3 million square kilometres of ocean environment. The declaration of these new marine reserves delivers on an election commitment and represents a major achievement for the long-term conservation and sustainable use of Australia's oceans. Australia's oceans support many of the world's endangered marine animals, including the green turtle, the blue whale, the southern right whale, the Australian sea lion and the whale shark.

In May this year, a number of us in parliament were fortunate enough to hear an inspiring address from the author Tim Winton about the importance of marine parks. It reinforced my view that this is an opportunity for us as a parliament to do great things that future generations will be proud of. I would like to share with the parliament what Tim Winton had to say about this issue. It is important to highlight it to negate some of the short-sightedness of the bill before the House and because I cannot improve on Tim Winton's words. Tim himself is a very keen recreational fisher. He says that fishing is in his blood. Indeed, my own father, Allan, and my brothers Lex and Daryl are keen fishermen. Tim Winton says:

During my own lifetime the world's oceans have suffered a terrible decline. I've read about it. And I've seen it up close and ugly. When I lived in Greece I saw the results of oil spills, dynamite fishing, lax regulation. I've surfed in raw sewage in Indonesia and putrid medical waste in Brazil. And I've wondered: am I swimming in the future? … The global trends aren't great. Collapsing fisheries, dying corals, gyres of plastic the size of entire countries, catastrophic oil spills that ruin the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of fishing families and poison the food chain for decades.

Okay, I tell myself. All this is happening abroad, in someone else's ocean. But we're not immune. Not after the Montara spill. Not when a recent spike in sea temperature caused a mass kill of abalone on the mid-west coast and shut down the fishery until further notice …

Many of my neighbours are commercial fishermen. Lots of my friends are marine scientists. They don't always agree with each other, though they're all passionate about Australia's seas and want to do what they can keep them healthy. But none of them is telling me that things are getting better and better here at home.

… I don't think we'll pass on a dead ocean. I can't think that. … We have comparatively decent fisheries management and many good fishing operators. Still, consumption only goes up and the resource doesn't get any bigger. We all know we're pushing the ocean too hard. And the pressure to relegate marine protection - to defer it - that pressure is intense. And the balance is not in the ocean's favour. Taking a loss has become business as usual. Where else, in what other field, would mediocre outcomes be so acceptable?

We have to stop spending beyond our means. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Otherwise we'll be the generation - the richest, most mobile and well-educated generation in Australia's history - that passes on a dud inheritance, and leaves the estate in arrears. Bequeathing a loss to a family, a community, a nation, that's a despicable thing to do. …

The great news is we haven't blown it yet. We still have incredible assets to reserve and build upon: immense underwater canyons and sea mounts, fringing reefs, barrier reefs. Remote archipelagos teeming with birds and turtles. Precious inshore habitats, breeding grounds. Intricate coral atolls that are thrumming engines of oceanic life. These miracles of nature are our good and great fortune. They aren't just sources of protein. They're also food for thought, fields of scientific discovery. They are reservoirs of life inextricably entwined with our own. Because the health of the sea determines our human future. Yes, we have compromised great ecosystems already. We've made mistakes. And we've improved our game. But there's a gap between our aspirations and our achievements when it comes to stewardship. We must do better. We will do better. If we act now.

…   …   …

Commonwealth waters are public assets. The family silver. Silver that moves, breathes, swims. If you've ever swum in a school of trevally or barracuda or anchovies, you'll know what I mean; it's like being Scrooge McDuck rolling around in the vault. These riches are entrusted to government by the people. That trust, gravity of the task, has come into sharp focus in recent years. And in the past decade, in a groundswell of public consciousness that I simply didn't see coming, citizens have begun to expect a new level of accountability in marine stewardship. Why the sea? Well, because as much as they love the bush, Australians spend more time on the water. And they travel abroad – especially to places where they swim and surf and fish. Like me, I guess, they've come to see what we stand to lose. What the worst future looks and feels and tastes and smells like. So they value their marine inheritance much more consciously and vividly than you may realize. They expect the managers of their marine birthright to act prudently, conservatively. Which means they expect proper fisheries management. They want to know there are genuine limits to the incursions of oil and gas, that a marine system is at least as important as a coal-mine, or a port. Most importantly they expect government to hold significant marine assets in reserve by way of parks and sanctuaries. Where people can visit but not extract anything.

There's a precedent for this, one that makes sense to ordinary people. Generations ago, when our nation was far less prosperous, far less educated, far less certain of its place in the world, our forebears set aside habitats and ecosystems on land in the form of national parks and reserves. Pretty brave at the time. This was their gift to the future. The kind of sacrifice Australians instinctively understand and celebrate. You and I inherited the fruit of that enlightened impulse. We enjoy the work and the courage of those Australian thinkers and legislators who came before. And now, from the fringes of our cities, from the very hearts of our cities in some instances, right out to the interior, there are wild places to which we can take our children, where we study, or simple stare in awe –because someone fifty, sixty, seventy years ago was visionary enough, decent enough, and courageous enough to make it happen, to reserve a share of the family silver for us. You and I are connected to those visionaries by that patriotic impulse, that love of country, that love of family.

So now in 2012 we're on the cusp of achieving something like that in the sea. A system of marine parks for the nation. A network of representative ecosystems reserved for conservation purposes. It's the outcome of a process that's not owned by any narrow political interest. It's taken years of study and consultation, been overseen and supported by governments, both Liberal and Labor. It has the potential–if we hold our nerve and follow through—to be one of the great moments of marine stewardship. Of environmental responsibility. But also one of the great moments of Australian patriotism when our belief in the common good shines through, when we show our higher selves to our selves and to those unborn.

…   …   …

And neither should it be contentious, although I know there have been attempts to make it so, to make something unifying into something divisive. But the principle of marine parks has taken hold. You know that when more than 100,000 citizens make submissions in support of them, urging members of parliament to stay the course and reserve these parks, that something's going on.

…   …   …

A decade ago, 15,000 citizens encircled the CBD of the city of Fremantle to spare a coral reef most Australians had never heard of, and Ningaloo is now on the World Heritage list. Since then support for marine parks has only grown. It's geographically widespread, spans all age groups, and is non-partisan. …The people asking for marine parks understand this for what it is: good housekeeping, prudent management, a future for their kids. And I think legislators ignore this tidal change at their peril.

I conclude by paraphrasing Tim Winton by saying that 'this is a genuine legacy moment'. When your grandkids ask, 'What did you do as a member of parliament?' tax reform might do it, or that parliamentary committee. But in that rare moment when a little kid looks up at you with a flicker of interest or even a moment of admiration, my money is on the dolphins and on the marine parks.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Making Marine Parks Accountable) Bill 2012, and I proudly support my good friend and member for Dawson. I would like to take up a couple of points made by the member for Wills. I do not think that anyone could possibly doubt his love for the environment and that sort of thing. Before the Montara spill—before they put that well there—the Australian Institute of Marine Science surveyed that entire place. They put good baseline research into the place. After the spill was cleaned up they went back to see what damage there was. There was none. That is good science. That is knowing what is out there and knowing what is at risk. That is knowing that, if there is damage, what there is to clean up. The green zones established over the reefs in North Queensland and along the coast were based on science. They did not make a lot of people happy, but they were based on good science. They have been proved to be successful. It was a great effort and the environment has no greater friend than Liberal governments. I would say to the member for Wills: 'You can't have it both ways. You can't trot Tim Winton out to say we are fishing out the place and then stand beside the minister who says, "It is so far out, no-one can even get out there".'

It just goes to show how duplicitous and shifty this government is that they will change the argument to suit the audience. That is what bothers me most. The problem with this argument is that when you say to someone in Melbourne that we should protect the sea, all you see is sea; that is the mental image, and there is nothing on top of it. You do not see anything underneath, you do not see the jobs that go with it, because they are all on the land. If you say to people that we have to protect forests, people immediately see roads, trees, chainsaws, trucks, towns. They see all the implications of making those sorts of decisions. That is the problem with this decision.

We held a forum—the first of many, I believe—in relation to this proposal and what has come to pass. I do not mind a bet and at that time I said that I would take any money that the area marked out by the felt pen on the Coral Sea would be exactly where the marine park would go once the consultation period ended. We have seen exactly that happen. We have now seen the Protect the Coral Sea campaign up the ante and call for even more closures closer to Cairns—more closures of reefs and fishing areas to shut down further industry. At that fishing forum there were a number of resolutions passed. First and foremost was the one about recreational fishing as a lifestyle issue for North Queenslanders. It is a right to be protected.

The Coral Sea Marine Park is a long way from Townsville, but this government has shown a willingness to go back on anything it says before an election. At every turn this government does something to suit itself at the expense of the recreational fisher. We campaigned in 2010 to say that a vote for Labor was a vote to close down the Coral Sea, and the Labor candidate at the time said, 'No, it's not,' and poked me in the chest and swore at me on the radio. But it has come to pass that exactly what we said would happen has happened.

Science should be the guide to the establishment of a marine reserve off the north coast of Australia. Any decision to establish a marine park should be overturned by a subsequent government until the scientific case for its establishment can be made. That was the second resolution passed at the fishing forum, and it was passed unanimously by the people who were there because that is what they care about. This government talks about science and various causes, but the Australian Institute of Marine Science has a $120 million boat down at the marina in Townsville with no fuel to run it on and no operational funding—the operational funding has been cut. At the fishing forum we asked that artificial reefs be established in yellow zones where there would be one rod, one angler and one hook. At the fishing forum we even passed a resolution that no anchor could be used and that fishers would just trawl or drift across the place. We asked for a science based review of the green zones to make sure that they were working as well as we suspected. We also wanted to make sure that the Coral Sea is protected. The greatest protector of the Coral Sea and marine parks in general is the weather. If the wind is blowing at between five knots and 10 knots, everyone is going out for a fish. But, if it is blowing stronger than 10 knots, no one goes out. You can go eight, 10 or 12 weeks without a fish up there.

Work needs to be done to change the negative perception of North Queenslanders as recreational fishers. (Time expired)

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in opposition to this bill, which would put the hugely significant marine conservation outcomes that this government has achieved in partnership and in trust with the Australian community at threat. For anyone to sensibly support the legislative amendments that this bill contains they would need to agree with its underlying premise, which is that the government's secured set of marine reserves has been achieved without the benefit of appropriate scientific data and analysis, without independent economic impact assessments and without the guidance of appropriate stakeholder and community consultation—and that is, frankly, a ludicrous proposition.

In an article published on 27 August this year and titled 'Marine reserves not about closing fisheries, but about preserving ocean health', Dr Nic Bax, Stream Leader, Understanding Ocean Ecosystems at CSIRO, and Dr Ian Cresswell, Director, Wealth from Oceans Flagship at CSIRO, concluded with the following:

The CMR network and marine bioregional planning herald a substantial change in the way Australia manages its marine environment. The potential impacts extend well beyond fishery management.

Importantly the marine bioregional framework provides a clear and consistent framework for Australia that will help make future management decisions and help focus the social, economic and environmental research to support those decisions. It will set clear and measurable objectives within a clear reporting process. This will provide the impetus and direction for science to reduce the uncertainty about whether we are achieving those objectives and the broader goals they serve.

Australia provides world leadership in the policy and science of marine ecosystem management and is likely to be one of the few countries to achieve the international commitment made at Rio+10 in 2002 to develop a representative system of marine reserves by 2012.

Last week the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities sealed one of the greatest environment achievements in Australian history when he proclaimed the network of marine protected areas, including the south-west marine bioregional area. That proclamation, long-sought and hard-won, represents a marine and environmental legacy for future generations unparalleled in our history.

The marine bioregional plan is a reform that has been painstakingly achieved. Like many members of this place, I have personally worked with professional and recreational fishers in my electorate to facilitate their input and to help them seek refinements in the protection scheme to ensure that the marine conservation outcomes achieved were at their highest without having unnecessary impact on fishing and other uses. I have also worked extensively with marine scientists and marine conservation advocates to argue for improvements to early versions of the network, which simply did not provide enough protection in some areas.

In considering the economic impacts, the government's 2011 fisheries adjustment policy very clearly set out the assessments required for the establishment of marine reserves. The policy is wholly consistent with the coalition's 2004 policy. Under the adjustment policy, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, ABARES, was engaged to prepare independent socioeconomic assessments for each proposed marine reserve. The production of the assessments involved data collection and consultation, including the creation of industry reference groups. All the ABARES reports are, of course, publicly available. The government acknowledges that the creation of the reserves necessary to properly protect Australia's range of unique and precious ecosystems and our marine biodiversity, which has already suffered significant losses, will involve some economic impact and that those affected must receive appropriate assistance.

On a side note: I am pleased to see that the Centre for Policy Development has produced analysis showing that the proposed Commonwealth network of marine reserves will cover an area that delivers $1.2 billion dollars in what is termed 'ecosystem service value' based on estimates derived using a UN environment program study. This value is not currently recognised in our economic models or analysis.

The proclamation of the new marine protected areas by the minister on the Friday before last was welcomed by tens of thousands of Australians, and I received letters or emails from approximately 750 constituents who wanted to support and reinforce the importance of this historic reform. The new marine reserves increase the Commonwealth network of protected areas to 2.3 million square kilometres. In WA these areas include critical feeding and birthing zones for the blue whale. They cover the Perth Canyon and the Abrolhos, the Recherche Archipelago, Geographe Bay and the Naturaliste Plateau. Many of these environmental wonderlands—or 'wonderseas'—have been zones of legend in WA for years, but some of them are even better known and regarded now, especially by young people in my electorate, as a result of the thorough marine protection process that we have been through.

The principles and the framework for protecting Australia's ocean ecosystems through the marine bioregional planning process are robust in themselves. They have been improved since their operation under the former government. They are fit for the purpose of securing the environmental legacy that future generations deserve. As our own experts at the CSIRO note, they are world-leading. The Member for Dawson's proposed changes to the legislative provisions of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act are unnecessary, unjustified, inconsistent and costly, and they cannot be supported.(Time expired)

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill. Quite frankly, the process under which the Coral Sea marine reserve was declared last week is an absolute disgrace. For generations this resource has been fished in a totally sustainable way; the fact that the area is now judged worthy of being a marine reserve is testament to that.

The bill would require the environment minister to fulfil four requirements before declaring an area a marine reserve. Firstly, he must commission an independent social and economic impact assessment so that the government and affected communities are fully aware of the long-term ramifications. What concerns me is that even before ABARES had completed its socio-economic report on the impact of the MPA, Ministers Burke and Ludwig—clairvoyants that they are, and we have seen that more recently with the live trade debacle—announced a nationwide assistance package in the vicinity of $100 million.

In Cairns we have a very well-regarded, experienced and independent economist named Bill Cummings. Earlier this year, Mr Cummings was commissioned by Cairns Regional Council to examine the economic impact of declaring the Coral Sea as a marine reserve. What became immediately evident on seeing his findings was how short-sighted this government has been in only assessing the immediate economic impact on commercial operators. They have not considered the flow-on effects to businesses further down the chain, the likely future growth and opportunities forgone in the future, the management cost impacts and the losses to post shipside activity. On the other hand, Mr Cummings has and what he found is quite frightening. By looking at these other impacts, and extrapolating them over 30 years—that is a standard economic forecast—he has come up with a cost, just for the Cairns region, of $1 billion. That is a billion dollars in a region with one of the highest unemployment figures in the country, contributing to the economic black hole that Labor has already got this country into over the past five years.

Secondly, this bill requires the government to obtain scientific peer-reviewed and publicly available advice before making any proclamations. There is no denying the fact that the government cannot produce any scientific evidence to show a threat from fishing activities to species in the Coral Sea. Just as with the last-minute banning of the MV Margiris, this government continues to ignore science. Take a look at this article from the Cairns Post on 20 November celebrating the fact that overseas buyers are 'lining up to take product from the Northern Prawn Fishery after its sustainable certification by the Marine Stewardship Council'. Gaining this certification is no mean feat. It proves that the operators in this fishery are using world's best practice to harvest their catch sustainably with less impact on the environment and on the by-catch. So what does this government do? It takes this certification and rubbishes it by declaring the Coral Sea as a marine reserve, shutting down 20 per cent of the Northern Prawn Fishery. What about the millions these operators have invested and the thousands of jobs they support? I just shake my head in disbelief.

The third requirement of this bill is that the government must establish independent reference panels and stakeholder groups in each region to ensure rigorous decision making. What does that mean? It means no more whistle-stop tours where the minister has already made up his mind; it means no more backhanded swapping of areas to keep marginal Labor MPs out of the firing line; it means no more playing industry groups off each other, bargaining with boundaries to buy support; and it means no more bowing to the pressure of gangrenous overseas lobby groups, like the PEW foundation, who do not have the courage to take on the polluters and the over-fishers in their own waters.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this bill will put parliament in charge of final decisions by making declarations disallowable, scrapping the carte blanche powers that the minister clearly has abused.

To close, left as it stands the Coral Sea marine reserve is a failure for sustainability, it is a nail in the coffin for family owned businesses and it is a death knell for highly exploited species in Third World fisheries. This bill, put up by the member for Dawson, will instead provide a framework of accountability and transparency around the creation of marine reserves, and that is why I wholly support it here today.

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

I join my colleagues the member for Wills and the member for Fremantle in speaking against this private member's bill. As my colleagues have already pointed out, on 16 November environment minister Tony Burke proclaimed that 2.3 million square kilometres of ocean environment would be permanently protected and that new management plans for those areas will come into effect in July 2014.

The proclamation follows a lengthy public consultation process during which some 80,000 submissions were received. As part of that public consultation process, the public had the opportunity to put forward their views on the marine reserves proposals during 90-day public consultation processes in each region, at the 245 stakeholder meetings held around the country and during the most recent 60-day consultation on the final proposal. To say that this was a decision made by the minister without any consultation and without any consideration for those impacted by it is simply incorrect. The facts speak for themselves. In fact, I know this process has been ongoing for two or three years at least, if not longer, so there has been plenty of time for communities around the country to put their points of view forward to the minister, and in fact those points of view have been heard as part of the final outcome of that consultation process.

I understand that current arrangements for industry and recreational fishers will remain in place until the new management plans take effect, in July 2014. This means that there is still over 18 months to go before the new plans come into effect. Again, that is in order to give communities time to transition. In his speech on 17 September on the second reading the member for Dawson claimed that the minister's declaration was 'not the result of rigorous scientific analysis', that there has not been 'extensive industry or community consultation', that the government has 'not engaged in proper consultation' and that the government has 'no consideration for Australia's fishers or the coastal communities'. Furthermore he stated that the government has 'failed to understand the importance of recreational fishing' and has 'failed to consider the important economic contribution that recreational fishing makes to coastal communities'.

I reject all of those assertions and in fact, as I outlined a moment ago, the extensive consultation process the government has undertaken as part of the announcement made by the minister on 16 November simply dismisses all of those claims. The member for Dawson, through his bill, wants the minister to commission an independent social and economic impact assessment before any proclamations are made. His bill will also require the minister to obtain independent scientific peer reviewed advice. As the member for Fremantle has already pointed out, the current proposals were the subject of a considerable amount of scientific advice.

The member for Dawson's bill will also require:

… that the Government establish an independent scientific reference panel as well as a stakeholder advisory group so that decisions are made with rigour following extensive consultation and analysis of the possible scientific and social impacts of any proposed marine protected areas.

What the member for Dawson is really saying is that he wants to make the process so cumbersome that it will be difficult to implement—if indeed implementation ever occurs. In other words, he does not want anything to happen and he wants to make the process cumbersome to ensure that is exactly the outcome—that nothing will ever happen.

He also implies that the scientific advice provided in the existing process by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and other marine science centres is unreliable and that we cannot rely on it. I reject that assertion. I have spoken to some of the scientists who deal with marine issues for this country and I have nothing but praise for, and confidence in, their work. They were the very people who provided advice to the government in this process and who, at the very least, would have had the opportunity to make their own submissions. To suggest we need to have additional scientific advice is, in my view, suggesting that we should not rely on the scientists who have contributed so far.

There is another element of the member for Dawson's plan which concerns me. It says that the parliament should make the final decision. On the one hand, he is saying that we should have all of these experts—peer reviewed expert advice—on the panels. But, on the other hand, he says that their advice can be ignored. He says that the parliament, a group of nonprofessionals, should make the ultimate decision. Why would we get that advice if it is not needed? (Time expired)

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In a little while, I plan to present a petition which has been found to be in order by the Petitions Committee and which has been signed by 4,541 Australians. I support the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Making Marine Parks Accountable) Bill 2012 introduced into the chamber by the member for Dawson. I acknowledge the passionate way he has represented his constituents since his election to this House. This bill proposes to insert a process into the EPBC Act to ensure that, prior to the declaration of any marine protected areas, the relevant minister will be required to commission an independent social and economic impact assessment before any proclamations are made.

The bill has become necessary because of the way the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke, has gone about the latest designation of the marine protected area in the Coral Sea. The consistent feedback—it has been consistent every step of the way—from stakeholders has been that the current process of establishing marine park boundaries completely failed to include any genuine consultation and failed to recognise that Australian fisheries are amongst the healthiest and best managed in the world—as highlighted in the latest Commonwealth fisheries status report released in November 2011.

The government has not engaged in proper consultation—their approach has been take it or leave it. There has been no consideration for Australian fisheries or the coastal communities which rely very heavily on this industry. There are also major concerns about the rigour and consistency of the science used to determine particular boundaries of proposed marine parks.

Let me make one point very clear, however. The coalition does support the designation of marine parks and marine protected areas. We have a very strong record on this. When it comes to the protection of our fisheries and environmental sustainability, we have a strong and long record. One of the things that I was most proud of as a member of the Howard government was the effort which resulted in the establishment of 11 marine protected areas. That included, in July 2004, a new zoning plan for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which increased the areas protected from extractive activities from 4.6 per cent to 33.3 per cent of that park. These declarations were achieved with broad community and industry support. This demonstrates that it is possible to implement marine park zones with the support of both the scientific community and the other communities involved. It was a stepped and staged process involving those communities all along the way.

I see the petition has arrived now and I plan to table it in just a little while.

This government has displayed a total lack of consultation. It is exactly the opposite of what we did in government when we first implemented the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. That is why this bill is necessary. It is necessary to give the industry and the communities confidence that decisions which governments make on the basis of environmental protection are genuinely made on those grounds alone—not based on some political ideology.

As set out in the explanatory memorandum, this bill will require the relevant minister to commission an independent social and economic impact assessment before any proclamations are made. The bill will require the minister to obtain independent scientific peer reviewed advice that is made publicly available. It will also require the government to establish an independent scientific reference panel, as well as a stakeholder advisory group, so that decisions are made with rigour following extensive consultation and analysis of the possible scientific, economic and social impacts of any proposed marine protected areas. Finally, the bill will put parliament in charge of final decisions by making declarations disallowable by the parliament.

I again remind the parliament of the very high levels of sustainability already observed by our fishing industry. As someone who has worked in this industry, I can endorse the view that Australia's fisheries are amongst the best managed in the world. (Time expired)

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

Australians know how fragile our marine life is and how important it is to protect it. We have completed a final network of Commonwealth marine reserves, and these will be managed to protect the unique biodiversity found in them, which is important for sustaining natural resources in the area. We think it is particularly important to do this. Those opposite in this chamber are simply opposing that which they previously had some commitment to when they created the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park back in 2006. Those opposite are no longer the party that was led by the member for Wentworth, that is for sure, and their opposition today goes to show just how narrow-minded they are.

The purpose of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Making Marine Parks Accountable) Bill is to stop, not simply delay, what we are doing. Those opposite are proposing in this legislation to create up to 88 regional committees for a period of two months to provide input into any future proposed marine reserves. This is economically stupid. They claim there are almost no financial implications for the Commonwealth. Those opposite simply do not get it with respect to protection of the environment. The member for Leichhardt talked about what the Cairns Regional Council did in commissioning a report from a local consultant which purported to show a $1 billion net economic impact on the Cairns regional economy, but flawed assumptions, deliberate misrepresentation and exaggeration of the federal Labor government's proposals underlayed that analysis. They ignore the fact that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences were engaged to prepare an independent socioeconomic assessment for each of the proposed regional marine reserve networks. ABARES established reference groups with industry organisations, fisheries managers, fishing entitlement holders and fishing businesses, and those reports are publicly available on the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities website.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was a member of the government party when this was done, and I claim to have been misrepresented. He is saying that the Liberals are opposed to the national park proposals. The Liberals closed down the entire fishing industry in North Queensland.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a time and a place for that. The member for Kennedy will resume his seat.

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

Those opposite are making all sorts of alarmist claims about financial Armageddon for the fishing industry, but that is at odds with what ABARES has had to say. The ABARES socioeconomic impact assessment predicts the value of the commercial fisheries catch displaced by the new marine reserves will be $11.1 million, which represents about one per cent of the annual value of catch, gross value of production, and about 103 jobs. That is what ABARES has had to say. They have run off with all sorts of scare campaigns. Senator Boswell has been talking about this, and we have had statements in the past by the member for Wentworth and the member for Curtin about it too. They will say one thing when they are in the capital cities of Australia about their commitments to marine parks but they will say another thing when they are up the coast of Queensland.

One thing that needs to be put on the table is how close the green zones and the new Commonwealth marine reserves are two towns along the Queensland coast. It is important to put this on the public record. Those opposite would have you believe that estuaries and lakes and beaches are all at risk, and that any person who gets in a tinny will be at risk when they leave Cairns and places like that. From Bundaberg, for example, the distance to the nearest marine park zone is 490 kilometres. From Brisbane it is 410 kilometres to the new Central Eastern Commonwealth Marine Reserve; Mooloolaba is 480 kilometres from that reserve—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is an outrageous misconception that the member for Blair is perpetrating on the House. The green zones stop almost all recreational fishing in Queensland.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. The time allotted for this debate has expired; the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.