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

I move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that Marine National Park (Green) Zones as defined in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003 serve to better protect the biodiversity within the Marine Park and help to ensure:

(a)   the continued existence of the unique marine animals, plants and habitats that are found only in the Great Barrier Reef and provide additional protection for threatened species such as dugong and marine turtles;

(b)   those industries that rely on the health of the Marine Park are able to continue, providing social and economic benefits to local communities and the wider economy;

(c)   a diverse range of other benefits and values of the Marine Park, including recreational, cultural, educational and scientific values, are protected;

(d)   that future generations are able to continue to use and enjoy the Marine Park;

(e)   the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage values are protected; and

(f)   the ecologically sustainable use of marine resources by traditional owners consistent with their traditional practices, are provided for;

(2) accepts that Marine National Park (Green) Zones can be beneficial in:

(a)   protecting spawning areas and nursery grounds;

(b)   minimising damage to important habitats;

(c)   providing refuge for protected species, such as turtles and dugongs; only

(d)   boosting species numbers, which helps the food web as a whole;

(e)   increasing the abundance of fish; and

(f)   building the resilience of the reef against threats such as climate change and water pollution;

(3) affirms the Native Title Act 1993 which recognises the right of certain traditional owners to hunt and gather in their sea country and that native title holders may undertake traditional use of marine resources;

(4) recognises that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is working with traditional owners for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef, by expanding the Traditional Use of the Marine Resources Agreement program and strengthening communications between local communities, managers and reef stakeholders;

(5) acknowledges the value of the Ranger Program in providing job opportunities for Indigenous people to care for their country, take on important skills, develop career pathways, protect dugongs and turtles and manage environmental threats stemming from feral animals, among other benefits;

(6) calls on the:

(a)   Australian Labor Party and the Greens to pass the Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 which will enable a tripling of penalties for those poaching turtles and/or dugongs; and

(b)   relevant parties to work, as a priority, with traditional owners to progressively increase the protections afforded to threatened species, such as turtle and dugong, through traditional use marine resource agreements and other appropriate means, seeking to:

(i)   where traditional rights under the Native Title Act 1993 apply, seek agreement with traditional owners to prohibit the capture and killing of any species from designated Green Zones within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park area;

(ii)   continue to allow certain activities to take place with a permit, such as research and management programs for fauna and flora where they pose a threat to humans or the environment, as per existing regulations; and

(iii)   introduce legislation to prohibit the taking of marine species, including seabirds, in designated Green Zones within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Area, where other efforts have proven to be inadequate;

(7) in the interest of supporting the policing of turtle and dugong product that is transported for commercial purposes, prohibit the movement of native species, taken under the Native Title Act 1993 outside the area in which it is caught; and

(8) recognises that these initiatives would complement a range of measures already being implemented under the Government's Turtle and Dugong Protection Plan and Community Management Plans, which will enhance the protection of marine turtles and dugongs in Far North Queensland and the Torres Strait.

I rise today to speak on this motion. I seek to put in place measures that will afford greater protection for our marine creatures within the protected zones of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and also to hold accountable those very few individuals who continue to abuse the traditional rights of native title hunters by slaughtering these creatures in numbers that are totally unsustainable, certainly very inappropriate and very much not in the spirit of native title.

We all know that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is something that is under a tremendous amount of scrutiny. We all love it and we all appreciate the value of it. We also know that the green zones have been put in place where there is absolutely no taking of any species whatsoever. They are there to protect biodiversity. We also know that in those areas, particularly up around places like Green Island and Michaelmas Cay, there is a huge amount of human interaction where, in many ways, the tourists are educated by these creatures and appreciate the beauty of these creatures. These creatures become very, very quiet because there is no threat to them.

Unfortunately, what we are seeing is a very small number of individuals who are going out there and slaughtering these creatures on a regular basis. If I could just describe it to you: they will take turtles out in front of visiting tourists, rip the turtles out onto the beach, rip their guts out and leave all of the entrails on the side of the beach. A very upset ranger has to clean up the mess while they take away that meat. They will come back time after time after time. They will swim around snorkellers on the reef and spear fish. Through glass bottom boats, the tourists have seen them take 80-year-old clams, cut out the clams and take them away for no other purpose than the fact that they can do it. This, of course, is very distressing for tourists. It is very distressing for visitors to the reef. It is also very distressing for a lot of the traditional owners.

We have ranger programs there. We have the Yirrganydji people of Cairns and Port Douglas who have focused on identifying the illegal activities that are occurring in the marine park. We have the Lama Lama people from Princess Charlotte Bay and the Normanby River, who are addressing compliance activities, research and education. We have a whole range. More recently, the Gunggandji people south of Cairns have just gone into a memorandum of intent. All these things are great, but, unless we have the legislative power behind them to protect them when they go out there and say, 'You can't do this in these green zones,' really they are powerless. What I am arguing is that we need to have that legislative authority to say that the taking of these creatures in these protected zones is prohibited for everybody. That gives them the legislative power to enforce that. I am arguing that very strongly.

The other issue that I am pushing very strongly on is the transportation of the meat. You see dugong and turtle meat coming regularly through the airport, packed up in cryovac boxes being sent all over Australia. That is not the intention of the Native Title Act. I totally support traditional hunting, but the meat should be consumed in those traditional areas for the ceremonies that are supposed to be there, not packed up and sent all over the country where you have no control on whether or not it is commercial.

It makes enforcement of this impossible for our legal authorities. So what I am saying is that we need to insist that that meat, wherever it is taken for traditional purposes, has to be consumed. It cannot be packed up and sent around the country so that people can have taste tests of this type of meat. These animals are vulnerable and we are being continually criticised because of our lack of action in the southern seas in relation to what the Japanese are doing over there. How can we do that—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting susp ended from 13 : 00 to 13 : 16

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

I thank the member for Leichhardt for his private member's motion and I acknowledge the work that he does in his large area across Far North Queensland. This is a motion about sustainability, about recognising the value of creatures such as turtles and dugongs to the environment and also to Australian industries, recreation, culture, education, science and tourism. This motion is about ensuring future generations can enjoy those same benefits.

There is no intention here of inhibiting traditional hunting rights for traditional and ceremonial purposes. In fact, this motion affirms the Native Title Act 1993, which recognises the right of certain traditional owners to hunt and gather. It is important to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities, and we already have communities on the Queensland coast working hard to strike that balance. I have spoken to a number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, including Tony Irelandes from Mackay, who related to me how the community there already monitors traditional hunting and the sustainability of marine resources. He actually endorsed the motion that my colleague has brought here today.

I also recognise the great work of the Gudjuda people in the Burdekin, where community leader Eddie Smallwood works with a network of Indigenous rangers who monitor the coastal area and also turtle and dugong hunting practices. I have spoken with Eddie about extending the network to have permanent Indigenous marine rangers to monitor the seas for illegal hunting of these marine animals. I see this fitting into the motion that the member for Leichhardt has brought before us today.

Dugongs are currently listed as vulnerable both in Queensland and internationally. Green turtles also are listed as vulnerable in Queensland and as endangered by the IUCN. Green turtles live in seaweed rich coral reefs and coastal seagrass pastures in tropical and subtropical areas of Australia, but the entire reef is an important feeding area for the green turtle. Commercial harvesting of the green turtle in southern Queensland was closed in 1950 due to concerns about sustainability and, as a result, the numbers of nesting turtles on Heron Island, for example, have tripled.

There are a number of factors that put pressure on dugong and turtle populations, including habitat degradation from things like cyclones, injuries to animals from boats, starvation due to seagrass dying off, illness or death due to plastic being ingested or animals being caught in nets, predators such as feral pigs eating turtle eggs and hatchlings on the beach and also, unfortunately, traditional hunting. Traditional hunting does place an added pressure on these populations, especially when some of the practices are carried out in the name of traditional rights but not in the spirit of those rights. Some of these activities have been reported in the Cairns media, notably the Cairns Post front page of 10 November 2011: 'Slaughtered in front of tourists'.

These activities have not only had an impact on local populations but on the sustainability of the tourism industry, which is crucial to a place like Cairns, as it is to my electorate with the Whitsundays. The Cairns Post also reported on 8 December of that year that an elder said it was 'time to start prosecuting hunters'. The article reported that 'Tourism operators and traditional owners have called for an end to the slaughter of endangered marine life at Green Island, following a recent spate of turtle killings by hunters. Tourism operators and tourists have reported at least 14 turtle killings in the past month. It is feared the suspected overkill will wipe out the area's turtle population within months.'

There is no need to completely ban all hunting of turtles and dugongs. There can be a compromise that allows traditional hunting and also supports sustainable marine populations. In areas where populations are in danger, green zones should apply, and that would mean no-one takes what is left of the local population in those zones, regardless of whether your heritage is Indigenous or non-Indigenous. In areas where the population can withstand a limited harvest, some rules need to apply to avoid the abuse of traditional hunting rights. Turtle and dugong meat should not be transported from the place where it is caught; it should not be sold; it should not be cryovaced; it should not be brought out and paraded around for non-Indigenous people to sample. It is important to note that such regulations would only affect a very small portion of the population—that is, the people who abuse the system.

The government has introduced measures to ensure sustainability in the reef, including a $40 million commitment to the reef trust. We are providing a further $5 million for dugong and turtle protection, including $2 million for specialised and Indigenous ranger programs; $2 million to the Crime Commission to investigate the practice of illegal killing, poaching and transportation of turtle and dugong meat; $700,000 towards cleaning up marine debris, and I have spent some time with Eco Barge Clean Seas doing that; $300,000 to support the Cairns, Fitzroy Island Turtle Rehabilitation Centre. This motion supports these measures, and I support this motion. I second the motion.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The case has been well made by the member for Leichhardt, as to why there is a need for some change in the legislation, to bring the legislation back to the original intention. The traditional hunting rights are very important and it is important that we protect those rights. If we see that there has been an inappropriate use of those rights, then of course we have to take steps to ensure that this is contained; otherwise, we do threaten the viability and the long term sustainability of those populations.

It is recognised that the traditional hunting practices—where this meat would only be available to people who live locally—is obviously far more sustainable than trying to feed populations that access the product via freezing and plane travel. So we do not have a problem with that fundamental principle and indeed we would not oppose that legislation.

But I have to say that I am concerned that this matter is perhaps being used to paper over some much bigger concerns. We know that it has become a matter of some international celebrity, or notoriety, that Australia may in fact not be doing enough to save the Great Barrier Reef. We know that the view of the President of the United States and indeed many environmentalists around the world is that one of the biggest threats to the Great Barrier Reef is climate change. We note the great deal of huffing and puffing by the Foreign Minister and the Trade Minister. They have been writing missives back to President Obama, telling him that they have this wrong, and that we are doing an enormous amount of work on the Great Barrier Reef. They are saying 'these threats you are talking about just do not exist'. That has probably got something to do with the fact that there has been a fairly radical dismantling of the capabilities within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority over recent times. I note that many people have now left the organisation—I think we have had five directors and a dozen other staff who have decided to leave.

Many of them have gone public, including the authority's former climate change director, Paul Marshall, who said:

… it's a huge hit—

on that part of their research endeavour—

and it's a hit at a time when we need more expertise and more capacity to deal with these issues …

Dr Marshall had been with the authority for 14 years. He said:

Sometimes we had eight to 10 people working on climate change. Now you can't point to one who is entirely focused on climate change.

So, quite clearly, we have here a system where the government is going around saying, 'This is not a problem.' No doubt they are getting some advice from an organisation that has had, as I said, its capabilities very seriously eroded.

We know that there has been a $2.8 million cut to the authority's budget. This, combined with the authority's decision to support the dumping of dredge spoil, has led to a massive decline in the morale in that agency. This fall in morale is the reason why we are seeing so many very senior staff leave the authority—at a time when we know that there is concern from UNESCO's World Heritage group as to whether or not the reef as a whole is being endangered, when the properties that led to the World Heritage listing are being undermined by a decision such as this. We have seen reduced the amount of money that is available to the authority. We have seen a restructure and what appears to be a systematic dismantling of the independence of that organisation and its ability to be out there protecting the reef.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this motion by the member for Leichhardt. It is rather a long motion—it took me a while to read it—but it deals with a number of very important points which have been the subject of significant national discussion over the last little while in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, Australia's most important environmental asset and one of the seven natural wonders of the world.

A significant part of the member for Leichhardt's motion deals with the issue of the poaching of turtles and dugongs, which are protected species, iconic species, in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area, or the marine park. I know that the member for Leichhardt has had an interest in changing the law to curtail practices that I think are generally accepted to be happening in that area—that is, the poaching of turtles and dugongs in a way not protected by the Native Title Act. There is general, very broad agreement across the parliament that traditional owners have the right to continue their traditional hunting practices, but there are practices going on in this area that go above and beyond protections under the Native Title Act.

I think I indicated to the member for Leichhardt when the bill was first introduced that we were happy to provide the support of the opposition to this bill. I understand the member for Leichhardt's frustration at the fact that the bill is not able to be brought back on because it seems to attract a very substantial number of amendments from minor parties and crossbenchers. Such is the nature of a robust parliament. I note that the member for Leichhardt, in his motion, calls upon the Labor Party to support the legislation in the parliament and to support it being called back on. The Labor Party have not moved amendments to this legislation, and we will support a vote on the turtles and dugongs provision as and when it arises in the House or the Senate. But equally, when amendments are presented by one party or another, or one crossbencher or another, the Labor Party have an obligation, as the government parties do, to take a view about them and vote accordingly. I understand the member for Leichhardt's frustration about that, but there is nothing much that we can do about that from opposition.

I do want to indicate on the record that the Labor Party, in government, took these issues very, very seriously indeed. A number of the programs that we supported are reflected, at least in part, in the motion by the member for Leichhardt, particularly our work as a government with state and territory governments—obviously the Queensland government—traditional owners and other stakeholder groups as well as commercial fishers in the area. We invested $7 million in Indigenous self-management and focused particularly on the development of community based sea country management plans with the support of traditional owner involvement. We also supported Indigenous ranger teams to remove ghost netting in the area. In broad terms, our approach was based on our respect for the customs and the traditions of Indigenous Australians, working with those traditional owners to get to a point which I think that, broadly, traditional owners and the government agreed upon.

I do want to say, though, about this area, following on from the comments by the member for Perth, that, while we support the thrust of this motion from the member for Leichhardt, there are still very, very serious debates—as I am sure the member for Leichhardt knows as much as anyone in this place—about the management of the reef. It is important that I say as the shadow minister for the environment that some of the commentary over the last couple of weeks has not been helpful in helping us to come together on those things which we can agree upon.

We should be able to agree upon the fact that the Great Barrier Reef is under significant threat by climate change. Every serious scientist in the area says as much. Indeed, page 1 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority outlook, which is the five-yearly report that the authority presents to the parliament and the government of the day, indicates that this is the most significant long-term threat. I understand the government's sensitivity about some of the public debate during the G20 meeting, but it is not helpful to try and present a united front from this parliament to the World Heritage Committee, for example, when basic scientific facts like the significant threat faced by the Great Barrier Reef from climate change are denied by very senior members of the government.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:32 to 16:00