Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1)   notes:

  (a)   that the international community came together to recognise the importance of our oceans at the 2017 United Nations Ocean Conference on 5 to 9 June 2017 in New York;

  (b)   that the oceans are under increasing pressure and other nations have started to establish protected areas;

  (c)   that Australia cannot afford to leave its oceans exposed given the impacts of climate change, including the severe coral reef bleaching, unprecedented mangrove dieback and significant loss of kelp forests already seen around Australia;

  (d)   the progress globally by other countries to put in place marine national parks, such as the:

     (i)   Ross Sea region Marine Protected Area (MPA), declared by 24 nations of the world, including Australia, in 2016 to protect 1,549,000 square kilometres of the Antarctic high seas in high level International Union for Conservation of Nature, Category II (IUCN II) National Park protection;

     (ii)   Papahãnaumokuãkea Marine National Monument, declared by the United States of America (USA) in 2006 and expanded in 2016 to protect 1,508,870 square kilometres of Hawaiian islands and atolls in high level IUCN II protection;

     (iii)   Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, declared by the USA in 2009 and expanded in 2014 to protect 1,270,000 square kilometres in high level IUCN II protection; and

     (iv)   Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve, declared by the United Kingdom in 2015 to protect 834,334 square kilometres around the Pitcairn Islands in the Pacific in high level IUCN II protection;

  (e)   that Labor’s 2012 Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network (CMRN):

     (i)   is the world’s largest network;

     (ii)   put Australia at the forefront of ocean conservation globally, with other countries following suit; and

     (iii)   was based on science and extensive consultation, with Labor holding more public and stakeholder meetings which were attended by more people and received more submissions than the Government’s recent review;

  (f)   the Government’s own review of the CMRN found that extensive:

     (i)   science went into the development of the CMRN and recognised the scientifically proven benefits of Marine National Park (MNP) IUCN II zones; and

     (ii)   consultation went into the development of the CMRN, stating there was in fact a considerable amount of ‘consultation fatigue’ expressed by many stakeholders; and

  (g)   that after 15 years of process, regional businesses and industry leaders are seeking certainty with the completion of the CMRN; and

(2)   calls on the Government to honour its domestic and international obligations, and to bring the CMRN that was declared in 2012 into operation without further delay, and with no reduction of MNP IUCN II zone protection.

The motion that is in front of the chamber notes that the international community came together from 5 to 9 June this year in New York to recognise the importance of our oceans.

When the Australian government appeared at that conservation conference they put on the record what they believed were the achievements from Australia and why Australia should be recognised as a good citizen in terms of protection of the ocean. And do you know what the Australian government referred to in the contribution they made at that UN meeting? They referred to protections that were put in place by the previous Labor government when I was environment minister—protections that they're now trying to remove. That was the way the Australian government sought to give themselves a pat on the back. That was the way the Australian government sought to represent this country to the rest of the world, while not managing to mention to the rest of the world that the Australian government are now actively in the process of removing protections in the ocean.

The removal of protections now being proposed by this government is no small matter at all. At a time when the ocean is under more pressure than ever before, at a time when plastics, pollution, acidification and overfishing are all creating challenges in the ocean beyond what we have experienced before, what does this government decide it's time to do? In terms of area, this government is now engaging in the largest removal of protected areas in the history of any government on the planet. Let me say that again: of all the conservation decisions that have ever been made by any government in history, this government right now is engaging in the largest removal of areas from conservation ever in history.

The government is talking about areas like the Coral Sea, at a time when to have protection really does matter. You only have to look at what's happening to coral reefs throughout the world to recognise that the health of these areas is of extraordinary importance. Whether it's Osprey Reef, Shark Reef, Bougainville, Marion Reef or Vema Reef, as you go through the different lists, there are almost none that escape the cuts that this government is making. Half the areas that'd been established as marine national park are being proposed to be removed as marine national park.

The minister says: 'Look, it's not a problem, because the boundaries are being kept the same. We're just changing the rules on what you can do inside them.' Imagine if we took half the national parks on land and said: 'Look, it's fine. The boundary's still there, you're just allowed to go in now and shoot the native animals.' People would understand exactly how offensive and bizarre that is, but that's exactly what this government is proposing to do with the national parks that've been established in our oceans.

National parks in the ocean make a real difference, and we've got proof that they make a real difference. Why do we have proof of that? Because the Howard government did the right thing on this. The Howard government established the zoning in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The Howard government—quite bravely at that time, and against the views of some of their own membership—put in some areas where no fishing would be allowed at all and other areas where sustainable fishing was permitted. At the time, some people said: 'If you take away our right to fish, it concentrates us in other areas and it means that we'll never get the health. You're better off just spreading it out and letting everything happen everywhere.'

The science is now in on what the Howard government did. Take the species of coral trout. Coral trout inside the protected areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park have 80 per cent additional biomass to the coral trout in the non-protected areas—an 80 per cent difference in the biomass. It's been established and proven by the Howard government itself that protected areas make a substantive difference in the health of the environment, but this government has decided to break the accord that Australia had observed ever since environmental protection first began.

When an area is first put under protection, it's not unusual for there to be a political argument about the boundaries and the level of protection. That happened when Joh Bjelke-Petersen wanted to drill in the Great Barrier Reef. That happened when Bob Hawke was determined to make sure that we saved the Franklin, the Daintree and Kakadu. Those sorts of arguments have happened at different times but, once it's locked in, it's a lock. Once it's protected, there have been no backwards steps. Even though the Fraser government might not have liked some of the decisions that the Whitlam government made, once made, they respected that there would be no backwards steps in environmental protection. At the time that some World Heritage listings were made, even though the Howard government had opposed some of the protections that had been put in place by the Hawke and Keating governments, once the Howard government came in, they had a decision of no backwards steps.

The Abbott-Turnbull governments are the first governments we have had in the country which have been willing to remove areas from protection. First of all, we saw it with the World Heritage areas in Tasmania, where this government sought to get the World Heritage Committee to take areas out of protection. The World Heritage Committee dealt with the application in about three minutes—with Portugal describing this government's application as 'feeble'—and threw it out unanimously.

But this government has continued with what they're doing on the oceans. Bear in mind that what's happening with the oceans has led to a situation where the Turnbull government is, in fact, worse on this than the Abbott government was. The Abbott government commissioned a review into the marine national parks that I'd put in place under the previous Labor government. What did the Abbott government review find? I quote:

The ESP is satisfied that the marine bioregional planning programme, which was based on the Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia and complemented by scientific workshops, peer-reviewed publications and literature reviews, was a sound basis and drew upon the best available information for designing the CMR networks.

After all the claims that those opposite had made that this wasn't science based, the Abbott government review came back and said, 'Yes, it was,' and then this government decided to gut the protection anyway.

The Coral Sea, which is the cradle for the Great Barrier Reef, is magnificent in its own right and provides an area of buffer zone for the Great Barrier Reef. The government's decisions, if they continue with this, will mean that the longliners will be back. Longlining will happen up and down that area with all the challenges that go with that. That will be the outcome when they remove the protection in areas like the Diamantina Fracture Zone, off the south-west of Western Australia—areas where we have some of the deepest water in Australia's oceans. Large chunks of it will be taken out of protection. We know that protecting these areas makes a quantitative difference to the health of the ocean and the species that live within it. We know the extent to which we rely on the ocean for our industries—not only tourism but also sustainable fishing. They all rely on the oceans being healthy. And we know that the government's own review said the principles upon which these plans were put in place were science based, and yet the government is now looking at making the decision to remove the largest areas for conservation that has ever been undertaken by any country in the world. There are some pretty dodgy countries around the world that have taken areas out of conservation from time to time. It's not a list you want to be on and it's certainly not a list you want to top, but that is what the Minister for the Environment and Energy is currently contemplating doing.

My request here is simple: get back to the consensus that existed throughout the Howard government and throughout the Fraser government. It has been here in Australia for generations. It says that, once an area is protected, there will be no backward steps. A process of protection that began under Keating, continued under Howard and was concluded in the last Labor government is now potentially being gutted by this government. I will tell you what: the next generations will not thank this mob for wrecking the health of pristine areas of the ocean.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak on a motion that is of great importance to my very appropriately named electorate of Fisher. I'm grateful to the member for Watson for giving us the opportunity to debate it. We all know that the Sunshine Coast has the best beaches and the best seafood in Australia. What is less well known is that we also have the largest longline tuna and prawn fishing fleets on the East Coast. You could say that Mooloolaba is our nation's fishing capital. Fishing on the Sunshine Coast generates $42.5 million in direct sales every year, with more than $30 million in exports. Throughout South-East Asia, people are serving Mooloolaba prawns and Coral Sea tuna caught in my local community. Fishing on the Sunshine Coast, though, is much more than just a successful industry. It is part of our culture. Between the Sunshine Coast and the Gold Coast, there are 140,000 recreational boats. Like five million other Australians for more than a century, residents in my electorate have exercised their right to throw a line over the side of their tinnie.

The oceans off the Sunshine Coast and around Australia have been bountiful but are not a bottomless resource. Our ocean must be carefully maintained. We have to protect our reefs and sustain our marine life while ensuring that local people and businesses on the Sunshine Coast can use their boats for fishing, diving, and tourism. For that reason, we need marine reserves and parks. In July, the Commonwealth government released its own draft plan for managing these parks. The documents are online now for Australians to read and have their say. The 2012 plan to which the member for Watson referred in this motion, created as it was by Julia Gillard's Labor government, increased the size of our marine parks to almost 40 per cent of Commonwealth waters and locked commercial fishermen out completely from more than a third of that area. Had the 2012 plan been permitted to continue as he suggests, everyday recreational fishers would have been banned from an area of ocean the size of the Northern Territory with no environmental benefit in sight. Like its approach to energy, Labor's plan was highly ideological, excessive and wasteful.

The government's new plan dramatically increases the area available to recreational fishers, opening up 97 per cent of those Commonwealth waters, which are within 100 kilometres of the shoreline. For commercial fishing, we simply got smarter about how we manage marine parks. The size of the parks will stay the same, but only 20 per cent of them will be designated green zones, where no fishing can happen. In those zones, the fish will be able to spawn and feed, while the remaining 80 per cent will protect the sea floor but allow fishing in the waters above.

The environmental outcomes from the plan will be world-class. We should not be distracted by Labor's ideological objections or the complaints of Northern Hemisphere lobby groups, whose own fisheries have been decimated and who now seek to criticise us. With 36 per cent of our surrounding waters covered by marine parks, we will have smashed the UN's target of 10 per cent. We will have the second-largest area under marine management in the world and sustainable stocks of marine life for the future. We will have increased the number of protected ecological features on the sea floor from 192 to 265 and expanded the areas where oil and gas exploration is banned. However, we will also have halved the economic impact on commercial fishers and opened up 80 per cent of the parks to sensible, sustainable fishing.

As part of my work to help make the Sunshine Coast the place to be for education, employment and retirement, I met some of our hardworking local fishers, like Pavo Walker from Walker Seafoods and Johnny Rockliff from Rockliff Seafoods, when I brought the Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources to Mooloolaba last month. Like many others, they were rightly concerned about the future of fishing in Australia. But I am pleased to say that they were reassured by the new draft plan.

The federal government supports and will maintain the Australian tradition of being allowed to throw a line over the side of a boat. The government's new plan enshrines that ability and will keep Mooloolaba, the Australian fishing capital— (Time expired)

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to this motion, because it is important that we focus on conservation for our oceans. Our oceans are under siege from climate change and pollution, so it is a wonderful thing that the Howard government initiated this process of protecting marine reserves. It is also a wonderful thing that the last Labor government decided, in November 2012, to rapidly expand the number of protected areas. The consequence of that was that 36 per cent of our oceans ended up as protected areas and a third of that 36 per cent had the highest level of protections. That meant that 2.3 million square kilometres of ocean was protected under actions taken by the member for Watson, when he was the minister, and the previous Labor government.

But one of the first things that then Prime Minister Abbott did, after the new Liberal government was elected in 2013, was to put a freeze on the marine conservation work that was being done to stop the process that was underway in respect of marine sanctuaries and commission a review. Then, three years later, in 2016, that review finally reported and recommended cuts to conservation and cuts to the marine sanctuaries. It was a very grave shame that it happened, and since then we've seen this government release a report with respect to how they plan to cut the marine sanctuaries that had previously been implemented under Labor.

What a shame that this government intends to engage in the largest removal of protected areas in oceans that any government in the world has ever undertaken. This is going to be the largest attack on marine sanctuaries by any government anywhere in the history of the planet, and that is a very, very grave shame, because our oceans are under siege. We do have a lot of concerns about the oceans. I'm particularly concerned about what's happening in the Great Barrier Reef. It's not irrelevant to note the concerns that scientists across the world have in relation to warming in oceans and what is happening with the Great Barrier Reef. As you would be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, the last three years have seen an unprecedented global coral bleaching event, which has had a devastating impact on many coral reef ecosystems around the world, including our own Great Barrier Reef, a place where many of us have spent time. A lot of us have snorkelled there, a lot of us went up there as kids and went out onto the Great Barrier Reef. We are now seeing a situation where the Great Barrier Reef itself is under threat.

The World Heritage Committee met in early July in Poland and expressed its utmost concern regarding the serious impacts from coral bleaching that have affected World Heritage properties—of course, including the Great Barrier Reef—and noted that the most widely reported impacts are on the Great Barrier Reef and called on all state parties to undertake the most ambitious implementation of the Paris Agreement. We need to take whatever action we can to protect our oceans. That means protecting marine sanctuaries. That means taking real action on climate change.

When I talk about climate change, it is important to note that the World Heritage Centre has released the first global scientific assessment of the impact of climate change on World Heritage coral reefs. The assessment found that it's a well-established conclusion of international peer-reviewed literature that limiting the temperature increase to 1.5 per cent above pre-industrial levels provides a chance of retaining coral dominated communities for many reef locations around the globe. In other words, if we are able to combat climate change, if we are able to try to stay within that target level, then that gives reefs a chance.

We need to take action and we need to become serious about oceans. Cutting marine sanctuaries and failing to act on climate change are, unfortunately, steps in the wrong direction when it comes to doing something about protecting our oceans and protecting our reefs. I've been really critical of this government's action, or inaction, on climate change. I know a lot of groups who are active in this space like the Australian Marine Conservation Society that have been very critical about this government's priorities—for example, the fact that it's considering a $1 billion taxpayer-funded concessional loan to go off to the Adani project. I've said very clearly that I don't support giving $1 billion of public funds to a company on a concessional loan basis. I think that a lot of people in this place would be of the same mind. When it comes to actually focusing on what we can do proactively not just defensively for oceans, let's not cut marine sanctuaries. (Time expired)

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Marine parks are a critical national resource not just for conservation purposes but also for the sustainability of fishing stocks. Australia's pre-existing network of Commonwealth marine parks strikes a good balance between the sometimes conflicting goals of environmental conservation, fishing rights and mining. My electorate of Mayo fronts some of the most prime marine real estate in Australia. Ecotourism and fishing contribute significantly to our regional economy, from dolphin and sea tours to fishing charters. Until the advent of the Abbott government, coalition governments had previously had a strong and proud record of building up Australia's network of Commonwealth marine parks, gradually established since the Fraser years, with major progress achieved in the declaration of 22 Commonwealth marine reserves over the course of the Howard government. This just makes it even more concerning that the coalition policy on marine parks has since undertaken a complete about face. In 2013, then Prime Minister Abbott suspended the operation of the entire Commonwealth marine park system on the pretext that there needed to be another comprehensive review of their operation. Why the review could not have occurred without a suspension has never been particularly clear to me. Commonwealth marine parks are comprised of multiple zones in accordance with the categories from the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The most critical zone, which provides the most rigorous marine sanctuary and conservation protection, is the marine national park zone. The first thing to note is that these draft management plans do not accord with recommendations of the two reports of the independent review completed in 2015. For example, the independent report recommended that the south-west marine park network, which is directly adjacent to my electorate, should receive a small percentage increase in its quantity of national park zones. However, the draft management plan seeks, instead, to reduce the national park zones by an incredible 40 per cent. Indeed, across the entire Commonwealth marine park system, the coalition's draft plans seek to reduce the national park zones by 40 million hectares. To put that into some context, that's an area twice the size of Victoria; it constitutes almost half of the high-protection national park zones.

I feel that this is an attempt to undermine the legacy of former coalition and Labor governments which have worked so hard to establish our current marine park network. The coalition government is disguising this decision as protection of commercial fishers' rights. However, all indications from the commercial fishers from South Australia are that they are very supportive of the pre-existing marine park networks and are cognisant that the marine national park sanctuaries contribute to the long-term sustainability of the Australian fishing industry. A number of the areas being opened up to commercial fishers have not ever been fished, and there are questions about how practical it will be to get to these areas, which are far offshore and remote from ports, to commercially fish them.

Even a cursory look at the coalition's draft plans indicates that this is not a story about fishing but a story about offshore mining interests. In short, it is about big oil. NXT understands that Australia's large oil and gas reserves are a national economic resource, and our intention is not to stop safe and legitimate mining activity. However, we also recognise that there are areas of high conservation value that need protection and that there are areas where it is unsafe to drill without the risk of a catastrophe. For example, we in the NXT have been very vocal in our opposition to deep-sea oil drilling in the Great Australian Bight, where independent modelling from the Wilderness Society has indicated that a major oil spill could spread across our coasts to as far as the north coast of Tasmania, out to New Zealand in the east and to Esperance in the west.

The government's draft plans are also based on a flawed process. When questions were raised by the Nick Xenophon Team in Senate estimates, we learned that over 54,000 submissions were made to the statutory consultation process conducted by Parks Australia in September and October 2016. The context of these submissions was kept secret on the basis that they were commercial in confidence, and for privacy reasons. However, we know that 99.9 per cent of those submitted were described as 'conservation', indicating prima facie an exceptionally strong level of support for maintaining or increasing the level of marine sanctuary and protection.

We understand the consultation process on the marine park management plans must still run its course. However, we reserve our position on the final management plans. It is fair to say we have grave concerns on the draft management plans that have been circulated, so we reserve our position and remain deeply concerned.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given there are no further speakers on the debate at this time, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.