Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I continue the remarks I was making earlier. The Great Barrier Reef is under pressure from every side: from the west, in terms of land clearing in Queensland and the impact of sediment and chemical run-off; from the east, in terms of the protections for the Coral Sea which have been removed; and from above, with respect to the treatment of the atmosphere, whether it be through the impacts of climate change—changing ocean temperatures, coral bleaching and the increased intensity of major weather events—or the mere content of the atmosphere itself, with the increase in carbon dioxide having the impact of acidification in the ocean, with an increase in carbonic acid, which then slows the growth rate of the various species of coral. This bill, though, deals principally with the management of the reef itself. About 33 per cent of the marine park is a marine national park, a highly protected area.

I'd like to pay tribute to some changes made by the Howard government with respect to the Great Barrier Reef. In doing so, I'd like to remind those opposite of the legacy of their own party and simply ask that they bear it in mind when considering where they go on the network of marine parks within Australia's EEZ that are currently under consideration. The marine parks were put in place under the Howard government in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Thirty-three per cent is highly protected—no take at all. In terms of impact on recreational fishing, you are much more likely to be a recreational fisher who goes to the Great Barrier Reef than a recreational fisher who goes to the Coral Sea, for the simple fact that if you take your tinnie out to the Great Barrier Reef you will probably be able to get home again; if you take your tinnie out to the Coral Sea you are probably never going to be able to see home again. You'd need a much more substantial vessel if you were going to go that far out. For recreational fishing, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is the place where you're more likely to want to fish, yet there are significant no-fishing zones—not just commercial but recreational as well—that were put in place by the Howard government. When they were put in place, some people argued that the Howard government shouldn't have been doing it, that it was better simply to have a carefully managed fishery in the Great Barrier Reef. But the Howard government, to its credit, decided: no, we'll have some areas where you can't fish at all.

What's happened in those areas? The scientific research has been in for years now, specifically measuring the difference in size of coral trout species found within those so-called green zones, or no-fishing zones, compared with immediately adjacent areas. The best evidence of the fact that they work is that the recreational fishers now try to get to the boundary because they know they'll get better fish in the areas near where there's no fishing at all. The outcome of having some areas that are completely preserved for nature, where there's no additional extraction, is that you don't just get the stock levels improving; you get the entire habitat improving. If those opposite believe that the Howard government did the right thing—and it's pretty hard to find an environmental argument that says it didn't on this issue—then may I say that, when we were in office, we did the right thing when we created the world's largest network of marine national parks as well. But the protections for those marine parks, including the Coral Sea—the cradle of the Great Barrier Reef—were suspended soon after there was a change of government, and to this day, while the boundaries still exist, no protections exist within them.

I urge the government, regardless of different pressures that might be around, to look carefully at the success of what the Howard government did. There is an opportunity for this government to do the right thing. If it goes down the path it's currently heading down—ignoring the Howard legacy and deciding that it is largely against marine protected areas—then within the next 12 months we will see Australia become the nation which will have engaged in the largest removal of area under conservation of any government in history. That's the gravity of what's before the government right now—a proposal which, if followed, will be the largest removal of area under conservation from any government ever. So, while I would love to urge those opposite to take account of my legacy as a former environment minister, I reckon I have a better chance simply asking for them to have a look at the Howard government legacy with respect to the Great Barrier Reef, because, at the moment, there is a proposal before them that would simply trash that sort of approach.

The zoning is designed to keep the reef healthy, but the reef is under increasing pressure. In 2016, the reef suffered a mass bleaching event, particularly in the northern areas of the reef, and it also suffered a bleaching event in 2017, particularly the area from Townsville to around Cooktown as well as parts of the reef near Princess Charlotte Bay. In 2017, Tropical Cyclone Debbie hit Queensland and added to the pressure to parts of the reef. To protect the reef we need to work on land to stop pollution and sediment entering the reef, take action on climate change and protect the Coral Sea to the east. To make sure that all of this work, if done, is properly measured and is properly accounted for, and the scientific work becomes a measure of steps forward in the reef rather than steps backward, we need to make sure that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is properly governed, well funded and well supported. What we have in front of us today is a step in the right direction to that end.

In supporting this bill, I simply say to those opposite: think about where this goes next. If this bill is as successful as we hope it will be, if it leads to better corporate governance of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park area and if it leads to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority being a more effective agency, then we will also see, as a result of that, better management and better measurement of the health of the Great Barrier Reef. This means that the story is going to become clearer. The opportunity to hide government action in terms of its implications for the reef will become harder than ever. This legislation is good legislation because the more independent and the better this authority is the harder it will be for any government to hide if it's not looking after the Great Barrier Reef. I say to those opposite that the next stage is to make sure that the better managed authority has a good story to tell—and whether it does or not is largely in the hands of those opposite and their policies and of changing direction with respect to marine protection, with respect to climate change action and with respect to land clearing.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017 implements a new governance model for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The bill replaces the full-time chairperson with a part-time chairperson and full-time chief executive officer and establishes one additional part-time member position. It will also strengthen the requirements for appointment and termination of members. The bill also makes minor technical amendments to clarify the relationship between the suite of legislation underpinning the functions of the authority. The bill will strengthen the strategic capability and capacity of the authority to respond to challenges facing the marine park.

The Australian government is committed to protecting the Great Barrier Reef, a World Heritage site, now and for future generations. Effective operation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is central to this commitment. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.