Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 4708:

(1)    Clause 6, page 17 (after line 7), after the definition of location, insert:

marine protected area means an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources, managed through legal or other effective means.

(2)    Clause 77, page 76 (line 5), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add “or a marine protected area”.

(3)    Clause 77, page 76 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add:

             (3)    Subsection (2) does not authorise exploration for petroleum in a marine protected area.

I rise to address these Australian Greens amendments on the issue of oil exploration prohibited in marine reserves. In so doing, I want to respond to something Senator Colbeck said a moment ago. I want an answer from Senator Colbeck. There is a Department of the Environment and Heritage seismic steering committee, which has been dealing with the EPBC seismic cetacean guidelines. I want to know whether the new guidelines have been drafted and released and whether they are being implemented, because the guidelines that were being used, which were the limbo stick, if you like, above which all activities were allowed, were absolutely outdated and unacceptable and in no way could deal with international concern about noise pollution and scientific evidence in relation to seismic testing and the like.

Further, Senator Colbeck did not listen to what I said. I said that at the time of the whale strandings in south-east Tasmania the Navy was in the area using sonar. In the case of the first stranding, they were in port. In the case of the second, they were not. Also, I said that offshore petroleum seismic activities had commenced in Bass Strait in the days before the testing. I then went on to say that it is time we dealt with those particular issues. I accept that the Navy report has not been released publicly. I would be delighted if Senator Colbeck would release all the details from the Navy in relation to that particular stranding, the updated seismic cetacean guidelines and any minutes from the Department of the Environment and Heritage seismic steering committee to tell us how often that committee has met and what it has done in the last 12 months. That would be a considerable improvement in public knowledge of what is going on in relation to that particular matter.

The amendments that I am moving now are in relation to the prohibition of oil exploration in marine reserves. It is fairly self-explanatory. A definition exists for ‘marine protected area’—an area of land or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources managed through legal or other effective means.

The Offshore Petroleum Bill 2005 should have been dealt with in the context of regional marine planning. We should be looking at statutory integrated regional marine planning, and it should be very proactive about requiring companies to be looking at a duty of care to protect the environment, not just to mop up after the damage they have caused. All this bill does is require them to mop up after the damage. It does not require them to take a duty of care. It has no object to adhere to ecologically sustainable development and it does not come within the context of integrated regional marine planning. We are going to see major conflict in relation to the marine environment in the next 20 or 30 years because of the government’s complete failure to look at integrated regional marine planning.

Fish stocks are running out. Oil is running out. There will be huge pressure on gas reserves. At the same time, there will be a recognition that the marine environment is so overstretched that it cannot maintain the ecosystems, in part because of global warming and in part because of the damage that has been done as a result of a range of things, not least of which is the oil and gas sector. I find it absolutely incomprehensible that this legislation does not make provision for the precautionary principle, for this legislation to be incorporated into regional marine planning in the context of oceans policy, which should by now have some legislative backing or statutory framework, and it does not.

In the absence of that, it is logical and quite clear that, if you are going to set aside a marine protected area in order to maintain biological diversity of natural and associated cultural resources and if you take the time and trouble to exclude the fishing industry in order to allow ecosystems to be managed as whole ecosystems in an attempt to maintain their viability and some sustainability into the future under the stresses that they are currently under, then you would allow mining, exploration, drilling and seismic testing in those areas, which go against all of the principles of marine park planning. On that basis, these amendments set aside quite clearly a recognition that marine protected areas are important.

The amendments are consistent with the agenda laid out at the World Parks Congress, which was welcomed by the Department of the Environment and Heritage and the minister for the environment, and the plan of action out of Durban, which became endorsed as a plan of action at the World Conservation Union Congress in Bangkok, where Australia had a delegation. There we are, at all of these international fora, agreeing that the marine environment is important, agreeing that we need to increase marine protected areas by 10 per cent in the next decade and agreeing that we need to have ecosystem planning. I do not know whether all of those things were even consulted on. There is no suggestion of where EPBC, the Department of the Environment and Heritage or anyone fits into this, but they are certainly excluded. Given that, I am now moving to include this prohibition of oil exploration in marine reserves. It is entirely logical to accept these amendments, and it would be consistent with the government’s stated aims to protect the marine environment, which I have heard at any marine conference I have ever been to.