Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to apologise for my absence from Senator Williams’s maiden speech. Today started at 5.30 am waiting at an airport, and the plane never turned up because of fog, so I could not leave. We then drove 550 kilometres to catch another plane, which could not land here in Canberra because of inclement weather, and we just sat on the tarmac in Sydney waiting. So it is not because I am a factional warlord against Senator Williams; I am really sorry I missed his speech.

There are a range of things that need to be addressed about the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and will continue needing to be addressed. I note that the report on the bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts talked about the description of the crime of fishing, which is something that we really have to look at. The description now is that you are creating a crime or an offence on consideration of an act—a consideration of an act that may or may not happen. That is open to conjecture, and that is a very dangerous thing for us to have on the law statutes, even if you take away the word ‘fishing’ and think of another type of act. An arbitrary decision to make a law about what you may or may not be deciding to do is a very dangerous premise, especially when most Australians would see fishing as something minor. That needs to be dealt with.

The next issue, obviously, that needs to be looked at seriously is the precautionary principle. I understand that you have to be guided by what may happen. But this is yet another statement which takes you forward to a position where you do not have to prove it economically, nor do you have to prove it environmentally; you just have to wish it. People wishing things changes with the person. If the person wishing for a certain outcome cannot prove it on environmental grounds or on socioeconomic grounds then I think it should remain unproved. That also is something that needs to be looked at.

The other issue is the criminality of those who have had certain convictions recorded against them and these things have not been dealt with and put aside. That issue also needs to be dealt with. Because of those three issues, I will be signing the dissenting report. There are other issues on top of what is outlined that also need to be further considered. In its final position, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has to take into account that people live adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. It is the major mechanism for recreation and for the earning of income. If we completely exclude people who live proximate to the Great Barrier Reef from any real engagement in it—apart from looking at it—then we are doing something terribly unfair. Nobody in the Sydney beach suburbs would tolerate it if you stopped such things as surfing.

I hope that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority goes back to what it was initially supposed to be: something that took into account the environmental aspects, the economic aspects, the social aspects and the outcomes that would be desired by the people of North Queensland especially. If this type of legislation—especially with the definition of ‘fishing’ and the precautionary principle—goes through, it will become a premise for further fishing areas having exactly the same outcome. Thank you very much for your indulgence on that, Acting Deputy President Bishop. I will leave it at that.