Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 5510:

Schedule 2, item 1, page 12 (after line 10), after subsection 10(6A), insert:

      (6B)    At least one member must have knowledge of or experience in the tourism industry or another industry associated with the Marine Park.

It is now two or three months since the second reading debate on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008, so I thought it might be useful for the chamber and for participants in the debate to recap briefly on the nature of this amendment and other amendments being proposed by the opposition. As the minister has just mentioned, the government has two amendments relating to prohibiting geological storage operations and in relation to the definition of fishing. Both those amendments from the government have been in response to calls by the opposition, both in this chamber and in the other place, for further work on those. So I am pleased to see that the government has taken the opposition’s lead and addressed those two issues, and I will speak more about them later.

The opposition, whilst generally supporting this bill as being appropriate for the management of one of Australia’s greatest natural icons, the Great Barrier Reef, does believe that there are some inefficiencies in the bill that need to be addressed. They are only relatively minor amendments but they would improve the operation of the bill, and we are certainly hopeful that other senators will support the amendments that we raise.

The first amendment, the one we are discussing now, relates to the new board of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. We are suggesting in this amendment that one of the board positions be for someone who has experience in industries associated with the Great Barrier Reef. I will speak a little further on that later. Senator Joyce is considering moving an amendment on the definition of fishing, which was raised in the inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts. By all reports coming from that committee, the existing definition came under some scrutiny, and I notice that the government has also taken up that issue and has its own amendment.

Perhaps the most significant amendment being proposed by the opposition—and I hope it will be supported by all senators—relates to the convictions that were recorded against people breaching the green zones when the green zones were first dramatically altered and increased, back in 2004 I think it was. This was an initiative of our government for all the right reasons, although many would perhaps not agree with that. It was an initiative that the then Howard government brought in to protect even greater areas of the Great Barrier Reef. This, of course, continues the coalition’s very strong support for this natural icon that was initiated back, I think, in the Fraser years in declaring a marine park in the Great Barrier Reef area. The amendment is in line with the coalition’s strong support for the Great Barrier Reef over many decades through legislative action, which, as I say, was initiated by the coalition government.

When the zones were increased, a fairly dramatic enforcement and penalty arrangement came into place. There were some quite substantial fines and the offences were treated as criminal offences. There were quite substantial fines—ranging anywhere from $500 up to, I think, some at $60,000—but, as well as that, the convictions gave criminal records to those convicted. In many cases, these were mums and dads out fishing with the kids in the wrong area. They were fined quite substantially but, in addition to that, they had a criminal record which many found in years to come would inhibit them in certain ways. One person at the inquiry gave evidence that his application for insurance had been treated differently because, when he was answering a question, he had to indicate that he had a criminal record. There were other instances of people travelling overseas who had trouble getting visas because they had to disclose that they had a criminal record. And there were many other instances that were brought to the attention of senators. I particularly acknowledge Senator Boswell, who has been on this case for some time, as have I—and I know Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon have been concerned about these issues as well.

The then government, after a couple of years of this legislation, realised that this was really using a sledgehammer to crack a nut—as they say—and realised that, whilst the fines were appropriate, this having of a criminal record was quite inappropriate for this type of offence. So the then government changed the arrangements so that on-the-spot fines could be issued. These infringement notices then became the norm, and the infringement notices issued to offenders still involved very substantial fines. So there was a real penalty involved. But, with the use of infringement notices, there was no criminal record on the offenders—most of whom, as I say, were family people out for a day fishing in the Great Barrier Reef who went into the wrong zone, either deliberately or innocently, and that attracted a substantial fine, and no-one argues about that. So the criminal conviction matter was dealt with by the infringement notices.

So, post 14 December 2006, most of the people breached for conflicting the green zone laws got this infringement notice and paid a fine but there was no criminal record. Those who had been convicted under the old legislation—before 1 July 2004 and 14 December 2006—were left with the monetary penalty and, in addition, they had a criminal conviction recorded against them. The coalition—through approaches from the recreational and commercial fishing industry and through, as I say, a lot of good work done by Senator Boswell, amongst others—brought this matter to notice, and the previous government indicated in 2007 that it would legislate to remove the criminal convictions of those people convicted between 1 July 2004 and 14 December 2006. This was agreed to not only by the coalition but also by the Labor Party, the then opposition. The then opposition spokesperson, Senator O’Brien, in, I think, Townsville, when approached regarding this issue, said on behalf of the then Labor opposition—and I am sure Senator Boswell will quote his words later, but they are well recorded—’We should have a bipartisan approach to this; we should both adopt the same thing.’