Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Making Marine Parks Accountable) Bill 2012 and do so to very enthusiastically support the outstanding work of my colleague Senator Colbeck in presenting this legislation to the Senate and continuing his relentless pursuit of fairness for Australian fishers and appropriate management of Australia's fisheries that would ensure not just the sustainability of the fish stocks but also the ongoing economic viability and sustainability of the Australian fishing industry and, of course, Australia's recreational fishing sector.

I note that back in 2011 I spoke in the chamber on a bill also moved by Senator Colbeck. That was the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011. Sadly, that legislation proposed by Senator Colbeck was unsuccessful. Had it been successful we might not be here today debating this bill, because that legislation sought to ensure especially that the role of this parliament was paramount, that we ensured parliamentary primacy over ultimate decision making when it comes to the establishment of bioregional plans and marine parks. Sadly, that was rejected. Others in this place voted to say we would rather leave power in the hands of one minister, one person, than have power in the hands of this parliament to be the final arbiter of whether such parks are well designed and appropriate for our future. So Senator Colbeck has come back to this place with a bill not only that deals again with this very important and fundamental issue of parliamentary primacy, but also requires the environment minister to commission an independent, social and economic impact assessment before any proclamations of marine parks are made; to further obtain independent, scientific peer-reviewed advice before making any proclamations; and, importantly, to make this advice publicly available. Further, the bill will require the establishment of independent scientific reference panels and stakeholder advisory groups for each region to ensure that there is rigorous decision making. The bill ultimately will put the parliament in charge of final decision making, allowing proclamations to be disallowable instruments and ensuring in that sense that we actually have the final say in this chamber and the other place over whether these decisions made by the minister are indeed appropriate.

It is unfortunate that this is such an issue of contention because Australia should rightly be proud of the fact that we are very much a world leader in terms of sustainable management of fishing stocks. It is unfortunate that this process has become so controversial throughout the community with the perception held by many that the government is being held captive by extreme groups, environmental groups and those who have an ideological approach to how marine parks should work, rather than the government operating on the best available science and operating in a way that delivers certainty and fairness of outcomes for Australian fishers and the Australian fishing industry.

Australia's fisheries are recognised as some of the best managed in the world. Previous speakers have highlighted evidence that has been given, comments that have been made and research undertaken by academics from around the world—not just by Dr Bob Kearney here at the University of Canberra but also by Dr Ray Hilborn, Professor in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington. Dr Hilborn has said very clearly that Australia's fisheries are amongst the best managed in the world and they are without doubt sustainable. He has made those remarks very clear in public comments on the record about Australia's fishing sector. That is not to say that we cannot strive to do more and do better and to make sure we continue to be at the leading edge of sustainability in our fisheries management practices. We should do that, but that does not mean we should be reacting and behaving in the way it seems the government has of believing somehow that our fisheries stocks are in such danger of depletion that we need to take very radical steps.

Dr Hilborn has highlighted some of the implications of the marine parks proposal. Having highlighted the world-leading management practices of Australia's fisheries, he went on to say:

When you're not over fishing, marine parks simply reduce the amount of fish yield you can get by locking up areas. And the result is that you're going to have less seafood produced in Australia and you will need to import more from places that are typically much less sustainably managed.

Those final words of Dr Hilborn's comments are very important for us to note. The demand for seafood in Australia is going in only one direction, and that is up. That is welcome. We should be wanting and encouraging Australians to eat more seafood with the many health benefits that can potentially come from doing so. The problem we have here is that this Labor government is adopting a proposal that presents real risks to the extent of seafood production in Australia, to the size of the catch that will be undertaken. Therefore, at a time of increased demand for seafood in Australia this government risks enacting policies that will provide for reduced supply of seafood within Australia. That can lead only to increased importation.

We know very well that seafood imported from parts of South-East Asia and elsewhere will be coming from some of the most stressed fisheries in the world. So we will take ourselves from being sustainable to potentially unnecessarily locking up fisheries, and importing seafood from overfished, overstressed fisheries in other parts of the world. That is why the coalition believes it is so very important to bring the fishing communities and the fishing industry with government on this journey and to ensure we actually have marine parks operating in a manner that supports our fishing industry producing at the maximum sustainable capacity not at some arbitrarily determined reduced capacity because it suits those who may lobby the government.

Right throughout this process many concerns have been expressed by industry. They occur right around Australia but, especially with regard to the south-west proposal in Australia, they occur in my home state of South Australia. I look at evidence given to the Senate inquiry that occurred a couple of years ago into this matter from the Abalone Industry Association of South Australia. They said with regard to the process being undertaken to date that:

It is a real slap in the face to the good work done by our Government Fisheries Managers and Industry. We are very uncomfortable with the fact that the final decision of adopting the bioregional plans rests with the Minister for Environment only. We would prefer to have a far more rigorous and robust process through the parliament that doesn't have the potential to be clouded by extreme green views.

The Australian Fishing Trade Association, you would think a key stakeholder genuinely engaged by the government in this debate, tendered evidence in which was said:

To date no briefing regarding the science being used with Bio Regional Planning has been transparently tabled to stake holders. Thus no comment from stake holders has been achieved. This vacuum of information has not been helpful in any understanding of current process, future process or past process. However we are aware a draft map has been produced. Why in the name of transparency during a planning process that a scientific briefing not be available to Stakeholders, Government? Would it not encourage informed debate?

Much has transpired since that time. Some information has been released, and yet it seems that the government has learned nothing from the early criticisms that occurred surrounding the management processes, the engagement and the consultation around these marine parks.

What we see now is a farcical consultation process as to how the management plans for these marine parks will be finalised. We see that only a 30-day consultation period on these management plans was allowed. On 16 December 2012, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities declared 2.3 million square kilometres of marine reserves. There was a brief initial consultation period, but only a brief one, which occurred until 18 December 2012. During this time public comment was sought on the proposal to prepare a draft management plan for each of those regional marine networks and the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve. So, there was a one-month period at the end of last year to comment on the proposal to prepare a draft management plan. Then at the start of this year those draft management plans were released and we had from 14 January to 14 February for stakeholders to comment on these draft management plans After all the years of this process, its long and drawn-out episodes, all the criticisms of the failure of government to effectively consult and engage industry at the outset, we now find ourselves in a situation where it seems to be being unduly and unreasonably rushed. And this haste once again risks shutting out those who would be most impacted by these reforms from having an appropriate say about them.

The coalition is by no means against having appropriate marine bioregional plans. We guided the development of the South-east Regional Marine Plan, which was formalised in 2006. This plan included a network of 14 marine reserves but, importantly, when we undertook that process we ensured that all of the stakeholders—recreational and commercial fishing sectors—were appropriately engaged and consulted. They were taken on a journey to ensure that they supported what was being proposed, and we did not come up with the type of criticism and concern that this government's approach has managed to generate.

If the government is to get this back on track then it should support the bill of Senator Colbeck. That bill will ensure that it does have community support, because it will ensure that the process undertaken is genuinely evidence-based. By having independent social and economic impact assessments before any proclamations are made, you can demonstrate to communities the impact on their local economy. I reflect that this is a very similar debate in that sense to the one that I was so integrally involved in relating to the Murray-Darling Basin. If you are going to undertake activities that have the potential to reduce the productive capacity of certain communities then you should make sure that you have full awareness of the social and economic assessment of reducing that productive capacity before you make the final decision.

Of course there should be an evidence basis of the social and economic impacts, but there should also be an evidence basis of scientific peer-reviewed advice about the actual proclamations so there is confidence that any proclamations of marine reserves will provide for a necessary enhancement of the sustainable management of Australia's fisheries. There should be evidence that it is a justified step. This is not only to enhance their sustainability but it is also needed to ensure that the sustainability of those fisheries is not endangered were it is applied. We should have peer-reviewed evidence which should be publicly released. It should be guided by independent reference panels and stakeholder groups, and it should ultimately be that these plans are potentially disallowable by this parliament. As Senator Colbeck's original bill tried to do and as this bill tries to do, we should uphold the primacy of this place. There is no reason that those around the chamber should not support the potential for these to be disallowable instruments. I urge all senators to reflect on their position on this legislation and give it their support.