Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to speak briefly to the annual report of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. As I am sure all senators in this place would acknowledge, I endeavour to be fair and balanced whenever possible and try to give credit when credit is due. I have a number of times stated that one of the most significant achievements of the Howard government in the environmental area has been their rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, significantly increasing the amount of the park that is fully protected. I have repeatedly, nonetheless, followed that up with the comment that, if you are going to dramatically increase the amount of protected area in the park, the amount of area where you have to either keep people out or keep an eye on what people are doing when they are in there—as was appropriately done; a science based decision was made after an extraordinary amount of consultation, which naturally did not make everybody happy, but it was certainly very extensive consultation—then it helps to actually increase the resources available for doing that.

I think the federal government really does need to look at providing some extra resources for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I know, and I think it is an appropriate criticism to make, that the Queensland government does not provide terribly much at all in this area, but of course it would say that the vast majority of the marine park is in Commonwealth waters. The marine park provides immense value to Queensland, both for its economy and employment and also for its reputation, its culture and the way people perceive Queensland. Indeed, it now has a reputation as almost a mecca for many marine scientists around the world, who come to Townsville in particular because of the significant research that occurs in Townsville based around the marine park. Australia and Queensland are world leaders in reef research because of the Great Barrier Reef and because it is adequately or sufficiently well managed by the marine park authority. It provides immense benefits—economic, environmental, educational and, one might say, spiritual and cultural as well—to Queensland and to Australia and we really should be investing a lot more in protecting that asset. A good action by the federal government is at risk of not getting full value unless there is sufficient put in there to enable proper management.

The only other comment I would make would be that, as a consequence of the rezoning, there was quite a significant review done into the marine park authority, widely perceived by many people to be payback for those who were unhappy with what the rezoning produced. I was quite astonished to see at least one or two coalition senators from Queensland, and I think one or two from the lower house, actually suggesting that it would be better if the marine park authority was removed from Queensland and from Townsville and centralised in Canberra. If I can be parochial for a second, it is not very often that Queenslanders say we should take something away from Queensland and send it down to Canberra to be run from there—certainly not something as important as the marine park authority. I was very pleased, though, to see that wisdom prevailed within the government, in Minister Campbell’s department, no doubt with wise urging from others in the coalition, and that that did not happen.

Indeed, I would have to say that, at least on the initial circumstances, the review that was finalised was a fairly positive one. But there are still a lot of details about how it will be implemented, and that is something that certainly needs to be watched closely. I was pleased to see that the authority’s ability to manage such a unique and priceless resource and asset is not going to be significantly compromised, at least as far as we can tell at the moment. But I would repeat my plea to really make it able to do its job as well as possible. Further resources from the federal government and state government would be desirable. The tourist industry kicks in some money, and it would be good to explore ways other people who use the marine park could provide some resourcing as well. I do not have time to expand further on that at the moment.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I concur with the remarks of Senator Bartlett in relation to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. It is a very professional organisation and has that capacity, I suggest, because of the great work that the CEO and chairman of the board, Virginia Chadwick, puts into the management and direction of the marine park. John Tanzer, the executive director, is the head of the authority beneath Virginia Chadwick, and both of them do a fabulous job of looking after one of the eight wonders of the world, a reef area and marine park that brings billions of dollars to Australia in tourism and in other ways each year.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is a multiuse park. It is not just locked away and preserved; it is used by fishermen, it is used by the tourism industry and it is used by the fishing industry. With all of those uses I think the authority has demonstrated that you can have multiple users in a marine park and still protect the very sensitive ecosystem and the very sensitive conservation and environmental outcomes for the Barrier Reef and the marine park surrounding it.

The authority was involved in some controversy at the time of rezoning, when the protected areas went up from less than about five per cent to what was going to be around 22 per cent but ended up at 33 per cent. It was a great environmental outcome, but in doing that it did cause a deal of financial hurt to the fishing industry and the fishermen were naturally very upset with it. There was, I have to say, even from my own point of view, some inflexibility in some of the officers of the authority. Had they drawn the boundaries in a slightly different way, they could have got as good an environmental outcome without causing the damage that they did to the fishing industry at the time. But by and large the marine park—based in my hometown, or the place where I have my electorate office, of Townsville—is a great asset to Australia and certainly to the community.

Senator Bartlett is right: some people were saying we should shut it down and bring it under the direct control of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. They think that is a good idea when we have a good minister there, but I always warn those people that one day—it will be a long way away, but one day—we will have a Labor minister back, and I would hate to be in a situation where a Labor minister was directing the marine park.

Debate (on motion by Senator McLucas) adjourned.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allowed for the consideration of government documents has expired.

John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek clarification on a point. According to the red, the time limit for consideration of government documents is one hour, finishing not later than seven o’clock. I thought the last debate finished at six o’clock, so we have only had half an hour.

The Acting Deputy President:

Yes, that is right, Senator Watson. We actually started general business, which includes consideration of government documents, at 3.59 pm, so the time allocation is correct. We have now concluded the time limit of 2½ hours for this item.