Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007 goes to governance arrangements for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The Great Barrier Reef is Australia’s greatest natural asset. It is unique. Nowhere else in the world do we see such an example of nature at her most diverse, her most enthralling, her most startling and, in my view, her most beautiful. The reef is not only magnificent in its natural beauty; the economic contribution of this natural phenomenon is phenomenal as well. The Great Barrier Reef not only evokes a sense of ownership within those of us who are fortunate to live beside it; all Australians rightly feel a strong connection with and ownership of it. But the bill that we have before us is about governance. This bill does nothing at all to address the real issues affecting the Great Barrier Reef. This bill does not include any element of a plan to maintain a healthy reef into the future. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007 seeks to implement recommendations of a 2006 review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. I want to pick up on the key aspects of that review and of this bill, but before I do so it is important to set the scene.

The Great Barrier Reef is an extraordinary natural wonder. It is the world’s largest World Heritage area. It is 2,000 kilometres of World Heritage wonder, with the world’s most extensive coral reef system, the world’s richest diversity of faunal species, 2,800 individuals reefs, 1,500 fish species, 175 bird species, 4,000 species of molluscs,1,500 species of sponge, 500 species of seaweed and more than 30 species of marine mammals.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many fishermen?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will get to that. There are 940 islands in the Great Barrier Reef. It is the jewel in the crown of Australia’s natural assets. The northern part of the reef is believed to be 18 million years old and the southern part two million years old. This is our inheritance and it is our responsibility to protect it for future generations. Of course, we do not just have a responsibility to maintain the ecological integrity of the reef; we also have a responsibility to maintain the jobs and the regional towns that are dependent on a healthy reef. About 200,000 jobs are dependent on a healthy reef, generating about $4.3 billion for the Australian economy. Since I wrote this speech, I have received a copy of the Australian Research Council document called Discovery. The ARC talk about the reef’s value being $5 billion a year, with 68,000 people directly employed in industries associated with the reef.

But there are real threats to the reef’s future which this government simply will not acknowledge. The science is very clear. The unreleased Australian chapter of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report Climate Change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability lays out a bleak future for the Great Barrier Reef. By 2020, the report says, 60 per cent the Great Barrier Reef could be regularly bleached. By 2050, 97 per cent could be bleached each year. By 2080, there could be ‘catastrophic mortality of coral species annually’ and a 95 per cent decrease in the distribution of Great Barrier Reef species. There could be a 65 per cent loss of Great Barrier Reef species in the Cairns region alone.

An international team of scientists working on the Great Barrier Reef has found a clear link between coral disease and warmer ocean temperatures. World-first research at 48 reefs spread along 1,500 kilometres of the GBR, combined with six years of satellite data on sea temperatures, has revealed ‘a highly significant relationship’ between ocean warming and the emergence of a disease known as white syndrome. White syndrome is one of a number of unexplained coral diseases which scientists have observed to be increasing globally in recent years.

The Great Barrier Reef is dying before our very eyes and, frankly, I do not think the Howard government cares. The government cannot say it was not warned. It has received report after report after report for almost a decade with similar warnings growing in strength with each report received. The Prime Minister cannot use the ‘I wasn’t aware’ excuse. Report after report, articles in scientific journals and the anecdotal evidence that we hear in North Queensland all the time are there for all to see. But the response we have received in terms of protecting our reef from global climate change has been nothing.

Look at the government’s own March 2005 Climate change risk and vulnerability report. That report identifies the reef as one of a handful of highly vulnerable regions that can be identified that should be given priority for further adaptation planning and response. The report says:

• Cairns and the Great Barrier Reef are expected to see multiple dimensions of change. The Reef itself is likely to suffer from coral bleaching events, which have long recovery times and flow on effects for the whole ecosystem. Climate model projections suggest that within 40 years water temperatures could be above the survival limit of corals.

You have to ask: what action has the Howard government undertaken in response to this stark warning?

This is not just an environmental question. A 2005 Access Economics study found tourism associated with the GBR generated over $US4.48 billion in 2004-05 and provided direct employment for about 63,000 people. The marine tourism industry is a major contributor to the local and Australian economies. In 2007 there were approximately 820 operators and 1,500 vessels and aircraft permitted to operate in the GBR Marine Park. Tourism attracts approximately 1.9 million visitors each year. That is the lifeblood of regional and local communities. That is the lifeblood of my city, Cairns, of Port Douglas in the Douglas shire, of Townsville, Mackay, Airlie Beach, the Whitsundays and areas further south. That is the economy that is being jeopardised by the inaction of the Commonwealth government on the issue of climate change. And that is why the Howard government’s line—a very calculated line—that Australians have to choose between a healthy economy and a healthy environment is such a dangerous one. Think about this: the reef brings millions of dollars into the Australian economy and is directly responsible for the employment of tens of thousands of Australians.

A forward-looking government would have responded to the reality that our reef is at serious threat and implemented a climate change strategy—a climate change strategy that should include the ratification of the Kyoto protocol and the cutting of Australia’s greenhouse pollution by 60 per cent by 2050. It would have included establishing a national emissions trading scheme and seriously investing in renewable energy and clean coal. A forward-looking government would have announced serious long-term measures to cut Australia’s soaring greenhouse pollution, but that is not what we have seen. Climate change is a massive challenge for Australia, but the Howard government is only now even acknowledging it exists, and only because the Prime Minister has read the opinion polls.

The other thing a forward-looking government would do is to cherish Australia’s past, recognising that our natural and cultural heritage is the cornerstone of our modern society. That is why I find it staggering that the government still has not placed the Great Barrier Reef on Australia’s National Heritage List. A National Heritage List without the Great Barrier Reef is like a rugby league hall of fame without Wally Lewis. But that is precisely what we have. Our National Heritage List came into force in January 2004. It is, frankly, astonishing that the government has not got around to putting it on the list. You can ask: is it incompetence, tardiness or forgetfulness? Or is the Howard government just taking the Great Barrier Reef for granted? Is it taking the people who depend on a healthy reef for granted? Frankly, climate change, not governance arrangements, is the real threat to the Great Barrier Reef.

The government did take a very courageous step when it announced it was protecting 33 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef from fishing and other extractive industries. I do pay tribute to the then environment minister, David Kemp, and Senator Robert Hill, both of whom seem to have a real interest in protecting our Great Barrier Reef. But what has the government done since then? It did announce the structural adjustment for the fishing industry. Initially the structural adjustment package was predicted to be worth $31 million. Now it has increased threefold, blowing out to more than $87 million, an extraordinary miscalculation on behalf of the government. Fishers and land based businesses that rely on reef derived income are entitled to compensation for economic loss caused under the Representative Areas Program, which increased the reef green zones. They did deserve compensation, but they do not deserve the mess that is the compensation package.

The National Party and some elements of the Liberal Party have worked hard to destroy Dr Kemp’s legacy, launching strong campaigns against the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the zoning plan. The then National Party senator elect, Senator Joyce, was quoted in the Courier-Mail on 1 March 2005 as opposing GBRMPA’s existence as an independent agency. He said:

“GBRMPA is out of control ...

…       …            …

“We are having too many problems and we should bring it totally under government control and baby-sit it for a while.”

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

Hear, hear! I stand by it.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Senator Joyce, but that is an appalling suggestion. We have an agency which is internationally recognised as the best in the world at managing marine parks, and you want to babysit it for a while. The member for Dawson, Mrs Kelly, said on 26 October 2004:

What we’ve had is a statutory authority in GBRMPA that is out of control—

and—

has put, I think, no real scientific basis for the arguments they’ve put forward ...

It must never be forgotten that the Queensland Nationals did a preference deal with the Fishing Party at the last election on the basis that GBRMPA’s powers be moved into the department where the minister would have control of all decisions. This deal, as we know, helped get Senator Joyce elected.

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

Absolutely, and it was a great deal for everybody.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a great deal, was it?

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

Absolutely. Put it on the record.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is on the record, is it? A great deal. A deal.

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

Put it on the record: Senator Joyce said it was a great deal.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad that is on the record.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator McLucas has the call.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The National Party always saw the review of GBRMPA as the vehicle for destroying the Marine Park Authority and rolling back the protection of the Great Barrier Reef.

On 25 March 2006 the Courier-Mail reported that the Howard government was planning to reduce the marine protection boundaries of the Representative Areas Program and abolish the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority as an independent agency. I am pleased to say that neither of those two things has occurred. I am pleased that GBRMPA will remain a statutory authority. Labor, along with many others, played an important part in preventing the destruction and the demolition of GBRMPA. But there are still aspects of this bill that are troubling. The bill replaces the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee with a non-statutory advisory board. It also removes the requirement for specific representation of the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. I am concerned that there may not be proper representation from Indigenous communities, and there are amendments to ameliorate that effect. I am also concerned that Queensland play its important role in finding the direction for the management of the Great Barrier Reef. I call on the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources to make a commitment to a genuine partnership with the Queensland government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and a genuine engagement with all of the industries that are dependent on a healthy reef. A place at the table must be found for everyone.

We are pleased the government is establishing a five-yearly outlook report for the Great Barrier Reef. The minister for the environment has stated that a regular and reliable means of assessing the protection of the Great Barrier Reef will be provided through a formal outlook report that is tabled in the parliament every five years. This report will cover the management of the marine park, the overall condition of the ecosystem and the longer term outlook for the Great Barrier Reef. It will be peer reviewed by an appropriately qualified panel of experts appointed by the minister. I welcome that report. I note the minister will be responsible for any future decision to amend the zoning plan, and any such decision will be based on the outlook report and advice from the authority.

I note also the minister’s commitment that engagement with stakeholders on the development of a new zoning plan will be improved and the process made more transparent, with comprehensive information being made publicly available through the process. This will include the rationale for amending any zoning plan, the principles on which the development of the zoning plan will be based, socioeconomic information and a report on the final zoning plan and its outcomes. In addition, each of the two public consultation periods will be increased from one month to three months. The Labor Party certainly welcome the extension of the public consultation period. It is important there is integrity in the process, and it is important there are ongoing commitments to better protect the health of the Great Barrier Reef. That is why I call on the government, and particularly Queensland senators, to join Labor in opposing oil drilling and exploration near the Great Barrier Reef.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There’s no oil drilling on it, and there was never going to be.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The word used is ‘near’, and that is important.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What’s your definition of ‘near’?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will give it to you in the committee stage. I foreshadow now that I will be moving amendments in the committee stage to extend the boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park region—and this is important—to the exclusive economic zone and thus rule out the prospect of prospecting or drilling for oil or gas in waters adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. I call on the government to support these amendments. I particularly call on Queensland based senators to recognise that this is an important protection that our reef requires. I am deeply concerned that the government’s agenda is to proceed with oil exploration and drilling near the Great Barrier Reef.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s a red herring, and you know it.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just last year, Senator Boswell, Geoscience Australia published a map which indicated the potential for exploration and drilling in this region. If you are saying that this is not on the government’s agenda then rule it out. This is another real threat, and one that Labor are committed to removing. The Great Barrier Reef deserves protection—protection not afforded by this bill. This is why I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add: “but the Senate:

(a)    affirms the object of the principal Act—the protection of the Great Barrier Reef—but notes that the future of the Reef is threatened by both short-term and longer-term factors, including climate change;

(b)    notes that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2007 that by 2050, 97 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef could be bleached every year as a result of climate change;

(c)    condemns the Government’s incompetent handling of the structural adjustment package for the Great Barrier Reef Representative Areas Plan, which has seen the budget blow out from $31 million to more than $87 million;

(d)    calls on the Government to develop and implement an action plan to help protect the Great Barrier Reef from the effects of coral bleaching and protect Australian jobs and industries dependent on a healthy reef, as part of a national climate change strategy; and

(e)    calls on the Government to prohibit mineral, oil and gas exploration in Australian waters adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park”.

This amendment identifies the potential, listed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, for significant bleaching of our reef in a short period of time. This will affect the economies of our region. The second reading amendment condemns the government’s incompetent handling of structural adjustment, particularly—and I am sure Senators Boswell and Joyce will agree with me on this—the structural package for fishers and those who depend on fishing. The amendment calls on the government to develop and implement an action plan to help protect the Great Barrier Reef from the effects of coral bleaching and protect Australian jobs and industries dependent on a healthy reef as part of a national climate change strategy. Finally, the second reading amendment calls on the government to prohibit mineral, oil and gas exploration in Australian waters adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

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

I thank Senator Bartlett and Senator Boswell for allowing me to intervene for just two minutes to express my support for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has done a magnificent job over the last 20 or 30 years that it has been operating. I have not always agreed with it. I was a bit disappointed with some of the boundaries of the zoning. I thought they could have been easily fixed. It would have helped the fishing industry. But, by and large, the authority has done a marvellous job. I want to place on record the very high regard in which Virginia Chadwick, the CEO and chair of the board, is held throughout Australia and, indeed, the world for the contribution she has made to the protection of the Great Barrier Reef and coral reefs right around Australia. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has that influence and expertise right around the world.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was an initiative of previous Liberal governments and has done absolutely mighty work in protecting what I always say is the eighth wonder of the world. The reef supports a tourism industry worth, from memory, upwards of $5 billion annually, so it is very important to all Australians that that reef is protected. The fishing industry will be able to operate in the reef marine park, but perhaps not in the way I would have liked had I been in charge; I think it could have easily been made a little easier for the fishing industry, but the industry will still be able to continue to operate and in fact does continue to operate.

Senator McLucas has raised some political issues in her amendment. I was at a public meeting recently and I asked the oil and gas industry whether they had ever had any interest in drilling for oil on the barrier reef. The spokesperson could not get to the microphone fast enough to say, ‘It’s not on the radar; we’re not interested; it will never happen.’ That is the industry’s position and it is the government’s position as well, which has been clearly enunciated by any number of ministers over a long period of time. So that is a furphy. It is good politics, Senator McLucas; congratulations. Perhaps the ‘Barrier Reef Party’ you are setting up—apparently in opposition to the Fishing Party, which I understand a former Labor Party staffer, a former Labor apparatchik, is setting up, no doubt to put preferences to the ‘Barrier Reef Party’—is, again, good politics, but it is not really appropriate.

I want to emphasise that the rezoning will not be reviewed for, I think, seven years, which is great work. That gives the fishing industry the certainty they need, but it also is an assurance that the boundaries will not be changed willy-nilly as we go along. By and large, these amendments still maintain a statutory authority answering to the minister. There have been some arrangements made to bring it in line with the Uhrig report to government on statutory authorities, but I support the amendments to the bill. I might say I had some severe trepidation in the early stage, but I have been convinced that, with one or two very minor exceptions which I have been unable to alter, the bill is appropriate and the authority will continue to do the good work it does.

I again want to emphasise the sterling work that Ms Virginia Chadwick has done in her role over the past many years. She has been a great CEO and board chairman, and I wish her well as she moves into her retirement. I support the bill.

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

As a Queensland senator as well as a Democrat, I am obviously very interested in any changes to arrangements regarding the management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It is an icon not just for Queensland but for Australia. It is an environmental icon, almost a spiritual icon in many respects, and it has been a particularly crucial iconic area for many Indigenous communities and tribes going back for millennia. I have said a number of times in this place that perhaps the largest single, positive environmental achievement of this government in its time in office is its rezoning of the marine park to significantly increase the number of protected areas and significantly improve the chances of the ecological and economic values of the park being maintained and strengthened into the future. It is one of their biggest achievements and it should be acknowledged.

One of the reasons it was so essential and important is because of the many very significant threats to the reef and to the wider marine park. Climate change, as we all now know, is a major, if not the major, threat—it is an enormous threat—to the health of the reef and the marine park. It puts an enormous amount of biodiversity at risk, it puts a lot of Indigenous cultural heritage at risk and it also puts a lot of economic flow-on effects at risk. It is a clear-cut example of the inextricable intertwining of environmental values and economic values, because, if the environmental health of the reef declines and collapses, the impact would be enormous on the economy of Central Queensland, northern Queensland and Queensland more broadly.

That is not to dispute that there were not some economic consequences for particular groups in that significant rezoning. The commercial fishing industry is obviously the group that got the most attention. It is appropriate that assistance and compensation be given to those who are affected, but we do need to look at the big picture, the broader context. To have not acted to strengthen the protection of the reef because of short-term economic costs would have led to much larger economic costs and human pain for a whole range of industries, particularly the tourism industry. But it would have affected a lot of other people and groups as well, including some within the commercial fishing industry.

I note Senator Macdonald’s comments about there being absolutely no intention to have any mineral or other exploration in or near the marine park, and that is good to hear. That being the case, I am sure the government would have no problem in supporting in the committee stage an amendment such as Senator McLucas has put forward. Indeed, in the past, Senator McLucas and I had a joint private senators’ bill in this place to do precisely that. So if it is not on the agenda and it is not going to happen—no way, never ever—it should not be a problem; we can support the amendment and it will all be crystal clear. We will not need to keep pointing to the fact that it is still being singled out on a range of resource maps as a potential area for future exploration.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007 came from a major review of the marine park authority and the management of the marine park flowing on from the rezoning. There was, of course, a lot of controversy flowing out of the rezoning, particularly from the commercial fishing industry. I do not have a problem with people wanting to re-examine things. What I do have a problem with is the way that has happened and one aspect of the end results we have before us.

We have heard interjections from Senator Joyce or Senator Boswell—probably both. They are obviously very unhappy about the impact of the rezoning on the fishing industry, and they were quite keen to see this review lead to the authority being dismantled and being taken to Canberra to be run from the department and the minister’s office. Frankly, I find it extraordinary that Queensland senators could be advocating that management of Queensland’s marine park should be given to a bunch of bureaucrats in Canberra when we have a world-renowned marine park authority in northern Queensland. We are without doubt the world’s leader with regard to reef management and reef science. Townsville has become a reef science centre of global significance. For Queensland senators to talk about ripping the heart out of that and throwing it to a bunch of bureaucrats in Canberra—no offence to the bureaucrats in Canberra, but it is not their job—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Boswell interjecting—

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

Oh, great! We will give it to the minister—that is even better! Let us just put it in the heart of a minister’s office in Canberra. Perfect! Let us just take away the world-class, world-leading management authority of the world’s best marine park and reef system and put it in the hands of a minister. It is possible, Senator Boswell—I know you would not like it—that the Labor Party might win the next election. Do you want to put it into the hands of whomever ends up being the Labor minister after the election? Think ahead. I know you are annoyed, and I can understand that, but just look at the bigger picture and the consequences.

I am pleased that the review did not end up at that. That is obviously what everybody was concerned about. That is what everybody was focused on through the process of the review—what is going to happen to the authority? Is it going to lose any independence it has—I know it is not totally independent by any means at the moment—and just be subsumed into a department or minister’s office? Or is it still going to be able to operate at least to some degree at arm’s length? That is not to say that the authority is perfect by any means, but if you think getting bureaucrats from Canberra to run it is going to improve it then you are crazy. There would be a loss to Queensland and the Townsville region. The resource and the economic value that the authority provides to Townsville and the northern region in general by being based up there is quite significant. There are all the extra add-ons that it draws in. All of that was at risk. So I am certainly pleased that that did not happen.

The legislation does make a range of changes, and those flow from the review. The key change that I will focus on and about which I am extremely annoyed is that in restructuring the authority—fairly mildly in lots of ways, and almost in passing, with barely a comment—the current situation of having an Indigenous representative on the authority is being removed. That is something that I find absolutely inexplicable. It moves completely in the opposite direction from management approaches in parks and protected areas over recent decades. It has been done solely on the basis of referring to the Uhrig review principles about management of government authorities. That is an appropriate principle to refer to, but I find it breathtaking to simply grab it and whack it over the top in a tick-a-box fashion without any consideration of the wider issues involved. And I find it offensive that it has been done without talking to the Indigenous communities themselves. It shows a complete lack of recognition of what you are dealing with here, and it shows the danger of letting a bunch of bureaucrats apply a bureaucratic principle to an environmental management authority that has crucial interconnections with Indigenous communities and is only just starting to make progress on doing the job with regard to engaging with Indigenous people.

It is not just about engaging with stakeholder groups in the same way as you would engage with the recreational fishers, commercial fishers or tourist industries. Indigenous people are not just an economic stakeholder group to invite along to another meeting and to listen to or not. They are an integral part of this region. We are only just starting to recognise and tap into the management knowledge that traditional owners and Indigenous people have over a range of regions around the country. That is why we have Indigenous representatives on the boards that runs Uluru-Kata Tjuta, Kakadu or Jervis Bay. That is why the people on Cape York fought for so long to hassle, pressure and cajole the Queensland government into introducing Indigenous representation and involvement on the management of national parks in Queensland. Just a few weeks ago we saw a significant announcement in Cape York. People might remember it, because it got a fair bit of coverage in the Australian newspaper, amongst others. Noel Pearson was saying: ‘Finally, after decades of struggle, we are going to have some control over our lands through the joint management of national parks. They are going to put a national park over our land and we are still going to be able to have engagement with it.’ That process still has a way to go, but that took decades of arm-twisting. That is a key principle; it is an environmental management principle as well as a principle for the maintenance of cultural heritage.

The committee brought down a report late Friday afternoon. It was tabled after the Senate had finished sitting. The government members said, ‘This is okay; it does not matter if we lose Indigenous representation.’ The absurdity is that, less than two months ago, the same committee, with the same government members, tabled a comprehensive report into Australia’s national parks and protected areas systems, and every government member signed off the recommendation that said, ‘We need to increase Indigenous involvement in the management of national parks and protected areas.’ No wonder Indigenous people get cynical. We had a unanimous recommendation saying that we need more involvement of Indigenous people in management and, within weeks of that report coming down, legislation was tabled that took that involvement away from one of the areas where it had actually been in place and had been working for well over a decade. And you wonder why they get cynical!

And that was done without even talking to these people. When this legislation was sent to an incredibly brief Senate examination and we asked the department about this, we got answers saying, ‘Well, we sent them letters saying that the review was on.’ Everybody in Queensland knew the review was about whether or not the authority was going to be ripped to bits and taken down to Canberra, about whether the politicians were going to take over the authority, about whether the authority would survive and, if it did, how to get better consultation and engagement with it all. And that is how everybody engaged with it. The department did not send people a letter saying, ‘Have you got a comment on us taking away Indigenous representation?’ And, from everything I have seen, there was no meeting, through the whole review process, with any Indigenous group about the possibility that they might lose their representation on the authority.

Then this legislation finally appeared. If you look at the recommendations from the review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 you will see that there are quite a lot of them. It is a long report and there are 28 recommendations, many of which have five, six or seven different parts, so if you broke them down there would probably be over 100. And the only thing that even referred to this issue in the recommendations is that the membership of the authority should be appointed for their ‘relevant expertise’ and independence, which is absolutely right and as it is now. And it says:

The officeholders should not be representational ...

There is just that single sentence, in amongst pages and pages of recommendations; that is the only reference. You would have to be reading the code to know that that means ‘and therefore we will take away Indigenous representation from the authority’—Indigenous representation which the authority themselves and many others have said is working very effectively and which, most importantly, Indigenous people themselves say is important. And then the explanatory memorandum to this legislation simply says that the legislation:

... expands the maximum size of the Authority by one member. It also removes a requirement for one appointment to be done on a representational basis.

Such appointments are allegedly ‘contrary to best practice’. Sometimes they are, but to say that they always are in all circumstances is, I think, being simplistic in the extreme. There is no mention of the word ‘Indigenous’, either.

It is almost as though we have just sleepwalked into this without anyone even knowing that what we are doing is just tearing away Indigenous representation from the authority and thus from the management role in what I would argue is one of the most significant protected areas in the whole country. To do that without even talking with the people who are affected is inexcusable. It is an absolute case study in structural racism. When people use terms like ‘structural racism’ they do not mean that we are all nasty, mean people; they mean that the whole way that the structure is set up is completely blind to Indigenous people, to their perspective, to their situation and to their unique status. Yes, they have a unique status. A few weeks ago, when we had the anniversary of the referendum, we were all making noble speeches about the special role of Indigenous people and how we recognise how fantastic they are. And then, a few weeks later, what we do? We just tear away one of their key areas of representation in an absolutely critical protected area, and we do so without most of them even knowing.

When this was sent to the Senate committee for a very brief examination, we initially got no response at all from people, and it was only as word got out as to what was actually contained in the legislation—because, as I said, if you read the explanatory memorandum you would not actually realise that that was what was happening—that the responses started coming in from people saying, ‘What’s going on?’ How can we be taking away Indigenous representation from something as significant as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority when Indigenous people do not even know that it is happening? We have not met with them; we have not sat down with them. I know that is not always easy; I know it takes a bit of time. That is the whole point.

I point this out as being a sort of unintended consequence. That seems always to be the way. I appreciate the political reasons why people wanted to generate a review of the marine park and all that sort of stuff. Everyone had their skirmishes over their particular positions on that. Let us look at what has happened along the way. The commercial fishers got their millions of dollars in compensation. There has been some power going out of the authority and some extra control going to the minister in terms of some of the other structures dealt with in this bill. I am not completely happy about that but we will see how things pan out. But, as always, the collateral damage along the way is to the Indigenous people; they are the losers. They lose their representation. They will just get thrown in amongst the non-statutory consultative committee, which ministers can listen to or not as they wish. It has been set up as someone else to listen to if they want to hear different advice, if they do not like what they get from GBRMPA itself. So everybody else has managed to get bits and pieces out of this but it is the Indigenous people who get shafted. So, well done everybody! We have all done very well. We have all scored our points. We have all had bits and pieces of wins along the way. Meanwhile, the Indigenous people lose their representation without anybody even seeming to notice or to think it was a matter for even a little bit of examination, a bit of further inquiry, a little further consultation. Instead, they seemed to say: ‘No, we’ll just pull out the Uhrig review; we’ll just tick the box. No representation. That’s that one done.’ That was about as much thought as it got. As the review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 noted:

There are more than 70 Traditional Owner groups along the Great Barrier Reef coast from Bundaberg to the eastern Torres Strait islands. Their traditional customs, spiritual lore and beliefs continue to be practised today. Their values and interests for islands, reefs and waters within the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait include physical places, story places and a range of other cultural and historical values.

The review also talks about the high number of Indigenous people who participate in fishing, and it notes:

Fishing is not only important for food and nutrition but also for ceremonial occasions, exchange, trade and barter. Fishing is an essential component of Indigenous cultural lifestyle and is connected to the traditional responsibilities of land management and kinship.

The review noted all these things and that there are native title claims over parts of the marine park that have been accepted and recognised. It noted that there is a whole range of other native title claims over other parts of the marine park. These people have direct native title interests here. And, in part because of the fact that there was an Indigenous representative on the authority who provided a direct line into the authority and gave Indigenous people some confidence that they could work with the authority and trust them, the authority produced a very significant marine park regional agreement, similar to an Indigenous land use agreement. It was highly important not only from an environmental management point of view but also because of the way that it linked Indigenous communities in with other people in the use of these areas. We have a government which is continually lecturing Indigenous people about getting more connected to the wider community. And yet, when Indigenous people have a mechanism for connection that has worked and is working, they take it away. Hopeless!

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

I would like to make a brief statement. I have stated quite clearly that I fully support the Fishing Party, and they certainly supported my election. I mentioned the word ‘deal’, and here is the deal: I will fight for the rights of commercial and recreational fishermen, for as long as I am in this place, against the blind hand of bureaucracy. There is one thing I can say about the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007: it does not go far enough. If there is a trade-off between the economic sustainability of an area—which is provided by fishing and the right of a person to take the kids down to the beach to throw in a line—and an industry created by bureaucracy to examine their navels, I will support the fishermen, the fisherwomen and the people who have created something of significant substance.

To be completely frank, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has walked over the lives of so many people, and it should be brought back under ministerial control. If people are not quite happy with how things are going, they should have the chance to reflect that in the way they vote. Unfortunately I can see that, on this issue, I am to the right of so many of my colleagues and certainly to the right of the Labor Party, the Democrats and the Greens. Nonetheless, these people deserve to be heard. This is bureaucracy gone completely and utterly mad. It has impinged on the lives of people, with 50 per cent of the reef being unable to be accessed for commercial fishing and 33 per cent being unable to be accessed for any fishing whatsoever. Fishing is a renewable resource, and this is the methodology we are using. When we bring in, for example, tree-clearing guidelines and affect the lives of farmers—when we bring in arbitrary laws from on high, made by people who are really not connected to the industry themselves—you get bad government and bad decisions. And this is what has happened here. That is the statement I would like to make. Quite honestly, all I can say is thank God for Senator Ron Boswell and Senator Nigel Scullion. Through this debate, they are the two people who have made the most sense.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The proposed changes to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act were meant to implement the key recommendations of the review. The review considered not only public submissions on how the marine park was functioning and how it could be improved but also the recommendations of the 2003 Uhrig Review of the corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders. Unfortunately, somewhere between the two, it would seem that bureaucracy has gone mad, particularly in respect of the Uhrig review, which seems to have become the bible for how we will implement boards around Australia and unfortunately has not been contextualised.

We saw the same thing with the ABC board last year, when the staff-elected function of the ABC board was removed, justified solely on the basis of Uhrig. Now they seem to be doing the same thing here. Around Australia, national parks authorities have been moving not only to increase Aboriginal management—or, heaven forbid, allowing full Aboriginal management of some national parks around Australia—but also returning national park lands to the traditional owners; whereas here we are seeing a decrease in Aboriginal and Indigenous involvement in the Great Barrier Reef management. The recommendations of the review seem to focus more on the interpretation of how to implement Uhrig than on the suggestions and concerns that were outlined in public submissions.

The Uhrig review put up two different models for the governance of statutory authorities, one being a board template where the government effectively delegates responsibilities and decision making to an independent authority and the other being the executive management template, where the ultimate decision-making authority resides with the minister. The review has gone for the second model and, in doing so, has effectively increased the level of executive control and responsibility over the actions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. This is consistent with the general trend of increasing executive control, which I have brought attention to on many occasions when discussing various bills in this place. There has been a systematic approach to concentrating a deal of executive power in ministers, which the Greens believe should not be that excessive and should be much more exposed to parliamentary review.

The Australian Greens are concerned that, with the process of changing the nature and functioning of the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority, much of the original strength of the structure and operations of the authority will be lost. A lot of things that were built into the structure of the old authority were done for specific reasons. It is important that, if structural changes are made to improve the functioning of the authority, careful consideration is given to what is being lost and the additional mechanisms that might need to be put in place to make up for what is being lost. The Australian Greens are extremely concerned that the statutory need for Indigenous representation is being removed from the GBRMPA board and no corresponding changes are being made to ensure statutory obligation to consult with local Indigenous groups and peoples and to have their views represented in the decision-making processes of the new authority.

While we note that the intent of these provisions is to move away from having a representative board, as has been put forward by the Uhrig review, to having a board that will be based on relevant knowledge and expertise, which is supposedly in line with the Uhrig review—which I believe is not being put into the context of effective management—we now have bureaucracy gone mad: ‘We will implement Uhrig come what may. It doesn’t matter what the context is; it doesn’t matter if you are cutting out an absolutely essential part of management of the Great Barrier Reef; Uhrig is the way we go. Let’s not worry about what it will do to the authority and how it will cut out the Aboriginal community from management of the Great Barrier Reef; we’re implementing the review.’ We also note that this is contradicted by the requirement for the retention of a representative position for the Queensland government. So on the one hand you can have a representative from the Queensland government; on the other hand, you cannot have a representative from the Aboriginal people.

If the new skill based board is to be based truly on expertise, there is no pressing reason to retain state government representation. It is either one or the other. We do not believe that the argument of the interjurisdictional nature of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is compelling in the way that it, on the one hand, acknowledges the relevance of state jurisdiction but, on the other hand, excludes native title rights and consideration of the unique management skills that Indigenous people bring. It is true that state and federal jurisdictions overlap, but so do state jurisdictions and those of the management of Aboriginal peoples and their lands.

There is no compelling argument presented as to why one is important but the other is not. While we acknowledge that there is an argument that a government nominee might be able to bring to an expertise based board knowledge and skills in dealing with state government jurisdictions, that is not necessarily guaranteed; they may be there just because they are the person who wears the hat for the state government. However, it is equally true that experience and expertise in dealing with Indigenous management issues would make an important and necessary contribution to the effective running of the authority. Having lived all your life with the reef and being embedded in an ancient and living culture of caring for the reef is also important.

The committee cannot have it both ways. Either it is a representative board with representatives from both the state government and the Indigenous community, or it is a skill based board where knowledge and expertise in dealing with issues of central importance to the effective running of the authority are particularly required. If it is a skill based board, these skills and this expertise—which might include knowledge of and expertise in dealing with state government and Indigenous management issues—might not necessarily be held by a nominated Indigenous rep or by a nominee of the state government. If you must have a skill based board, I believe that the act should contain a list of criteria that specifies which knowledge, skills and expertise are relevant.

The Greens are concerned with—in fact, we take umbrage at—the implications to be drawn from the evidence presented by the department which emphasised the value of Great Barrier Reef management by a group of statutory office holders with relevant knowledge, expertise and abilities for critical thought, objectivity and judgement. The department explained that the review found this to be of particular importance given the Great Barrier Reef’s complexity and size; environmental, social and economic values; the difficult task of managing multiple-use objectives; and the 2003 Review of the corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders, the Uhrig review, which found that governing boards are most effective when members are appointed on the basis of relevant skills and expertise rather than of representing a particular interest.

These statements were given by the department as the basis for its reasoning about why Indigenous representatives should be excluded but state government representatives included, and such statements have disturbing implications. They imply that Indigenous representatives are not likely to possess the relevant experience and ability for critical thought, objectivity and judgement and, at the same time, that it is possible or even likely that a state government representative will possess the relevant skills, expertise and objectivity in their judgements, despite their clear obligation to their employer, the state government.

I struggle to think how many state government nominees on committees that I have dealt with have been able to transcend the views and interests of their employers—and, believe me, I have been on so many committees throughout my career that I have lost count. A state government representative has never argued any point other than that of the state government, despite what they may have had to contribute on a skills base. Never at any time have they done other than run a state government line; that is what they have done every single time. Quite frankly, this strikes me as very discriminatory language. In fact, I think the minister needs to look into the statements that have been made and their implications.

Under these proposals, it looks as though there is the potential for all Indigenous representation to be lost. Our concern is that the proposed changes to the act mean that there is no statutory guarantee that Indigenous people will be consulted and considered in the management of the marine park. The only provision remaining for Indigenous input into the park’s management would then be through a non-statutory advisory committee to the environment minister, with no legislative agreement that this committee will be formed and maintained and that its views will be considered or that it will contain any level of Indigenous representation. We believe that ensuring Indigenous consultation in the management of the GBR is essential.

To this end, if there is a move from a representative board structure to a skill based structure, we believe other statutory provisions need to be made to ensure that both the appropriate skills set is used as a basis for the selection of board members—in this case, including Indigenous management skills—and there is a clear statutory mechanism for relevant Indigenous interests to be consulted in park management decision-making processes. We do not believe that Indigenous representation has been adequately considered in this process, and we are deeply concerned that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007 excludes Indigenous people from the management of this critical area.

I would like to go back to the requirement for state representation. While I believe that state representation is needed on a board like this, I believe equally that there needs to be Indigenous representation on a board like this. That goes back to the heart of what I believe is blind adherence to the Uhrig review, which does not enable it to be contextualised; it does not enable the specific needs of specific cases to be put.

In addition, I should clarify the statement I made previously about state government employees, in case any of my former colleagues are listening. I have a great deal of respect for the work that state government employees put into authorities, committees and boards, but there is no getting away from the fact that they are employed by the state government and, therefore, must stick to that government’s policies. The people with whom I have worked in the past have done that very well, but they have had to run the state government line, which is what they would do on this skill based board.

The bill itself does not address the implications of climate change for the reef. This is a very important and pressing issue. And, while we are considering these changes, we also need to be considering the urgent impact of climate change. Scientists say that a rise of just 1½ to two degrees represents a significant threat to the reef’s survival; even below this is not considered safe. There are many reports already that suggest that we have moved beyond the threshold of danger. We know that parts of the reef are already dead and that others are bleached; if you add the effect of acidification, the reef is in mortal danger.

If we are serious about saving the reef we need to increase the number and extent of protected areas to build resilience. We need to look at stopping or limiting all the things that stress the reef; for example, the ongoing issue of nutrients from agricultural run-offs, sewage and other human impacts. Reefs around the world are facing an absolute crisis. Australia, a developed nation with more resources, is in an almost unique position to look after all its reefs because they are the healthiest in the world.

Acidification is another issue that is increasing in importance around the world; we need to invest far more resources in addressing it. Last year scientists came up with a list of 10 questions about acidification that they are still unable to answer. Australia needs to jump on board investing heavily in the science of acidification to gain a better understanding of it.

Last year there was a proposal which many people, including me, laughed at. It was from the Queensland tourism minister, who said we should put a shadecloth over the barrier reef.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The tourism minister did not say that; GBRMPA said it.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A statement was made. Wags from my office called it the ‘Great Australian Roof’.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You misquoted the minister.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I beg your pardon. Whichever minister it was, she was from Queensland. The point is that we cannot rely on those sorts of interventions to save the Great Barrier Reef. There needs to be a focus on how we can truly save the reef and there needs to be greater effort put into the science of trying to protect it. Such issues are still not being adequately considered, but they need to be. We must also bear in mind again that we need the best possible management for this area. Taking the requirement for Aboriginal representation and involvement out of the act, off the authority, with no statutory requirement for Indigenous involvement, not only undermines Aboriginal people’s management, identification and ownership of these areas but also does not allow for the best management practice possible for the reef. So not only are we undermining Indigenous Australians but we are undermining the best possible management of this reef. The Greens do not support the part of the bill that takes out Aboriginal involvement and the requirement for representation on the authority. We believe the government needs to amend this bill so Aboriginal involvement is required in the management of the Great Barrier Reef.

The Greens, therefore, will be supporting the Democrat amendments to this bill. I hope the government has very serious second thoughts about what it is doing by cutting out the statutory requirement for Aboriginal involvement in the management of the reef and about the message that it is sending to Aboriginal Australia in saying and implying that the people of this region—the 70 groups that are involved—do not have the skills or expertise required to be involved in management of the reef. The government so undervalues Aboriginal Australia that it has cut out their statutory involvement in the management of the Great Barrier Reef.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with Senator McLucas when she says that the Great Barrier Reef is an icon which needs to be protected, has great tourism value, provides many jobs and underpins the tourist industry in North Queensland. I accept all those things and have no argument with it. My argument is that this barrier reef is a multi purpose park, and it always has been a multi purpose park. What has been happening, and what GBRMPA did, is completely dishonest and left a trail of misery and woe. I do not think I have ever seen Senator McLucas with her shoulder to the wheel trying to sort it out, but it has taken Warren Entsch, Teresa Gambaro, Senator Nigel Scullion and me about two years to come to some sort of arrangement that will help the fishermen, the fish processors, the outboard motor people and the bait and fishing tackle shops, who have all been impacted on. No-one needs to go down that track. It should never have happened, and I hope to goodness it will never happen again. It is all right to stand up here and advocate the preciousness of the reef—no-one disagrees with that—but you do not have to leave a trail of misery, disaster, bankruptcies and broken marriages to do that. You can do that quite within the bounds of sensible discussion and reasonableness, which we never saw from GBRMPA.

The Representative Areas Program was put forward by GBRMPA. In 2001 GBRMPA decided to fence off parts of the reef to preserve biodiversity—I have no argument with that—and protect samples of 70 different bioregions. This became the RAP, or the Representative Areas Program. Up to that stage seven per cent of the park was protected in green zones. GBRMPA wanted 25 per cent protected. They went around and told everyone that that was what they wanted. They came into my office and told me, ‘We want 25 per cent protected.’ I can remember saying to them—I can almost see it—‘If you are going to put the biodiversity zones in, put them in the areas where no fishing is taking place.’ They said, ‘Yes, we’ll consider that, Senator Boswell.’ In real terms they took 33 per cent of the marine park, which is a total of around 70 per cent of the reef itself. This program was a subterfuge and became a disaster. I will tell you why, Senator McLucas. You know, as well as I do, that GBRMPA put forward to the government that this was going to cost between $500,000 and $1.5 million, but if you really stretched it out it was going to cost $2 million. What has it cost?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was $10 million at the beginning.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will get to that. GRMPA said it would cost between $500,000 and $1.5 million. They said, ‘But let’s throw in another $500,000 because it might go to $2 million.’ Well, $200 million later the cost is still going northwards. I have extracted every last ounce I can get from the Treasurer and from the minister to keep paying. The cost estimates were either a lie, at the best, or incompetence at the very worst. They went to the government and said, ‘Let’s put this program forward; it is going to cost between $500,000 and $2 million,’ and the cost actually came to $200 million—or $187 million, depending on whose figures you are looking at—and it is still going northward. Senator McLucas, if you did that in private enterprise you would be sacked on the spot. If you had an overrun of $200 million, or if you said to the government or to the boss, ‘I think it is going to cost this,’ but it cost 100 times that, you would be sacked on the spot.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you in coalition or not?

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am in coalition. And thank goodness we are in coalition because if we were not in coalition the fishing industry would be so impacted it would still be being damaged. This has cost the government over $200 million. There are 400 claims which have been processed and about another 200 to go. Now we are getting to the sharp end, or the end where it is really going to cost money, the food or fish processing, because when you close down the industry or a certain part of the industry—or take 33 per cent of fishing off the reef—then you must compensate the boats that are squeezed into the remaining area. You can see that 100 per cent of the boats going into 60 per cent of the area just will not go, so you have to buy them out. The implications of that are that you have to buy out the net makers, the fishing industry and the fishing boats. We are still processing those claims. We are still dealing with the mess.

As I said, this just could not happen in private enterprise or someone would suffer the consequences. The process was that there was very limited consultation. Maps were produced but were not shown to the fishermen or even to members of parliament. Then, when they were produced, they were given out on videos which would not fit into the computers of the fishermen. We got access to them late. Then the commercial fishermen and the recreational fishermen were asked by GBRMPA to go out and mark the spots that they required. The fishermen said, ‘These are the areas that are of the utmost importance to us, so if you are going to have biodiversity areas do not put them there.’ What happened? These very areas were the areas that were zoned out in the final maps.

No-one would dispute the need for protection of the reef, but we do not have to go through this process. A spanner crab fisherman who provided preferred fishery details to GBRMPA found that his prime fishing ground within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, earlier determined as a model fishery by the state government, was now declared a green zone. He was asked to mark out what he required. He did that, and it automatically became a green zone.

A prime prawn-fishing ground was closed due to concern for migratory turtles, even after the sensible suggestion was made to close the area only during the three-month turtle season. Green zones were placed on lee sides of islands, in sheltered areas where fishermen could safely fish. The zones that they were allowed to fish in were on the windward sides of islands, where they could hardly ever go. An aquarium fishing business lost its primary fishing ground to green rezoning after providing details to GBRMPA. Areas productive for catching brood prawns, essential for the continued success of the North Queensland aquaculture industry, were excluded after mapping details were given to GBRMPA. No wonder no-one had any faith in this process. When GBRMPA asked them to mark on the maps what they required to continue their businesses, those very areas were zoned out.

GBRMPA has the distinction of being able to achieve something that few other people have been able to achieve—that is, alienate both commercial and recreational fishers. Recreational fishermen lost their fishing areas after providing details of them. During the election campaign, the government agreed that this process would be reviewed, and the result of that review is the bill before us: the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007. I believe that we need legislation where the minister is responsible for such actions and is aware of any reactions that they might cause. GBRMPA will no longer be able to unilaterally get away with this type of subterfuge.

Senator Scullion, Warren Entsch and I secured a package to compensate the fishermen. It is not easy to ask for these things. Initially, we received $10 million. It was then raised to $26 million. Then it was uncapped for restructure funding assistance. We are still sorting out this mess; it is still going on. There are families who are still being hurt. There are people who are still waiting for their payments. There are people who are still ringing me up constantly. I have received phone calls from people who have said: ‘The keys to my trawler are here. You can take over the thing. You’ve bankrupted me.’ That is why Senator Scullion, Warren Entsch and I went in there and fought for and got an uncapped package. The packages include competitive tender licence buyouts, restructuring grants for onshore and offshore businesses, and small payouts for retrenched deckhands and trawler skippers. We also secured payments for outdoor motor retailers, fishing retailers and a number of other people who were impacted by the GBRMPA process.

What did the state government do? While the federal government was doing this, the state government brought in what it called ‘complementary closures’, which were in the state controlled fishery. While the federal government was paying out $200 million to compensate for the actions of GBRMPA, the state government put in exactly nothing. It did not put in one cent to compensate for the closures of the inshore fishery. The state slipped the net on paying for these extensive complementary closures.

I think it was on Friday that the state government made a statement that it was going to put down a 10 per cent closure in Moreton Bay. I have been through this before: 10 per cent suddenly becomes 35 per cent. Before the state government does this, it should not fall into the same trap that GBRMPA did. It should make sure that it knows how many and what kinds of commercial fishing boat licences would need to be bought out, as well as at what cost and under what scheme. It needs to do a social impact study. It also needs to know how many and what kinds of onshore businesses would be affected by the closures. What would it cost to compensate bait and tackle shops, seafood outlets, boat and motor dealers? What would be the impact on a person who takes his kids fishing in a green zone and under what system would this occur? How would the state compensation be calculated for onshore and offshore business? How will recreational fishermen be catered for to ensure that their children, parents and grandparents are able to go fishing without the risk of breaking the law, as occurred under the closures in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?

I call upon the state government to address those issues because hundreds of thousands of people enjoy Moreton Bay and enjoy taking their kids out fishing in it. It is their pastime and hobby. I know what happens with closures. I have seen it before and I never want to see it again: a 10 per cent closure suddenly becomes a 35 per cent closure, and then people will not go fishing because they are frightened of going into a green zone—this has already occurred in relation to the Great Barrier Reef—and being fined or charged with a criminal offence.

The impact of RAP has been to take a lot of fish out of the market. You almost have to be a millionaire now to get a feed of good fish because fewer fish are being caught. It is a product of supply and demand that, as fewer fish are caught, the more expensive fish is. We have ruined businesses and families. We have made criminals out of recreational fishermen. There are 320 people with criminal records as a result of dropping a line in a green zone. By the goodwill of the minister, this infringement system has been taken care of. There is no question of a criminal offence for someone who takes his kids or grandkids out fishing in a tinnie with an eight-horsepower motor and who, without a GPS, finds that he has lobbed into a green zone because he does not know how to navigate. There are 320 people with a criminal record from dropping their line in a green zone. This is not what I think you would want to support, Senator McLucas. We now have the infringement system in place, but there is still the matter of retrospectivity.

It was perhaps four or even six months ago that GBRMPA were taken to court by people who ascertained that GBRMPA could not charge someone using a GPS system. That decision has not been appealed by GBRMPA. But prior to this decision, a number of people, including both professional fishermen and commercial fishermen, were charged. While those charges remain, the court has ruled that no-one in future can be charged on GPS coordinates. Those charges should be reversed, and I am working with the Prime Minister to do that.

One of the other impacts that we have found is that people just do not go fishing anymore. They are frightened to go fishing. They are frightened that they are going to drift into or end up in a green zone. The fine is huge; it is very significant. People cannot relax. Fishing is supposed to be a relaxing hobby, not one where you are constantly worried about where you are. It takes certain skills and a lot of money to put GPSs in boats. GBRMPA said: ‘Well, it’s the football season, the cost of fuel’s gone up and everything is militating against people going fishing. That is why fishing has been reduced.’ But the real reason fishing has been reduced on the Great Barrier Reef is that people are frightened to take their children and their grandchildren out on their boats.

That has impacted on the bait suppliers, the fishing tackle suppliers and the commercial boat builders. Tourism operators have been forced to travel further and have been squeezed into smaller areas. A lot of people have sold up and got out. Onshore businesses, like boat, motor and tackle shops, have been severely impacted. Processing industries have all been impacted. I went to see one marina owner who just could not believe that this could happen—that GBRMPA had the authority to do this.

That is why we have brought down the legislation which we are debating now. It makes GBRMPA more responsible to the minister. No longer can GBRMPA just do its own thing. The minister was elected. The minister is part of the Westminster system, where we and the coalition appoint a minister to take responsibility. That is what we have now. It is time to bring GBRMPA to account. GBRMPA will now answer to the government. I did not get into this place to appoint an unelected body to deprive people of their livelihoods, take away their aspirations and even make criminals of them if they drift into a green zone when they take their children out fishing. We need to make GBRMPA more accountable, and that is why we have this legislation before us today. The legislation will lock down the RAP zoning plan for a minimum of seven years from the date it came into force. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We still have about four minutes left before question time, so I will try and sum up the debate. I thank honourable senators for their contributions in relation to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007. The bill implements changes arising from the government’s response to the 2006 review of the act. The machinery elements of the bill have been adequately canvassed, but I want to engage on a few issues that have been raised during the second reading debate.

Firstly, I understand Senator McLucas made a call for the reef to be gazetted or placed on the National Heritage List.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McLucas interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She confirms that. I understand that in fact that took effect on 21 May 2007. In relation to the Indigenous issues relating to the reef and the members having expertise, I understand that there continues to be the capacity to appoint members with expertise in Indigenous issues based on the relevant criteria, so that will not be ruled out.

The third matter that I wish to engage in is the proposal that the Labor Party will be putting up for, for want of a better term, a Great Barrier Reef region. I have been provided with a map that it may be helpful to table which shows, on my viewing—I have not done a close calculation—that the region would be about three times the size of the actual Great Barrier Reef Marine Park area. I am also advised that, when you get out to that extent, you get into different marine ecosystems. It would be incumbent upon the Australian Labor Party to tell us what it would mean if that were declared as a region. Undoubtedly it would mean further lockups et cetera.

It will be interesting to hear what the Labor Party have to offer in relation to this debate. We know that, in their rush to get Greens preferences at the next election, they have already done the deal in New South Wales irrespective of any policies. The deal has already been struck. They have to make a few concessions to the Australian Greens in return for those preferences, on which of course Mr Rudd hopes to gain government. I simply say to the Australian people: remember that, if Mr Rudd becomes Prime Minister courtesy of Greens preferences, it will be a Greens controlled Senate that will deliver for Mr Rudd. That will have great consequences for not only the environmental policies but, more importantly, the social policies that this country will face, especially in the very important area of drugs, which is a matter of great concern, especially to those on this side of the chamber. Whilst we say it is important to protect the environment, we say it is even more important to protect our children from the pollution of drugs. That is why we would never do the sort of dirty deals with the Greens that Labor are willing to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.