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

The Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2010 aims to amend the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act to broaden the definitions of flora and fauna protected and not permitted to be brought into Antarctica. The key amendments give authority to the minister to include invertebrates as specially protected species and prohibit invertebrates being taken from Antarctica. The bill also broadens the definitions of organisms. It increases safeguards of specially protected species and it strengthens offences relating to the accidental introduction of non-native organisms into the Antarctic.

The treaty which governs the Antarctic continent for those who are parties to the treaty—and that is not everyone, I might add—was introduced and adopted to protect Antarctica from environmental harm and not to allow the continent to become the object of international discord. In fact it was always said that the Antarctic should remain an area of peace and science and, generally speaking, that has happened. The agreements that form part of the treaty have been enacted into Australian law to strengthen that scientific cooperation that I mentioned, protection of the Antarctic environment, conservation of plants and animals and preservation of historic sites—and I might just say there that the Mawson’s Huts Foundation, a privately funded group of people, have done a marvellous job in protecting Mawson’s Huts.

The bill also introduces into Australian law the designation and management of protected areas and the management of tourism—again very important, with the increasing number of international tourists visiting the Antarctic and Antarctic waters. It also provides for information exchange, the collection of meteorological data, hydrographic charting, logistical cooperation and communications and safety. Last year, in April, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting amended the Madrid protocol which underpins the treaty and agreed to include increased protection of the Antarctic’s flora and fauna. Those amendments are outlined in this bill. So we are actually discharging our duty as a participant in the treaty by introducing these new protocols into Australian law.

In an attempt to save just a fraction of time, I might indicate that, whilst we support the bill, we will not be supporting the amendments that, I understand, are going to be moved by the Greens. I want to indicate that the coalition and the shadow minister very much support the intent of the proposed amendments, but we do understand that it is important to get this bill through in the dying hours of this session of parliament. We will not be meeting again until May, when we will be entirely consumed by the budget issues. So, whilst the shadow minister has indicated general support for the proposed amendments, we have given an undertaking to the government to deal with this bill as noncontroversial and not to participate in what could become a quite lengthy debate on the amendments. Perhaps the amendments are of a nature that would support additional legislative action later in the year to achieve the goals that they attempt to promote. Certainly, for the moment, we will be supporting the bill so that it can pass into law and give even further and greater protection to the Antarctic continent.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 1990, as one of the Goldman Environmental Prize recipients, I handed President George Bush Sr a letter, at the White House, calling for him to endorse the Madrid protocol. America was holding out at the time. I like to think that the Goldman Environmental Prize winners had some influence on the United States going on to support the Madrid protocol, which is the vital document, by the world agreed, to protect Antarctica as a zone of peace and science. So I am very pleased that we are now adding extra Australian legal strength to the protection of Antarctica, following ratification of the annex to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty 1998.

We must see this in light of the threat to Antarctica. There are now over 40,000 tourists going to Antarctica each year. There is an increasing scientific establishment, there are many more countries involved and the threat of introduced organisms and the unwanted invasion of species into the Antarctic ecosystem is increasing every year. So this legislation is to be welcomed. I might add that the threat to Antarctica at the moment from human action is cataclysmic. In addition, climate change and ocean acidification—and, indeed, the whaling activity of the Japanese, in contravention of the Antarctic Treaty—are just parts of a suite of unprecedented threats to the whole of the Antarctic ecosystem which will in turn affect every ecosystem on the planet, including our own continent.

The first amendment which I shall move is to recognise the World Heritage value of the Antarctic. There is no argument about that. But, once again, the opposition are saying that they support it but they will vote against it. They support the intent of it, but they will vote against their own intent on a simple matter like that. The second group of amendments requires the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts to use the powers available to protect whales in the Antarctic. Again, the opposition say they are in support of that but they will vote against it. Senator Macdonald said that the opposition support the intent of that but they will vote against it. This is a historic failure of the opposition. I do not want to gainsay the government here; this is a great opportunity for the government to support these amendments. But I note the failure of the opposition, through 13 years of government, to do the right thing and to recognise the obvious intrinsic values of the Antarctic continent bioregion and its oceans—that is, being not only of World Heritage value but the greatest World Heritage area that we have on this whole planet. It is the great white continent, this world park, which deserves recognition. I look forward to the government taking a different point of view and supporting these amendments so that they can pass the Senate today.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senators Ian Macdonald and Bob Brown, who have contributed to this debate on the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2010. The government agrees with the opposition that the proposed amendments to the bill are unacceptable because they are actually inconsistent with Australia’s longstanding policy position for Antarctica. Because of the unique legal and political circumstances of the Antarctic region, the Antarctic Treaty parties, including Australia, take the view that issues relating to the environmental protection and management of the Antarctic should be dealt with primarily in the forums of the Antarctic Treaty system and should not be conflated with issues relevant to World Heritage and the conservation of whales. Article 7 of annex II to the Madrid protocol specifically provides:

Nothing in this Annex shall derogate from the rights and obligations of Parties under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

Australia actively pursues international measures for the comprehensive protection of whales in the appropriate international forum, the International Whaling Commission. On that basis, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.