Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

by leave—I ask that the division now be withdrawn on the basis that you, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore, were under the impression that Senator McEwen was seeking leave in relation to this bill. That was not the case. In the spirit of cooperation, because you were deceived by the government—'misled' is probably a better word—we will withdraw the division.

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

So the Greens are the extreme ones in this debate, apparently, and yet Senator Boswell has just accused the minister for the environment of being a dictator. He clearly does not understand the act. He acknowledged that he was not paying attention when his side of politics put through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which set out what is actually a very consultative process for bioregional planning and for marine protected areas. It is an extremely useful process which, at the time, his side of politics—who are not always known for their environmental credentials—thought was a good process in terms of consultation and the process you go through to establish bioregional planning processes in marine protected areas. But now he is saying, 'No, we don't think it is.' But if you actually look at the process you see that it is a highly consultative process that takes years.

I have been involved in marine protection and these issues for 25 years. I have been involved in a lot of consultation and I have been involved in the south-west marine planning process since about the mid-1990s. Now we have finally got a draft plan on the table. That is 15 or 16 years. How much longer do the coalition want to be able to consult on marine protected areas? I will tell you: forever—because they do not want them. This is what this is about: they are scared of evidence based planning, which is what happens with marine bioregional planning and when you put marine reserves and marine protected areas in place. It is evidence based planning, and that is why we so strongly oppose this particular bill. What the coalition want to do is make this a political process and try to never get marine protected areas in place. Senator Boswell ignores the science consistently. For years the coalition have been saying, 'No, we don't want marine protected areas. No, we don't want marine no-take areas,' because they are trying to imply that all marine protected areas are no-take areas, and that is blatantly not true.

For years the coalition have been saying, 'There is no science around marine protected areas. There is no science around the role marine no-take areas play.' The science is well and truly in about the role they play in protecting our marine biodiversity. Also on the ledger is how much marine biodiversity we have lost and the parlous state of our coral reefs around this planet—the global importance of protecting those reefs in Australia. Now that the science is much better documented, they cannot rely on that argument anymore, even though they keep rolling it out. Now they want to come in here and try to use a political process to stop marine protected areas, because they know the science is in, they know the evidence is in, they know that communities support it. Go and talk to West Australians. You will clearly see that the majority of Western Australians support marine protected areas and marine reserves.

Go and talk to my community in my home state of Western Australia. Talk to the people in the south-west, which I do all the time. There is overwhelming support for the south-west bioregional area. There is over ­ whelming support for marine protected areas, because West Australians understand the science and the roles of marine protected areas. They are overwhelmingly committed to Ningaloo Marine Park. They are overwhelmingly supportive of the zoning of Ningaloo. They want to see their precious marine environment protected. The south-west regional area, from the south-west of WA over into South Australia, has more unique species than the Great Barrier Reef. There are species there that are found nowhere else on the planet. It is highly important, and the government has gone through a very consultative process with industry, with stakeholders and with the community. And they are still going through it. This thing about our not talking to the fishers is complete nonsense. The fishers have had extra-special access around, for example, the fishing gear assessment process. The community still have not seen that report, but the fishing industry have, rec fishers have; they have seen it. Here is the coalition saying that there is special consultation with—I am going to mention the word, Senator Boswell—Pew. I am going to mention—wait for it—Imogen Zethoven. I will go back to the issue of claims that the Greens are extreme. You should see Senator Boswell light up and press his button every time you mention that name in estimates. How many hours have the coalition, and Senator Boswell in particular, wasted in estimates asking ridiculous questions about times that non-government organisations have actually dared to ring the government?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I reject the reflection that Senator Siewert is making upon coalition senators and questions we have asked in estimates about bioregional planning. I have spent a lot of time asking questions about bioregional planning because I am concerned about it and I treat it as serious. I reject the reflection that she makes and I ask her to withdraw it.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, what is your point of order?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a reflection on another senator and I ask her to withdraw the reflection.

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

On the point of order—what a specious point of order. Senator Siewert has the right to make the comments she has made. They are quite within the rules, and Senator Colbeck should have that request dismissed.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brown.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have the right to make a point of order—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Colbeck, you do indeed.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and to deal with issues as I see fit, and we do not need the help of Senator Brown.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are now beginning to argue the matter.

Senator Siewert interjecting—

I am going to rule on the point of order, Senator Siewert. I do not believe there is a point of order at this stage, Senator Colbeck; it is part of the debate. But I will continue to listen closely.

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

If Senator Colbeck would let me finish, I was about to highlight the fact that they are asking questions as though it is wrong, in a democracy, that organisations are allowed to speak to government or to statutory organisations. They ask questions like: have non-govern­ment organisations spoken to ministers? Have they spoken to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority? That is the way fishing organisations talk to government all the time. Of course recrea­tional fishers talk to government and statutory authorities—all the time. I would like to know his point. He keeps pushing the argument that Pew run the marine management process. It would not have taken 16 or more years to get to the point where we have some draft plans out on the south-west bioregional planning process if a non-government organisation were pulling the strings of the government—as they keep implying—which is of course a whole lot of nonsense.

There has been an extensive consultation process, which has looked at the science, at the biodiversity hotspots, at the areas of high endemism and at the areas that need special protection. They have consulted industry—they have consulted the fishing industry; they have consulted recreational fishers; they have consulted the oil and gas industry—for a very long time and now those plans are on the table. The conservation movement has made its view very clear: they do not think it has gone far enough. At the moment, the fishing industry or recreational fishers are making claims that it has gone too far. That is part of the process. There is a clear process, a review of management plans, where they are a disallowable instrument.

This is about not allowing the role that marine protected areas play in the essential protection of biodiversity and fish stocks. As I said, they keep denying that, despite the overwhelming evidence.

I urge coalition members to look at the role that marine protected areas play in protecting fish stocks in particular. It is really ironic that recreational fishers and the fishing industry are so vehemently opposed to marine protected areas and particularly to marine no-take areas—look at the role they play in terms of protecting fish stocks. No-take areas are absolutely essential, particularly given the overfishing that has occurred around the world.

Before the opposition jump up and say that I am having a go at fishing regulations, I want to point out that I have stated many times in this chamber that Australia has some of the best fishing regulation in the world. I have acknowledged that. I do not say it has reached optimum effectiveness, but we have said on many occasions that it is among the best in the world. But that is not to say that it cannot be improved. We are still seeing fish stocks depleted. In Western Australia the system has become so politicised, because no government dared to create adequate marine protected areas off the coast of Western Australia, that there are fish stocks after fish stocks and species after species that have got to the point where— (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a brief statement to ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Ludwig.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( ) (11:49): Leave is granted for two minutes.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. As the government is aware, this is a private senator's bill—this is our bill and we wish to have all stages completed. I am asking, so that it is on the record, if the government will consider extending time to complete all stages of the bill within one hour. If we extend that time, the coalition will withdraw its matter of public importance that is listed for this afternoon on the Notice Paper. That would bring back the hour so neither the government nor the opposition would lose time. The important point is that we would like all stages of the bill completed within that one hour.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems an unusual way to do this—to have a discussion across the chamber. I indicate firstly that it is private senators' time. It is for private senators' bills to be spoken to, debated, put through the committee stage and finalised. The govern­ment will not agree to a device to bring something to a vote in private senators' time. I think that would be a type of guillotine of a particular bill. If it finishes within that hour—if all senators want it to finish within that hour and they confine their speeches to that—so be it. But I cannot and would not, either by leave or through a motion, agree to a procedural device that would bring it to a finalisation. I think that is sensible; otherwise, we detract from private senators' time to openly discuss private senators' bills. That would be the general feeling, I would think. Those are the first principles I would always go to. There may be other reasons. People can agree around the chamber to bring things to a conclusion and that would be a sensible thing to do if they so wished. So I am not ruling out the possibility of it being concluded and having a vote on all stages within that hour, but I feel obliged to make plain that I do not want to agree to a procedural device that would then enforce that because it may mean that other senators around the chamber who want to make a contribution cannot. That is not to say that I would then encourage senators to speak who would otherwise have not spoken on the bill.

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

I seek leave to make a statement.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

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

When the government came to power there was an agreement. I understood that agreement to be that private members' bills would be presented on Friday between certain times and they would be debated out and voted upon. That was the agreement I believe all parties agreed to. It was done on a number of bills. I think Senator Fiona Nash had one that got through. That was the agreement I believe we had in this parliament, but that has been aborted today. Under the agreement that was presented to this parliament this bill should be put to a vote. It is an important bill. It is a bill that the coalition went to the people on. It should be voted on because that is what the parliament agreed under the new paradigm. This is just an attempt to talk this bill out so that four million amateur fishermen do not have their say through their representatives in parliament. They will be bitterly disappointed because they believe the people they helped to elect have a right to take their concerns into this parliament. That is being stopped by this bill not being voted on today. That is against every principle that was put forward when the new parliament started. I want to put that on the record. I am disappointed, but I am not as disappointed as those four million people who vote and fish are going to be. They will be bitter that the Labor government has acceded to the Greens. (Time expired)

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

I seek leave to make a similar statement.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

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

Firstly, we made no agreement to debate matters on Fridays. The agreement was to debate matters on Thursdays.

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

You are so cute.

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

Senator Macdonald says that I am cute. I take that; it is nice to hear him make a positive statement about me for once.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure all senators agree with him.

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

Thank you, Senator Faulkner. The private members' time that we are now enjoying exists because the Greens brought that into an agreement after many years of Liberal and Labor govern­ments suppressing any move for private members' bills. It is a bit precious for Senator Boswell to now be saying that he wants to—

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

Precious! Apart from Penny Wong you are the most precious in this chamber.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I cannot hear Senator Brown.

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

You're not missing anything.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brown, please continue with your statement.

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

He is a bit grumpy, as usual. We will not be supporting this move. The opposition brings on an urgency motion and suddenly says it is not urgent. What an abuse of parliament that is. That means that other people who may have had urgency motions do not get the opportunity to have that debating time this afternoon. We have had a private member's bill voted on here this morning. Those are the terms and conditions of the arrangements we made with the government that Senator Boswell refers to. It is proper process and we will continue to stick by that proper process.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a further two-minute statement just to sum up this discussion.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I accept Senator Brown's proposition that the Greens have implemented this time and also the coalition and the government did support private senators' business of a Thursday morning. However, a broad concept was that whoever had the time for the private senators' bills would in fact organise which bills they wished to debate and, where possible, organise time management. I think it is superfluous if we end up having private senators' bills time and we do not get to a final decision on this.

I will pick up the point about the urgency motion that Senator Brown mentioned. Yes, we have an urgency motion this afternoon, but we believe, especially with the state­ments made by Senator Boswell, that this matter is more urgent than that motion. That is all. It is just more urgent than the motion that we currently have listed for this afternoon to be debated. It is important for us to achieve an outcome with this bill. We prepared to put it to a vote at the end of further debate and then let the chamber decide on whether the bill will pass or fail on its merits. That is all we are asking to do. We are not asking for anything except to conclude this debate within one hour of time and does not affect the government's program any further today.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate has expired.