Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I continue from where I finished late last year on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011. The marine bioregional zones targeted in this bill and the subsequent declaration of the marine pro­tected areas within them which will follow are provided for under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The declaration of marine bioregional plans is deemed by the act not to be a legislative instrument, and thus they are shielded from parliamentary scrutiny. This bill seeks to make the bioregional plans disallowable instruments. This bill seeks to remove that absolute power from the minister. It gives parliament the opportunity to have a say when occasions dictate it to be necessary. This bill provides for far greater parliamentary sovereignty and allows both houses the right to say whether any new marine park declaration should happen, on its individual merits. The current lack of review available to the final declaration of bioregional plans is a clear example of the vesting of power within narrow confines. It rests solely with the minister and therefore provides the opportunity for an abuse of power.

Parliamentary scrutiny is something that is sorely needed in this parliament after last year's gags on gags that we saw through the carbon tax debate and truncated debates generally. It was a year where legislation—like that which referred to the carbon tax and that which we are now seeing for the minerals resource rent tax—which people do not want and which the government do not have a mandate for was forced through parliament. Yet again it is the coalition who are trying to restore proper process and scrutiny to the parliament.

This bill is not about whether the govern­ment's declaration on marine protected areas goes ahead but whether parliament has the right to have its say and do the job we are elected to do, which is represent the millions of Australians who voted us here. It is a job which the coalition takes seriously. Unlike Labor, we will actually listen to the millions of Australians we represent. Overwhelm­ingly, support for parliamentary review of the marine bioregional planning process was evident in submissions to the Senate Environment and Communications Legisla­tion Committee inquiry. I would like to quote from the Abalone Industry Association of South Australia:

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

The coalition is not an anti-marine-protected-areas party. We understand that we need them to protect and maintain biologically and culturally significant marine areas. The previous coalition government began the process of establishing marine protected areas around Australia's coastline. In 2006 the coalition announced the establishment of 11 marine protected areas along Australia's south-east coast. These 11 marine protected areas were created only after careful consideration and consultation with the recreational and commercial fishing sectors and other stakeholders.

Labor has continued the coalition's policy but it has failed to adopt a balanced approach to the marine protected areas. Labor has also failed to engage in appropriate consultation with the fishing industry and the wider community. The Labor government has continued to disregard and ignore the fishing industry, and its disastrous attempts to effectively engage with the fishing industry over marine parks have been embarrassing to say the least. Taking away further funding from the national peak body, Recfish, is proof that Labor would sooner tax and spend rather than govern in the interests of all Australians. All the fishermen in Queensland might like to bear that in mind when they go to the polls next month, on 24 March.

Many communities that rely on fishing are directly threatened by Labor's inability to consult on whether a region should be declared a marine protected area. Labor has failed to consult with both the commercial fishing industry and recreational fishers on major changes affecting them, a failure which threatens the jobs and livelihoods of many small businesses in coastal comm­unities. Doesn't this sound all too familiar—the Labor government yet again failing to consult stakeholders on the policies it is forcing on the Australian people? Just like the carbon tax, the mining tax and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which is in its second reincarnation, poor consultation is the hallmark of this government.

Why does the government not value the input of its key stakeholders? Having spent many hours on the road on the live cattle inquiry following the live cattle ban in June, I found many of those stakeholders wonder­ing why this government does not include them in the decision-making process affect­ing so many people's lives in Northern Australia. Why does it not discuss its proposed changes to this policy and legisla­tion with the people who will be directly affected—the fishermen, the recreational fishers and the commercial fishers of Australia? In these commercial and recrea­tional fishing sectors, those businesses and communities reliant on this whole-of-business approach to these regions up and down the coast of Australia have all raised serious and ongoing concerns about the consultation process implemented by Labor. Australians are raising their arms up, worried about the fact that they are not getting a say. Rather than seek genuine input on marine bioregional planning decisions, Labor has used the process for declaring marine protected areas to tell stakeholders what will happen. It has just used the process of declaring marine protected areas to tell them.

Unsurprisingly, recreational and commer­cial fishers, as well as the many related businesses and communities that rely on fishing, have raised substantial concerns about Labor's mishandling of marine protected areas. Appropriate and effective consultation is needed if marine protected areas are to balance environmental concerns with the need to promote jobs and to sustain communities that rely on commercial and recreational fishing. It is not a difficult task and it is not an unreasonable request: step outside of Canberra and talk with the recreational and commercial fishers and the myriad related businesses, small businesses and communities and ask them what they think. When they respond, however, you have to listen, something which this Gillard Labor government has failed to do time and time again. Labor does not listen. This is evidenced through its inability to listen to the Australian people on the carbon tax, to small miners on the mining tax and to Northern Australian cattle producers on the live cattle ban. Labor just does not understand the real world or the realities of running and maintaining a business.

The 2011-12 federal budget, delivered by the Labor-Greens alliance, resulted in no new initiatives for fisheries despite the industry being worth billions of dollars and providing a healthy and sustainable source of protein critical to meeting the future global food security challenges. This is yet another example of the Greens dictating policy to a desperate, ineffective Labor government looking to save itself. Labor does not even have enough courage to challenge the Greens and other radical environmental groups who want to lock up much of coastal Australia in marine parks. Many communities will face enormous economic and social losses unless there is proper and effective consultation on the potential marine protected areas. Only proper and effective consultation will ensure that the future of marine protected areas balances preservation of the environment with economic growth and strong coastal and, might I say, happy communities.

The coalition is committed to balance and fairness to marine conservation and this bill ensures that there will always be the scrutiny that Australians expect from proper and effective democracies. The work that Senator Boswell and Senator Colbeck are doing here in promoting this bill is testimony to their experience and the work they did in the previous Howard government to ensure that equity is maintained. The coalition supports proper community and industry consultation regarding any proposed marine protected areas. Imagine if the government had gone to the last election spruiking this consultation lock out. Imagine if the Bligh government in Queensland used locking up these areas as an election promise.

Labor has failed to tackle illegal foreign fishing in Australia's fishing zones, slashing funding for Southern Ocean patrols. Is it because it cannot carry out the patrols of the Southern Ocean to prevent fish poaching in Australian waters because all the maritime and aerial resources are being used to find boats penetrating our northern waters as a result of Labor's failed asylum seeker policy? Labor has also failed to meet its own time frames for declaring marine protected areas. Time frames have been altered due to Labor's inability to adequately consult within unrealistic schedules that were politically, rather than practically, motivated. Once again, the Green tail is wagging the Labor dog.

Labor has also failed to rule out large no-take zones within the marine protected areas currently being established across Australia. The fear of no-take zones has caused great uncertainty for businesses directly and indirectly reliant on access to fishing resources. As it did with the cattlemen of Northern Australia, this Labor government is undermining the essential ingredient in business security. Businesses must always have security. It is the very foundation in which they raise capital and it is the very foundation in which their banks expect them to be able to repay that capital which is borrowed. Labor has also caused great uncertainty amongst stakeholders who will be adversely impacted by potential loss of access to resources within declared marine parks. The bankers to fishing businesses, as I earlier referred to, would be reviewing this bill and would likely say, 'Hooray! Some checks and balances are to be parachuted into this ongoing debate.' Everybody in this business sector will look at this legislation and say, 'Will we have security in our business?'

The lock-up mentality of Labor and the Greens completely ignores the fact that Australia's recreational and commercial fishers are dedicated to sustainability. As a farmer myself, I say that you know that your future is predicated on your environmental sustainability. Locking up marine areas without proper consultation or scientific assessment and throwing away the keys is neither responsible nor practical. Labor's biggest contribution to fisheries so far has been to bungle the marine bioregional plans process, leaving fishing communities waiting months to see even one of the draft maps for the four marine reserve networks proposed. The parallels between this and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan process mean that the two are eerily similar. Labor fails yet again to properly consult and include the community in its plans for them. We need a full socioeconomic impact assessment that identifies the true loss of value to the community as a result of the loss of access to marine parks by the commercial and amateur fishers of Australia. Any assessment should be publicly released prior to the release of a declaration of any parks. Further, a compre­hensive fishing gear risk assessment should be conducted for each of the proposed marine parks before the parks are declared. This fishing gear risk assessment should not unfairly target selective fishing activities, such as trawling, from any new reserves, given that there are sustainable trawl fisheries operating successfully in marine parks in Australia.

Labor have failed to consult, have failed to include adequate community and industry concerns, have failed to consider commercial and recreational fishers and have failed again to uphold proper parliamentary scrutiny. Yet again Labor is opposing a bill that would deliver greater scrutiny to this parliament. The hypocrisy is rank. On the one hand you have the Prime Minister saying, 'Let's draw back the curtains and let the sun shine in; let our parliament be more open than it has ever been before,' and on the other hand you have Labor voting against letting the sun shine down on the parliament so that there is adequate scrutiny of marine park areas in Australia. So let the sun shine in; let the disinfectant be thorough. I ask that everybody get behind this bill and support it in the interests of all Australians.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with pleasure that I rise to support Senator Colbeck's bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011. In following my colleague Senator Edwards, I note that, as with many areas of our coast, there stands to be partic­ular impact on our home state of South Australia, and more particularly the waters off it and therefore the livelihoods of the communities in our home state of South Australia.

The coalition, as others have outlined, has a proud history of protecting our marine environment—in particular the marine areas which so many of our communities rely upon for their livelihood. The coalition continues to support a balanced approach to biomarine conservation. It was the former Howard government, as others have noted, that established 11 marine protected areas in what is known as the south-east zone. But we consider that on that occasion not only adequate but very good and extensive consultation was undertaken with recreation­al and community groups, environmental groups and commercial fishing organisations and that we struck a balance between protecting marine biodiversity and minimis­ing the impact on fishers, local communities and local economies. That stands in stark contrast to the complete lack of balance and lack of transparency being demonstrated by the Gillard government in their flawed attempts to establish bioregional plans, or what can commonly be called marine parks.

This bill is not about stopping the declaration of bioregional plans or stopping the creation of marine parks, but it is about giving the two houses of this parliament the final say over the process. It still allows for the minister of the day—in this case a Labor government minister—to propose, area by area, marine park by marine park. It still allows that minister to seek the advice of his department and to consult with stakeholders impacted by establishing a marine park. But it also makes a declaration of a bioregional plan a disallowable instrument, which means that, bioregional plan by bioregional plan, it is open to this parliament to seek to disallow the proposed plan if members of this place consider, having heard from our local communities, that a particular declaration has knobs on it.

I travelled to Kangaroo Island in my home state last year and met with local fishermen and local government members, and they raised concerns about both federal and state plans for bioregions and the consultation—or rather, as they saw it, lack of it—that had been undertaken. They talked about a lack of scientific basis, particularly for decisions being made around areas to be declared under state arrangements. The creation of a marine park necessarily relies, or should rely, on a whole lot of evidence. In this parti­cular case, the local communities on Kanga­roo Island were questioning, and properly so, the scientific basis upon which certain declarations were proposed to be made. Their livelihoods are under threat, as are the livelihoods of many affected by the proposed bioregional plans across the country.

A lack of consultation about marine sanctuaries can cause a groundswell or a backlash against those seen to be proposing them. For example, there was a community meeting in my home state of South Australia last year, in Burnside in Adelaide, which attracted about 1,000 people to the local town hall to protest about what they saw as the lack of consultation and their lack of say about the development of marine sanctuaries in South Australia. The build-up of pressure leading up to and following that meeting was so great that, last November, the newly installed South Australian Premier, Jay Weatherill, saw fit to announce a postpone­ment, an announcement for which I would not criticise him, of the release of draft plans, conceding that many groups felt they had not been consulted. So even a Labor Premier in my home state is able to recognise the lack of consultation on issues such as these—a lack that is addressed by this bill—and the way in which bioregional plans can strike at the heart of people's livelihoods. They need to be able to have their say about the impact these measures will have on them, and in many instances thus far they have not.

The first area to have a draft plan released was the south-west bioregion, extending from the eastern tip of Kangaroo Island in South Australia to Shark Bay on the Western Australian coast. That is 1.3 million square kilometres in total, and that sounds a lot, but the total area proposed to be put under the ambit of bioregional plans is, as Senator Colbeck has said, just over seven square kilometres—sorry, just over seven million square kilometres—of Commonwealth waters. I was about to say that is a truckload of water; I am glad I corrected my figures! That is a lot of water and we are talking about a lot of potential restrictions over that water for areas that are declared to be under a bioregional plan and a marine park. We are talking about areas that can have later designated within them areas of sanctuary zones, recreation-only zones or so-called special purpose zones. That means there can be areas that are closed to everything but a few activities. There can be areas where commercial and recreational fishing will be excluded and areas where particular types of equipment and fishing practices will be restricted. So this is a big deal and Labor is fluffing it—what a surprise!

A majority of the submissions to the Senate inquiry into this bill raised concerns about the lack of consultation with the government's progression of its planned marine protected areas. For example, in his submission, made on behalf of the South Australian Marine Parks Management Alliance, Mr Gary Morgan stated:

It is a reflection of the level of concern among the industry that, in my 30+ years experience in both Government and fishing industry roles (including as Director of Fisheries in South Australia, 1997‐2000), I have never known an issue to create such anxiety and uncertainty in the industry and this is the only time I can ever remember that ALL sectors of the industry have come together to address what they see as a major threat to their livelihoods.

People in our communities say this is a big deal. Mr Morgan's submission also noted:

In SA, there has been a focus on ‘percentages’ of sanctuary areas, rather than such a orderly, science‐based approach, there has been no rigorous threat identification or assessment (particularly from fishing activities) and the process is clearly not science‐based

The Abalone Industry Association of South Australia said in its submission:

Our industry is very concerned about the political lobbying being undertaken by Green Groups at the moment blurring the line of using sanctuary zones (no take) as a fisheries management tool and using examples to support their cause from countries where there is no fisheries management.

We consider the abalone industry in South Australia to be a very well managed industry. It contributes over $300 million to our local economy and sustains more than 300 jobs in the local community. The issues at stake around bioregional plans are a big deal and they strike at the heart of the livelihood of the communities who rely on the subject waters for their commercial and recreational activities. Those communities deserve to be consulted. The Labor govern­ment has failed to do so adequately and so this bill, appropriately—and unfortunately—seeks to pull the Gillard Labor government up. It does not pull the government up short but simply pulls them up and requires their proposed bioregional plans to be subject to a mechanism that allows parliament to say, 'Not on this occasion; not in this area,' but also allows parliament to say, 'Having considered this particular proposal, we think it is the right thing to do.' I hope that this place sees fit to support Senator Colbeck's bill.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Happy new year to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and all of my fellow senators. I am very pleased to start the new parliamentary year by speaking about the importance of looking after our precious marine environ­ment. As a very proud Queenslander, I will focus on the amazing region in our north-east, the Coral Sea, which is currently awaiting protection. I will also talk about the great benefits that decent protection has brought to the Great Barrier Reef.

The Coral Sea is absolutely unique. It has 18 coral reef systems and a chain of undersea volcanoes which stretch 1,300 kilometres, with canyons of up to five kilometres deep. It is recognised as a global biodiversity hot spot. It has ocean giants such as sharks, tuna, marlin, swordfish and sailfish in massive abundance. It has 28 different species of dolphins and whales. It has six of the world's seven species of marine turtle. It has soft corals and large sea fans and spectacular sponge gardens. It is home to many species of coral, fish and invertebrates which are not found anywhere else on this planet. Clearly, it is a national heritage treasure. But it is not only that; it is also of significant historical importance to Australia. It was, of course, the scene of the 1942 Battle of the Coral Sea. I took the opportunity to mention this fact to President Obama on his visit, and he said that he would love to come and have a look at the Coral Sea. I certainly hope he does so. The 70th anniversary of the battle will be in May this year, and what an opportunity it will be to protect this underwater paradise. It is perfect timing.

The Coral Sea was declared a conserva­tion zone a few years ago when the govern­ment went through its marine bioregional planning processes, and the draft bioregional plan for the Coral Sea was released in November last year. The Greens welcomed the proposed ban on oil and gas mining and seabed trawling and gillnet fishing through­out the Coral Sea, but it is proposed to protect only half of the Coral Sea. This is a huge missed opportunity to create the world's largest marine national park. The proposed plan for a multi-use marine reserve simply does not go far enough and is piecemeal. Only two reefs of the specific 25 reefs in the Coral Sea will receive full protection, and that just does not seem enough to me. Instead of treating the region like a Swiss cheese and having different use zones, it would be much easier for the government to manage and monitor an entirely protected region. Nearly 70 per cent of Queenslanders support turning the entire area into a fully protected marine national park, so I hope that the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populat­ion and Communities, Mr Burke, in his consultations, has a good ear to the ground and listens to the community. Public consult­ation is still open—it closes in two weeks, on Friday, 24 February—and I call upon anyone who in their spare time is listening or reading the Hansardand anyone who loves our oceans and this precious region to please make your voice heard. Write to federal environment minister Burke and ask him to act on this amazing opportunity to protect this vast pristine ocean area by making it the world's largest marine national park.

Making this area the world's largest marine national park is not just about protecting our environment; it is also critical for the long-term sustainability of our fisheries. There is no better example of the protection of our fisheries than the fantastic outcomes we have seen in the green zones in the Great Barrier Reef. Quite a bit of research has been done on the effectiveness of the green zones, and most recently some research by the US National Academy of Sciences in conjunction with the Australian Institute of Marine Science, AIMS, as well as James Cook University has found that the green zones—surprise, surprise!—really do work. According to this research:

… the network of marine reserves on the GBR has brought major, sustained ecological benefits, including enhanced populations of target fish, sharks, and even corals, the foundation of the coral reef ecosystem.

So this body of research has found that there have been rapid increases of fish inside the no-take reserves in both reef and non-reef habitats. This is very important for both our fishers and our tourism operators. The protected fish inside those no-take areas are bigger, so they will contribute many more larvae to the whole ecosystem. Therefore, the benefits of these no-take areas are expected to extend outside the no-take boundaries and to replenish the surrounding areas, which are open to fishing. It is a simple thing: protecting the fish breeding grounds gives you more and bigger fish. The green zones are also benefiting the overall health and resilience of the ecosystem. For example, the researchers found that there are less frequent outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish on no-take reefs. Much to my horror, a recent briefing from AIMS says that crown-of-thorns starfish are still a massive issue in the GBR and that we are losing the battle. This is just one way that we can try to tackle that continuing problem. In short, we know that no-take areas can play a crucial role as recharge zones for sea-life popula­tions, thereby ensuring the long-term sustain­ability of our environment and recreational and commercial fishing as well as the local tourism industry.

I take issue with something that Senator Edwards raised on behalf of the opposition. He was waxing lyrical about the Liberals being on the side of the fishers. Frankly, I thought that was a bit rich. I moved a motion late last year calling for the suspension of dredging in Gladstone harbour and, in fact, up and down the reef, where we have seen massive impacts on local fish populations. We have seen fish with red spot disease, which has now spread to sharks and crabs. We are seeing absolute devastation in Gladstone harbour. It is so serious that the fishing industry was shut down for about three weeks last year. It has now been re-opened, but the local fishermen are still saying that they do not want to catch the fish there. The fish are still sick, and the bottom has dropped out of the local industry there. No-one will buy the fish because, of course, they are not prepared to sell diseased fish.

Where are the Nationals and the Liberals on this issue? I hear that Senator Boswell is agitating for better compensation for those local fishers, and that is fantastic. We certainly support that—we think it is ridicu­lous that one industry, the coal seam gas industry, has been allowed to dredge the harbour beyond recognition and the fisher­men have been left to suffer. We are all for proper compensation for the fishers, but that is not the whole story. Is Senator Boswell going to allow the dredging to continue? What about the next fishing community when five other ports are opened up for coal and coal seam gas export? I am afraid it is a bit rich for the Liberals and the Nats to claim that they are somehow the great champions of the fishing industry, when they have been prepared to abandon Gladstone harbour and do nothing to stop this massive dredging program for coal and coal seam gas export.

The Greens do not support the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011. We fully support marine protected areas. They are good for fishing, they are good for tourism, they are good for our economy and they are good for the future of our grandkids.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we need to be a little clearer on what the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011 is all about. It is not about opposing marine parks in any shape or form. It is about giving this parliament the right to oversight, to debate and to discuss where marine reserves are to happen, because, as Senator Waters has just pointed out, it is quite possible for interested groups or self-interested groups to skew the discussions and deliberations of the minister at any time during this debate. A pious motion from the Senate around dredging in Gladstone Harbour is not a useful thing. I was trying to think of how useless it was, but I cannot quite think of a polite comparison and so I shan't. It would not be useful in assisting either the environmental concerns in Gladstone Harbour or the fishing industry in Gladstone, which certainly have some serious problems. A motion from the Senate does nothing. It is the Queensland state government that needs to get its act together and do something there.

A minister for the environment who alone can make the decision about where marine parks go is not good for democracy or for Australia. We have already seen that there are conservation groups, fringe environ­mental groups—we could even include the fishing industry and other stakeholders—who, if they can get the ear of the minister or are in the right electorate at the right time, may skew the way the development of marine conservation proceeds in Australia. In fact, the Gillard and Rudd governments have in some ways simply continued the coalition's program, which was designed to protect and conserve our extraordinary marine resources in a balanced way. They have failed, of course, to continue the implementation correctly. Why should we be surprised by that? It happens in almost every area that the Rudd and Gillard governments touch. They have failed completely to continue appropriate consultation with the fishing industry or with the wider commu­nity. They have not adopted a balanced approach and they give preference to the views of NGOs and others at the expense of not just the fishing industry but also local tourism industries and other groups.

We can draw an adequate comparison between the fishing industry and fishermen and the agribusiness industry and farmers. These people are not there to destroy their livelihoods; they are great conservationists; they are great preservers; they want sustainable industries. They are not about destroying wherever they go. Consulting them and listening to the broad range of evidence that is available on marine regions are far more important than having the minister simply do what he likes when he likes. The idea of this bill we are putting forward today is not about destroying marine areas or destroying biodiversity; it is about having a sensible, balanced approach that reinstates parliamentary scrutiny to an area of just over seven million square kilometres of Commonwealth waters. What we seek to do here is to make the declaration of marine bioregional plans disallowable instruments, not a legislative instrument that is complete­ly shielded from parliamentary scrutiny with the stroke of a pen. The minister can have a massive impact on Australia's territorial waters and all the people who make a living from them or the resources in those areas.

Senator Waters liked telling us how the fish improved in no-take areas. Yes, the coalition supports that idea. We completely support the idea that with a balanced approa­ch you will have no-take areas, you will have recreational areas and you will have areas for the fishing industry within marine parks. We have no problem whatsoever with this approach to balancing conservation with the marine industry, but we cannot achieve that if the only person making the decision is the minister and he or she is doing that without any oversight by this parliament. All we are seeking to do is to take the absolute power away from the minister to give parliament the opportunity to have a say about what should be included in a marine bioregional plan and what should not. It gives parliament far greater sovereignty and it gives both Houses the chance to have a say on the individual merits of each marine bioregional plan. There is no problem in my view with that being done and I have no idea why anyone would want to oppose that being done. In fact, I would have thought that it would be something that would be supported in this House particularly by the Greens and the Independents, because, given the record of this government on consultation, there is every reason to think that we will get ad hoc decisions designed to assist whatever group the government is trying to cosy up to at the time. The coalition has a very proud track record and a great commitment in the area of marine protected areas. It was the Howard government in 1998 that secured agreement with the state governments to commit to establishing a national representative system of marine protected areas. It was the Howard government that made a further, international commitment to establish such a representa­tive network by 2012 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002. And again, in 2005-06, it was the Howard govern­ment that initiated the investigation and subsequent implementation of the south-east marine reserve network, the fifth of the five bioregions that are likely to be covered by these marine bioregional plans. We are not anti marine parks, but we think there is a right way and a wrong way to go about developing such reserves—and we already have evidence of the wrong way being done now.

Every interest group and every stakehold­er have claimed that there has not been adequate consultation. There have not been appropriate levels of consultation with local communities or with affected commercial industries or with the marine recreation industries. Even environmental groups have said to our shadow minister and to others that they feel left out by the federal govern­ment when it comes to genuine consultation. And, if your livelihood depends on whether the fishing industry is going to be there in three years or five years, if whether the bank will lend you the money to buy a new boat is reliant on what the minister's whim of the day is, you are in a very difficult position. There has been incredible anxiety and uncertainty created in the fishing industry by this government's approach to developing marine bioregional plans.

Coastal communities are certainly aware that if they do not get a say in this, if there is not a way to ensure that their views can be aired and discussed and debated in this place, then on the basis of the track record of this government it will only be the fringe green groups that will actually get heard, not the people who use and manage and conserve our fisheries on a daily basis.

Industry is really nervous, and that is not just the commercial fishing industry, althou­gh I would point out that it is Australia's sixth-largest primary producer. Recreational fishing might be something that some of us do—very unsuccessfully in my case—just once or twice a year, but for thousands of Australians it is actually a job, and off those jobs hang many other jobs. There are resources that you need to get together a fishing boat, and many businesses are involved, not only with the boat itself but with the gear, the technology, the electronics that are used on the boat. Those are all industries that need a commercial fishing industry to survive. So we have to talk about not only the recreational fishing industry as a multibillion-dollar industry but also the very large commercial fishing sector that, as I said, is the sixth-largest primary producing sector in Australia.

Not only is it the lack of consultation that makes people nervous; not only is it the track record of this government that makes people in the industry nervous; but it is the fact that the government cannot even meet its own time frames for declaring marine parks that makes people nervous. So once again we have an implementation issue, which I suppose should not surprise us with this government, but it does nothing at all to assist businesses trying to function and to plan for the future in this area.

In the lead-up to the 2010 election, Labor promised to release draft maps for the south-western bioregion by mid-December. Then the minister said they would probably do them by late January or early February. We still have not seen those draft maps. It is no different to any other promise that Labor make during an election. It may not, in its consequences for the entire economy, be as serious as: 'We won't put a price on carbon. We won't introduce a carbon tax.' But for the people whose livelihoods depend on it, the fact that this government cannot meet its election promises in this area is just as bad, and the consequences are just as dire, as that broken carbon tax promise.

Labor also promised to release a displaced effort policy in the lead-up to releasing the first draft maps, but that did not arrive in the time frame promised either. So we have a group who are intimately involved with our fishing stocks and our marine parks who are saying, 'What is going on here?' And, if it is only the minister, through a legislative instrument, who can decide where a marine bioregional plan is established, these groups have no avenue for airing their concerns in a democratic way. They are forced to protest; probably some of them will be forced out of business. It is all very well for this govern­ment to say, 'We'll just sort out what we are doing when we get around to it.' But it has to keep in mind that a fishing boat, for example, is an investment that you would keep for 20 years or more. You are not going to go and buy one when this minister could decide, based on the whim of whichever stakeholder group the Labor government next wants to please, to undertake work that could simply ruin your industry. I know that the fringe environmental groups like to claim that our fisheries are in disarray, but that is completely wrong. They are among the best managed and healthiest in terms of stock numbers of any country in the world. You have to take into consideration that amongst them is the same group that wants the whole Coral Sea locked up. Those groups peddle mistruths and misinformation in the name of so-called conservation. But it is the practiti­oners, the people whose lives and livelihoods depend on healthy fish stocks and a healthy marine environment, who are the real custodians and the people who should be listened to by this government—not just the commercial fishermen but the tourism industry, the hospitality industry and the many other ancillary industries I mentioned that hang off commercial and recreational fishing.

There are a huge number of people who, at the stroke of the minister's pen, can lose their livelihoods and be disenfranchised. Why would there be any opposition to this parliament being the place where these matters are decided? Parliamentarians can air the views of the many stakeholder groups, and the claims of various groups can be properly assessed by parliamentary committ­ees. That would mean a sensible, balanced decision could be made based on what is best for the environment and what is best for industry, rather than the minister simply deciding what suits him best.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011 and to express some real concerns about the current system. How could you leave seven million square kilometres in the hands of one minister, whether that minister be a man or a woman?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's a very good minister.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection. Let us look back at the decisions of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Perhaps we will go to the live-cattle-export issue. We saw the Four Corners story and we supported the abolition of Australian exports of live cattle to those abattoirs which were clearly doing the wrong thing. Then the minister put a total ban on the export of live cattle. What a financial mess this has been for the graziers in the Top End of our nation. This is a clear example of one minister with too much power doing something very wrong. Once the cattle got over 350 kilograms live weight, they were not suitable to send to Indonesia. So, as the delays went on, what could the people do with their cattle?

I live at Inverell, a lovely town in northern New South Wales, where we are fortunate to have an abattoir. Those Top End graziers were forced to send cattle from the top of Western Australia thousands of kilometres by road to Inverell. That is a classic example of a minister making a very bad decision. What Minister Ludwig should have done was to get a copy of that film, hop straight on a plane to Jakarta, meet with the Indonesian agriculture minister and say: 'Look at this. We have a problem. We do not accept animals being treated like this.' I agree with that proposal totally, as someone who has done my own butchering on the farm for many years. Whether it be beef cattle, sheep or pigs, I am no stranger to a butcher's knife. I would never, ever condone animals being treated like that.

To come back to our argument about ministerial power: it is seven million square kilometres. Like it or not, the Greens carry a lot of weight in this Gillard-led Labor government. We know we have to preserve our fish stocks. We know we cannot just go out and net the fish stocks. It is all about sustainability for the future. We know that in 1998 the Howard government led in the right direction on this very important issue, the conservation and retention of fish stocks in our marine areas. But there were consulta­tions. The government worked with the industries and the people, whether they were local fishermen who just wanted to go and wet a line on the weekend or professional fishermen. To leave this in the hands of a minister and take it away from the parlia­ment is wrong, by all democratic beliefs. How could you trust a minister? I could give you other examples. I have talked about the cattle industry and what a shambles it was.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's a very trustworthy minister.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Trustworthy or not, the decision that Minister Ludwig made on the export of live cattle to Indonesia was a disgrace.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we're talking about bioregional plans.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am giving an example of ministerial powers and how the Labor government made a terrible decision. It was a financial disaster for industries throughout Northern Australia. You want us to sit back and say: 'Leave it to the environ­ment minister. That minister will make the determination of where the marine parks are, what will happen, what will be closed down, who will be compensated.' We know about compensation. My colleague Senator Boyce mentioned professional fishermen investing in a boat. If they are shut out of the industry, who compensates them for the purchase of the boat? Will that happen, or will the minister say: 'No. Enough is enough; we're wiping it out'?

Life is about fairness and, if the govern­ment take away your livelihood, they should compensate you. But in the current situation, when a minister takes away the livelihood of fishermen, are they compen­sated? These questions need to be answered. If it were left to the parliament to make this decision, these debates could be had and the questions could be put. Hopefully we would get some answers. But the current plan is totally unacceptable. Our bill is aimed at taking the power from the minister and giving it back to where it belongs, the parliament. I commend Senator Colbeck for his work on this issue and others who are passionate about this issue, such as my colleague Senator Boswell. Our bill repre­sents what Australian people would expect—that both houses of parliament make the decision on any new marine park declara­tions. That is the clear point here. The House of Representatives commences the legisla­tion process on most occasions but not always. When it comes to the Senate we have the opportunity to amend, to debate or even to vote down or reject legislation.

I could talk about many ministerial decisions being made in this current govern­ment. It comes back to simply a lack of trust. That is the problem we have with this government, and the Australian people have the same problem. They do not trust the government. They do not trust the govern­ment on its commitment to introducing carbon taxes, on its commitment to keeping food, grocery prices, fuel prices and the cost of living low and on all the promises we got from the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, prior to the 2007 election; hence, Senator Colbeck's bill is a most important piece of legislation to return the power to the parliament and not leave it in the hands of just one minister. Why should we trust this government to get anything right? Just think back to Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch. I mention live exports of cattle, home insulation or the Building the Education Revolution, the mounting national debt of the government, asylum seekers and our border protection, yet you expect us to trust an environment minister where the Greens would really use their power to influence that minister.

One of my pet hates is the locking up of land and simply leaving it. The National Parks Association have been pushing this year after year. We saw the shutting-up of the red gum forests down near Deniliquin in the middle of a state forest and in Victoria. It is amazing when you go down there, as I did some two years ago to look through that red gum forest where 900 hectares were burnt. That multiplied by 2½ is 2,400 acres. Red gum will not take fire at all. You see the Pilliga and the regeneration of ironbark and box trees and various other types of trees. What happened there was that that country was locked up. It comes back to management of the environment. That country used to be grazed to keep the fuel levels down. Now that it has been locked up, you cannot graze there.

The influence of the Greens is clear when it comes to the new Victorian state govern­ment, which will not allow grazing in the alpine regions to reduce the amount of fuel on the ground. I get back to the argument of ministerial decisions. Once you have more than five tonnes per hectare of fuel on the ground—grasses, twigs, six millimetres of dome or less, 30- or 40-kilometre wind, a 40-degree day—a fire is basically impossible to control. It comes back to environmental management. People just think of preserva­tion—lock it up and leave it—and then we destroy it through fire.

We get back to the argument here of ministerial decision. It was Minister Burke who overruled the decision of the Victorian government. I think that is wrong, because under the Constitution the management of land is clearly in the hands of the Crown or the states, but Minister Burke made that decision. He did not have a debate in this parliament. There was no decision about that at all. When fire destroys those areas again, hopefully we will not see the loss of life like we did in the Black Saturday bushfires a couple of years ago. It will happen again. Fires will occur again. We have had the wet seasons now and the grass is growing. We all know that it will dry out. It will get hot again, even though this summer has been so extremely cool. We have seen a minister's power to threaten the environment with Minister Burke in the alpine regions. They say you are not allowed to have hard-hooved animals in those areas. It is all right to have thousands of deer, thousands of brumbies, hundreds of thousands of wild goats and tens of thousands of wild pigs—they are all hard-hooved animals—but you cannot run cattle up there because they might eat the grass down; you have to just let it burn.

I make the point that this is a minister's decision and, to me, it is too powerful. There is too much responsibility in the hands of one person; likewise with the marine parks. Senator Colbeck's private member's bill should be supported because it gives the power back to the parliament, back to the elected people, to make a decision. The fear, of course, is the current make-up of the parliament in both houses of this country where you have the Independents and the Greens flexing their muscles—the tail wagging the dog of the Labor Party—whether it be on carbon taxes or other broken promises on deliveries that we are now seeing.

This is the worst time to have this power in the hands of one person. If you had a clear government, then you would not have to kowtow to minority groups who are pressur­ed by those out there who simply believe locking up everything is the way ahead. What are we going to do when we lock up all our marine parks? Are we just going to import our prawns from Thailand? We talk about food security for the future. We are the first to say there must be manage­ment and you cannot basically rape the oceans of fish and expect them to survive. That cannot happen.

In my lifetime I have seen reductions in fish in many areas. When I was a kid hanging a line over the jetty at Port Lincoln in about 1967 a huge amount of tommy rough would grab hold of your line. You probably would not see that today. For sure we have reduced fish numbers in areas around the world, but it is about balanced management. It is about the needs of mankind and looking after the environment and conserving the stocks we have. No doubt Senator Conroy would agree with me on this issue, as he does on most issues.

I support this proposal by Senator Colbeck because it returns the power to the parlia­ment, to those who are elected to these places to represent the people in their electorates and not to give this enormous power to a minister who will probably get a backroom bribe from a minority group to do as they want or there will be trouble. We have already seen that with the carbon tax. We have seen Mr Windsor's demands in his agreement with Prime Minister Gillard. One of his demands was, 'You will form a multiparty climate change committee or else.' That was Mr Windsor's drive. He probably drove it more than the Greens. That is the problem we have. I urge support for Senator Colbeck's proposal.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of Senator Colbeck's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011. The bill reinstates parliamentary scrutiny of just over seven million square kilometres of Common­wealth waters. The bill seeks to make bioregional plans a disallowable instrument. The waters adjacent to Victoria, my home state, are included in the south-east marine region, which extends from waters offshore of southern New South Wales to eastern South Australia. It also includes waters adjacent to Senator Colbeck's home state of Tasmania and Macquarie Island.

The coalition has a strong track record of supporting marine conservation. The coali­tion supports a balanced approach. Through­out the history of the development of marine protected areas the coalition has been at the forefront of developing workable plans at a local and national level. It was a coalition government in 1998 that secured agreement with the state governments to commit to establishing a national representa­tive system of marine protected areas. It was a coalition government that made a further international commitment to establish such a representa­tive network by 2012 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. And it was a coalition government that in 2005 and 2006 initiated the investigation and subsequ­ent implementation of the south-east marine reserves network, the fifth of the five bioreg­ions I mentioned in my introduct­ory remarks.

I make these points to highlight that the coalition is far from being anti-marine park. We believe there is a right way and a wrong way to go about the development and maint­enance of such reserves. It is a balanced approach. We obviously need to consider industry. The south-east trawlers association, in my home state, has made numerous representations about the size of the marine park we have down in Victoria, which is the size of our entire state. Those in the industry in Victoria are the last people that want to see a reduction in fish stocks.

Similarly, a balanced approach needs to take into account recreational fishers—not only the impact of recreational fishing but our desire as a parliament and as leaders in our nation to promote healthy lifestyles and people getting out and about in the natural environment. A balanced approach also needs to take into consideration ecological systems and the environment itself, including fish stocks. Also, particularly from a regional perspective, we need to consider local economies, and a balanced approach to these sorts of discussions also needs to take into account the socioeconomic impacts on regional towns and communities.

I have seen the impact of overfishing through my travels in Canada in 2000. I spent a lot of time in Newfoundland, an area of Canada that is renowned for having destocked a complete species of fish. I saw the impact that has had on the local economy in terms of having to completely reconfigure how they live and work in that province and in that nation.

The coalition, and obviously the Nationals within the coalition, strongly support a balanced approach to marine parks and marine sustainability. The development of the south-east network reinforced to me that the successful implementation of a marine networks plan would not eventuate without genuine, detailed, open consultation with each and every stakeholder who felt they had a claim or a vested interest. That goes not only to the heart of the successful imple­mentation of these sorts of things but also to the notions of inclusion and involvement in the democratic processes of our nation.

The overwhelming measure of success for anything like this is that the consultation with stakeholders is actually enacted. There were 20 recommendations made on boundar­ies and zoning within the south-east network. The result is that, whilst the network is larger and more representative of the region than was the original proposal, it also has far less impact on the fishing industry. So it is really a win-win scenario for Victorians.

Unfortunately, current developments with regard to the remaining four marine biore­gional plans are not as positive. The core issue that other speakers have mentioned, and which I will go to in my comments, is that this bill goes to the fact that the minister has complete discretion and Labor ministers are not handling the great responsibilities before them in a manner that is giving stakeholders of any persuasion, at any end of the spectrum, confidence in the marine bioregional planning process or indeed any planning process currently before us.

The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments have not adopted a balanced approach to marine protected areas and they have not engaged in appropriate levels of consultation with local communities, with affected commercial industries or with marine recrea­tional interests. Environmental groups have said that they also have felt left out by the federal government when it comes to genuine consultation. This approach taken by Labor has created incredible anxiety and uncertainty in the fishing industry right around our nation. Coastal communities are wise to the fact that this Labor government's track record is that it will only hear from fringe green groups rather than the people who actually use, manage, live in and work in our fisheries on a daily basis. It is not just in this area, as I mentioned earlier. Just look at the track record of unilateral decisions by Labor ministers. My colleague Senator Williams spoke so knowingly about the decisions by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry around live cattle exports. The flip-flopping that went on there, with the TV program, the conversations with green groups, the conversations with other people and the ministerial decision-making process have led to a lot of uncertainty within that industry and within those communities. Similarly, there was the minister's approach to consultation on the Murray-Darling Basin, particularly in the first iteration. There is their ability to impact and their being beholden to, if you like, a certain end of the spectrum and how that is playing out in local communities in relation to uncertainty.

Again, on a particular issue concerning the granddaughter of a high country cattleman, there was a decision by Minister Burke to override the state government and ban grazing of cattle in the high country. Particularly when you look at the number of sambar deer and brumbies that are up there, and the number of cattle that are going in, it just does not make sense. So we are seeing ministers not making decisions on a scienti­fic basis or not taking all the information and all the impacts of their decisions into account. That is something that the coalition is concerned about, and I think it is something that all those who are interested in the good governance of our great nation need to be concerned about.

We now have to take the minister at face value when he says that he has all the information required, and there is no ability for the parliament to scrutinise the decision or for both ends of the spectrum to examine the minister's decisions and feed into that. I think it cuts both ways, and this is where I am really surprised at the Greens' perspective on this particular bill before us. What happens when we do not have a minister who is beholden to environmental interests, who is not captured by the Greens but rather by the other extreme? Surely we need a balanced approach, and that is what is this bill attempts to deliver: a mechanism to protect the environment from extremism.

The commercial fishing industry is Australia's sixth largest primary producer. In my home state about 721,000 Victorians enjoy recreational fishing. I am not one of them. I have never had much success with dropping in a line, despite living not far from beautiful Inverloch, but I know plenty of people who are mad keen fishermen. There are about 850 commercial fishery access licences in Victoria, and these operations land about $120 million worth of fresh seafood at Victorian ports each year. As Senator Williams said, we want to be able to manage these fisheries appropriately so that Australians can have access to high-quality food that is managed in a sustainable and appropriate way. Obviously this is what bioregional plans seek to do. What we do not want is unilateral decision making by ministers that are captured by those at either end of spectrums and philosophies.

When is the Gillard Labor government going to get it into its head that a nation that cannot feed itself is at the mercy of others whose interest in us may not be as benign as getting a good price for its exports and whose quality controls on their food production may be not be of a standard that Australians expect? I thank Senator Waters for the comments she made during her contribution about the Greens being very keen for and supportive of compensation measures for the industry regarding any adverse impacts—particularly as it is obviously a philosophy of the Greens to have some conversation about compensation measures for communities right throughout the Murray-Darling Basin for whom there will be a socioeconomic impact because of the 7,600 gigs they want to take out that system and the flow-on effects of that policy. I really look forward to sitting down with Senator Waters and discussing what sorts of compensation measures the Greens would be interested in supporting, given that the 7,600 gigs they want to take out of those commu­nities will absolutely devastate regional communities right throughout the basin and the economic basis on which they have been built. I will put a call in, I guess.

The coalition believes there is a need for conservation of our important marine biology, but future decisions on marine protected areas should consider peer-reviewed scientific evidence on threats to biodiversity before great swathes of ocean are locked up for all eternity. This bill is the opportunity for parliament to add a vital democratic check to the process, a process that has the potential to adversely affect the livelihood and future of millions of Austra­lians. So I support this bill. The declaration of bioregional plans in marine protected areas has significant environmental and socioeconomic consequences right through­out these communities that reside along our coast and indeed for our markets, our fishmongers and our small businesses in our capital cities and right throughout our nation. They should be given a chance to have their say in both houses of parliament on any decisions that will adversely affect them. It is therefore inappropriate for these declarations to be made without the opportunity for review. As a conservative, I abhor concen­trated power—hence, I am a senator—and I look forward to supporting this bill and I thank Senator Colbeck for bringing it before the Senate.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise and supp­ort my colleague Senator Colbeck and others who have spoken in relation to this matter, including Senator Boswell, in whom there is some considerable passion. Today I want to put on the record some of the background to the coalition's approach to this. I know that Senator Colbeck and others have already said it but I want to repeat that we support a balanced approach to marine conservation. It was our policy in the 2010 election, and we stand by that. But what is at the nub of this bill, which is being driven by Senator Colbeck, is the lack of consultation with those who have a legitimate interest in current marine parks or in the declaration of further marine parks. I am sure that many honourable members will remember the debacle of the mako shark issue, where fishers throughout the country rose up against a decision to ban the fishing of mako sharks. There was no consultation. At Torquay in the seat of Corangamite there were some 700 people at a public meeting complaining about mako shark fishing being banned. Of course, the local member was nowhere to be seen, but that is not unusual when it comes to the member for Coranga­mite; he would never dare to be seen when there are issues.

At the heart of this conservation debate is a lack of acknowledgement that the real conservationists in this country are the fishers, shooters and others. Anyone who knows anything about these areas and who speaks to and has grown up with the fishers and the shooters knows they are the true conservationists. These are the people whose sporting and recreational avenues are determined by the amount of fish and other species that are available to be taken. They actually own the conservation of this and have done for decades. Look at organisations such as Field and Game. Look at other fishing organisations. They are about conservation. For quite obvious reasons they want to preserve the species that they are shooting and hunting—if they are not there then their sport goes. They are the true conservationists in this country. They are never given appropriate credit for it, and they should be.

What these people want is consultation. The past process with marine parks has been completely bastardised by this lack of appropriate consultation. These people know when they enter these discussions that the decisions have virtually been made. They know that when they enter these discussions their voice will be heard but almost certainly will not be acted upon; and, on occasions, they cannot even get it heard. This bill is about enabling this parliament, when there has been that lack of consultation, to take on behalf of those people the right to make a decision about whether there has been appropriate consultation and whether, indeed, we should move to address it if there has not been.

I will very quickly read from the bills digest:

This Bill seeks to amend the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to require that declarations of new Bioregional Plans1 and Commonwealth Reserves2 be disallowable by either chamber of Parliament.

…   …   …

Currently, Bioregional Plans are not legislative instruments and are not subject to parliamentary disallowance. The effect of this amendment would mean that they would continue not to be legislative instruments. However, they would be disallowable under Part 5 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 as modified by section 46B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Common­wealth Reserves are legislative instruments which are not currently disallowable.

If these people—this nation's true conserva­tionists—are not being appropriately consulted then they should be. That is why I fully support Senator Colbeck's bill and fully support the comments made by others, including Senator Boswell.

The interesting part of this whole debate on marine parks is that we get the most extraordinary comments from some of those on the other side. Senator Marshall, who has been in his office listening, is down here immediately to make some comments. I think he knows what I am going to talk about. There are, of course, some on the other side who believe that we will have increased marine national parks through global warming. They might not be declared at this stage, but the member for Coranga­mite thinks that global warming will inundate massive areas of his home electorate. This is part of his defence of the carbon tax. It beggars belief that this man is actually allowed to be a federal member of parliament. On 17 August 2011—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell us about your candidate!

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the preselection is settled, I would be happy to talk to you about it. I am sure you and I will talk about it ad nauseam at airport lounges when we discuss what is likely to happen to the man whom you are so passionately defending—which I can never really understand, I have to say. Anyway. I am sure it is a faction based thing, because you have absolutely nothing in common. I have some regard for your intellect, for starters! That is the one clear difference between the two of you. But anyway. As I say, if you want to talk about preselection candidates, I am happy to engage in that later on.

Interestingly, Mr Cheeseman gave a speech on 9 September 2009 in relation to rising sea levels but posted on his website in March 2010 the speech that he was not allowed to give. Presumably he would requ­est that the rising sea be made a marine park. He posted this speech on his website. It was not the speech that he actually gave. It said:

The Great Ocean Road Mr Speaker, an icon of Australia and the engine room of our local tourism economy, will be largely destroyed.

It will be breached in place after place, if sea level rise is as expected.

Huge swathes of the Bellarine Peninsula will be inundated.

Current areas of the mainland will be cut off and become islands.

Queenscliffe will become an island.

The area from Barwon Heads to Breamlea will become an island.

What drives this man? This is all in defence of Labor's toxic carbon tax. I want to talk about that carbon tax and, indeed, rising sea levels and the requirement, presumably from the Labor Party's point of view, for more marine parks to take in this massive inunda­tion of what is currently land. I presume that will form part of the discussions in relation to the act at some stage further down the track. What was very interesting indeed was to look at the view of the people of Geelong in a recent survey of some 800 people. In that survey the people of Geelong made it quite clear that they do not and will not accept Labor's toxic carbon tax.

This was the outcome of their voting intention in relation to the carbon tax. I should throw this in because it is probably of some interest to honourable senators as well. The question was: is the federal government doing a good job? What do my colleagues think? Would 10, 15 or 20 per cent be the 'strongly agree' figure? No, it was not; 1.6 per cent of people in Geelong strongly agree that the Labor government is doing a good job. Neither agree nor disagree: 29.5 per cent; disagree: 29.9 per cent; strongly disagree: 25.1 per cent of people in the Geelong region. In relation to the carbon tax, the question was: do you support or reject the general concept of a carbon tax? Support: 22.9 per cent; reject: 53.5 per cent of the 800 people surveyed.

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

They deserve a say.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They deserve a say, as Senator Birmingham said, as do those who will be potentially impacted upon by marine parks. That is why this parliament, as a result of this bill, must maintain the ability to represent their interests.

The local member for Corangamite thinks that we are going to be inundated. I notice that last year he commissioned a report into sea levels. Again, it was doom and gloom. It is almost approaching religious fervour, I have to say. I presume he is out there build­ing the boat as we speak to at least get some people from Corangamite onto the boat when it all floods. I have not yet seen the report. Maybe it has been released. If it has been, I apologise to the member for Corangamite. But apparently he commission­ed a report and gave some interim findings in September last year, but I do not think the report has been released. If it has been, again I will humbly apologise to the honourable member.

I have been talking at length about the matter before the chamber today and I will continue to do so. We have an incredibly proud history in relation to legislative protection of the environment in this country. In fact, in any reasonable assessment of who drove strong environmental protection measures in this country, it has indeed been the coalition parties. We are as committed to that today as we were when we first started this process, and we are committed to returning balance and fairness to marine conservation. Like anything else in this country, if you do not approach an issue such as this on the basis of balance and fairness, then there will never be appropriate outcomes. When these issues are hijacked by fringe groups, often associated with the Australian Greens or under the banner of the Australian Greens—but they are fringe groups nonetheless—and they take owner­ship of these issues, then we get the sorts of outcomes that I know others opposite sitting in the chamber today know are not appro­priate outcomes. There is the great state of Tasmania, where Senator Colbeck and Labor senators come from, and I hope that they are also committed to fairness and balance in relation to these debates. On that basis, they should be supporting this bill.

One of our greatest responsibilities in this country is to make sure that those who have a voice are able to have that voice heard. One of the great challenges in this country is to ensure that, in relation to this particular area, it is not the radical green fringe groups who drive the debate but the honest Australian men and women who are pursu­ing their recreational interests. They need to have the opportunity for some input into this decision-making process. They should not be confronted with a fait accompli when they go through the consultation process. That is their complaint: they arrive and the decision has already been made; their view on these matters is not wanted and most certainly not listened to. What causes me enormous concern about this is that at the moment we have a government that is completely paralysed. The only consultation that is taking place is consultation between the factions about who is going to lead the country. So we have people involved in marine parks out there looking for the opportunity to have some input and appro­priate consultation, but the only consultation this government is involved in at the moment is, indeed, who is going to lead the party.

We know that one of those opposite is actively involved in those discussions—a very significant player; a man of incredible power in this country. But I say to him and others opposite: let us stop worrying about who is going to be the Prime Minister and let us start worrying about the sorts of issues that have been raised by Senator Colbeck in relation to the lack of consultation. We see what has happened recently with the loss of manufacturing jobs. We see the risk to Alcoa workers in places like Geelong and we see two members down there refuse to do anything to support them because they know, and I know, and everyone in this chamber knows, that this toxic carbon tax is going to kill manufacturing jobs in places like Geelong. Where are the absentee members in defence of those workers? What the Alcoa workers want and what every other manu­facturing worker in this country wants is for Mr Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard to stop worrying about their own jobs and start worrying about the manufacturing jobs. That is what the Australian people want, that is what the Australian people demand and that is what the Australian people deserve. Do not worry about the Prime Minister's job; worry about the jobs of average working Australians, many of whom fish, many of whom shoot and many of whom want to have their voices heard in relation to these marine parks.

That is the great challenge for those opposite. Their great challenge is to stop talking about those things in which the Australian public has no interest, like the job of the Prime Minister, and start worrying about the jobs of these manufacturing workers. Start acknowledging once and for all that this toxic carbon tax is going to destroy this country. It is already under enormous pressure from the high dollar. There are a lot of external factors, which I acknowledge have an influence in this, but the one thing, the one pivotal government decision which can turn around perceptions in head offices around the world, including the Alcoa head office, is to drop this carbon tax. If the Labor Party and the Prime Minister sent out a clear message that this carbon tax is going to go because it will destroy jobs then we will start to see investment again. We will start to see the Alcoas of this world say there is some hope for manufacturing in this country. At the moment they are not, and the boardrooms around the world are looking at what we are doing and they are saying: 'Have they completely and utterly lost their minds? Are they stark raving mad to introduce a tax ahead of the rest of the world which will destroy Australian jobs?'

Make no mistake about it: there is one party, one coalition in this country that is concerned about the jobs of blue-collar workers, and that is the coalition. We will fight to defend their jobs. We will fight to defend their right to pursue their recreational pursuits without unnecessary interference from government. We will defend their rights to fish and shoot. We will defend their rights to have consultation on marine parks. We will stand up for them, which I can tell you is a far cry from what is happening with the Australian Labor Party, this Prime Minister and Mr Rudd at the present time.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to support Senator Colbeck's bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011. In so doing, I ask myself why those opposite are so against this legislation. Why are they opposed to greater scrutiny of marine bioregional plans and the declaration of marine parks in Commonwealth waters?

Senator Colbeck's bill, which proposes an amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, will make bioregional plans disallowable instru­ments. The reason we are here debating this today is in direct response to what has been another bungle by the Australian Labor Party, this time in relation to the marine bioregional planning process to date.

Why should this surprise us? This government has had a litany of bungles. We have seen the pink batts—they cannot put fluffy stuff in people's roofs without people dying as a consequence. We have seen the bungling of the Julia Gillard memorial halls. Health has been one unmitigated disaster after another, which I have—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A bit like when Tony Abbott was minister.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that is not true, Senator Polley, and you know it. The research from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that that is not the case. You know it, and every time that you raise that you are lying to this chamber.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! You will withdraw that, Senator Fierravanti-Wells.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw that. And every time—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fierravanti-Wells!

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw my comment.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I also ask you to direct your comments through the chair.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Every time those opposite raise that misrepresentation they know it is not true. I have repeatedly quoted chapter and verse in this chamber from the research from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Senator Polley interjecting—

You know it is not true, so do not keep repeating the same old drivel and babble, Senator Polley.

Now we shall return to the matter before us, which is the bungling of the marine bioregional planning process to date. Senator Colbeck's legislation introduces an amend­ment that is a simple step to allow scrutiny by both houses of parliament, and to allow the opportunity to disallow a bioregional plan that does not adopt a balanced approach to marine conservation. The effect of this amendment would be to protect stakeholders and communities against the potential for a minister to make a distorted decision. We have seen plenty of those in the history of the Rudd and Gillard governments, and this would be another opportunity where there would be no scrutiny.

We are talking about a very large area for these proposed marine bioregional plans; it is huge. It is more than seven million kilome­tres. Under the present arrangement the sole authority with the ability to sign off on these plans is the Minister for Sustaina­bility, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke, so long as he remains the minister. Of course, the reason for this angst and what has been clearly obvious from the many submissions that have been provided to the Senate committee inquiry in relation to this is precisely this lack of transparency and the consequences of this.

Now that we have this Greens-Australian Labor Party alliance, it is very clear who is pulling the strings in this process. It is very clear from the tenor of the Senate report that it is really the Greens pulling the strings here, and it was very clear from the report that was tabled that this is really about the Greens agenda. But I will come to the Greens agenda in a moment. One has only to look at the marine and coastal areas part of their policy released at the last federal election to see just how antifishing their manifesto is—and, of course, 'manifesto' is the appropriate word to use in relation to Greens policies because, as we heard from Senator Sinodinos and as we may hear again at other times, the Greens are the closest thing that we have in Australia to the remnants of the Communist Party. One has only to look at what they say in their manifesto about their antifishing stance. Their primary concern is purely in relation to conservation and protection. It is not about balancing the interests of conservation and the interests of the users such as the fishers. It is only one-sided, and it is there. It is reduction in fishing. It is reduction in habitat damage from commercial and recreational fishing and other marine activities. That is what the focus of the Greens agenda is here, and that is why the coalition is seeking this amendment, because this is what this is all about. This is all about another give to the Greens and another payback for the Greens-Australian Labor Party alliance.

I look now to the practical effect of this. At the last federal election, one of the most lasting images for me was the number of bumper stickers, particularly in New South Wales, that said, 'I fish and I vote.' This was an issue that created angst up and down the coast in New South Wales—and I speak most particularly about New South Wales even though that angst was shared right around Australia. It was a huge issue last year. Let me just take two areas in particular. I will focus on two seats, Cowper and Paterson. The member for the federal seat of Cowper, Mr Hartsuyker, tabled a petition of 10,000 signatures on 23 May last year. This petition from concerned residents was about their real and heartfelt concerns over the government's plan to prevent commercial and recreational fishing in waters off the New South Wales North Coast. In tabling the petition, Mr Hartsuyker drew the attention of the other place to the devastating impact that a reduction in fishing will have on tourism and local economies. I would just like to refer to a couple of points that he made. One is that, if anyone had any doubts whatsoever about how important fishing is to the tourism industry, 55 per cent of the people who signed this petition were from outside his electorate. This was despite the fact that the petition was distributed only within the Cowper electorate. It goes to show just how important fishing is to the local tourism industry. Of course, the last election was against the background, particularly in New South Wales, of the damage that recreational and commercial fishers have already sustain­ed as a consequence of the New South Wales Labor deal with the Greens, which saw large areas of state marine parks made into no-go fishing zones. So naturally, again, the fishing industry—the recreational and commercial fishers—are justifiably concerned about the impact that this legislation will have on them.

I now move to another area, the federal seat of Paterson. Constituents in Mr Baldwin's electorate—he is the member for Paterson—have made contact with his office in relation to this. Senator Ronaldson was talking about meetings in Corangamite. The member for Paterson also had meetings with hundreds of angry fishermen, both commer­cial and recreational, regarding Labor's lack of consultation on the marine park process. Their concerns were very clear. For example, there were two meetings, at Forster and Shoal Bay, which were hosted by Mr Baldwin and Senator Colbeck, which more than 400 people attended, the majority of whom were furious over Labor's lack of con­sultation. So this is really about consultation.

I have also become aware that this matter will naturally result in financial and economic loss, and it will not be surprising if this whole process leads to some legal issues being raised regarding not only the lack of consultation but the effect on rights and the commercial consequences of this. It would not surprise me to see legal matters being raised and pursued against the Common­wealth to this effect.

Let us have a look at some of the issues that were raised in the submissions to the Senate committee inquiry. One was from the Australian Fishing Trade Association:

AFTA asks that you also consider the social impacts, the health and wellbeing benefits of recreational fishing and the financial ramifications to the many small businesses that depend on the investment provided to their businesses by recreational fishers. Many regional and coastal towns are dependent on recreational fishers for their financial existence.

This is clearly not a matter that the Australian Labor Party or their Greens alliance partners are concerned about.

There are two other interesting points I would like to highlight from that submission. One was about the science surrounding bioregional planning. The submission made it very clear:

To date no briefing regarding the science being used with Bio Regional Planning has been transparently tabled to stake holders. Thus no comment from stake holders has been achieved.

This vacuum of information has not been helpful in any understanding of current process, future process or past process.

What does that tell you? As usual, this is a government that, quite frankly, does not know what it is doing. That is not surprising: it does not really know what it is doing on a whole range of areas; why would it know what it is doing in relation to bioregional planning? The submission goes on to say:

No Socio economic information regarding communities that may be affected by the Bio Regional Planning process has been made available to Stake holders.

Surprise, surprise!

I go to another submission, by the Australia Marine Engine Council, which made some very interesting comments, most explicitly about the adverse financial implications of this legislation and its surrounding measures. As I said earlier, the total bioregional zones cover an area of seven million square kilometres. The total bioregional zones are equivalent to 92 per cent of Australia's landmass and the zones under current consideration are 70 per cent of the size of Australia. These implications were raised by the Australia Marine Engine Council:

The key financial implications that this and other submissions have raised as needing to be considered are the costs to commercial and recreational fishing. Fishing is the only activity banned in all marine parks. I repeat: fishing is the only activity banned in all marine parks. As the Marine Engine Council points out in its submission, boating is not banned; tourism is not banned; diving is not banned; snorkelling is not banned; human entry is not banned; walking on coral is not banned; anchoring on coral is not banned; commercial shipping is not banned; oil tankers are not banned or restricted in all marine parks.

As the submission points out:

Marine Park Authorities frequently use the term “fully protected” but marine parks do not fully protect marine life.

This ban on fishing is the only protection which the council argues is being afforded to marine reserves. What are the hidden costs to Australians? The submission goes on to talk about some of these hidden costs to Australians. It states:

Bans on commercial fishing have a direct and measurable financial effect. Traditionally Commercial Fishers are compensated by a buyout of fishing licences and permits. Commercial fishermen then sell their boats and other assets or more commonly buy a licence in a different area, and so commercial fishing is frequently displaced rather than removed.

What, then, is the effect on the Australian consumer? The submission clearly points out:

Australian consumers however are not compensated and do not so readily 'move on'. Despite our huge coastline relative to our population, in 2007‐2008 Australia became a net importer of fisheries products, both in terms of volume and in terms of value. Australia is now a net importer of seafood. We import more than we export.

What does that mean in practical terms to our consumers? It means that we are buying imported fish, sometimes, as this submission says, of debatable quality, and it talks about some of those varieties. What does all this come down to? It not only comes down to this government being averse to proper scrutiny by this parliament but also means that we will not and cannot have a balanced approach to marine conservation.

The coalition has a very good record in this area. In his speech, Senator Colbeck outlined the very good history that coalition governments have had in this area. The coalition started the process of establishing comprehensive marine bioregional plans, which include determination of marine protected areas around Australia's coastline. As part of that process, we engaged, and rightly so, in extensive and cooperative consultation before marine protected areas were declared. This consultation ensured that an appropriate balance was struck between protecting our marine biodiversity and minimising the social and economic impact on fishers, businesses and coastal commu­nities, some of which I have raised in my speech today. Overall, it was a process that would achieve better outcomes for everyone. The final result would have been a greater protected area with less impact on industry. The history of the coalition government, including its record of consultation, is traversed also in the dissenting report of the coalition senators. In contrast, the Gillard government does not have a track record of effective consultation. For example, in my own shadow portfolio of mental health we have recently seen the government having to backflip in yet another area. They arbitrarily cut visits to psychologists for people with severe mental illness. There was no consult­ation whatsoever, and then the minister had to do a backflip. Minister Roxon did some­thing similar with the social workers and the occupational therapists—going in there with no consultation and making the arbitrary decision, saying 'if this is what the Greens want, we will do it' and forgetting the impact on patients. In this case the impact on the recreational and commercial fishers is forgotten; but the coalition is committed to returning balance and fairness to marine conservation. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011, which was introduced, Mr Deputy President, by our state colleague Senator the Hon. Richard Colbeck. I note that 75 percent of the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team is in the chamber to support Senator Colbeck's very well thought out legislation. There is no doubt that Senator Colbeck, in his role as the shadow spokesman on fisheries, has taken a very consultative approach to his portfolio. This approach is being hailed by both the professional and the amateur fishing sectors. The fishing sector tells me that this approach is in stark contrast to that which the ALP-Green alliance government is trying to inflict upon the people of Australia with its so-called marine bioregional plans. Senator Colbeck seeks to consult rather than to dictate to the fishing sector. That comes through loud and clear to me when I have discussions with the fishing sector. They tell me that he listens rather than hectors. This is another lesson that the Australian Labor Party and their Greens partners in the alliance might learn from Senator Colbeck.

The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that any marine protected areas or biore­gional plans which have genuine and significant economic, environmental and social impacts be instruments reviewable by this parliament. Labor has deliberately sought to ensure that any decision they make is beyond the reach of the parliament. They want it to be the case that, simply by the signature of the minister, these so-called plans and protected areas come into force without their being subject to review by the parliament. What arrogance this is—what hubris! Why are they doing this? They are doing it because the plan and the protected areas are to be dictated to them by the Australian Greens. We all know that this is just another example of the green tail wagging the Labor dog. You can have these marine protected areas if you apply common sense. The coalition accepts and acknowled­ges that it makes sense. Indeed, in his second reading speech introducing the bill, Senator Colebeck set out in very great detail the coalition's proud history of marine protect­ion. The vital ingredient that stood out in Senator Colbeck's recounting of the coali­tion's history in this area, in contrast to the propositions of the ALP on marine protection, was balance. The coalition had balance, which Labor of its own accord—let alone with the influence that the Australian Greens have on everything this government seeks to do—is simply unable to achieve.

There is a marine park in the south-east area of Australia around Tasmania. I recall it well because I was the federal Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation at the time of its establishment, and I remember the consultations I had with Senator Colbeck and other members of the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team as we developed that protected area. I was very pleased that at the end of the day we had the sign-off of the conservation movement, the recreational fishers and the professional fishers—we got the balance right. It took time and it took consultation; it also meant applying the science. I pay great tribute to TAFI, the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, which is so ably led by Professor Colin Buxton, for their wonderful work in getting the science in amongst the environmental mantra. When you get that balance right, you can in fact satisfy everybody. I recall some of the battles we had, which were necessary because other­wise the fishing industry and recreational fishing would have been hurt badly. Let us underestimate neither the importance of fishing, both professional and recreational, to the communities all around our coastlines nor indeed the importance of fishing as a social and recreational activity—the opportu­nities to bond with family and friends—to people who live in the cities and suburbs who are willing to travel great distances to enjoy the great Australian outdoors. It is a great Australian pastime, and it should not be hindered by artificial marine parks which serve no genuine environmental purpose and in fact cause great economic damage.

I still remember that certain people were suggesting that the zoned-off areas in the Tasmanian marine park be close to shore and that fishermen only be allowed to catch fish 200 kilometres, or whatever it was, offshore. The very sensible suggestion was made: why would you want the fishermen to have to burn fossil fuels to get 200 kilometres out; why do you not have the biomarine protected area at the 200-kilometre zone and allow the fishers to fish in the area that is closer to shore? It makes economic sense for exactly the same environmental outcome. They are the sorts of things we were able to achieve. Indeed, in one of the areas just off the east coast of Tasmania, there was to be a protected area in which recreational fishers had a longstanding tradition of conducting competitions. When I asked about the purpose of the marine protected area in this particular case, we were told it was for its benthic values. That was a term I learned at the time. I did not know what it meant, but it is the sea floor. I said, 'If we are concerned about the benthic values, the sea floor values, what is the matter with recreational fishing boats floating across the top trawling for fish if their hooks et cetera do not even touch the bottom of the sea floor?' We were able to make that compromise to allow recreational fishing to continue.

It is that sort of balance and consultation that Senator Colbeck brings to this place with his bill. It is worth while doing and doing properly. But the problem is that if you give in to the Green mantra you do not want to consult. That is why the government does not want consultation and does not want parliamentary review, because the extreme nature of the way the Australian Greens are dictating policy to this Labor government would be exposed.

Senator Siewert interjecting—

We finally have a Greens senator expressing some interest in this bill by coming into the chamber, which I welcome. It is very interesting that wild sea fisheries have to be sustainable and, of course, in being sustainable there is a limit to the catch. So what does one do? It would make sense, would it not, to start engaging in fish farming? Fish farming is an activity that we do in Tasmania exceptionally well. It is world renowned, a growth industry, a value-add industry, a job-creating industry and an export-earning-dollars industry. It is great for our economy. Fish is an essential ingredient for a human balanced diet and the scientific evidence is there, that if you can eat more fish the healthier you will be. But there is pressure on wild sea fisheries; so, if the human race wants to eat more fish, we have to start farming them.

But what do the Australian Greens do in my home state of Tasmania? They seek to oppose every new fish farm and the extension of every fish farm. This is the closed-for-business approach of the Australian Greens. Sure, on their salaries as senators or whatever else they might do, they might be able to afford a higher price for fish, but there are many people in the community that do want to consume fish. They know that there is a limit in the wild seas and that is why fish farming is so important—something we do so exception­ally well in Tasmania but something that the Australian Greens in Tasmania utterly oppose. The hapless government of Ms Giddings is paralysed to do anything about it and, as a result, the closed sign is up all over Tasmania, not only in the forestry area but also in the fisheries area and in the property development area. Those of us who live in Tasmania know the consequences of having a Greens-Labor alliance government stifling everything, and that has now been translated into Canberra as well, courtesy of the 2010 election and the dastardly deals that Ms Gillard did with the Australian Greens and some Independents.

Part of that deal was to ensure the suprem­acy of parliament. It was to ensure openness, accountability and transparency. If the Greens believe in all those values they wrote into their agreement—as did the Independ­ents in the other place—with Ms Gillard, I simply ask: where is the openness? Where is the transparency? Where is the accountabili­ty in relation to marine parks? Why do you want to put it beyond the reach of this parliament to investigate and vote upon?

If you are so confident that these marine parks are so good and wonderful, surely the logic and the scientific rigour of their assess­ments would convince every parliamentarian that they were a good thing—good for the community, good for the long-term wild sea fisheries et cetera. But, no, Labor and the Greens know that the task they have embarked upon is such that they do not want that sort of transparency or accountability, because they are scared of what it would reveal about their extreme agenda. Make no mistake: we are not just talking about lines on maps in relation to these marine parks; we are talking about the livelihoods of regional communities, we are talking about the livelihoods of small businesses and we are talking about the recreational activities of literally hundreds of thousands of Austra­lians all around the country. What we as a community can do and without doubt need to do is to live in harmony with nature, and we can do that. But one of the great problems that the Australian Greens have is they do not actually know where humankind fits in with nature. It is okay for seals to eat fish and for killer whales to eat seals, according to the Greens, but it seems that humankind is not allowed to catch fish for sustenance. That seems to be something that is very difficult for the Greens. They do not actually know where humankind fits into the scheme of things. That is their great dilemma. They nearly think that every human activity must of its nature be bad—and as a result they do not like fishing, they do not like forestry, they do not like plantations, and so the list goes on. In their comfort zones that is fine. But a lot of people actually do need the eco­nomic activity that is generated from fishing.

What we have shown is that we can have the economic activity combined with proper conservation for the maintenance of the species, and as a result we can enjoy the fruits of creation and enjoy that of which we are the stewards. We are not the preservers; we are the stewards. As we know, we cannot lock things up and expect them to be maintained exactly as they were at a given point in time, because things will change. In the forests there will be forest fires, or weeds or pigs or cats will get into them, so we need to manage them. It is the same with our seas, and if we manage them properly we can have them there for their rich biodiversity, and maintain it, and we can also have the richness that the seas provide to us in food, economic activity and recreational activity.

There is nothing wrong with that; these are all good, wholesome things. Indeed, fish are very good for you in our diet. We should be eating more of it—all the health special­ists tell us that. I thought the Greens were into alternative and preventative health, and can I say I am too. But one of the things you need for that is a bit of fish in your diet from time to time. Well, how do you do that if you want to close down the wild sea fisheries and you do not want to expand fish farms or to have fish farming? Where are we going to get our fish from? That is another one of the dilemmas the Greens have not answered.

I know there are some decent souls in this government but they are frustrated that they are locked into the alliance with the Austra­lian Greens. They should be taking stock of what this alliance means for them and their long-term supporters. The agenda of the Australian Greens, as reflected in the government's approach to this matter, is one that denies decent, hard workers from earn­ing a living and does not allow recreational activity, which is very important. That is why balance, the word I started off with, is so important. It is balance that Senator Colbeck is seeking to reintroduce into this debate with his well-thought-out bill, which is the result of the consultations he has undertaken. It is a bill based on common sense, not on the government Labor-Green alliance approach, which is built on hector­ing people and is the know-all, arrogant approach: 'We don't need the voice of the parliament and the input of the parliament in these matters. We will just make the decision and everybody else can go jump and live with the consequences of it.'

The bill that Senator Colbeck has worked on now for some time is an important bill that really does highlight and contrast the different approach that the coalition will take to government. That approach will be one of consulting and of getting the balance right, not of making policy at the behest of extreme environmental groups and at the behest of the Australian Greens. The sad thing is that I am sure the Labor voters and the coalition voters in this country are of a like mind on these issues. So we have to ask: how is it that, when 80 or 90 per cent of people are of a particular mind on an issue, the Greens seem to be able to dictate the policy? That is the matter of concern here, and that is something that we as the coalition are seeking to redress by this excellent bill.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition supports the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011 introduced by Senator Colbeck, our spokesman on agriculture and fisheries. In the very short time remaining for debate on this bill now, can I congratulate Senator Colbeck for the great work he has done in initiating this bill. He has spoken to all the stakeholders, which is in contrast of course to the government approach. I congratulate Senator Colbeck for travelling hither and thither throughout Australia and addressing this issue, which is critical for our marine resources. He has done a job that the government should perhaps have spent more time on, so I want to congratulate him on behalf of the coalition.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.