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

A letter has been received from Senator Fifield:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The failure of the Gillard Government to properly consider the level of risk to Australia's marine environment from the commercial, charter and recreational fishing sectors when establishing boundaries and zones for proposed marine parks and the capacity to manage those risks by methods other than just huge closures and lock outs.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly.

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

The last division was all about the Labor Party and the Greens joining together to oppose a Senate inquiry that would allow the commercial and amateur fishing industries, the boatbuilding industry and the charter boat industry to come to the table and present their concerns to the parliament. That proposal was rejected. Every associated industry that is affected by these closures wants to have a say. The maps have been laid down and in 60 days the declarations will be made. No-one, whether they be in the commercial fishing industry or the amateur fishing industry or the charter boat industry, knows what is happening. They do not know what adjustment is going to be paid—are they going to be paid for their boats or their licences or their nets or are they just going to receive a proportion of the fish that is caught? No-one knows? No-one knows whether the processing industry is going to be supported. I do not think it will be. Mr Jeffriess from the Commonwealth Fisheries Association comes out and says the government is proposing $100 million. They have to be joking. No-one has a clue about what this government proposes for the 3.1 million square mile closure right around Australia and the 1.3 million square mile Coral Sea closure that adjoins the Great Barrier Reef.

If the Labor Party and the Greens believed they had produced the best marine park around the world and if they had the courage of their convictions they would be proud to have a Senate inquiry. But, no, they are frightened to let anyone have their say. Mr Burke has travelled around and he has provided selective briefings to some of the people but all he has ever said is that when the final maps are done he will tell us what is going to happen. The final maps are done and dusted and still no-one knows what is going to happen. The government is playing with people's lives—fishermen's lives. The maps had not been out two days and the first casualty was the Port Douglas charter company Bianca, which lost $120,000 due to cancellations.

That is just one company—there are 60 boats operating in Cairns; 60 boats that are now frozen out of the Coral Sea, where they have a fantastic catch-and-release industry. They do not take fish; they just catch them and release them. People pay a huge premium to participate in that fishery. They are frozen out and the commercial fishermen are frozen out. Every day we hear that we should not worry about it because the reef is so far out and amateur fishermen will not be affected. I wish someone from the Labor Party or the Greens—although I would not advise that the Greens go up there—would talk to Mr Hansard of the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation. He is saying that five million recreational anglers will be locked out of vast areas of Australia's oceans and many iconic fishing spots. He has said that Mum, Dad and the kids will be 'banned' from trying to catch a fish. He has asked why the government is doing this—why is it shutting up some fishing industries while bringing in the biggest trawler from Holland to fish in the southern zone?

That is not Ron Boswell or some other senator, such as Ian Macdonald, who is a former fishing minister, saying that; it is the amateur fishermen.

Labor has fallen back on the position it traditionally takes when it gets stuck—when it gets dumped—and is saying, 'It's scary, Henny Penny! The world is going to fall in!' It is not Ron Boswell saying this and it is not Barnaby Joyce; it is the fishing industry. It is the amateur fishing industry who put out that press release. The commercial industry has said, '$100 million? You've got to be joking. What is going to happen to our licences?' Then there is the charter industry—the maps have been down two days and already they are getting cancellations. Why do we need this? Why does a country the size of Australia have to have 70 per cent of the world's national parks? Why do we have to have everyone else's conscience inflicted on us? It is because Pew, the American green group, has come over here and is leading the government by the nose. All Pew has to do is go to the Greens, tell them what it is proposing and the Greens will sell it to the Labor Party, saying, 'This is part of the conditions we have for government. If you want us on board you will put these closures in.' As a result, five million amateur fishermen have been frozen out, as have probably 6,000 or 7,000 professional fishermen, the charter boat industry and the trawlers. Why?

I inform the Senate that the country with the highest ocean catch by kilogram per square kilometre is Bangladesh, with 21,085 kilograms per square kilometre. After that come China, Peru, Korea and Vietnam. Then there is the United States, which takes about 372 kilograms per square kilometre. Mr Deputy President, I know that you are fishermen and that you are interested in this. Do you know that the country with the very lowest catch is Australia, with 28 kilograms per square kilometre? So what do we do? We race in, turn 3.2 million square kilometres right around Australia into marine bioregional parks, all because the Labor Party could not give a damn about blue-collar workers. They could not give a damn about the processers and the people who work in the processing industries in Bundaberg and Cairns. They could not care less, as long as they get the green vote. I can never understand it: if you do the most stupid things you will get the most stupid results. That is what happened in Queensland and it is going to happen federally. Why does the Labor Party keep putting its hand in the fan, lose five fingers and then line up to put the other hand in? (Time expired)

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

When it comes to protecting the environment, I think it is best that the opposition, and the National Party, leave the job to the experts. I think it is best that they leave it to a party with a strong commitment to and a far better record of protecting and maintaining our unique environment for current and future generations of Australians. How can we possibly believe that the coalition has any commitment to the environmental protection of our marine parks when we hear the dithering and confused statements they have made about marine parks? On the one hand, we have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Ms Bishop, strongly supporting marine parks in her local area; meanwhile we have the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, seeking a review of marine parks; and, finally, we have the absolute absurdity of Senator Boswell making statements that are disappointing and clownish, even for him, claiming: 'The Battle of the Coral Sea is just about to be started.'

The development of a national system of marine reserves has been underway in Australia for 20 years, since the signing of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment in 1992. When I was environment minister in this country, during the mid-1990s, I had responsibility for these issues. The current government is trying to finish the job by delivering a national network of marine reserves that strikes a balance between sustainable marine economies and protecting our marine environment. As an island nation we have a strong connection to the ocean. We are blessed with a diverse and unique arrangement of coral reefs and marine life. Our marine environments are increasingly being threatened by industry, pollution and the effects of climate change; we have a very heavy responsibility to protect our marine environment. Our marine economy is worth more than $44 billion each year. We are a vast island continent with the third-largest marine estate in the world covering an area of 16 million square kilometres, most of which is the sole responsibility of the Australian government. It is an area greater than our landmass and ranges from tropical seas in the north to sub-Antarctic seas in the south. Its protection is critical, hence these discussions about adding 44 large-scale marine reserves to existing areas. Of course the government has consulted with those who have concerns. I think there have been 250-odd meetings in coastal areas around the country. Let us be clear: wherever it is possible, wherever it can, the government has sought to avoid impacting on any local jobs or, of course, recreational fishing. But where it could occur, the government will be delivering an adjustment package of around $100 million, provided for on a case-by-case basis. And the new protected marine parks will only be activated when the management plans and assistance package are in place. Of course we all want our fishing industry to continue to remain well managed with a bright and positive future. I suggest we would also like to protect our unique and diverse environment for future generations. That is the responsibility a government of any political persuasion has in this country and I believe this plan will get that balance right.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this debate because I cannot stay silent in the face of the scaremongering and hysteria being peddled by some unscrupulous elements of the fishing sector, fanned by equally unscrupulous and opportunistic claims from some members of the coalition of the Liberal and National parties. The recent announcement by the environment minister of a national network of marine reserves is certainly a substantial and major step forward for marine conservation in Australia and globally. The announcement has been a long time in the making and it will benefit both current and future generations. That said, it could certainly have gone further in many respects and it almost totally leaves the field clear for oil and gas exploration in some of our most precious environments. What is clear is that this marine reserves announcement will not see the end of recreational or commercial fishing as we know it, as some doomsayers would have us believe.

The Australian Greens have always supported a science based approach to marine sanctuaries and the science increasingly indicates a need for urgent action on a national and global scale if our children's children are to know oceans that support the marine life that we have known, and why would we wish any less for them? In 2011, an international panel of marine scientists associated with the International Program on the State of the Ocean met to review the science at Oxford University and issued a stark warning that we would be foolish not to heed: 'The world's oceans are at risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history.' World scientific opinion is that 20 per cent of the oceans need to be fully protected from fishing, and here in Australia today we are whipping ourselves into a frenzy over a proposal to declare less than one per cent off limits from fishing.

Let us step back from the hyperbole and remember that in the end those concerned about conservation, those of us who wish to ensure that we have species with us into the future, and the fishing industry, who must share the same goal, surely, do have a common objective—namely, healthy and resilient ecosystems that support the sustainable marine industries and thriving regional communities. Surely that is what we would all be wanting. Last week's announcement will start us on the path to this goal. There is clear world evidence that marine parks are effective to achieve this. The science shows that protecting areas of oceans works. Not only do marine sanctuaries play a vital role in protecting fish stocks for the future by protecting critical feeding areas; they also insure fishing against the increasing threat posed by rampant oil and gas exploration and production. It is in this area where the minister's announcement is sadly lacking.

But, first, let me turn to my home state of South Australia and look at the effects on fishers there. The vast bulk of recreational fishing in South Australia is conducted in Gulf St Vincent and Spencer Gulf. These gulfs are part of the state waters and not covered by the recent announcement of Commonwealth marine parks. Elsewhere in South Australia, Commonwealth waters are more than three nautical miles offshore, again outside where most recreational fishing takes place. In terms of the no-take zones, these are few and far between off the South Australian coast and mostly more than 100 kilometres offshore. It is certainly a keen recreational fisher who would take his or her tinnie out beyond the 100-kilometre boundary to drop a line. Again, in terms of the impact on commercial fishing, this will also be minimal in South Australia. Many of the targeted species such as the critically endangered southern bluefin tuna, which is listed by the IUCN, are also migratory. That means they do not observe neat boundaries on a map but will continue to be caught outside the small protection zones in the Great Australian Bight.

All that said, I recognise that fishers are understandably concerned about the future. But it is important that those concerns are based on the facts and can then be ameliorated by appropriate measures such as reasonable compensation. We have always had to make difficult decisions where we have become aware that industries that we have become used to are no longer sustainable, and whaling is a good example. If you visit Albany in Western Australia, you will see the remnants of what occurred when whaling was phased out. Obviously, some people are disproportionately affected by decisions made for the benefit of the entire community and they need to be looked after. In this climate of fear, it is important that we ensure that the truth does get in the way of the bad news story that some are determined, against logic, to propound.

The big cause for alarm with this announcement, as I foreshadowed, is the inexplicable failure of the minister to adequately protect some of our most precious places from the risks associated with gas and oil exploration. The Australian Greens are seriously concerned about the outcomes for the south-west, north-west and north when it comes to oil and gas. I am particularly concerned about the magnificent and highly significant marine region to the west and south of Kangaroo Island. This area has been designated a special purpose zone, which will allow recreational but not commercial fishing, but will also allow mining, oil and gas activities. The Montara oil spill and the Gulf of Mexico oil spills, still very, very fresh in our minds, show that the risks of oil and gas exploration are unacceptably high in important marine environments. But, effectively, with this announcement, oil and gas have been given a free ride. That is something that the fishing sector should get seriously angry about. We know that oil and gas fields do not abide by boundaries. Despite a small zone that excludes oil and gas from a section of the Margaret River coast, the area right next door still remains vulnerable to the risk of spills. We also know that activities associated with oil and gas exploration threaten marine species. Activities like seismic testing affect whales, causing physical injury, organ and hearing damage and haemorrhaging, which can ultimately result in death. Unfortunately, we have seen the influence of the oil, gas and resources lobby and I think the influence of the resources minister, in relation to this omission in the announcement made by the minister for the environment. The short-term gain of the resources boom has won out over long-term protection and responsible and sustainable industries. Fishing can be a sustainable industry if handled well, as well as tourism.

So what we feared has come true. The Kangaroo Island canyons will not be protected from the risk of oil and gas exploration and production. The Kangaroo Island Council, along with the rest of the community, are extremely worried. There is a rich environmental heritage on Kangaroo Island and in its surrounds and there is a thriving tourism industry. People come from far and wide to visit Kangaroo Island; this will be at risk through this exploration and ultimately production.

An oil spill would have the potential to devastate marine life in the Kangaroo Island canyons. They are a biodiversity hotspot. They are the life force of SA's marine productivity and biodiversity, with nutrient rich upwellings in the region that enhance the production of plankton communities, which are at the base of the food chain supporting seasonal aggregations of krill, small fish and squid, which in turn attracts sharks, medium and large predatory fish of commercial importance, marine mammals such as whales, dolphins and New Zealand fur seals, and seabirds. So an oil spill in that area would be absolutely devastating. The Kangaroo Island canyons are also one of the three recognised blue whale feeding grounds in Australia, but they are now open to the threat of an oil spill. As well as that, an oil spill would be devastating for Kangaroo Island in its social impacts. It would mean the loss of livelihoods of generational fishing families who fished and harvested oysters along the shoreline. They would have to ultimately leave the island as there would not be other work for them, and of course that would have an ongoing ripple effect throughout the community, affecting schools, businesses and community activities.

So at this point we have the job of deciding in this second decade of the 21st century what damage we are willing to do to our planet and what the future holds. We are still relying heavily on fossil fuels, which obviously the Greens say we should move away from, and unfortunately this is seeing us doing and being prepared to do more and more deepwater drilling in more and more hard-to-reach and pristine places. Ultimately we have to decide that there are some places on this planet that are just too precious to risk losing. So, just as we expect planning and development controls to protect our prime agricultural land from mining activities, marine bioregional planning should protect those areas which are the life force of Australia's marine productivity and biodiversity. The minister's announcement is a good start, but there is still a long way to go.

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

I hope to bring back a little bit of realism and truth into this debate. The last two speakers simply repeated the propaganda of Greenpeace. For some reason, Greenpeace seem to want to shut Australia down completely, and one wonders why that might be. Apart from the rhetoric and spin and buzzwords of the Green Left Weekly, the reality is, as the previous speaker said, the impact on commercial fishing in the Coral Sea will be absolutely minimal. I agree with that. Why then go to the extent of shutting down a fishery that was profitable, that was one of the best managed fisheries in the world—a fishery that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority had carefully monitored over many years and a fishery that had delivered some fresh seafood to Australian tables?

This is the problem with the Labor-Greens alliance. An international environmental group like Pew, which is an offshoot of Greenpeace, come in and want to shut Australia down. But where is the science? The science on the Coral Sea has been with us for decades and it is called the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. It has been very carefully managed. There has never been any problem with the fish stock there and, I suggest, right around Australia. Yet here we are shutting this down to any sort of commercial fishing. Currently 70 per cent of our seafood is imported from some place in the world that does not have the Australian Fisheries Management Authority's careful management. I am told that within 10 short years 82 per cent of seafood consumed in Australia will come from overseas.

We are not a productive fishing nation. Our waters, not being all that cold, are not the best for fisheries, but we made our own way. We have had the most careful fisheries management for decades. We have had the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation doing the research, the science, into this. It was not necessary to embark upon this sledgehammer approach to shut down not just the commercial fishing industry but a big swathe of recreational fishing as well.

Senator Cameron, who follows me in this debate, will be an expert on this no doubt, coming down from the ivory towers of the tall buildings in Sydney and Melbourne where he sat as a director on one of the big insurance companies in the Australian superannuation scene. He will be able to tell us how the government is going to police these marine parks. All the Australian fishermen will abide by the law because, much as they hate it, it is the law and they are law-abiding. But it will open the doors for pillaging by those pirates that we know are out there. There will be no-one left to observe them because the ones that used to observe them were the Australian fishermen when they were out in those distant waters. Now there will be no-one to observe them. Even if they were observed, any Australian fishing vessel that may have been able to police those boundaries is currently stuck out north-west of the country, in the fruitless task of trying to peg those porous borders that Ms Gillard has created with her immigration policy and her inability to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into Australia. Perhaps the Labor Party is going to accept the offer of Sea Shepherd to go out and police the marine park. Sea Shepherd has the vessel that is out there committing piracy on the high seas, whose captain is currently on an extradition order to South America to face marine criminal charges. The Sea Shepherd organisation have offered to help the Labor government get out of their quandary on who is going to police the marine park. Of course, why wouldn't Sea Shepherd—promoted by Pew and the Greenpeace organisation—try to help the Labor government fill in what is a clear gap in this whole proposal?

I want to briefly respond to Senator Faulkner, who was saying that the only people that do any good in the environment are the Labor Party and the Greens. This whole policy of marine reserves comes from the coalition's oceans policy, the first oceans policy anywhere in the world, which did provide for marine bioregions. In the time I was minister, we introduced the first one, in the south-east of Australia, but the difference is: the marine reserve in the south-east of Australia is a multipurpose reserve. It was introduced in close consultation with fishermen, transport operators and any other stakeholders. And it was a good outcome. There is careful management, but there is also an ability to fish there, both commercially and recreationally. The Labor Party simply do not understand.

I remind Senator Faulkner as well that it was the coalition who brought in the green zones for the Great Barrier Reef. We did that knowing there would be some disruption to fishing, and we said we would set aside $10 million for compensation. We are currently $250 million into the compensation packet and it is nowhere near finished. And yet the Labor Party tell us that $100 million—which they have not budgeted for, I might add—is there to pay off those people affected. Well, $100 million will not go anywhere. It is not budgeted for in the budget that is barely a month old, and who knows what that might do to the so-called surplus? This is another example of the Labor Party's complete inability to manage anything properly.

If I had three hours, I could tell you of the good environmental legislation and management that the coalition have done, but we are opposed to this stupidity, which impacts on mums and dads and impacts on so many businesses, including small businesses in Cairns and Port Douglas, up my way, and small businesses in the Gulf of Carpentaria, in the northern prawn fishery region. There are marlin boats out of Cairns, recreational fishermen, who do go out that far, to the other side of the reef. As Senator Boswell mentioned, already one business is in trouble, having lost a $120,000 charter fee since the Labor Party brought in this regime. This is typical of the Labor Party. They cannot tell the truth before the election and then, when they get into power, they cannot manage anything they touch. It is the Midas touch in reverse, yet again. (Time expired)

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following Senator Boswell and Senator Macdonald is always good fun. Responding to the claptrap that goes on in relation to their position, when they try to argue points that have no scientific basis, no basis in fact, is always pretty easy. Senator Macdonald talks about realism and truth. I have not heard that from the coalition since I have been in this place. They are not realistic about what is happening to the climate. They are not realistic about what is happening to our oceans. They are not realistic about the need to take steps to protect our ocean, the same way as we protect our forests and our biodiversity. There is no absolutely no realism from the coalition. And, when it comes to truth, I think the truth and you guys are big strangers. The extremists in the coalition have got control, and the extremists in the coalition are arguing that there is no climate change, that we should just ignore what is happening, ignore what the scientists tell us and not worry if the scientific community around the world says there is grave danger from global warming and climate change. The coalition just ignore it and they go for the bottom line—low shots and no long-term vision for this country, absolutely none.

So do not come here talking to us about realism and truth, saying that the Pew foundation and Greenpeace are going to close down Australia. Give us a break! How about getting some of the realism that you talk about into the claptrap that comes from you lot over there? The Sun Oil Company set up the Pew foundation—not exactly the Red Guard. The Sun Oil Company took the view that they had to protect the environment. What do they say? They say that they actually base their analysis on facts, not like the coalition, as we have seen from Senator Boswell and Senator Macdonald. You run fear campaigns on every issue. If there is an issue or a policy, out comes the coalition fear campaign. There is a fear campaign on the pricing of carbon. Who cares about what this is going to do to future generations? Just run the fear campaign, run the opposition position, run the big no. On refugees, again the fear campaign comes out of the back pocket. Simply fear is what the coalition run on. On the economy, out comes the fear campaign. We have got the most robust economy in the world, and yet they run a fear campaign. I always like reminding the coalition about Sir Robert Menzies and what he said on 24 July 1942. He was talking about his liberal creed, something I do not think too many across there know much about. I know that there are some who think they are experts on the history of the coalition. On 24 July 1942, Robert Menzies said:

Nothing could be worse for democracy than to adopt the practice of permitting knowledge to be overthrown by ignorance.

We have seen an example of ignorance trying to overthrow knowledge from Senator Macdonald, although he is in the LNP, but I am not sure what that means—whether he is in the Liberal Party or not. He has been showing ignorance. Senator Boswell—ignorance in terms of the facts. Sir Robert Menzies went on to say:

Fear can never be a proper or useful ingredient in those mutual relations of respect and good-will which ought to exist between the elector and the elected.

You are the elected and you use fear continually to drive an ideological position in support of the rich and powerful in this country. He went on to say:

And so, as we think about it we shall find more and more how disfiguring a thing fear is in our own political and social life.

It is pretty disfiguring when you watch it in action from the coalition. Do not worry about the scientists and do not worry about the facts, just go with the fear campaign. He further went on to say:

It is the fear of knowledge which prevents so many of us from really using our minds, and which makes so many of us ready slaves to cheap and silly slogans and catch-cries.

We heard the cheap and silly slogans from Senator Boswell and Senator Macdonald. We heard the catchcries from Senator Boswell and Senator Macdonald, and they were pretty silly and pretty cheap. They were just not substantive at all. Menzies also said:

In brief, Australian Liberalism must present itself as the party of action, and the party of the future. We are not the ANTI party, but the PRO party.

Tell that to your leader. Tell that to the people who are in there saying no on every issue. Tell that to the people who are out there on the fear campaigns. I can tell you someone who has actually picked up a bit of that creed—

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

Order! Senator Cameron, you are just starting to stray away from the substance of the motion before the chair. I draw your attention back to the motion.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought it was bang on, Mr Deputy President.

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

Senator Cameron, I just draw your attention to the motion.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. When you have coalition MPs standing up and using fear in the debate you are entitled to deal with it, in my view. I accept what you have said. I just want to come to someone who must have understood what Robert Menzies was saying, and that is Peter Lindsay, the former Liberal MP for Herbert. I am sure you will all know the Hon. Peter Lindsay. He was the member for Herbert from 1993 to 2007. He served as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, he was a Deputy Speaker and he was a councillor for the Townsville City Council for 11 years, so I think he knows a little bit about what is happening up in the north of this country. He wrote an article in the Courier-Mail on 29 May in which he was talking about the establishment of the Coral Sea National Park. He said:

This singular act would be a fitting addition to Australia's long history of setting aside national parks to safeguard our natural wonders and unique wildlife.

…   …   …

The enormous show of support includes school children, recreational fishers, divers and tourism businesses.

More than 300 marine scientists from 21 countries have endorsed the need for a stronger plan.

Senator Macdonald would know the Hon. Peter Lindsay well. Mr Lindsay is actually dealing with the reality, not the nonsense we have seen from Senator Boswell.

The Labor government is determined to look after our oceans; it is determined to look after our environment. You hear about the lockout of recreational fishermen, and Senator Boswell talked about this being an attack on blue-collar workers. I do not know too many blue-collar workers that would be putting in their little tinnie with a five-horsepower motor on the back at Bundaberg and heading out 492 kilometres to find their first national marine park.

Let me tell you what this is about: it is about protecting the big end of town. It is about the big luxury cruisers with the multimillionaires and the billionaires and the marlin fishers getting out into these proposed marine parks. Nobody should be under any illusion about what this is: it is typical Liberal and coalition policy. Look after the big end of town. The little dinghies are not getting pushed out from Cairns to go 210 kilometres before they find a marine park. The boilermaker finishing work in the workshop is not going home and saying to the wife and kids, 'Let's go out on the weekend and do a bit of fishing; we'll head out to this marine park and we'll go 492 kilometres in the tinnie.' Give us a break. It is an absolute load of nonsense that these people are going on with. They are anti science, they are environmental vandals and they are economic incompetents, and they have the cheek to stand up here and talk to us about protecting the environment. You are an absolute disgrace when it comes to the environment. John Howard knew what had to be done; he was prepared to do it, and you have knocked that whole policy position off. You should get on with this and look after our environment.

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

It is an absolute pleasure to follow Senator Cameron, who has just demonstrated from the ivory tower in central Sydney his complete lack of understanding of the marine environment and the natural environment. He talked about demonstration of knowledge. Mr Deputy President, you have just seen the perfect example of a complete demonstration of a lack of knowledge. His insult to the recreational fishing sector by characterising the fishers as fishermen in tinnies with five-horsepower engines is just that: a complete insult, given the sophistication of recreational fishing as it exists here in Australia, particularly in some areas around Queenstown. Senator, you go to a boat ramp on a Saturday morning and see the vessels that go well outside the three-mile limit.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three miles?

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

They go well outside the three-mile limit into Commonwealth waters. You look at the sophistication of the charter boat industry that works around Cairns and brings millions of dollars of tourist funding into that area. One in 10 bed-nights around the Australian coastline is directly related to recreational fishing. In fact, it is something of the order of a $10 billion a year industry when you add up all the components of it.

Let us come back to the matter before the chair, which is talking about the risk to Australia's marine environment from the process that the government has put in place. That is the critical thing: what is the risk that is being posed to the marine environment particularly by the commercial, charter and recreational fishing sectors? That is the thing that this government has not considered as part of the process and it is certainly the thing that the government has set aside as part of its decision-making process as to this development of marine protected areas around the Australian coastline. Just like Tony Burke did in Tasmania with the intergovernmental forestry agreement—where the industry sat down with Tony Burke on the Thursday night before the agreement was signed and there was the signing of the agreement by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Tasmania on the Sunday morning—Tony Burke has shafted the fishing industry in Australia, just like he shafted the forest industry in Tasmania.

The fishing industry thought they had some semblance of understanding of what Minister Burke was going to do when they had their final meetings with him. They thought that they had been able to agree on some changes, but what happened when the maps were finally released? Exactly the same thing that happened in Tasmania when the intergovernmental agreement got released: there were special things put back in for the Greens and the environmental movement between the time of the final meeting that was held with the industry groups and the time of the release of the maps. So an industry was shafted in Tasmania by Tony Burke and, again, this industry was shafted when these maps around the marine environment were released. So there was no concern about what the risks might be, no measure of what the risks might be and no consideration of the relationship.

We talk about consultation through this process. I note government members have talked about 'consultation'. It was not a consultation process. It was a show-and-tell process. Tony Burke turned up with maps. He put them on the table and said, 'This is what you're going to get.' They thought they were getting a deal and they thought there was some negotiation but, as I have said, at the final meeting, after the influence of the Greens and the environmental groups, an industry was shafted yet again—just like happened in Tasmania.

Senator Cameron comes in here and talks about 'their record'—and he is leaving the chamber as I speak—but the record is just like before the last election when Julia Gillard said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Industry in Tasmania thought they had a deal with Tony Burke but they were shafted in the three days between then and the signing of the intergovernmental agreement on forestry. And, again, the industry were shafted here, proving again that you cannot trust the Labor Party at their word and you cannot trust their promises and you cannot trust what they say.

They characterise these marine parks as being well offshore so they will not impact on the recreational fishing sector. That is a big characterisation and the members opposite have made a big deal of this. But what they neglect to tell the community is that, by closing those areas out deep right out towards the outside extent of Australia's economic zone, they are taking that area away from the commercial fishing sector. So where is that sector going to fish? They cannot fish out in the grounds where they would be normally fishing, so they have to come in and fish on top of the recreational fishing sector area. So the government tell a lie when they say to the recreational fishing sector, 'This will not affect you.' Of course, it is going to affect them because the commercial guys are then pushed back inshore, they have to fish closer in and they have to fish on top of the other area, so effectively they are all fishing for the same fish stock. So the suggestion that there is no impact on the recreational fishing sector, because everything is out wide and away from the little tinnie with the five-horsepower motor, is a complete insult to the recreational fishing sector. Those in it are much more technologically minded than a lot of people on the other side of this chamber who are talking in last-century language. In the Greens' world if it is not locked up it is not protected. They do not recognise the strength of Australia's fisheries management, which has been globally benchmarked as amongst the best in the world.

So how can we manage our economic zone in other ways other than just locking it up, which is what the Greens would like to do and a large chunk of the Labor Party would like to do? We have strong fisheries management. We assess the risk. We have gear restrictions. We have total allowable catches. So we have all those restrictions. The coalition is not saying that we should not have marine parks, but you do not have to lock up huge swathes of Australia's marine environment, so locking ourselves out of potential future fisheries. Tony Burke talks about how they are going to compensate the industry. He is not looking forward at all in relation to this except for locking stuff up. What about the future demand for seafood here in Australia, which is going to grow by about 850,000 tonnes by 2012? That is double what we consume now, and we already import 70-plus per cent of what we consume. Where is that seafood going to come from? It will not come from well-managed and sustainable fisheries like we have here in Australia. It is going to be imported. Go and have a look at the map as to where most of our seafood comes from and then overlay on that the map of fisheries management in most of those areas. You go and have a look at that information and you will find that all we are doing by locking our oceans up is exporting our problem. We are not dealing responsibly with our own situation.

So the Greens just say 'lock it up', the Labor Party go along with that and Tony Burke sits down with industry, makes out he has got a deal and then shafts them in the next few days. It would be really nice if just one member opposite—and I notice Senator Singh has come into the chamber now—would be prepared to address the matter. What is the risk? Could Senator Singh tell us what the risk is to Australia's marine environment from our commercial, recreational and charter fishing sectors? It would be really nice for those opposite to demonstrate what that is.

Senator Faulkner talks about the environmental record of the coalition. He said he started this process back in the nineties but, of course, it was the coalition that put in the EPBC Act and it is the coalition that has been a strong partner—certainly through Senator Macdonald and after him Senator Abetz—in ensuring the strength of our fisheries management, one of the things that ensure that our fish stocks are sustainable. Look at the annual report on our fish stocks which came in under a coalition government and is printed every year and gives a clear demonstration of the sustainability of Australia's fish stocks. The government members are not prepared to accept any of those sorts of things. Of course, every seafood species that is exported out of Australia has to be assessed as sustainable under the EPBC Act.

So there are a whole range of protections that were put into place by the coalition when we were in government, and yet this government has still failed all throughout this process—all throughout its show-and-tell consultations process; not genuine consultation but 'show and tell, turn up, deliver the maps and this is what we are going to do'—as it has not yet put on the table a demonstration of the risk. All it wants to do is appease the Pew foundation and other groups like that and lock Australians out of Australian waters. (Time expired)

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise today to speak to this motion brought on by the opposition, because the government's announcement establishing the largest network of marine parks in the world is worthy of discussion in this chamber, and in the community in general. Indeed, it is a topic that is worthy of discussion also at an event like the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. That is a discussion that would have happened over the last few days had the opposition not allowed their negative and petty politics to override parliamentary courtesy and the national interest but had allowed the minister to attend one of the most significant environmental gatherings in recent decades. And of course it would have allowed for Australia's key events at the conference, the Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Land and Sea Management side event, to have been attended by the minister responsible for it.

It would have been only common courtesy towards our organising partners and those involved in the launch of the International Network of Indigenous Rangers program at the event to have their minister there. But, in their political wisdom, the opposition have decided that the national interest should play second fiddle to their own political, petty tactics. Why? They said they denied the minister a pair so that he could answer questions on today's topic, Labor's network of marine parks, in parliament on Monday, but they could not rouse themselves to ask those questions until more than halfway through question time. In fact, the government had to start them off on those questions. We had to drag them away from the preposterous, fear-mongering tactics they were using in this place. They claimed, against all evidence, that the workers facing possible retrenchment by Fairfax somehow had the carbon price to blame and they exploited that claim against every sense of compassion and good taste. That is the kind of rubbish the opposition would prefer to talk about. They prefer that kind of scaremongering and frothing at the mouth to actually facing up to what we as a nation need to do to protect our crucial economic and environmental assets in our oceans. That is exactly what they should have been talking about. At least we have the opportunity to do so now in this debate, even if the opposition's motion goes to a shadow of the substance of this laudable policy.

The 44 large-scale marine reserves that will be established through this policy are the areas that the science says we ought to protect. The discovery of that scientific knowledge began more than 15 years ago on the initiative of the Keating Labor government, and it was then embraced by the Howard government. The marine bioregionalisation of Australia, out of which most of the existing marine reserves are based—including those in the south-east of the country and around my home state of Tasmania—is drawn from integrating multidisciplinary data into a picture of how biodiversity is structured across all of Australia's oceans. That understanding allows us to know what we need to do to protect it and where the areas most at risk are if we do not act soon, including areas about which we know relatively little except that they are pivotal in linking together ecosystems and that unregulated activity is as likely to destroy their values as it is to discover them. They are areas like the Diamantina Fracture Zone, located in the south-west corner. This rugged deepwater environment has many underwater mountains and ridges greater than 6,000 metres, including the deepest waters in Australia. In the same area is the Perth Canyon, Australia's largest ocean canyon. Its deep ocean currents create a nutrient-rich cold water habitat that supports small fish, krill and squid, which feed fish and whales, including the blue whale. Whales, including the humpback whale, also migrate through the waters off the north-west coast. Many of the reserves in the north-west region, from the Kimberley reserve in the north down to the Shark Bay reserve, will provide important protection for this crucial migration path.

Over on the other side of the country, the Coral Sea region is home to some 15,000 square kilometres of reef area. The proposed marine reserve includes more than 60 per cent of this reef area either in marine national park zones, which are approximately 40 per cent, or conservation park zones, which are approximately 25 per cent. A further 30 per cent is within the habitat protection zones, and that also provides significant protection to these reefs. In the north-west of the Coral Sea, the largest fish species in the world, the whale shark, swims through Osprey Reef and Shark Reef. Osprey Reef is known as one of the world's top dive spots, primarily due to these impressive shark populations, while the Coral Sea generally is a critical habitat for black marlin as they undergo seasonal movements through the Queensland Plateau. The slow-growing loggerhead turtle begins, and sometimes ends, its amazing journey in Australia's Coral Sea after a long sojourn through international waters.

Those are just some of the incredible and unique environmental values that will be protected under the government's network of marine reserves. That is why people with an interest and background in these marine environments, who have a connection with our oceans and the amazing life that inhabits them, are lining up to commend the government's announcement. For example, Col McKenzie, from the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators, reckons that the reserves are likely to boost tourism and save jobs. In the Australian Financial Review on 15 June he said:

... it will actually improve tourism generally from the fact it will increase Australia’s profile overseas, particularly among high-end tourists who have high environmental awareness.

David Geshwind, from the Queensland Tourism Industry Council, said that most concerns on better protection of reefs, dive sites and game boat access have been met and that this was welcome. These people and many others understand that Australia's custodianship of its oceans in our region is not just a great responsibility, but it is a terrific opportunity for people to make a living off the reefs, the fish and the crystal clear waters that attract so many people from all over the world. There are plenty of Australians who make their livings—and even more who make their lifestyle—by using the extraordinary food resources of our waters. That is why it is important to protect this environment and this resource for future generations, so that our grandchildren can take their grandchildren out to fish with a fair chance that they will catch a feed.

These reserves have been designed to avoid impacts on fishers and regional communities as much as possible. They have been designed to preserve the coastal lifestyle that so many Australians have grown up with; to make sure that what is special about Australia can continue into the future. We have an incredible opportunity to turn the tide on protection of the oceans and Australia can lead the world in marine protection. These marine reserves are the most comprehensive network of marine protected areas in the world and represent the largest addition to the conservation estate in Australia's history.

We need to recognise how important this conservation effort in the oceans is, just as we do when we are talking about managing agricultural and pastoral land and just as we do when we are protecting unique forest environments, like those of Tasmania that Senator Colbeck alluded to earlier. That is why in Tasmania we have embarked on supporting the forestry industry in a transition phase into other areas of industry so that jobs can be protected as well as protecting the environment. It is a win for those people transitioning out of a forestry industry who need government support to do so and for bringing to an end a very long debate in Tasmania to do with its forests.

We need to recognise how important this conservation effort is when we are talking about our marine parks. This new network of marine reserves will help ensure that Australia's diverse marine environment, and the life it supports, remains healthy, productive and resilient for future generations. As I said, it is important that we recognise that well beyond our time in this place, we are ensuring that we are creating an environment, whether it be on land or in marine reserves, such as those I have described today, that can be protected so that we can ensure that we leave this place in a better and more sustainable way than those who have come before us. That is exactly what the science has told us and that is why this government is willing to act and is doing so through the creation of these marine reserves.

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

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.