Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to order, I present the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee, Great Barrier Reef, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee, and move:

That the report be printed.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Firstly, I want to thank the committee secretariat for their tireless efforts in putting together this comprehensive report. Thank you to Christine, Sophie, Hari, Meryl, Dianne and Ruth, from all of the senators on the committee. Secondly, I want to thank the senators on the committee for their work in almost pulling together a consensus report.

As is highlighted in this report, Australia needs urgent concrete action and political will for change to seek to preserve this national icon, the Great Barrier Reef. The report provides clear evidence that, while it is not too late to save the reef, urgent action is needed. It is clear that the health of the Great Barrier Reef has declined and appears to be on a continual downward trajectory. The recent Great Barrier Reef outlook report 2014 concluded that the overall outlook for the Great Barrier Reef is poor, that it has worsened since 2009, and that it is expected to further deteriorate in the future. The outlook report 2014 identified climate change, poor water quality from land based runoff, impacts from coastal development and some remaining impacts from fishing as the main threats to the health of the Great Barrier Reef ecology.

A 2012 study by the Australian Institute of Marine Science showed that in the past 27 years the reef has lost around 50 per cent of its coral cover. That study attributed the decline in coral cover primarily to three factors: tropical cyclones, predation by crown-of-thorns starfish, and coral bleaching. These factors are linked to the key underlying concerns of poor water quality and climate change. While progress has been made by Queensland and Australian governments, there is still more to be done. If more is not done, the overwhelming number of witnesses said that the reef will be lost for generations—something that I am not prepared to countenance, and something I am pleased to say the committee is not prepared to countenance.

The first recommendations make it clear that it is time to reconsider the issue that it is acceptable to dispose of dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area. The committee was also persuaded by evidence that some of the long-term and indirect impacts of dredge spoil disposal are not well understood. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science have co-convened an expert dredging panel to examine what is known about the impacts of dredging and dredge disposal, and to address knowledge gaps. The committee agreed that it is vital that no capital dredging is undertaken until the expert dredging panel has reported.

There is a need for dredging—particularly maintenance dredging—however I was concerned to hear that there are numerous proposals for increased dredging, particularly capital dredging, which would also potentially involve the disposal of large quantities of dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area. The committee recommends that the Minister for the Environment examine whether a cap or a ban should be introduced on dredge spoil disposal in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

The committee heard about the impact of the Abbott government's cut of $40 million to the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan. Under the plan, reef managers have worked with the agriculture sector in Queensland to reduce run-off and to improve water quality entering reef waters. Funding cuts will undermine the significant achievements of the plan. The government placed the $40 million into Reef Trust—an untried program that may improve water quality entering the reef—but it is vital that the Minister Hunt provide regular reports on the work of Reef Trust and the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan to ensure the efficacy of both programs.

The Department of the Environment needs to maintain strong oversight of the monitoring of relevant developments. The Great Barrier Reef is a World Heritage Area with international significance, and it is important for the Commonwealth to retain a significant role in the oversight of the area. Evidence demonstrated clear problems with the Australian government's one-stop shop proposal, particularly in the context of developments in Queensland, where the state government may be the proponent.

Federal approval powers should not be delegated to the Queensland government. The bill before the Senate on bilateral agreements should not be passed. It is clear that the one-stop shop proposal may further undermine the role and independence of the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority. I note that government senators have provided comments in support of bilateral agreements. I hope their arguments are more compelling than those in the chair's report from the Senate Environment Legislation Committee's recent inquiry.

On the general governance arrangements under the EPBC Act, Minister Hunt needs to ensure that conditions of approval are stringently worded, monitored and enforced, and the department has sufficient resources to do so. Evidence demonstrated concerns regarding the lack of independence of environmental assessments, whereby the assessments are commissioned and provided by proponents. Also, there was an issue with inquiry into threatened species last year and the inquiry into environmental offsets earlier this year. Minister Hunt should conduct a review, including a public consultation process, to examine ways to improve the independence and rigour of the environmental assessment process.

The committee heard evidence about the many and varied problems in Gladstone Harbour. It was clear that the problems at Gladstone appear to have been an environmental disaster. Minister Hunt must ensure that lessons are learned from the Gladstone Harbour experience. Further north, at Abbot Point, the committee heard evidence that the recent approvals by the environment minister and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to dispose of three million cubic metres of dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park could lead to another environmental disaster.

The committee has watched with interest as the member for Dawson has asked North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation to exhaustively investigate every land-based option and has stated, 'If a viable option emerges I will ensure that the spoil is dumped on land, not at sea.' Subsequently, it has been reported that North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation is considering altering its plans to dispose of dredge spoil material at sea. Finally, last night on ABC Lateline, Minister Hunt finally weighed in, and stated that he would welcome and consider alternative options to offshore disposal. However, the fact remains that the approval was signed by Minister Hunt—an approval which is currently not creating jobs in North Queensland, and which may cause irreparable damage to the reef.

It is clear that even if the best management practices were universally adopted by the agriculture sector, damage to the reef would still occur from fertiliser run-off. Further, a considerable amount of work has already been done to contribute to our understanding of agriculture and methods to lessen its footprint on water quality. For example, the use of nitrification inhibitors and control release technologies in fertilisers have achieved good results in reducing fertiliser run-off in other parts of the world. However, further scientific studies into the effects of pesticide run-off on the health of the reef are needed.

Over the next two decades, the population growth in catchment areas will result in more urban sewage discharge into the waters of the Great Barrier Reef. Queensland government has a policy requiring all coastal sewage treatment plants to meet high ecological tertiary treatment standards before discharging sewage. However, Queensland local government authorities lack adequate funding to upgrade works. The Queensland government should allocate funding to assist local government authorities to undertake the necessary upgrades.

Furthermore, there are insufficient land-based facilities for the disposal and treatment of sewage originating from vessels. Evidence to the committee stated that this lack of land-based disposal facilities may encourage illegal dumping within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park of sewage from vessels. The Queensland government should provide funding for improved facilities at ports throughout the reef.

I am concerned by evidence about recent cuts to funding and staffing in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and that experienced staff have left the authority in recent months. Aspects of the authority's management have been exemplary—including, for example, its management of the rezoning within the marine park. However, the committee is concerned that community confidence in the authority has been damaged, particularly by the recent Abbot Point decision.

There is merit in the Audit Office expanding its proposed audits to include a broader audit of the performance of the authority in executing its functions under its act, including whether it is acting in a manner that is consistent with the objects of that act. It is vital that management and decision-making in relation to the Great Barrier Reef is underpinned by robust and independent science. Evidence suggests that the science in relation to the Great Barrier Reef is becoming politicised by this government

I am really concerned by the Abbott government's funding cuts to the Australian Institute of Marine Science, which is one of the leading authorities on marine science and ecology, including the Great Barrier Reef.

Finally, climate change is the major long-term threat to the Great Barrier Reef. Evidence clearly stated that the Great Barrier Reef is already feeling the effects of climate change in the form of coral bleaching, which is likely to increase in the future, along with ocean acidification. While Australia cannot ameliorate climate change on its own, it needs to show international leadership on the issue of climate change. (Time expired)

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to say how hopeful the coalition was that we could achieve a consensus report in relation to this inquiry. Like the opposition, we recognise that the changing climate is one of the more significant threats to the Great Barrier Reef. We also acknowledge the need for ongoing action to ensure the protection and the preservation of our reef into the future. But we found particularly disappointing, when we went through the myriad of recommendations contained in this report of the Chair of the Environment and Communications References Committee, that the only major areas of disagreement between the government and the opposition—and, in most instances, the Australian Greens, I might add—seemed to be issues of politics, not issues that were going to have any benefit for or impact on the Great Barrier Reef at all. We were disappointed, firstly, that we could not reach consensus, but we were more disappointed that the issues that stopped us reaching consensus were political.

We certainly agree, as I said in my opening remarks, that the changing climate is having an impact on the reef. We also agree that the crown-of-thorns starfish has had a devastating impact on the reef over recent times. We certainly agree that coral bleaching is having a major impact. Agricultural run-off is also impacting the reef, particularly as a result of the cyclonic conditions that have been more prevalent in that part of the world of recent times. We also acknowledge that dredging, and the disposal of dredge spoil in particular, can have some quite significant localised impacts. As I said, on the really core, mainstream issues that impact on the reef and on the acknowledgement that something needs to be done in relation to these matters, there was no dispute between us, the opposition and the Australian Greens.

In the broader sense, our dissenting report actually reflects the fact that many, many of the recommendations of the committee report are supported by the coalition. As an example, the No. 1 recommendation that we were able to support was that there be no further capital dredge spoil dumping in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area until after the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science had finished their analysis of the impact of this work. So, absolutely, on the No. 1 key issue put forward in these reports, we actually agree. We certainly agree about the reef 2050 long-term sustainability plan. We believe, like the opposition, that this is a really important document. It is a really important study and it needs to be finalised, subject to full consultancy, as a matter of some importance. So, in looking through all of the issues that we agreed on, there were really very few that we did not agree on.

However, there were some recommendations that we just could not bring ourselves to support. The two key ones that I thought were totally politically motivated were, firstly, the opposition wishing for the committee not to accredit the Queensland development approval process under the EPBC Act. Why did we need to even have that in the report? We had agreed on the necessary actions and on what the problems were, so why did we need that? Also, the opposition wanted the committee to recommend the rejection of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill. Neither of those two very, very political recommendations would have any impact whatsoever on the reef in the longer term or the manner in which we were going to seek to look after it, so we were very disappointed in that.

We were also very disappointed at the recommendation that we seek the Australian National Audit Office to undertake a specific, broad-reaching investigation into the activities and actions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Given that the evidence we heard in no way, to my mind, suggested that there was anything improper, any impropriety, any lack of governance or anything at all to indicate that we needed to have a wide-ranging, specific audit of this particular authority, I found it rather strange that that recommendation was made. The coalition senators considered that it is completely unsubstantiated by the evidence; therefore, why did we have to include such a political recommendation?

The other thing that we were a little concerned about was the emphasis on the fertilisers, pesticides and agricultural run-off and the recommendation to come up with another report and another research project in this space. In particular, the evidence that we received indicated that there had been really significant and ongoing research and implementation programs in this space that were achieving fantastic results. The only thing that we found in the whole hearing process, in taking evidence, was that many of the assumptions and much of the modelling appeared to have been wrong. So we certainly would have been happier just to see the assumptions and modelling reassessed, instead of undertaking an expensive, time-consuming and, we believe, unnecessary implementation of a new plan, a new review and a new study, which was only going to take time, money and resources away from the very important tasks that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority should be undertaking to directly benefit the reef.

Finally, I would like to make comment about a situation that was very specific to the evidence that we took, in relation to the Gladstone Fish Markets. We got a lot of evidence to suggest that there had been some damage to the fish in the Gladstone Harbour as a result of some leakage from the bund wall. In acknowledging the contamination, compensation eventually was given to the fishers in that area because there was evidence that the fish were contaminated and could not be sold. So the fishers were compensated for the fact that their fish were no longer saleable.

However, nobody thought to compensate Gladstone Fish Markets. In the process there was a lack of compensation or acknowledgement of the huge economic impact of the inability of the fish market to access the materials that were the very basis of its business—namely, the fish. But they also had the responsibility of keeping these fish in cold storage so that they could be analysed. So they had an additional cost because of the implications of these contaminated fish. The people who caught the fish were compensated, but Gladstone Fish Markets did not get compensated. So, the coalition senators have noted in their additional comments in their dissenting report that we believe Gladstone Fish Markets was harshly treated in this process, and a case for compensation to them should be considered through the appropriate channels.

In conclusion, the coalition senators supported 90 per cent of the report. I would like to express once again my sincere disappointment that we were unable to achieve a consensus report, because the things that we agreed on were the major and important aspects of the report, which directly went to the ongoing maintenance of the Great Barrier Reef.

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

I too rise to speak on this inquiry into the Great Barrier Reef, which the Greens had the great pleasure of moving to set up. We would like to thank all of the other parties for participating in the inquiry, and the secretariat, for the work they did in allowing this very fulsome and very damning inquiry to occur.

We know that unfortunately at this time in history the Great Barrier Reef is facing more threats than it ever has. We took some incredibly scary evidence from eminent reef scientists saying that the reef's coral cover might disappear by 2050—that effectively we might not have a Great Barrier Reef as we know it today. This is within my lifetime. That is of huge concern to me as I am sure it is to so many Australians and citizens of the world.

As a youngster I had the wonderful pleasure of visiting the reef, and it has stayed with me forever and has influenced my passions in this place. So when the report was formulated I was really pleased that we were, I believe, able to move the two big parties closer towards the action the reef really needs to survive. Unfortunately, it was not quite close enough, but we welcome any steps in the right direction.

We have had three years of warnings now from the World Heritage Committee, who have said that they intend to place the reef on the list of world heritage sites in danger, if the Australian government does not change direction. They have made a number of recommendations over those three years of warnings. I am really worried that we will not get another warning, unless we heed and adopt those recommendations. That makes me worried for the 67,000 people whose jobs rely on the reef staying on the world heritage list, and it makes me worried for the loss of the $6 billion in tourism income. Perhaps equally, it makes me worry for the loss of the beauty that I was so fortunate to experience and that I want my daughter and every other person in the world, if they get the chance, to see with their own eyes, because it is truly wondrous.

That is why when we set this inquiry up we were at pains to emphasise the key threats to the reef. We know the biggest threat to the reef in the long term is climate change. I found it slightly ironic that Senator Ruston, who is perhaps not quite as extremist as some of her colleagues, did at least acknowledge in her contribution that the climate is changing. We will take what we can get from this climate denying government. Unfortunately, that same government has just repealed the carbon price—perhaps more strength in Senator Ruston's arms in her own party room.

The other key threat to the reef is a new an emerging threat that the World Heritage Committee is recognising and the Great Barrier Reef outlook report has recognised—namely, coastal and port development. What we have seen happen in the last few years is the biggest ever dredging and dumping program in the history of the reef's existence. It started off in Gladstone and it is now creeping everywhere, and it is mostly for fossil fuel export. So we are digging up the reef and in the main dumping that sludge into the waters of the world heritage area, all to facilitate additional ships to transit the reef, with the increased risk of shipping accidents and damage to marine wildlife, carrying a cargo that, when burnt, will again threaten the reef through exacerbating climate change. So we are incredibly worried, as is the World Heritage Committee, about this course of action. That is why in our additional comments to this report we have recommended that the Australian government ban offshore dumping of dredge sludge in the world heritage area, not just in the marine park, and not just for capital dredging, and not just for future projects, which Minister Hunt has alluded to committing to, and not just a commitment that actually does not mean anything when you factor in all of those exclusions, but a genuine ban on offshore dumping of sludge into the waters of the Great Barrier Reef. That is what we need, and that is what the evidence to this inquiry established that the reef needs. That is our first recommendation.

We also make the related point that the Abbot Point approval should be overturned. I am really pleased that in the last few days it seems like the proponent for that port expansion, the North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation, has now said that it will consider land based disposal of the dredge sludge from digging up three million cubic metres of the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area. They will consider not acting on the approval that this government gave them to dump that sludge into the waters of the world heritage area. I welcome that, but what a crying shame that it is the voluntary good-heartedness of this corporation that is leading them to consider not dumping sludge in the world heritage area waters. What a shame that we do not actually have a policy, a law, that says 'Sorry, I know it is cheaper, I know it is more convenient for you port corporations and big mining companies, but you cannot treat the reef like a rubbish tip.' That is what the Greens would like to see happen, so we have recommended that the Abbot Point approval for dumping not proceed. I might add that, even if there is no offshore dumping of that sludge, any approval for the world's largest coal port in the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area in this age of climate change is an absolute travesty.

We took some incredibly concerning evidence in the course of this inquiry about the lack of independence of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. It built upon documents that the Senate had helped to reveal over the course of this year, through freedom of information with the wonderful work of community environment groups and also orders for production of documents through this chamber, which showed, alarmingly, that scientists inside the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, GRMPA, had warned time and time again against approving the Abbot Point offshore dumping. They said this was the highest risk option and that it was going to have incredibly damaging impacts that, they believed, were irreversible. Yet a bureaucrat, who, we discovered at the hearing, does not have scientific training, approved the dredging and dumping of 3 million cubic metres with that final tick off.

I have been a big supporter of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. They have done good work. I would like to see them continue to do good work in a way that is not compromised by political pressure and that has science driving their decisions not politics. We have included some recommendations about increasing their funding as opposed to this government's funding cuts, about increasing their independence and about increasing the level of scientific knowledge on their board. They have one scientist on their board; they have two people on their board who have active links to the mining industry. If that is not a conflict of interest, then I do not know what is. Our recommendation says that anyone with coal or gas interests should not be able to serve on the board of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

I have already talked about how climate change is the biggest threat to the reef. We include a recommendation that says, 'You need to leave 80 per cent of fossil fuels in the ground, if the reef and, frankly, humanity are to have any chance of survival.' We also talk about the $40 million cut to an otherwise very successful program, Reef Rescue, which was brought in several years ago and has received successive support from different colours of government. Sadly, the Abbott government has cut $40 million out of that program, which works with farmers to improve farming practices and constrain run-off of fertilisers and pesticides, which not only saves water quality impacts but also saves farmers money. Why you would want to cut money out of that program is completely bemusing to me.

I have been following the issue of Gladstone for many years as a Queensland senator and a passionate supporter of our reef and sustainable fishing. I was heartbroken at the personal turmoil that has been imposed on the Gladstone fishers and tourism operators. The dredging and dumping program in Gladstone, approved by both the former government and the Queensland government in 2010, allowed 46 million cubic metres of dredging to occur and 11 million cubic metres of that to be dumped offshore in the waters of the reef. After that dredging program began, we saw mass fish deaths and fisherfolk getting sick when they came into contact with the fish or the water. There was an environmental disaster unfolding in the harbour, and I believe we have not got to the bottom of what caused it, because all of the various investigations have been, in the view of many witnesses, tainted by those undertaking the inquiries. We need an independent inquiry. I had hoped that this inquiry would have a chance to flesh out those issues. We took much of their evidence in confidence. It is clear that we still need an independent and comprehensive investigation into what on earth went on in Gladstone and how we can stop that from happening up and down the coast.

There were some recommendations about offsets, and I will go on the record and say that the Greens do not support offsets, particularly in a World Heritage area. It is all precious, since it is all World Heritage. You cannot just protect some bits but not others. It is all part of one of the seven natural wonders of the world. I commend this report to the Senate, and I am grateful for all of the input of the witnesses, all of the great work of the environment and community groups. I remain hopeful for the future of the Great Barrier Reef.

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

I would like to make a few comments on this report. I know that Senator Canavan from our side, who, like me, lives in the areas adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, wants to say a few words. Senator Canavan and I have a particular interest in the Barrier Reef, because it is our backyard and has been mine for most of my life. Most of the people along the coast of Central Queensland, North Queensland and Far North Queensland treat the Barrier Reef as part of their backyard, and that is why they are so cautious and protective of it but want to use and exploit it, if I can say that, for its sustainable assets. Certainly tourism is big, and fishing, both commercial and recreational, is an important part of the Barrier Reef lagoon and the reef itself.

The committee took a lot of evidence. I was fortunate to attend the Townsville hearings of the inquiry. Unfortunately, there were some other parts I could not get to. A lot of good information came forward. I draw senators' attention to the evidence of Dr Russell Reichelt, the Chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I do not want a verbal him, but my summary of his evidence was that the Barrier Reef is looking pretty good. Tourists go there, look at it, think it is magnificent and want to come back. He is aware, as I am, that, going back to the Ben Cropp days, people have been trying to address the issues of starfish, which, according to the evidence, is the greatest concern for the future of the Great Barrier Reef.

There are a number of other happenings that impact on the reef. One of them is run-off from the land. Over many years, starting with the Howard government, money was given by governments to farmers to help address sediment run-off into the reef. The Labor Party continued that with the Reef Rescue program, and I congratulate them for it. As I have mentioned elsewhere in this debate, the Barrier Reef is very special for our side of politics. In fact, the Liberal governments set up the first environment minister, first protected the Great Barrier Reef, and first established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. They also substantially funded the work of the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Townsville, which does a lot of work on the reef.

The thing that distresses me most about comment on the Great Barrier Reef is the constant mantra of the Greens political party and the radical environment movement telling the world that the Great Barrier Reef is finished and that it is about to be delisted. They continue to call for actions which would result in it being delisted as a World Heritage site. Quite frankly, a good advertising campaign would overcome that. I think the World Heritage listing is grossly overrated. But the Greens and the radical environment movement continue to denigrate the reef. I say to them, 'Why are you trying to destroy this wonderful asset we have?' Let's recognise the problems, as most people do, let's do something to address them, but do not carry on with this mantra time and time again. For example, the dumping issue which has been addressed in recent days. North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation told me about two or three weeks ago that they were going to look at a different proposal for the Abbot Point dumping. The Greens would go out and tell you that the dumping was on the Great Barrier Reef. To anyone who is watching overseas or listening in America, Europe, Japan or China, they would imagine big ships coming out and dumping dirt on the coral on the Great Barrier Reef. Of course this was never the proposal. I could go on for hours telling you of similar misconceptions that the Greens and the radical environmental movement have put around that just destroy confidence in the reef.

I am one of those who believe that there is a good future for the reef and that carefully managed, as it will be under the Abbott government and as it was under the Howard government, it will be there forever. Of course it will change. It is a resilient set of organisms, and it will change with the changing climate of the world. We have to be careful with it, and we have to protect it. We have to do everything that is possible, but what we do not need is people in this parliament continuing to denigrate and downgrade what is, effectively, in my parochial view, one of Australia's very best natural assets.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the tabling of this report into the management of the Great Barrier Reef. If there is one part of Senator Macdonald's contribution that I can agree with it is that, yes, the Great Barrier Reef is certainly an iconic and most important part of the Australia's natural environment. So much so that there are some 29 recommendations in this report that go to the very heart of what the government needs to do to protect the reef into the future.

If I can just start by thanking the committee members who participated in the inquiry and also thank all of the experts and community members who gave evidence. It was through their input—and, obviously, through the committee listening and taking their evidence on board—that we have come forward in this Senate with a really good report, which I encourage all senators to read, on how we go forward and protect and deal with the Great Barrier Reef.

I would like to highlight two of the recommendations because they do go to the heart of what is needed for the Great Barrier Reef to continue to be one of the seven wonders of the world and, indeed, to continue to be protected and a natural asset. That is certainly something as legislators can say we all played our part to ensure that it remains in its beautiful state.

Of course, those recommendations go to the heart of the dredge spoil dumping in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area. There was a lot of evidence put forward highlighting that we do need to very seriously consider a ban on the disposal of dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Reef waters. It is causing damage, and it is something that this committee listened to in great detail. I think the only way forward for government is, at some point, to seriously recognise the importance of what this dredge spoil dumping is doing to the waters of the Great Barrier Reef and in that sense to go forward and make informed decisions based on those two recommendations about any future approval processes for projects.

Only this week—despite the lack of leadership that this government shows in relation to the Great Barrier Reef and the complete lack of care from Minister Greg Hunt—we have seen a consortium of business leaders who have a project decide not to dump dredge spoil in the waters but, rather, to focus on the land when it comes to this very issue.

This is something that has to be taken very seriously by this government. Unfortunately, though, up until now, the government have form for not taking it seriously at all, despite the fact that this is a major tourism economic driver for our country and given the number of tourists, including me, who go scuba diving and diving on the Great Barrier Reef and who want to see this beautiful, iconic part of our country. Despite all that we have absolutely no care or leadership from the government, so much so that they want to give those protections and powers of the approval process that are legislated through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to the Queensland government. What an absolute shame it would be to have Campbell Newman in charge of approving projects of national environmental significance in the Great Barrier Reef. The legislation giving bilateral approval powers to the states that is currently before the Senate goes further than that—it allows the states to derogate those powers to councils. So we could have the Mackay Council having more power than the federal environment minister in deciding development projects on the Great Barrier Reef.

I do thank the committee and the experts for their evidence, which urges governments to focus on reducing those threats to the reef. The committee looked in great detail at all of this, but we know that at the end of the day this government takes a very different view of the Great Barrier Reef: they want every bit of coal in Queensland dug up without any thought or care for the Great Barrier Reef. That is their priority and their focus: getting the coal out, stopping renewable energy and continuing to trash Great Barrier Reef in the process.

Opposition senators will not allow that to happen; we care very much for this iconic part of our nation; and we care in the same way for the heritage forests listed in Tasmania. That is another area where the government has form—it tried to delist those forests and was laughed out of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. As Senator Waters suggested, we may see the situation where UNESCO does list the Great Barrier Reef as endangered. It will be on this government's watch that that will happen and it will be because they have let it go so badly in the development process—giving the approvals to Campbell Newman and councils and all the power to miners—all to the detriment of the reef. The opposition will not allow that to occur. We want the government to seriously consider a ban on dredge spoil dumping in the waters of the Great Barrier Reef. There are other areas for that dredge spoil to be dumped, and the options for land dumping need further consideration.

Again I thank the committee, the experts—the scientists and those in the know and who do care—who have helped the committee in formulating this important report that every government senator, particularly every government senator from Queensland and especially environment minister Greg Hunt, should read. Indeed, Mr Hunt should start standing up for Australia's environment full stop. Thus far he has form for doing none of the above.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too would like to make some remarks on this report by the Environment and Communications References Committee. I want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Ruston and Senator Macdonald—particularly Senator Ruston's comments on the disappointment that we were not able to reach a consensus report. We were so close that it makes me think that the fact we did not get there is more about politics than the facts of the matter. If we are going to take action on this, we would be much better in doing it in unison, but, of course, these committee reports are not just about the facts—they are about the politics. And that is disappointing. The point I want to make about Senator Macdonald's remarks is that the people who live or work on the Great Barrier Reef should have an important say in what happens in their area. There are so many people in this debate who live outside the Great Barrier Reef—they work outside the Great Barrier Reef—but who want to talk about the Great Barrier Reef and control the Great Barrier Reef.

It is a shame that Senator Singh has left the chamber because we just heard her bemoaning the fact that the Mackay Council can have a say on the Great Barrier Reef. For all the people in Mackay who may be listening tonight or watching online: you have just heard it from the Labor Party that they do not care about your council or about your thoughts. They want to allow the minister in Canberra to dictate to you what can and cannot be done in your part of the world. According to the Labor Party, all those people in Bowen, Airlie Beach, Proserpine, Tully, Ingham, Ayr—where my mum comes from—in Townsville and Cairns do not deserve a say and it should be Canberra that decides what happens in the Great Barrier Reef. I want to say that I utterly reject such an approach.

We should allow people who are directly impacted by what happens to have more of a say on what happens in their area. This is not just about the environment—a lot of it is about the environment and the environment is very important—but the environment is just one concept, and other things are important too. Jobs are important; communities are important; families are important; development is important. All of these things have to be balanced against each other. A mature government and mature political parties realise that there are no easy decisions here, and tough choices have to be made. When the Labor Party was in government, they did realise that, but of course in opposition they do not have the responsibilities they had a few months ago. Last year the Labor Party had approved plans for 38 million cubic metres of dredging, Senator Cameron. We have a new shadow minister for the environment and now they are talking about no dredging whatsoever. We have gone from having a year ago 38 million cubic metres between the Queensland Labor government and the federal Labor government to now wanting zero. What has happened in a year to change their minds so much?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Campbell Newman!

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, Campbell Newman. It's all Campbell Newman's fault! He is a very powerful man. He has changed your minds about dredging in the reef in the space of a year.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Address your remarks through the chair, Senator Canavan.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry. I plead that it is only my fourth week—or third week, I think. No, fourth.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought you were an economist!

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can count the millions, billions and trillions, but not up to 10!

What I cannot understand in this debate is that there is so much emotion about this issue of dredge spoil. 'Dredge spoil' is a very loaded term, and we have done lots of this in the past. We have dredged ports all through the Great Barrier Reef, and you would think that those on the sides of science, those who would want to use science in this area would have evidence because we have done what in effect are natural trials. In 2006, for example, North Queensland Bulk Ports dredged 8.6 million cubic metres at Hay Point, which is a port near Mackay and probably in the Mackay council area. You would think there would be some peer reviewed studies that would show these damaging effects. If dredge spoil were as bad as everything we heard from the other side of the chamber, there would be some evidence—just some, just a scintilla of evidence—that this has caused bad things. We have had this report produced, and I just went through it all again, and there are no studies referred to here. There is evidence presented by people. There are concerns. There are words like 'could' and 'perhaps'. There are weasel words all through it, but there is no actual evidence of the effects of that 8.6 million cubic metres that was dredged just eight years ago.

What we are talking about here in Abbot Point is three million cubic metres, less than half the amount, but apparently this is going to destroy the reef. It is going to do what the 8.6 million cubic metres did not. I want to refer back to the comments of Senator Singh, who is now saying the Labor Party wants to seriously consider that no more dredging will happen. I do not even think she mentioned offshore, but I will take that as a clarification if she did. We know that in the future Townsville, Cairns, Gladstone, Hay Point and Abbot Point will require dredging because that is the natural environment and they need to be dredged from time to time. So, effectively, what the Labor Party are saying by saying no to any more dredging is no to the development of these towns. They are not even saying no to development; they are saying no to the maintenance of these towns and what they are at the moment. The Labor Party are saying no to North Queensland. It is very unfortunate that they are joining with the Greens in this quest to make North Queensland the next version of north Tasmania. As a Queenslander, I do not want to do that. I do not want to see North Queensland become a northern version of Tasmania. I want to keep our state and our North Queensland very prosperous because there is a lot going on in that part of the world. If we listen to the Greens, we will have no new development, no new jobs and no new towns in that area.

Later on this week I believe there will be tabled another committee report on Northern Australia. There is lots of potential in Northern Australia, but we know those on the other side of the chamber are going to scream no to a lot of these things. They are going to scream no to more coalmines. They are going to scream no to more irrigation projects. They are going to scream no to more fishing zones being declared because they want to say no to jobs and development. I think that is a great regret. There is great promise in Northern Australia and North Queensland, and it would be a great regret if we turned our back on that promise as a nation. We can do better. We can do these things in a balanced way. We can build a coalmine and not destroy the environment. We can build ports and not destroy the environment.

Those on the other side do not believe in any coalmines. I have only been here a couple of months, but I am waiting for one Greens senator to get up and say, 'This is the coalmine that I support to build our things'—like wind turbines, for example. Where is the coal going to come from to build the steel that is going to go into wind turbines? Where is the coal going to come from to help power the factories in China that produce solar panels? I will wait with bated breath to here where that mystical coalmine is going to appear one day. We live in hope.

In conclusion, I want to give credit to the Queensland and federal governments for in a balanced way approaching development on the Great Barrier Reef. It is a great thing that some coalmines are getting approved there, because what we need in Central Queensland and North Queensland is jobs.

Debate interrupted.