Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This afternoon I rise to discuss the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017. Indeed, we support the amendments that are contained in this bill, but we do believe that we should be highlighting in the course of this debate the government's inaction on protection of the Great Barrier Reef. We know we established many decades ago now the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and I'm familiar with the governance issues that confront the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in the context of the flaws of that act. So we've had significant concern about the current governance structures and their inadequacy for meeting our reef's changing needs, including the response to the challenges of climate change, coastal development and land based run-off.

We know that back in March last year the government announced an independent review of governance. That was led by Dr Wendy Craik. We also understand that that report was given to the Minister for the Environment and Energy and it evaluated whether management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park under current arrangements was sufficient to support the performance of its statutory functions. There were a number of public submissions and 55 consultation meetings with stakeholders.

The review found that the marine park authority enjoys strong stakeholder rapport, but there are problems within its current structures. It included a most concerning lack of strategic leadership and management, and an excessive workload for the chairperson. This was found to limit its capacity to fulfil its statutory obligations and responsibilities and impacts on its capacity to manage the impacts of climate change on the reef. It was suggested that refreshed governance arrangements would assist in this regard to allow the authority to better fulfil its role as the expert manager of our reef.

We were pleased to see that the government accepted all of the 24 recommendations for the new Great Barrier Reef Marine Park governance model. These changes will improve its strategic capability and capacity. The bill seeks to implement the recommendations through the numerous amendments to the act, including separating the existence of the full-time chairperson into a part-time chairperson role and full-time chief executive officer with an additional part-time member position. The capacity of the authority will be enhanced by the separation of and time available for those roles. The act will also be amended in order to strengthen requirements for the appointment and termination of members. Indeed, the bill includes minor technical amendments to clarify the marine park legislation's regulating functions.

Labor believes that the passage of this bill supports the transition to new structures without compromising the authority's continued ability to fulfil its statutory functions. We're pleased to see that it provides enough time for the recruitment and appointment of the new chairperson and the new chief executive officer before the expiration of the current term in October this year. We don't believe this bill is contentious but, in supporting this bill, I want to affirm and reiterate our long-term commitment to protecting the Great Barrier Reef and delivering law and policy that promote the reef's long-term health and resilience in the context of climate change.

While the government has been saying that the reef is in good health, we on the Labor side are significantly concerned about its health. We want to see more done on run-off. We want to see more global action and accountability on climate change, because we know that that is one of the major risks to the reef. Australia has played a significant role in dragging its feet in action on climate change, which in turn contributes to the global drag on action on climate change and puts our reef, day by day, at greater risk. We know that the window of time, in which we will be able to protect our reef if climate change continues the way that it is, is closing. If we can't make good on global commitments to rein in emissions and address climate change, then we know that there is a great risk to our reef. I know that people localise debates about the impact of the Adani coalmine. But, in fact, we know that the debate about the Adani coalmine and the concerns of the community also relate to the much wider global debates about climate change and how emissions from fossil fuels need to be managed and made accountable, both at a domestic and a global level.

I'm proud of the role that Labor has played in protecting our reef. I'm proud to say it was the Whitlam government that implemented Australia's first ever marine reserve over our reef. More recently, it was the Labor Party that established Australia's marine reserve network, which is the largest network of marine protected areas in the world. The attempts of the coalition to undermine the integrity of that network—noting that it is not only the Great Barrier Reef that deserves protection—dismay me. I'm not happy with some of the changes that have been made to marine park boundaries. I believe they're being made without justification or scientific foundation. When the government make decisions like that it leaves me with great concern for their capacity to manage things like the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I'm heartened, somewhat, by the fact that, because of its significance, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has independent management structures for its oversight. I can only hope for the same for other parts of our iconic and important marine networks.

We know that our responsibility to care for our marine environment is becoming more and more important day by day, as the impacts of climate change and overfishing affect our marine networks. These threats must be taken seriously by our government, and we need to do all that we can to protect the health of our reef. Management plans are an important part of this work. We know that the Senate and the parliament—and, indeed, the government—have been active in recent times in bringing legislation forward in that regard. Late last year, we amended the act—the very same act that we're debating today—to improve the management plans for the parks as well.

We need all the practical tools at our disposal to protect our reef, which means we need governance structures in relation to the management of the reef itself but also externally to that, with the concerns about climate change. How do the government and the Labor Party opposition respond to the issues of climate change that affect the long-term health not only of the Great Barrier Reef but of our environmental networks right around the nation? We don't want to see simple management plans that deal with very specific acreage of the reef. We are calling on the government to do more than this and protect the reef from all sides. We want to see the government protecting the Coral Sea, to ensure the rich biosecurity there, on the right side of the reef, is also given adequate protection. I hope that the new governance structures in this legislation mean that there greater capacity to do justice to those important issues.

In our view, the government is not adequately protecting the Coral Sea. Currently you're looking at winding back ocean protections in the Coral Sea, proposing to gut half of that area that was put into the marine national parks that I spoke of before. It's taking a significant step backwards. In fact, it's the largest step backwards that has ever been taken when it comes to conservation in the Coral Sea, and I want to put the Labor Party's concerns about that on the record today in the context of this debate.

Importantly, we need to make sure that we're protecting the reef on the other side. That is what the Queensland Labor government is doing, and that's by doing things like putting land-clearing rules to parliament and ensuring that run-off from land clearing doesn't negatively affect the reef. Those kinds of things can be done adequately only if the governance of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is adequately legislated for by this place. We are significantly concerned about the fact that the government have not acted on climate change and that they're not acting on the causes of climate change—and indeed that some of the MPs opposite us don't even believe it's real. So, while we've got good bureaucrats who can work on things like these governance structures, do good consultations with stakeholders, do good surveys and take submissions, we are vastly held back in our capacity to protect the Great Barrier Reef by the ideologically driven inaction on climate change that is driven by people in this place and the other place.

What it comes down to is that all the good management plans, all the good governance, cannot really do the job if you don't believe in taking strong action on climate change. It simply makes you unfit to protect our iconic Great Barrier Reef. I simply don't trust the government to protect this part of our unique environment. I urge the government to do more to protect one of our most prized environmental assets as a nation. I urge them to stop fighting against responsible land clearing protections and I urge them not to undo protections for the Coral Sea. It's time for them to act on climate change, to address the root causes that will keep our reef healthy.

I can say that we in the Labor Party can and will do these things, because our environmental policy commitments go much further in their protective efforts than these amendments that are before us today. We have a plan for the reef that involves more efficient and long-term management of the reef that is appropriately funded and resourced. We look forward to seeing that funding, that resourcing, that planning and that agenda of the Labor Party and a future Labor government coming within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's governance. For example, we have committed $100 million to review and improve the current management practices for the reef in consultation with relevant stakeholders. We also have a comprehensive climate change action plan that will deliver real action on climate change and, in doing so, address harmful effects of global warming and global emissions on the reef, including coral bleaching.

What we have here for our Great Barrier Reef is an amendment that helps with governance but doesn't really drive at the key risks to our Great Barrier Reef. This is of extreme concern to the Labor Party and it's something we look forward to addressing in government.

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

I thank Senator Pratt and the Labor Party for their support for this administration bill in relation to the management of the Great Barrier Reef—the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017. I appreciate that Senator Pratt and no doubt Senator Whish-Wilson, who will speak later on this, are correct in saying the Barrier Reef is our Barrier Reef—it's the Barrier Reef of all Australians. But I particularly like to think of the Barrier Reef as my Barrier Reef because I've lived all of my life on the shores of the Great Barrier Reef. I know well the people who operate on the Great Barrier Reef, be they tourist operators, fishermen or scientists out of Townsville, Cairns and Mackay, and over the years I've had a long, long interest in the Great Barrier Reef.

I know the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority well. It's based in the city of Townsville, where I have my office, and of course the Australian Institute of Marine Science is based at Cape Cleveland, between Townsville and Ayr, to the south of where I live. I pass the AIMS turn-off every day I go to work. And I'm very conscious of some of the very good work that James Cook University does out of the campuses at Townsville and Cairns in relation to marine matters. Most of their work's good. Some is what I would class as questionable and a bit politically motivated, but that's up to individual researchers.

The Barrier Reef is going fine. Senator Whish-Wilson will get up after me and tell the world that the Barrier Reef's dying, it's dead or it shouldn't be visited by the European and North American tourists who flock to that area. The Greens political party seems to have undertaken a campaign to denigrate the Barrier Reef so that one of the great sources of revenue, export earning dollars and jobs in Queensland which come from the reef is decimated. That seems to be the Greens political campaign, because most of the rhetoric that they go on with about the health of the reef, which was unfortunately also mentioned by Senator Pratt, is simply not true. Senator Whish-Wilson will get up after me and tell you it's dead and that all these horrible things are happening, but the fact of the matter is quite different. There are challenges on the Great Barrier Reef. There always have been. But that is well recognised by the government.

I know Senator Pratt, who comes from Western Australia, the other side of the country, and Senator Whish-Wilson, who comes from Tasmania, at the bottom end of the country, love the Barrier Reef as much as I do, but they could hardly be said to have the practical involvement with the reef that I've had over most of my lifetime. Senator Pratt was carrying on about how good the Labor Party is with the Great Barrier Reef. I've done this before, but I refer Senator Pratt to a document put out by Save Our Marine Life, an alliance of leading conservation organisations—not normally friends of ours—which is entitled A big blue legacy: the Liberal National tradition of marine conservation. It goes through, in some detail, the work that Liberal-National governments have done over the years: the prohibition of oil and gas operations on the Barrier Reef by the Fraser government in 1975; the end of whaling in Australian waters and the creation of the first stage of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park by the Fraser government in 1979; the World Heritage listing of the Great Barrier Reef and the creation of the Cairns section of the marine park in 1981; the creation of the Lihou Reef National Nature Reserve in the Coral Sea by the Fraser government in 1982; and the creation of further marine parks by the Howard government 1998. Coalition governments have always been more active in protecting our marine environment right around Australia, as this booklet quite clearly points out.

I've had a lot of discussions with many directors and chairmen of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park over the years. Dr Wendy Craik has conducted a recent review of the authority, and Wendy is the appropriate person to do it because she was once in the position of chair of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, many, many years ago. The idea of splitting the chairmanship from the CEO is a good one; it's something the park authority itself and other stakeholders have wanted. Most of the amendments contained in this bill, as Senator Pratt pointed out, are issues that would have been determined after long consultation with all stakeholders, and I'm pleased to see these amendments are universally supported.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is not a specific scientific research agency, although they do a lot of scientific research. I was particularly pleased in a Senate inquiry that Senator Whish-Wilson chaired—I don't think he ever made a lot of this particular point—when the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority gave evidence that the Coral Sea was actually cooling and that the waters around the northern section of the Great Barrier Reef were actually cooling. That puts the lie to what Senator Whish-Wilson will tell you: no, the waters are all getting warmer, and there's coral bleaching and all that. Yes, there is some coral bleaching; yes, there has been a crown-of-thorns problem. There have been crown-of-thorns starfish there for 60 years that I can remember. Ben Cropp and his wife were the first ones to try and do something about that. Coalition governments have funded very considerable work for the removal of the crown-of-thorns.

I'm delighted to say that just a couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, came to Townsville. We went out to AIMS where Mr Turnbull announced to academia, people involved in the reef, tourism operators and other stakeholders in the reef that $60 million for further research and remedial action on the Great Barrier Reef would go to a number of different agencies. We haven't heard a lot about that—and you won't hear about it from the Greens.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You will hear about it!

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

Oh, we will. Well, that's good. Well, make sure it's truthful, Senator Whish-Wilson. So there will be an extra $60 million for research on the Great Barrier Reef.

Importantly, scientists now understand that what they have to do is help with the resilience of the reef. These are my terms, not theirs, but I understand that what they're doing is looking at genetically modifying the reef to give it strength, to give it resilience, to help it progress and continue in the years ahead. They're looking at bringing embryos of warm-water corals into the Barrier Reef. Generally speaking, they are now doing what they should be doing in relation to climate change—that is, understanding that climate change is apparently real and, as I always point out, that, ever since the earth has been going, the climate has continued to change. Once upon a time, the world used to be covered in ice; it's not now. So, clearly, over the years, the climate continues to change. That's an accepted fact.

What sensible scientists are now concluding is that we've got to see how we can help the reef resile from, deal with or cope with that climate change. I'm delighted that scientific work is now being directed more towards that area, rather than the philosophical political argument about whether climate change is real or true, or who's causing it. They're actually doing things, and that's how it should be. I'm delighted AIMS is heading that way and the CSIRO is heading that way, so that we can do something practical about changes that occur in our climate.

Senator Pratt and Senator Whish-Wilson no doubt will go on about climate change. I keep saying to them: can someone tell me how Australia, which emits less than 1.2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, can stop what Senator Pratt and Senator Whish-Wilson say is causing climate change? Carbon emissions? Well, if they are, it's not Australia that's doing it. Senator Pratt says, 'Labor has a plan to stop climate change.' Well, I don't know how Labor can do that, because Australia's contribution to emissions is less than 1.2 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon. So how Labor is going to deal with that, I'd be very, very interested to see.

I've digressed slightly from this bill and what's happening but I do want to say that I've spoken with administrators, managers, at the Marine Park Authority for some time, and these reforms are what will suit them. I do want to mention there Dr Russell Reichelt, who is the current chairman and CEO. I think he is now retiring after long, dedicated, tremendous service to Australia's marine science, particularly to the Barrier Reef, to GBRMPA and to AIMS. He is a dedicated marine scientist, one of the most knowledgeable. He understands how the whole thing works, and I do want to pay tribute to Dr Reichelt for the research work he has done at GBRMPA and elsewhere.

I return to the issue of climate change and repeat: with Australia emitting less than 1.2 per cent of carbon emissions, if there are things happening, it is not Australia's fault. How the Labor Party are going to stop that, how the Greens would stop it, apart from rhetoric and a few demonstrations up and down the streets, I'm not sure. I want Senator Whish-Wilson to tell me how Australia, which emits less than 1.2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, is causing the climate change which the Greens and some in the Labor Party would have you believe.

I refer anyone who is interested to a very good article by Julian Tomlinson in today's Cairns Post about the issue of the Barrier Reef and academic freedom, research and the quality of research. It brings to mind the unfortunate situation which has happened at James Cook University. Professor Peter Ridd, a very well qualified scientist in marine matters, had a different view on the Barrier Reef. He had the temerity to suggest that some of the researchers simply use research—these are my words, not his, but this was the theme, a theme I've had in the past—they know that their future depends upon getting research grants. It used to be under the Labor years that they had to mention climate change or they wouldn't get a research grant for anything. Nowadays that has moved on. They've got to mention the Barrier Reef or they don't get research funds for anything.

Professor Ridd had the temerity to inquire why a lot of the work that was being done by fellow scientists at JCU was not properly peer researched, and because of that he has been sacked by JCU. That's a shame, because I'm a great supporter of JCU. I wrote to the vice-chancellor about the issue when it first happened. I got a response from her, I might say, but I think it's unfortunate. Professor Ridd, as I understand, according to newspaper reports, is before the Federal Court now in relation to his sacking for what he says and what I think is an expression of opinion. I thought universities were there to encourage different views and different approaches and to challenge accepted norms. I thought that's what universities were about, but apparently not at JCU, and that distresses me because, as I say, I'm a great supporter, a great fan and great advocate for JCU.

An interesting thing that Julian Tomlinson mentioned was that Professor Ridd in this court case—and we all know that court cases are very, very expensive—wanted to take action but couldn't afford it. So they did one of these crowd-funding appeals and, within two days, raised $100,000 to help Professor Ridd with his court case. As Julian Tomlinson says, this just demonstrates that people around Australia are getting sick and tired of the Greens continual rhetoric—unsupported, I have to say, by any genuine scientific fact about climate change and its being caused by Australia.

Senator Pratt went on about Adani. Adani is 500, 600 kilometres west of the Great Dividing Range, nowhere near the Barrier Reef. How that mine is going to destroy the Barrier Reef, as Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Pratt have suggested, simply beggars belief and is beyond comprehension.

They then say that there'll be more ships going through the Barrier Reef. Well, that's been happening for 100 years and, with a couple of very minor exceptions, one of which was Bob Brown's boat, there has never been any problem with ships going through the Barrier Reef, because it's so well managed. The marine safety aspects there, the pilots that take everyone through the Barrier Reef—we've got that very well managed. So the arguments about Adani destroying the Barrier Reef just don't stack up. Any serious, sensible person could never make an argument for that, because the facts just don't support them. But it's an interesting article by Mr Tomlinson, and I'd recommend anyone who's interested in this to have a look at it in the Cairns Post today.

I will leave it there, again emphasising what the marine conservation societies say in A big blue legacy about the legacy of the Liberal and National parties and their tradition in marine conservation over decades. That is demonstrated. One of the things I didn't mention which I perhaps should have is that the Green Zones were an initiative of David Kemp and Robert Hill as ministers in the Howard government. All of the practical, positive enhancements to the Great Barrier Reef have been done under Liberal and National Party governments, and that was even further demonstrated just a couple of weeks ago, by this allocation of some $60 million to do further research to help the resilience and the continued operations of the Great Barrier Reef—a Great Barrier Reef that all Australians love. Many, I have to say, from Melbourne, Tasmania and Western Australia read the rhetoric; they don't really understand it. But those of us who live there understand just what a special place it is, how it contributes so much to the Queensland and North Queensland economy and how it gives so much pleasure to tourists and locals alike to experience the Great Barrier Reef. Particularly these days it brings joy to northern Europeans and North Americans, as they flock, with others from all over the world, to see this wonderful example of a natural asset that Australia has.

I will just say, before Senator Whish-Wilson speaks—and again he will try to denigrate the reef and try to turn tourists away, contrary to all the facts from people who actually work on, live near or research the Great Barrier Reef—that I believe the Great Barrier Reef has a great future. With the careful management being provided by the Turnbull government and previous Liberal-National Party governments, we will continue to have this wonderful natural asset which is a joy for the world. I encourage anyone who may be listening to this or who may have an interest in this to visit the Barrier Reef. It is an experience worth having. It is an experience that will be there forever, and it's an experience that is world-class. I urge people to take advantage of it.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might start my contribution on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017 with a question to the Australian people: who would you rather believe? Would you rather believe a Liberal senator whom I think Senator Brandis labelled—correct me if I'm wrong—as the grandfather of the Senate, a Liberal senator who is a self-confessed climate change denier, who doesn't believe in man-made climate change? He is the best the Liberal Party could put in here today. The best they could do was put up Senator Macdonald to speak on behalf of the Great Barrier Reef. He is a self-confessed climate change denier.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Sit down, Senator Whish-Wilson. I just remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly and senators are entitled to be heard in silence.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Especially, Acting Deputy President, as I sat through Senator Macdonald's contribution almost completely silently.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

I can't even begin to say how many lies you told, Senator Macdonald. Who would you rather believe? Senator Macdonald, the grandfather of the Senate, who's been here way too long in my opinion and in the opinion of many others, who is a climate denier who says—

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

That's a lie and you know it!

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we go, Australia! Here's what he just said in here in the Australian Senate on behalf the Liberal Party: 'The Great Barrier Reef is going fine.' It's going fine! There was an article this week, because there is a meeting in Sydney this week of scientists from all around the world, the Global Climate Forum, that said very clearly that the reef is in 'deep trouble'. That quote came from one of the leading scientists at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

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

Name him!

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very happy to name him. His name is David Wachenfeld. I will send the link to you, Senator Macdonald, so you can read it yourself. Get your head out of the sand, you and your government, and do something about climate change and the Great Barrier Reef.

As chair of the environment committee that went to the Great Barrier Reef, I pushed the committee to go diving on the reef. Senator Macdonald directly threatened me that he would get stories run in the Queensland press about me taking a joyride when all I wanted the committee to do was stick their head under the water and see the coral for themselves, which is exactly what I did. Do you know what Senator Macdonald said to me, Acting Deputy President? He said: 'If you want to see coral, go to the AIMS laboratory and have a look at it there. They are growing perfectly good corals in the laboratory.' That's what he said the committee should do.

This is the quality of the people that the LNP have in this parliament on one of the biggest issues of our time, an issue that will impact future generations of Australians. This is the quality of the people—the best they can do in a debate on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and how we need to enhance its effectiveness. He comes in here and attacks scientists, a coward punch, because those scientists don't agree with his climate-denying view of the world. An absolute bloody disgrace—that's what he is and it's about time someone called him out on it.

The reef is in deep trouble. Fifty per cent of the corals are now scientifically classified as having been bleached, and that excludes the damage to the corals done in the zone by Cyclone Debbie. I went to four different sites and saw it for myself. If you don't believe climate change and warming oceans are impacting the Great Barrier Reef, go and stick your head under the water and have a look for yourself. I challenge every politician in this parliament to do exactly that: go up there and have a look for yourself.

It's not just the Great Barrier Reef. In my home state of Tasmania, the south-eastern section of Tasmania and the Tasman Sea is the global hot spot for warming oceans on this planet. We have just lost our giant kelp forests, a 10,000-year-old ecosystem that stretched from the north-east tip of Tasmania to the south. They are gone. They were older than the Great Barrier Reef. They were nurseries to so much marine life and biodiversity. They are gone because of warming waters, storms and invasive species—very similar pressures and stressors that the Great Barrier Reef is facing.

For Senator Macdonald to come in here on behalf of the Liberal Party and claim—this could the biggest quote of the year, or the biggest I've ever seen in this place—that 'the Great Barrier Reef is going fine' is an absolute lie. It's a dangerous lie because it underlies the action that we need to take. I know this because I chaired the Senate committee that took significant evidence on this. The report is there for anyone who wants to read it. We need to do everything we can across the board to help the Great Barrier Reef. Senator Macdonald said the coral reef was cooling on the particular day we happened to be up in his hometown in Cairns.

The coral reef is cooling? We've had unprecedented back-to-back bleaching because of record water temperatures. February is the critical month for this year—fingers crossed that we don't get a third consecutive bleaching event. No-one thought it was even possible we could get two in a row. The models were predicting that that couldn't happen until 2045, yet it happened. These corals will not recover. It takes 15 years for them to recover. The dare that Senator Macdonald put to you in this chamber today is that I wouldn't talk about the $60 million—$60 million!—that this government is putting towards the Great Barrier Reef. I ask every senator in here and the Australian people: what is the Great Barrier Reef worth? What is it worth to you? Just in tangible economic measurements, it is in the billons of dollars. As an economist, I know too well that even though we try and price ecosystem services we can't possibly even begin to value the Great Barrier Reef for its biodiversity. Who can even put a price and value on what's important, the thousands of creatures that rely on the reef for their survival?

It's not just the reef. It's the rainforests and the mangroves. They're all part of the same ecosystem. If the reef dies, if those corals crumble—which they will after they've bleached—it removes cover for the thousands of species that are protected from predators. It will impact the rainfall over the rainforest, because the reef is actually what creates the rain, and the rain creates the mangroves. The mangroves are the nurseries for small fish and they are essential for crocodiles, which actually protect the small fish. That's why it is such a successful symbiotic relationship and one of the greatest ecosystems on this planet.

David Attenborough this year is going to be releasing in Australia Blue Planet II. It was the leading TV series in the UK last year. The rest of the world cares more about the Great Barrier Reef than most Australians—certainly more than Senator Macdonald. People are waking up to this, and they want us to do something about it. I'm sorry if I am so fired up and passionate about this, but I am sick to death of hearing the crap that I hear in here from climate change deniers like Senator Macdonald. I think that Australians are as well. I'm sick of scientists being attacked by people who are funding them. It's just not acceptable.

I digress. Let me get back to the bill. Senator Ruston, the minister at the table, will be pleased to know that the Greens will be supporting this bill. This bill will enhance the authority and functions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. It will replace an existing full-time chair chairperson with a part-time chairperson position. It will establish an additional part-time member position, bringing the total membership of the authority to seven—that includes the chairperson and the CEO—and it will:

Strengthen requirements for the appointment and termination of members by: specifying the general skills required; limiting the number of consecutive terms served by an individual member; providing for termination of members by the Governor-General for underperformance—

I'll be interested to see what benchmarks are going to be put in place for that underperformance—

and reducing the potential for conflicts of interest. If this wasn't in non-contro, Senator Ruston, I would take you into the committee stage to find out exactly what those performance benchmarks will be, but I will ask you instead outside the chamber.

Importantly, the parliamentary briefing that we've been given acknowledges the reason for this legislation. The authority's key functions are to:

… advise and make recommendations to the Minister in relation to the care and development of the Marine Park … zoning plans and plans of management …

It acknowledges that, while they're managing the Marine Park collaboratively with the Queensland government, the review into the governance of these arrangements has found that the scale and workload of the chairperson position has become 'too large for a single person' and:

The legislated size of the Authority and background requirements of the … members limited the capacity to provide local, national and international perspectives and diversity of expertise required …

This is what I'd like to finish my contribution on. I think this is what got Senator Macdonald so fired up in our Senate inquiry when he came up to Townsville and Cairns: we might only be 1.2 per cent of global emissions, but of course Senator Macdonald forgot to tell you that, if you include coal exports, we're up around nearly 5 per cent. We are the Great Barrier Reef's custodians. If we are going to get action on reducing emissions, if we're going to get countries around the world to meet their Paris targets, if we're going to show any leadership on the climate debate, it fascinates me when people like Senator Macdonald infer that we shouldn't do anything on cutting emissions because we're only 1.2 per cent. I believe in obligations, as I'm sure Senator Paterson in this chamber does. If I choose not to pay my tax because I contribute only 0.0000-something per cent of the tax taken in this country, that's not acceptable. How is it acceptable to be saying that because we're only a minor offender or because my offence is only minor it doesn't matter? It all matters. This is what got me fired up and Senator Macdonald fired up during the inquiry.

Last year the World Heritage in Danger committee looked at listing the Great Barrier Reef—and believe me, this is the main game from here on in. I understand, and it was confirmed through questioning through the Senate inquiry, that the tourism industry lobbied against an endangered listing because they felt it might turn away visitors to the Great Barrier Reef, although we had witnesses saying there was no evidence to support that at all—quite the opposite, in other cases. But I was told by someone very senior, whom I won't name in here, that the reason the Great Barrier Reef was not put on the World Heritage in Danger list was that if the Barrier Reef was put on the in-danger list then nearly every coral reef system on this planet would need to be included as well.

The Great Barrier Reef is so significant, but another 40 or so reefs are listed. And I've gone and done my homework on this. I've been to Japan and talked to them about their coral reef systems. They are all in significant trouble. They feed nearly half a billion people on this planet. They rely on these reefs for their livelihoods. No bigger signal could we send the whole world than to get our reefs put on the in-danger list. I can't think of a bigger thing we could do to actually get this world and governments around this world to take action on climate than to sound the loudest possible siren, ring the loudest possible bell on the fact that we are warming our oceans and destroying the ecosystems within these oceans. And ultimately that will backfire on us—and not just the tourism industry but also the fisheries industry.

We heard evidence that there are already impacts of coral bleaching and warming on commercial and recreational fishing industries on the Great Barrier Reef. I have seen this firsthand in my home state of Tasmania. Warming waters in Tasmania not only have caused enormous problems for the salmon industry, which Senator Ruston will be well aware of, but also have helped cause outbreaks of viruses that have been devastating for scallops, as well as Pacific oyster mortality syndrome. We've seen significant problems with the productivity of our abalone industries and our rock lobster industries. People who are ignorant, like Senator Macdonald, believe climate change is just a greenie thing. Well, I've been saying to people until I was black and blue that this is not just about ecosystems, biodiversity and greenie issues; this is about your livelihood and the livelihoods of people who fish the oceans, who depend on it. Oddly enough, if Senator Macdonald actually understood—and I do believe he actually does care about the fishers—he might get it and understand that if we don't take the strongest possible action we are letting these people down.

This is not just a political thing for me. I know that in my home state of Tasmania this is resonating. People are seeing it. I have been along the coastline in the last 12 months. Everyone knows I'm a surfer; they know I'm a diver. And I do a bit of fishing myself. Everyone I talk to is telling me about changes they see in the ocean. And this is happening all around the world. To me, it's the first real, tangible sign of a changing climate—and a negative one, at that. Then we can add the fact that the ocean dictates our weather patterns, such as extreme weather and drought. Warming oceans and changes in ocean temperatures are impacting on us right across this country. If you need a bigger signal that we need to take action, put our differences aside and actually get on with doing everything that we can, just look at what is going on in the oceans.

This is very important context for this bill—I'm nearly finished, Senator Ruston. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority co-manages with the Queensland government many of these issues. It was involved in the List of World Heritage in Danger discussions and assessments, and there are more coming. We need good people who can make good decisions. I understand why some in the tourism industry don't like this. I've had tourism operators say to me that it's too late. They openly spoke at our Senate inquiry about what they call 'last-chance tourism.'

It's better to make a fuss about this now and get some action than lose everything for future generations. I'm sorry it is a hard decision to make, but it is a really important one. The Greens and I fully support these changes, and I will say one more time that $60 million for what Senator Macdonald called 'remedial action' is nothing but a bandaid solution. We've had very good scientists say, 'Thanks for the money, we appreciate it, but it may save one area if it works, an area where there is a platform where divers or boats are coming.' It may help us, but this is the biggest ecosystem on the planet. You can see it from space. It stretches for thousands of kilometres. The only thing we can do is to continue to take action on climate, because the rest of it, getting rid of the starfish—

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

It's the rest of the world, too, Peter.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The rest of the world needs to take action, too. I totally agree with you, Senator Williams. Whatever happened to leadership in this place? We used to lead the world on climate action, until this government got in power. We used to lead the world. Senator Ruston is probably saying to Senator Williams: 'Don't provoke him. He was going to wind up.' I have a minute and 45 seconds left!

We used to show leadership on climate. What are we showing leadership on now? Becoming a global arms dealer. That is this government's answer to showing leadership. That's not going to help the climate and it's not going the help the Great Barrier Reef. I'll get back to that another time.

We need to take action. To anyone who is listening to this debate, I urge you to go to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee report on the impacts of warming oceans on our fisheries and biodiversity. There is all of the evidence you need there from an excellent inquiry with a lot of good witnesses. Both sides of the story are in those transcripts. There is nothing more important we can do now than take action on climate to help the Great Barrier Reef.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contribution and their support of this bill. It is a very important bill because it seeks to implement a new governance model for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority by replacing the full-time chairman with a part-time chairman and a full-time chief executive and establishing one additional part-time member position. It strengthens the requirements for appointment and termination of members. The bill also makes minor technical amendments to clarify the relationship between the suite of legislation underpinning the functions of the authority.

The bill will strengthen the strategic capacity and capacity of the authority to respond to challenges that face the marine park. The Australian government is absolutely committed to protecting the Great Barrier Reef. We understand the importance of this World Heritage site now and for future generations, and we believe that the effective operation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is absolutely central to being able to deliver on that commitment. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.