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

by leave—I move:

That business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 1 to 5, standing in the names of Senators Pratt and Whish-Wilson for today, be called on immediately, dealt with together and take precedence over all general and government business until determined.

Today the Senate gets to reward or reject this government's five-year systematic campaign to undermine marine protections in Australia, a five-year systematic campaign that started with Mr Tony Abbott, in opposition, saying that, if elected, the Liberal government would review and rip up Labor and Greens plans to put in place one of the largest sets of marine protection parks and areas not just in Australia's history but in international history. What we're debating here today is momentous, and I thank the Senate for allowing us to have the time to properly debate this disallowance motion.

Senators can reward Mr Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party, who are in this place representing the big end of the fishing industry and the oil and gas industry. They can reward the big donors to the Liberal Party. We know that, around the last election, Senator Ruston, the South Australian Liberal Party and the federal Liberal Party received the biggest election donation from the tuna industry that they had ever received. We know that they're in this place—as they are on so many things—representing the interests of a few vested interests. It has been a five-year campaign to undermine marine parks that took 20 years to put together, with thousands of stakeholders. I say this to the crossbench senators and to all senators in this place: you can reward or reject this deliberate attempt, on the behalf of a few vested interests, to undermine marine protections, at a time in history when they are most needed. Our oceans face 'their greatest threat in history'—that's not my quote; that's Mr David Attenborough's quote. They face their greatest threat in history from overfishing, pollution, warming waters and ocean acidification, and from plastic pollution. One thing we know for certain is that marine parks and marine protections work.

Would you take the word, Senators, of the 1,400 scientists who signed a petition calling on you to reject these plans? Would you take the word of 1,400 scientists and the hundreds of thousands of Australians who've campaigned for you to not support the government today and to support this disallowance? Would you take their word, or would you take the word of Mr Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party, and the big end of the fishing industry, and the oil and gas industry? You have a choice, a clear choice, to make today. You can stand up for the oceans, or you can stand up for Mr Tony Abbott. That is your choice here today.

I'm sorry if I'm passionate and loud on this. I have campaigned relentlessly since I've come into this place on every aspect of healthy oceans that is necessary. Today, we can decide whether we reward or reject a colossal, disgraceful attempt to reduce marine protections.

A little bit of history. The 2012 plans that were put in place took two decades of consultation. It's no secret that many in the environment movement weren't happy with those 2012 plans, but, after 20 years of campaigning, they agreed to put those plans in place—those lines on the map. Unfortunately, the operating permits—the management plans—didn't kick in for a couple of years. By that time—as he's done with so much of his time in parliament—the human wrecking ball, Mr Tony Abbott, and the Liberal Party had done what they did to climate action and so many other things in this place, and started a new process—a process to undermine the plans put in place to protect our oceans.

Our oceans are the womb of all life on this planet. They are facing their greatest threat in history. Sadly, I don't have time today to go into all the science and all the details, but I will refer anyone listening to this debate to this month's version of TheMonthly. There's an excellent article—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, just before you do that, may I remind you that you really do need to explain to the Senate why we have a precedence motion. It seems to me you're going to the substantive motion. I have been listening carefully. It's really to explain why it should take precedence.

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

I still have 14 minutes left.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I appreciate that, but I have been listening carefully. I just remind you of that.

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

I will just finish my point, Deputy President, and I will address your issue immediately. In this article by Mr James Bradley, called 'The end of the oceans', it says how 'the world's oceans and all marine life are on the brink of total collapse'. Sadly, in my six years in this place, my observations, from chairing and participating in nearly a dozen committees around ocean and marine protection, lead me to very similar conclusions. And I can't stomach the fact that this Senate is about to support this government's attempt to reduce marine protections in Australia.

That's why this needs precedence. This needs to be debated by every senator in this place—including the crossbench senators, who I understand are not going to support this disallowance and are going to support Mr Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party's plan to rip up marine protections. We have been given 45 minutes only this afternoon to debate this. I know there are many senators in Labor who feel strongly about this, as there are in the Greens. I do believe that the crossbenchers should be given the full time allocated to explain their reasons.

Explain to the Senate why the people who've spoken to you in recent weeks, who have spent 20 years campaigning for these protections, are telling you: 'Do not support this government's five-year campaign to undermine marine protections.' They want you to support this disallowance. Surely the people who care most about our oceans, who have dedicated their life to protecting our oceans, should be listened to. Why would you turn your back on the 1,400 scientists who have signed a petition and sent it to you, saying: 'Do not support the government's campaign. Do not reward its bad behaviour. Put the oceans first'? For the life of me, I cannot understand what logic would be employed here, but I do believe those senators have the right to be heard and to have the time to explain to the Australian people why they are locking in failure, because that is what this is. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept. This is certainly a very low bar for marine protections. They are marine protections in name only, because on paper they are nothing that protects the oceans.

Nearly half of the plan previously put in place has been ripped up by this government, at the behest of a few powerful vested interests who have donated to its party. I say to those crossbench senators who may have met with a scientist or two that the government has rolled out: remember that these scientists are hired guns for the fishing industry. They are fisheries scientists. They have their research paid for by the fisheries industry, and it is the fisheries industry—the big end of the commercial fishing town—that is delivering you this plan today. The government has made no secret of the fact that it has rejected the scientific advice of its own government-appointed panel. It has rejected that because it wants to bring 'balance' into this debate and this legislation. That 'balance' is code for giving the big end of town in the fishing industry and in oil and gas what they want. Do not give them what they want. Do not set this bar so low. Do not give them the opportunity to get out and campaign in the months going into the federal election, which I tell you they will do. They will probably spend taxpayers' money campaigning, saying—somehow—that they have protected our oceans. They haven't. They have ripped up protections at a time when they are most desperately needed.

We should be going the other way. That's why this debate should have precedence in the Senate today. I cannot think of anything more important for me personally and for the Senate to be debating than the future of our oceans. We have seen the Great Barrier Reef decline so rapidly, right in front of our eyes. I have been up there and dived on it. I've seen how much it has changed in six years. We have lost half of our coral reefs to global warming and coral bleaching. The impacts of that will be felt by future generations. The largest living organism on this planet, it may not recover from another bleaching event. One of the marine protected areas we will be debating today is the Coral Sea, which goes hand in glove with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park that currently is in place. It will be the biggest area of protection on the planet, and it is being filleted and decimated by this government at the behest of big oil and gas and the fishing industry.

Senators, this debate needs precedence today. Everybody needs the chance to have their say on why they want to put the oceans first or put Mr Tony Abbott first. I am now going to wind up, having said my bit. Please let's spend the day debating our oceans. Let's give this precedence. This is what the Australian people want. Hundreds and thousands of Australians have emailed you this week saying they want you to support the disallowance that is in place and not reward this government's bad behaviour.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move, as an amendment to the motion:

Omit all words after 'precedence', substitute 'for one hour immediately, after which the debate will be adjourned until 3.30 pm today, the debate then to resume, with questions on the motion to be put at 4.10 pm'.

For the benefit of the chamber, just to be clear, the effect of that would be to facilitate one hour and 40 minutes of debate.

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

The Turnbull government is trying to lock in the largest removal of area from conservation in history, so we believe this issue also deserves precedence before the chamber. We support both the motion and the amendment.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.