Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The case has been well made by the member for Leichhardt, as to why there is a need for some change in the legislation, to bring the legislation back to the original intention. The traditional hunting rights are very important and it is important that we protect those rights. If we see that there has been an inappropriate use of those rights, then of course we have to take steps to ensure that this is contained; otherwise, we do threaten the viability and the long term sustainability of those populations.

It is recognised that the traditional hunting practices—where this meat would only be available to people who live locally—is obviously far more sustainable than trying to feed populations that access the product via freezing and plane travel. So we do not have a problem with that fundamental principle and indeed we would not oppose that legislation.

But I have to say that I am concerned that this matter is perhaps being used to paper over some much bigger concerns. We know that it has become a matter of some international celebrity, or notoriety, that Australia may in fact not be doing enough to save the Great Barrier Reef. We know that the view of the President of the United States and indeed many environmentalists around the world is that one of the biggest threats to the Great Barrier Reef is climate change. We note the great deal of huffing and puffing by the Foreign Minister and the Trade Minister. They have been writing missives back to President Obama, telling him that they have this wrong, and that we are doing an enormous amount of work on the Great Barrier Reef. They are saying 'these threats you are talking about just do not exist'. That has probably got something to do with the fact that there has been a fairly radical dismantling of the capabilities within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority over recent times. I note that many people have now left the organisation—I think we have had five directors and a dozen other staff who have decided to leave.

Many of them have gone public, including the authority's former climate change director, Paul Marshall, who said:

… it's a huge hit—

on that part of their research endeavour—

and it's a hit at a time when we need more expertise and more capacity to deal with these issues …

Dr Marshall had been with the authority for 14 years. He said:

Sometimes we had eight to 10 people working on climate change. Now you can't point to one who is entirely focused on climate change.

So, quite clearly, we have here a system where the government is going around saying, 'This is not a problem.' No doubt they are getting some advice from an organisation that has had, as I said, its capabilities very seriously eroded.

We know that there has been a $2.8 million cut to the authority's budget. This, combined with the authority's decision to support the dumping of dredge spoil, has led to a massive decline in the morale in that agency. This fall in morale is the reason why we are seeing so many very senior staff leave the authority—at a time when we know that there is concern from UNESCO's World Heritage group as to whether or not the reef as a whole is being endangered, when the properties that led to the World Heritage listing are being undermined by a decision such as this. We have seen reduced the amount of money that is available to the authority. We have seen a restructure and what appears to be a systematic dismantling of the independence of that organisation and its ability to be out there protecting the reef.

See this speech in context