Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Kingsford Smith has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since the election of the Howard government, protected zones within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park have increased from 4½ per cent of the marine park to one-third of it, adding almost 5,000 square kilometres of protected areas. To do this required management of all the different stakeholders, considering their points of view and supporting fishermen and others who rely on the marine area for their income with a comprehensive and uncapped structural adjustment package. There is still more to be done, with a reef water quality action plan currently being implemented. In last night’s budget speech the Treasurer announced that another $14.2 million over four years from the Natural Heritage Trust would be used to comprehensively monitor and report on the water quality and ecosystem health of the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon. The aim is to address one of the biggest current threats to reef health—the run-off of sediment and other undesirable nutrients into the reef lagoons.

As I have mentioned, there are many considerations that must be made when examining the future of the reef. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007 has been introduced by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources for the purpose of amending the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to include recommendations made in the 2006 review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The authority was set up with specific responsibilities to protect the marine park while considering the interests that compete for how the park should be utilised. In particular, a primary function of the authority is to provide recommendations on declaring areas for inclusion in the marine park and for what uses these should be zoned. It also serves a further purpose in managing and promoting Commonwealth-state relations and assisting co-operative arrangements for the environmental management of the Great Barrier Reef region.

Some of the key amendments being introduced in this bill will serve to carefully examine the effects of any draft zoning plan through the preparation of a report on the environmental, economic and social values of the area with which the plan is concerned; increase from one month to three months the minimum amount of time for the acceptance of public comment on draft zoning plans; and repeal section 37 of the act, in response to one of the recommendations of the 2006 review. The proposed amendment to section 37 will ensure that any zoning plan cannot be amended for at least seven years and that a report on the progress of the plan must be tabled every five years. This will ensure that the benefits of zoning accrue, provide a suitable period for the ecosystem to flourish and give certainty to businesses to adapt to the requirements.

But the government is also aware that maintaining and protecting the environment is not just a local issue. The effect that coral bleaching disease is having on some of the healthiest reefs within the marine park has long been a concern for researchers. Just yesterday, researchers suggested that rising ocean temperatures may be a driver of disease outbreaks on the Great Barrier Reef. This highlights the need for broad thinking—the need to think globally in order to address a national concern. As a nation, Australia contributes only 1.46 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. While there is much that can be done to cut our contribution, we will achieve far more through cooperative projects with other nations in our region. One example is the Asia-Pacific partnership for clean technology and development. Another solution is the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. The government will provide almost $200 million to look at reforestation in South-East Asia. This is an initiative that Australia is leading. The Howard government recognises that greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are serious issues which require a whole range of practical responses and cannot be properly addressed without the cooperation of our neighbours.

This government has invested billions of dollars in environmental programs and research, and the evidence shows that this is a sound investment in our nation’s future. By 2010 the greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation will be 45 per cent of their 1990 levels. Further, since 1990 more than 1.1 million hectares of new forests have been planted, with the expected result being that 21 million tonnes of carbon dioxide will be removed from the atmosphere each year by 2010. Over the last 10 years, $2 billion has been spent to combat climate change. This will see Australia being able to meet or, in fact, better the greenhouse targets set out in the Kyoto protocol, as recently outlined by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage.

Much has been made over this government’s decision not to ratify Kyoto, but our long-held view that climate change must be treated as a global challenge incorporating the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters has been supported by the findings of the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was released last Friday. The government understands the need to find a balance between environmental management and economic concerns. We have demonstrated this with our course of action to deal with climate change and with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007. We have sought to implement changes recommended by the 2006 review and to ensure the responsible management and conservation of one of the world’s greatest marine parks.

The Great Barrier Reef is an Australian icon. It was listed as a World Heritage Area by the Fraser government in 1981. It contributes something like $5 billion to the tourism industry and it is a resource for all Australians. I commend the bill to the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007. Members of the House would know that I have a long-held interest in the protection and conservation of the Great Barrier Reef—a true Australian treasure and icon. It is this interest that drives me to make one critical point: no number of amendments to legislation that impacts on the Great Barrier Reef will save this national treasure without immediate action by the federal government on climate change. While we have inaction, there will be no saving the Great Barrier Reef. There is ample evidence to show that rising global water temperatures are increasing the incidence of bleaching events and coral diseases. The IPCC was clear in its conclusion that rising temperatures are linked to greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere by human activity. In its Fourth Assessment Report, released in April, the IPCC stated:

Significant loss of biodiversity is projected to occur by 2020 in some ecologically-rich sites, including the Great Barrier Reef and Queensland Wet Tropics ....

Ongoing coastal development and population growth in areas such as Cairns and south-east Queensland (Australia) and Northland to Bay of Plenty (New Zealand), are projected to exacerbate risks from sea level rise and increases in the severity and frequency of storms and coastal flooding by 2050.

If we do not significantly reduce our greenhouse output, we could see the complete collapse of the reef in our lifetime. The evidence is abundant but so are the Howard government climate change sceptics and climate change apologists. We have just heard from one, who stated that Australia was on track to meet our Kyoto protocol target. Firstly, it is unlikely that Australia will meet our generous target. Secondly, the people who say that never acknowledge that in fact Australia is one of only three countries throughout the world that were given a generous figure, increasing their greenhouse gas emissions based on 1990 levels. If you take away the decisions by the Queensland and New South Wales governments to end broad-scale land clearing, you see our greenhouse gas emissions have spiralled, increasing by over 20 per cent since 1990. Our greenhouse gas emissions are on track, according to the government’s own figures, to increase substantially up to the year 2020. The government conveniently ignores the fact that it signed the Kyoto protocol because it had such a generous target and said that it would be, to quote the Prime Minister, ‘a win for the environment and a win for Australian jobs’.

Australia only retreated from that position—and joined with the United States in isolating ourselves from global action—after the United States made that decision. By Australia being outside of the global system, we do not have a say at the table in the post-2012 system. I have attended the last two UN framework convention conferences which have been held in conjunction with the first and seventh international conferences of the parties to the Kyoto protocol, in Montreal and Nairobi. At those conferences Australia does not get a say in the very significant meetings taking place regarding the structure and scope of the second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol for post-2012. That is going to be a critical agreement as to whether the world can agree that we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as individuals, as communities, as nations and as a global community. The structure which drives that change is the Kyoto protocol. The embarrassing performances by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources in describing Australia as a global leader is extraordinary, to say the least, and offensive to many, because the evidence that we need to take action is there. The evidence is also there that it is not a case of whether you put the environment or the economy first. It is the case that in order to sustain our economic prosperity we must have a sustainable environment and we must take action on climate change.

Just this week further research conducted by an international team of scientists—from the University of North Carolina, the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science—who are working on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has revealed a ‘highly significant relationship’, to quote their report, between coral disease and warmer ocean temperatures. The researchers state their results suggest that climate change could be increasing the severity of disease in the ocean, leading to a decline in the health of marine ecosystems and the loss of the resources and services that humans derive from them. The Great Barrier Reef is estimated to contribute $5.4 billion and 68,000 local jobs to the Australian economy. Worldwide, coral reefs support more than 200 million people. The evidence is overwhelming, yet the federal government’s response is underwhelming. For more than 11 long years the Howard government has been complacent and has comfortably sat back and watched while the Great Barrier Reef has been threatened. It has done that because of an ideological view that is based upon scepticism as to whether climate change is indeed human induced.

Consider the best-case scenario which has been outlined in many reports. In February 2006, the CSIRO report Climate change impacts on Australia and the benefits of early action to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions highlighted that, even if all greenhouse gas emissions ceased today, the earth would still be committed to an additional warming of between 0.2 and one degree Celsius by the end of the century. The current momentum of the world’s fossil fuel economy precludes the elimination of greenhouse gas emissions over the near term. So it is clear that future global warming is likely to be well over one degree Celsius. Left unchecked, human greenhouse gas emissions will increase several-fold over the 21st century. The CSIRO report states that Australia’s annual average temperatures are projected to increase by between 0.4 and two degrees Celsius above 1990 levels by the year 2030 and by between one degree and six degrees Celsius by 2070. However, if we limit future increases in atmospheric CO  to 550 parts per million, we would reduce 21st century global warming to an estimated 1.5 to 2.9 degrees Celsius. This would effectively avoid the more extreme climate changes.

It is widely accepted that a target of a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is required to stabilise CO emissions to 550 parts per million. In Australia we have a government that refuses to engage in discussion about greenhouse gas emissions targets. What does this scepticism mean for the Great Barrier Reef? Even in a best-case scenario that we can limit CO to 550 parts per million, the consequences are devastating. A less than one degree Celsius rise in temperature would mean that 60 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef could be regularly bleached. A one-degree or two-degrees temperature rise would mean 58 to 81 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef is bleached every year and a two- to three-degrees temperature rise would mean that 97 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef would be bleached every year. We need a plan to address these issues, we need targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions and we need the economic instruments that would drive the move to clean energy, which is why we need a national emissions trading scheme. We need bold energy initiatives such as those proposed by Labor’s solar, green energy and water renovations plan for Australian households that will save families money on their energy and water bills and help the environment. We need to ratify the Kyoto protocol. We need a substantial increase in our mandatory renewable energy target.

Unfortunately, climate change is not the only threat to the health and long-term survival of the Great Barrier Reef. It is difficult to believe that oil drilling and exploration can still occur on or near the reef. I have introduced a private member’s bill that is still on the Notice Paper that would stop this occurring. My colleague the member for Kingsford Smith has moved an amendment seeking support for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Protecting the Great Barrier Reef from Oil Drilling and Exploration) Amendment Bill. It was 1983 when the Hawke Labor government acted to prohibit drilling anywhere in the Great Barrier Reef region by extending the borders of that region east to Australia’s exclusive economic zone. Our legislation would remove the threat posed by exploration and mining both on and near the reef. The Howard government has never ruled out oil drilling east of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the very area our bill seeks to protect. If the Howard government is serious about protecting the reef, it will support the passage of Labor’s bill through the parliament. This bill would protect not only the reef’s extraordinarily diverse ecosystem but also the livelihoods of 200,000 Queenslanders and a tourism industry worth billions of dollars annually.

Rather than take practical and long-term action against climate change, the Howard government entertains absurd ideas to protect the Great Barrier Reef. In the collection of absurd ideas, perhaps the worst was the plan of the Minister for Small Business and Tourism to put a shadecloth over the Great Barrier Reef—a bizarre and impractical proposition from a government looking for political cover to hide the fact that it has no plan to tackle climate change. We need to reduce our greenhouse pollution, not publicly brainstorm absurd ideas. The minister, Fran Bailey, was topped on this proposal by the member for Tangney who wants to put a shadecloth in outer space to combat global warming. Dr Jensen, the member for Tangney, said in the Commonwealth of Australia parliament:

After all, we have heard about aerosols and global dimming. Or what about some sort of shadecloth put in orbit? In that way we could actually tailor the area of the shadecloth and adjust it according to the energy balance.

A completely whacky proposal from a government member who is one of the people always put up to debate climate change in this House. One of the government’s key climate change experts is the member for Tangney, who supports putting a shadecloth into orbit along with putting nuclear reactors all around the coast of Australia—an absolutely extraordinary proposal. Whilst the member for Tangney calls himself a scientist, the plan for a giant intergalactic shadecloth in outer space does not constitute serious scientific discussion on climate change. When you look at the government’s spokespeople—the member for Tangney with his outer space shadecloth; the minister for tourism, a frontbencher, with her plan for a shadecloth to protect the Great Barrier Reef; and a Prime Minister who does not think that climate change exists and is sceptical but still wants to impose 25 nuclear reactors on the coastal areas and urban communities of Australia—it is little wonder that you see this government has no credibility when it comes to climate change.

It keeps going right to the top of this government, because a couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister opened—well, he did not quite open it because it has been shut down—the new Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney. They went ahead with the grand opening anyway, because the Prime Minister wanted to promote and use what is a medical research facility that has broad support to promote his narrow agenda on nuclear reactors. There, at the opening, the Prime Minister said that the Lucas Heights reactor was an ‘Australian icon’—an icon, along with the Harbour Bridge and the Opera House. This was the third Sydney icon—not the Rocks, not the Blue Mountains, not Bondi Beach and the pavilion, not Balmoral, not Taronga Park Zoo, not all these great Sydney icons; this was the icon. Well, I say to the Prime Minister: ‘We do have an icon, in Far North Queensland, and that is the Great Barrier Reef’—the largest, most pristine, continuous coral reef archipelago on earth; our treasured natural icon, which is some 18 million years old. And it is astonishing that the government still has not placed the Great Barrier Reef on Australia’s National Heritage List. The Prime Minister’s scepticism is getting in the way of good policy.

I conclude with this point: we do need to protect the Great Barrier Reef. I want future generations to have the opportunity that I have had to see this marvellous natural wonder. I also want the economic benefit that comes through jobs, and income to Australia, as a result of the Great Barrier Reef’s presence. But unless we have action on climate change we will not be able to save the Great Barrier Reef. That is a practical demonstration of why we need to move away from this government’s scepticism and have a government, one led by Kevin Rudd, which actually understands that climate change is a great challenge for our generation, and is prepared to do something about it—is prepared to take the action that is required.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, which the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007 amends, has served its purpose extremely well, and remains a fundamentally sound piece of legislation. At the time of its enactment, the government of the day stated, ‘The protection of our unique barrier reef is of paramount importance to Australia and to the world.’ Like any other good piece of legislation, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 has, over time, been successful at giving effect to the public policy considerations underpinning it. We need not look any further for evidence of this than the many achievements of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the international recognition, in 1981, of the conservation value of the Great Barrier Reef following its inscription on the World Heritage List.

There can be no doubt that the act has stood the test of time as an exemplary defender of marine management and conservation. Nonetheless, the act has now been in place for over 30 years and many lessons have been learnt from the challenges of the past. The manifest integrity of the act—and the general acceptance of that integrity by the stakeholders which it serves—is essential if the act is to have any hope of safeguarding the interests of the Great Barrier Reef well into the future.

The report of the review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 identified numerous concerns about the inadequacy of the processes in place for engaging with stakeholders—as well as concern that decisions under the act were not being conveyed clearly enough to those stakeholders. The introduction of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003, with its considerable scale and scope, affected many communities and stakeholders. Perhaps better than any other chapter in the act’s history, this example demonstrated the tension often felt by many stakeholders in the decision-making process. Whether for valid reasons or otherwise, many stakeholders disagreed with the scientific basis of the zoning plan, considered the processes to be biased and felt that it failed to consider the impacts on individuals and communities.

While the final criticism ought to be levelled directly at the Howard government for ignoring repeated warnings from the Queensland fishing industry about flaws in socioeconomic assessment processes, the other criticisms are symptomatic of the inherent weaknesses in the act. The review panel executive summary recognised this when it noted that:

... an effective relationship with recreational and commercial fishing stakeholders is lacking. To an extent, such tensions between the Authority and affected stakeholders were inevitable in view of the substantial change to zoning arrangements proposed.

And said:

... the Review Panel is of the view that the processes for engagement with all stakeholders can be improved.

The processes involved in the 2003 zoning plan should be considered with a view to learning lessons for the future. Managing the alternative uses of the marine park, and responding to the long-term protection needs of the future will become much more challenging in the future.

The integrity of the act and the integrity of processes that allow conservation to coexist with reasonable marine park use—and the general acceptance of that integrity by stakeholders—depends on practices that: are clearly scientific, are thoroughly transparent, engage with stakeholders, are clearly understood, and assess the social and economic impacts of any changes affecting the Great Barrier Reef. That is why I welcomed a review into the act to:

... improve the performance of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, its office holders and its accountability frameworks.

It is also the reason why I am generally supportive of the measures in this bill.

While the bill is by no means perfect—and I will come to that later—it is certainly not as bad as many of us had feared at the time of the review’s announcement by the former Minister for the Environment and Heritage. The review into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act came against a backdrop of a National Party push to abolish the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and give full control to the minister. No doubt the abolition of the authority has only been avoided because of the intense campaign from members on this side of the chamber and the resulting public outrage. The review also came against a backdrop of the Howard government gutting the independence of other key environmental agencies such as the Australian Greenhouse Office—have we forgotten?—the National Oceans Office and the Australian Heritage Commission.

The review also came against the backdrop of the Howard government’s use of notions such as ‘accountability’ and ‘best corporate practice’ as powerful rhetorical weapons but then acting in a venal manner that made a mockery of those very notions. Who could forget the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment Bill 2006? When announcing plans to restructure the board of the ABC under the guise of implementing the Uhrig report, the Review of corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders, many held hopes of genuine reform. Many held hopes of a restructure that would result in an open and transparent process for making appointments to the ABC board, appointments based on merit and free of political patronage. We all know how wrong we were, and we will rectify that on the election of a Rudd Labor government.

These are not trifling matters that can be dismissed when considering the substance of the bill before us today. The backdrop I have just provided is most relevant to several matters of concern in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007. As I have mentioned, it is true that there are many lessons we can learn from the execution of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act over the last 30 years. However, it is true that there are still many lessons we can learn from the Howard government’s approach over the last 10 years to so-called improvements in accountability and performance frameworks of statutory authorities.

At face value, the bill does fulfil the objectives the member for Wentworth has set out. At face value, the bill strengthens governance arrangements, transparency and accountability. This is particularly so for the zoning plan processes. There will be far greater engagement with stakeholders in the development of new zoning plans which regulate the use of the marine park. A system will be in place which better balances and manages the diverse and competing interests involved in any proposed zoning plan.

Amendments to section 32 of the act will increase the minimum public comment period for draft zone plans from one month to three months. Proposed sections 34 and 35 will make the zone planning process more transparent, with comprehensive information being made available to stakeholders. The process will be built on principles that must consider robust scientific and socioeconomic information. These principles, and a report considering the environmental, economic and social values of an area, must be made available to communities, users of the marine park and other interested persons and organisations. It is pleasing to see that a comprehensive socioeconomic assessment is necessary prior to making any changes to zoning.

The disinterest and indolence shown by the Howard government to repeated warnings from the Queensland fishing industry that inadequate attention had been provided to the social and economic impacts of zoning plans is staggering. Perhaps this is being generous. Some would say the attention paid was perfunctory. The initial failure to consider the social and economic implications of zoning plans for the commercial fishing industry is, at best, regrettable. However, the Howard government’s need to review and upgrade its fishing industry structural adjustment packages on four separate occasions was embarrassing and a sign of incompetence. It has been the cause of much frustration for stakeholders, and it has unfairly subjected the integrity of the act itself to unnecessary scrutiny. For the government’s sake, we all hope this embarrassment can be avoided in future as a result of the amendments contained in this bill, although there can be no panacea for incompetence.

Proposed sections 53 and 54 will establish a periodic Great Barrier Reef outlook report that provides a regular and reliable means of assessing performance in the long-term protection of the Great Barrier Reef. The peer review assessment will include an analysis of the condition of the ecosystem and the long-term outlook for the reef. The outlook report may be used during any review of a zoning plan which is currently in place. So as to allow the consequences of an existing zoning plan to take full effect on the ecosystem, amendments to or reviews of zoning plans may only take place after seven years.

The requirement that significant amendments may only be made to zoning plans after seven years leads me to a concern that pressing issues which may be identified in an outlook report, which is prepared every five years, may not be acted upon for a further two years. Notwithstanding this minor concern, there can be no doubt that the amendments have ostensibly been drafted for a proper purpose. At face value, the amendments improve transparency and accountability and strengthen the governance of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

This is in no small part because the health of the Great Barrier Reef is to be regularly reported on, and considerations of changes in future planning and zoning arrangements will appear to be undertaken in a robust and transparent manner. However, as with any reform of a statutory authority by the Howard government, it would be prudent to scratch the surface of the proposals because the devil is often in the detail. Superficiality has always been a strength of the government, but it is often the motives behind its proposals that can leave a lot to be desired. This bill is no exception.

While I would not be prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there are elements of this bill which all members should have serious concerns about. The Great Barrier Reef advisory board, which will be structured to provide the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources with specific advice relating to marine park protection and use, will comprise appointments hand-picked by the minister.

Outlook reports, which will be structured to regularly provide the minister and the public with information about the health of the Great Barrier Reef, will be drafted by an authority whose members have been appointed by the minister. The outlook report will be peer-reviewed by persons who the minister thinks have the necessary qualifications to undertake the task.

The bill does not give any indication as to whether the bona fides or qualifications of those undertaking the peer review of an outlook report will be subjected to public scrutiny, because there is no indication as to whether the peer review itself is public or confidential. The principles upon which a zoning plan is based are, in the final analysis, approved by the minister alone. Furthermore, any decision to amend a zoning plan will rest not with the authority but with the minister. The minister may retort that any decision to amend a zoning plan will be based on the outlook report and advice received by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

However, we cannot easily forget the backdrop to this bill, which I identified earlier. The Howard government has drafted this bill against a backdrop of government members seeking to abolish the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, against a backdrop of damaging the independence of other key environmental agencies and against a backdrop of using rhetorical weapons of reform and restructure to make political appointments to statutory authorities.

Under the present government there has been an appalling tradition of politicising board appointments and elements of the bureaucracy. Who could forget the frank and fearless advice received by the government on such matters as ‘children overboard’, ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and ‘AWB kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s regime’?

In the best spirit of Christian charity, if one accepts that the government has not lied about these appalling incidents then one cannot forgive the government for its incompetence on those matters. It is clear the Howard government does not tolerate criticism well. It is a tragedy that many agencies and departments have become shells of their former selves because some members of the government do not want to hear of any evil or see any evil—even if the agency knows the evil exists. This backdrop should not allow us to fall for the government’s disingenuous attempt to employ shallow words to give soothing assurances that there are the necessary checks and balances on the minister’s powers under this act.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, as I have already mentioned, will be comprised of members stacked by the minister. The outlook report will in turn be drafted by this authority. The outlook report will be peer-reviewed by individuals stacked by the minister. Zoning plans will be amended by the minister. Zoning plan principles will be determined by the minister. Members of the Great Barrier Reef advisory board will be stacked by the minister. Members of the government should not feign surprise at the concentration of power in the hands of the minister and nor should members of the government feign surprise that one of the few structures in place that could have provided a check on the minister’s powers will be abolished by this bill. The bill no longer provides for automatic representation on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority from the Queensland government.

The minister has already noted that the bill encompasses the outcomes of the 2003 Uhrig report, the Review of the corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders. In defence of the abolition of Queensland government representation on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the minister may cite the following conclusion from that report:

The review does not support representational appointments to governing boards as representational appointments can fail to produce independent and objective views.

However, assuming Mr Uhrig’s conclusions are correct, it is interesting to note that his findings on the matter only made up one page of a 133-page report. It is important to note that Mr Uhrig also made the comment that ‘there are no universally accepted structures and practices that constitute good governance’.

The choice of governance model for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority should not be formulaic but should be driven by the objectives of the authority. Guidance can be taken on this point from the executive summary of the Review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. It notes, inter alia, and I quote:

... many points of intersection in both policy and legislation that apply to the Marine Park and surrounding area, which require the two governments to work closely together.

The review continues:

... officeholders should not be representational but appointed for their relevant expertise, with one member being nominated by the Queensland Government ...

In light of the need for effective collaboration between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments, this bill ought to have allowed for the Queensland government to be automatically represented on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I would have thought that that would be the minimum requirement. This, to some degree at least, would also have installed an independent voice on the authority which could keep a check on the minister’s sweeping powers. Given the health of the Great Barrier Reef, and bearing in mind that it is at a crossroads, it is more vital now than ever before for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to provide frank, fearless and independent advice to the minister. This is particularly so given the minister’s propensity to dismiss environmental advice which is extremely pertinent for the long-term survival of the Great Barrier Reef.

The issue of climate change is the largest single challenge confronting the Great Barrier Reef. Despite overwhelming evidence to this effect, the government remains unrepentant in its determination to sabotage efforts to reduce emissions. Reports that the Great Barrier Reef is facing extinction because of the effects of climate change have amounted to nothing. It is a disgrace that the government has ignored UN reports which predict the beginning of the end of the Great Barrier Reef within 13 years. Members of the public are entitled to ask: why has the Howard government ignored assessments by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Why has it ignored Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies? Why has it ignored Australian climate change expert Dr Geoff Love? And why has it ignored warnings from Sir Nicholas Stern?

While the oceans have been a convenient dumping ground for our waste, the effect of all of this carbon dioxide upon the ocean waters is beginning to have serious consequences, because carbon dioxide when dissolved in water forms a weak acid. The Great Barrier Reef is not only under threat from increasing water temperatures that cause coral bleaching but also, it now appears, besieged by increasing ocean acidity. It is breathtakingly hypocritical for the minister to suggest that ‘the Australian government has remained committed to the long-term protection of the Great Barrier Reef’ when the government will not seriously address concerns that a three-degree rise in temperature could bleach 97 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef and that coral reef communities will be replaced by algal communities by 2030. The government has now cynically announced, four months before an election, initiatives which will placate the growing anger of Australians. But we know what members of the Howard government really think about the threat of climate change. They are climate change sceptics. They have thrown the precautionary principle out the window. Some members opposite believe—indeed one has openly stated—that climate change is an issue for ‘trendy coffee sippers’. What a disgrace.

The government has not only spread misinformation about the consequences of global warming, particularly for the Great Barrier Reef, but also deliberately taken a wrecking ball to the international community’s attempts to establish a treaty to reduce the volume of greenhouse gas emissions. It has tried in vain to turn the debate about climate change into a mutually exclusive choice between environmental protection and job protection. This is nonsense. The destruction of the Great Barrier Reef from the effects of climate change directly puts at risk 200,000 jobs in a $4.3 billion tourism industry. While some members opposite sit back and ridicule scientists from home and abroad as ‘trendy coffee sippers’, the Great Barrier Reef and many tourism jobs are slowly facing destruction as a result of their inaction. This is a scandalous and disgraceful situation. It is vital that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority be given every opportunity to provide independent advice to the minister, and it is important that this advice is taken heed of. (Time expired)