Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by saying that I am really quite concerned that the bill before us for debate, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007, misses the really central and pressing issue about the future of the Great Barrier Reef: the question of its viability and its good health at a time when we know that the impacts of climate change are having quite catastrophic consequences for coral reefs around the world. I would have thought that the bill would at least bring to this parliament some form of adaptation strategy to deal with the impact of dangerous climate change. Instead, we have a bill which in essence proposes some technical, administrative and machinery amendments to the functioning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

I want to endorse the point made by our shadow minister in moving the second reading amendment which is before the parliament by saying it seems that the government has again missed the opportunity to provide a context in which this nation can adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change that are so readily evident in many parts of Australia, particularly in Northern Queensland, in the north of Australia, through developments along the Great Barrier Reef. I will return to those shortly.

The legislative amendments that are before us go to the heart of the functioning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I want to put on record that I think GBRMPA has acted by and large in a way that promotes the best features of ecologically sustainable development. At all times it has sought to balance the environmental beauty of the reef, and the needs of commerce and other human activity, which has brought a lot of people from overseas and within Australia to the Great Barrier Reef to enjoy the remarkable pleasures that this unique reef provides.

It was with some concern that we heard a couple of years ago that the very existence of the authority was very much under threat. I am glad to say that the proposals that we are debating today put that issue to rest, but I think it is important that we note for the public record some of the contributions made in the debate at the time that the review of the authority was being undertaken. I say it is important to note those because the comments were really manifestations of a political tussle about the statutory nature of the authority, its autonomy and independence. I fear that some of the changes that we are debating today really do play into the hands of people that want to use the authority as a political football rather than to assist the authority to meet the very significant challenges that will come before it in the decades ahead.

You will recall that in fact the National Party and some of the more conservative elements of the government worked very hard in the public domain to destroy Dr David Kemp’s legacy, launching very strong campaigns against the authority and the zoning plans that it had enacted for use of the reef. Let me quote a few of their views. National Party Senator elect Barnaby Joyce, as he was then, was quoted in the Courier-Mail on 1 March 2005 opposing GBRMPA’s existence as an independent agency. This is what Barnaby Joyce had to say:

GBRMPA is out of control ... We are having too many problems and we should bring it totally under government control and baby-sit it for a while.

The member for Dawson—and one would expect a more enlightened approach from someone who represents regional Queensland—had this to say:

What we’ve had is a statutory body in GBRMPA that is out of control that has put, I think, no real scientific basis for the arguments they’ve put forward ...

That was in relation to the green zones and the zoning proposals. It is important not to forget that in fact the Queensland Nationals did a preference deal with the Fishing Party at the last election on the basis that GBRMPA’s powers would be moved into the department, with the minister alone having total control of all significant decisions. There is no doubt, in my opinion, that that deal with the Fishing Party helped to get Senator Joyce elected. The National Party always saw the review of GBRMPA—and I think behind the scenes there must have been an understanding with the government as to this—as allowing the expression of this level of hostility to GBRMPA’s functioning. So, as I have said, I am very relieved that the rednecks did not get their way, that the authority has survived and that we did not roll back the protections that GBRMPA had provided for the reef. But no doubt those people and their attitudes are still out there in the community and in both houses of this parliament, so it concerns me that some of the technical amendments that we are debating today can leave open the possibility that decisions in the future will be made on the basis of politics rather than on what is in the best interests of the survival of the reef. You have only to look at what happened to Senator Ian Campbell over the orange-bellied parrot issue—and those opposite may well smile. The truth is that obviously a political decision was made to stop what was a very important project to advance our nation’s renewable capacity. Politics played its part there and no doubt some people think that through these changes it might be easier to exercise political clout in the future. As the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources said in his second reading speech:

This bill delivers the first tranche of changes that will strengthen governance arrangements and improve transparency and accountability, particularly in relation to the zoning plan process.

That all sounds fine—very technical and very economically efficient although there is not much about the health of the reef but that is okay as far as it goes as it retains GBRMPA as an authority. However, we now see that the consultative committee that advises GBRMPA will no longer have a statutory role. I do fear very much for Indigenous representation into the future. Not long ago I was privileged to visit the offices of GBRMPA in Townsville on a day when the authority and the local Indigenous community were sealing an agreement for fishing rights over different sections of the reef. I thought this was a wonderful example of a government authority actually taking on board Indigenous views and voices in a most serious and effective manner. So I am concerned that the changes in the bill do not ensure continuing Indigenous representation on GBRMPA’s advisory body. I am also concerned that the minister will retain the power to make final decisions on any future amendments to the zoning plan. I believe, based on the evidence that I have cited, that politics always plays a part in such decisions and that when you leave the final decision in the hands of a minister it does leave open the potential for political abuse of the process.

I note also that under the bill there will be no further zoning changes for at least seven years from the commencement of the act. This is very disturbing. If there are to be no further zoning changes for at least seven years, that would seem to take away the right from the authority to make plans and undertake actions which would adapt to a change in world climate and take into account global warming and prevailing environmental threats to the reef. I am not sure that it is wise to be locking the government and the minister into no further changes for seven years.

Having commented on the technical aspects of the bill, I will now speak on the broader issues on the future health and viability of the reef, both in terms of its environmental beauty and significance and in terms of the economic contribution that it makes to that region and to the nation. I do not have to convince anyone in this House that in every respect the Great Barrier Reef is one of Australia’s greatest treasures. I find it staggering that we all accept that yet this government has still not placed the reef on Australia’s National Heritage List. Amazing, isn’t it—people travel the world to visit the reef but this government cannot pick up the pen to list the reef on Australia’s National Heritage List?

It is the largest coral reef ecosystem in the world. It houses an incredibly diverse range of species, including fish, coral and marine turtles. It was the reef that originally made the area famous. As is pointed out in many of GBRMPA’s publications, the area also comprises an extraordinary variety of plant and animal communities, habitats and their associated ecological processes, ranging not just from the fringing coral reefs but to mangroves, seagrass beds, sandy and coral cays, sandy- or muddy-bottom communities, continental islands and, of course, deep ocean areas that surround the reef. The reef is loved and valued by all our citizens but it is also loved and recognised as an amazing environmental icon by many people across the world.

As well as the environmental majesty that is associated with the reef, we can never underestimate the economic activities that are associated with the reef. I give credit to GBRMPA for finding that fine balance between ecological preservation and human and commercial use. A recent document from GBRMPA stated:

Today the Great Barrier Reef contributes $5.8 billion annually to the Australian economy. This comprises $5.1 billion from the tourism industry, $610 million from recreational activity and $149 million from commercial fishing. This economic activity generates about 63 000 jobs, mostly in the tourism industry, which brings over 1.9 million visitors to the Reef each year.

For the nation, the reef is a particularly special icon. Tourism and recreation have been the primary uses for the reef, and many of us have enjoyed the pleasure that the reef provides, or know people who have. Even though there has been debate about the use of the reef, particularly from some people in the commercial fishing sector, commercial fishing is still a very important industry with the richly-stocked waters offering considerable catches. The economic significance of the reef cannot be discounted but the question is: how do we maintain the health of the reef so that we can continue to derive economic benefit while at the same time preserving one of our national icons?

It is not scaremongering to say that our Great Barrier Reef today is at great threat and at enormous risk. Let me quote Mr John Schubert, a well-known reputable businessman who, thankfully, is now heading up the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. They are doing a terrific job in promoting awareness about the risks to the reef and looking at research projects that may shed light on how we can preserve the health of the reef in perpetuity. John Schubert said:

Until my appointment as chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation two years ago, I was something of a sceptic. However, the marine scientists who advise the foundation convinced me that climate change is the most pressing threat to our Great Barrier Reef. The evidence presented by these scientists, the literature they have shared with me and my visits to the reef have proved to be so compelling as to prompt something of an epiphany.

John Schubert knows that climate change could devastate our Great Barrier Reef. He has the evidence, but so too does the Prime Minister and so too does the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. This government has failed to act to protect the health of the reef just as it has failed to ensure that we mitigate and adapt to the worst possibilities under a regime of dangerous climate change.

In 2002 we had coral bleaching in the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef. The authority at the time estimated that 60 to 90 per cent of the reefs around Keppel Island were affected. We cannot afford to lose 60 to 90 per cent of any of the reefs along the Great Barrier Reef without enormous impact on not just the biodiversity of the reef but also its many functions. I also like this quote from Mr Schubert in which he described our coral reefs as ‘a canary in the mine in the context of climate change’. When you see coral bleaching and coral disease along the reef, that surely rings alarm bells to say to the Australian parliament and to the nation that it is time that we gave effect to the precautionary principle and it is time we began to understand the impact of dangerous climate change on our reef. Just in the last two days we have had further scientific evidence which points to the clear link between coral disease and warmer ocean temperatures. A team of scientists from Australia and the US studied 48 reefs spread along our Great Barrier Reef and, in the words of one of the researchers:

We’ve long suspected climate change is driving disease outbreaks ... Our results suggest that warmer temperatures are increasing the severity of disease in the ocean.

...         ...         ...

Our 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 humans derive from them.

Our own Dr Bette Willis, from Australia’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, had this to say:

Knowing that [the reefs] may be particularly vulnerable to disease outbreaks highlights the need for caution when it comes to permitting activities that add additional stress, especially during times of high temperatures.

The scientific evidence is there. It is there without dispute. It is reputable. It is accepted by intelligent people. And it is time that this government took this issue very seriously. Just a few weeks ago, in its most recent report, the International Panel on Climate Change had this to say about coral reefs:

Corals are vulnerable to thermal stress and have low adaptive capacity. Increases in sea surface temperature of about 1 to 3°C are projected to result in more frequent coral bleaching events and widespread mortality ...

I conclude by saying that this government has watched over the gradual destruction of the Great Barrier Reef for the past 11 years and has provided no positive response to the impact of dangerous climate change on one of the world’s most delicate ecosystems and one of Australia’s national treasures. Some time ago we heard the absurd proposal from the federal tourism minister that we should investigate the use of shadecloth over parts of the reef to protect it. Have you ever heard anything more absurd?

A three degree rise in temperature would see the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, with 97 per cent of the reef suffering coral bleaching. Let us hope we never get to the stage where we see a three degree rise in temperature. But even a one degree rise is very problematic for the health of the Great Barrier Reef.

The government knows about these threats. It has received report after report warning of the damage. Instead of acting it has delivered a decade of delay, denial and inaction on climate change. You can only help the reef if you take serious action on climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The government needs to heed the urgent warnings of all scientists who have expertise in this area before it is too late. And, regrettably, this week’s budget and this bill fail the test of providing any proactive strategy by this minister and the government to secure the long-term health and viability of the Great Barrier Reef.

We urgently need an action plan to protect the reef from coral bleaching and coral disease. We need more research and we need a plan which not only protects the beauty of our reef but which protects the jobs and industries that depend on a healthy reef into perpetuity.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in order to support the amendment moved by the member for Kingsford Smith and certainly to support the considered remarks of the member for Throsby. Treasurer Costello said on Tuesday in his budget speech:

We were living beyond our means. Today we are living within our means.

The idea is that we do not spoil things for our children and for future generations. I totally support and endorse that idea. But when it comes to climate change and global warming emissions, we are not living within our means. Scientists tell us that we need to reduce our greenhouse emissions by 60 per cent by the year 2050. But the policies of this government have us on track for a 27 per cent increase in emissions by the year 2020. There can be no clearer example of the way we are living beyond our means and the way we are spoiling things for the future than the impact that global warming is having on the Great Barrier Reef, one of the natural wonders of the world. And it is not as if members of the Howard government have not known this was going on. Let me quote a former Liberal environment minister:

I think that the reef is already showing significant stress from global warming. We’ve seen two significant bleaching events within the last four years on the reef. It’s always difficult to say that any particular event is due to global warming, whether it’s the drought or a bleaching event on the reef. But there’s no doubt that as the world warms and the temperatures of the oceans rise, that there are likely to be more such bleaching events.

That was Dr David Kemp, a former federal environment minister, in April 2003. So the Howard government has, for 11 years, watched over, presided over, the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. We know that a three degree rise in temperature would see something like 97 per cent of the reef suffering coral bleaching. The government has received report after report warning of the dangers to the reef but, instead of acting, it has delivered a decade of denial and inaction over dangerous climate change and its consequences.

Labor is committed to helping the reef. We intend to take action on climate change. We intend to prohibit oil and gas exploration in Australian waters adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and we intend to extend the boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park area to the boundary of Australia’s exclusive economic zone.

The Howard government has also repeatedly ignored the concerns of the Queensland fishing industry and, on four occasions during its time in office, it has been forced to act after the event to review and upgrade its fishing industry structural adjustment packages. Given that the Great Barrier Reef has such national and international significance, we need to ensure that the maximum number of relevant voices participate in the development of policy necessary for its protection.

The great historian Arnold Toynbee, writing in the early 1970s, coined the term ‘biosphere’ to describe that unique envelope surrounding our planet within which all life exists. While humanity may have an inordinate capacity to shape and fashion our immediate world, our behaviour has not been without consequence, and for other inhabitants on this planet their existence is very much affected by the world we have chosen to create. Humanity has impacted on all other life. There is an irony in the growing public awareness that, for all our great endeavours and progress, we are reaching the point where we are starting to fundamentally impact upon the very biosphere that sustains our existence. The evidence for this appears no more clearly than in those environments where life is at its most fragile. Coral reefs are among the most diverse and fragile ecosystems on the planet. They have a central importance for our tropical coastlines; they are a lead indicator of the state of play on global warming. Coral reefs are the equivalent, as the member for Throsby said, of the canary and the coalmine, giving us an early warning as to the health of the most fragile ecosystems susceptible to the consequences of human activity.

Indeed, as one prominent scientist noted, the canary and the coalmine analogy begs the question as to whether coral reefs are actually the mining team itself, given the role they play in coral ecosystems around the world. So make no mistake, the Great Barrier Reef is an asset of considerable and growing economic value for our nation and, if current estimates of the consequences of global warming are correct, our nation runs a real risk of presiding over one of humanity’s great acts of environmental, cultural and economic vandalism.

Despite the sceptics in the government, from the Prime Minister down, the science on global warming and the impact of human activity in generating greenhouse gas emissions is well and truly in. The recent data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are at their highest level for at least 650,000 years. The data shows that, in the 650,000 years prior to the commencement of the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of C0 in the atmosphere varied broadly between 180 and 280 parts per million. Today, these concentrations are in the order of 380 parts per million. More significantly, we have an acceleration of the increase. That is now of paramount concern. The long run rate of change, according to the best available data, has been in the order of 0.3 to 0.9 parts per million of C0 per century. So, as the earth came out of glacial periods or ice ages, temperatures increased in the order of 0.2 degrees Celsius a century.

But today we are witnessing increases many times greater. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, between 1960 and 2005 the average rate at which carbon dioxide concentrations increased was 1.4 parts per million per year and, between 1995 and 2005, the rise increased to 1.9 parts per million per year. We have experienced warming of 0.6 degrees Celsius over the past century alone and even the most mild IPCC scenarios have projections of a warming of between three and four degrees Celsius in the coming century.

What does that mean for the Great Barrier Reef? It means the painful reality that a significant amount of this peak increase is already locked in from past human activity and that the Great Barrier Reef is already facing substantial stress from global warming. There will be potential temperature rises of between two and five degrees Celsius. The IPCC’s reports suggest that, with an increase of about 2.4 degrees Celsius over the next century, coral reefs around the globe, including the Great Barrier Reef, face virtual extinction. Having completed the most extensive and in-depth study on global warming and its impact on the Great Barrier Reef, one eminent scientist in this field concluded:

… the mildest climate change scenarios are the only ones in which coral reefs have any chance of recovering in the near future … they highlight the importance of reducing other pressures on coral reefs so as to maximise reef resilience.

It is not as though the Great Barrier Reef itself has not been sending out distress signals. The reef has experienced seven mass bleaching events since 1979—in 1980, 1982, 1987, 1992, 1994, 1998 and 2002. According to the most recent study on the Great Barrier Reef and climate change, there were no reports of mass bleaching prior to 1979:

Since 1979, bleaching events have become more intense and widespread, culminating in the statements that 1998 and … 2002 were the strongest bleaching events on record.

When it comes to bleaching, the evidence is plain: corals that are warmer than normal will bleach and corals that become the warmest will die. Currently, the Great Barrier Reef is among the healthiest and best-managed coral reef ecosystems in the world. Despite this, it is threatened by a number of direct and indirect human activities. Worldwide, coral reefs are in very poor shape. According to the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network an estimated 40 per cent of the world’s coral reefs will be lost by as early as 2010, and another 20 per cent will be lost in the next 20 years, unless urgent management action is implemented. The combination of coral change and climate change amid an intense setting of other impacts and stresses has reduced the resilience of reef systems to a point where most are threatened by elimination.

The Townsville Declaration on Coral Reef Research and Management highlights the almost unanimous opinion of the world’s leading scientists that coral reefs are globally and critically endangered. For example, prior to 1977, communities around the island of Jamaica used to have coral cover in excess of 70 per cent. Currently, it is below five per cent in most places. Overfishing and pollution have driven massive and accelerating decreases in the abundance of coral reef species and caused global changes in reef ecosystems over the past couple of centuries. Scientists are saying that, if these trends continue, coral reefs will decline further, resulting in the loss of biodiversity and economic value.

According to some estimates, almost a million species are likely to face extinction before 2040. It is not as if the government has not had ample opportunity to tackle the challenges of global warming, both on a national and on an international level, notwithstanding the obstacle of intransigent US policy in this area. We have low-hanging fruit—for example, we can dramatically increase energy efficiency across the nation. That can be achieved through measures such as improved insulation in households and businesses, and education campaigns showing us how to minimise our energy waste by, for example, turning off electrical systems at the power point instead of having those systems on standby. We have abundant sources of renewable energy, such as solar and wind, and we have enormous energy alternatives with gas. I have spoken previously in this place about the way in which we are failing to get best use from our gas reserves. As for the position of the US, both the US President and Vice-President are representatives of big energy—and they have got form in this area. The Bush administration’s energy policy has been developed by key private sector energy companies, and the Vice-President’s anti-environmental record goes all the way back to the Nixon-Ford era as he battled for the first clean air acts in the United States.

In the area of global warming we should not follow the example of the United States administration. We run the risk of great cost to our nation and our planet if we do so. This is the moment at which the precautionary principle meets a procrastination penalty. It is all well and good to be sceptical and to have doubts but, when the objective science is in and reality bites, the time has well and truly arrived to take action. To anyone alive to the science of this issue, the science is clear. The science about the consequences of this government’s inaction and procrastination is mounting rapidly, and none of those scenarios are pretty. All of us in this parliament are ultimately merely custodians of the health of this nation for our children, for our grandchildren and for future generations. When we fail to enact good policy, we are passing on our bills and our obligations from our generation to the next. Most profoundly, in the area of global warming, this will limit their future.

Not so long ago our government embarked on a tourism drive with the slogan: ‘Where the bloody hell are you?’ It is more than likely that future generations of Australians will be wondering and asking of this government, when it comes to global warming policy over the last decade, ‘Where the bloody hell were you?’ As for our children and future generations surveying the bleached remains of our once-great Barrier Reef and lamenting the passing of this icon, I fear the epitaph will be even more direct: ‘What the bloody hell have you done?’ Al Gore’s wake-up call on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, quoted Winston Churchill as saying, ‘We are now entering the era of consequences.’ Indeed we are. The question is: how has this government responded to this threat? How has the government responded to this era of global warming consequences? I will quote from an article by Clinton Porteous and Scott Murdoch in the Courier-Mail in November last year. It says:

Floating shadecloth could be used to protect the Great Barrier Reef from the growing threat of climate change.

Federal Tourism Minister Fran Bailey said yesterday protective barriers could be attached to pontoons in a project the Government would consider helping to fund.

…     …         …

“One of the ways they have suggested is to use shadecloths over the most exposed parts of the reef,” she said. “I think it is a good idea. We have to be innovative in tackling what are potential problems.”

For the benefit of the minister, let me observe that the Great Barrier Reef consists of 2,800 individual reefs and extends for over 2,000 kilometres. We are not talking about a sailcloth for Burke’s Backyard here. We are not talking about roofing the Rod Laver Arena. Never let it be said that we have a government lacking in infrastructure vision for Australia! Maybe the minister thinks that if we paint the shadecloth in bright colours—we might get Ken Done onto it—then people will not notice that the coral has in fact lost its colour and has gone white. Talk about destroying the village in order to save it! You have conservative politicians running around trying to stoke up opposition to wind farms and claiming that they are unsightly. Here we have the tourism minister seriously countenancing a proposition to disfigure and vandalise one of the natural wonders of the world. They would sooner see the Great Barrier Reef turned into the ‘Great Barrier Roof’ than get serious about renewable energy. You have to ask: how is this campaign to roof the reef going so far? Have we wrecked Great Keppel Island yet? Have we walled in the Whitsundays? Have we dunked Dunk Island? Perhaps the minister might tell us these things in his summing up. In conclusion, it will be a matter of abject shame for this generation if the Great Barrier Reef is allowed to bleach and die within our lifetimes. I urge the House to support the amendment.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007 and about the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the changes the government is proposing to make in the way it does its job of protecting the reef. I also support the amendment moved by the shadow minister for the environment, which rightly condemns the government for its failure to protect the reef from damage caused by climate change. We also call on the government to, once and for all, prohibit mineral, oil and gas exploration in Australian waters adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

As we have heard from many in this debate, the Great Barrier Reef is truly one of Australia’s great treasures and it stands as one of the wonders of the world. The Great Barrier Reef has an area of 35 million hectares and is the world’s most extensive reef system. The reef supports over 1,500 species of fish, 300 species of hard coral, over 4,000 species of mollusc and over 400 species of sponge. The Great Barrier Reef seagrass beds provide an excellent feeding ground for the endangered dugong as well as supporting large numbers of algae which are utilised heavily by turtles and fish as a food source. The reef also provides vast areas of breeding ground for endangered green and loggerhead turtles as well as for humpback whales that migrate from the Antarctic in order to give birth in the warmer waters. The numerous islands and coral cays in the area support several hundred bird species and are used as unique breeding grounds by many of these species.

All Australians regard it as an icon of our nation and a symbol of Australia’s natural beauty that is recognised internationally. The international community has made it very clear exactly how highly it regards the Great Barrier Reef and consequently Australia’s responsibility to protect it. In 1981 the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area was included on the World Heritage List in recognition of its universal value. So all of us here—not just us Queenslanders, who are so fortunate to live beside this national icon—should understand that the Great Barrier Reef has enormous environmental significance as well as economic value to our nation. That economic value should not be ignored or underestimated. Some 200,000 jobs are directly dependent on a healthy reef, and a good number of those jobs are in Central Queensland. The reef generates about $4.3 billion for the Australian economy. That money is important to our national economy but it is the key to survival for many regional communities in my state of Queensland.

Back in 1975 the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, known as GBRMPA. Since then GBRMPA has acted as the principal adviser to the federal government on the care and development of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. One of the primary functions of the authority is to recommend areas for declaration as parts of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and it also carries out important research into the state of the reef. But in the course of doing that job the marine park authority has fallen foul of some members of the government and particularly members of the National Party. We are concerned that this bill represents yet another attempt by this government to dilute the authority and effectiveness of GBRMPA. That is certainly an aim that the National Party have held for some time and one that has become increasingly important as a thank you to the Fishing Party for their assistance to The Nationals in the 2004 election.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007 implements key recommendations from the review carried out last year by the secretary of the environment department, David Borthwick. That review resulted in 28 recommendations and this bill includes the first tranche of changes to the act. The key changes in this bill include: amendments required as a consequence of applying the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 to the operations of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; changes to the governance arrangements of the authority in light of the 2003 Uhrig review of the corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders; a requirement for a periodic Great Barrier Reef Outlook report; new statutory provisions to ensure that the current zoning plan for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park cannot be amended for at least seven years from the date it came into force; and the abolition of the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee, which will be replaced by a non-statutory advisory board reporting directly to the minister.

We do not have a problem with most of those proposals. The Great Barrier Reef Outlook report, for example, seems to be an appropriate and prudent way to monitor and manage the health of the reef by providing a regular and reliable means of assessing performance in its long-term protection. The bill requires those reports to be produced every five years and they must be peer-reviewed by at least three persons who in the minister’s opinion possess the appropriate qualifications to undertake such a review.

As I said, there are significant changes to the provisions in the act concerning zoning plans. The zoning plan is the primary instrument for the conservation and management of the marine park. Those plans seek to balance and manage the diverse and competing interests within the park. When it comes to zoning plans, the amendments in this bill mean that no changes can be made to the zoning plans within seven years of their coming into effect. After that, the minister will be responsible for any future decision to amend the zoning plan, not GBRMPA, but the minister’s decision will be based on the outlook report and advice from the Marine Park Authority. If the minister decides to proceed with a rezoning he or she must approve the process to be followed, including extensive consultation based on fully public and comprehensive information.

I note that there are a number of amendments aimed at increasing the amount and effectiveness of consultation to be carried out during any future rezoning process. For example, there will be an increase in the minimum public comment period for draft zoning plans from one to three months. I note also the minister’s commitment that engagement with stakeholders on the development of a new zoning plan will be improved and the process made more transparent, with comprehensive information being made publicly available throughout the process. This will include the rationale for amending the zoning plan, the principles on which the development of the zoning plan will be based, socioeconomic information and a report on the final zoning plan and its outcomes.

I know that this commitment to effective and meaningful consultation will be welcomed by both commercial and recreational fishers in my electorate. The fishing community as a whole took full advantage of the process offered by GBRMPA during the Representative Areas Program exercise in 2003. Representatives from both sectors made sure that they were well-informed and argued strongly for the interests of their members in negotiations with GBRMPA and won some significant concessions in the final outcome. That process showed that we need effective partnerships between all those with an interest in the long-term health of the reef. Those partnerships are only possible when the process is built around transparency and communication, so I welcome the commitments contained in this bill to informing and consulting with the public over future changes.

What we object to in the bill is any suggestion that this is a watering down of GBRMPA’s effectiveness and independence. That is why we are concerned by the abolition of the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee and its replacement by a non-statutory advisory board reporting directly to the minister and chosen by the minister. One problem with this new arrangement is that it removes the requirement for specific representation from the Queensland government or the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. There are also concerns from those in the tourism industry that it may not have any representation on either the marine park authority or the consultative committee. This ignores the huge contribution that tourism makes to our economy in Queensland, particularly to places like the Capricorn Coast in my electorate. It is important that all those with an interest in the future of the reef have a place at the table.

It is not clear to me why this change to the structure of the advisory body is necessary, but we do know it will have the effect of increasing the power of the minister over the activities of GBRMPA. This is exactly what the National Party have been demanding. If they had had their way, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority would have been completely abolished and its functions swallowed up by the environment department. The independent GBRMPA, currently based in Queensland, would have been replaced by bureaucrats in Canberra and decisions about the reef would be based on politics, not science. The knives have been out for GBRMPA within the government ever since The Nationals in Queensland did a preference deal with the Fishing Party in 2004.

We have seen plenty of National Party members in Queensland lining up to have shots at GBRMPA since that time. Barnaby Joyce, for example, was reported in the Courier-Mail on 1 March 2005 as saying:

GBRMPA is out of control. We are having too many problems and we should bring it totally under government control and babysit it for a while.

That was following the member for Dawson, De-Anne Kelly, who said on 26 October 2004:

What we have had is a statutory body in GBRMPA that is out of control and that has put, I think, no real scientific basis for the arguments they have put forward.

The Nationals have not succeeded in abolishing GBRMPA, although as you can see from those comments they certainly gave it a good go. We need to watch these new arrangements carefully to make sure that GBRMPA’s independence is not compromised and that politics do not take over from science in management of the reef.

In contrast to those attempts to abolish GBRMPA, it was only last month that Malcolm Turnbull, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, was on ABC radio singing the praises of GBRMPA and the role it has played in protecting and managing the reef. On 7 April, Minister Turnbull declared that:

... the Great Barrier Reef is the best managed coral reef in the world.

He also said that the United Nations had:

... identified our management of the reef as a world benchmark for the management of coral reef systems—

‘a world benchmark’. The context of that quote is quite interesting. It says a lot about the government’s attitude to the reef and to GBRMPA. In that interview, the minister was under pressure for the government’s failure to address climate change and the findings in the latest IPCC report that the threat to the Great Barrier Reef from climate change is expected to be disastrous. The minister hid behind GBRMPA and tried to deflect criticism of the government by saying what a wonderful job GBRMPA is doing and how the reef is well placed to cope with the threat posed by climate change because it has been so well managed. That was very smooth of the minister, but what a hide! When the government is under pressure on climate change, GBRMPA is the best thing that has ever happened to the reef, but when it suits the government politically it is quite happy to sink the boot in and threaten the very existence of GBRMPA. It just goes to show that nothing is off limits for the government. It will even play politics with something as precious as the Great Barrier Reef, but it will not do anything to protect the reef from the threats it faces.

It is clear from previous comments and its general attitude towards GBRMPA that the government cannot help itself. It wants to meddle in the way GBRMPA does its job. It wants to hand over control to the minister and bureaucrats in Canberra. But what faith can we have that the government would do a better job of managing and protecting the reef? The government has completely neglected its responsibility to the reef over the last 11 years by failing to address the risks of climate change. Those risks are well known and well documented. In the latest IPCC report, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, the chapter on Australia lays out a bleak future for the Great Barrier Reef. By 2020, 60 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef could be regularly bleached. We have already had serious bleaching in the Keppels in the Central Queensland part of the reef. By 2050, 97 per cent of the reef could be bleached every year. By 2080, there could be catastrophic mortality of coral species annually and a 95 per cent decrease in distribution of Great Barrier Reef species. There could be a 65 per cent loss of Great Barrier Reef species in the Cairns region.

We know that the government has failed to protect the reef, but what about its record of managing the reef? While there were howls of criticism from members of the government about GBRMPA during the RAP process in 2003 and 2004, it was the government that completely mangled the structural adjustment package to the fishing industry and related businesses along the coast of Queensland. The Howard government has ignored repeated warnings from the Queensland fishing industry about flaws in its socioeconomic assessment processes. Initially the government grossly underestimated the economic impact of the RAP program on the Queensland fishing industry, announcing a package of just $31 million. Since then, it has had to significantly increase the package to $87 million in May 2006. We have never seen any compensation to the recreational fishing sector for the impacts on that sector of the zoning changes.

While GBRMPA is a convenient scapegoat, the government has to lift its performance in protecting and managing the reef. The government has sat back and done nothing while the Great Barrier Reef is threatened with destruction. The government has failed future generations of Australians.

In contrast to the government’s neglect of the reef, there are good things happening in Central Queensland amongst the many people and organisations committed to keeping the reef healthy. I am pleased to say that Rockhampton was fortunate to get one of the community partnerships offices which was set up by GBRMPA in 2005. The community partnerships team, led by Dave Lowe, has done a great job building relationships with those groups who use the reef and want to be part of keeping it strong and healthy. The team get out and about to public events right throughout Central Queensland, to educate people about the reef, the activities of GBRMPA and the things we can all do as individuals to play our part to help protect the reef.

The community partnerships team has really given a human face to GBRMPA in Central Queensland. Through efforts to facilitate education and to reach out to groups with an interest in the reef, it gives us more direct input into the management of the reef and the decision making that goes on with GBRMPA. It also means that when information is sought or when issues arise, when things are happening in Central Queensland which need the involvement of GBRMPA, the right people in Townsville can be contacted very easily so that GBRMPA can come on board very quickly to be involved in things that are happening at the local level. The community partnerships body has worked really hard to link in with tourism bodies, Indigenous groups, recreational and commercial fishers and regional natural resource management bodies, like the Fitzroy Basin Association, that are working on reducing the impact of upstream activities on the reef.

Another exciting initiative in Central Queensland is the number of reef guardian schools we now have in our area. Reef guardian schools sign up to incorporate education about the Great Barrier Reef into their curriculum. Through that the students are taught about the reef and, importantly, about the impacts that we all have on the reef. The schools undertake projects so that the children can understand those impacts; they work in the school but also use the school as a demonstration to the broader community through projects that reduce litter, carbon emissions and run-off from our onshore activities into the reef.

I am told that 30 schools in Central Queensland have signed up to be reef guardian schools, and have been awarded that recognition by GBRMPA. Those 30 schools give Central Queensland the highest proportion of schools within Queensland participating in that program. I think there are something like 200 schools throughout Queensland, but in Central Queensland we have the highest proportion of schools participating, which is great to see.

Another great development that we have seen in Central Queensland is the establishment of CapReef—that is, the Capricorn Reef Monitoring Program, chaired by Graham Scott. Bill Sawynok from Infofish Services coordinates the activities of CapReef. CapReef is a community based monitoring program established to improve community involvement and knowledge of the management of the Capricorn Coast part of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem by the monitoring and analysis of the local effects of management changes on the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem. As the fishing industry was most affected by the management changes, the focus of CapReef has been on collecting data that will help understand those effects, particularly in relation to recreational fishing.

CapReef has done a great job of reaching out to the fishing sector and using the information that so many recreational and commercial fishers can feed into the monitoring and analysis of what is going on in the reef. For example, in their first 18 months CapReef logged details of over 1,300 fishing trips, primarily off the Capricorn Coast and Gladstone. This year we already have 1,000 fishing trips feeding in their data to CapReef, and then CapReef will feed that into GBRMPA’s research.

CapReef is working with the James Cook University on a project to understand the social effects of the management changes on fisher behaviour and fishing locations, and it is also working with the Central Queensland University to obtain expenditure data on recreational fishing.

There is currently an application before the government under the recreational fishing community grants to enable CapReef to continue for a further 18 months from July 2007. The application is very well supported within the Central Queensland community, and you can understand why when you read just a few of the highlights of what CapReef has been able to achieve in its first 18 months. I call on the government to continue its support for CapReef in the good work that it is doing.

Back to the government’s role in all of this—its shocking neglect of the Great Barrier Reef and its responsibilities for its protection. The government has to explain to all those people in Central Queensland who are working so hard to protect the reef for the enjoyment of future generations why it continues to ignore the warning signs. (Time expired)

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007 amends the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. As was outlined earlier in the debate, the bill makes amendments arising from the Financial Management Accountability Act 1997 and from the Uhrig review. The bill establishes a periodic Great Barrier Reef Outlook report and it also establishes statutory provisions to ensure that the current zoning plan cannot be amended for a least seven years from the date it came into force. The bill also gives the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources more power by abolishing the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee.

Through a second reading amendment moved by the member for Kingsford Smith the opposition have indicated that, whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, we reaffirm the objects of the principal act but note that the reef is very much under threat, both in the short-term and in the long-term, as a result of many factors, including climate change. We note that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that, by 2050, 97 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef could be bleached every year.

In our second reading amendment we condemn the government’s handling of the structural adjustment package and we call on the government to develop and implement plans to protect the Great Barrier Reef from coral bleaching and to protect the Australian jobs and industries that depend upon a healthy reef. The opposition also call on the government to prohibit mineral, oil and gas exploration in the waters adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

If we review the history of the way in which legislation has been passed through this place to protect the Great Barrier Reef I think we will find that, in general, it is one of the success stories. But we cannot dwell on the successes of the past so much as not to recognise that the Great Barrier Reef has never been as threatened as it is currently, in this first decade of the 21st century. Back in the late 1980s, even after 10 years of protection, there was much mystery surrounding the fact that the Great Barrier Reef was a World Heritage listed area. World Heritage listing was associated with locking up areas, which was far from the truth, and an educative process had to be gone through that could indicate that not only could we protect World Heritage value areas but also they could continue to be used by people for a variety of economic and social uses. The Great Barrier Reef is one of those areas.

The work of GBRMPA, which has been acknowledged by members on this side, has been integral not only to the protection of the reef but also to the continuing use of the reef. The multi-use zones that have been developed and the ability of the authority to administer have been very important in that process. The scientific knowledge that GBRMPA and other institutions have developed has also been important, but there is much work to be done. We have a great understanding of the phenomenon of bleaching. We understand that in the past there has been an ability of the coral to show resilience, but we also know that the severity and the frequency of these incidents is on the rise. That really tests the resilience of the reef. That is the danger. That is why we need to make sure that we understand the threat that there is to the reef. In saying that, we also have to understand that it will not only affect the reef as a living organism but also have a great impact on the surrounding environment.

There has been emphasis on the loss of jobs that would arise in the tourism industry, but let’s go to the contentious issue of the fisheries. What we have said on this side of the House, quite correctly, is that when you step back and look at the recent past you find it is the government that has botched the restructure packages and has not been up-front. It has not been the authority’s fault in any way that these things have gone pear-shaped. The impact of climate change on the fishing stocks of the reef marine park is going to be dramatic. The Treasurer in his budget speech this week talked about adaptation required following climate change. He has to understand that the mitigation has to go on but, correctly, adaptation will occur. We do not have the environmental economic case for what is going to happen as a result of climate change to the fishing stocks. That is really an appalling situation, because there are plenty of examples around the world where people are well in advance.

If we look at the Caribbean, not only does it have probably the second-largest coral reef; it has, of course, large fishing stocks and commercial and recreational fishing. The Caribbean people working on climate change have been able to model the changes that will occur to fishing stocks and have been able to model the way in which fishing stocks will change in different parts of the Caribbean. That is the type of work that we need to see in Australia.

I thought that when the Treasurer produced his Intergenerational report 2007 we might have seen one of the major intergenerational problems that confront Australia being given due coverage. Of course I talk about climate change. But, in 122 pages, what do we get? We get about three or four pages of discussion of environmental matters, including climate change—that is how it is referred to—and what do we get? We get that it is ‘very difficult’ to do the modelling, ‘very difficult’ to predict the economic impact. This is a nonsense. If Australia is really going to prepare itself for the impact of climate change, it has to have a better review than the words that are in the Intergenerational report. I express my disappointment that this report, which the Treasurer keeps telling us is a very important aspect of the discussion of government policy, was tabled at a national press conference two days after the last weeks of sitting had concluded. So there is no opportunity, in a sense, for the parliament to be able to fully debate this document.

For the future generations we have to understand that we cannot discuss the economic impacts of intergenerational problems without looking at the social and environmental aspects. In a speech that touched upon the Great Barrier Reef that I made in the chamber in 1989, I quoted Dick Pratt, who used a quote out of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. I repeat, this was nearly 20 years ago. As a major industrialist at that time in Australia—and he continues to be—he emphasised, and I quote again:

Those responsible for managing natural resources are separated from those responsible for managing the economy. The real world of interlocked economic and ecological systems will not change; the policies and institutions concerned must.

That is why, when the government produces a document like the Intergenerational report 2007, it should not be just a financial economic document. It should have great emphasis on the interlocking of environmental and economic matters. And this document failed us. As has been stated by my colleagues in this debate, the Great Barrier Reef is a great barometer of what is happening in climate change. The bleaching of the reef gives us an absolute indication of what the waters along the east coast are doing. What we have to see is a better analysis of what is required than the suggestions of floating pontoons of shadecloth or having shadecloth orbiting the earth and things like that. At the end of the day we have to have a greater understanding of what is happening. We have to continue to match what we confront with actions that will mitigate and ensure that industry, which relies on the reef, is able to continue.

I have been heartened by discussions that I have been involved in with the tourism industry, which requires the reef for its survival. Firstly, they understand the challenges that confront the Great Barrier Reef because of climate change and, secondly, they acknowledge the good work of GBRMPA. That is important. This is a partnership between government, through government agencies, industry and the community. As my colleague the member for Throsby said, the community in this part of the world importantly includes Indigenous people. There is an understanding of the importance to those Indigenous people of the reef and its waters and an understanding of the ecological systems that the reef presents us.

As has been stated in debate, throughout the globe’s history, events have arisen because of changes in levels of carbon emissions. But the simple fact is that, as a result of anthropogenic carbon emissions, the globe is under stress that it has never been under before. It is the severity and the rate of the increase in carbon emissions that we must confront. It is time for action. All those who have been sceptical should go back to their burrows, because it is clear that we have to take some action. If, in the case of Australia, we cannot use as the pre-eminent model the protection of the Great Barrier Reef to show what is required then we should not be in the business of discussing these issues. As the member for Capricornia said, when it suits the government, they praise the efforts of the authority; when it does not suit them for local political purposes, they try to make out that the authority is the demon.

It is interesting that only two members of the government have participated in this debate, apart from the minister. The member for Boothby participated in a more general sense, while the member for Leichhardt, who has been an open and continuing critic of the work of the authority, tried to justify his position by discussing the way in which the commercial fishing industry had been treated. But if you take a fair, arms-length view of the way in which the restructure of the fishing industry has occurred, you will see that it is really the responsibility of the government to sort out these problems. As I said, if they think they have got problems now, the changing nature of the fish stocks of the marine park as a result of climate change will mean that further assessment of the restructure will be required. If other countries and regions are already doing this, why isn’t Australia? That is just one example of where the government will have to be in partnership with industry because of the impact of climate change on the economy.

I come back to the Intergenerational report. It ignores climate change; it is as if climate change were simply a footnote to the intergenerational concerns of this nation. It should be of concern not only to this nation but to the globe, but, if the Intergenerational report is about Australia, I would have thought it would not just have been included as ‘environmental consequences, including climate change’. There should have been a whole chapter about climate change. It is then suggested, with respect to Stern, that: ‘Oh, it might be difficult to do the modelling.’ It has been admitted here, in answers during question time, that there is no modelling. It is an absolute disgrace that a nation confronting this challenge has not done the appropriate modelling, has not made it public and has not put it into the public domain as part of the debate, because this is the pre-eminent problem that confronts us.

In saying that it is a problem, it might also, like all problems, be a great opportunity. With the attitude of the government to climate change, any opportunities that arise from the way we tackle it are just thrown to the wind, as if they are incidental. All the technologies that have been developed in Australia that have a consequence for diminishing carbon emissions have only gone forward if they have gone offshore. If you go down to Tasmania and visit a wind energy park or wind farm, what do you see? They have had to form a joint relationship with the Chinese. Because we have stepped outside Kyoto, we have not gained the full impact of the CD mechanism. That is just crazy.

We would agree, of course, that the next round of Kyoto is important, but the government should not just throw the baby out with the bathwater because they want to be in the blame game. I have just returned from an IPU conference, where the central debate was about climate change. It sickened me a little that we had this north-south debate, whereby developing countries said, ‘Well, it’s the developed countries’ fault.’ We have to go beyond that in the debate. We heard yesterday in this debate and during question time the same response—‘until China does this’ and ‘until India does that’. The government cannot sit there and wash their hands of the matter; they should just get on with it.

There could be a lot of accommodation regarding the way in which nations are tackling this matter. For instance, a decrease of 40 per cent in the number of living global coral reefs in a couple of years time represents a great impact that we will all share. There is also the divided debate in Australia: in the traditional way in which Prime Minister Howard conducts business, which is always to find an excuse for pitting Australian against Australian, he wants somehow to dwell on the fact that this debate is all about people who work in the coal industry and the future of their jobs. Well, we acknowledge that. We are being fitted up by being told that we just want to exterminate that industry. That is not the case.

We agree that we have to continue to build technologies that display the cleanest use of coal—that we need to pursue technologies that do in fact efficiently capture and store carbon. But at the same time we have to look at a whole host of other things, because it is not only the threat to jobs in the coal industry; it is the threat to the jobs in the tourism industry along the Great Barrier Reef, and it is the threat to the jobs of the commercial fishers who depend upon the fishing stocks along the Great Barrier Reef. There are no winners from inaction against climate change. In fact, we all have to recognise that we all have to take some part of the pain—and I think that we acknowledge that. It is like any other adjustment that we have seen in Australia over the last few decades: you have to make sure that, when you are looking at changes, they are shared.

So I would hope that a minister like the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, who is sitting at the table and who does have an understanding of these problems, would step back from the blame game, would step back from the Pontius Pilate washing of hands in the national sense and would see that we can be a leading light to the world in the way that we tackle climate change. If we cannot take appropriate action in relation to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park on the question of climate change then we are not going to be this exemplar. The opportunity is there for us to lead the world in showing the ways forward on not only the way we apply technology but the way we manage the reef. He is right to say that GBRMPA has done a great job. It has been very hard. It has been in the context of suspicion. (Time expired)

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2007 amends the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. The bill implements changes arising from the government’s response to the 2006 review of the act. The amendments in this bill will strengthen governance arrangements for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and improve transparency and accountability, particularly in relation to the zoning plan process.

The current zoning plan for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park will not be able to be amended for at least seven years from when it came into force on 1 July 2004, providing stability for business, communities and biological systems. There will be a regular and reliable means of assessing the overall condition and longer term outlook for the Great Barrier Reef, through an outlook report that will be tabled in parliament every five years. This report will be independently peer reviewed. The minister will be responsible for any future decision to open the zoning plan for amendment, and any such decision will be based on the outlook report and advice from the authority. Engagement with stakeholders on the development of a zoning plan will be more open and transparent, with an increased time frame for public consultation and comprehensive, publicly available information.

The Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee will be replaced by a non-statutory advisory board to the minister, which will provide a means of engaging with representational bodies and key experts. The authority will remain a statutory authority and body corporate and become subject to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. The number of authority members will be increased to a maximum of five, selected for their relevant expertise.

The amendments contained in this bill set a clear direction for the future management and protection of the Great Barrier Reef, which is one of Australia’s and the world’s most precious assets. The bill provides for continued protection of marine life and biodiversity. It also allows for ongoing and environmentally sustainable economic and recreational activity and engagement with all stakeholders.

The reef is widely regarded as the best-managed coral reef in the world. We recognise, in all of our work with the reef, the likely impacts of climate change and the increased incidence of coral bleaching because of rising sea temperatures. However, the resilience of the reef, the ability of the reef to respond to the impacts of global warming, has been enormously enhanced—as is widely recognised, and as was widely recognised just a moment ago by the member for Scullin—by the actions of the government, by the policies of the government and by the work of the authority. It is the best-managed reef in the world. In that respect, in this particular area, this is another example of the way in which Australia leads the world in the response to climate change. I commend the bill to the House.

Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) 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.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.