John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the disallowance motions logged for each of the six Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plans moved by the coalition. The coalition opposes the flawed methodology underpinning the announcement of marine reserves. The creation of the marine reserves was not disallowable, but the management plans are. Disallowing these plans will allow the coalition to ensure that scientific rigor is restored and due process is followed.

The areas to be locked up include the following regions: the Coral Sea region; the south-west marine region; the temperate east marine region; the north marine region; the north-west marine region; and the south-east marine region. The government has offered a package of $100 million to the fishing industry to try to buy their silence after ignoring them in the consultation process. Australia's fisheries are globally benchmarked and recognised as among the best managed anywhere in the world. Why, then, do we need to lock Australians out of our oceans? The coalition is committed to returning balance and fairness to marine conservation. Marine protected areas are intended to protect and maintain biologically and culturally significant marine areas of Commonwealth waters.

It was the previous coalition government which commenced the process of establishing marine protected areas around Australia's coastline, in line with Australia's internationally declared commitments. For this purpose, the Commonwealth waters surrounding Australia were divided into five bioregional planning regions—the south-east, south-west, north-west, north, and east. The regions cover Commonwealth waters only, not state waters. The boundaries are usually from three nautical miles from the coast out to the outer limits of Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone, approximately 200 nautical miles from the shore.

The coalition guided development of the south-east marine bioregion plan, which was formalised in 2006. It included a network of 14 marine reserves, which were agreed after careful consideration and consultation with all stakeholders, including the recreational and commercial fishing sectors. This consultation ensured an appropriate balance was struck between protecting marine biodiversity and minimising social and economic impact on fishers, businesses and coastal communities, and better outcomes. The final result was a greater area protected with less impact on industry. The Gillard government does not have a track record of effective consultation, in fact quite the opposite. It is renowned for its sham consultation process.

There is considerable angst amongst fishermen regarding the declaration of marine national parks. Their concerns have not been heard. The consultation process was flawed and so the results are flawed. Industry was given just 30 days to consider and respond to the draft plans, which covered 2.3 million square kilometres. That is a huge workload, particularly for those who had to consider more than one management plan. How could industry possibly examine the detail of the impact around the entire Australian exclusive economic zone and comment in just 30 days?

Australia's $2 billion fishing sector was treated with complete contempt by environment minister, Tony Burke, yet again, and was given only 30 days to review management plans for his huge, unscientific ocean grab. Industry groups asked for 90 days but were ignored. On 16 November 2012 the minister declared 2.3 million square kilometres as marine reserves.

Fishing is an industry which provides 16,000 jobs for Australians. It is about time that Tony Burke and his government started listening to a productive sector and not to their Green coalition partners, who are intent on shutting industry down and locking Australians out of their own country. And what about the minister for fisheries, Senator Ludwig? Was he standing up for industry or using his department to support industry? No, not a chance. He was overruled by Minister Burke.

The socioeconomic analysis done by ABARE did not even consider the impact on recreational fishers or on coastal communities. So, rightly, recreational and commercial fishers, as well as the many related businesses and communities that rely on fishing, have raised substantial concerns about Labor's handling of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. The Australian Fishing Trade Association estimates that the economic contribution of recreational fishing to the economy is between $10 billion and $15 billion per annum—that is not peanuts but we have monkeys running this show. Minister Burke's only response is that these parks are too far away for anyone to care. Well, Minister, if you had not noticed, it is the 21st Century and we have moved on from the canoe.

Now let us talk about the science. Surely a process that locks up 2.3 million square kilometres in marine reserves would be based on robust scientific data. I will now outline the science Minister Burke used in deciding on where to put the national parks, and all the scientific factors that went into the decision. This is the big issue, the science. Hang on, there is nothing on that page and nothing on this page either. There is no science. I set aside half of my speech to debate the science but alas there was not any.

Tony Burke's own department admitted that he has to put marine parks 'somewhere' and that there is no science behind the proposed lock-ups. Minister Burke has admitted that the scale of lock-up in the Temperate East zone is a payoff for the vast lock-up of the Coral Sea zone. Minister Burke's own department has been telling stakeholders there is no science behind the lines on the maps. I refer you to the Senate estimates hearings and to Senator Boswell's questioning of Mr Oxley, who was in charge of it then. He said the marine environment is generally not well understood. We have a relative dearth of information about the diversity of the Coral Sea but we really do not have the money to deal with it.

Minister Burke traded areas back and forth, playing stakeholders off against each other, in order to get the quantity of locked-up areas he needed for the ultimate appeasement of extremists. Minister Burke's tactics have included shamelessly playing commercial and recreational fishing interests off against one another, and playing both off against the environment groups.

Proper, grown-up government makes policy on its merit, on fact. There are key scientific reasons we should lock up more national parks only where the evidence is available. As Dr Ray Hilborn, Professor of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences at the University of Washington, has explained: 'Australian fisheries are well managed', sustainable and do not need further locking up to protect them from overfishing. The existing tools are working. There is no threat to marine conservation. Closing Australian areas to fisheries will not increase food production from fisheries; it will reduce it. Reducing access to Australian fish stocks is irresponsible. It results in Australia importing more fish, often sourced from areas with less sustainably managed fisheries at much higher environmental cost, effectively offshoring our domestic requirements. Well-managed fisheries are more environmentally sustainable than most other protein sources. If we close the ocean and take less seafood, the environmental cost of the alternatives is much higher than the environmental cost of fishing. In Australia, the US and a number of other countries, stocks are rebuilding, not declining.

In the Senate inquiry into this issue, many of the substantive submissions and the coalition's dissenting report supported this view. Minister Burke claims tens of thousands of submissions in his sham consultation process but does not differentiate between the vast majority of electronically generated campaign emails, many from overseas, and the substantive, genuine submissions from affected communities and industries with valid concerns. The lack of process is extraordinary. For example, Professor Kearney highlighted three fundamental steps to be taken in order for an area to be adequately and appropriately protected, and stated that these have not been systematically applied to the declaration of Australia's marine protected areas. They are: (1) all significant threats must be identified—article 7 of the Convention on Biological Diversity; (2) the processes that constitute these threats must be addressed—EPBC Act, Commonwealth of Australia 1999; and (3) the management action that is taken must not be disproportionate to the significance of the environmental problems—Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, government of Australia 1992. And the government has failed on all three measures. It is not looking good.

This is not about marine parks. This is not about saving our environment. This is about the member for Watson, Mr Tony Burke, trying to get a few extra lines on his CV as he pushes his own case to be the next Labor prime minister. He is the best man for the job; just ask him! This stunt demonstrates aptly how little this government has learnt about good public policy—

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I am having difficulty hearing the member for Calare because of the constant static across the chamber.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

a failure of process and a failure to understand the responsibility of government. The lack of methodical, systematic and collaborative government process is an unfortunate feature of a government built on reactive, populist policies.

The ban of the fishing trawler is perhaps the best or, I should say, the worst example of this government—again, led by the member for Watson. The member for Watson as minister for agriculture appointed the Australian Fisheries Management Authority board members and signed off on the management plan that invited the supertrawler to Australia. Then, as minister for the environment, he backflipped on his own policy and invented laws so he could ban it, ignoring the science, ignoring due process and ignoring good government practice.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kooyong is not in his place.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, hopeless government has infiltrated the whole Labor Party. At the moment we have legislation from the Gillard government wanting to fix up their own mess in pulling money out of everybody who does not use an account for three years. We actually have a farmer with a farm management deposit, money designed to be put there so that a farmer can use it a few years later when he strikes trouble. What happened? He did not use it for three years; it is gone—a farm management deposit designed to be put there and not used. They have taken that.

Mr Lyons interjecting—

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bass will cease interjecting.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No wonder the government need to put in amendments to their own legislation.

The live exports ban is perhaps the best example which defines this government. The government's first decision was to ban live exports from the seven abattoirs where the terrible, inhumane practice took place, but the government, disappointed at being outdone by the Greens, then banned it unilaterally without even so much as talking to the Indonesian government or even contemplating the impact on industry. Just like the marine parks, it rolled out a $100 million package to solve its problems, but, as history now shows, the package did not even look at addressing the problems. This has led to the current crisis in northern Australia.

The live export ban imposed by this government and the resultant cut in live export and boxed beef quotas to Indonesia have led to a major unfolding animal welfare disaster in northern Australia. Our northern cattle farmers have carried over hundreds of thousands of extra cattle from last year, and now they have had a lean wet season and have this year's calves on the ground. Combined with a feed shortage caused by a dry autumn in the rest of Australia, this means that the whole cattle market is depressed and local abattoirs are booked out months in advance. Have we seen Labor, the Greens or Animals Australia coming out to help the animals who are starving because of the environment they created? No, we have not. In fact, we have seen the opposite.

The member for Watson has led the charge of those opposed to putting these animals into reserves as an emergency measure, even though many of the parks are former cattle stations and even though sensitive environmental areas are to be excluded. The member for Watson should be ashamed. He does not care about the humane treatment of animals; he just cares about keeping the greenies happy. The member has feebly offered the government Farm Finance package as a solution, but, even if the states signed up tomorrow, it would be months before that could take effect.

This marine park process—or lack of it—is just another in a long line of Labor disasters that shows just how much Labor has alienated its working-class base. We all remember the Prime Minister's pre-election commitment: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' We all know that this turned out to be a major—

Mr Lyons interjecting—

You are still getting sick of it, are you? It turned out to be a major broken promise, although I have heard somewhere—

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Bass knows better.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

a somewhat justifiable claim that the Prime Minister has never led this government and that it is the Greens that are running the country. Nevertheless, we have the carbon tax that has accelerated the demise of our manufacturing and processing industry as well as devastating the wafer-thin profits of the agricultural sector.

Labor used to stand for the workers. Now it stands for closing the manufacturing industry, closing the food-processing industry and squeezing out the mining sector. The fishing industry is also hit by the carbon tax, with its high reliance on refrigeration and the resultant high electricity costs. Add to that the world's largest marine park networks shutting out the fishing industry, and we have another sector alienated by this government. But the government does not care. The government has built on its disasters—on backflips, broken promises and policy disasters. The coalition will not stand for it. Australia is a fantastic country and it can be again. Its people do not deserve to be treated like mugs. These marine parks are thought bubbles by the minister for the environment—poorly designed, poorly implemented. I implore the parliament to support this disallowance motion so that these marine parks do not become another symbol of the scourge of the Rudd and Gillard governments.

I would like to repeat something I said in this place earlier today when the member for Watson, the minister for the environment, accused us of wanting to get rid of a park that we had designated under the Howard government. In actual fact, I do not know whether the minister was telling untruths or he just does not know his own legislation and does not know the facts. On reflection, the latter is likely, because the disallowance motion does not—I repeat, does not—get rid of the maritime area the Howard government put in place. It does not get rid of the interim management plan put in place by the Howard government. In fact, it enshrines it, make sure that it stays there. It does get rid of the management plan being put by the Gillard government and the member for Watson.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, this order of the day will be debated cognately with the other orders of the day relating to the disallowance of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management plans. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the disallowance of the six Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management plans, noting that this is a cognate debate across all six regions. The six management plans were introduced into the House of Representatives and the Senate on 12 March 2013. Management plans are enabling documents that allow certain management of recreational and commercial activities to occur that would otherwise be restricted under the EPBC legislation. These plans are prepared by the Director of National Parks in accordance with section 368 of the EPBC Act. The management plans cover the following areas: the Coral Sea, north, north-west, south-west, temperate east and south-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Networks.

I must correct a misleading statement made by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities at question time today. He said that we are moving disallowance of a management plan put in place by the former Howard government in 2006. That is incorrect. By repealing this minister's management plans of 2013, what will stand is the interim management plan introduced by the Howard government in 2006. In fact, as I said, that plan was put in place in 2006. I am really concerned that this minister is not even across the detail of the marine reserves network management plans that he has put in place.

I was honoured to second the motions of disallowance on the south-east and temperate east plans. Unlike the minister, I am fully aware of what I am talking about. These are the proposed management plans, Minister, not the one that is already there. I have done this because the very reason I came into parliament was to stop bad policy and to make good policy. This management plan is bad policy. The government's handling of the whole process has been an extreme disappointment. It reflects an attitude of disdain towards the five million Australians who partake in recreational fishing in one form or another. I also reflect on the complete disgust of our commercial fishing industry in the way that they have been approached by this government. As I said, an estimated five million Australians go recreational fishing each year. The contribution by the recreational fishing sector to our economy is estimated to be $10 billion per year. That $10 billion is largely spent in rural and regional areas. There are some 90,000 Australians employed in supporting the recreational fishing industry, as well as some 3,000 fishing tackle stores across Australia. This is not a small sector of our community.

Another thing that really concerns me is this minister's continual statements that these management plans will not affect anyone because they are all too far offshore.

Mr Burke interjecting—

I am glad to hear, Minister, because I will go through a couple of select ones. In the area of Port Macquarie, where the member for Lyne is based, the Cod Grounds, which are fished by thousands of people annually, are a mere 27 kilometres offshore. The Coffs Harbour Solitary Islands are 12 kilometres offshore. From Yamba, it is 29 kilometres offshore. In Tasmania, from St Helens, in the Freycinet area, it is 60 kilometres offshore. From Bicheno, again in the Freycinet area, it is 32 kilometres offshore—

Mr Burke interjecting—

Mr Deputy Speaker, are you going to put up with this? Are you going to bring him to order?

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a range of places—and they are only to name a few—that are close and approachable.

I am one of two people in this parliament who have actually had a master's ticket, who have worked in the commercial and recreational fishing environment. The other is Senator Nigel Scullion. If I have left anyone out, I apologise. I understand how far tinnies go offshore; I understand how far charter boats go offshore. And let me tell you: they can all travel more than three miles offshore, which is where the Commonwealth waters actually start. Admittedly, not too many of them will go out 200 miles to sea, but a number will.

These plans are flawed. They are in the face of what the industry, both recreational and commercial, want. I am very concerned. I am concerned as the member for Paterson, representing two areas which relate to fishing—in other words, the Nelson Bay and Port Stephens area and the Great Lakes region.

I am also concerned as shadow minister for tourism and shadow minister for regional development, because the impact of these regulations will affect my portfolios right around the Australian coast, from Cairns—which is in the electorate of the member for Leichhardt, who is here and who is going to speak—a critical fishing area, down through the Whitsundays and the Mackay area, which my colleague Mr Christensen represents.

I have visited many areas and I have talked to a lot of the fishing people. I have spoken to people in the fishing tackle shops, fishing clubs, fishing co-ops, commercial fishermen and even abalone divers, and they all have grave concerns about this minister's process. When he talks about accountability and transparency, that must only apply to the discussions and negotiations with the Greens and the environmental groups, not to those who are actually involved and those who will be impacted.

There are many compelling reasons why the coalition has moved these disallowance motions today. Firstly, there has been inadequate consultation; secondly, a complete lack of transparency; thirdly, a lack of understanding of the science that the minister purports to espouse; and, fourthly, a predetermination that these plans were to be to the detriment of the fishing community and for the benefit of a small select group.

As I said before, the marine park's regions cover Commonwealth waters only, not state waters. The boundaries range from three nautical miles from the coast out to the outer limits of Australia's exclusive economic zone, approximately 200 nautical miles from the shore.

These new marine reserves take the overall size of the Commonwealth marine reserves network to 3.1 million square kilometres, by far the largest representative network of marine protected areas in the world. In fact, prior to this, Australia had 25 per cent of global marine protected areas. With the Coral Sea and the other planned expansions it now comprises about 50 per cent of the entire global marine parks, just in Australia.

So any perceived biodiversity protection obligations are already overfulfilled. Yet the minister argues science. It is all going to be based on science, but only when the science suits him. The arguments put forward by Minister Burke, who changes his mind as regularly as the direction of the wind, do not stack up.

Firstly, we had his personal approval and imprimatur, as the fisheries minister, of the MV Margiris and the 18,000-tonne allowable catch. Then the wind changed and so did his mind, all allegedly based on science. The first science said it was okay; the second load of science, when the political winds changed, said it was not. And the minister did not even explore regional total allowable catches, which would have been based on common sense.

The minister at the time then wanted unfettered legislative powers to shut down any fishery—I repeat, any fishery—at any time based on social uncertainty. In its original form, it would have included any recreational fishing, as I said, based on social uncertainty. That social uncertainty might have come through a campaign against recreational fishing groups by green groups or groups like GetUp! or Pew, just to shut down something, because this government is a slave to the green vote. There is a definite lack of understanding and effective consultation other than with the green groups. They were going to rush through the process with these Commonwealth marine reserve network management plans without proper understanding of the implications of these plans for the broader communities. If that is not so, Minister, then why are the communities up in arms?

This minister will talk about science and sustainability. Minister, are you aware that there is a general global agreement that the EEZ fishery harvest rate is about 1,000 kilograms per square kilometre? I seek to inform the House that Australia's harvest rate is about 40 kilograms per square kilometre. In fact, the latest global survey of coral reefs, produced in 2010 by the World Resources Institute, states that well-managed reefs can sustain an average harvest rate of 15,000 kilograms per square kilometre, and I seek to inform the House that the harvest rate for our Great Barrier Reef is just nine kilograms per square kilometre. So, Minister, there is no scientific argument that you could put about sustainability in relation to fishing in these areas.

I have grave concerns that we have pushed our fishing from Australian waters into other waters yet we turn around and buy that fish back into Australia. You see, Australia imports around $1.7 billion worth of fish—in particular from areas where sustainability is in question. I quote Dr Ray Hilborn from an interview with Eleanor Hall on The World Today on Wednesday, 29 February 2012:

When you're not over fishing, marine parks simply reduce the amount of fish yield you can get by locking up areas. And the result is that you're going to have less seafood produced in Australia and you will need to import more from places that are typically much less sustainably managed.

I believe that the actions of this government are unconscionable to say the least. We have a minister who says he wants to save our fish, and he is saving them all right—for fishermen in other areas to catch and sell back to Australia.

In the time that is left to me, I want to make sure that people understand that the coalition will never deceive the people by promising not to do something prior to an election only to do the direct opposite after the election, as this Prime Minister did with her promise, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' I want people to know and to understand that the coalition's position is very, very clear. There are no misleading or secret agenda. Our policy—and I quote from page 29 of the coalition's 'Our plan—real solutions for all Australians'—is:

Building on our strengths in Agriculture Exports

We will unleash the real economic potential in our agricultural industry by removing the shackles and burdens holding the industry back and by making the industry more productive and globally competitive. We will … support our fishing industry and review the declaration of new Marine Protected Areas. We will establish genuine consultation with the fishing industry on research and strengthen the connection between science and fishing policy …

I further quote from page 46:

Supporting communities—creating a sustainable environment

We will adopt a practical, balanced and sustainable approach to environmental issues based on linking sound scientific findings with the needs of all users resulting in more sustainable commercial activities and better environmental outcomes.

As I said, our position on this is very clear. We are not going to do one thing or make a promise to one group ahead of an election with the intention of deliberately doing something diametrically opposite after the election. We will support the fishing industry, both recreational and commercial, without any reservation, because you can do the two together in good management practice. We will adopt a more balanced approach by setting up a more rigorous assessment for new marine protected areas that will mean areas are assessed in accordance with objective science and economic and social evidence.

I have grave concerns about where this government is taking the fishing industry and, in particular, the recreational fishing industry. There is no doubt that the best thing that can occur is for those five million people in Australia to go out fishing—recreational fishing. It is a boost to our economy, spread right around the coastline of Australia. There is no doubt that there are good social outcomes when families are out enjoying the outdoors together rather than being parked in front of a television or a computer. One of the key ways they can do that is out there, recreationally fishing.

I say to this minister: why all the rush? What are you scared of? Are you scared of qualified information coming along that contradicts your position and your sell-out to the Greens at the expense of five million recreational-fishing people? You stand up in the parliament and talk about how you can stand in a tinnie and how you cannot visit here. I would suggest that, like your bureaucrats, you get out from behind your desk, get out in front of the people, talk to them and understand the industry. Failure to do so will only lead to dire results for our recreational and commercial fishing industries here in Australia.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This place never ceases to fascinate me. I have great respect for the member for Paterson and have worked with him on other issues. But there is an onus upon you to do your homework; there really is. If he had done his homework he would have known that it was his party that destroyed the fishing industry of North Queensland. There were 2,000 jobs in my electorate that vanished—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you'd been here you'd have heard me say that.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take back the implied criticism of the member for Paterson because I am very pleased to hear him say that. But the complete destruction of the fishing industry and the prawn and fish-farming industries was done by the LNP. A Nationals party member got up and said that all you are leaving us is 18 per cent of the North Queensland seas.

An opposition member interjecting —

He said, 'a good Labor man'. I will tell you, my friend, that when I come into this place I represent the people of my electorate, and I could not care less whether it is the Labor Party or the Liberal Party. But you will have to stand and defend your party's decision to close two-thirds of the fishing industry of North Queensland and take 2,000 people's jobs out from under them. The minister might today be doing a little bit of fence building and face-saving before the election, but we will see how you vote when I move the resolution that it be cut back to one-quarter of its existing area. We will see how you vote. I welcome your support, but I doubt I will get it.

There were 7,000 people who turned up to the meetings. I heard the Liberal member advocating the closures, and the National Party member for Dawson had gone completely silent upon the issue. Before an election you were out there saying how terrible the Labor Party is. Unfortunately—and sadly for you, my friend the honourable member for Dawson—you will be judged upon the performance of your party, which closed the fishing industry of North Queensland. And not content with that, they proceeded to close the prawn and fish-farming industries.

I will stand by my record. The Courier-Mail, in a front-page article on me as the minister for northern development, said, 'Since you became the minister for northern development there has not been one single square inch of North Queensland declared a national park.' I said, 'Could you please put that on the front page of your newspaper and watch the ALP savage me over it!' Every time they savage me I hope and think that my fellow North Queenslanders will take a position and say, 'Good on you!' So I will stand on my record, my friend. But, unfortunately for you, you have to stand on the record of your party—and the record of your party smells to the high heavens.

And if someone is out performing—and I think that the federal government is performing on this issue, just grandstanding before an election—at the expense of my fishermen in the Gulf of Carpentaria and at the very great expense of the fishermen in the Gulf of Carpentaria, they have already done colossal damage to them. One of the remaining fishermen there has just said: 'I am going to throw the towel in, mate. If they don't get me now, they will get me later on.' He said this on the John McKenzie program in North Queensland.

We watched as Australia very proudly exported $300 million or $400 million of seafood product more than we imported. But thanks to the actions of the free marketeers and to the free-market policies of the two parties that dominate this parliament, and thanks to the closures of the Liberal Party—the Labor Party were not there but I am sure that they would have done it if they had been there; I do not have any illusions that the ALP would have done if they were there; but the Labor Party was not there and the Liberals were—they did the damage.

Let me just go back to the seafood figures. There are about $300 million more in exports and imports. I think this year it will be $200 million more imports and exports. You could draw a graph. You could talk to Alistair Dick, who is the leading authority probably in prawn farming in Australia. I rang Alistair and I said, 'I am looking at these figures from China on prawn farming and fish farming.' If you extrapolate them out—and the graph is almost vertical—then I would say that within about 40 years all of the world's protein will be coming from China. There will not be any moo-cows walking around or piggy-wiggies or chickens or anything like that. I am not saying that the graph will continue to be vertical, but at the present moment it is.

As a minister I was given great credit for founding that industry and most certainly we played a key role. Dr Joe Baker from the Institute of Marine Science and those great heroes—the Wardays, the Sharkers, Jimmy Riles, the Irwin Viadors—and many others were the people that risked their money and pioneered this industry and created for Australia some $600 million a year of income. Now I think that our prawn production is down to about $20 million and I cannot see the industry lasting much longer.

We have got to clean the water four times thanks to the environmentalists on both sides of this parliament. We have got to clean the water arguably four times, most certainly three times, before we put it back into the river system or into the sea. Whereas our competitor nations put raw sewage into the Yangtze River and all the other rivers up there. They just pump the water out of the river into the ponds and then dump it straight back in. We just simply cannot compete against that sort of practice.

All right, if you say that it is fair enough to impose those conditions upon Australian farmers, do not let the product in from the countries that are not measuring up to those environmental and health requirements. If you put raw sewage into water that goes into the ponds then you have a very high bacteria level and what you then have to do is to kill the bacteria. So you need a very high antibiotics regime. So the prawn and fish farming product coming in here is rife with bacteria and rife with antibiotics. But there is no labelling. It would be interesting to see whether the honourable members on my right will vote for the labelling laws. I will leave it to them to explain to the growers of Bundaberg and Bowen and all of those other areas why they are not voting for labelling laws. If you are going to let this product come in, at the very least you should be warning consumers that it is coming in and it has not been grown or processed under Australian conditions.

I applaud the LNP for moving this resolution. I applaud them but I have got to point out to the House the overwhelming hypocrisy of their actions as most of them were here when the marine parks were declared. They declared them. They voted for them. They created the marine parks. It is a weird situation.

A very good friend of mine, a very famous North Queenslander, was out with his grandson. He used to go out with his dad when he was young bloke—his dad migrated from Italy about 70 or 80 years ago—and they had been going out fishing there for nigh on 70 or 80 years. A helicopter came down and he waved to it, as he is a very friendly bloke—I do not think that he has ever got a parking ticket in his life. Then the helicopter took off and a police boat came out. He said good day to the police and asked whether they would like a stubby with him—a very friendly bloke—and they said, 'We are here to arrest you. You have gone into a green zone.' The green zones were created by the Liberal Party and the National Party.

Mr Entsch interjecting—

No, you will cop it, my friend! It is your hypocrisy and you will sit there and you will cop it. You voted to impose upon North Queensland the closure of all of those areas.

Mr Entsch interjecting—

You voted to impose that upon all of those areas.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, member for Leichardt! The member for Leichardt will stop interjecting!

Mr Entsch interjecting—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I went along to every one of those meetings and did everything I could possibly humanly do. You voted for it. You are the architect of it. This gentleman over here from Leichardt making all the noise, the temporary member for Leichardt, and his party voted for it.

I want to go back to this gentleman. Let us call him Fred. The police boat came in and Fred waved and he offered the police a couple of beers and they said, 'No, we are here to arrest you.' This person came to see me. He was dreadfully upset. In all of their years in Australia—and his family had migrated many years before—no-one had ever been arrested before. He was left with a criminal conviction. We had enormous difficulty having the criminal conviction removed. I for one grovelled on my bended knees to the government and government officials on both sides of the parliament—it was a transition of government—to try and get the criminal charges removed and the criminal record expunged.

I will conclude on this note, Mr Deputy Speaker. I recommend to everyone to go along and see that wonderful movie of Russell Crowe's called Robin Hood. It is very historically correct. It is a rundown to the Magna Carta. I raced home and got out all my books on Magna Carta because I would bet London to a brick on that it would be in that great piece of architecture for our culture and our laws called the Great Charter—Magna Carta in Latin. Sure enough, there it was: the people have a right to sustenance from the land and the sea. The Crown has no right to take away their right to sustenance. Our right of sustenance was taken away from us on a massive scale by the Liberal Party and now today it is being taken away from us by the ALP. If members on my right, on the opposition benches, are in any way genuine, when we move the motion and divide the House to get the marine parks back to one quarter of their current size, I would expect that if they are consistent they will support that resolution of the parliament. I will deeply appreciate their support.

My family go back 130 or 140 years in North Queensland. For all of our history North Queenslanders have farmed those areas and there has been no diminution in the fish populations. There was never any evidence produced at any stage that there was diminishing of the fish populations. When you consider that the average fish has about 20,000 eggs it lays every year then you can realise that it is a bit silly to talk about some bloke going out there destroying the fish populations. So the argument was very spurious and the Liberal Party were playing to the environmental push and influences in their own party. The ALP were most certainly playing to those influences and under the puppet masters the Greens, which please God in the forthcoming election will be eliminated. They will be eliminated by my party.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh!

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You laugh, which gives me an excuse to explain it, because these things are a bit complicated for you, I know. I will lay it down in the simplest terms. When we went in there we got 12 per cent of the vote; their vote dropped from 12 per cent to six per cent. My case rests. We are out there to destroy the Greens, let there be no doubt about that. Let me add that we will be determined that we will use the power given to us to cut back and give back to our boys the right to go fishing, camping, hunting and shooting, the right again to be boys, to give back to the people of Australia the freedoms that our forebears died for at Magna Carta in 1215 at Runnymede. They wrote down and they died for a principle that the land and the sea do not belong to the Crown, they belong to the people. (Time expired)

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope the member for Kennedy will stick around because I want to respond to some of the things he said. When the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park green zone system was introduced, I was actually working for a member of parliament, the former member for Dawson, De-Anne Kelly. De-Anne remained inside the tent with the coalition and we fought that long and hard. I was one of her key advisers, and it was done by regulation; it was not done by legislation. I have got to tell you that I was one of the people who went and saw the fishermen, saw the heartache that this great betrayal of the farmers of the sea was causing them. It tore you to pieces. Blokes whose livelihoods for generations had depended on farming the sea, fishing, were destroyed by the stroke of a pen with little real consultation, with little real science. What it was was a push from an overseas organisation called Pew dictating to Australia. It is to my great shame as a member of the National Party that it was the National Party in coalition that allowed that to happen. We were fighting against it, make no mistake. But there was no convincing the environment ministers at the time.

Now we are faced with the same situation once again where more of our marine area is going to be locked up and fishermen locked out—recreational fishermen and commercial fishermen. The member for Calare and the member for Paterson have both spoken on this motion and spoken very well outlining a number of facts, but I have to tell you that there is no doubt in my mind that these marine parks, and certainly the management plans associated with them, need to be disallowed. We do not have the opportunity to disallow the marine parks themselves. The people in this place, the representatives of the Australian people, should have that say. Unfortunately we do not, so we are resorting to disallowing the management plans here, the things that will give the marine parks the teeth. These management plans, indeed the marine parks that this government has imposed, are opposed by just about every representative of recreational and professional fishing organisations in Australia: the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation, the Australian Marine Alliance, the Commonwealth Fisheries Association, Sunfish, Tuna West, the Australian Fishing Trade Association, Recfish, the Australian Sportfishing Association, the Game Fishing Association of Australia—I could go on and on with names of representative organisations in the recreational and professional fishing game that are against this marine park proposal. You name it, when it comes to fishing they are against it. They are against it because of what is actually in these management plans.

Let us have a look at what this marine park proposal will do. It will effectively lock up 1½ million square kilometres of marine environment around this nation. There is no scientific integrity at all about this process. The science was kept secret—secret from the industry and secret from recreational fishermen. When they wanted to see it—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was tabled in parliament.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was kept secret for way too long. And the science was not real science; it was based on political horse trading with the coalition partners of the Gillard Labor government—the Greens.

This proposal is going to result in lost revenue for fishing industries and fishing businesses right around the country. There are at least 60 regional communities that this will impact upon. It is estimated by the Australian Marine Alliance that there will be a six per cent gross downgrade in local government revenue as a result. There will be thousands of jobs lost as a result of this fishing lockout. There will be 70 to 80 trawler operators displaced and an increase of probably $1½ billion in seafood imports into this country. We already import into this country 70 per cent of our seafood. That figure will increase. It will probably be at 80 per cent within a few years of this marine park proposal coming into effect.

The southern eastern scale fishery is threatened as a direct result of this. We have basically wiped out a $2 billion commercial aquaculture industry. The Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery is threatened. There is $12 million displaced in Jervis Bay and we have $58.2 million in management costs for closures around the country. The minister and the government say that compensation is around $100 million, but the industry is saying that it could be closer to half a billion dollars. One of the big things that I am worried about is the complete closure of the Coral Sea to any form of fishing. This is ridiculous. This is clearly ridiculous.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And untrue.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not untrue. The Coral Sea will effectively be closed down to commercial fishing. You shake your head, Minister, but it is in your plan. Your plan closes down fishing right around this country, and the Coral Sea is front and centre of that closure. The minister has treated the industry and the recreational fishermen with absolute contempt—contempt because there has not been genuine consultation in his approach. The member for Calare talked about 30 days of consultation when the industry begged the minister to give them at least 90 days of consultation.

The minister comes in with here with a bundle of books saying, 'This is the science behind it; look at this bundle of books.' There is one simple question to prove that there is little science at all behind this, and that simple question is: what is the conservation value of the places that you are locking up? I have not heard what the conservation is. There is another question as well: what is the threat that is imposed upon the biological diversity in the area that you are locking up? The threat simply cannot be recreational fishermen. It is hardly likely to be commercial fishermen either.

The minister always gets up and has a bit of a belly laugh: 'Oh, you can't take a tinny off the coast that far—ha, ha, ha!' Go to the Mackay marina and have a look at some of the boats that are there. I can tell you that they go pretty far off the coast. Some of them go out to Marion Reef, which is also being locked up. The Keep Australia Fishing movement have been campaigning very strongly against this proposal. They say:

The proposed marine parks start three nautical miles to sea and extend to the limit of Australia's 200-mile exclusive economic zone. It's true to say that many of these areas are a fair distance offshore but the fact is it doesn't matter where the zones are. The main point is that these anti-fishing lockouts are discriminatory, unfair and not necessary. Many of the proponents of these lockout zones go to great lengths to say that these zones, especially those in the Coral Sea in northern Queensland, are too far out to be of interest to the average angler. But they then talk about these areas as being fantastic locations for recreational divers and other tourists to visit. If these places are within range of divers and other groups, then surely it's reasonable to expect that anglers also have the ability to access these areas? The fact is anglers can and do travel big distances offshore in their own vessels and with charter operations, just like recreational divers and other marine tourists. The argument that the marine parks are too far offshore just doesn't stack up.

And I have to say that it does not stack up. I also have to say that you cannot have it both ways. If there is no fishing happening out there—if there are no tinnies going out there, as the minister says—then what is the threat? Why are we locking these areas up? It just simply does not make sense. The fact is that there is fishing happening out there but it is not a threat to these areas.

One operation that actually goes out there is Nomad Sportsfishing. Nomad Sportsfishing takes boats out of Mackay and they go out to Marion Reef—again, one of those areas that is going to be locked up under this proposal. One of the people who runs Nomad Sportsfishing is a fellow by the name of Damon Olsen. Damon has an interesting letter on the Nomad Sportsfishing website. It is a letter to all of his customers. He takes people out there on recreational fishing trips. He says in the letter:

I've been in Canberra recently, and been to meetings with the federal environment minister, Tony Burke, and had a significant involvement in this process so far. The previous letter that everyone sent to the minister, through the Nomad Sportfishing website, made this meeting possible, and made the government realise that this is a serious issue for recreational anglers.

All we want to achieve here is to ensure that our marine reserves are implemented with thorough scientific planning, scientific principles and practical outcomes that work for all user groups. All recreational fishing groups support closed off areas, but only when thorough scientific processes have shown that these closed off areas are required. The current process is closing off huge areas to recreational fishermen simply so the government can keep green groups happy and stay in power.

The massive problem that we face here is that Science has long ago been abandoned by the politicians, and they are now playing a game of drawing colours on maps simply to keep the powerful and well funded green lobby groups at bay.

When I read that about drawing lines on maps, I thought, 'Oh, he is being a bit metaphorical there.' But no—he is actually being literal. Listen to this:

I have a first hand example of this from the meeting with the federal environment minister. The current process is proposing to close off the main area of the Perth trench to all gamefishing activities, essentially shutting down the entire gamefishing industry and community in Perth. We asked the minister why this zone had been placed in it's proposed position. We were told that the minister drew that zone himself because they needed one in that area, and there was no information to tell him where to put it, so he just placed it where he thought was appropriate.

That is great science—fantastic science! That is science by texta: 'We'll get out a whiteboard and a map and we'll just circle an area and say, "That is what we need to lock up."' How ridiculous. So all the books you want can be brought in, but here is something that was said to a recreational fishing business, and the minister has to answer to that allegation, because it is quite damning.

We have a major impact, which has been spoken of before by the member for Calare and the member for Paterson, on our domestic commercial fishing industry, and they are really going to feel the squeeze from this. But we are removing all of their effort—protecting these marine parks from the recreational fishermen and from the commercial fishermen.

The minister raised the prospect earlier today that, 'If we do this, we could have oil rigs suddenly popping up there.' But actually there is a process that that would have to go through. If we were to pass this tonight, they would not simply be set up tomorrow; they would not be set up at all, because there are processes that they have to go through: the environmental protection and biodiversity conservation process is one of those.

So what is actually being stopped in this area? It is not recreational diving, it is not tourists, it is not pleasure boats and it is not commercial shipping. Not even naval vessels will be excluded from the zone. A huge oil tanker could actually go through some of these zones. There are no restrictions on that sort of stuff. But there is a restriction on the fishermen. There is a restriction on the commercial fishermen. There is a restriction on the recreational fishermen. This is basically demonising an Australian pastime, saying that it is wrong and harmful to the environment. But there is no proof of that.

I sit on the House's Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, and I have heard the testimony from the government-funded Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, and they have actually said that our commercial fisheries here in Australia are sustainable. There are no unsustainable practices taking place. That is what the Fisheries RDC said—the Fisheries RDC that this government helps fund. So we have government policies at loggerheads here. On the one hand, we have the policy before us saying, 'There is a threat posed by fishing to the marine environment,' but on the other hand we have the people who actually know—the guys doing the research—saying that there is not.

This disallowance motion should be passed by the House. We need to knock this off the agenda and let people just get on with fishing—the pastime that they enjoy. (Time expired)

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity of speaking tonight on this motion and of speaking up for all the coastal communities around Northern Australia. In my view it is a great disappointment that the creation of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves network is not disallowable. But, given the management plans, maybe we can make the best of a bad situation.

I seconded the motion on the north and north-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves, and I have something to say to the member for Kennedy, who earlier on made a lot of noise in here, about a bit of history in this area. If we go back to the introduction of green zones in 2004, I am on the record as being vehemently opposed to the introduction of those, and, again, to the texta 'science' behind it. It was, at that stage, members of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority that had actually encouraged the fishermen to come forward and identify the areas that they could not afford to lose. And then, when the next draft was released, every area that had been marked in purple texta had been turned into a green zone. At the time, I was highly critical. Obviously, the member for Kennedy had no idea what he was talking about, in so much as there was not a vote; these changes in the green zone were done by regulation.

At the time I spoke up against my own minister because within that regulation there was a compensation package of $10 million, and, at the time, I said that that was absolutely ridiculous and that the impact that this was going to have on the fishing community and on these coastal communities was going to be well in excess of $200 million. I was told by the minister and his bureaucrats at the time that exaggeration like that really did not do me any favours in relation to my credibility. Yet what is the compensation package so far? Over $240 million, and that is nowhere near the damage that has been done to the businesses and communities that were affected by this very, very flawed regulation.

I might add that the member for Kennedy had nothing to do in relation to trying to deal with that compensation; that was me and Senator Boswell. He mentioned his mate Fred being prosecuted in this area; again, it was Senator Boswell who effected the changes that allowed these people to get a fair hearing in relation to that issue.

On the western coast of Cape York Peninsula, fishing is a highly valued commercial, recreational and tourism staple, and I doubt that that changes much as we move further west. I share the concerns raised by my good colleague here, the member for Dawson, specifically addressing the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserves.

Just to highlight the lack of common sense and of science that surrounds the restrictions on the use of our marine resources under the existing management plan, I would like to highlight a number of businesses based in my electorate. The Northern Prawn Fishery extends from Cape York in Queensland to Cape Londonderry in Western Australia. An article in the Cairns Post on 20 November celebrated the fact that overseas buyers are:

… lining up to take product from the Northern Prawn Fishery after its sustainable certification by the Marine Stewardship Council.

Gaining this certification is no mean feat. It proves that the operators in this fishery are using world best practice to harvest their catch very sustainably with less impact on the environment and on bycatch.

So what does this government do? It takes this certification and it rubbishes it absolutely by declaring the North and North West Marine Reserves, shutting down effectively 20 per cent of the Northern Prawn Fishery. What about the millions these operators have invested and the thousands of jobs they support? I just shake my head in disbelief.

I will talk about a couple of our small marine businesses in Cairns. Wayne and Sally Bayne have operated Mitchell's Marine since they founded it in Sydney over 40 years ago in 1972. They moved to Cairns in 1981 and had a highly respected, very successful business. Because of the uncertainty that has been created by this nonsense that has been peddled by this minister, four months ago they shut that business down. It is completely gone. The same goes for Marcel Marjean of Cairns Custom craft. He has been building recreational and commercial vessels in Cairns for 25 years but has shut his business down completely. It is little wonder that we have such high unemployment—the highest in the country—in my region, and a lot of this has contributed to the nonsense that the minister has been peddling as he continues to be a slave to cancerous organisations like the Pew foundation in the United States.

We also have Daniel McCarthy, owner of Big Fish Down Under. He will be heavily impacted because of the restrictions on big game fishing in the Coral Sea. Bob and Annie Lamason of Great Barrier Reef Tuna in Cairns really take special consideration and the minister is very aware of this family. They have been beaten senseless over what was an incredibly successful business. It used to pay about $2,000 to $3,000 per vessel per year for licences in the 1990s and had seven boats that cost about $20,000. I opposed the impact the green zones had on them but it has continued to compound. Back in the 1990s Bob was catching about 1,200 tonnes of tuna a year. Back then, there were no by-catch restrictions, there was no wire trace, there was no VMS. Bob also had a much wider range that he could move around. Now the area where he can catch has been totally constrained. He is restricted down to four vessels for which he is paying on an average more than $40,000 per year—a total of $160,000 per annum—and is now permitted to catch 600 tonnes of tuna a year. Due to the fact that he has been forced out into areas where the species no longer congregate because of the science that this minister talks about, last year he only managed to catch 300 tonnes. In addition, since the announcement of the government's marine park network—another challenge and it is death by 1,000 strokes—he has lost two of his skippers because of the uncertainty of the industry. Bob says:

We are catching less than half a percent of the Western Pacific Yellow Fin and Big Eye tuna, so what is the government really managing for their money?

It is just an absolute outrage. I say that if we do manage to change this, we need to be reintroducing a sustainability requirement into this area so that people can go out there and fish. We need people like Bob and Annie. They deserve to be paid out and we should be selling and expanding licences based on sustainability. We can use some of the reserves that we get from the sale of those licences to assist people like Bob and Annie, the last family standing in that area, to give them a chance to get out with some level of dignity.

I talked to Annie tonight. T hey are in a bit of an unusual situation. They are in their 60s and they cannot sell their business. It is no longer viable because of the restrictions that have been put on them. They want out and I believe we have an obligation to make sure that they have access to a package that allows them to move forward with their lives because they have really copped the brunt of a lot of these flawed decisions.

Cairns Marine Aquarium has another three generations who have been catching reef fish for aquariums from where there was no sustainability issue. They were forced to withdraw from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I managed, working with them, to get them compensation of some $3.8 million. They used that money to purchase bigger boats that enabled them to go further out into the Coral Sea to operate and set up the infrastructure at their Cairns base. But now with these new Coral Sea Marine Reserve restrictions it is likely that, out of 16 operators currently working in the area, only three will be able to continue. The casualties will include line and trap fishermen, the rock lobster and beche de mer fisheries, along with other aquarium operators.

The major issue here is that the government is looking for 100 per cent cost recovery. The total cost of the management is currently about $300,000. Instead of spreading it around 16 licences, it will have to be spread over three.

As Ryan Donnelly said:

The funny thing is that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority holds us up as a 'poster child' for the fishing industry on the Great Barrier Reef. These are the people who you'd think would want us to stop fishing on the Reef.

If we're forced out of the Coral Sea, the infrastructure and boats and buildings at our Stratford site will all have to go.

Of course we do not need to talk about the impact that it is going to have on our restaurants in the area, from Cairns and Port Douglas through to Cooktown et cetera and right across. They will be seriously impacted by the lack of fresh fish. As the member for Dawson said, we are already importing something like 70 per cent of our seafood. It is amazing: we have the largest economic exclusion zone, one of the largest in the world—there is nowhere at all that there is any pressure at all on this—and we are underfishing to blazes, and yet we are shutting it down.

The classic example is the Coral Sea. Bob Lamason said that out of our percentage of the Coral Sea, we took 300 tonnes; Papua New Guinea, 1.7 million tonnes; and New Caledonia, 2.1 million tonnes. I just wonder how much of an impact on the environment our 300 tonnes will have when we shut it down. Absolutely none at all. We would have been far better off talking to Papua New Guinea and to New Caledonia about doing a sustainable arrangement instead of getting on our knees and crawling across and sucking up to putrid organisations like Pew. They won't touch them in Papua New Guinea; they won't touch them in New Caledonia. Why? Because it is American licensed fishermen who are working in those areas, and they have not got the guts to take them on. Unfortunately, this minister over here, Minister Burke, also does not have the guts to take these people on. He would rather sacrifice Australian businesses than take on his mates from the Pew foundation. It is an absolute disgrace.

The other thing that worries me—of course a lot of this stuff has been based not on flawed science but on no science whatsoever. It is also based on a whole lot of claptrap and lies. This went out at 4.15 this afternoon. It was a bulk email sent by one of our senators and a minister in the other place—Senator McLucas. I will just read this to you. This went out, as I said, at 4.15, and it said:

Just last year, Labor declared the biggest network of marine parks in the world. But what we've fought so hard for could disappear in just a few months.

If the Liberals get their way then as of tonight, it will be legal to drill for oil and gas off Margaret River. It will be legal to drill for oil and gas in the Coral sea.

What a load of hogwash! This is the rubbish that these people try to peddle.

One of the biggest problems we had when we tried to deal with this in 2004 was that 80 per cent of the population lives in this little golden triangle on 20 per cent of our landmass. For the rest of us who live out there in regional Australia and try to make a living out there, using our natural resources, it makes it very difficult—that is, the 20 per cent of the population. And all of this rubbish that gets peddled goes into metropolitan Australia. They see it on their TVs, on these flash ads that are put up by these gangrenous organisations like Pew and others. Not only does the minister believe it—or is silly enough to believe it—but it is also rammed down the throats of people in our metropolitan areas. But people started to realise when they came to places like Cairns that it was not the fact. I think we will see a very different situation now.

She goes on to say:

It will be legal to use long lines, gillnets, trawls and spears in the marine national park—

This is just absolute rubbish. This is the sort of scare tactic these people have continually used to justify their actions. We should be using the resources that we are blessed with. We should be going to out there using them sustainably. There should be no restrictions on the access or the use of this. We should be using it based purely on sustainability— (Time expired)

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In addressing this disallowance motion for the Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plans, let me begin with a simple proposition: we support marine parks where they are based on appropriate science, appropriate consultation and the outcome is a balanced outcome. What we do not support is a lockout of mums and dads and people who will go fishing recreationally, the ability of families to access their local areas. That is the problem with what has occurred here.

Let me be absolutely clear. It was the Howard government that started this process, from a balanced perspective. It was the Howard government that created the south-eastern marine approach, and we are very proud of what we created—and I am going to deal with one of the falsities that the minister put to the House today, and which he knows is false. But, against that background, our approach has been balance: what is it that we need to protect; what is it that will allow families, recreational fishers and others to be able to participate in the great Australian pastime of casting a line for a bite? That is not a great threat to Australia's marine environment; that is not a great threat to our fish resources, our marine stocks, to our ability to protect and manage our environment because these families, these recreational fishers, are actually conservationists. These are people who care about the marine environment. They are not the folks who should be demonised, as has been the case from the ALP right throughout this process. So we stand up for recreational fishers, we stand up for people who care about the marine environment and we stand up for conservation. There will be a marine parks process that will continue under us if we are successful and if this motion is successful, but it will be based on common sense, fairness, science and consultation. They are the practical things.

Mr Deputy Speaker Cheeseman, representing as you do the seat of Corangamite—I just wanted to put that on the record—I want to deal with four items that came about today from the government's statements and the minister's statements. Firstly, this notion that we would be voting against the Howard government's plan: false, untrue, incorrect, inaccurate and the minister knows it. He has been caught out on that one. We put in place a regional plan, and with that we also put in place a management plan. What is being voted on here is a variation to that, and the default position is that which was the case will be the case if we are successful.

This, I am sorry to say, Mr Deputy Speaker Cheeseman, brings me to your own work. I have in front of me today a statement which has been sent out: 'Our marine parks in danger.' It makes the point that, 'Just last year Labor declared the biggest network of marine parks in the world.' It is a big area—it is a massive area—and people will be locked out of that area. So that is right. Then there is the false statement: 'It will be legal to drill for oil and gas off Apollo Bay. It will be legal to use long lines, gillnets and spears in these areas.' That is untrue. That which was the case will continue to be the case. The default position will continue, and that is the Howard government plan. It was a good plan. I helped negotiate it myself. I spoke with the fishing community. I worked with the fishing community and we actually reached an agreement with the fishing community, as opposed to what has occurred in this place on this occasion.

So I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, to say that what was sent out in your name today—I can only assume it was done without your consent!—was untrue. I am sorry, Minister, to say that what you said before this chamber today was untrue. There will be no lack of protection. The default position remains the case. You know it; we know it. It is what it is, but in the grand scheme of things it was, of course, a small deception.

On the same front, a simple statement—not that the world will collapse, but there had been no media coverage. I want to present the front page and page 4 of the Surf Coast Times from today, showing our candidate for Corangamite, Sarah Henderson, with Rex Hunt. The article on page 4 is headed, 'Fishers fight against marine parks'.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Read the final paragraph of the article.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, absolutely, the minister is quoted. I noted in question time today he talked about going out of where we were today and turning left. Well, actually, if he went out and turned left, he would have ended up in the Barwon River. It doesn't matter—another minor deception. Let me table—I am sure the minister will allow it and I am sure Deputy Speaker Cheeseman will be delighted for me to do so—the front page of today's Surf Coast Times, which shows the rally, and on page 4, 'Fishers fight against marine parks,' Tuesday, 4 June, 2013: Rex Hunt and Sarah Henderson, candidate. I seek leave to table them.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that the same document that says that the nearest shut-out zone is 460 kilometres away?

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister's comments are in there.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the one that says 460 kilometres away?

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister's comments are in there.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then you are welcome to table it.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave granted.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me come to the last thing and the most important here, and that is the work which has been done on precisely this issue of the proximity of these marine parks to local communities. Let me run through some names. Mindarieand Two Rocks are within seven kilometres offshore. Busselton and Geographe Bay are nine kilometres. You travel around and you have other names: Fremantle, Karratha, Kalbarri; in Queensland, Karumba, Cooktown and Mackay; in South Australia, Ceduna and Streaky Bay; in the Northern Territory, Nhulunbuy; in Tasmania, Bicheno and St Helens; in New South Wales, Port Macquarie, Yamba and Byron Bay. These are all within 12 kilometres. These are all, according to the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation, places where up to tens of thousands of people would otherwise have visited for recreational fishing purposes each and every year.

Let me just read the number of groups that are involved here. We have AFTA, ANSA, the Australian Underwater Federation, the Game Fishing Association Australia, Keep Australia Fishing, the PFIGA, Recfish Australia, the Recreational Fishing Alliance of New South Wales, Recfishwest, Sunfish Queensland and TARFish from Tasmania. We have USFA and VRFish. That is a summary of the groups which are involved. That is a summary of the places which have been affected.

So, very simply, this has a real impact on recreational fishing. This has a real impact on fisherfolk, on families, on the ability of people to do what they have normally done. Tens of thousands of people in each of these places, according to the advice of the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation, will have their ability to carry on one of life's simple pleasures impaired. That is why these boundaries on this day in this form should be rejected. We will continue with the process. We will make sure that there is real protection, but not in this way and not in this form.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I start by saying that I am not a fisherman's bootlace. As a matter of fact, my father-in-law and my brother-in-law are excellent fishermen. They go down the Burdekin River and out from there. They sat me down in the shed at the farm and they said to me, 'Look, we'll give you all the fish you can eat, we'll give you all the crabs and prawns you can eat—just don't come fishing with us.' That is my involvement in fishing. I have been out to the reef once in my entire life. I had an absolute ball and I can understand why people go out there, but it is not for me.

Can I take the minister on a bit of a history trip. In 2010 I was the candidate for the election. The boundaries had been redrawn and Labor was the favourite to win in the electorate. Global warming and climate change were issues. I did not know what the answer was. But being an auctioneer my stock-in-trade is the people I know. I knew the then CEO of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, so I went down and I spoke to him about climate change. He explained to me in layman's terms about what it is and how it works. He convinced me that we should trust the science. So in all my conversations since 2010 with James Cook University, CSIRO, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science I have entered into these conversations by saying: 'We've got to understand the science. If we get good science to start off with, we're okay.'

During that campaign, Senator Ron Boswell, as only 'Bozzie' can, came and was ramping up—'They will close down the Coral Sea!' I was on a fishing show on 4K1G Too Deadly, a syndicated radio station all throughout the cape and around Townsville. It is a community radio station that has a fishing show on Saturday mornings. I was on there with the Fishing Party representative and the then Labor candidate for the seat of Herbert. He was adamant: 'There is no way known that we will close the Coral Sea. It is absolute rubbish that you guys are peddling. It is not going to happen.' He jumped up and down and he swore at me on the radio and said: 'This will not happen. I will cross the floor. We don't do that. That's not the Labor way. What we say before an election counts for what happens after.' That is what he said. We hit the boat ramps and the car parks. We went and saw everyone we could to make sure this message got across.

I got elected; I won the election. I took over from the sitting member, Peter Lindsay. I like a beer in a public bar. One public bar I frequent is in the Commonwealth Hotel. That is also frequented by the fishing fraternity. There are lots of fishing people there. Lots of people off trawlers drink there. I was sitting in the public bar there one day and a bloke came up to me and said: 'You're that bloke who just got elected, aren't you?' I said, 'Yes, I am.' He said: 'For the first time in my life I voted Liberal, I voted for the coalition. Do you know why? Because I don't believe they are not going to close down the Coral Sea.' How right he was.

Pretty soon we started getting emails from the Protect Our Coral Sea people. Once again we are guided by science straight out of James Cook University, Terry Hughes at the ARC down to the Australian Institute of Marine Science. I rang Russell Reichelt: 'Mate, where they're talking about the Coral Sea is not really about GBRMPA from where you are concerned because it is so far off. Don't worry too much about it from GBRMPA's point of view.' I went and spoke to John Gunn, the new CEO. He said, 'The problem we have with the Coral Sea is that there is so little real science done because it is so big.'

In fact, the only real science ever done there was when they used to put scientists on the Japanese fishing fleets that used to go through there, because it is so expensive to get there. From Townsville, from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, it takes about 36 to 48 hours, depending on the weather, to get to the area that has been proclaimed. That is how far away it is from Townsville. They used to put a scientist on a fishing boat to see what was pulled in, make their notes and go on from there. When we phased out the commercial Japanese fishing fleets in the 1980s that stopped and so did the science. Up until then we had no real science.

I keep hearing about the Pew Foundation and them being everywhere. I have checked with all my local science based organisations and they are not being engaged by the government in any way, shape or form on this. They are not being asked and they are not being engaged. The Pew Foundation comes to Townsville and spends a maximum of 48 hours in Townsville. They go to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, walk through the fantastic aquarium that is there, spend a couple of hours at James Cook University—they do not go down to the Australian Institute of Marine Science—and then they are out. Lo and behold, we get the world's biggest marine park. We get the biggest set of marine parks in the world.

The worst part about it is that straightaway the campaign to expand that starts from Protect Our Coral Sea. It has already started to expand. Immediately the minister said we are going to make this decision Protect Our Coral Sea started the campaign to expand it—more into the area of Warren Entsch, the member for Leichhardt. I want to touch briefly on the green and yellow zones. Once again, I am not a fisherman and I did not go to the meetings there. The member for Leichhardt was 100 per cent correct when he said that all the local fishermen were asked to nominate those areas where they went fishing and what we could not possibly lose and then they were made into green and yellow zones. Every fisherman was devastated by that. I have got blokes there now who still will not share a single bit of information with anybody about where they go just in case GBRMPA find out about it.

The one thing you must say, and the one thing I do say to every recreational fisherman, is that they work. The minister is 100 per cent correct when he says that we have got better coral trout. They do migrate. The yellow zones are better. There are things I would like to deal with on that, but that is for another time and not necessarily for tonight. There are things that we could do there. The green zones work.

The difference between what the minister has done here and what the Howard government did then is that Ian Macdonald and Peter Lindsay fronted the entertainment centre in Townsville, which is capable of holding 5,500 people and was pretty full of recreational fishermen who felt devastated. The Labor candidate against me in 2010 was the then Mayor of Townsville and he was front and centre leading the charge as to why this was wrong. That is what happens when you muck around with recreational fishermen. But they fronted, they made the decisions and the science was proven. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority proved that it worked and it has worked.

I say again that from Townsville the Coral Sea, the marine park, is a long way away, but if you ban commercial fishermen from being there the commercial fishermen will have to shift and over time they will put more stress on where the recreational fishermen go. The minister has stood at the dispatch box more than once and said that no-one in a tinny is going out to the Coral Sea, and that is 100 per cent correct. But if the commercial fishers are trawling beside you and netting beside you while you are sitting in your 5½-metre Quintrex that is a very uncomfortable place to be. That is what puts the pressure on the recreational fisher. That is why I say to the minister this motion should be carried—because of what the consequences are going to be and where we are going to go.

It is easy to close the Coral Sea. It is easy for people in the cities to just see the seas rolling and say: 'Yes, you can shut that up. There's nothing out there.' But you do not see what is in Townsville, what is in Mackay and what is on the wharves in Cairns. I hope the minister has been to the Solomon Islands to see the fishing tracking places they have set up there that track all the fishing vessels throughout the Pacific and the amount of fishing being done. They go right up to the boundaries and have tracking beacons on. Who is to say that, because we do not have any commercial fishing out there and do not patrol it, they do not just turn the beacon off, go in there and rape and pillage the place forever?

Even in the parliamentary dining room here the barramundi is from Taiwan. Senator Bill Heffernan asked the chef to bring out the box. He said it was from the southern part of the ocean

The box said 'Taiwan'. I can tell you right now, Minister: if you have ever tasted fresh barramundi you will know that stuff up there is not from North Queensland.

We need to protect our industries. We need to protect our things. So you see out there that there is no alliance and there are no jobs missing, but there are tonnes of good jobs and tonnes of dollars missing from Australia. This gets down to an argument about good government. This gets down to the fact that what you say before an election should mean something to the rest of the world after you are elected. There are two major things that this government said before an election that they would not do and that they have done. One is, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' and look where that has got you. The second is, 'We will not shut down the Coral Sea.' That is what this government said, and look what they did. They are going to expand the area and the government simply does not care that the recreational fishing industry and the commercial fishing industry in North Queensland will be the losers. Australia is the loser if that happens.

I say to you, Minister, that you should let this motion pass. We should get rid of it. This is my Mr Smith Goes to Washington moment and, on the strength of my oratory and the passion of my cause, if I could go on all night I would. You must change this, Minister. The minister must allow this motion through, because this is right. This is what you and your government said before the election and if you want to change it you should take it to the people. You should take it to the people at the coming election. What you have done is not right. I thank the House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased that the minister is at the table to hear my contribution—

Mr Burke interjecting—

And what a contribution it will be, I hear him say. I would like to share with the minister and the House a couple of really interesting quotes:

Australia has a great record for when it comes to the sustainability of our fisheries, and these reports —

and I will refer to the reports in a minute—

are a fantastic information base for governments, researchers, fishers, industry and the community to work from to make sure that remains the case.

The person speaking says:

Fishing is a big part of Australian culture and is an important local industry for many communities around our coastline.

Those words are from the agriculture minister, Senator Joe Ludwig, and these are part of the first international snapshot of fish stocks, which was released on 11 December last year. More than 80 of the country's leading fisheries, researchers from Australian state and territory governments and research agencies collaborated to produce the reports, which assessed 49 species representing more than 80 per cent of the value and 70 per cent of the volume of Australian wildcatch fisheries. I am sure the minister is well aware of the reports to which I am referring. Of the 49 key wildcatch fish species selected, 150 stocks were assessed and 98 were classified as sustainable stocks. Only two stocks were classified as overfished and these have management plans in place for their recovery.

That is the first lot of quotes I would like to share with you. The second is another interesting one which I am sure the minister would also be well aware of:

We are a great food-producing nation and the old phraseology is that we could be the food bowl for Asia. That's an idea that's been around for a long time, but we can make that a reality. There are already seven billion people on earth and another two billion to be added by 2035 … in addition to that big increase in population the rising middle classes of Asia are demanding more high-protein foods. And for Australia that means more beef, more sheep meat and more dairy products.

Those words were uttered on 13 March last year by the trade minister, Craig Emerson.

Tonight, we are talking about a disallowance motion of the six management plans introduced into the House of Representatives and Senate on 12 March this year. The management plans are as follows: Coral Sea, North Commonwealth, North-West Commonwealth, South-east Commonwealth, South-west Commonwealth and Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves. This is the second disallowance motion I have spoken to in recent months. The minister would be well aware of the last disallowance motion I spoke on because that was to disallow the Murray-Darling Basin plan.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You gave a great speech.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And it was a good speech. Thank you, Minister, I really appreciate it. I know he is being very genuine. That speech was on the last parliamentary sitting day of last year. Unfortunately, it did not receive the support of the House. Indeed, it was resoundingly defeated, but just by moving that particular motion I know that I got a guarantee from the coalition that we would, in government, cap buybacks to 1,500 gigalitres, which means that only 249 gigalitres remained to be recovered.

I know the minister has been to Griffith on at least three occasions this parliamentary term. I can recall him being there on 22 October 2010, 14 days after the release of initial guide to the Basin Plan; on 29 November 2011; and 15 December 2011, when 14,000 Griffith people turned up to protest against what they feared was going to be an erosion of their water rights. Certainly, this is all relative because we are talking about the erosion of the rights of fishers to fish in Australian waters. That is why this disallowance motion is so important, and that is why we are asking the government to agree with us on this.

We heard the member for Dawson give a very passionate address earlier. He is very concerned as well, not just for his electorate but for the rights of Australian fishers to be able to do what they have been doing for generations. It is an Australian right.

The Australian Marine Alliance highlighted in a 5 July 2012 media release—'United States' tuna purse-seine fleet steals the show in the Pacific as Labor and Greens relinquish support for Australian industry'—the relationship between the Australian Greens, the Gillard government and Australian industry and the fact that it had reached at that time a historic policy low. Goodness knows what that organisation would think now, because it has gotten progressively worse. Anyway, the chief executive of the Australian Marine Alliance, Dean Logan, said that, within days of the announcement to close millions of square kilometres of the ocean in the Coral Sea to Australian fishermen of all persuasions on the basis of protecting the environment, the massive USA tuna purse-seine fleet had agreed to pay Pacific Island countries US$630 million to catch in excess of four times Australia's total fish production in the same region—four times as much!

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unbelievable.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is unbelievable. They are paying them US$630 million. We are imposing these restrictions on our own fishers, yet here we have a catch that will be four times Australia's total fish production.

The summary of the concerns of the AMA is that the government has not identified a single threat to substantiate large-scale marine closures. Here is an interesting statistic: Australia imports in excess of 70 per cent of its seafood, yet compensation for consumers and how to deal with our food security concerns have not been addressed in any way. We have heard that time and time again. We heard the shadow agriculture minister—more importantly, the shadow minister for food security—talk about the lack of consultation by this particular government on so many matters concerning agriculture. Again, here we have another example of the government's lack of or poor consultation with those affected in the industry. They do not care if people go out of business. That is the crux of the matter. They do not care about the farmers and the fishers of Australia. They just care about the cobbled way this government is held together by the so-called regional Independents and by the Greens.

To those people listening, I would say that the very worst Labor member is better than the best Greens member. I thought the parliamentary secretary at the table, the Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, was going to interject on me. But he is not going to interject, because he knows what I say is true. To anybody listening, I would encourage them to put the Greens last on their ballot paper on 14 September. Put them last because they do nothing but damage our country. They are job destroyers. They hurt our farmers and they hurt our businesses. They have a social agenda which is un-Australian. I know the minister at the table, Minister Burke, and the parliamentary secretary beside him are in full agreement with me because otherwise they would be going to the dispatch box to tell me to get back on track.

This disallowance motion—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They voted with you on the Murray-Darling.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was only because they wanted more water. Yes, that was very interesting of them. If they had their way, things that they call 'diversions' and that we call roads, towns and bridges in the Riverina would be constraints on the Murray-Darling system. I am glad you raised that because, honestly, there are so many people who are worried that their farms are going to be flooded because of these environmental water plans that your government in conjunction with the Greens have put in place. It is just a disgrace. You know it, I know it and the member for Dawson certainly knows it.

We saw this last year in the debate about the supertrawler. We saw that that vessel was encouraged by this government to fish in Australian waters and, because of a social media campaign, the minister at the table acted, and all of a sudden we saw legislation to stop the supertrawler rushed into the House, along with all the other legislation that gets rushed into this House due to some knee-jerk reaction from this government. Honestly, if you want to get policy into this place, start up a Twitter campaign. Get on Twitter and bombard the government, because that is all they react to. It is not good public policy; it is Facebook and social media that are running this government. We saw it with the Four Corners program. Because it was on air on the ABC, all of a sudden the Prime Minister banned the live cattle trade. There was no consultation with industry. They just brought it in and industry is still feeling the full effects of that dreadful legislation.

Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting—

I hear the parliamentary secretary at the table calling out something. He has been promoted to a role in trade and, unfortunately, he is very against the live cattle trade. I can hear him saying something. Tell that to the Aboriginal stockmen who have been put out of their jobs. Tell that to the trailer manufacturer in my electorate who has had stock crate orders stopped from above. Tell that to the—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House is debating a disallowance motion concerning marine reserves. The member has spent something like 10 minutes talking about anything other than marine reserves. It might help if he got back to the motion.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The parliamentary secretary does point out a very valid matter. I ask the honourable member for Riverina to come back to the matter before the chair.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The truth hurts, Mr Deputy Speaker. Australia's fisheries are globally benchmarked and recognised as among the best managed anywhere in the world. Why then do we need to lock Australians out of our oceans? The coalition are committed to returning balance and fairness to marine conservation. This government are not. They are government by social media.

Marine protected areas are meant to protect and maintain biologically and culturally significant marine areas in Commonwealth waters. But they are locking them up to everybody. It is a shame we do not lock up some of our northern waters to the 42,000 boat people who have arrived on our shores. It was the previous coalition government that began the process of establishing marine protected areas around Australia's coastline, in line with Australia's internationally declared commitments. But this move by the government goes a step too far. It is locking up so much more of the ocean. The coalition guided the development of the south-east marine bioregional plan, which was formalised in 2006—and I know that the minister brought this point to question time today. It includes a network of 14 marine reserves, which were agreed after careful consideration and consultation—note that, Minister Burke: careful consideration and consultation, something that the minister's side of politics ought to learn from—with all stakeholders, including the recreational and commercial fishing sectors.

But the Gillard government does not have a track record of effective consultation. We heard the member for Calare say that. This consultation, back in 2006, ensured an appropriate balance was struck between protecting marine biodiversity and minimising the social and economic impact on fishers, businesses and coastal communities and achieving better outcomes. The final result was a larger area protected with less impact on industry.

I know that the minister at the table is extremely keen about regional areas, even though he was the architect of dismantling the single wheat desk, he was the architect of a bad Murray-Darling basin plan and, if this disallowance motion is not passed, he will be the architect of locking up Australia's marine reserves. But I was not aware that Canterbury City Council and the seat of Watson were actually a region. But indeed they are, because in the projects just announced in round 4 of the Regional Development Australia Fund we see that his—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will come back to the matter before the chair and not bring in matters that are not relevant to the disallowance motion.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, but RDAF is spending $4 million of—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The matter before the chair is about this disallowance motion, and I ask the honourable member to come back to that matter.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. I think this disallowance motion needs to be supported. It is important for the regions—regions which are not included in the seat of Lalor, are not included in the seat of Ballarat and certainly not included in the seat of Watson

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

Not included in yours either!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they are not included in mine. But I care about regional people and I care about coastal communities, because I know that my colleague here, the member for Dawson, represents one of them. And I certainly care about the fishers of Australia. I do not like to see $19.845 million in RDAF funding spent on seats such as Watson, on the Prime Minister's seat and certainly on seats such as Ballarat, where the member has only just received a role through the latest round of Labor shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. Probably Titanic II will also be locked out of the marine coastal areas.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been an interesting debate—at times, a test of patience, but an interesting debate that we have had on this. There has been some terrible and extraordinary misleading that has happened during this discussion. Let me deal with a couple of those issues first.

The first thing is that I have made clear for a long time in this parliament that the Commonwealth water areas where new protected areas were put in place in Western Australia were closer to shore. They were still in Commonwealth waters—certainly not at the beach line—but were closer to shore. The ones on the east coast and the rest of Australia were further from shore—some hundreds of kilometres, most of them. The ones in Queensland are a very long way from shore—a significant number of hundreds of kilometres before you get out into the areas where you cannot fish.

A number of speakers have sought to take issue with that, and they have referred to a number of areas that they found where there are protections. They have referred to areas in Tasmania—Freycinet was one that was quoted a couple of times in the speeches that we heard. True: closer to shore—but a restriction put in place by the Howard government. The area off Port Macquarie known as the Cod Grounds was put forward as an area. Yes—that one is close to shore. I was told that it was a very popular fishing spot for people near Port Macquarie, true. But it was put in place as a restriction in 2007 by the Howard government. We were then also told about the Solitary islands being one of the places—that they were closer to shore. Yes, and that restriction was put in place in 1993, and yet that is being argued by those opposite as though it is something brand-new that we are seeing for the first time now.

The truth of what has been done in the bioregional planning and the establishment of marine national parks is that we were determined, first of all, to get the science to identify the different bioregions—to identify the different sorts of environments and features that there were within the ocean. Then, whenever we could get that same area captured as environmentally protected—whenever we could get the same environmental outcome, but do it in a way that had less impact on recreational fishers and less impact on commercial fishing—we took that option. And I make no apology for taking that option. I do not know how anyone can say that there is a lack of scientific rigour if the process you follow is to say, 'We'll get the scientific data to identify the different features and to identify the bioregions, and then we will try to get the same environmental outcome while minimising the impact on people.' That is the right way to conduct your consultation; that is good public policy. It is something which people have pretended did not occur.

So we had extraordinary claims about the Perth Canyon, and a claim raised by the member for Dawson where he was saying, 'Here is evidence that there was no science.' I will tell you exactly what happened: the geographical feature and the nature of the bioregion was for the Perth Canyon. It is underwater, but larger than the Grand Canyon. If it were on land it would be known by all Australians—an extraordinary area. But there are three heads to the canyon, so the science identified the bioregional values of those three heads. But each of the three heads of the canyon had similar environmental values, so we said to the commercial fishing industry and we said to the recreational fishing industry: 'So long as one of these three heads goes into a high level of protection, or the areas around it, we get the environmental outcome. Do you have a preference as to which of the three?' I make no apology for making that offered to the commercials and to the recs. The commercial fishers came back and they said: 'Well, actually, there is one of those three heads that would have less impact on us. We would prefer that you chose that one.' The recs came back and the recreational fishing bodies said: 'We will not tell you which one. We will not provide you with that information'. So the one that went into highly protected was the one that the commercial industry had said was their preference to go into highly protected. And that is what happened. Then, afterwards, the recreational organisations came back and said: 'Oh, look, by the way, maybe we don't actually like the one you picked. Can we now have a talk about it?' The whole value of consultation is when people talk back. And it is a bit much to have the recreational sector from WA—or a minority of the recreational sector of WA—claiming that is evidence of lack of consultation, when it is the exact opposite. And do not pretend that it is evidence of lack of science, because the scientific values of the three heads of that canyon all matched up.

We had a similar situation with Geographe Bay. Geographe Bay in Western Australia is an area which is very popular for recreational fishers, and it is often the example that people point to where it is closer to shore. On the original maps that we had for the bioregions, much of the seagrass across that bay had similar environmental values. But when the recreational fishers came to us they showed us the locations of the boat ramps and they said, 'We don't want you to do anything but, if you are going to move these lines around that you have at the moment, can you do it in a way that they move away from where our boat ramp is, because at the moment you are going straight across in front of it.' So the lines were adjusted—not through a lack of scientific rigour, because the scientific values matched up no matter where you chose within that region; but through good consultation we made sure that we moved them to minimise the impact. That is the right way to conduct your processes.

As the member for Riverina probably knows better than most, I do not shy away from turning up to hostile public meetings. I know that the shadow minister for the environment wanted me to turn up to this one, in this photo, which he had advertised as having 1,000 people in attendance. Unless there is some strange game of people hiding behind cars the moment the camera turned up, that is not a rally of 1,000—and I table the photo. I would advise the shadow minister for the environment to spend some time with the member for Riverina: he knows how to run a demo. Also, don't pick a site that is 460 kilometres away from the nearest area that is locked up for recreational fishing. Not only is it 460 kilometres away; that is the nearest one, and that was put there by the Howard government.

The other argument that has been put consistently in the speeches we have heard from the opposition is that there is a lack of science. The shadow minister for agriculture, who has just returned to the room, right on cue—

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's a good man too!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I actually like him. He had a great sight gag when he said, 'I want to talk to you about the science.' For people listening on the radio—as I am sure he had good ratings while he was speaking—I can tell you that as he flicked through the pages he then had some blank pages in the middle so he could say, 'Oh, there was no science!' I then asked for the scientific studies, many of which were commenced under the Howard government, on which this work was based to be brought into the chamber so that people can see exactly what the opposition is claiming does not exist.

This is the scientific work that has been going on, some of which was commenced shortly after this process began. We are talking about a process which has been going for 20 years, a process that continued for the whole of the life of the Howard government. Many of these documents that I have brought into the chamber at the moment are documents which are simply large references for other documents which are not here but go further with the scientific rigour. After all of this, I am not sure what we have to do to avoid an accusation from the opposition that there is no science—and I am glad I am tall; otherwise I would now be out of the camera frame. This pile of documents represents the first cut of the scientific information on which these maps were based, where we identified the bioregions, where we looked at what was the environmental outcome to properly protect the oceans in Commonwealth waters around Australia. Yet those opposite still have the audacity to come in here and, I have to say, in the face of a mountain of documents like that, to lie and claim that no such documents exist.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I ask for that to be withdrawn.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member would like the word 'lie' to be withdrawn.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. But, as testament to the truth of what I have just said about the science existing, I have just been warned by member for Paterson that if I leave these here they are heavy enough that they might break the dispatch box.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Table them.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are all publicly available; some of them were previously tabled by the member for Wentworth. The member for Wentworth has his photo in one of those documents, proclaiming it as an example of good science.

The other argument that we had from those opposite was that there was no consultation. What they have conveniently done is only refer to round 5 of the five rounds of consultation, and they have said it went for 30 days and that industry wanted it to go the 90. Why were those opposite wanting it to go for 90? There is one reason, and one reason only, they wanted it to go for 90 days: so that the disallowance period would go right to the end of the year. That is the only reason, because those who had been engaged had been engaged for years in this process, with five rounds of consultation. Against that was a situation where the different arguments had been put, there were rounds of consultation I had attended personally, roadshows and full days where people would come in at community meetings and meet directly with my department and work through the different issues, and three-quarters of a million submissions. Yet even though my department specifically disaggregated those submissions so that it was clear which ones were campaign submissions, which ones were individually written, which ones came with detailed scientific back-up from peak bodies and things like that—even though that disaggregation was provided and fully documented—people opposite had the audacity in this debate to pretend that that never occurred and to say that the three-quarters of a million were all presented as though they were all the same. That is fundamentally untrue, but that has characterised the entire argument we have had from those opposite.

During this debate, I heard the member for Dawson expressing shame about the Howard government's actions on the Great Barrier Reef—and I will give him points for at least being honest on that. But the member for Dawson also said, 'The Coral Sea is closed to all forms of fishing.' That is just factually untrue.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you want to see the map? Have a look at the map.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is just factually untrue. The whole concept of multiple-use zones is that various forms of fishing are allowed and some things are excluded. So that was fundamentally untrue—and he is holding up the map where you will see the different colours. I should ask him to table the iPad! If you go through the map there you have a situation where you have large multiple-use zones. Don't forget as well that as a result of the consultation, where the charter industry in particular wanted to make sure that where there is that line of reefs—starting north at Osprey, down through Shark Reef, down to Vema Reef—they got better access to that. What did we do? We made sure that, once you got south of the major dive sites, the contours of the boundaries went right into very closely matching the contours of the reef itself. Shark itself got recoloured from green to gold so that it came in as an area open to recreational fishing. But, according to those opposite and according to this debate, none of these changes happened. According to those opposite, every detail, every part of consultation that I have gone through, every part of the scientific research that has been happening for more than a decade—none of that ever occurred.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why is the industry offside?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

None of that ever occurred, in the eyes of those opposite. Within 100 kilometres of Australia's coastline, 96 per cent of our Commonwealth waters remain completely open to recreational fishing. I repeat: within 100 kilometres of our coastline, 96 per cent. Yet those opposite go and hold rallies trying to scare local fishers, without letting them know that the nearest no-take zone is 460 kilometres away—and it was put there by a Liberal government. This debate from those opposite has had deception every way through it.

There has been deception in every part of how they have argued it. But no-one should be deceived by the two other facts though, that marine protected areas work. In the Great Barrier Reef, where you have the multiple-use zones where rec fishing is allowed but commercial has been taken out, coral trout numbers tripled from what they otherwise are, but where you get the areas that are completely highly protected it goes to six times. In the areas that are highly protected as well, the crown of thorn numbers go down because you have got the improvement in biodiversity, and those crown of thorns numbers go down to a quarter of what they otherwise are. Lots of people have wanted to talk about fisheries management science. Fisheries management science is important, but it does not protect habitat, and what this is about when you establish a national park in the ocean is that you do not only protect individual species; you protect the habitat itself, and that gives you a way in which the fish species bounce back like they otherwise would not.

But be in no doubt: in the vote that we are shortly going to have, all of that is at risk and exclusions that have been part of these plans go out the window as well. We have before us plans that prohibited drilling in the Coral Sea. That gets disallowed if the vote goes through. We have rules here that prohibited drilling off the Margaret River area. That disappears as a prohibition if this goes through. We have areas that are highly protected—all of that out the window if this goes through.

But I am glad one thing in this debate. Those opposite kept referring to the super trawler. They are right. They have absolute consistency when the choice is whether or not you protect the ocean. Their choice is not to—our choice is to protect the ocean.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In summing up the debate, there is one thing that is repeated time after time whether it is by members of the coalition, Independents or whoever it might be. The actual consultation with the industry, be it the fishing industry commercially or be it the recreational fishermen, being given 30 days to look at this was simply not sufficient. The minister is very strongly saying that what he has done—these six management plans—really are not going to have much effect at all. They are not such a big deal. If that is true, why are both the commercial fishermen and the recreational fishermen so totally opposed to these six management plans?

Quite apart from the consultation and the science—and, yes, the minister is quite right, I did turn over three blank pages—there was nothing about science on them and there is nothing about science in this. The minister's own staff confessed that they did not have very much knowledge, and one of his people who was in charge—and I think it was the Coral area from memory—actually said that he did not have the money within his department to do it, and they did not do it. So how can he stand there and keep reiterating that we have done the science and that it is not such a big deal? I keep repeating that if it is not such a big deal why are those whose livelihoods and those whose enjoyment depend upon these areas so totally opposed to what he wants to do?

The three fundamental steps that must be taken in order for an area to be adequately and appropriately protected have not been systematically applied to the declaration of Australia's marine protected areas. Firstly, and I will repeat them again: all significant threats must be identified—article 7 of the Convention on Biological Diversity; second, the process that constitutes these threats must be addressed—EPBC Act, Commonwealth of Australia, 1999; and, third, the management action that is taken must not be disproportionate to the significance of the environmental problems—Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, Governments of Australia 1992. These are almost entirely Australian, Australia's own laws, Australia's own requirements and, as our American professor said, they must be done.

As I said earlier, while the minister does not seem to want to go there, his own department admitted that marine parks had to go somewhere, and there is no science behind the proposed lock-up. I will conclude here, but I will conclude by repeating once again: if this is so minor, if it is going to have so little effect on commercial and recreational fishermen, why are they so totally opposed to it?

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Coral Sea Commonwealth Maritime Reserve Network Management Plan 2014-24 be disallowed.