Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Hansard source

I am simply making the point that, when you try to debate a bill, all you get from the government is accusations and attempts to interrupt. We have not had a chance to even look at Government documents—of which there are thousands—during the last two or three weeks, showing that this government has no interest in parliamentary democracy. That is why I intend to take my full time in addressing aspects of this bill. Out of courtesy to the minister and his advisers, I indicate that I do want to go into committee and, for the advisers' benefit, I indicate that I do want to explore the provisions of subsection 267ZZI (1) to (5) and perhaps other aspects of the bill. As Senator Joyce has said, the coalition will be supporting this because it does have some attraction as to the benefit to the Great Barrier Reef and it follows on from a lot of other federal government legislation to protect the Great Barrier Reef. When I start looking at the legislation in a bit more detail, I find there are some aspects of it which cause me great concern. So I want to find out whether the stakeholders were consulted and I want to make sure that my understanding of what is a quite complicated piece of legislation is correct, as I might have amendments to move in relation to those aspects once I get the answers from the minister.

This bill, as was said in the second reading speech and by Senator Joyce, came to light as a result of two incidents involving vessels in the Great Barrier Reef area. One was the Sheng Neng 1 incident, where almost a thousand tonnes of heavy fuel oil and around 65,000 tonnes of coal caused significant environmental damage and required a very extensive shoreline clean-up. The other one involved the Pacific Adventurer, which lost 31 containers of ammonium nitrate overboard in Moreton Bay, not quite the Great Barrier Reef area but, of course, this legislation is Australia wide and not confined to the Great Barrier Reef and of real concern is the protection of all of our fairly pristine waters around Australia. The waters around Australia are not terribly productive waters, from a marine mammal and fish point of view, but they are, by world standards, very pristine and we want to keep them that way.

So this legislation arose out of those two particular incidents and out of a report by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority which made four recommendations. One was to extend the coverage of the reef vessel traffic service to the southern boundary of the Great Barrier Reef. Another recommendation was to strengthen regulatory arrangements, including modernising the penalties and offence provisions. A further recommendation was to enhance navigational aids in the Great Barrier Reef area. The fourth was to develop a whole-of-government management plan. Senators will probably tire from hearing me say this but I will continue to say it because I am very proud of this fact: I live in that part of Australia which is adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef and over my lifetime I have been out there fishing and I have helped small businesses who have made a real contribution to tourist numbers in Australia by their work on the Great Barrier Reef, so I know it is a fabulous living thing that must be nurtured.

Senator Feeney interjecting—

I know the minister is not interested in the environmental protection of the Great Barrier Reef, but I am sure the Greens political party will be speaking on this bill, which is very important. As I was about to say, the Great Barrier Reef is worth saving, this bill is an element of doing that and it follows a lot of very significant environmental legislation introduced by Liberal governments in the past. Who can forget that it was the Fraser Liberal government that first introduced management plans for Fraser Island, at the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef? Who can forget that it was Liberal governments that established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority? Who can forget—although some on our side remember this only too well and not all that favourably—that it was a Liberal-National party government that introduced the green zones of the Great Barrier Reef, perhaps the most significant step forward in looking at protection of the Great Barrier Reef.

If you read former Senator Richardson's book, Whatever It Takes, you will understand what this is about. Senator Richardson said, quite rightly, over the Labor years it was about whatever it took to stay in power and, at the time former Senator Richardson was around, the thing that was required to stay in power was environmental concern. The Labor Party have never had any interest in the environment but 'Richo', former Senator Richardson, told them that if they wanted to win elections they had to look like they were doing something for the environment. So they talked a lot about it and they brought in some silly things. But the significant environmental protections that have ever happened in Australia have occurred at the times of Liberal-National party governments and that is particularly the case with the Great Barrier Reef. So this legislation is simply another step forward in protecting the Great Barrier Reef.

Before I get on to the detailed provisions of the bill, I want to mention that it is not just as to the sea that we protect the Great Barrier Reef; we do protect the Great Barrier Reef by many other ways. One of the ways that the Great Barrier Reef is being protected is by an activity called Reef Rescue. It was a program that the Howard government had been working on and we had been providing money to farmers and coastal landholders to encourage them to act so that nothing they did impacted on the Great Barrier Reef. This legislation is about spills of oil and things being carried on ships but many would say there is a greater danger to the reef from what happens on the land. Prior to the 2007 election, the Liberal and National parties made a commitment to the Australian people that they would introduce a program called Reef Rescue. From memory, I think we promised $250 million to go to natural resource management groups along the Great Barrier Reef coast who would then go out and work with farmers and landowners to minimise damaging run-off to the reef. I have to say, to the Labor Party's credit, they also adopted our policy and actually put in a bit more money. From memory, I think they offered about $400 million. But it was a policy initiated by the Howard government and taken up by the Labor Party, and I am pleased about that. I give credit where credit is due.

Reef Rescue has given land managers the incentive and skills needed to act now and more than 1,700 landowners have been engaged in 2,755 different on-the-ground projects to help with Reef Rescue, which is being organised by a group of coastal natural resource management groups called Reef Alliance. As the alliance says in its report on this program:

In some cases change was achieved with cash—through co-investment with land managers—giving people the incentive to update their machinery, infrastructure or management techniques. In many cases projects were already on the drawing board, but the availability of a grant—

some of this $250 million or $400 million—

made them a reality much sooner.

Risk assessments, farm plans and training enabled people to expand their skills and knowledge. Developing technical skills, gaining expert advice, understanding scientific knowledge and chatting with peers at field days have all been vital to achieving on ground change. Many landholders now have a clearer picture of how to run their business in a sustainable and—

I would emphasise—

profitable way.

Whether they were achieved through grants or training, the resulting changes in land management are having a tangible and immediate impact—