Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am that old/young! So I am very sceptical when I hear about grandiose government plans, particularly from this government. We see big ideas based on bad policy, a lack of science and little real consultation with affected communities. Once again, the policy has been cobbled together with inadequate consultation, a failure to address the likely economic consequences and what seems to be a manic determination by this government to placate noisy environmentalists at the expense of a careful, balanced, science based approach to policy.

The coalition has an excellent record when it comes to marine conservation. I will always prefer a balanced, science based approach to environmental management over a cobbled together environmental and political fix. All of us in this place understand the importance of protecting Australia's marine environment. The coalition has a clear, strong record of delivery in this area with policy that is based on science and a proper process of consultation with affected communities. The Senate will remember that it was the Howard government that established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in 2001. It was the coalition that commenced the process of establishing a network of marine protected areas in 2006, a process begun by working cooperatively with both environmental and fishing groups. When this incompetent Labor government is finally gone, the coalition will restore sanity to the process by committing to a carefully balanced, science based panel approach to reviewing the boundaries of these marine conservation reserves.

The announcement of the marine reserves network smacks of Labor's typical approach—that government knows best and this is what we are doing, take it or leave it. Minister Burke's own statement makes this crystal clear. On 14 June he announced a 60-day consultation period, but the very next sentence in his statement reads:

It's too late for people to say I want this line shifted or I want this zone painted a different colour.

In other words, the decision had been made and the government was not the least bit interested in hearing what ordinary people might have thought. What makes this dismissal of community views even harder to stomach is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the government has based its marine reserve zones on an empirical, science based approach. Indeed, there is ample evidence to suggest that precisely the opposite has occurred. The minister's own department has reportedly admitted that there is no marine science behind the Coral Sea lockup zone. The minister himself concedes that the scale of the lockup in the temperate east zone is nothing more than a payoff for the vast lockup of the Coral Sea zone.

Environmental and industry groups have been played off against each other, with some kept in the dark so that others can be given preferential treatment. This might sound familiar to some people. It all sounds rather like a good old-fashioned Sussex Street fix, or Sussex Street under water. However, we are not talking about a preselection or the latest plot to overthrow a Prime Minister. We are talking about people's livelihoods. The minister needs to realise that, whilst he might enjoy playing politics, when it comes to the protection of Australia's marine environment and the viability of our fishing industry it is time to end the deals and stop the games. The policy needs to be based on science and not politics.

The farcical consultation process that has accompanied the announcement of the marine reserves means there is great uncertainty in Australia's fishing industries about what kind of assistance they might be able to get. The Prime Minister, speaking on the ABC on 14 June, declared that there will be assistance 'in the vicinity of $100 million'. That should make commercial fishers around Australia feel extremely nervous—because of both the woefully inadequate figure, which I will come to in a moment, and the Prime Minister's language. This Prime Minister has clear political form. We know that when she makes a firm declaration such as, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' she is quite prepared to do precisely the opposite. So when the Prime Minister invokes a qualifier and says a compensation package will be 'in the vicinity' of $100 million, we are entitled to ask: does that actually mean $50 million, does it mean $75 million, or does it in fact mean $100 million?

Given that we will all be paying this Prime Minister's carbon tax in two weeks, Australians are entitled to doubt her word. It is worth noting that experts have made it clear that $100 million will not go anywhere near addressing the problem. When the Howard government established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the compensation for that one region alone came to $250 million. Yet Labor now tell us something 'in the vicinity' of $100 million will be adequate for an area covering 3.1 million square kilometres. It is even more concerning when you consider that Labor did not allocate a single cent in the budget last month to this initiative.

In my remaining minutes, let me talk about the impact on my home state of Western Australia. As we all know, Western Australia's exports of iron ore are critical to Australia's economic wellbeing. It stands to reason that any government with a modicum of common sense would act to ensure the mining and resources sector did not suffer as a result of increasing cost and regulatory burdens. Alas, for now, we have in Australia the Gillard Labor government, which is not just content with slugging the $68.2 billion iron ore export industry with its mineral resources rent tax; it has found another way to make it harder for the mining sector to do business. The marine reserves plan announced by Minister Burke will place restrictions on port and shipping access in the Kimberley and the Pilbara—the very ports used by the iron ore industry to get its product to overseas customers. This is another policy masterstroke from a Labor government that has brought new depth to the meaning of the word 'ineptitude'.

The oil and gas sector's capacity to grow in the years ahead is wholly dependent on its ability to undertake further exploration—an ability that will be constrained by the government's marine park announcement. I am sure these issues could have been worked through—there is always some give and take in these sorts of issues—but it appears to me that on this particular point there has been a tremendous lack of consultation with key governments, such as the Western Australian government. (Time expired)