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

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President; I will do that. Madam Acting Deputy President, one thing I could say about Senator Thistlethwaite's speech—and this was new for the Labor Party—is that he did actually acknowledge that the world's first oceans policy was introduced by the people that Senator Siewert says are trying to destroy our marine environment. It was the coalition who introduced the world's first oceans policy, and part of that was to have marine bioregional planning.

The difference between the coalition's approach to this and that of the Labor Party is why this bill is before the chamber today. The coalition started this process, and I very proudly say that I was part of the first marine bioregional region, in the south-east, in Australia. That was good because, at the time that it was introduced by the environment minister, I as fisheries minister had equal say, and it was not going to be one of these whitewashes by the Wilderness Society or Pew, as this current process is. It was one where all stakeholders were consulted and all of their views were taken on board. As I always proudly say, 80 per cent thought that 80 per cent of it was okay. Nobody was 100 per cent happy but, after two or three years of intensive consultation with all stakeholders, all Australians, all the people involved, we got a good outcome in the south-east bioregional process which was generally supported by every stakeholder.

Contrast that with the Labor Party's approach. You have this being the sole prerogative now of a minister who has a litany of backflips and actions that show he cannot be trusted. As I said, the most recent is the one where he as fisheries minister encouraged the Abel Tasman out here and as environment minister blocked it. So that is the person who is in charge of this bioregional planning process. Under the coalition, the people in charge were all relevant ministers and, more importantly, we consulted the scientists, the fisheries managers, the recreational, commercial and charter fishermen, the people who live along the coast and the people whose livelihoods depend upon properly managed marine areas—and that is what this bill wants to do.

I have not heard any of the speakers opposing this bill indicate what they do not actually like about it. In case the next speaker has a speech written for her by the minister's office or by Pew that does not quite go to the facts of the bill, I will just relate what this bill actually talks about. It calls on the minister to commission an independent social and economic impact assessment before proclamations are made. What is wrong with that? Can anyone tell me why they would oppose that? The bill also requires the minister to obtain independent, scientific peer reviewed advice before making any proclamation and for that advice to be publicly available. Who could object to that? Please, can the next speaker tell me what is wrong with that?

Senator Pratt interjecting—

Tell me why you would vote against that. The bill also requires the minister to establish independent—I emphasise 'independent'—scientific reference panels and stakeholder advisory groups for each region to ensure rigorous decision making. Why in a democracy would we oppose that? Please, the next speaker—

Senator Pratt interjecting—

Senator, if you are going to be speaking on this bill, can you answer me what is wrong with those things?