Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026, which implements Australia's obligations under the high seas treaty. The Liberal Party is supporting the bill, as am I. The treaty entered into force on 17 January 2026, and this bill seeks to enact certain provisions which will enable us to ratify the agreement. The bill addresses our obligations under three parts of the agreement: it establishes a notification based regime for Australian entities collecting and utilising marine genetic resources; it establishes a framework to recognise area based management tools, such as marine-protected areas; and it establishes an environment impact assessment regime for certain undertakings within the Australian jurisdiction. So it is an exciting moment, that we are legislating a very important global treaty. As has been said by other contributions in the second reading debate, 60 per cent of our oceans are beyond national jurisdictions, and only about one per cent, I think, is currently protected. We need to work as a nation with the rest of the world to contribute to the global target of 30 per cent of coastal marine areas being protected by 2030 to ensure that our global biodiversity does not continue to decline at the rate it is. We need to engage with and assist our Pacific nations in protecting their biodiversity, which they, like ourselves, rely on to sustain life.

From a state that suffered from the algal bloom, I'm very mindful of the importance of the health of our seas, especially our coastal seas, and distinguishing that coastal seas, the sea and the ecosystems of the world are all interconnected. Thus, this is an important first step. I quote from Jennifer Morris, the CEO of the Nature Conservancy, who said, when the treaty was agreed to and came into force, that it would be a 'historic step toward safeguarding the ocean that connects and sustains us all'. She said:

This achievement reflects years of dedication from global leaders and the unwavering advocacy of partners—

organisations—

like the High Seas Alliance. While we—

the High Seas Alliance—

celebrate this moment, we also recognize the immense work still ahead to translate this agreement into real protections for marine biodiversity.

That is what we are doing here today, and even more work needs to come from our nation once we have ratified the agreement and this bill has been passed and proclaimed. Can I say this: what the algal bloom made very clear to all South Australians is that nature needs to be at the heart of all decision-making. You cannot look at the sea or all of our natural environment as a place to pillage and extract. We must live in harmony with nature; otherwise, more and more of our natural world will have to be sequestered to protect our biodiversity. I'd rather see a world where we are living at one with nature and living in a sustainable way.

When I recently met the CEO of Greenpeace, Mr Ritter, he gifted me a very old book titled Australia's National Parks. I noticed that, on 14 July 1969, a Liberal prime minister John Gorton wrote this for the foreword:

This book outlines the great natural wealth of the Australian continent in landscape and in flora and in fauna.

It didn't involve the sea, but I think the principles that he articulates in the next paragraph equally apply:

This wealth is part of our heritage. It belongs to the Australian people and it is a source of wonder and interest to all who visit us. We must protect it for future generations, for it is a legacy man cannot replace and must not destroy.

He goes on to say:

"Australia's National Parks" makes a valuable contribution to conservation, to the efforts of our conservationists and to the sum of our knowledge of the unique features of our environment. It will help towards a greater understanding and enjoyment of the land in which we are privileged to live.

Those sentiments equally apply, and it's good to see a Liberal leader of the past being so articulate and clear on our moral imperative to protect our environment. I suggest maybe in more recent times we may have lost our way, but that's a personal view.

I would just like to alert the minister that the two amendments from the Greens have just been tabled and have come to my attention. From my reading of them, they seem to seek to enact the recommendations of Greenpeace—my friends in the Greens may push back on where they came from—but there are two concepts which they are putting forward. If it's possible, in the summing up of the second reading debate or in the opening of the committee, to articulate the government's position on those—I know they've just been tabled—I would be grateful, to guide how I might vote or consider those amendments.

In my time remaining, I would reinforce to the chamber this is an important bill, one that should pass the Senate as quickly as possible so that the great work of all the conservationists and all of those in the department can continue to protect our natural world.