Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 6052:

(1)    Page 19 (after line 2), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 2—World Heritage values

Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980

1  Preamble

After “AND WHEREAS it is desirable to make other provision relating to the protection of the environment in the Antarctic”, insert “and to recognise the intrinsic World Heritage values of the Antarctic”.

(2)    Clause 2, page 2, at the end of the table, add:

These amendments would give recognition to the intrinsic World Heritage values of the Antarctic. I heard Senator Stephens read out an excuse for not doing that. Of course, it was not an excuse at all; it just skirted around the reason and said that, in some way or other, recognising the World Heritage value of the Antarctic should be done in some other forum. No, it should be done by this country, and it is one of those issues the Greens will continue to pursue. This great global asset should have World Heritage recognition and that should start in this parliament. If it does not start here, it is not going to occur anywhere else. It is time the Labor Party endorsed its own policy of recognising World Heritage value in Antarctica, as passed by the Labor Party’s national conference, and it has been given an opportunity to do that here in the parliament. Unfortunately, it is not going to. I will not call a division on the matter, but the Greens feel very strongly about that recognition. We have heard no good reason, and there is no good reason, why this is not being supported.

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

The coalition have absolutely nothing to hide. Indeed, we have a very proud record of protecting the environment wherever it occurs. I think it is typical of the Greens political party that Senator Brown spent most of his speech attacking the coalition for taking exactly the same approach to these amendments as the Labor Party did. Did he attack the Labor Party? No, of course not, because he supports the Labor Party on every serious issue of policy. It just demonstrates yet again that the Greens are the far left wing of the Australian Labor Party. I point out that it was the Howard government that actually arranged for World Heritage listing of Heard and McDonald Islands in the Southern Ocean. Those islands near the Antarctic mainland are territories of Australia and the Howard government was able to ensure they were given a World Heritage listing.

I am surprised that the Greens leader did not mention that the Labor Party have changed their policy yet again. This is another example of how the Labor Party say one thing before an election to attract the vote from certain narrowcast groups and another thing afterwards. After they have been elected with the support of many people and with Greens preferences, they then change their policy. When it comes to this debate, where one would think Senator Brown would roundly criticise the Labor Party for reneging on their policy in relation to World Heritage listing of Antarctica, we hear barely a peep.

I should point out—and I am conscious of the time as I know there is another bill to be dealt with—that before the 2007 election their policy, as announced on 1 May 2006 by Mr Albanese, then the shadow minister for the environment, was:

A Federal Labor Government will support World Heritage listing, working with other nations to give Antarctica the environmental status it deserves.

After the election, though, Labor changed their policy to:

… Labor will work to further strengthen the Antarctic treaty system with particular emphasis on enhancing environmental protection.

When Senator Wong, representing the environment minister, was questioned in June 2009 she said:

… the benefits of world heritage listing have already been achieved or exceeded in the Antarctic through the international agreement that comprises the Antarctic treaty system.

I might also point out to Senator Brown that, given his visionary hatred of the Liberal Party and the National Party, it is surprising he did not mention the fact that we supported a motion he moved in June 2009 which stated that the Senate:

… calls upon the Australian Government to pursue the lead role towards inscribing Antarctica on the World Cultural and Natural Heritage list.

The coalition actually supported that motion, because, as I said earlier, we do support the intent of these amendments. We actually supported Senator Brown’s motion. I point out to Senator Brown, in case he has forgotten, that the Labor Party actually opposed that motion. But is there any criticism of the Labor Party here? No, Senator Brown directs all his bile to the coalition for reasons which I guess, to any observer, are fairly obvious.

I repeat that the coalition has a very proud record in World Heritage listing. Fraser Island was listed by the Liberal Party, for example. In fact, all of the significant environmental protection advances in Australia’s history have been introduced by Liberal and National party coalition governments, and I again point out the fact that World Heritage listing of Heard and McDonald Islands was initiated under the Howard government.

The question of whales is something that I looked at for a considerable time when I was minister for fisheries. There is a very uncertain, I might say, legal regime in relation to who actually controls the waters around the Antarctic continent. You would have lawyers arguing for days about that, and of course the limited time that I have prevents me doing that in this debate. I would simply say that it is not always as simple as it sounds—that is, what Australia can do in a territory where Australia does not have a jurisdiction recognised by every other country in the world.

With those comments I indicate that, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, we are not going to prolong this debate, because we agreed with the government some time ago that we would assist the speedy passage of this bill for its further protection of Antarctica. I repeat a comment I made in my contribution to the second reading debate—that, if this is something that should be dealt with by the parliament, perhaps it would be appropriate for Senator Brown to bring in some sort of bill sometime in the future when we have the time to discuss it fully.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bob Brown, I understand you have moved some controversial amendments in the non-controversial section of the proceedings, which is perhaps a little unorthodox. I understand the clerks are in some trepidation at the prospect of what all this might mean, given that the standing orders are silent on this. I understand you do not intend to pursue this to a division. Have I understood you correctly?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will listen to the debate.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see. I think, Senator, the government—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chairman Boyce, on a point of order: Senator Carr was not here for the moving of these amendments. He can make the matter controversial if he wishes to. It is not my intention to do so.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your advice, Senator Brown!

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, look at the bill, please.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I know. The government does not support the amendments that Senator Bob Brown has moved because they are effectively inconsistent with the longstanding policy position of this government and, I understand, other governments in regard to Antarctica, and inconsistent with the objects of the legislation and the purposes of the bill.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am horrified that Senator Carr says that recognising the intrinsic World Heritage values of the Antarctic contradicts the longstanding position of the government, because, as I said earlier—and I am indebted to Senator Macdonald for backing me up on this—the Labor Party went to the last election on that very policy and has changed it since.

On the matter of the opposition supporting the motion I moved which did not have the effect of law on World Heritage values, yes, I have noted that. And now I am moving amendments which will have the effect of recognising the World Heritage values of Antarctica in law, and the opposition do just what the government are doing and back off, saying, ‘Well, now we won’t support it.’ They are prepared to support an ineffective instrument moved by the Greens—that is, a motion—but when it comes to putting it into law suddenly the opposition back off. It is all inexplicable and, I think, quite irresponsible. I have moved the amendments, and we will see the government and the opposition vote them down.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 6052:

(3)    Page 19 (after line 2), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 3—Interaction with laws for the protection of whales

Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980

1  At the end of Part 1

Add:

7B  Interaction with laws for the protection of whales

        (1)    Nothing in this Act has the effect of reducing or removing an obligation upon any person to protect whales or other cetaceans under:

             (a)    international law; or

             (b)    Division 3 of Part 13 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; or

             (c)    any other law.

        (2)    In exercising powers and performing duties under this Act, the Minister must act in a manner that gives the greatest effect towards the protection of whales and other cetaceans under:

             (a)    international law; and

             (b)    Division 3 of Part 13 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and

             (c)    any other law.

Note:                Division 3 of Part 13 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 sets out offences relating to killing, injuring, taking etc., treating and possessing cetaceans.

(4)    Clause 2, page 2, at the end of the table, add:

These amendments require that the minister for the environment ‘must act in a manner that gives the greatest effect towards the protection of whales and other cetaceans’ under international law, Australia’s domestic law and any other law. It simply requires the minister to act to protect whales using what powers are available. I commend the amendments to the committee.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.