Division Description Changes — Regulations and Determinations — Marine Parks Network Management Plans; Disallowance — 16th Aug 2018

Change	Division
senate vote 2018-08-16#9 Edited by mackay staff on 2018-09-07 11:31:27	Title ~~Regulations and Determinations — Marine Parks Network Management Plans; Disallowance~~ Regulations and Determinations - Marine Parks Network Management Plan - Disallow Description ~~<p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p>~~ <p>What I was saying before we ran out of time during the last debate was that our marine environment is one of the most unique and spectacular marine environments on the globe. I heard those opposite talk about the fact that Australia has these large marine protected areas. That's good. We also have one of the largest EEZs in the world. So of course we should be putting in place proper protection for these areas. It is hugely disappointing that the government in some areas has changed the level of protection for the areas that are contained within the regional plans. That means that these really important areas, some of which have marine species that are found nowhere else on the planet, are at more risk.</p> <p>I think what I got up to when we were finishing was talking about the impact of a warming planet on our marine environment. We're still getting an understanding of what that impact is. I also heard those opposite talking about support from some marine conservation organisations for their approach, but I don't think there'd be anybody, certainly from the Greens, who didn't think long and hard about what to do about these plans. As someone who's been fighting since the mid-1980s for bioregional marine planning, it is not without a heavy heart and much thought that I personally came to the conclusion that we really need to keep fighting for better protection and that we need to take a stand. And that's from someone who's fought for years and years to get adequate marine protection. I've had lots of emails from people supporting our stance: that is, to support these disallowances. The bulk of the marine conservation organisations are also saying these plans aren't good enough. I've already articulated why we in Western Australia are deeply concerned, given that we have such a vast marine environment and we have so many special areas: the Bremer Canyon; the Perth Canyon; that whole south-west marine environment; the areas off the Gascoyne coast including Ningaloo and the Rowley Shoals. There are so many important areas. Those areas that I've mentioned are the ones where the level of marine protection has been adversely impacted by these plans.</p> The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-08-16.199.2) meaning that the plan remains in force. Greens Senators [Louise Pratt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/louise_pratt) and [Peter Whish-Wilson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/peter_whish-wilson) introduced this disallowance motion, [arguing that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-08-16.6.2) the plan (along with [four others](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2018-08-16/10)): *> revoke about 40 million hectares of high-level national marine parks, almost twice the area of Victoria. This is equivalent to revoking half of** Australia's national parks on land.* ### Motion text *> That the [Coral Sea Marine Park Management Plan 2018](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00327), made under the E*nvironment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, be disallowed [F2018L00327]. <p>We will continue to campaign on this issue to make sure that we have a set of marine parks and a set of bioregional marine plans that are the best in the world, that go back to being the best in the world, so Australia can honestly claim that we have the best system for marine protection on the planet. I encourage and ask those who are still making up their mind about these disallowances to support these disallowances so that we can get superlative marine protection in this country.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Andrew Bartlett</p>~~ <p>I know that we only have limited time for this debate, so I will keep my comments a lot shorter than they otherwise would have been. Obviously I support all of these disallowance motions, but, as a senator for Queensland, I wanted to speak specifically about the one with regard to the Coral Sea. I don't want to get too parochial about it, but, certainly amongst all of these, it's hard not to see this as at least equal in significance to other areas that are also dramatically reduced in protection as a direct result of the consequences of this government and the Abbott government preceding it.</p> <p>The Coral Sea directly adjoins the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which I would hope everybody in this chamber would agree is not only an environmental wonder of the world and recognised as such but also an incredibly important economic job generator for Queensland, particularly regional and Northern Queensland. I back up Senator Siewert's acknowledgement that it is one of the positive achievements of the Howard government. There's not a lot I'd point to, but one was a significant expansion of protected areas within the marine park, and I commend that achievement.</p> <p>It needs to be said that, despite all the doom and gloom predictions of what it would cause, particularly to recreational fishers' opportunities, it has been clearly proven, as was suggested, to significantly improve fish stocks and actually enhance the attractiveness of a whole lot of recreational fishing opportunities along the Queensland coast. In the short time I've been back in the Senate role for the Greens in Queensland, I've had that said to me by a number of recreational fishers in regional Queensland, and tourism people are saying that the local areas are developing reputations for being more attractive to recreational fishers because of the environmental improvement that is a direct result of increasing marine protection.</p> <p>The Coral Sea, of course, does not have coastal areas. It directly adjoins the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which we all know is severely under threat not only but most severely from climate change. The Coral Sea and its incredible natural assets are now much more at risk because of the vandalism caused by the decision of the Abbott government to rip up the protected areas that were put in place by the previous Labor government. It must be said that it's not just about fishing and the impact of commercial fishing; it is also about the potential for oil and gas exploration in this area. It wasn't until this disallowance was moved that I remembered that, way back in 2002, when I was a Democrats senator in this place—I was actually party leader at the time—we managed to uncover the fact that a government agency was attempting, secretly, to carry out surveying to enable it to assess more clearly whether there were oil opportunities in parts of the Coral Sea.</p> <p>The reduced marine park protection that's in place that needs to be disallowed is not solely about reefs, although, of course, that is crucial. It is also about protecting those marine environments more broadly from the dangers of being opened up in the future for oil exploration and extraction. Let's not forget that one of the key reasons that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park first came into being—as a result of very commendable community action driven by people locally in Queensland and supported by others around the country—were the threats of the Queensland government at the time to basically open up the reef for drilling. That sort of legacy and those historical factors that drive campaigns do not go away with the passage of time, and the people who tried and pushed and might have failed in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park keep looking for opportunities in other areas. The failure to strengthen marine park protection in the way that was done previously—that's now been undone—is another example of that vandalism.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p>~~ <p>To call Australia home is to inhabit an ancient continent set beneath a reef of some of the world's most magnificent marine biodiversity. It is to be the custodian of some of the most pristine and beautiful natural places on planet Earth. It is to have the honour and sacred duty of stewarding the protection of these places so that they may exist for the majesty of their own right and for the enjoyment of future generations for centuries to come.</p> <p>For 20 long years legislators, community groups, stakeholders and scientists have debated, argued, discussed and attempted to come to a plan and a compromise that would protect these precious places. In five short years this government has sought to do nothing else except rip them apart, to tear them asunder at the behest of large corporate supporters, simply to make life easier for itself. I cannot think of a more profound dereliction of duty than the active destruction of these precious places. Yet this is what this government is attempting to allow to take place. Not content with their profound failure to act on global warming, not content with their continued failure to protect the great forests of the south-west and of the Tarkine, not content with allowing the freshwater of this nation to be poisoned by gas, they would also see us lay our oceans bare so that corporate profit margins can be increased.</p> <p>My state of Western Australia, and its glorious jewel that is the Ningaloo Reef, will lose 75 per cent of its protection. It is an absolute disgrace. The Great Barrier Reef, the Coral Sea—all of these precious, vital ecosystems will be placed at risk and subject to irrevocable harm simply because this government wishes to make its life easier and to reap the benefits of acting as a corporate stooge. I do not know what I will say to my children when they ask me why we allowed this damage to be done, but I will at least be able to tell them that I and the party I am a member of, the movement that I serve, spoke up against it and did what we could to repair it. I thank the chamber for its time.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p>~~ <p>When you listen to that speech, you would think we've destroyed our oceans completely but that is not the case. One Nation will be supporting the government in opposing this disallowance notion. This came into play on 1 July. If we do not support this immediately, straight away from tomorrow, we are going to see all holds off. That means that people can come in and fish, because there's going to be no plan whatsoever.</p> <p>My understanding is this has been 12 years in the making. It has been 12 years of discussions, talking to businesses, talking to the fishing sector, talking to many organisations and talking to scientists about what is the best way to go with this. Twelve years it has taken, and now it has been implemented. So if it goes out the door today, if everyone votes to get rid of this with the disallowance motion the Greens are putting up, it is going to go back to nothing—no protection, nothing. This is for a 10-year plan, but it can be looked at in five years time. Actually, at any time, a minister can change it and put it back through the review process.</p> <p>Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why not let this stay as it is? There are protections in place now. If you are not happy with it then work on it in the next parliament. There are 120 days of consultation that have to go on. We know that we are facing an election. If you throw this out today, nothing is going to happen for at least a year or more. So we're going to allow these people to come in here and fish our waters and do more damage than we have with these protections we have put in place. We are talking about 2.2 million square kilometres of Australia's marine environment that will have no marine park protection. That is what is going to happen.</p> <p>I am sick of the scaremongering that goes on in this place. Tell the people the truth. If you are not happy with the marine parks that are there now—there was nothing before it came into place on 1 July. What are you complaining about now? There was nothing in place. You actually have something in place now. Work with it. I support the fact that we now have protection out there. I support the fishermen and businesspeople who need it. We need the tourism here as well. The Greens want to lock up everything. They want to lock up our fishing, they want to look up our national parks, they want to lock up everything. They don't want to do anything in this country. They want to destroy businesses.</p> <p>There is sustainability, and there is a guarantee that there are no foreign fishing vessels in these waters. There is a guarantee there are no super trawlers in these waters. This is the government's plan. Also, the fact is that the marine park covers 36 per cent of Australia's oceans and is the second largest in the world—and it is three times larger than the UN's benchmark of 10 per cent. How can you argue with that? I hear the Greens go on in this place all the time about the UN and our responsibilities. We have surpassed the UN's requirements. We have 36 per cent. How can you argue with that?</p> <p>You raised the Pew foundation. I wanted to hear their advice and I rang them up. They said: 'Pauline, you have to support the government on this. It's not everything that we want, but it's better than nothing.' I have come from a small business background—a fish and chip shop. I relied on Australian fish and that is what I sold—not all the rubbish that we get in from overseas that we see so much of in our shops. We Australians have the right to eat that fish and not see it being exported to overseas. This will ensure our sustainability—that we have fish for Australians. It is not going to be overfished. The Fisheries Management Authority looks after that as well.</p> <p>We are talking about the protection of our oceans, and I fully support the government on this. When I'm back in this place, whoever is in government here, if this is not good enough, if there are a lot of Australians out there who are not happy with this, I will work with them to increase the marine park zones or whatever needs to be done. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you throw this out today, you'll have nothing—no protection whatsoever.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Rachel Siewert~~
What I was saying before we ran out of time during the last debate was that our marine environment is one of the most unique and spectacular marine environments on the globe. I heard those opposite talk about the fact that Australia has these large marine protected areas. That's good. We also have one of the largest EEZs in the world. So of course we should be putting in place proper protection for these areas. It is hugely disappointing that the government in some areas has changed the level of protection for the areas that are contained within the regional plans. That means that these really important areas, some of which have marine species that are found nowhere else on the planet, are at more risk.
I think what I got up to when we were finishing was talking about the impact of a warming planet on our marine environment. We're still getting an understanding of what that impact is. I also heard those opposite talking about support from some marine conservation organisations for their approach, but I don't think there'd be anybody, certainly from the Greens, who didn't think long and hard about what to do about these plans. As someone who's been fighting since the mid-1980s for bioregional marine planning, it is not without a heavy heart and much thought that I personally came to the conclusion that we really need to keep fighting for better protection and that we need to take a stand. And that's from someone who's fought for years and years to get adequate marine protection. I've had lots of emails from people supporting our stance: that is, to support these disallowances. The bulk of the marine conservation organisations are also saying these plans aren't good enough. I've already articulated why we in Western Australia are deeply concerned, given that we have such a vast marine environment and we have so many special areas: the Bremer Canyon; the Perth Canyon; that whole south-west marine environment; the areas off the Gascoyne coast including Ningaloo and the Rowley Shoals. There are so many important areas. Those areas that I've mentioned are the ones where the level of marine protection has been adversely impacted by these plans.
The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-08-16.199.2) meaning that the plan remains in force.
Greens Senators [Louise Pratt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/louise_pratt) and [Peter Whish-Wilson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/peter_whish-wilson) introduced this disallowance motion, [arguing that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-08-16.6.2) the plan (along with [four others](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2018-08-16/10)):
> *revoke about 40 million hectares of high-level national marine parks, almost twice the area of Victoria. This is equivalent to revoking half of Australia's national parks on land.*
### Motion text
> *That the [Coral Sea Marine Park Management Plan 2018](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00327), made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, be disallowed [F2018L00327].*
We will continue to campaign on this issue to make sure that we have a set of marine parks and a set of bioregional marine plans that are the best in the world, that go back to being the best in the world, so Australia can honestly claim that we have the best system for marine protection on the planet. I encourage and ask those who are still making up their mind about these disallowances to support these disallowances so that we can get superlative marine protection in this country.
~~Andrew Bartlett~~
I know that we only have limited time for this debate, so I will keep my comments a lot shorter than they otherwise would have been. Obviously I support all of these disallowance motions, but, as a senator for Queensland, I wanted to speak specifically about the one with regard to the Coral Sea. I don't want to get too parochial about it, but, certainly amongst all of these, it's hard not to see this as at least equal in significance to other areas that are also dramatically reduced in protection as a direct result of the consequences of this government and the Abbott government preceding it.
The Coral Sea directly adjoins the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which I would hope everybody in this chamber would agree is not only an environmental wonder of the world and recognised as such but also an incredibly important economic job generator for Queensland, particularly regional and Northern Queensland. I back up Senator Siewert's acknowledgement that it is one of the positive achievements of the Howard government. There's not a lot I'd point to, but one was a significant expansion of protected areas within the marine park, and I commend that achievement.
It needs to be said that, despite all the doom and gloom predictions of what it would cause, particularly to recreational fishers' opportunities, it has been clearly proven, as was suggested, to significantly improve fish stocks and actually enhance the attractiveness of a whole lot of recreational fishing opportunities along the Queensland coast. In the short time I've been back in the Senate role for the Greens in Queensland, I've had that said to me by a number of recreational fishers in regional Queensland, and tourism people are saying that the local areas are developing reputations for being more attractive to recreational fishers because of the environmental improvement that is a direct result of increasing marine protection.
The Coral Sea, of course, does not have coastal areas. It directly adjoins the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which we all know is severely under threat not only but most severely from climate change. The Coral Sea and its incredible natural assets are now much more at risk because of the vandalism caused by the decision of the Abbott government to rip up the protected areas that were put in place by the previous Labor government. It must be said that it's not just about fishing and the impact of commercial fishing; it is also about the potential for oil and gas exploration in this area. It wasn't until this disallowance was moved that I remembered that, way back in 2002, when I was a Democrats senator in this place—I was actually party leader at the time—we managed to uncover the fact that a government agency was attempting, secretly, to carry out surveying to enable it to assess more clearly whether there were oil opportunities in parts of the Coral Sea.
The reduced marine park protection that's in place that needs to be disallowed is not solely about reefs, although, of course, that is crucial. It is also about protecting those marine environments more broadly from the dangers of being opened up in the future for oil exploration and extraction. Let's not forget that one of the key reasons that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park first came into being—as a result of very commendable community action driven by people locally in Queensland and supported by others around the country—were the threats of the Queensland government at the time to basically open up the reef for drilling. That sort of legacy and those historical factors that drive campaigns do not go away with the passage of time, and the people who tried and pushed and might have failed in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park keep looking for opportunities in other areas. The failure to strengthen marine park protection in the way that was done previously—that's now been undone—is another example of that vandalism.
~~Jordon Steele-John~~
To call Australia home is to inhabit an ancient continent set beneath a reef of some of the world's most magnificent marine biodiversity. It is to be the custodian of some of the most pristine and beautiful natural places on planet Earth. It is to have the honour and sacred duty of stewarding the protection of these places so that they may exist for the majesty of their own right and for the enjoyment of future generations for centuries to come.
For 20 long years legislators, community groups, stakeholders and scientists have debated, argued, discussed and attempted to come to a plan and a compromise that would protect these precious places. In five short years this government has sought to do nothing else except rip them apart, to tear them asunder at the behest of large corporate supporters, simply to make life easier for itself. I cannot think of a more profound dereliction of duty than the active destruction of these precious places. Yet this is what this government is attempting to allow to take place. Not content with their profound failure to act on global warming, not content with their continued failure to protect the great forests of the south-west and of the Tarkine, not content with allowing the freshwater of this nation to be poisoned by gas, they would also see us lay our oceans bare so that corporate profit margins can be increased.
My state of Western Australia, and its glorious jewel that is the Ningaloo Reef, will lose 75 per cent of its protection. It is an absolute disgrace. The Great Barrier Reef, the Coral Sea—all of these precious, vital ecosystems will be placed at risk and subject to irrevocable harm simply because this government wishes to make its life easier and to reap the benefits of acting as a corporate stooge. I do not know what I will say to my children when they ask me why we allowed this damage to be done, but I will at least be able to tell them that I and the party I am a member of, the movement that I serve, spoke up against it and did what we could to repair it. I thank the chamber for its time.
~~Pauline Hanson~~
When you listen to that speech, you would think we've destroyed our oceans completely but that is not the case. One Nation will be supporting the government in opposing this disallowance notion. This came into play on 1 July. If we do not support this immediately, straight away from tomorrow, we are going to see all holds off. That means that people can come in and fish, because there's going to be no plan whatsoever.
My understanding is this has been 12 years in the making. It has been 12 years of discussions, talking to businesses, talking to the fishing sector, talking to many organisations and talking to scientists about what is the best way to go with this. Twelve years it has taken, and now it has been implemented. So if it goes out the door today, if everyone votes to get rid of this with the disallowance motion the Greens are putting up, it is going to go back to nothing—no protection, nothing. This is for a 10-year plan, but it can be looked at in five years time. Actually, at any time, a minister can change it and put it back through the review process.
Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why not let this stay as it is? There are protections in place now. If you are not happy with it then work on it in the next parliament. There are 120 days of consultation that have to go on. We know that we are facing an election. If you throw this out today, nothing is going to happen for at least a year or more. So we're going to allow these people to come in here and fish our waters and do more damage than we have with these protections we have put in place. We are talking about 2.2 million square kilometres of Australia's marine environment that will have no marine park protection. That is what is going to happen.
I am sick of the scaremongering that goes on in this place. Tell the people the truth. If you are not happy with the marine parks that are there now—there was nothing before it came into place on 1 July. What are you complaining about now? There was nothing in place. You actually have something in place now. Work with it. I support the fact that we now have protection out there. I support the fishermen and businesspeople who need it. We need the tourism here as well. The Greens want to lock up everything. They want to lock up our fishing, they want to look up our national parks, they want to lock up everything. They don't want to do anything in this country. They want to destroy businesses.
There is sustainability, and there is a guarantee that there are no foreign fishing vessels in these waters. There is a guarantee there are no super trawlers in these waters. This is the government's plan. Also, the fact is that the marine park covers 36 per cent of Australia's oceans and is the second largest in the world—and it is three times larger than the UN's benchmark of 10 per cent. How can you argue with that? I hear the Greens go on in this place all the time about the UN and our responsibilities. We have surpassed the UN's requirements. We have 36 per cent. How can you argue with that?
You raised the Pew foundation. I wanted to hear their advice and I rang them up. They said: 'Pauline, you have to support the government on this. It's not everything that we want, but it's better than nothing.' I have come from a small business background—a fish and chip shop. I relied on Australian fish and that is what I sold—not all the rubbish that we get in from overseas that we see so much of in our shops. We Australians have the right to eat that fish and not see it being exported to overseas. This will ensure our sustainability—that we have fish for Australians. It is not going to be overfished. The Fisheries Management Authority looks after that as well.
We are talking about the protection of our oceans, and I fully support the government on this. When I'm back in this place, whoever is in government here, if this is not good enough, if there are a lot of Australians out there who are not happy with this, I will work with them to increase the marine park zones or whatever needs to be done. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you throw this out today, you'll have nothing—no protection whatsoever.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~