|
senate vote 2018-03-27#13
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2018-05-31 13:38:36
|
Title
Regulations and Determinations — Marine Parks Network Management Plans; Disallowance- Regulations and Determinations - Marine Parks Network Management Plans - Disallow
Description
<p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the following instruments, made under the <i>Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999</i>, be disallowed:</p>- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-03-27.207.2) to stop certain legal instruments from having force in law. In parliamentary jargon, they voted against disallowing these instruments.
- Labor Senator [Louise Pratt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/louise_pratt), who introduced the motion, [explained](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-03-27.207.2) these instruments as *"environmental vandalism"*, though other senators disagreed. [Read their opinions](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-03-27.207.2) in the debate for an overview of the different positions.
- ### Motion text
- > *That the following instruments, made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, be disallowed:*
- >> *[Temperate East Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00321) [F2018L00321]*
- >> *[North-west Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00322) [F2018L00322]*
- >> *[North Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00324) [F2018L00324]*
- >> *[South-west Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00326) [F2018L00326]*
- >> *[Coral Sea Marine Park Network Management Plan 2018](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00327) [F2018L00327].*
<p class="italic">Temperate East Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018 [F2018L00321]</p><p class="italic">North-west Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018 [F2018L00322]</p><p class="italic">North Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018 [F2018L00324]</p><p class="italic">South-west Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2018 [F2018L00326]</p><p class="italic">Coral Sea Marine Park Network Management Plan 2018 [F2018L00327].</p><p>We are here today to stand in opposition of the government's environmental vandalism. The government forced this chamber to make a decision on this disallowance before I moved it, which has constrained the opportunity for consideration and debate of these issues. I forewarn those who are still deliberating on this issue: I call on them not to vote with the government at this time because we should not be allowing Australia's network of marine parks to be gutted. What the government is doing is: the more pristine the protected area the more savage the changes are. In the government's alternative marine park plans is the Coral Sea, which has been the jewel in the crown of our territorial waters, our Commonwealth marine parks, and it is going from being protected to being a haven for long-lining and trawling.</p><p>I call on the crossbench not to listen to the mistruths that are told by those opposite—claims like, 'Labor did not adequately consult on the marine parks.' This is utterly false. We took six rounds of consultation. We received almost three-quarters of a million submissions. We had 250 stakeholder meetings that were attended by more than 2,000 people. That is more than six times the submissions that the Turnbull government received on its own proposals. Even the government's hand-picked review panel found Labor's consultation processes were extensive. Indeed, the government's review panel said in its findings:</p><p class="italic">There was a considerable amount of 'consultation fatigue' expressed by many stakeholders in the face-to-face meetings. A common initial comment was 'We've already been through this; can't we just get on with it?'</p><p>There was buy-in and support for Labor's marine parks, and the government has gone ahead and sought to trash them.</p><p>These claims about inadequate consultation were made by one Mr Davey. I find this particularly galling and surprising given he personally attended a consultation meeting with Tony Burke, the environment minister, on 6 May 2012. He was there with a range of other fisheries stakeholders and several departmental officials. It doesn't matter how this government tries to spin it; it is undertaking the largest ever removal of any area from conservation in our nation's history. We stand here to support the original marine park plans as endorsed, as consulted and as secured by the Labor Party.</p><p>Senate estimates revealed that consultation means nothing to this government. The Director of National Parks received 82,000 submissions on marine management plans from. These plans that we have before us, which we're seeking to disallow, are even worse for the environment than the recommendations of the review of marine parks commissioned by the Abbott government, before this government. We have 97 per cent of submissions calling for Labor's original plans, which were put in place in 2013, to be restored. Among those who identified as recreational fishers, for example, 95 per cent of those submissions asked for the plans to be restored. Why? Because Labor's marine parks are substantively better for recreational fishers than the government's alternative plans. They're significantly better and they allow recreational fishing in areas that will enable regeneration of those fish. But, instead, the government wants to open those areas to commercial fishing and absolutely trash the marine protection that would support the enjoyment of recreational fishers in our country.</p><p>Let's go through what we stand to lose here. We stand to lose significant parts of the Coral Sea protection. Minister Frydenberg's proposal sees that absolutely smashed and decimated. It is extraordinary. In my home state of Western Australia the Diamantina fracture zone is also absolutely decimated in its marine protection areas. If it was appropriate to show you the maps in this place, I would do so. Unfortunately, we are bringing on this disallowance motion at a time when we've not had adequate opportunity to talk to everybody in this place about why these marine plans are so terrible and so bad. We are seeing over 50 per cent of the marine national park zoning being stripped away by the government.</p><p>As I said about recreational fishing, what the government is doing—and I call on recreational fishers right around the country not to fall for the government's misinformation about this—is erasing Australia's largest recreational fishing zone in deference to large-scale industrial fishing, including midwater trawling and tuna longlining. Our network had 18½ per cent of the Coral Sea reserve set aside for recreational fishing. What has the coalition done? It has removed that entirely and replaced it with areas where all commercial fishing is allowed except for bottom trawling. Yes, it's true to say that recreational fishers can still go there. But so can commercial fishers.</p><p>Shark Reef and Vema Reef have had high-level protections completely removed. Unique reefs like Marion Reef and Kenn Reef have been stripped back to only partial protection. In our temperate east waters, one of Australia's longest standing marine national park zones, Middleton Reef, in the far north of the Lord Howe marine park area, has been cut. This marine park, I'll have you know, was not declared as part of the recent Labor government's marine park protection; it was declared in 1987 by the Hawke government. It's incredibly important to the marine network in that area, as the marine zones there are rare and valuable.</p><p>As I said, off the coast of south-west WA is the Diamantina fracture zone. This has reduced one of Australia's largest marine national parks to one with the lowest possible zoning. This is where everything is allowed, except bottom trawling. You know, how could you bottom trawl, frankly, in an area that's between five and seven kilometres deep? There is no fishing or mining out there currently, so why do you want to lift it? You want to open it up to commercial fishing. At Geographe Bay, you removed one of two marine national parks. In the north-west of Western Australia, large marine national parks that help sustain the marine life of the Kimberley, and indeed our very important Ningaloo Marine Park, have been stripped of much of their protection. And in the north, in the Gulf of Carpentaria, we have seen our protections cut off the Wessel Islands, Karumba and in the Torres Strait, leaving those important areas open to both bottom trawling and mining.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>Oh, rubbish!</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>It's all very well for you to say 'Oh, rubbish!' but that is what your marine park rezoning allows. You are stripping back the marine protection that Labor put in place, and you can see it on a map. Labor went through a very comprehensive process where we layered places to have complete marine protection and where other zonal use would be allowed. You have completely stripped back the protections and allowed mining, commercial fishing and other uses into areas where they should simply not be allowed.</p><p>In our marine reserves network Labor supported dedicated areas for recreational fishing, including 18 per cent of the Coral Sea, the largest area in the world zoned in this way. The blue and yellow zones of the Coral Sea maps, which I can't show you because it's not appropriate to show you in the chamber, have been removed by Minister Frydenberg. Minister Frydenberg has opened Labor's rec fishing zone area up to longlining, to midwater trawling. These are the same fishing methods used by super trawlers. Additionally, in the Coral Sea, where you can't rec fish, you'd have to travel 200 kilometres, and that's a long way to go in a tinnie. So Labor's network does not impact on mums and dads and their children who want to go fishing.</p><p>The government are running a scare campaign to try to distract people from the fact that they're letting commercial fishers fish in more of our waters. I implore the chamber this evening to support this disallowance motion. The government is claiming that its network allows rec fishing in 97 per cent of waters from within 100 kilometres from shore. That may well be true, but I can tell you that Labor's network allowed rec fishing in 96 per cent of waters within 100 kilometres of shore. The difference is this: you are trying to make yourselves champions of recreational fishing, but the simple fact is recreational fishers will be competing with commercial fisheries. Labor's marine parks are substantively better for Australia's rec fishing community, and that's why they received such strong support. We see such absolute environmental destruction in your marine parks. We see that you have put forward the largest-ever wind-back of areas under conservation. No government in history anywhere in the world has ever removed from conservation protection an area as large as you are removing right now.</p><p>I want to say to you: the government put out misinformation about the finality of Labor's marine parks, but they were absolutely final. Tony Abbott himself spoke on and voted on, I think, six disallowance motions in the House of Representatives. I can remember those opposite seeking to move disallowance motions on our marine reserves many times, so any claim that we haven't done the work or that we have somehow squibbed at the last minute, which is another completely false set of accusations that has come from the other side, is completely wrong. Instead, what you have sought to do is through absolute misinformation—I want to be able to call it lies but I'd have to withdraw that immediately. But I am just so utterly gobsmacked at your complete vandalism of our nation's marine parks.</p><p>We had the most comprehensive set of consultations that this nation has ever seen when it comes to deciding on our marine parks zones. How do I know this? I know this because I was part of them and met with stakeholder after stakeholder. I took issues from the environment movement, from recreational fishers, from commercial fisheries, from APPEA and from others. I took those issues to the minister and I was part of the deliberations to balance out what went where and what was important to keep in and keep out. There were more than 200 meetings. That was way above and beyond what the government has done in putting forward its alternative proposals.</p><p>You have completely caved in to—I'm not even sure what—your own right-wing, internal, anti-environment agenda. I cannot see anywhere the logic for what you are seeking to do. There have been no big industry calls for this; there have been no recreational fishing calls for this. I can only put it down to some kind of innate anti-environment agenda coming from the other side, because what you are doing is completely irrational. It has been a completely inadequate process, it has had completely inadequate consultation, and it completely strips back the environmental protection that our nation's oceans deserve.</p><p>Now, you should recognise that, globally, our oceans are in absolute crisis. What our oceans need to see globally is more, not less, of this kind of protection. Right around the world, we see fishery after fishery being stripped back, putting our globe's food security at risk and putting our world's biodiversity at risk. So I make this plea to this place: please, let Australia continue to be a leading example on marine and environmental protection. Our nation should have a proud record in marine protection, and what the government is doing in its alternative marine park plans, which should be protected by supporting this disallowance motion, is incredibly important to our nation.</p><p>Senators opposite might roll their eyes at this, they might talk about how they intend to maintain Australia's environmental record, but the facts speak for themselves. Over 50 per cent of the marine national park zoning is being stripped away by the government. That's like halving our national parks on land. But, after question time this week, maybe we're getting a taste of that, where the government refused to rule out logging in national parks.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>You know that's not true.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>You didn't rule it out. You were asked a direct question and you refused to rule out logging in national parks.</p><p class="italic">Senator Ruston interjecting—</p><p>You tell me that that's not true. Well, if you truly stand by these kinds of environmental credentials, you should be ruling out stripping back marine protection by 50 per cent. In your alternative plans, 50 cent of our nation's marine national park zoning is being stripped away. We have Australia's largest recreational fishing zone erased in deference to large-scale industrial fishing. This is simply not good enough.</p><p>If today you get away with defeating this disallowance motion, I can tell you that Labor will not stop fighting for marine protection in this country. We will fight with campaigners and networkers right across this country—rec fishers and commercial fisheries; you name it, we will be there—because our oceans in this country will be in crisis if you are allowed to get away with this environmental vandalism.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|