Mr LINDSAY (7:05 PM) —I do not understand why this disallowance motion is before the parliament tonight because the industry and the government have agreed on this particular charge. The industry are happy and have indicated to the government that they are happy. I also do not understand, because the former member for Herbert—that is, the ALP former member for Herbert, who has the same surname as me—also has the same view, as I will enunciate tonight.

The government is committed to ensuring that the Great Barrier Reef, one of Australia's magnificent world heritage areas, is managed effectively and that there is a fair and equitable sharing of the costs of managing the reef. This is clearly not a goal shared by the opposition or the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin).

The regulation that we are discussing tonight will increase the Great Barrier Reef environmental management charge from $2 to $4. The EMC is a charge on the tourist operators and is generally calculated at the rate of $4 per person per day carried to the reef. The aim of the charge is to achieve a fairer share of the financial burden associated with managing and protecting the reef between taxpayers and those who use the reef. As a result of this regulation, those operators who extract significant private benefit from the use of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park will make a reasonable contribution to its management and protection.

A person who actually visits the reef will effectively pay a little more towards the management of the reef than the average taxpayer who never visits the reef. This is a principle that I would have thought the opposition would have supported. It is not unreasonable to expect those who use the reef to pay a small charge for the privilege. This applies not only to the many Australians who visit the reef but, importantly, also to the thousands of overseas visitors who use the reef. The opposition apparently endorse this philosophy because it was the ALP who originally introduced the environmental management charge. It strikes me as hypocritical that they should now be opposing this relatively minor increase in the charge.

Let us explore the extent of the ALP's hypocrisy on this issue. In particular, let us have a look at what a couple of former ALP environment ministers have said. Senator Faulkner said in the Australian on 19 May 1994:

I can't shy away from the need to have a look at a user-pays approach. The pressures from the numbers of tourists going to those world heritage areas is going to be enormous, and we have a responsibility to protect their values.

In his column in the Australian on 11 September 1996, when discussing the arguments against the proposed increase to the EMC, former ALP Minister for the Environment Barry Cohen said:

Most of it—

that is, the argument against the increase—

unfortunately is nonsense.

Barry Cohen, a former ALP minister, is saying that the ALP's arguments are nonsense. He pointed out that the cost of running the marine park authority was somewhere in the vicinity of $25 million to $26 million per annum and that this money had to come from somewhere.

We inherited a $10,000 million budget black hole—no doubt about that—and some decisions have to be made to fix up the difficulties that we inherited from the ALP after 13 years. What this increase in the environmental management charge is about—and I stress it is an environmental management charge, not a tax—is protecting the reef. Let me quote Barry Cohen again. He said:

The Great Barrier Reef is Australia's greatest environmental treasure. The burden for protecting it is borne by all Australian taxpayers. Gradually a larger part of that burden must be shifted to those who most enjoy it—those who visit the reef.

This is what this is all about. These regulations provide the opportunity for the visitors to the park to contribute a little more to its ongoing maintenance.

The member for Cunningham himself knows a little bit about this. He is a prime example of the ALP's hypocrisy. The member for Cunningham—and he will remember this—was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts which, in its report entitled Managing Australia's World Heritage, said:

A convincing argument can be made for charging those who benefit most from world heritage areas, either financially or as visitors. It is argued that, while taxpayers as a whole contribute through government funding to world heritage management, those who reap special rewards from the areas by earning a living from tourism or through their experiences while visiting the areas should make an additional financial contribution.

That was at page 169. The report also said:

The Committee considers that where it is feasible to collect fees, they should be more than a token amount. It supports the move in the 1996-97 Budget to increase the environmental management fee . . .

That was at page 183. Interestingly, the member for Cunningham was a member of this committee when it handed down its report. He signed off on the report and cannot seriously come into this House and now argue against these regulations.

I would also like to quote from the Hansard of 13 May 1993, where the former member for Herbert, Mr Ted Lindsay, was quoting from the Liberal Party's Fightback document. It states:

We believe users of our national parks should contribute more towards their upkeep and the provision of facilities.

Mr Lindsay then responded in this place by saying:

I have no quarrel whatever with that assertion.

Mr Lindsay also said:

In a communique issued by the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council meeting on 10 May 1988, it was proposed that the user-pays principle would apply to tourist operators and tourists visiting the Great Barrier Reef. I quote from that communique . . .

And the quote was:

. . . the principle of charging for the commercial use of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Queensland marine parks was endorsed by Council.

Mr Lindsay then commented on who members of the council were. He said:

Who constituted the council? In attendance were Senator Graham Richardson, Senator Margaret Reynolds . . .

Senator Margaret Reynolds comes from North Queensland. The hypocrisy of the ALP now coming into this place and moving this disallowance motion!

How will you make up the shortfall? The member for Cunningham is promising to overturn this increase. But not once have we heard from the ALP where they will find the money to cover the shortfall that the disallowance would cause to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's budget? Neither the shadow minister for tourism nor the shadow minster for environment will make a public commitment to fund the shortfall; nor have they told us which part of the budget they would take the funds from to ensure there are sufficient funds available to properly manage the reef.

I turn to the value for tourism. Tourism is the largest and fastest growing commercial use of the marine park. It is worth over $1,000 million annually to Queensland and the national economy. There have been significant visitors to the reef in the last several years, and a high proportion of these visitors are North American, European and Japanese. The management of tourism and its impacts occupies a major and growing proportion of the authority's resources.

Active management is required to protect the world heritage values of the reef. It is only reasonable that tourism operators and, indirectly, tourists—especially overseas tourists—should contribute to meeting these increasing coasts. The EMC is in effect an investment in our environment and in the future prosperity of the tourism industry which depends so heavily on the reef.

I now turn to negotiations with the industry. Since announcing the intention to increase the EMC in the 1996-97 budget, the government has consulted closely with the tourism industry to ensure that the increased charge is implemented smoothly and with the minimum of impact on the industry. The government has accepted a proposal put forward by a number of tourism industry groups which will minimise the impact of the collection of the fee.

It had been proposed to implement the original decision through a $2 EMC and a $4 tourist visitor charge. However, the tourism industry groups requested that the government replace this arrangement with one fee only, a $4 EMC, to be effective from 1 April 1998. After careful consideration, Senator Hill has accepted the industry's proposal. The EMC was therefore increased to $4 on 1 April 1998. The government will now not proceed with the tourist visitor charge.

Senator Hill accepted the proposal from industry because it is a win-win outcome. We will achieve a fairer sharing of the costs of managing the reef between taxpayers and visitors using the reef. The $4 EMC does not represent an excessive burden on industry. The outcome also addresses industry concerns that the collection of the TVC by the GBRMPA could have been unduly disruptive. Let me quote from a letter to Senator Hill from a key industry association:

May we congratulate and thank you on your recent decision regarding the TVC. We congratulate you for—

this is the industry's words—

accepting the industry's proposal over this issue. This clearly shows that we were acting in full consultation with the industry. We also accepted a number of other proposals put forward by industry representatives. In particular, we have taken the step of linking the EMC to the CPI, a step particularly sought by major industry associations.

Let me do a quick comparison with other fees. At an effective rate of $4 per visit, the EMC compares favourably with the fees charged for use in other areas of high natural value, such as Kakadu, Uluru and many state run national parks. For example, both Kakadu and Uluru charge a $15 per person entry fee. That pass is valid for 14 days for Kakadu and seven days for Uluru. Here we have further evidence of ALP hypocrisy. One of the last acts of the previous ALP government was to increase the Uluru charge to $15.

While we are on that subject, let us have a look at what the ALP is doing in New South Wales. The Carr government recently announced that it would introduce a new $5 per day park use fee in 15 national parks and reserves. In addition, the daily park fee in Kosciusko was increased from $12 to $18 a car. The ALP has come in here complaining about a $2 increase in the EMC, while Bob Carr moves to introduce a whole range of new park fees in New South Wales. Will the member for Cunningham condemn the Carr government?

In relation to the GBRMPA efficiency reforms, management of the Great Barrier Reef—one of Australia's greatest natural assets and the world's biggest multi-use national marine park—is a complex and demanding task; a task that is becoming more demanding and more challenging as the magnitude of management and the likelihood of human impact pressures increases. The government is committed to effective management of the Great Barrier Reef. Recently Senator Hill announced a number of reforms to the administration of the authority which will result in a more efficient and effective organisation.

The changes have been widely welcomed in Townsville. As the member for Cunningham has correctly said, the headquarters of the marine park authority are based in my city. The authority is undergoing a comprehensive restructuring process to provide a streamlined, more efficient organisation which will continue the important work of protecting the Great Barrier Reef. The government is ensuring that the authority operates as an effective but efficient organisation. The importance of managing the reef should not allow us to be blinded to the need to ensure that scarce taxpayer funds are spent in the best possible way. The government's goal is for the authority to retain the outstanding international reputation that it has earned for its stewardship of the Great Barrier Reef and to achieve a fairer share of the cost of managing the reef as a key part of our strategy.

I congratulate the officers and the staff of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority who do a wonderful job. The recent changes have been widely welcomed both within the authority's structure and from the industry that is serviced by the authority. I believe that a disallowance of these regulations tonight would cause significant problems both with the authority and with the industry. I think it is irresponsible for the member for Cunningham to be moving this motion tonight. These regulations are part of a strategy, and the opposition's hypocritical motion should be roundly rejected tonight.