Senator BARTLETT (12:14 PM) —I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats to speak to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2001. As far as it goes, the bill contains some welcome measures and we recognise the government's desire to implement them as soon as possible to ensure that these strengthened provisions can be used and communicated to affected parties to ensure that the extra penalties, in particular, and enforcement provisions in the bill are used as an extra disincentive—or an incentive, if you prefer—to ensure that people do the right thing.

I will speak a little bit more broadly than the specific content of the bill because I think it is important, when we are debating legislation to amend the Great Barrier Marine Park Act, to take the opportunity to examine how well the overall management of the marine park is going and what the health of the marine park is. Coming from the state of Queensland, I can absolutely assure the Senate that the Great Barrier Reef and the marine park that it is contained in are without doubt one of the environmental jewels for Queensland and also an incredibly significant economic asset for my state. Any threat to the ongoing health of the reef is of great concern to Queenslanders and it has potential significant negative economic consequences.

It is worth emphasising that point because, in the context of actions and decisions such as last night's budget—budgets are often talked about in terms of costs and expenditure versus revenue—we have to look at it more broadly, in the Democrats' view, and that is in terms of investment and the extra resources that are put into protecting, preserving and strengthening our environmental assets, and that undoubtedly has a flow-on net positive economic benefit. Similarly, failure to adequately protect, whether through resourcing, commitment or will by state or federal governments, or whether through negligence—failure to protect for whatever reason—is not just an environmental concern; it also has flow-on economic costs. It is important to emphasise the need to protect the asset and to emphasise in the context of this bill the fact that there are ongoing threats to the marine park. On the whole, whilst its health may be better than that of some other coral reefs around the world, it still has some significant problems in terms of degradation, particularly in certain areas. Unless those problems can be more fully addressed—and addressed far more fully, of course, than by this bill, which is meant to address just a couple of specific issues—we will have the proverbial death by a thousand cuts and the loss of an absolutely magnificent asset in terms of biodiversity as well as purely in terms of dollars and cents, for those who want simply to try and measure things in economic terms.

The bill before us today increases a few penalties and creates some new offences, some of them arising from the very worrying incident last year when a container ship ran aground on the Great Barrier Reef. That accident was caused by negligence on the part of the operators and it caused significant damage to the reef—only to a small area, thankfully, because there was no loss of cargo or spillage, but in that area there was still significant damage and, again, significant cost. That again highlights the intertwining of environmental protection and economic underpinning. The bill before us creates a new offence of negligent navigation and a maximum penalty of over $1 million for it. It also increases the maximum penalty for discharging wastes into the marine park. I have circulated an amendment that relates to an exemption in the bill in relation to sewage. There may be issues for the government as to why it is problematic to contain that in this bill, but the Democrats believe that it is a significant issue. It does present an environmental threat and it is appropriate for the federal government to have the power to more strongly regulate that, and that is what the amendment that the Democrats have circulated attempts to do—that is, to enable the federal government or a future federal government to more tightly regulate that matter down the track, without trying to force it upon them in the course of this debate.

Obviously, with a bill that is amending the marine park act we could utilise the opportunity to introduce a whole raft of amendments to strengthen that act. We have chosen not to do that on this occasion because we recognise that the bill as it stands moves things forward. Therefore, we would not want to jeopardise or hold up the passage of those positive measures by attempts to further improve the act should those measures prove to be unsuccessful, which I would not expect in the short term.

There are other flow-on changes in the bill, including imposing some strict liability, allowing for certain activities to be controlled by way of regulation—I think that is an appropriate approach to take—and generally ensuring that certain activities are more easily punished than the current act allows, including illegal fishing in inappropriate zones, which is another ongoing threat to the reef. In recognising that it is a threat and a danger, as this bill does, it points to one of the ongoing flaws in this government's approach to the reef—that is, a lack of adequate resourcing for enforcement and oversight of the marine park area. It is a huge area. We saw in last night's budget a need to top up the so-called reef tax because of an unexpected shortfall in the revenue, so even the funding that was provided is really just to keep the authority treading water, and it is treading water at a place where it is unable to adequately manage the entire marine park. We have to ensure that activities such as illegal fishing and the discharge of wastes can be detected, monitored and penalised when necessary. There is no doubt that the resources currently provided to the marine park authority do not adequately enable that.

One other small measure in last night's budget that is worth noting is at least some extra resources going specifically for management of aquaculture developments surrounding the marine park area. The Democrats have raised concerns in relation to aquaculture developments, in terms of both the totality of them as well as some specific proposals, a number of times in this place, at various Senate committees and through correspondence. It is one area where the government has taken some action and introduced regulations to provide some oversight of discharge from aquaculture developments. But it is also quite clearly an area where a lot more needs to be done. The Queensland Labor government is quite specifically promoting a dramatic expansion of aquaculture. That is not something that the Democrats oppose outright but we certainly have significant concerns about the adequacy of environmental standards that are enforced, particularly at the state government level.

It is for reasons like that that the Democrats are always keen to strengthen the power at federal level to have that overriding ability to act when local management is clearly inadequate or negligent. For the federal government to act credibly in that regard, they have to obviously act in a way that across the board shows their own commitment to properly protecting this important asset and shows the political will to enforce that. Unfortunately, with the management of the marine park, a lot of management of threats—such as commercial fishing—has got bogged down in arm wrestling between the state and federal levels. It is certainly one area amongst many where the state Labor government in Queensland has not performed adequately.

I note some of the positive comments—or visions—that Senator Bolkus put forward on behalf of the federal Labor Party in terms of what needs to be done in the marine park area. I welcome those comments. I think it is good for the opposition to put on the record what it sees as things that need to be done. Certainly, the Democrats, were Labor to get into government whenever the election is some time this year, would be following up on ensuring that the ALP actually act to address some of those needs that they have identified. But I would also urge the opposition to put more pressure on their Labor colleagues in Queensland because they are equally culpable in terms of many of the threats that have been identified and many of the problems that are ongoing in relation to the marine park, particularly in the area of fisheries management. There is an enormous amount more that needs to be done there. The progress is very slow and very tortuous. That lack of progress is due in no small part to the attitude and approach of the Queensland Labor government.

So, it is a call from the Democrats to both the coalition and Labor parties to work harder and to show greater political will in the important roles they have in protecting and preserving this major environmental asset in the state of Queensland. It is not just a matter of resourcing and funding, but that is an important part of it as well. But it is not just expenditure that flows out the door: it is an investment in an asset, and investing in that asset will repay dividends many times over. Failing to do that will produce significant extra costs many times over as well. It is a major area of concern to the Democrats. The overall future of the marine park is a particular focal point for us.

The marine park authority is currently engaged in developing a comprehensive assessment of the huge range of ecosystems right throughout the marine park through a representative areas process. That is a process the Democrats are following with great interest. If it is done properly and if it is supported politically by parties of all persuasions then it will go a long way towards ensuring not only greater protection but indeed greater understanding of exactly what it is that we are trying to protect and how best we go about protecting this asset more effectively.

It is an area where so many other portfolios come into play. Obviously, the marine park and the reef are major selling points for tourism in Queensland, and particularly northern Queensland. That industry of course has a role to play in ensuring that that tourist use of the reef and the marine park occurs in a way that protects and preserves the biodiversity and ecosystems, rather than endangers them. There is still usage of the marine park in terms of commercial fishing. There are enormous scientific opportunities through activities in the marine park. The adequate resourcing of science, knowledge and innovation is another part of the key to a better understanding of what we are trying to protect—exactly what the values, assets and opportunities are that the marine park environment provides to us and how best to ensure that that area can be protected.

The Democrats support the measures contained in this bill. We have circulated one amendment which we will deal with in the committee stage. But we do call on all parties to redouble their efforts to more adequately protect the marine park. It still is an environment that is in crisis and that is facing multiple threats, not least from the major global issue of climate change. Indeed, the reef could be one of the first areas to really show the significant damage and significant costs that will occur from failure to adequately address climate change because coral bleaching is already a risk and a problem with the reef. Even small increases in temperatures in that area could severely damage the health of the reef.

I will speak further to the amendment I have circulated when we get to the committee stage. The Democrats will support this bill. We urge all other parties not only to do the same but to support efforts to work harder to protect the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which truly is one of the major world heritage areas of the world and—as a Queenslander—a major environmental asset that my state certainly needs to protect and preserve for future generations.