Coalition Senators’
Dissenting Report
The Coalition supports a balanced approach to marine
conservation.
Marine Protected Areas are intended to protect and
maintain biologically and culturally significant marine areas. The previous
Coalition Government commenced the process of establishing comprehensive Marine
Bioregional Plans, which include determination of Marine Protected Areas around
Australia’s coastline.
In 2006, the former Coalition Government announced the
establishment of eleven Marine Protected Areas, as part of development of the
South-East zone, first Commonwealth Bioregional Plan. These eleven Marine
Protected Areas were only created after careful consideration and consultation
with the recreational and commercial fishing sectors, environmental
non-government organisations (ENGOs) and other stakeholders.
The former Coalition Government engaged in an extensive
and cooperative consultation process before any Marine Protected Areas were
declared. This consultation ensured an appropriate balance was struck between
protecting marine biodiversity and minimising social and economic impact on
fishers, businesses and coastal communities, and better outcomes. The final
result was a greater area protected with less impact on industry.
The Rudd and Gillard Labor Government has continued the
Coalition’s program, but have failed to continue with appropriate consultation
with the fishing industry and the wider community. The successive Labor
Governments are not adopting a balanced approach and instead appear to
preference the views and desires of ENGOs at the expense of the fishing
sectors.
Many communities that rely on fishing are directly
threatened by the Government’s inability to adequately consult on whether a
region should be declared a Marine Protected Area.
Unsurprisingly, recreational and commercial fishers, as
well as the many related businesses and communities that rely on fishing, have
raised substantial concerns about the Government’s handling of Marine Protected
Areas.
Appropriate and effective consultation is needed if
Marine Protected Areas are to balance environmental concerns with the need to
support industries, protect jobs and sustain the communities that rely on
commercial and recreational fishing.
Many communities will face enormous economic and social
losses unless there is proper and effective consultation on potential Marine
Protected Areas. Only proper and effective consultation will ensure future
Marine Protected Areas balance preservation of the environment with economic
growth and strong coastal communities.
The Coalition is committed to returning balance and
fairness to marine conservation.
It is with this in mind that the Coalition proposed the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional
Plans) Bill 2011.
The original Bill sought to make bioregional plans
disallowable instruments, under the provisions in the Acts Interpretation
Act 1901 and the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. A subsequent
amendment to be moved by Senator Colbeck and provided to the Committee prior to
the Senate hearings so that it could be fully considered as a part of the
inquiry process clarified the intention to make Marine Protected Zones
disallowable instruments. The purpose of this amendment was not to change the
intent of the legislation but to ensure that it met the objectives as set out
in the Second Reading Speech and the Explanatory Memorandum.
Under the current provisions for bioregional plans with
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, a bioregional plan
as prepared under subsection 176(1) or (2) is not a legislative instrument.
As such, the Environment Minister currently has sole
power to approve the adoption of bioregional plans. The Coalition believes this
amendment should be made to provide far greater parliamentary sovereignty and
allow both houses the right to debate the merits of any new Marine Protected
Areas.
The risks associated with this principle of unlimited
power were clearly articulated by Harry Evans, former Clerk of the Senate in
his paper Constitutionalism, Bicameralism and the Control of Power,
(2008).
The real realists,
however, are those who know that their pockets will not remain unpicked and
their rights untrampled if their chosen representatives are given a free rein
between elections indefinitely. Such people are properly sceptical of the claim
that “strong government” equals economic growth. They will appreciate the
difficulty of judging a government if it controls the information they receive.
They will therefore welcome the timely installation of safeguards to curb
malfeasance at an early stage. Australia is now undersupplied with safeguards,
and oversupplied with public scandals, not counting the misdeeds we do not get
to hear about. We should preserve the safeguards that exist and think very
carefully about new ones.
The current lack of review available to the final
declaration of Bioregional Plans is a clear example of the vesting of power
within narrow confines, resting solely with the Minister and therefore provides
the opportunity for abuse of power. Declarations of Bioregional Plans and
Marine Protected Areas have significant environmental and socio-economic
consequences. It is therefore inappropriate for these declarations to be made
without the opportunity for parliamentary review, a further “safeguard” is
required. By making the declaration of Bioregional Plans and Marine Protected
Areas disallowable instruments, these significant decisions will be subject to
that scrutiny and a further safeguard established.
Further, Dr Coghill, appearing in a private capacity,
supported the Bill. Reflecting on his seventeen years in the Victorian
parliament, including four years as speaker, Dr Coghill stated:
Inquiry Hansard, Friday,
13 May 2011, p 1
Dr Coghill – My
clear perspective is that it is absolutely important to effective parliamentary
democracy that the parliament have the opportunity to scrutinise and, if
appropriate, disallow any action taken by the executive. It follows from that
that I support the effect of the legislation as it seems to me that it would
enable the parliament to scrutinise particular decisions by the relevant
minister and, if after examination they felt so moved, to disallow such an
instrument. My position is on that primary issue of accountability of the executive
to the parliament.
Overwhelming
support for parliamentary review of the marine bioregional planning process was
evident in submissions to the Committee, such as the following from the Abalone
Industry Association of South Australia:
Inquiry
submission number 14
It is a
real slap in the face to the good work done by our Government Fisheries
Managers and Industry. We are very uncomfortable with the fact that the final
decision of adopting the bioregional plans rests with the Minister for Environment
only. We would prefer to have a far more rigorous and robust process through
the parliament that doesn’t have the potential to be clouded by extreme green
views.
And
from Queensland Seafood Industry Association:
Inquiry
submission number 18
Without
this amendment the department and the Minister have unfettered power without
recourse.
QSIA
would also argue the proposed amendment bill allows for a further level of
protection by the Parliament that ensures single issue interest groups are
unable to remove the rights of others without due process.
Ineffective
consultation
The Government argues that sufficient stakeholder
consultation has been undertaken with regard to the bioregional planning. However,
submissions made to this Inquiry are testament to the high dissatisfaction
amongst sectors of the industry. While the proposed Bill, and this Inquiry,
deal with a technical legislative aspect of the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, the majority of submissions to this
Inquiry highlighted flaws with the Government’s progressing the Bioregional
Plans network and Marine Protected Areas within the Bioregional Plans.
The importance of effective consultation cannot be
overstated. Ultimately the success of initiatives relies heavily on their
acceptance by key stakeholders.
Inquiry Hansard, Friday,
13 May 2011, p 3
Dr Coghill –
That is really what I meant in my earlier comment. Where there is highly
interactive consultation with and between the stakeholders you are more likely
to end up with a satisfactory regulatory regime – if I can put it in that
terminology – than if it is left to a later stage and is simply left to be
resolved at the political level. My point is that, if there is full and frank
and proper consultation and exchange between stakeholders, it is much more
likely that there will be an effective regime to protect the marine resource,
and that is really what has been demonstrated by Ostrim in her work which has
led to her Nobel Prize.
There are many voices in the discussion and debate
related to the establishment of Bioregional Plans and Marine Protected Areas. The
Government should be concerned that a significant number of these stakeholders
do not feel their concerns have been heard or considered. The ability to
further review the declaration of Bioregional Plans, and Marine Protected
Areas, by making them disallowable instruments would provide opportunity for
the Australian Parliament to consider the concerns of their constituents, and
to take action when required.
The following witnesses and submission extracts
validate the Coalition’s concerns in this area:
Mrs Judy Lynne, Executive Officer, SunFish Queensland
agreed with Senator Colbeck’s summation of her concerns as being
Inquiry Hansard, Friday,
13 May 2011, pp 24-25
Senator Colbeck – To summarise your position that you have given, both in your introductory
comments and also here, you do not believe that your voice has actually been
reflected in the process thus far. Therefore, with the capacity for the
parliament to have a final consideration you believe there is an opportunity
for your voice to be heard as part of that process.
Mrs Lynne – Yes
Mr Conway, Chair of RecFish Australia, stated:
Inquiry Hansard, Friday,
13 May 2011, pp 22-23
Mr Conway – ...RecFish supports the sustainable use of marine resources and we believe that
decisions should by based on the principle of shared management and shared use
of resources and not the denial of access to specific stakeholders. We support
any process that may increase the transparency of decision making in relation
to the current marine bioregional planning process. We have noted that there
are some suggestions from a number of quarters that the level of consultation
and transparency of the process in the past has been less than what was
possible expected by the stakeholder groups. We also understand that the same
stakeholders have initiated that the precautionary principle may have been
applied inefficiently. (The underlying assumption from recreational fishers is
that decisions should be based on sustainable, well managed conservation
actions with input from all stakeholders, rather than the lock-out mentality of
some groups.)... We believe that the bioregional planning process can only
benefit from a rigorous examination and review and that the process should be
as thorough and open to full scrutiny by all stakeholders. We seen no reason
why our elected representatives should not be part of that review process...the
Hawke review suggested that there was a need to improve transparency in decision
making...
Submission
2 from Kathryn Williams, identifying herself as “an irate Australian Citizen”:
“The
Government seems to rush into these types of proposals and not take into
account what the layman says. You say you listen to us at these Marine Park
meetings but I think you are only there to show your presence and that you have
already made the decision to go ahead.”
Submission
3 from Greg Haines, Managing Director, The Haines Group:
“The
apparent political power of these minority groups, combined the perceived
shallow public consultation conducted on Marine Parks zoning has left an
indelible impression in the minds of many that Democracy is dead. At least in
the matter of Marine Zoning. If this all sounds far-fetched you need look no
further than the submissions to the 2005 Review of the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Act.”
Submission
8 from Mr Cameron Talbot:
“I’m
concerned that \ lobby groups like PEW WWF and AMCS seem to get access to
Ministers and control of what happens. The Department does not consult us or
simply ignores what we have to say. I feel that democracy has been lost and
further more my faith in the Labour party has gone with it. I along with all
labour supporters that I know who also fish, are so disenfranchised with this
government that at the next election we will do what I never thought we would
and vote LNP. This is the last chance I will give labour, if this falls thru so
does my vote- for good. Fishermen (and there are a lot of us) will not forget
this if it is swept under the carpet.”
Submission
7 from Mr
Scott Thompson, Recreational Fisherman:
“Also
of note is the Government’s lack of public consultation in regards to Marine
Parks. The relevant information is often skewed towards a biased opinion and
any scientific studies, data and evidence are either non‐existent or hidden from public viewing
until the Minister has given their approval of the plan. Consultation is often
held and the public is given a chance to speak, however, never, not once has
anything the public majority been given any consideration in regards to Marine
Parks. I urge this Senate Committee to form an investigation and review into
the current consultation practices of the Government and to oversee new, fairer
consultation processes whereby the public are given adequate notice and
information, this would include making any and all relevant scientific studies
public and available for viewing and evaluation.”
Submission
3 from Superyacht
Australia:
“Biodiversity
conservation, in the context of ecologically sustainable development, is the
central objective of the EPBC Act and this approach underlined the Government’s
strong commitment to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Australian
marine environment, as envisaged in Australia’s Oceans Policy (1998).
The
Government at the time clearly stated that the approach would give marine
industries clearer guidance, and help to streamline the operation of approval
processes under the EPBC Act, improving the information available to Government
on which to base its decisions.
While
there were substantial achievements through regional marine planning with the
release of the world’s first regional marine plan in the South-east Marine
Region, the Rudd Government decided that a deviation away from that process
with a much increased emphasis on marine conservation. This change in emphasis
also resulted in a different approach to industry engagement which has resulted
in a significant loss in confidence by industry to the process and its
commitment to the outcomes of the current process.”
People
do not feel their concerns have been heard, they feel isolated and ignored,
clear hall marks of ineffective consultation.
Perhaps
even more concerning are the issues raised by the Australian Fishing Trade
Association regarding access to information:
Inquiry
submission number 31
“To
date no briefing regarding the science being used with Bio Regional Planning
has been transparently tabled to stake holders. Thus no comment from stake holders
has been achieved.
This
vacuum of information has not been helpful in any understanding of current
process, future process or past process. However we are aware a draft map has
been produced. Why in the name of transparency during a planning process that a
scientific briefing not be available to Stakeholders, Government? Would it not
encourage informed debate?”
Concerns
regarding potential to achieve conservation aims
Significant
doubts were raised regarding the ability of the Marine Protected Areas
identified within the Marine Bioregional Plans to achieve conservation aims. Much
of the criticism relates to the focus of researching what currently exists and
not applying sufficient rigour to the question of how best to protect and
preserve the marine biodiversity. Concerns were also raised with relation to
whether adequate risk assessments had been undertaken, particularly considering
the transient but potentially devastating impacts of isolated incidents such as
pollution from marine vessels such as the oil spill from the Pacific
Adventurer.
Marine
biologist, Dr Diggles raised concerns regarding the apparent lack of applying a
risk based approach to the declaration of marine national parks and Marine
Protected Areas. Dr Diggles has considerable experience in the application of a
scientifically based risk analysis to issues of marine biosecurity and
environmental health. He has first-hand experience assessing the scientific
basis of the declaration of the Coral Sea Conservation Zone and in his own
words, “I work on the actual mechanisms that influence the resilience and the
biodiversity within these aquatic systems. I work on the actual nuts and bolts
that hold the systems together.”
Inquiry Hansard, Friday,
13 May 2011, p 11
Dr
Diggles
- .....it is apparent to me that there is actually a disconnect between the
reality of the biological processes that are threatening the biodiversity and
fish stocks in these areas in my local marine park; there is a disconnect
between that and the area management tools that many laypeople, politicians and
even some scientists seem to think can solve all the problems.
Inquiry Hansard, Friday,
13 May 2011, p 12
Dr
Diggles – Area management is managing people’s activities within an area, but it is not
risk management. These biological processes do not particularly care about
where the line is put on the water. They work on processes related to things
like water quality, nutrient input and all of these other aspects. A lot of the
insults to the system, for want of a better word, actually originate from
outside the lines on the map. It is very important to realise with this process
that we are seeing some people quite happy to put lines on a map and to state
that this ecosystem is now protected. They use that word in a way that is very
misleading, because the actual risk associated with that ecosystem may be
originating from outside the lines on the map and, therefore, it is more of a
holistic ecosystem approach.
Inquiry Hansard, Friday,
13 May 2011, p 11
Dr
Diggles – The reality is I think marine parks are being massively oversold in Australia
at the moment. It is my aim today to give the committee and the federal
government a clearer view of what the parks can and cannot do for biodiversity,
fisheries and health of the marine environment, and to explain why I think the
actual process needs a few more checks and balances to make sure it is done
right.
Responding
to a question from Senator Siewert regarding the scientific data and other
inputs used by the government to make the zoning recommendations, Dr Diggles
acknowledged there was “a lot of very good information” gathered over a number
of years, but also identified a lack of a risk based approach to the management
of fisheries.
On
further questioning from Senator Colbeck, Dr Diggles explained the origins of
the claim by The Ecology Centre that, according to submission 27 “50% of the
oceans in the south west of the country will need to be protected in a network
of marine sanctuaries to minimise risks to marine life, fish stocks and
ecosystems”.
Inquiry Hansard, Friday,
13 May 2011, pp 15-16
Dr
Diggles – You had to be fairly bloody minded to go in there and see how they arrived at
those figures, but essentially it was a 30 per cent minimum arrangement and
added another 20 per cent on top of that for protection of threatened species.
In
short, the output of the analysis was in fact dictated by the arbitrary targets
inputted by the modellers.
Professor
Kearney, Emeritus Professor of Fisheries, University of Canberra cast further
doubt over the process of establishing Marine Protected Areas, stating in his
submission to the Committee:
Inquiry
submission number 24
“The
wisdom of using area management in marine environments remains largely unquestioned
today. Rather its use continues to be based on the unjustified transposition of
terrestrial paradigms of national parks into marine environments that are
highly interconnected and mostly volatile or even mobile. Marine environments
are such that artificial boundaries are largely irrelevant to the ecological
processes within them and therefore also often irrelevant to their proper
conservation or management. The failure to adequately assess the contribution
of area management to the conservation requirements for hugely different marine
environments, ranging from high energy ocean beaches to relatively more static
deepwater seamounts, further exposes the inadequacies of the process.”
Professor
Kearney highlights three fundamental steps to be taken in order for an area to
be adequately and appropriately protected:
- all
significant threats must be identified (Article 7 of the Convention on
Biological Diversity)
-
the
processes that constitute these threats must be addressed (EPBC Act,
Commonwealth of Australia 1999) and,
-
the
management action that is taken must “not be disproportionate to the
significance of the environmental problems” (Intergovernmental Agreement on the
Environment, Government of Australia 1992)
Regrettably
Professor Kearney also states that these simple steps have not been
systematically applied to the declaration of most Australia’s Marine Protected
Areas.
The
assumption of the Australian government that closing areas to all types of
fishing represents total or at least high levels of protection is challenged by
Professor Kearney. In fact, it appears that the link between fishing and
depletion of fishing stocks is not always as clear cut as some would lead us to
believe.
Recent
research, funded by the federal government, has raised doubts as to the
effectiveness of the proposal to expand marine parks in Western Australia.
“The commonwealth-funded joint study by the WA Department of
Fisheries and Murdoch University found fishing activity was not having a major
impact on fish stocks in the state's four marine bio-regions.” Sydney Morning
Herald, 2 June 2011.
Dr Dan
Gaughan from the Department of Fisheries was reported as saying that the
Department’s recent management of fisheries initiatives have had positive
impact on the state's fishing stocks and WA Fisheries Minister Norman Moore is
reported to have said that the recent report “raised questions about the
effectiveness of the government's proposed marine parks.” Minister Norman has
called on Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke to present scientific
evidence backing the recently released draft marine parks plan for the
southwest of Western Australia.
Other
evidence provided to the inquiry supported the potential for sound fisheries
management to have positive impacts on fish stocks.
Inquiry
Hansard, Friday, 13 May 2011, p 17
Professor Kearney – Since the 1990s in Australia
we have greatly improved our fisheries management. The EPBC Act has played a
major role in that and is pivotal to the discussion. In fact, if you look at
changes in the last five years, from 2005 to 2009, the number of fisheries
assessed by the Commonwealth government to be well managed or underfished has
increased from 15 to 56 – an impressive figure – while the number overfished
has gone down from 25 to 15.
The
submissions and evidence presented to the inquiry highlights assumptions have
been made regarding the establishment of Marine Protected Areas and exclusion
of fishing as effective mechanisms for conservation of marine biodiversity. A
simple solution has been imposed on a fundamentally complex and dynamic
situation. Questions have been raised regarding the apparent rating of fishing
activities as of high significance while other issues such pollution, sediment
run-off, climate change, coral bleaching, sea temperature increases, ocean
acidification, translocation of species, introduction of diseases and a whole
range of human activities such as boating, tourism, diving, walking or
anchoring on coral appear to be underplayed and are unlikely to respond to the
marine planning initiatives.
Threat
to seafood security
Seafood
is an important component of the Australian diet, and despite our huge
coastline relative to our population we are now a net importer of fisheries
products.
The
submission from the Australian Marine Engine Council, submission 17 states:
“...in
2007–2008 Australia became a net importer of
fisheries products, both in terms of volume and in terms of value.”
Professor
Kearney also raised concerns related to imports:
Inquiry
Hansard, Friday, 13 May 2011, p 19
Professor
Kearney – We import 70 per cent of what we have. Australia has no policy for seafood
security – none.
Inquiry
Hansard, Friday, 13 May 2011, p 20
Professor
Kearney –
Do not lock off big areas, particularly not the Coral Sea. For example, the
Coral Sea that is being proposed, is Australia’s only access to the world’s
biggest fishery. It is a two million tonne fishery. Australia’s total fish
catch is 200,000 tonnes.
Not
only should Australia be focussing on national food security and the importance
of fish as a healthy protein source, we should not outsource our food
requirements to developing nations and indirectly contribute to the depletion
of fish stocks in areas with less sophisticated fisheries management practices.
Conclusion
The magnitude of the Marine Bioregional network, being
almost equivalent to the entire land mass of Australia combined with the need
to effectively balance conservation and biodiversity outcomes with the
financial and social impacts associated with the modification to fishing
activities strongly support the case for such decisions to be made with the
safeguard of an additional review of the Parliament.
An amendment to the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011 can provide
this, thereby protecting all stakeholders and the general public against the
potential for the executive to make politically distorted decisions.
Senator the Hon. Richard Colbeck
|
Senator the Hon. Ron Boswell |
| |
|
| Senator Mary Jo Fisher |
|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page