Senator John Cherry
Portfolio: Environment & Animal Welfare
| Dated: 16 May 2002
Location: Parliament House - Canberra
|
Senator John Cherry speaks to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Boundary Extension) Amendment Bill 2002: Second Reading |
Senator CHERRY (Queensland) (4.49 p.m.) —I must confess that one of the most amusing things I have heard is Senator Lightfoot describe himself as a right-wing greenie. It certainly did not come through any part of his speech. I would be much more interested in the views of right-wing greenies like Peter Lindsay, who has also spoken about the need to review the boundaries of the marine park, and indeed Virginia Chadwick, who is a Liberal and who has a very strong and determined attachment to the Great Barrier Reef and making sure it is adequately protected. It is certainly disappointing to see that her authority suffered a funding cut in this week's budget and that her authority, to some extent, has been muzzled by the current environment minister in terms of its activities.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Boundary Extension) Amendment Bill 2002 is a very important bill. I do not think Senator Lightfoot and others understand that large parts of the Coral Sea do in fact have coral reefs which are outside the boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The Democrats acknowledge and accept that the current rules of the marine park do not allow for drilling within the boundaries of the marine park. Our concern is that a lot of the exploration interest and a lot of the current research activity is occurring around the fringes of the park and, in particular, affecting some of the isolated reefs in the Coral Sea, such as the Lihou Reef and other reefs as well.
There is quite a lot of evidence to indicate that there are in fact significant reserves of oil adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, particularly in the Townsville Trough area and other areas which are very close to the boundaries of the marine park and underneath it. There has also been a significant amount of exploration by industry and by the Australian government over the last 30 years and, indeed, in the last few years. It is significant also that the federal government, whether it was the previous Labor government or the coalition, has been very aware of oil prospects in this area and has continued to allow exploration to occur under the guise of scientific research and other various terms. Whether it is scientific research or not, it does mystify us that many of the vessels which have been going in as scientific research vessels have included in their passengers oil company executives and oil company exploration experts. It is very difficult to see how the presence of such people assists Australia in its research on the impact of global climate change on the Great Barrier Reef and its areas.
We are quite disappointed in some respects that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has been failing in its obligations to protect the park, either through complicity or disregard for the evidence that a lot of this exploration work is in fact not for scientific purposes. Dr Kemp has in his media release again confirmed that there will be no oil drilling within the marine park itself and he has said further that research that has occurred there has only been scientific research and mapping and that there has been no oil exploration. We welcome the commitment, but of course it reflects the current law. There are three problems. The current law does not prohibit oil exploration, including seismic testing and drilling under the guise of science. GBRMPA continues to issue permits for such research, with no impact assessment and public input. The commitment and other comments by the minister make no mention of protecting the areas outside of the park.
Last year the JOIDES' Resolution, a deep sea drilling vessel, part of the ocean drilling project, drilled 16 holes inside the park. The permit was issued by the authority without any public input or impact assessment. The claim is made that it was purely scientific research, but we do know that there were at least half a dozen employees of the oil drilling and petroleum industries on board that particular vessel. We know that the same vessel in 1990 drilled in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park north and east of Cairns. We know that the findings were highly significant for the petroleum industry, which became quite excited about the petroleum prospects. We know that there are approximately five billion barrels of oil in the region and that it all has been discovered through secret trips disguised as science. At what point does all of this start to become scientific drilling? The pending TGS Nopec permit application is to conduct seismic surveys east of the Great Barrier Reef and is perhaps the first undertaken in this area ever. TGS Nopec admit that they do work for petroleum interests. What about the CSIRO survey in the area in 1999: where are those findings and who was interested in them? What about the trips of the Rig Seismic sent by the Bureau of Mineral Resources in the 1980s? What was the purpose of the cruise and did the oil industry get access to the data? There have been trip after trip and vessel after vessel going into this area under the guise of science but which have obviously been serving commercial interests.
It is all very well for the minister to say that there will be no drilling within the reef, because that is not saying anything new. More importantly, the minister needs to answer why there is so much exploration by oil industry interests inside the Great Barrier Reef area, both within the park and on its fringes. Why won't he protect the reef from this sort of research and ensure that far more rigorous regulation on scientific research is actually put in place? Why won't he talk about the threat to the Coral Sea? What about protecting the reefs of the Coral Sea outside of the marine park zone itself? What we need is a buffer zone around the Great Barrier Reef particularly to deal with the threat of oil drilling and exploration to the reef park. That is what this bill is about—ensuring that there is an adequate buffer zone and ensuring that the fringe reefs in the Coral Sea are also protected.
We also want to see some honesty and accountability in this debate. The coalition and the previous ALP governments have allowed all this to happen in secret—25 years of secret oil exploration. Some of the documents the Democrats have revealed through the work of my colleague Senator Bartlett have only just begun to get to the bottom of the story. But this debate should be public and should be open. It is also worth noting some of the correspondence between the Queensland government and the Australian government over the course of the last couple of years. In 1997, for example, the Queensland Department of Mines and Energy under the Borbidge government wrote to the federal department suggesting that areas east of the Great Barrier Reef in the Queensland Plateau and the Townsville Trough `could be legitimate exploration target areas. Could we impose on you to review both the Queensland Plateau and the Townsville Trough areas and see if the Bureau of Resource Science are interested in releasing areas here.' The response from DPIE indicates that the department would write separately about `the possible release of areas of the Coral Sea in future bidding rounds'. The ministerial brief then prepared for the Borbidge government indicates that `a number of large international oil and gas company representatives have shown interest in exploring for petroleum in waters offshore of Queensland'.
It is very difficult to see how all these activities and the actual wholesale exploration which would follow from this small-scale scientific research could not at some future time actually pose a threat to the Great Barrier Reef. This is an extremely fragile environment and any increase in heavy traffic, oil tankers or other traffic constructing a rig, the threat of actual leaks out of the rig itself or any pipelines created would all pose potential threats to a very delicate area and a very delicate environment. We cannot understand how a government which says it is not going to allow oil drilling, exploration and mining in the reef area continues to allow such research to go on which can only have one ultimate purpose, which is exploration, mining and drilling on the boundaries of the reef and into the reef marine park itself.
This is a very important bill, and I am pleased to hear the comments from Senator Carr that the Labor Party also shares the concerns of the Democrats. It is a very important bill because it ensures that we as an Australian parliament are living up to our international obligations to make sure that the world heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef are fully and adequately protected. That requires an appropriate buffer zone around the reef. That requires ensuring that the waters around the reef are as adequately protected from serious mishap as possible. The precautionary principle is a fundamental component of any decent environmental law. Senator Lightfoot, as a right-wing greenie, and others should appreciate the importance of the precautionary principle. The bill we are presenting today is about making sure that the precautionary principle is reflected in the actual boundaries of the marine park and making sure that the actual threat that could be posed by all of this scientific research being converted into actual mining proposals does not occur. In our view, the only way to ensure that can happen under Australian law is to ensure that the ban, which the government does acknowledge applies to drilling and mining within the marine park, extends to a wider area which picks up all of the buffer zones and all the areas that could be under threat if the interest from the oil companies actually is taken a step or two further.
Senator Lightfoot also spoke about the incredible reliance of Australia on imported oil and imported petroleum products. The Democrats acknowledge that this is a concern. As Senator Boswell on the other side of the chamber would know, there are ways of actually dealing with and reducing that reliance. Ethanol from sugar cane is a classic example of renewable energy that could meet our needs, actually provide a new growth industry in regional Australia and reduce our reliance on oil and petroleum. We could look at other issues, such as wind power and solar power. We could look at efficiency issues, such as hybrid electric cars, which could significantly reduce our contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and our reliance on fossil fuels.
All of these things are things that the government could be doing more about. If right-wing greenies like Senator Lightfoot, self-confessed, are concerned about Australia not being able to meet our petroleum needs of the future, then they should be asking why the federal government cut the funding to the Australian Greenhouse Office, which is supposed to be ensuring that research is being done on finding alternatives to fossil fuels. They should be asking questions about why we have not done more to promote the Australian ethanol industry and why the government knocked off the ethanol bounty some five years ago and has put in nothing sufficient to replace it. They should be asking why we have not come back and reviewed the issue of petroleum excise indexation and should ensure that reliance on petroleum products is reduced over time by appropriate economic instruments, which would then encourage the development of renewable energies.
All of these things are very important because, until we reduce the reliance on fossil fuels and reduce the reliance on petroleum, the pressure will be there. Economic pressure from the big oil companies will be there to turn the scientific research that is being done on the Townsville Trough and other parts of the Coral Sea into exploration, drilling and, eventually, mining permits. By ensuring that we bring out the boundaries of the marine park, we ensure that it is much more difficult for some future government—whether it be coalition or ALP—to succumb to this pressure to allow mining or oil interests to get into the Barrier Reef area. That is what this bill is about. It is about making sure that governments of the future cannot make bad decisions about the Great Barrier Reef. It is making sure that we adopt an appropriate precautionary principle in developing laws and boundaries. That is why I am happy to support this private member's bill. I commend the bill to the Senate.
|
|
