Right: a map showing the proposed marine reserves network around the Australian coast.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against Australia's proposed network of marine parks
1. These conservation zones will seriously damage Australia's commercial fishing industry
The federal government's proposed network of marine reserves has met with opposition from the Australian fishing industry. The industry claims that the marine park network is an over-reaction and that the damage fisheries are supposed to do to fish stocks has never been proven.
The chief executive officer of the Australian Marine Alliance, Dean Logan, has argued, 'What's offensive is that fishing has not been proven to be an irreversible threat to the marine environment anywhere in Australia and not one species of fish has ever been fished to extinction.'
Mr Logan argued that to the extent that fish stocks were under threat, the principal culprits were not the fishing industry. Mr Logan stated, 'The marine environment is being damaged by inappropriate land based development, pollution from agricultural runoff, urban runoff and sewage as well as introduced pests from bilge water and ships' hulls.'
Mr Logan went on to claim, 'The effect [of reduced fishing access] on communities will be devastating and estimated to be in-excess of $4.35BN - fish wholesalers, retailers, boat manufacturers, dealers, marina operators and developers, refrigeration companies, local councils, recreational anglers, transport, marine tourism operators, sports clubs, and professional service providers are just a few[of those who will feel the impact].'.
Mr Logan concluded, 'At a time when we are encouraged by celebrity chefs and nutritionists to eat more quality seafood Minister Burke slashes approximately 70 sustainable fishing trawlers.'
The fishing and seafood industry has claimed that the extended marine reserves would push up the price of seafood, damage coastal communities and imperil Australia's food security.
Guy Leyland, of the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council, has claimed, 'The big winners out of this will be the importers. The Australian consumer who wants to eat domestic fish will be faced with higher prices.'
2. The marine reserves are likely to impede oil and gas development and production
The Western Australian government is critical of the new marine reserves. The State's Mines and Petroleum Minister Norman Moore has described the proposal as a 'dog's breakfast' that will curtail the state's oil and gas industry.
Mr Moore added that it would impinge on current and future exploration and production activities as well as having the potential to impact on the security of domestic gas and LNG export supplies.
Moore claims the plan is overly complex and fails to recognise arrangements already in place to manage Western Australia's fishing, petroleum and marine resources. He has also claimed it will curtail the Western Australia's oil and gas industry and restrict port and shipping access for the iron ore industry in the Kimberley and Pilbara.
The minister said it was unclear at this stage how the proposal would affect the rights already granted for all exploration within the new protected and surrounding areas.
The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) has claimed that it is not necessary to debar petroleum producers from most of the areas listed among the new reserves.
APPEA has stated, 'The Australian oil and gas industry has a long history of supporting and investing in environmental research. Over the past decades the industry has taken a strategic approach to understanding and managing its effects on the environment.'
To ensure a high standard of industry operations within our unique environments, the APPEA claims its members have produced an Environmental Code of Practice, containing substantial detail on all aspects of industry operations.
The APPEA has further stated, 'The industry supports the use of conservation systems that define the significant conservation values of a particular ecosystem or biological community. However, blanket bans and prohibitions are inappropriate and simplistic management mechanisms that fail to recognise the ability for the Australian oil and gas industry to operate without impact in sensitive environments.'
3. The ban will result in more foreign fishing operators fishing illegally in Australian waters
Concern has been expressed that when Australian fishing vessels leave the no-fishing zones, these territories will be left wide open for the commercial exploitation of foreign fishing vessels.
The Federal Coalition says there will be an increase in illegal fishing and boat arrivals in Australia's northern waters with the expansion of marine parks.
More than three million square kilometres are to be included in the Commonwealth's marine reserves, with various restrictions on commercial and recreational fishing.
In response to this proposal, the Opposition's Northern Territory Senator Nigel Scullion has claimed that the only people who can monitor areas like the Coral Sea are Australian fishing vessels.
Senator Scullion has stated, 'It abuts international waters where there are significant foreign fishing vessels, and without compliance we know what happens.
There'll be an increase in foreign fishing effort in our waters and there just doesn't seem to have been too much thought put into exactly what the consequences of the rollout of these parks will be.'
Mr Greg Hunt, the Opposition's Environment spokesman, has similarly claimed that the new network of marine parks could be vulnerable to illegal commercial fishing operations.
Mr Hunt has stated, 'Who will monitor the coral sea if the Australian fishing vessels are gone?
Who will be there to report whether or not there are foreign fishing vessels that don't stand by Australian rules, regulations, standards and environmental practices, which could do enormous environmental damage?'
The same point has been made by Judy Lynne, the chief executive of Sunfish Queensland. Ms Lynne has argued that that the ban on commercial use will result in more foreigners fishing illegally.
Again, the Department of Sustainability and the Environment has further stated, 'The usefulness of marine protected areas as reference sites is limited when illegal activities continue undetected, or external influences such as pollution or climate change affect the environment within the marine protected area.'
4. The compensation offered Australia's commercial fishermen is inadequate
The federal government has estimated that some $100 million will be required to compensate fishermen who need to change their fishing methods or leave the industry. However, a range of industry spokespeople has indicated that the compensation being offered is seriously inadequate.
Brian Jeffries, of the Commonwealth Fisheries Association, said the government 'were kidding themselves' if it thought that was enough.
Mr Jeffries said the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park - a relatively small area compared with that announced for the marine park network - had cost $250 million and rising in adjustment assistance.
Mr Jeffries has also objected to the Government not yet supplying all the details of its compensation package. He has stated, 'This is like a government resuming your house for a new super highway but only telling you 12 to 18 months later whether you'll be able to pay out the mortgage you had on that house.'
Mr Geoff Tilton, the president of the Queensland Seafood Industry Association has claimed that affected businesses would demand full compensation.
Mr Tilton has stated, 'If they exclude commercial fishermen and fishing businesses from the new marine park, they ought to have a big deep pocket full of dollars to pay compensation, I would say.'
There are also those who are distressed that having been compensated to relocate by the Howard government after it established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park will now have to apply for compensation to relocate again.
Rob Lowden, the managing director of Seafresh Australia, which catches coral trout and sea cucumbers for seafood, said his company received marine park assistance five years ago and would 'absolutely' apply for funding under the new package.
Mr Lowden stated, 'Burke might say the community wants this. Well, if they want it, they've got to pay for it. They can't expect us to bear the burden for the rest of the community. The industry is doubtful that we will be fairly compensated.'
5. Recreational fishing bans will damage Australia's tourist industry
As part of the 33 new reserves, recreational fishing will be banned in new marine national parks in the Coral Sea, in sections of the Great Australian Bight, the Gulf of Carpentaria and the north-west of Western Australia. It has been claimed that the mere announcement of the bans within these marine reserve zones has already had a negative impact on fishing tourism.
Mr Peter Sayre, the director of a Port Douglas charter fishing company Bianca Charters has stated that the release of the final blueprint for the world's biggest marine park has resulted in 30 cancellations.
Mr Sayre said the customers withdrew their business because he could not guarantee they would be able to fish at the best spots in the Coral Sea later this year.
Mr Sayre stated, 'They're concerned that if they get here they won't be able to get to our best locations. People don't want to go to the second-best locations. We've lost about 30 days of business. That's equating to about $120,000. It hurts.'
Mr Jonathan Brooks, a recreational fisherman from the United Kingdom, has stated, 'If charter boats are excluded, guess NZ will be getting my 20,000 pounds now.'
Recreational fishing groups have pledged to punish the federal government at the next election if they are restricted by these new marine protection zones.
Mr Allan Hansard, the chief executive of the Australian Fishing Trade Association has stated, 'This is one issue about the rights of Australians and recreational fishers [where we] have a very strongly felt view that we should not have those rights taken away from us.
There are five million of us. We are a fairly big voting base and we have exercised our electoral muscle before. If this issue is around at the federal election we will consider how we get our issues well and truly heard and understood by parties.'
Mr Tony Abbott, the leader of the federal Opposition, has stated, 'We have a very strong record when it comes to marine protection but this government has a record of complete bungling ... a record of complete failure to consult before making announcements, and I have to say that I am instinctively against anything that damages the rights of recreational fishing.
I am instinctively cautious about anything that could further damage the commercial fishing industry and the tourism industry.'
6. Oil and gas exploration and production has been favoured over the marine environment
Although they welcomed the new marine reserves, conservation groups have said the move does not go far enough. The Wilderness Society has claimed, 'We will continue to campaign for increased protection for areas like the spectacular Rowley Shoals in Western Australia, and for Limmen Bight (internationally significant for dugongs) in the Gulf of Carpentaria, among others.'
The Australian Marine Conservation Society noted, 'Oil and gas exploration remain a major threat to precious marine areas like Ningaloo and the Rowley Shoals off the Western Australian coast.'
The coal industry plans to boost coal exports from Queensland, with 10,000 ships a year soon expected to travel through the Great Barrier Reef and Coral Sea. Environmental groups and the United Nations have warned this could destroy the reef. But the government's marine plan puts no restrictions on coal or gas shipping.
Areas off Western Australia's south-west coast, some parts off the Kimberley coast and areas near Cape York and Arnhem Land have also been declared marine parks or habitat protection zones. Alongside these marine parks, many of the newly created marine reserves fall in 'multiple use zones'. In these zones, some types of commercial fishing are banned, such as bottom trawling and longline fishing, but mining and oil and gas exploration are allowed. There is deep concern that oil and gas exploration and extraction in these 'multiple use zones' will contaminate adjoining waters and jeopardise fish stock.
Most of the area off the Kimberley coast will either not be covered by a marine reserve or will be deemed a 'multiple use zone'. The plan will have no impact on the proposed liquefied natural gas plant at the Kimberley's James Price Point.
Fossil fuel interests are pushing to expand offshore infrastructure, such as ports and rigs. They plan to increase shipping and pollution in sensitive areas. Concerned conservationists have claimed that this poses a serious threat to Australia's sensitive marine areas. However, these groups argue, the new marine reserves plan does nothing to reign in the fossil fuel industry's infrastructure development.
Michelle Grady, from the Pew Environment Group, has stated, 'Some key areas remain unprotected from oil and gas [exploration and production] and Kangaroo Island is absolutely at the top of that list.
It is a disappointment ... that the Kangaroo Island [sea] canyons, which are a feeding area for blue whales, will not be protected from oil and gas and neither will the Kangaroo Island community and their very important tourism icon and fishing industry.
This is unfinished business.'