Unlike previous initiatives, the Great Barrier Reef is currently being neglected. Connor Lloyd

 

There does not appear to be much consensus over what protecting the reef implies and how it is to be accomplished.

Tue 3 Jan 2023 02.12 GMT

The ABC offered assessments of the country's winners and losers as part of its coverage of Labor's first budget. The Great Barrier Reef was categorised as "neutral" in it. Other than the pledges Labor made during the election campaign, the reef got no new financing.

It is remarkable that a more-than-human site like an ecosystem could be featured with important social and economic issues like families, the Pacific, the NBN, and even the ABC itself. It is evidence of the significance of the reef to our national identity as well as how grave the situation has gotten for that ecosystem over the past 40 years.

The condition of the reef is a serious issue. Nearly every year, Unesco asks our governments to "do better" in order to save the reef from being designated as "in danger." Coral reefs are under danger all across the world, but the Great Barrier Reef's declining coral population is especially concerning considering its strict management.

The reef has undoubtedly encountered dangers before. The Save the Reef movement, which ran from 1967 to 1975, is a well-known chapter in the history of the reef. That effort started in reaction to plans to harvest lime from Ellison Reef (near Mission Beach) and exploit petroleum from the larger Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was established after a successful public campaign, constitutional legal concerns, a trade union black ban, a royal commission, and, in the end, the reef was protected from mineral and oil extraction.

Conservationists from Save the Reef were successful because they tapped into the widespread adoration, fascination, and passion for the reef.

 In my study, I have argued that this campaign has been remembered as a "David and Goliath" struggle because doing so makes it a source of inspiration for current activists, but it also fits with how the public remembers the anti-intellectual and anti-environmental Bjelke-Petersen regime.

The historical records, including those of conservationists at the time, show that the activists received a lot of support from the Australian media, the trade union movement, the commonwealth government, and the general public, even though I accept that the activists believed they were engaged in an unwinnable battle.

Although many people were okay with using the reef for fishing, tourism, and port development, the subsequent royal commission investigating petroleum drilling on the Great Barrier Reef made it plain that the idea of drilling for oil was too much.

Biblical allegories of David and Goliath provide a useful framework for reflecting on previous achievements, but in my opinion, it is also quite moving to acknowledge that the reef was spared because the public overwhelmingly supported its preservation.

The situation is significantly different now, though.

Contrary to previous campaigns, there has been a marked increase in media criticism of reef conservationists' concerns. The trade unions are also unlikely to start black bans on potential mines in favour of attempts to save the reef.

What's more puzzling is that despite providing significant funding to organisations that conduct research on the Great Barrier Reef, including the Australian Institute of Marine Science, CSIRO, the marine park authority, and the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, our governments have been slow to implement meaningful policy changes toward climate change, which is the biggest threat to the reef. When the reef's health and future were in doubt, governments benefited from the research to protect themselves from increased international pressure to take action on climate change. Science also benefited from this investment.

Of course, things are also far more complicated than this. Since the creation of the marine park authority, a tremendous amount of study has been conducted on the reef, exposing the intricate relationships between the environment of the reef and the people and businesses who call its catchment home. Additionally, the effects of climate change have elevated the dilemma of the reef to a global and national scale. To varying degrees, we are all now connected to the health of the reef.

Despite being involved in this disaster together, there does not seem to be much consensus on what protecting the reef entails or how it is to be done. We had the impression of fighting a goliath.

The environmentalists behind Save the Reef were successful because they capitalised on the widespread adoration, fascination, and passion for the reef. They contributed to raising awareness of the danger of an oil and mining-damaged reef in the future, which sparked the royal commission's recommendation to form the marine park authority. At this point, it seems impossible for us to achieve these feats.

A real effort to save the reef may start by using our current and historical ties to it to fight climate change. But it appears that our commonwealth government would rather remain impartial at this point.