Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Oxley. He has been a strong campaigner in his part of Queensland and has exposed the shortcomings of the federal government and of the representation given in that part of Australia by Liberal members of this parliament. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006 represent significant spends. Appropriation Bill (No. 3) provides for an additional $2.63 billion in 2005-06, and $124 million of that is for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, particularly the fisheries adjustment scheme. That is an area of my portfolio responsibility as shadow minister for agriculture and fisheries, so I will be addressing my remarks to that area of additional expenditure.

In Appropriation Bill (No. 4) the additional expenditure sought is $1.37 billion, with the main increase being $744.4 million for payment to the states. Wrapped up in this payment to the states is GST compensation, drought exceptional circumstances and Australian health care arrangements. So there is proposed expenditure in that bill that I would like to address in this debate. In Appropriation Bill (No 3) a significant amount, $124 million, is allocated to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and part of that is earmarked for fisheries adjustment.

I note a statement by the minister in November 2005 that the government was providing some $220 million to ‘secure Australia’s fishing future’. The main thrust of this expenditure on fishing structural adjustment was to better manage our fisheries and make them more sustainable. That is not only in the interests of the industry but also in the national interest, as this industry contributes billions of dollars to Australia’s gross domestic product and, indeed, is a major export earner. So it is in the national interest as well as the sectional industry interest of fishermen that we get things right in this industry. But it is an industry where things have gone horribly wrong for many fishermen. Significant investments have been made in the industry in the face of declining fish stocks and, of course, as the management squeeze has come upon these fisheries so has the pressure for structural adjustment.

When you get behind the terminology and get behind what structural adjustment actually means, it means Australians who have invested in a particular livelihood, be it on farms or through investing in a fishing boat and becoming part of that industry, have invested their life savings in the hope of value adding to those life savings and contributing to the national economy. Things go wrong in industries. In the case of agriculture it might be drought, and that is going to be an issue in debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2005-2006. In the fishing industry it is the perennial problem of declining stocks, pressure on the fisheries from various sources and, of course, the inevitable process of structural adjustment where people have to make a decision to exit the industry. Of course, many of those people do so with considerable losses of livelihood and curtailment of their futures.

Australian fisheries are under enormous pressure. One pressure is simply the demand that is being exerted in the Australian community for product. There is a finite product but an ever-increasing demand. That comes from people who have changed their dietary habits. Most Australians would appreciate that historically we have been great meat eaters, but over the last couple of decades, with increasing links between the health debate, agriculture and fisheries, we have seen a significant shift in the consumption patterns of ordinary Australian households. Fish is a very important part of the local diet. I was raised a Mick, if I can use the vernacular, and of course we had fish every Friday. It was a part of our diet for religious reasons. But for most Australian consumers I think we have seen a gradual shift for health reasons to fish as a source of protein and a source of certain essential vitamins and minerals, and of course the demand has increased.

We have also seen environmental pressure with our oceans. We have seen the rise of marine parks and the ever-increasing areas that are now designated as marine parks, the conservation of  fishing resources and the ecology of regions. That is a fit and proper development in Australian society, but the inevitable result of having those areas quarantined for environmental purposes is that it has put pressure on existing fisheries and other areas. Given the degree of fishing effort, there is a displaced effort that must be accommodated or else people have to leave the industry. That is another reason. The other reason that some fisheries have come under pressure is illegal fishing. That is an issue that I will address in the context of this debate.

Having made those remarks, let me comment on the $220 million that the government allocated in November 2005 to secure Australia’s fishing future. The opposition does not have a problem with the fact that the government is introducing a structural adjustment package for the industry. As a broad principle we think this is a good thing, and $124 million of this additional expenditure in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2005-2006 is related to this adjustment package. I note the elements of this package, and I will outline them for the benefit of the committee. The centrepiece of the package is $150 million for a one-off capped fishing concession buyout focused on reducing the high level of fishing capacity in those Commonwealth fisheries that are subject to overfishing. Here we are talking about fisheries that generally occur between the three and 200 nautical mile limit off Australia’s coastline. The buyout is a necessary measure, but there have been considerable problems associated with the tender process and the buyout provisions under the structural adjustment package. I will refer more specifically to that later in my remarks. The following is taken from the minister’s press release: The centrepiece of the package is $150 million for a one-off capped fishing concession buyout focused on reducing the high level of fishing capacity in those Commonwealth fisheries that are subject to overfishing. Here we are talking about fisheries that generally occur between the three and 200 nautical mile limit off Australia’s coastline. The buyout is a necessary measure, but there have been considerable problems associated with the tender process and the buyout provisions under the structural adjustment package. I will refer more specifically to that later in my remarks. The following is taken from the minister’s press release:

A further $70m in complementary assistance will be available for other activities including:

• $30 million to offset the impacts of reduced fishing activity on onshore businesses most directly linked to the fishing industry (e.g. fish processors, ships chandlers) as well as other targeted assistance including;
• grants of $5,000 and $3,000 respectively to skippers and crew who lose employment as a result of the catch cuts to offset the costs of job seeking, relocation and retraining;
• $1,500 per fishing or directly related business to offset the costs of obtaining professional business advice on their best options under the package;
• $20 million to establish a Fishing Communities Programme aimed at generating new economic and employment opportunities in vulnerable regional ports affected by reduced fishing activity;
• $21 million to offset the cost of AFMA management levies and for improved science, compliance and data collection.

I am grateful for that advice on the elements of the package.

Let us take those elements of the package, because they are the substance of the matter under discussion in this appropriation bill. The problem that the opposition and the industry have with the centrepiece of the package—that is the $150 million buyout—is of course the tender process.

Let me just explain some of the problems associated with that and the declaration of marine park areas and the displaced fishing effort that is attempted to be accommodated in this provision with the buyout. As far as the marine protected areas are concerned, the public consultation process was to be undertaken in January and February of this year with declarations at the end of 2006. So we will not know until the end of 2006 who is likely to be affected by these declarations and, therefore, who might well be eligible under the tender process to apply for assistance under this package. The problem with the business exit assistance packages, as I understand them, is that tenders were opened in late January, tenders will close 10 weeks after that in mid-April and port meetings to explain the tender process only began in February this year. So here we have a process in train where the elements of the consultation process are out of kilter with what the government is attempting to do in this provision.

Going to the $30 million to offset the impacts of reduced fishing activity on onshore businesses and the $20 million to establish a fishing communities program, as an opposition we will be watching the expenditures under this provision with a very keen eye because we know the capacity of this government to rort these programs. I note the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. I should not mention this but there is always fishy business going on down in the seat of Eden-Monaro. We have to look very closely at some of the expenditures under other programs that have already been made to the industry down there. Significant questions have been asked about those. But I will not go into those here except to say that, if past experience is any indication, this will be a licence to rort in some marginal electorates and coastal areas around this country. We will be watching these programs very closely indeed.

And we put the minister on notice that the opposition will be watching him very closely. I take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Abetz on his elevation to this portfolio. I sincerely wish him every success. Really, he does not have a big bar to jump. To be successful in this portfolio he is really stepping over the bodies of two abject failures—the member for O’Connor, a former fisheries minister, and Senator Ian Macdonald, who did not exactly serve with distinction in the portfolio. Having said that, I give Senator Abetz a gentle warning to perform in this portfolio. I should put on the public record that the two scalps in the coalition are mine.

See this speech in context