Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Kennedy for his support. If there is a case of environmental degeneration in one area and it is affecting the sustainability of an area, rest it for five years, like we do with our scallop decks. Explain what is going on and why this is so to the fishing people and they will join in and make sure that the site is properly rested because it is in their interests to do so. But to legislate it away forever is just plain stupid.

According to a fact sheet put out by the federal government, public input is an essential part of the development of our new marine protected areas. The document goes on to say that consultation with stakeholder groups has been a feature of the development of a set of candidate MPAs. I wonder who those stakeholder groups are, because the people I have talked to and those who are really concerned about their livelihoods have not discussed it and have heard sweet diddly-squat about this very matter.

It seems that the same thing has happened in Queensland. Many areas have been declared and no-one is owning up to having done the research on the exact locality. No—more likely no-one knew anything about it because they did not consult with the people whose livelihoods were affected and who have been fishing in those areas for a long time.

According to later reports that I have scrounged from various sources—including the library, which seems to keep all the documents; I suppose that is their role—it appears that all this paperwork and research is only a draft; that consultation has to begin, that nothing is set in concrete and that there is still an opportunity for people to comment. All I can say is that a hell of a lot of work has been done perhaps to no end and that people in regional Tasmania that have any interest in sea fishing whatsoever should now get up and state their case as to why and where MPAs should exist, how they should be managed and whether we need them at all.

This government needs to know it cannot keep on making decisions that affect regional people and their work without consulting them. Tell it we want our fisheries controlled by us. Once the fisher folk are kept out of areas, it leaves them wide open for other fishermen from other countries to just wander in to help themselves—and we have heard about this. We just do not have the resources to mind ‘parks’ without any return.

Warren Entsch has reminded us again today in that very article in the Australian that we are unfortunately now seeing the void created by the forced eviction of Australian fishing families from those waters being filled by illegal fishermen from Indonesia and other foreign countries. It is pointed out that at the top-end of Australia there have been several boats from Indonesia in there fishing where Australian fishing used to take place. In the past, fishing boats have provided a good network of information and are our first line of defence against our fisheries being plundered. Now some idiot wants to lock up the sea to us and open it up to the world. Our usual voluntary patrol mechanism has been decimated. I am afraid that is not what I see as environmentally sustainable. I think we should think again.

I am going out into my electorate to tell all the fishing people—and my electorate contains a hell of a lot of the fishing grounds of Tasmania—how they can have a say in their future and, if they are not happy with the present government, how they can change it. As for this bill relating to cooperative fisheries management, let us get some sense into maximising the net economic returns to the Australian community from the management of Australian fisheries. Unless there is considerable understanding of what it means to lock up areas, there will be no net economic return to the Australian community, because management will not be achieved properly and resources will not be there to police our locked-up sites.

I would like to see a regional fisheries agreement with Tasmania that takes in all these arguments and looks to see how we can help the renewal of the industry, with funds put aside for research and development, along with the full cooperation of all those in commercial fishing, to lay down a blueprint for our industry. Let us forget about all this other ‘greeny’ mumbo jumbo. That is not doing anything for anybody. It is doing nobody any favours. Throwing money as compensation does nothing for our industry or for our people, who should be able to continue a viable fishing industry. We want a properly thought out, researched and sustainable fishing policy that allows commercial and recreational fishers to continue to provide Australians with some of the best fish in the world to eat and some of the best game fishing while also providing the fisheries authority with detailed information on what fish are about and who is fishing for them. And that is not to mention their role as guardians of our offshore areas and their unofficial ability to patrol our seas for illegal intruders and rogue fishers. This legislation must take into account the real cost of locking up water or land, and we must know exactly what is going on and what is going to be achieved before we enact legislation.

See this speech in context