Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Prior to question time, I addressed the purposes of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006 in detail and made reference to some of my concerns with the provisions which relate to an extension of the rules for incarceration of people found in our fishing zones illegally catching fish.

I support the legislation which will prevent higher-level people from operating in the illegal fishing industry. There are parts of Australia, other than our northern areas, where very small vessels are frequently found to have illegal fishers and the policy for them is good policy. I mentioned other areas where I thought improvement could be achieved. On the other hand, I did congratulate the government for the decisions made on the assets that will be available to inspect and prevent the incursion of illegal fishing vessels.

Obviously prevention is better than cure. I am sure members would agree that we have two issues arising from illegal fishing: first, the economic difficulties it creates for our own fishing fleet and, second, and more importantly, the conservation aspects involved. Australia has never been recognised as a very large and robust fishery and it does not take a lot to destroy the balance. Therefore, this legislation is very important.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you would remember something I am very proud of—to the extent that it applies in my electorate—that is, the longstanding Western Australian state government limited-entry fishing concept. Using that concept, the government looks very cautiously at new fisheries or new catching equipment, and usually license a limited number of vessels until it can establish what it is. Ten thousand tonnes is the typical catch of crayfish or rock lobster in my electorate. Some years ago the fishermen campaigned to have their catching equipment—the ‘pots’, as they call them, which they trade on a licensed basis—reduced by 25 per cent; they had got too clever at catching fish. Their many instruments were much more accurate in catching fish.

The fishermen campaigned on the subject. A coalition government of my persuasion decided, after a bit of lobbying that some get on the wheat industry, that 18 per cent would do—notwithstanding that it was the fishermen that thought they should give back 25 per cent of their catching capacity. Industry recognises the word ‘conservation’. Environmentalists just say, ‘Lock it up.’ Conservationists ask, ‘What is a reasonable catch?’ We should recognise that human beings have fished the sea for as long as recorded history. We are a predator in the ocean; we have just got too smart at it.

The measures in the bill implement actions to prevent people wanting to come into our fishing zones and threaten them with jail. The Southern Ocean, admittedly, comes into part of the provisions of this bill. I can go down on the record as the fisheries minister who caught the South Tommy. It got easier thereafter, but I had to negotiate with the defence forces and the South Africans—everyone—while urging our vessel to keep chasing it right across to South Africa. Of course, other arrests have been made since.

To my mind, we need deeming legislation for both north and south—if that is at all legal under the law of the sea—which says that, if you are caught in our zones with fish and you have failed to seek right of passage through our economic zone or wherever, where we have control, then the catch that you have on your vessel is deemed to have been caught in our waters. There is a big gap through which people are starting to escape. When you catch them, unless they have virtually got the lines over the side or the nets in the water, it is very hard in our courts, which are fair, to prove that the fish were caught in our zone. I hope the government will take note of my comments. I might get the support of the shadow minister at the table to look into how we can nail these people through legislation. In the Southern Ocean it is not unusual for illegal fishers to have on board $1 million worth of the patagonian toothfish, a very fragile species. Like other fish, it is quite old before it even breeds. We cannot afford to have that species destroyed by foreign pilots. We really do need to have something that says, ‘Unless you have rung us up and said, “I propose to have passage through your economic zone, and you can come and inspect the fish I’ve got on board already”’—and I do not know how they would do that in the Southern Ocean, but that would not worry me—we could state that the fish have been caught there. And if we need to make some changes to international treaties we should do so, because we should not let these people out of those circumstances.

All in all, I welcome this legislation because it is a step in the right direction. It puts pressure on a certain level of officers. The better solution in the case of indigenous fishermen is, while you have them on the boat and they are in the vicinity, to take them to the nearest Indonesian island and tell them to get off. I am not sure that putting them in jail or even carting them into Darwin necessarily does much. If we could catch the organisers, who frequently do not even live in their district—they come from Hong Kong or somewhere else—that would be a big help. That would require an international response.

The $300 million that the government has laid down is going into border protection and apprehension. There will also be a message that you could end up in jail. All of those measures—and this is specific to that last point—are welcomed. I hope our new surveillance, our new assets—smaller boats to do certain jobs—will help us to get the message out there that, as I read or saw on television, if you are a burglar you will get caught. That is a message we have to deliver. I encourage our foreign minister and others to do as much as possible, diplomatically, to get the support of the Indonesians and others, to say, ‘If you sail out of Indonesian waters it is assumed you are going somewhere where you are not supposed to be,’ and they will deal with it themselves.’

See this speech in context