Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you. As a person who lives at the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef and in close proximity to the Coral Sea, I have found this debate extraordinary. Before I got into parliament my job was in regional development—specifically, in industry and tourism. So I know a bit about the Great Barrier Reef and the coastal areas of Queensland; they were my bread and butter, so to speak. I was in on the early days of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. So I do not come to this debate with any sense of ignorance and I am not speaking against science.

But I have seen the most vibrant fishing industry in Australia decimated over the last 15 years. It has been decimated by bureaucracy and government intervention. We first had a thing called the east coast trawl plan. Under the east coast trawl plan a decision by the federal and state governments took out 250 of the 750 vessels trawling along the Queensland coast. In fact, when the compensation was paid it was actually 40 more than that—290 came out. It meant a substantial decrease in effort.

Not long after that, we were told that the reef was now sustainable and that fishing could go ahead, but that GBRMPA would need another small amount—perhaps about 20 per cent. People, in good faith, said, 'Well, I suppose that's fair enough.' But when the maps came out it was not 20 per cent; it was 34 per cent. And frequently those fishing areas—the green zones that were put into the Barrier Reef Marine Park—were right over traditional fishing areas. In fact, it is alleged that the log books of the fishermen were used to some extent to plot these areas. The spanner crab industry off Bundaberg won an award as the best controlled fishery for the year before it was closed. How silly can you get?

We then had to have another reduction. It worked out in my area—the southern end of the reef: fishermen from Gladstone, Bundaberg, Harvey Bay, Tin Can Bay and perhaps some even down to Mooloolaba—that the fishing industry was reduced by 73 per cent or 74 per cent. On top of that we had the state government saying, 'We want to have complementary state zones,' which diminished still further the area available for fishing.

A lot of people, with those earlier compensations, bought vessels that could go into the Coral Sea. But now they are also going to be excluded—or, if not excluded, almost totally contained. Not that many people go there. About 20 entities go into the Coral Sea. A maximum of about 30 to 32 vessels are spread out across 1.3 million square kilometres—half the size of the state of Queensland. That is the size of the area we are talking about. As someone said earlier, there is no way in the world that the state or the Commonwealth are going to be able to control or look after this fishery, and imposing these rigid rules on ourselves is creating an absolute motza for people who want to come in on the northern side of the Coral Sea and fish the ones we have fattened up for them. What sort of idiots are we?

You might say: 'Paul, you're generalising a bit. Where's your scientific proof?' Professor Walter Starck has had 50 years experience as a marine scientist. He has a PhD from the University of Miami. He is totally familiar with our environment. What he said about this is:

Australia's fishing industry is under threat, not from depleted fish stocks but from government-financed and sanctioned extreme environmentalism—

note that, 'extreme environmentalism'—

and crippling bureaucratic controls.

Interestingly, during the recent Senate estimates, a Mr Oxley from the department admitted to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee that was questioning him on aspects of these new marine areas in respect of the Coral Sea that there was no new scientific evidence. Professor Starck has said that, for the 347,000 square kilometres of the Barrier Reef, we are allowed to take 3,061 tonnes of fish. That means the weight of fish per square kilometre per year is nine kilograms. But, across the reefs of the Pacific that Dr Starck has also studied, the figure is 7,700 kilograms per square kilometre. Note the difference: nine and 7,700. We are being bureaucratic to a ridiculous level. Even the World Resources Institute, which you might say are not totally friendly to fisherman, have said that 4,000 kilograms per square kilometre is an acceptable, sustainable amount. And what are we taking out? Nine.

You might say, 'Why are you using the Barrier Reef?' Well, I want to move from the Barrier Reef now to the Coral Sea. The Coral Sea is a vastly bigger area. We are going from 347,000 square kilometres to 1.3 million square kilometres. We have only 20 entities with about 30 or 32 vessels going in, and we are going to close it up. If they trawled over that for the next 50 years they would not do it any damage. And all those fishermen will be the first to tell you that you leave specific sensitive areas alone. All the fishermen I have known in my lifetime want to leave a resource there for Australia. They want their sons and grandsons to have the opportunity to go out and fish those areas. They are not rapists; they do not go out just to deplete the stock, and we impose all these rules and regulations on ourselves as Australians. The rest of the world must sit back and laugh. The international trawlers that will come in on the northern side of the Coral Sea, which is outside our sphere of control anyhow, will have the time of their lives. You can see how silly it is. The point is that this is not smart science. This is a terrible block.

Recently, and I told this to the party room, Margaret asked me to go out and get some seafood marinara mix. While I was in the shop, after taking my number, I had a look at the big refrigerated fish cabinet. There were nine big stainless steel trays in there. Eight of the nine had foreign fish on them. We are importing, as the Leader of the Nationals said, 72 per cent of the fish we eat. We are not saving the planet or the environment. We are not providing fresh fish for Australians. What we are doing is shifting the effort somewhere else. In doing that, we are depriving ourselves of a rich and healthy resource, of export industries that could be sustainable for generations into the future.

See this speech in context