Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Hansard source

I am yet another coalition contributor to a debate on a bill that we think is a fundamental threat to the sovereign risk confidence that we hold in Australia, and it is no better exemplified than by this last-minute decision by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities , who for a long time has had all the evidence in his hands to solve the Margiris issue. Instead, he has made a last-minute decision that we think compromises confidence in the way Australia makes important economic decisions.

As the member for the Queensland seat of Bowman I come from a fishing region. In fact, a great proportion of Brisbane and South-East Queensland fishers with registered fishing vehicles use my electorate to access Moreton Bay, the most densely recreationally fished area on the Australian coastline. So I have a connection to a series of anti-Labor fishing campaigns dating back to when I first came into politics, in 2004. I know what fishers want. Predominantly, they want sustainable fisheries. Predominantly, they do not want interference from government. Predominantly, they know that, with bag limits, size limits, common sense and support from fisheries officials, we can have sustainable fisheries right around the Australian coast and we can continue to have a wonderful pastime that every Australian can enjoy affordably. So I care about fishing and I have been plenty of campaigns to secure their rights.

This episode with the Margiris in the southern oceans of Australia sets us on a completely new path. This is the way Australia considers and respects the role of commercial fishing! The Margiris has been not so much courted as negotiated down to Australia since 2009 under the current government, and there are plenty of quotes from the environment minister on that matter that are already on the record. What we are seeing today, with this panicked backflip from federal Labor, is a classic example of leaving the bride at the altar. On the way to the wedding, you abandon the vessel—and those who own and run her—for political expediency. And this has been a long time coming.

Environment Minister Burke has courted this vessel every step of the way, on the one hand not only encouraging but also clearing the way legislatively for larger-scale freezer vessels in Australian waters while on the other hand—speaking out of the other side of his mouth—sending a populist message to GetUp! and green dominated groups, their blogs and campaigns, to stop this vessel. Ultimately, these two false messages had to intersect, and that happened this week. It was this week that the environment minister, for all his bluff, for all his feigned compassion for the environment, finally chickened out and abandoned the vessel, leaving the Australian people to pay the bill through legal action with, potentially, enormous costs.

AFMA is a respected and expert body, led by no less than a respected former Labor individual. To reject the evidence that has been coming from that body is tantamount to saying we do not need expert bodies at all. Nobody said that you must take the advice of an expert body, but what is the point of a minister who continues to take the information from this body and fails to ask the key questions that could be the basis of a refusal, only to make a panicked, public-campaign-driven decision to tell this vessel to go away, to tell it to turn around and go home? It is not based on science. As one of the few former scientists in this chamber, I am always looking for evidence based approaches.

There is plenty of evidence. The claim by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities that we do not have the evidence is a sham. The idea that you can simply say to a vessel, 'Go away for two years, don't do any fishing and in the meantime we'll get evidence about the impact of a large-scale freezer vessel,' is patently ridiculous. The only way you get the evidence is to invite the vessel down under very strict supervision and monitoring, allow them to fish and then collect the evidence. This is akin to saying, 'We have a brand-new medicine but we're not going to use it for two years until we get more evidence.'

There is no such thing as animal studies in fishing. You either fish or you do not. If you want evidence on large-scale freezer vessels, you allow them to fish, you monitor them carefully and you make a decision as you go. I want to apologise—on behalf of this side of the chamber and on behalf of Australians who expect to have a minister with a bit of rigor, some guts and a bit of foresight, a minister who is able to avoid panicked decisions like those we have seen this week—to Dr James Findlay, who is the CEO of AFMA, Mr Richard Stevens, Mr Ian Cartwright, Dr John Glaister, Ms Jennifer Goddard, Ms Elizabeth Montano, Ms Denise North and Professor Keith Sainsbury. You have given your time to provide this country with the expert evidence we need to make a decision, doing it as recently as last week, and your minister has abandoned you.

The minister does not have to take the advice of every expert committee—I am not saying that. What I am saying is that, if this minister has a problem, he should stop speaking out of one side of his mouth about having a concern while not actually listening to the evidence. There are a number elements to this. There is, of course, a global issue here about the way Australia is regarded as a trustworthy broker of sea fishing in the international community. That has been severely damaged today. As commentators in the public domain have said, we are like a Third World country.

Below that global element is the political. If you squeeze this Gillard Labor government with a bit of public pressure and then stand back, you can see what pops out. You just never know what is going to happen with this government. You can worry as much as you want about the borders but you have no idea what will come out until you exert a bit of pressure and then watch them panic and respond to the public pressure. This is a classic example where you want a minister to hold firm. The Tasmanian member on the other side of the chamber said just that—stand firm in the face of public opinion because you know, while many of your constituents may not agree, that it is fundamentally right.

How many times has it been said? The quota will not change. We simply have a boat with larger displacement, a longer beam and a greater depth doing the fishing. It is not more dangerous just because the ship is longer or deeper or has a greater displacement. That has been completely abandoned by this minister, who is frightened of nothing less than the size of the craft. There is mid-level trawling to minimise by-product. We know that barracuda and spotted wahoo are the two most likely by-products. There are very careful excluders for sea lions and dolphins. There is camera monitoring of what this vessel does and there is monitoring on board. That is about as much as you can ask for if you are serious about collecting the evidence.

Finally, you have the community expectation. To everyone in my electorate and to the many people who live in coalition electorates—because Labor electorates have given up on this lot—who are concerned about a great big ship coming over the horizon and destroying the environment, I want to say that not a single extra fish will be taken. The quota will be the same. With this vessel departing, the monitoring will be poorer, and there will be more fishermen doing it less efficiently, more dangerously and at greater cost. But what has this government and this minister done? They have simply turned the vessel around and exposed this great country and its taxpayers to paying for potential costs in the courts. They have abandoned Australian people and left them to pay the bill. It is a familiar story—the government cannot make a decision for itself and we end up paying the price down the line.

What we have here is an attack on sovereign risk, an attack on common sense and an attack on the science. There is nothing more that Australians can ask for than a science-based approach to fishing. Everywhere around our coastline we want monitoring to make sure that marine zones are sustainable. Everywhere around the coast we want to make sure that fishermen can engage in the long loved and enjoyed activity of fishing. We have worked so hard to make sure that a large-scale freezer vessel can work its trade in our waters. All of this evidence has been collected, considered, evaluated and presented, only to have the minister chicken out at the last minute.

There is a word for acts like this by the minister but it cannot be repeated in this chamber. There is a word for ministers who make a hasty, panicked decision—it is simply a big Gillard government backflip. And haven't we seen plenty of those. I do not need to venture into those areas. They are legion. You can travel in any part of the world and people will say, 'You have that Gillard government, which promised one thing before an election and something completely contrary happened after.' That will be the political obituary of the Gillard administration. That will be what they will be remembered for.

When it comes to the environment, to something that every Australian should and does care about, we have seen a government and a minister who have made a significant misstep and a significant miscalculation. It is a Labor government that got populist at just the time when Australia did not need it. This will not be forgotten quickly. Those on the other side should not think that there is a quick, cheap vote in stopping this large-scale freezer vessel at the last possible moment without giving it a fair and reasonable chance to minimise its own damages and expenses. There was no science that needed to be collected in the last few weeks; there was just a tough decision that needed to be made. It was a tough decision that never came from this minister as he faffed around in his environmental office, talked to his staffers and pretended to consult, with nothing actually ever happening.

But you know what? Ultimately we reached that Churchillian moment of consequences. Eventually, there was one message to the Greens and GetUp! and another one to industry, and they just could not pull it together; it just became too hard for this minister.

The minister has abandoned our global reputation. Minister Burke has abandoned politically those who have trusted that Labor would do the right thing, by balancing environment and industry for a sustainable fishery. They have abandoned that, with this ridiculous EPBCA amendment calling on social concerns, whatever that means. Whatever that ridiculous phrase means, it means that he wants an out. But that is what he will not have, because we will stop this amendment.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context