Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think it is a disgrace and a shame that the opposition is not supporting this bill, that they are not supporting what is so clearly in line with community expectations and clearly in sync with community concerns—that is, to get answers to some questions on the impact of the second-largest and biggest fishing vessel on the planet to see what impact it would have on our environment, our fisheries and our industry. The public wants answers to questions concerning the operation of this supertrawler in Australian waters. How much will it deplete our waters of commercial fishing? How much will it deplete our waters of protected fish, mammals and even birds? How much would it deprive our long-term fishery operations and our recreational fishermen and women of their livelihoods and pursuits?

The people of my electorate want to know whether this or any other supertrawler can really operate within fishery and environmental rules, as they currently exist, and not wreak environmental destruction on our marine environment. That is all they want to know. I think it is a very legitimate question and the public have every right to an answer to that question. It is also clear that many members of the public, unlike the Abbott coalition, simply do not believe it is possible. Concerns have been raised on a continual basis for over a month. They have been expressed through multiple telephone calls to my office, many emails, letters in the media, communications with my electorate office and those of many other MPs. The minister also has received many communications on the matter. A substantial proportion of the public are clearly saying that they do not believe that a vessel with such a large processing and freezer capacity and that has the potential to pull out and process so much of the ocean's harvest on a continual basis—that is, within one geographic area in one fishing expedition without returning to port—can operate without a negative impact on the area in which they fish.

The minister has made it clear that this proposed event—the expedition of a supertrawler with such capacity—is unprecedented in Australian waters. It is clear that the proposal to have such as vessel operating in Australian waters, processing and freezing on board substantially larger volumes of catch in any one fishing expedition, is unprecedented. Fishing in this manner produces what people refer to as bycatch, the unintended catching of non-target fish.

Some of the things caught by trawlers are protected mammals. The seals, dolphins and a whole range of other things—and of course the food on which they rely—are protected by Australian law. A sustained and concentrated fishing exercise would surely increase the incidence of bycatch—or do those opposite suggest the contrary, as we are hearing?

What devastation would be caused by substantially increased and geographically concentrated trawling on these protected species? That is one of the questions that cannot be answered. The question is new, as is the capacity of any super-trawler to fish in such a sustained and geographically concentrated way. How can the government be content with a guess or a hope, as those opposite are saying, that environmental law will continue to be observed and that the unintended consequences of said activity on such a large, continual and potentially concentrated basis will not damage those species we are required by law to protect?

We cannot give the assurances asked of us by the public and demanded by the law. The numbers and the impact of such an event are, as I have said, absolutely unprecedented. Uncertainty remains, despite the best efforts of those experts to whom these questions have been put. I believe the public have a right to have their questions answered. It is the public's fishery; it does not belong to any one person or any one trawler or any one industry. The public's environmental assets and their sustainability are key here.

I support the minister's decision to amend the legislative framework that will enable all these questions to be put and to seriously be investigated and enable answers to be given to all those who seek them. This government has only recently announced the creation of the world's largest system of marine reserves. The sustainability of our fisheries and the protection of our wonderful and unique environmental assets is clearly a very substantial priority of this government. We are delivering improved systems of protected areas, delivering sustainable and therefore better fisheries going forward, which is good for the fishing industry and good for the protection of our threatened world.

So it is totally logical that we here on this side of the House—the Labor Party, the one party in this place with a logical approach to sustainability of environmental, social and economic needs—would exercise care and due diligence when it comes to assessing the potential of a vessel that is the second-biggest fishing vessel on the planet and which has sailed over the horizon and looked to fish in our waters.

Fundamentally, this is a new situation being faced by our fisheries, our fishing industry and a marine environment created potentially by a very new fishing tool. We have not seen this tool being used before in our waters—Australian waters, not waters overseas or somewhere else. It is unprecedented. Naturally there is insufficient data as to the impacts. The hypotheses are untested, so suggestions as to what may be done—or what outcomes are most likely—simply cannot be relied on by those with a legal responsibility to ensure, as best they can, that the consequences most of us fear are never realised.

Since the minister announced his decision to seek changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which will give him time to seek the conclusive answers to these questions, we have heard others in this and the other place make a number of points in the media. One party launched into an electronic media campaign announcing that they have delivered a great outcome in stopping the super-trawler from ever operating in Australian waters—and I have to tell you, nothing could be further from the truth. The super-trawler has not yet been stopped from going to sea and potentially wreaking havoc on protected mammals and their environments in our waters. That party should focus on results for a change and leave the multimedia mania for another time. I suggest that they focus on delivering their votes to successfully amend this law before they divert their attentions to prematurely announcing any achievement or bathing in greatness.

The Liberals, from what we have heard today, will be opposing the bill. There is a very real possibility that this amendment will not get the approval of the parliament and that the supertrawler will set sail in the months to come. From what we have heard today from the Liberal and National parties I suspect that they will say no—as they do to everything we bring before the House. We have heard a continuous echo—no, no, no, no, no—from the opposition. And we are hearing it again here today—to a bill to give the Australian public the answers they are seeking. What do we hear from the opposition once again? 'No.'

The shadow Treasurer was in the chamber last night speaking in favour of government legislation. He was devastated. I almost felt sorry for him because he was doing something his leadership team appears to have vowed never to do. He could hardly talk—which, for Joe, has to be evidence of acute psychological trauma. He was beside himself, unable to believe that the Liberal and National parties were actually going to vote with the government. They never intended to, irrespective of the merits of the cause. And so too here we can only expect the negativity already coming from the opposition.

I do not recall the last time the opposition voted in favour of enhancing environmental protections on land or at sea. They are against marine reserves. They are against the security of national parks. They are against doing a proper job of restoring the health of the Murray-Darling Basin and the River Murray's Lower Lakes and Coorong. They just hate the idea. They are against investment in school infrastructure. They are against investment in educational outcomes. Their party is against the NDIS. They are against the scientific process itself, and its conclusions—the well established and widely acknowledged consensus in the areas of climate and ecology. So we can only expect the opposition to vote against the amendment in this place and, quite possibly, do whatever it can to see that supertrawler set out to trawl our seas. We can only expect the opposition to unnecessarily and clumsily box itself in again to a position of ignoring the scientific questions, depriving itself of the means to improve its decision making, operating on the basis of spite and wilful opposition and, as a consequence, putting itself at odds with the will of the Australian public.

As I said earlier, I have not seen another bill in this place that is so clearly in line with community expectations and so clearly in sync with community concerns. The public wants answers to these questions. We need this amendment to seek those answers. We are all obliged to support the amendment because it is very important. All of us have heard from constituents in our electorates who are in support of ensuring that we get those answers. The Abel Tasman is the second biggest fishing vessel on the planet. I am pleased that people will not be rushed into decisions about it operating in our waters. The science behind current quotas is sound. However, the science behind the long-term effects of a vessel of this nature, of this size, are not. We are taking a cautious approach to this, prohibiting an activity while giving our fisheries managers and our environmental assessors the opportunity to give it proper consideration and get those answers that the public has been asking for. As I said, the public deserve those answers. We are adding the means by which such vessels can be assessed before any operations take place. We need a proper assessment and, if it is found to be unacceptable and threatening to our precious marine resources or to protected species, then the appropriate management responses would be implemented.

The government has introduced this legislation because there are unanswered questions. It is our duty as members of this parliament to seek answers to those questions and ensure that the public are satisfied. After all, all of us have been put here by the public. I have never seen another issue that has created such a great amount of correspondence to my office—continuous emails and phone calls from people who are concerned about having the world's second largest fishing vessel fishing in our waters. This bill will allow the government to seek out those answers and ensure that all the environmental impacts are known and we have all the information at our fingertips before any vessel like this is allowed to go out fishing in our waters.

The community need to be assured that the environmental controls in place are reflective of the expectations of the community. The expert panel will be able to assess the science to answer those very, very important questions. I am very pleased about this. I congratulate Minister Burke for acting on this after concerns were raised with him. I wrote many emails and letters to him on behalf of many constituents in my electorate over the last month. I am very pleased that he has taken that into account and ensured that he gets those answers for the thousands and thousands of constituents all around Australia who have been contacting our offices—and not just on this side; I am sure they are contacting people on the other side as well.

I am very pleased that this amendment bill has come to this House today to allow the government to seek those very important answers that will tell us what impact the world's second largest fishing vessel will have on our environment. As I said, this is a very important bill and I am very disappointed that the opposition is not supporting it—something which is so clearly in line with public perceptions and public views. I would encourage them all to rethink their position on this, to rethink what the public wants, to rethink what their constituents have been telling them and to vote in line with the Australian public, who put us in this place. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context