Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is one of the cleanest food-producing industries, as the member for Wannon reminds me. Yet we have a government which wants to pander to an extreme Green agenda to say that we should not be fishing, that somehow 'fishing' is a dirty word all of a sudden. Do not just think this is hysteria in the opposition. Let us be clear about this. This position has come about because of a radical campaign by Greenpeace and the Green movement.

I always say, and this is yet another potent example that Ronald Reagan was right about his views on the environmental movement when he said—and the member for Dobell should listen to this—that the only species that the environmental movement does not care about is the human species.

He has a very good point, because 45 people will lose their jobs as a result of this decision by the government today, and that will have flow-on effects. The $15 million for Tasmania is gone. People say we are a wealthy country; but we are not so wealthy that we can afford to turn away $15 million every day in this parliament, and we are not so wealthy that we can afford to put 45 people back on the long-term unemployed queues, which is what this government has done. No number of expos from the minister for child care on government handouts and jobs can save these 45 long-term unemployed workers.

It is a disgrace that the government has taken this stance based not on scientific inquiry or on fact but on pure political expediency on the most embarrassing scale. We have seen that in the words of the minister, Tony Burke, in his strategy in 2009, where he said:

There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels.

He is correct about that—larger scale activity produces greater efficiencies. It is all through our economy; there is nothing wrong with it. Yet we have had a procession of government backbenchers come into this House today and recently to tell us that the scale of fishing is what is worrying them. All of a sudden they are concerned that this should be based on the science. These government backbenchers who claim, because they are reading off their talking points, that they know something about science have no idea about the science. We have some of the best-managed fisheries in the world. I am not standing here today making a claim on a scientific inquiry on the science of fishing. I do not know anything about the science of fishing, and I am prepared to say so. To those government backbenchers who say, 'We should be looking at the science,' I say: we have been looking at the science for years; we have got it; it is here. Just because it occurred to them for the first time today that there should be some science, they say, 'No, we’ve got to pause and look at this for two years.'

This boat was brought here by the Labor government to fish in our waters on the basis of science and on the basis of Australian government agency recommendation—including, I add, that of the honourable Michael Egan, a former Labor treasurer of New South Wales, who was appointed by this minister. That is why the boat is here. But, after all of that, to turn around because of a last-minute campaign and say no to it, after years of scientific proof and endeavour, is a hideous embarrassment. To go further and have the member for Dobell have to somehow try to save the recreational fishing industry but not succeed in his amendments is even more embarrassing. We cannot support a bill which has at its very core unlimited expansion of ministerial power without regard for any recourse or appeal for the ordinary citizen to conduct their ordinary, day-to-day business. There is nothing at all wrong with fishing, commercial or recreational. In fact, it provides a good income and a good living for many people, and it needs to be encouraged.

Under the guise of this legislation, we have this Trojan Horse of an issue being brought into the parliament to increase the power of the minister over all aspects of Commonwealth-water fishing. We have seen today the reaction of the Australian Marine Alliance:

In our view the answer is not to give the department of the environment in Canberra greater control over fisheries management but rather for the fisheries portfolio to secure a competent minister who can effectively fulfil their duties as minister for fisheries.

Amen to the Australian Marine Alliance! They go on:

As an example, if this bill passes, it will give the department of the environment in Canberra the authority to stop recreational anglers all the way down the east coast from fishing for Bluefin tuna in Commonwealth waters.

Do we think that that is hysteria? We know it is not; we know that it is the agenda of the green movement in Australia today to stop that fishing. This minister is so beholden to the Greens that that is now one step closer—and will be much closer if this legislation passes.

Martin Exel, the chair of the Commonwealth Fisheries Association says:

Industry is aware of the desire by the minister to retrospectively change the rules for the small pelagic fishery and block the operations of the Abel Tasman, but this is not the way to do things.

There he is, pointing out that this is not the way to handle something like this—and it sure ain't. He goes on to say:

Responding to community issues over this single boat by damaging all Australian fishing operations, both commercial and recreational, and creating massive uncertainties in the professional fishing industry in Australia is simply not acceptable in our view.

That is the point—the government are damaging Australian interests under the guise of stopping this foreign boat that we are all supposed to be concerned about. I know that a lot of people out there are very concerned about this issue, but they need to look closely at what this government is doing in terms of expanding its powers to limit Australian fishing in Australian interests. That is where, with a close examination, the government's agenda will be exposed. There are many ways that they could have dealt with a potential problem with the Margiristhat is, move-on powers—and all of the people have spoken from the coalition have outlined many of the things that could have been done by a competent and responsible government. Even these industry and professional bodies are using language like, 'Get a competent minister; find a person or a government that can deal with things.'

One of the Labor backbenchers I was listening to—it could have been the member for Corangamite—said, 'This boat just appeared on the horizon, and we had to do something.' What a ridiculous load of absolute rubbish! This boat did not appear on the horizon; they were invited by the minister to come here and fish. They went through every legislative and other requirement to outfit the boat, to get ready to fish. The minister knew all the way through. So did the department and so did the Commonwealth. This boat did not appear on the horizon; what it did appear on was on the political horizon of the government. Never mind the science of fisheries.

There is a good quote on this from Darwin as well. He said 'it's not the strongest of a species that survives, or the most intelligent; it's those of the species most able to adapt to change that survive'. I think the real science of all of this—why we are here today and why we have this excessive government legislation—is quite Darwinian. Basically, Kevin wanted to do over Julia, and Melissa wanted to stop the boat. So Kevin supported Melissa in stopping the boat, to get at Julia. So Joe and Tony, to save Julia, moved to stop the boat to stop Kevin from getting Melissa onside to do over Julia. That is the science of this issue. That is the science that we are basing it on.

See this speech in context