Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today having listened to many hours of debate over the supertrawler. I am absolutely appalled by the arguments being put forward by the opposition. They have no facts, no evidence; they just bring in their little key-lines book and every single speech you hear is exactly the same rhetoric. Obviously no-one over there has any clue about fisheries management. They have not talked about science. They have not talked about evidence. They have not talked about the commercial industry. It is all this fear and smear that they go on with every single day. Because we have had a debate on such a narrow topic we have had the same lines from speaker after speaker after speaker from the opposition.

What this is about is protecting our fish stocks, protecting the environment, protecting the industry and protecting the opportunity for recreational fishers—that is, mums and dads—to go out fishing and catch fish. We know it is a great pastime, we know it is a great family thing to do, to catch yourself a feed and come home and have some healthy food. But those opposite claim that this is an attack on recreational fishers. What we are talking about specifically here is one boat, the second largest boat in the world, with a 600-metre-wide net going through a pelagic fishery and hooking up everything in its path. We are not talking about recreational fishers. I do not know many recreational fishers in their 15-foot De Havillands who would be able to pull in a 600-metre-wide net of fish.

The opposition tries to confuse this with all their rhetoric about how bad this is. Senator Barney Joyce called this a sovereign risk. Anyone who has had to listen to Senator Joyce would know that, with him, every single thing is a sovereign risk. If he runs out of milk in his office it is a sovereign risk. He fails to understand the fishing industry at all. This is about protecting those in the industry—the commercial fishers who work with what we call a total allowable catch. We get the science that is available and we look at it and we find out what fish species and numbers are around. We then set a quota for each boat so that they can have a share of that quota dished out between them and continue to fish and keep themselves profitable. The scale on which we do that involves small boats around a lot of areas. So we do not have a sudden all-out impact in one spot. And that is what this is about. We have got new technology for which the science has never been tested before.

Twenty years ago when the science was done, these trawlers were just not thought of, they just were not around, they were not the sort of thing that people fished with. But now that we have them we need to make sure when we are allocating our fish stocks and quotas that we have the best available science to say yes, this is what we need to do. I think about the industry and the people involved in it. I know there are many hardworking people out there in the commercial fishing industry who do not want to see a boat of this size come through and take huge amounts of fish from the areas that they may fish in their small vessels. That is why it is important that we have a look at that.

But it is also important to the recreational fishers. In Victoria we went through some very serious changes. First, the Kennett government closed the commercial scallop fishery. That was a decision that even I applauded then—and it is not very often that I supported anything Premier Kennett did. But I supported that because in a small bay area like Port Phillip Bay—and it is relatively small compared to our oceans—there was a huge impact from the commercial industry. Over time, that got better with the banning of scallop fishing—to the point where the Victorian Labor government was considering bringing back a small-scale handpicking operation for scallops in Port Phillip Bay.

We have also seen in Victoria the closure of Westernport Bay to commercial fishers because of the impact it was having on the fish stocks, on the quality of the water and on the undersea life there. So there are times you have got to have a look at that. That was happening because the size and scale of operators was getting bigger, they were getting more knowledgeable and they were targeting a lot better. So we have to go through these processes and look at them and see what the best way forward is. That is why we have got to have this two-year ban put in place to do the science and get the evidence so that we know whether it is good or not.

The member for Riverina, in his hysterical little rhetoric over there—as well as page six of the talking documents of those opposite—talks about the tail wagging the dog. It is quite interesting that none of them, to this day, will own up and say that they were the ones who preferenced the Greens, which got them in here and gave them that position. I am not backing the position of the member for Melbourne and the Greens at all, because if they had their way there would be no commercial fishing, and I do not support that in any way, shape or form. Their partners, PETA, call fish 'sea kittens'—that is how they want us to think of them—which is absolutely silly. But that is where their mindset is. That is why we should not be supporting them, saying, 'We've got to ban this', because they will not ban it on evidence; they will ban it on emotion. That is not the right way, it is not the proper way, it is not the intelligent way that a government should deal with its science and its evidence. That is why this government is saying that we are going to put a moratorium on it. We are going to stop, we are going to have a look, we are going to see what the impacts are, and we are going to go with the science and then make the correct decision—a decision that will actually help fisheries and help our ocean and environment.

I was interested to hear those opposite say that there are 50 jobs at stake here. I have read a media report of that, but I have not seen anything definite on it. They complain about 50 jobs and the pain that causes—and no-one likes to see people lose jobs, which is why this government has been investing to create the 800,000 jobs—but it comes in the same week that their counterparts in state governments have slashed thousands upon thousands upon thousands of jobs right across the east coast. And it comes in the same week that they are cutting resources to CFAs and rural fire services, to the point that the Baillieu Liberal government is now saying to those who want to volunteer in the fire service: 'Yes, you can, but you can only have second-hand clothes. We'll give them a quick dry-clean, and away you go.' You could be out fighting fires for 18 hours a day, but they are taking the ration packs away. They do not want the fire men and women who are out there fighting fires, protecting private assets and government assets, to have access to fruit bars, water or biscuits. And here is another one that absolutely amazes me: you could be out there for 18 hours, but they are going to cut back on the toilet paper the CFA volunteers get.

If you want to talk about petty, stupid, unintelligent decisions that Liberal governments make, look at the state governments on the eastern seaboard and it will give you a window into what will happen if they get in federally. It is an absolute disgrace that people who claim to represent country areas, like the so-called National Party, are out there supporting the cutting of services to CFAs and other services in rural and regional areas, such as TAFEs. It is absolutely appalling.

I actually spoke to a few recreational fishers the other day about their thoughts on the supertrawler. I was very interested to read that VRFish, the peak body for recreational fishers in Victoria, actually said that they were considering the supertrawler's potentially devastating impact on a crucial component of the Australian fisheries environment. The VRFish chair said, 'Our members are telling us they strongly object to the supertrawler' because 'we don't think enough is known about the state of the SPF'—the Small Pelagic Fishery—'to enable the Commonwealth government to make a call on this fishery based on the currently available scientific evidence'.

I think that is very important—that the chair of VRFish, the peak body for recreational fishing, has said that we have to look at the available evidence and that there is not enough information there. He also said:

Victorian fishers have real concerns about the potential impact a super trawler could have on the marine ecosystems.

As is noted, this is a water column trawler; it is not a bottom trawler. The movement of fish species through water columns is very hard to detect. So you get the available science, you have a look at the areas you monitor, and that is where you come up with these sorts of things. You have a look and say, 'This is the number of fish we believe are in that area, and this is what we are going to do.

I also notice that the peak body representing recreating fishing sector—the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation—says:

The federal Government has made the right decision by listening to Australia's 5 million anglers over the super trawler issue.

It should be made clear to every recreational fisher that it is the Liberal and National parties who will not support them, will not stand up for them and will not represent them. They sit there and say, 'Let it happen, and see what happens in the end.'

We already know that other countries have banned supertrawlers because of the damage they do to the environment. The Senegal government withdrew the licences of 29 foreign trawlers in May following 'growing resentment at overfishing'. In other countries around the world, they are saying that these boats are too big, they take too much in one hit and they cause concerns. We are saying that this is the first time we have had them here, so we want to look at the evidence, get the science and make the decision that is best for our fisheries. The Liberals and Nationals are saying, 'Don't worry about it; she'll be right.' They would just let them fish, and when there is no fish, then bad luck for Australia; if we want to eat fish we will just have to import more and more. At the same time, the members of the National Party are out there saying that we import too much fish and we have to catch more local fish. Well, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot increase the take of stock from a small single area and cause a depletion of stock—which will happen in a very short period of time—but then say that we have to keep producing more fish to eat. There will not be any fish to eat, and then you have to import more. But with the National Party, as one former member, Mr Black, said, there are 'four fingers and two grandparents between the lot of them'. I think that explains a lot about the way they are thinking.

We need to do what we need to do with the science, get the evidence, stand up and make sure that our world-class fisheries—and they are world-class fisheries—are managed exceptionally well and that we have the evidence, including science based evidence, to back that up, to make sure that when a decision is made it is not made on emotion or on personal beliefs that fishing should not be allowed full stop, but is an evidence based decision that you can stand there and defend.

That is what we are doing and it is what the Howard government did, but it is not what the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, and the rest of the crew in the coalition want to do. They just want to let things run and see what happens and then hope for the best.

This government should not and will not allow that to happen. We want to make sure that when we make these decisions they are based on the best science available relative to what is happening in the fishery and relative to the size of the vessels included in the fishery. So I think it is important that we take stock and support this bill, because the bill has been brought in to make sure that we can get the best evidence and the best science available for making this decision so that you and I can go fishing, and I am sure there are plenty of kids in the gallery who also would like to go fishing. We need to do that not just for today but for 10, 20 and 30 years down the track.

This government is making decisions not just for the now but also for the future. It is important that we support this and also that we support the science and the evidence to manage our fisheries and ensure they are sustainable into the future.

See this speech in context