Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prior to question time, I addressed the purposes of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006 in detail and made reference to some of my concerns with the provisions which relate to an extension of the rules for incarceration of people found in our fishing zones illegally catching fish.

I support the legislation which will prevent higher-level people from operating in the illegal fishing industry. There are parts of Australia, other than our northern areas, where very small vessels are frequently found to have illegal fishers and the policy for them is good policy. I mentioned other areas where I thought improvement could be achieved. On the other hand, I did congratulate the government for the decisions made on the assets that will be available to inspect and prevent the incursion of illegal fishing vessels.

Obviously prevention is better than cure. I am sure members would agree that we have two issues arising from illegal fishing: first, the economic difficulties it creates for our own fishing fleet and, second, and more importantly, the conservation aspects involved. Australia has never been recognised as a very large and robust fishery and it does not take a lot to destroy the balance. Therefore, this legislation is very important.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you would remember something I am very proud of—to the extent that it applies in my electorate—that is, the longstanding Western Australian state government limited-entry fishing concept. Using that concept, the government looks very cautiously at new fisheries or new catching equipment, and usually license a limited number of vessels until it can establish what it is. Ten thousand tonnes is the typical catch of crayfish or rock lobster in my electorate. Some years ago the fishermen campaigned to have their catching equipment—the ‘pots’, as they call them, which they trade on a licensed basis—reduced by 25 per cent; they had got too clever at catching fish. Their many instruments were much more accurate in catching fish.

The fishermen campaigned on the subject. A coalition government of my persuasion decided, after a bit of lobbying that some get on the wheat industry, that 18 per cent would do—notwithstanding that it was the fishermen that thought they should give back 25 per cent of their catching capacity. Industry recognises the word ‘conservation’. Environmentalists just say, ‘Lock it up.’ Conservationists ask, ‘What is a reasonable catch?’ We should recognise that human beings have fished the sea for as long as recorded history. We are a predator in the ocean; we have just got too smart at it.

The measures in the bill implement actions to prevent people wanting to come into our fishing zones and threaten them with jail. The Southern Ocean, admittedly, comes into part of the provisions of this bill. I can go down on the record as the fisheries minister who caught the South Tommy. It got easier thereafter, but I had to negotiate with the defence forces and the South Africans—everyone—while urging our vessel to keep chasing it right across to South Africa. Of course, other arrests have been made since.

To my mind, we need deeming legislation for both north and south—if that is at all legal under the law of the sea—which says that, if you are caught in our zones with fish and you have failed to seek right of passage through our economic zone or wherever, where we have control, then the catch that you have on your vessel is deemed to have been caught in our waters. There is a big gap through which people are starting to escape. When you catch them, unless they have virtually got the lines over the side or the nets in the water, it is very hard in our courts, which are fair, to prove that the fish were caught in our zone. I hope the government will take note of my comments. I might get the support of the shadow minister at the table to look into how we can nail these people through legislation. In the Southern Ocean it is not unusual for illegal fishers to have on board $1 million worth of the patagonian toothfish, a very fragile species. Like other fish, it is quite old before it even breeds. We cannot afford to have that species destroyed by foreign pilots. We really do need to have something that says, ‘Unless you have rung us up and said, “I propose to have passage through your economic zone, and you can come and inspect the fish I’ve got on board already”’—and I do not know how they would do that in the Southern Ocean, but that would not worry me—we could state that the fish have been caught there. And if we need to make some changes to international treaties we should do so, because we should not let these people out of those circumstances.

All in all, I welcome this legislation because it is a step in the right direction. It puts pressure on a certain level of officers. The better solution in the case of indigenous fishermen is, while you have them on the boat and they are in the vicinity, to take them to the nearest Indonesian island and tell them to get off. I am not sure that putting them in jail or even carting them into Darwin necessarily does much. If we could catch the organisers, who frequently do not even live in their district—they come from Hong Kong or somewhere else—that would be a big help. That would require an international response.

The $300 million that the government has laid down is going into border protection and apprehension. There will also be a message that you could end up in jail. All of those measures—and this is specific to that last point—are welcomed. I hope our new surveillance, our new assets—smaller boats to do certain jobs—will help us to get the message out there that, as I read or saw on television, if you are a burglar you will get caught. That is a message we have to deliver. I encourage our foreign minister and others to do as much as possible, diplomatically, to get the support of the Indonesians and others, to say, ‘If you sail out of Indonesian waters it is assumed you are going somewhere where you are not supposed to be,’ and they will deal with it themselves.’

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the contribution of the member for O’Connor to this debate, and I do apologise for the hurried circumstances that brought him into the chamber early to deliver his speech. We all know the uncompromising manner in which he undertook that pursuit of the vessel. We only wish that that sort of political will remained because, since the member for O’Connor vacated the ministerial post, we have had a succession of ministers who have talked big but have not delivered the goods.

The Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006, which we are considering in this place today, makes a number of amendments to the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984. The amendments provide for increased fines and for custodial sentences of up to three years imprisonment for persons caught illegally fishing in those parts of Australia’s territorial sea that are subject to Commonwealth fisheries jurisdiction. The area covered by this legislation is the zone beyond a line three nautical miles from the coast, which represents the state or territory boundary, up to a line 12 nautical miles from the coast, which represents the rest of Australia’s territorial sea. Importantly, this legislation does not and cannot apply to areas of the Australian fishing zone that lie beyond the 12 nautical mile boundary of Australia’s territorial sea.

This legislation therefore will not apply to persons caught fishing illegally in the zone between the 12 nautical mile and the 200 nautical mile limit of our fishing zone. This is because Australia, as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is prohibited from imposing custodial penalties for foreign fishing offences beyond the 12 nautical mile territorial sea limit. This is not the first time that custodial sentences have been included in Australia’s fishing legislation; however, in the Fisheries Management Act and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act, custodial sentences are generally provided only for non-fishing offences such as obstructing a fisheries officer or providing false information.

Labor will support this legislation. We recognise that it is a very small step in the right direction. It will put in place additional deterrents for those foreign fishers who are caught fishing in our waters. We recognise that the vast bulk of sightings by Coastwatch of illegal foreign fishers operating in Australia’s fishing zone are in waters beyond our 12 nautical mile territorial limit and therefore will not be subject to the new custodial provisions contained in the legislation.

The bill before us today is not likely to make a major dent in a problem that has basically been spiralling out of control for many years under successive Howard government ministers. The previous fisheries minister, Senator Ian Macdonald, issued press releases proclaiming victory in the battle against illegal foreign fishers when the situation on the water was getting worse by the day. Senator Macdonald in fact issued 150 press releases claiming success in curbing illegal foreign fishing. Members of the House, who could forget that memorable press release of 24 October 2002 headed ‘We are winning the war against illegal foreign fishing’? While Senator Macdonald was winning the war against illegal fishers in his own mind, Australian fishers operating legally in our northern waters were seeing more and more boats from Indonesia and elsewhere fishing illegally in our waters. Like other Howard government ministers, Senator Macdonald seemed to believe that if he put enough spin on a bad situation he could fool the Australian fishing industry and the Australian public into believing that he had this situation under control and that the minister’s spin alone would be a deterrent to foreign fishers.

As the paper pile mounted, the problem got worse and the illegal fishers got more audacious. I am reminded of that great saying of former Prime Minister Keating’s, when he was challenged in debate by members of the National Party, that listening to them was like getting mauled by a dead sheep. As far as the illegal foreign fishers are concerned, as the paper mounted declaring success in the war against illegal fishers, I guess they were sitting on their boats basically saying that the minister’s words were like getting mauled by the proverbial dead prawn. Quite frankly, this was a disgraceful situation that was allowed to spin out of control by an incompetent minister and a government that lacked the political will to defend our borders.

Here we have a government prepared to spend in the region of $1.6 billion on a useless war in Iraq and yet our northern borders were leaking like a sieve. The danger that that posed not only to our economic interests but to our agricultural interests and other areas was quite substantial. The fact of the matter is that Senator Ian Macdonald did not have the situation under control at all. He was not winning the war against illegal fishing, and his failures eventually grew to the extent that he was becoming a liability for the government and he had to pay the ultimate political price—that is, he was removed.

I am quite proud of the fact that, on my watch, two fisheries ministers bit the dust. They had to be removed. The opposition put intolerable pressure on an issue that should have been front and centre of the government’s consideration but, while it was distracted elsewhere in a useless war costing billions of dollars, Australia’s northern borders were leaking like a sieve. One tactic often used by Senator Macdonald, in an attempt to distract attention from his own policy failures, was to blame the states. Where have we heard all that before? If you get into trouble for a hopeless policy failure, you blame the Labor states. In a situation that demanded the highest level of cooperation between state and federal authorities, Senator Macdonald did the opposite and fought with his state and territory counterparts.

Perhaps, though, we could see this as an improvement on the performance of his predecessor, the member for O’Connor, who preceded me in this debate, who, at one stage when fisheries minister, wanted to carry the fight to Tasmanian fishermen out the back of the forum, according to a little birdie who whispered in my ear. I know the member for O’Connor is quite formidable in this regard, but I think he bit off a bit more than he could chew on that particular occasion with the Tasmanian fishermen.

I give the new Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Abetz, credit for at least trying to develop a better working relationship with his state and territory counterparts than either of his two predecessors did. Labor will support him in any measure that is designed to lift genuine cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states and territories on this issue of importance to the Australian fishing industry and the Australian public.

Such cooperation will be absolutely vital if we are to make major inroads in getting on top of this very difficult and serious problem. There has to be a high level of sharing of intelligence, equipment and personnel between the Commonwealth and the states and territories if we are to be successful in this fight against illegal fishing. I caution the new minister, however, about getting into the bad habits of his predecessors in mistaking spin for success. In a recent press release, Senator Abetz used the words ‘highly successful’ in his description of a one-off exercise. A one-off exercise, even if it is highly successful, will not solve this problem. Only concerted, cooperative action with the states and territories in the long term will bring us ultimate success.

We really need to understand the real dimensions of this problem. In answer to a question on notice the Attorney-General advised that between 1 January 2003 and 31 March 2004 there were 1,588 sightings of vessels in Australia’s exclusive economic zone suspected of breaching fisheries laws. Over a 15-month period, beginning in January 2003, there were 1,588 sightings of possible illegal foreign fishing vessels in our waters. Last year, during supplementary estimates, Coastwatch reported that in the 2004 calendar year there were 8,108 sightings of possible illegal foreign fishing vessels in Australia’s fishing zone. Coastwatch now says that in the 2005 calendar year there were 13,018 sightings. Even if this particular figure has been inflated as a result of multiple sightings of the same vessel—and I am including vessels that have been legally transiting through our waters—it is clear that incursions by foreign fishing boats operating illegally in our waters are increasing at a rate that should be setting off alarm bells in the cabinet room.

I acknowledge that over time there has been an increase in interceptions but, unfortunately, apprehensions have only been a drop in the bucket, compared to sightings. Last year, only about three per cent of those boats sighted by Coastwatch were actually apprehended. Until recently, there was an increasing tendency to deal with those foreign fishers, who were unlucky enough to be intercepted, by the so-called legislative forfeiture method rather than by taking them into custody. There is ample evidence that many of the foreign fishers, who have had their fishing gear and catch seized under the legislative forfeiture provisions, have headed straight back to the Australian mainland where they had previously secreted caches of fishing gear, stocked up and immediately started fishing again in our waters.

In 2000 there were 101 interceptions, of which 23 per cent were dealt with under what we have termed the ‘tag and release’ provisions. In 2001, 33 per cent of the 119 illegal foreign fishers intercepted were tagged and then released. The corresponding figure for 2002 was 24 per cent of the 1,444 intercepted; for 2003, it was 29 per cent of the 196 interceptions; for 2004, it was 43 per cent of the 289 interceptions; and, for 2005, it was a massive 53 per cent of the 607 illegal foreign fishers intercepted.

A cursory look at these statistics indicates that we have a tag and release policy in place that is not getting on top of the problem. Last year, over half the illegal foreign fishers who were caught had their catch and gear confiscated and then they were set free to re-equip their boats and start fishing again. During estimates hearings last week, we were told that a higher percentage of those boats intercepted this year have actually been towed in and their crews charged. It seems that someone has finally acknowledged what I have been saying for a long time: tag and release simply does not effectively deter illegal foreign fishers from plundering our fishing stocks in our waters. This is particularly the case where it seems that they can easily restock from bases set up in remote creeks on the Australian mainland—and they can do that, apparently, with impunity.

The dimensions of the problem were clearly elaborated on by Australia’s most senior fisheries bureaucrat in a presentation to the Indonesian government last year. Mr Daryl Quinlivan is now Deputy Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and was previously manager of the fisheries and forestry division of that department. Mr Quinlivan told the Indonesians:

Not only are we seeing a greater rate of incursions but also a significant shift east and into the Torres Strait Protected Zone, penetrating deep into the Gulf of Carpentaria, often landing on mainland Australia, and further south-west, targeting Rowley Shoals.

So there we have it: a very honest admission and appraisal by a senior fisheries bureaucrat of the real situation of illegal fishing in Australia’s waters. Thank goodness for that—at least we have someone with a degree of honesty prepared to front up and tell it how it is. It is a very important issue for the Australian fishing industry. That is in direct contradiction to the then minister’s claims that we were winning the war on illegal fishing. We had Australia’s most senior fisheries bureaucrat speaking with candour and admitting that the number of incursions is increasing and that illegal foreign fishers are penetrating deeper and deeper into Australia’s waters and territorial zone.

But it was not the only issue that was dealt with in Mr Quinlivan’s speech. He dealt with another issue that I have raised a number of times in this place and in the public arena. That issue is the considerable quarantine risk imposed on Australia as a result of these incursions. Mr Quinlivan said in the course of his presentation:

Another significant concern to Australia are the quarantine risks posed by the possible introduction of marine and terrestrial pests as well as human and animal diseases.

Many vessels have been sighted along river beds and mangroves on the Australian mainland. Some have been known to establish hidden storage sites on land where additional storage of fishing equipment and resupply are kept.

From the quarantine and national security perspective, this is obviously not acceptable and the Australian Government is gravely concerned about this activity and the potential for this activity to be used for other activities such as people smuggling, foreign terrorism and the trafficking of weapons and narcotics.

Mr Quinlivan said things in that speech that I have heard many times over the years in the course of my discussions with fishers, fishing representatives, industry representatives, state and territory officials and Commonwealth fisheries officials all around Australia. We have seen reports of illegal foreign fishers bringing with them birds, dogs and other animals, and we know that these animals are sometimes brought to camps on the Australian mainland. We know that many of these fishers themselves carry diseases such as tuberculosis and that their animals have the potential to be carrying bird flu, rabies and even foot and mouth disease. Australian fishers have told me that they often come into contact with illegal fishers and they are concerned about the possible health consequences of that contact. It is clear that these incursions pose a serious quarantine risk to Australia’s plant and animal industries and to our native flora and fauna. They also pose a serious human quarantine risk.

But it is not only the quarantine risk that Australian fishers worry about. I have spoken many times to fishers from right across Northern Australia. I have also spoken to front-line state, territory and federal fisheries officials and ministers. These fishers, officials and ministers tell me that they are concerned that the illegal foreign fishers are becoming increasingly aggressive in the way they operate. Fishers have told me about waking up in the night out at sea and finding foreign fishers on their boats searching for food and water. I have been told about instances of boats being rammed. I have been told about suspected links between some illegal fishers, drug importers and people smugglers. There is also evidence that these fishers are becoming better organised. The minister himself has pointed to links between the foreign fishers and organised crime figures from Indonesia and countries further to our north. Australian fishers and officials have told me that they are seeing more boats from more distant areas in Indonesia, as well as those from the closer islands, such as Roti, who have been fishing in our waters for a very long time. As well as this, we are seeing bigger boats, iceboats and even mother ships and factory boats.

The changing nature of this problem can be seen in microcosm in the changing nature of the fishers being encountered in the so-called MOU box. When the sea boundary with Indonesia was originally negotiated, the MOU box, which lies within Australian waters, was set aside as an area where traditional fishers, principally from the island of Roti, could fish in the traditional way, as they had for generations. These days it is not only traditional boats from that island that are encountered in the MOU box; today we see powerful boats with very sophisticated fishing equipment using the MOU box. I am told by Australian fishers that fish stocks in that area have become severely depleted and we are on the verge of an ecological disaster.

This highlights the need for better cooperation between the Australian and Indonesian governments, especially on issues such as who may fish in the MOU box and other border related issues. The simple fact is that when we entered into that particular agreement it was on the basis that traditional fishers would have access to Australia’s fishing zone, and from Australia’s point of view we felt that that was an important compromise and a necessary one to ensure a good relationship between Australia and Indonesia on these matters. But it is clear we have to revisit this issue, because the boats that are fishing there now have plundered the resource to the point where it is ecologically and economically unsustainable. Of course, those boats are now moving closer to the Australian coastline in search of fish.

It is clear that illegal incursions into our waters by foreign fishers are simply out of control. The measures in this bill alone will do little to alter this alarming situation. It is for this reason that I now move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for its failure to properly police Australia’s northern coastline and its failure to deter foreign fishers from illegally plundering fish stocks in the Australian fishing zone”.

This is a national problem demanding a coordinated national response, but I am not convinced that we are getting the coordinated response that is needed. State and territory officers who are on the front line have told me that information sharing among the various authorities dealing with this problem is not always what it should be. They say there is a particular problem with some Commonwealth agencies that are very reluctant to share vital information. This is a situation that ought not to be tolerated by any Commonwealth or state minister. It is absolutely vital that Australia’s territorial integrity be protected, and we demand of those bureaucrats from the state and the Commonwealth level the highest level of cooperation to get on top of this particular problem. Officers tell me that coordination is not always as good as is needed and that the best, most efficient use is not always made of existing available equipment and human resources. Better coordination and cooperation between authorities is vital if we are going to successfully get on top of this problem.

I note that the minister has at last acknowledged the importance of this and that some funds for this purpose were made available in this year’s budget. But acknowledging the problem is simply not enough. This alone will not ensure better coordination and cooperation between Commonwealth agencies. Labor has long advocated bringing the federal agencies and equipment together in a well-equipped Australian coastguard as the best, most effective way of ensuring a well-resourced and well-coordinated response.

In addition, there needs to be a renewed spirit of trust and cooperation between federal and state and territory authorities. On the ground, I have been told in many places that such cooperation between state and Commonwealth officers is the norm at the local level. The problems that we are encountering in that cooperation occur higher up the command chain. Ministers in particular have been far too fond of blame shifting and pointing the finger at one another. The previous federal fisheries minister blamed the states and territories. It has become a way of political life for coalition ministers.

We also need to utilise the local knowledge and long experience that lies in local communities, particularly Aboriginal communities, right across Northern Australia. I have been advocating this measure for years and finally the government has seen fit to put some resources into this area. The government has finally come around to at least acknowledging that in many Aboriginal communities lies a wealth of experience that can be better used in surveillance and other activities associated with curbing illegal foreign fishing. But it is a very tentative start. From my discussions with local officials and with communities, it has become clear that to make the best use of Indigenous expertise a well-funded, well-structured and well-coordinated program is needed.

Aboriginal rangers should have training opportunities available to them that will equip them with skill sets roughly equivalent to those possessed by state or territory fisheries or national parks service officers. It is not beyond our wit to achieve that over time, and we would improve the surveillance and apprehension effort to boot. I believe that appropriately qualified Indigenous sea rangers should be made officers of the relevant state or territory parks and wildlife and fisheries services with the same support, career and further training options as other officers. They should also be provided with all the specialised equipment they need to do the job. Better use should be made of the resources and expertise of the Australian fishing industry. Again, the government has made some noises in this area, but we have yet to see what, if anything, will happen in practice.

The legislation before us today has the support of the opposition, but nobody should pretend to believe that it will do more than scratch the surface in deterring illegal fishers from fishing in our waters. What is needed is a better focused effort from the Commonwealth, and Labor believes that this will best be done with an Australian coastguard. There needs to be better coordination across all levels of government and with the Indigenous community and Australian fishers. Much work still needs to be done with the Republic of Indonesia on issues such as the MOU box and the border and on finding viable alternatives for Indonesian fishers who have been operating in our waters.

This is a serious matter. We have seen for 10 long years the continued plundering of Australia’s fishing resources by illegal fishers. While this government has issued press releases, the problem has got worse. We have seen Commonwealth ministers removed from their portfolios because of the heat generated by this issue for them, and we have yet to see the level of political will and cooperation necessary from the government to get a response that is going to drive the illegal fishers out of Australia’s territorial waters.

As shadow minister for agriculture, I appreciate how dangerous these incursions are to our great beef industry and other industries in rural Australia. We know that these illegal incursions can be associated with the carriage of very serious diseases that could decimate key industries in regional Australia and key export earners for this country. It ought to be a matter of the highest priority for any national government to secure the borders of its nation. If that alone is the criterion by which to judge this government, then this government has failed.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to stand here today to welcome the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006. This bill, belatedly introduced by the government, represents a very mild step but I welcome it and will recommend it in the right direction. I also happily endorse the amendment moved by the member for Corio and all the remarks that he has just put on the record.

This is the fourth time this year that I have risen in this parliament to speak on illegal fishing, which is quite extraordinary given that I come from a metropolitan Melbourne seat. Nevertheless, late last year the Labor caucus determined that this government was neglecting serious issues of grave concern, one of them being transport and maritime security. This government is ignoring homeland security. They have neglected it wilfully—and I mean that. They have sent our troops to fight in a meaningless war off our shores while neglecting the situation here. They are neglecting to protect our own borders. This has become most alarmingly evident in this area of illegal fishing but the bill before us today, whilst finally a step in the right direction, recognising that there is a serious issue out there, does not go near enough to resolving this enormous problem. The other indication that the government is wilfully neglecting our borders is the situation currently unfolding in Timor. We are rapidly not having enough troops to deploy in our own region. This is going to be a crisis situation. I have just heard of an individual who is just back from three months in Iraq but has been told that he is off to Timor any day now because they simply do not have the troops on the ground to protect our borders and our homeland security.

Whilst I will allow the new Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation some excuse as he has only recently taken over the portfolio from the poor, hapless Senator Ian Macdonald, who was hounded from his portfolio by numerous individuals, I will not allow Senator Abetz to get away with having spoken only twice on an issue of grave concern to this country, an issue of such importance to our northern waters that the people up north are absolutely bleating. You only need to pick up the West Australian newspaper on any day of the week to see that illegal fishing is their No. 1 issue. You only need to pick up the Northern Territory newspaper to see that illegal fishing is their No. 1 issue. Then you go to the top of Queensland and again illegal fishing is the No. 1 issue. And what have we had in this place today? One government member speaking on this bill!

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And that was Wilson Tuckey.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, one brave government member, Wilson Tuckey—at least he was from WA—had the gumption to speak on the bill. The other reason I am slightly amazed that no other government member has got up to speak is that this is a law and order bill. I would have thought government members’ stock in trade was talking on a law and order bill, to move something in respect of law and order.

As I said, the minister in charge of solving the problem of illegal fishing, which has grown to a crisis point since the Howard government came to office, has bothered to talk on the issue only twice. That is not very impressive, nor is the Howard government’s record on illegal fishing. Some columnists say national security is the coalition’s strength. I would ask them to stop looking at the spin and start looking at the facts, because the facts on illegal fishing say it all. Last year there were 13,018 sightings of illegal vessels in Australian waters, so 13,000 boats managed to get into our waters. Some of them may have been subject to double counting, but Coastwatch actually said in a written supplementary estimates answer that they thought maybe they had underestimated, not overestimated, the number of sightings.

Of those 13,000 boats sighted last year, only 214 of the vessels were apprehended, which means that somebody had a 1.5 per cent chance of actually being picked up. Having travelled the countryside on behalf of the Labor Party task force on transport and maritime security, I have heard countless stories from individuals to the effect that when you come into contact with Indonesian fishermen, who have been apprehended or have landed on the shore to get supplies, they say they have a one in 10 chance of being apprehended, so if they make 10 trips they may get caught once, but that is very rare. So the Indonesian fishermen have this mentality that there is no deterrence, there is no way of stopping them, so they may as well risk their lives coming down from their waters. Bear in mind that coming down from Indonesia into our waters is a fairly dangerous pursuit, but they are prepared to risk it because they know there is no deterrence at our borders. If they are caught once they get here, as the member for Corio pointed out, up until recently the government has had this great system—I think they have finally seen the light and said, ‘This doesn’t work’—of illegal forfeiture which meant that, when they apprehended the boat, they did not actually take the crew and charge them with illegal fishing or take the boat and destroy it; they just took the equipment and said to the crew, ‘Terribly sorry, but we’re taking your nets and your fish and we’re going to send you on your way.’

It reminds you of Rex Hunt taking the fish, kissing it and chucking it back in the water. It actually made the situation far worse because the illegal fishing crews, who are predominantly Indonesian, knew that if they were apprehended all they had to do was hand over their stock, their fishing gear and then head around the corner to a little inlet where they had dug a nice big hole and had whacked in another load of nets. So it was making the situation worse because it was actually forcing these crews to risk coming onto our shores, with all the associated quarantine risks. They would actually come onto our shores and hide their nets, knowing that if they were caught they would have to restock.

The other thing is that this situation has resulted in a lot of theft at sea. If the nets of illegal fishermen are confiscated they often steal the nets off Australian boats. Throughout Australia I have met with many fishermen—they were predominantly men—and one brave fisherwoman. I do not know if that is what she is called but she is a woman who earns her living on the sea; there are probably more but I have met only one. They are becoming fairly apprehensive about going to their workplace, which is in a boat on the ocean. Yes, it is a fairly dangerous livelihood, but now they are scared for their personal safety. Time and time again we were told during our task force visits that people did not think about ‘if’ a dangerous situation were to happen at sea on one of our boats but ‘when’ that situation would happen.

I would like to quote from a report on illegal fishing in Australian waters by Professor James Fox, who is at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the ANU. I had the pleasure of meeting with Professor Fox recently, and I was fascinated by the things that he had to say. In his report of January this year he said:

There are no indications that the number of eastern Indonesia fisherman coming into Australian waters will decrease. In fact, there is every indication that these numbers will continue to increase. The value of shark fin is creating a kind of ‘gold-rush’ mentality among the poorest socio-economic group in Indonesia. The fishermen’s own fishing areas are now heavily over-fished and largely depleted of valuable shark. Hence there are few alternatives available to these fishermen. Despite the intentions and rhetoric in the new Fisheries Law, only the development of managed fishing zones with recognised and strictly enforced quotas on catch is likely to improve the present combination of legal and illegal overfishing.

As Professor Fox has said, this gold rush mentality has now happened. The Indonesian fishermen who are put into the terrible situation of coming down and plying our shores for our fish are willing to risk their lives because of the gold rush mentality and the notion that there is no deterrence, that there is nothing to stop them. As I say, up until now, if they were caught their equipment was taken and they were sent on their way.

This bill goes at least part of the way to address that situation, which came to our attention over and over during our task force visits. We went to the major fishing towns throughout Australia. We went from Perth up to Broome, across to Darwin, down to Cairns and back to Brisbane. I have met with people all over and have been to quite a few remote Indigenous communities, and we spoke to people over phones when we could not get out to some of the very remote places. Having spoken to them and spoken at length to the state fisheries officers and the relevant state fishery ministers, we find that one of the No. 1 complaints about tackling the problem of illegal fishing is the sheer lack of coordination and cooperation between the states and the federal government. The current situation is that there are various laws, dependent upon where the fisherman is apprehended and by which authority. If they are apprehended in WA waters by state fisheries officers they are predominantly apprehended, taken to shore and charged under that state’s laws.

Given the issue of where sea boundaries begin and end in state waters, federal waters, the economic zone and international waters, things do become a bit blurred. But there is this constant mismatch between which laws apply on the ground. So in Western Australia they are actually apprehending quite a large number of these Indonesian illegal fishermen and putting them in jail, and then fining them under their laws. There are different laws and different rules with regard to captains and crew. These laws are in conflict with what is happening on the Commonwealth side.

The Commonwealth seems to be using either forfeiture or deportation. They are taking the crews and deeming them to be illegal migrants and deporting them straightaway, as opposed to dealing with them through the legal system and saying, ‘This is an illegal activity on our soil and you should suffer some consequences. You should suffer some fine. You should suffer some deterrent.’ There should be an indication that there is a deterrent to taking the fish stocks out of our waters.

This bill, which will introduce legislation, give greater coordination and cooperation between some of those laws across the state and federal boundaries and improve the fines and custodial sentencing, is a move in the right direction. But it is only a drop in the ocean. As was also mentioned by the member for Corio, there was a statement by the Treasurer in the budget. There is increased money in the budget to go towards fixing this illegal fishing issue. Again, it is only a drop in the ocean. The Treasurer’s great statement was, ‘We’ll double the number of boats apprehended.’ That is great! That is three per cent, by my calculation. That will be 400 boats, and there were 13,000 sighted last year. The estimations from everybody who is studying this is that that number will increase this year. In talking to the individuals on the ground, or more importantly those who go out on the water, they say they noticed a huge drop in coastal surveillance for illegal fishing at about the time the government decided that it would concentrate on people-smuggling. It did seem from their perspective that there was a huge drop-off in deterrence to illegal fishing, and that is when the issue spiked, because there was nobody out there caring about our fish stocks.

At the same time, our fishing industry, particularly those who fish on the Great Barrier Reef, have taken a cut to what they can catch. They have taken hits about where they can catch so that we can have an ecologically sustainable stock within our waters. They are saying, ‘Why are we taking the hit about how much we can take and where we can take it from when nobody seems to give a hoot about where these illegal fishing boats are going?’ When we met with the commercial fishers, recreational fishers and charter boat operators in Cairns, they were absolutely outraged; they had begrudgingly accepted locking up the reef. They understood the importance of locking up the reef and they were prepared to deal with that. But, at the same time, they are sitting there and seeing illegal fishing boats coming into our pristine waters and emptying bilge water over the side, which can be as damaging as catching the fish in those pristine environments, and nobody is doing anything about it.

The No. 1 message from everybody we have spoken to on this issue is that we need to deter people. We need to give an indication that, if you come into our waters, you will be apprehended and suffer the consequences. The measures in this bill go some way towards sending the signal that you will be locked up, jailed and fined and that there will be some penalty. The problem is that it is a double-edged sword. Some of the individuals who get locked up will earn more in jail in Australia than they earn out on the water. This is one of the double-edged swords in what is happening. I want to quote again from James Fox’s report. Talking about the repatriation of fishermen to Indonesia, he says:

The present practice is to repatriate fishermen as expeditiously as possible once court proceedings have been concluded. Without exception, all the fishermen, with whom I spoke, preferred to be able to sail back to their home port—either on their own boat, if the bond had been paid or on another boat from the same port that was set to return. All these fishermen, even the sole fisherman who was born in Kupang, expressed reluctance and, in some cases, outright apprehension about being returned to Kupang … Kupang represents a different and unfamiliar, almost threatening, world for many of the fishermen, particularly the younger fishermen. There is only one ship a month that sails from Kupang in an eastern direction and this ship takes a long time to get the fishermen as far as Ambon. In Ambon, they still have a long way to travel to reach their homes.

…            …            …

Many of the sailors had stories, either their own or those of their friends, about the woes and misfortunes of those who were sent back to Kupang. In fact, the fishermen had more worries about being sent to Kupang than being sent to jail.

There is a mishmash happening. It does not seem that we are gathering any of the information available through the good work of Professor Fox, from the on-the-ground intelligence that the Indigenous rangers and communities are picking up from speaking to the Indonesian communities that are coming down, from the state fisheries departments that are intercepting these people or from some of the fairly ambitious projects in which Indigenous communities and state authorities have gone to Indonesia to speak to fishing communities to find out what is going on. It seems that nobody from the Australian government cares enough to collate the data and ask these Indonesian fishermen, ‘What will stop you taking fish from our waters?’

You have to remember that it is a fairly lucrative trade, even though most of the people on the boats are in an indentured arrangement. These activities are being funded predominantly by some fairly shady types. Indonesian fisherman spoken to by Professor Fox report that they are predominantly of Chinese background. We do not seem to be looking at any of that intelligence and using it to stop this trade. We are not looking at how we can influence these fishermen so that they are not risking their lives by coming into our waters.

It is estimated that, since the beginning of last year, at least 40 Indonesian fishermen have lost their lives at sea. The numbers could be far greater than that, because nobody is collating the data, nobody is coordinating and people are not discussing it with others. There is all this information out there that just goes begging, that nobody deals with. On average, a kilo of shark fin will net these individuals $170. On average, the trip down in one of the little boats takes about five days and there are about three crew on board. They try to get 10 sharks. It is a hideous situation. They take the shark’s fins off—there are about eight fins on a shark—and chuck the shark back in the water. Nine times out of 10, the shark is still alive and it drowns, which is horrendous. They also take dolphins as bait for the sharks. We have no idea of the number of dolphins, turtles and sharks that are taken in these exercises. They get 10 shark per trip and they do roughly 24 trips into our waters per year. One rough calculation by Professor Fox is that the trade in shark fin which these fishermen take out of our waters is worth $23 million per year. This is big business and these individuals are making big money out of our fish stocks.

Our commercial fishing industry has now been told that the situation is so dire that the federal government is prepared to buy back licences and pay for them to go out of the industry. We are exploiting Indonesian fishermen who are risking their lives to come down here. We are exploiting Indigenous communities whose livelihoods, stock and culture are being polluted by this and we are doing very little about it. This bill goes a little way to address that by talking about deterrence and offences, but it does not go far enough. We need a far greater coordinated response by everyone. We need a cop on the beat 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to ensure the Indonesians know that, if they come here, they will be caught.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006 imposes penalties on illegal fishing boats and on those responsible for the illegal fishing boats being in Australian waters when they are apprehended. This is a positive move and it is supported by the Labor Party. Unfortunately, there is a catch-22, which is that you have to catch the vessels. This government’s record in that fundamental task has been appalling. This bill will be of no consequence at all unless the government lifts its game and improves its performance in apprehending the thousands of illegal boats that come into our waters in Northern Australia each year. Few people who do not live in Northern Australia, or who are not involved in the fishing industry in Northern Australia or national security matters, comprehend how big this problem has become and, indeed, how it has grown. A year ago, 8,000 illegal vessels were sighted. Last year, that had grown to 13,000. That is an increase of 5,000 additional illegal boat sightings in one year.

In the past, government members and ministers have sought to diminish the significance of that frightening number of 13,000 illegal boats in a year by saying, ‘But they’re just the boats that are sighted,’ and pretending that it somehow overstates the number of illegal vessels because there is the potential for double counting. It is true: there is a potential for double counting, but what is equally undeniable is that, in fact, we do not sight all of the illegal vessels that come into our waters. The most probable assessment is that that figure of 13,000 boats a year ago understates the actual number of illegal vessels coming into our waters. The fact that it has grown in one year from 8,000 to 13,000 is an enormous indictment of the Howard government’s approach and its absolutely disgraceful neglect of the need for improved border security in our north. Against that figure of 13,000 illegal boats, the government last year managed to apprehend 200. The odds are in favour of the illegal fishing vessels.

I have received briefings and seen films of these boats from the authorities apprehending these vessels, from media outlets and from fishing vessels. We now have the ridiculous situation where Australian fishing boats going out from Darwin will regularly take video cameras with them to take footage of the illegal vessels to give to authorities as proof of the problem—not that any further proof was required, I might add. From that information one concludes that most of these boats have about six or seven crew. Some have more and some have less, but most have about six or seven crew, who are typically Indonesian. We are talking, therefore, about 80,000 or 90,000 people unlawfully coming into Australia’s territorial waters.

Most of that activity involves illegal fishing, and this bill deals specifically with it, but I want to draw the attention of this parliament and the people of Australia to a related and, I think, far more serious threat. When you have 13,000 illegal boats and nearly 100,000 people illegally entering our waters, you invite a whole raft of other problems. Yes, our natural resources are plundered by the fishing, but in addition there is no process of quarantine involved here. We have already recorded cases of avian flu not far from the areas where those illegal boats depart. The boats that come to undertake illegal fishing are known to bring with them their own stock. They have had chickens on board; one even went up a river in Australia to get fresh water and had a monkey on board. The danger of the spread of virus or disease, whether it is avian flu or something contagious to other flora or fauna or to humans, is obvious. The threat is significant

Equally worrying is the increasing information that some of the boats illegally traversing those waters have been involved in the illegal drug trade. Also worrying—to not as great an extent but nonetheless worrying—is the evidence that some boats plying the waters to our north have also been involved in arms running. This is a major concern for national security. Yet the Howard government, which prides itself on being tough on defence and security matters and which at every opportunity cloaks itself in the flag and basks in the reflected glory of the great deeds of the men and women in the Australian services—the government loves a photo opportunity with the men and women of the Australian defence forces—has patently neglected and shown a complete lack of interest in ensuring that our northern borders are anything but porous.

A small group of people in Customs, Defence, Coastwatch and other related agencies are doing a very good job in Northern Australia with very few resources to deal with this. The fashion that has become characteristic of this government is to rely on political spin rather than substance. The government tried to paint a different picture of this problem during the recent budget. Yes, there are funds allocated in the budget, but let’s not get carried away with that. Let me rely on no greater authority than the Treasurer himself. In typical Costello fashion, the Treasurer announced in his budget speech:

We expect to double the number of fishing vessels apprehended in Australia’s northern waters each year.

That sounds impressive to those who know nothing about what is going on in Northern Australia—we are going to double the number of boats we catch. At the moment we catch 200 out of more than 13,000. We are going to double that if the government reaches its target—and that is only if. The government plans to catch 400 boats next year and let the other 12,600 go free.

There is an interesting question about whether the government is confident that it can actually catch 400 and let 12,600 go scot-free. Either way the odds are still pretty heavily in favour of the illegal boats—whether they are there for fishing, for drug running or to replenish supplies on our coastline. To boast as the Treasurer did and as this government has that they will double the number they catch and that that is a great achievement is an insult to the men and women of Northern Australia and, in particular, the people whose livelihoods depend on securing our borders there.

After the budget, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority estimated that, with the additional funds made available, they would now be able to catch on average two illegal boats a day. The problem is that, on average, there are known to be 35 boats a day in those waters. So, even after the budget, the government’s own fisheries authority estimates they will now catch two—and 33 will go scot-free. That is one of the greatest disgraces of national security and border protection this government faces. It is amazing that members of this government have had the temerity—though not in this debate; no-one from the government side other than the member for O’Connor wanted to speak on the bill—to try to defend their performance in these matters.

A couple of days after the budget, the new Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, either through ignorance or bravado, persisted with the same line. In answer to a question on 11 May in this parliament he said the government’s approach to illegal fishing in the north was ‘full-on’. If the government’s full-on effort is to catch two boats a day and let 33 go scot-free, heaven help us if they decide to take their foot off the pedal. If that is the full-on performance that this government can manage, then people in Northern Australia truly do have a lot to be concerned about.

In fact, they do have a lot to be concerned about because the government’s approach to this important issue has been one of complete indifference. The government has been keen to issue press releases. We have had three ministers in the portfolio in recent years and, in that time, the government kept claiming victory, that it had turned the tide and was winning the battle. There is a folio of press releases from government ministers claiming to have got on top of this problem and every year the problem has got worse. Last year it just ballooned out of control. Last year, when it grew from 8,000 to 13,000, I think even the Howard government understood that it could not get by with the flim-flam and the political spin.

Only recently did the government decide that it should actually catch these people. Until recently, when a vessel was apprehended, the government’s approach was not to take the people into custody, it was not to take the boat and it was not to sink it. Rather, it was to take the fishing gear off, to take the catch off, to tell the sailors they were naughty people and to send them on their way. Next week the sailors were back with new nets catching fish again. They knew the odds were in their favour second time round. They knew that, on the odds, roughly only one in 10 boats were going to get caught, and they had already been caught once. I suppose, to their way of thinking, that meant that the odds were looking pretty good for them second time with one in 10 boats being caught. So they were happy to come back.

As I said, until very recently the government’s approach was simply to apprehend these boats, take the fishing nets, take the fishing catch and send the boat and illegal crew on their way. What an absurd situation. Is it any wonder that the word spread throughout the fishing community to our north that we were a soft touch? Is it any wonder that those involved in drug-running decided that the easy way to get drugs into Northern Australia was just to put them on a boat and sail all the way over to the Australian coastline, down to the river and hop off? We have had cases where illegal fishing boats, with people camped beside them, have been photographed upstream in rivers. Not only did these people go through our territorial waters, not only did they get to the Australian coastline, but they actually went upstream and had a bit of a picnic. What an absurd situation.

Last week in parliament the Minister for Defence decided that he would buy into this and announced that the government was going to now send minehunters to Northern Australia to chase the illegal fishing boats. There is a whole big issue in the Defence portfolio about this, which time will not allow me to go into. These are highly specialised vessels. They are designed with special materials. They are constructed in a special way so that the boat does not vibrate—for obvious reasons—as most boats do. When you go hunting mines you do not want to make too much noise and bump into things that are unexpected. These boats have a low magnetic signature, because you do not want to set off magnetic mines, and they have a different propulsion system. They have special manoeuvrability so that they can turn on a dime, to coin a phrase. And, by the way, they do not go very fast. The minehunters are not designed to go chasing fishing boats. The minehunters are designed to tread their way very carefully through treacherous waters and to remove mines from them. The government have announced they are going to take these highly specialised, very expensive minehunters from Sydney and Newcastle and send them all the way up to the Northern Territory, to do what, I am not quite sure—other than to assist with another photo opportunity and press release.

I have no doubt that when those first minehunters arrive in Northern Australia we are going to see the Minister for Defence and/or the minister for the Northern Territory and a couple of the backbenchers from the Liberal and National parties up there in Darwin taking a photo opportunity with them, trying to con everybody, trying to put the political spin out there, that they are now increasing the resources and doing something to catch the illegal boats.

The minehunters have a top speed of about 14 knots, and that is not going to be sustained for long. I do not know whether the Department of Defence will be too keen on having their minehunters used in that role, I might add. I am not sure what they are like as tugboats either, because when you apprehend these illegal fishing vessels one of the jobs that you have to do is bring them back. I do not know whether the minehunter is fast enough to catch them. It is probably fast enough to tow them back, although I am not sure it is designed for that. No doubt the Minister for Defence will explain all of that when he fronts the cameras with his grin in Darwin, some time in the future, to try and milk this as a media opportunity. What will it do to solve the problem? Very little. How many of the 13,000 illegal boats will they catch? Not many.

That is not a solution to the problem. But it is a classic example of the way in which the Howard government deal with problems like this. First they ignore it and then they say they are on top of it. When facts make it obvious to all that the government have not told the truth up to that point, they then try to confuse the issue and out comes the wallpaper to cover the cracks. The Minister for Defence says, ‘We’ll send minehunters to catch these illegal fishing boats.’

The bill before us is not going to be used that often, unless the government starts catching a few boats. The government is not going to catch them by continuing to do what it has done in the past. That is patently obvious. The problem has got worse, not better. It is also not going to catch them by pretending that sending a couple of minehunters up north is going to fix the problem, it will not—although I suspect it will create some problems for the through-life maintenance and support of the minehunters that were never intended to be used in this role. That is if indeed they are sent up there for anything other than a photo opportunity. I would not put it past this government to send them there just for the photo opportunity.

There is only one clear-cut solution to this problem, and that is we need more resources on the water, we need to improve our surveillance, but above all we need to have an interdiction capability. We need to be able to intercept and apprehend those vessels. That is not going to be done by anything that the government has announced to date.

In addition, we need to ensure the command and control structures between the various agencies are improved. It is precisely for those reasons that the Labor Party has argued for four or five years now that we need to have in Australia a department of homeland security to coordinate the various agencies. At the moment there are two or three different ministers and two or three different departments all with their fingers in this pie of border protection in the north. You do not have to be a masters student in business management to comprehend the simple fact that, when you have three or four ministers, their departments and about seven or eight agencies under those ministers all involved in this, there is overlap and there are cracks. That is what has been happening throughout this government’s period in office in dealing with this issue. It is why it is so easy for mistakes to be made and things to be overlooked. It is why it is so easy for nine out of 10 boats to come and go as they please. It is why people in the region know that, if you want to get illegal goods here, if you want to fish illegally in our waters, if you want to run weapons through the waters to our north, you can do it with impunity—you are unlikely to get caught.

Labor has long argued that we need a department of homeland security with one minister, one department and one clear chain of command. That is an essential policy change that the Howard government needs to adopt if we are ever going to get on top of this problem and, I might say, wider issues. But there is a second thing that is also important: we need an Australian coastguard. I have been to speak to people in Northern Australia about this and I have heard their comments. They know that we need an Australian coastguard. They have no doubt about that. But it is not just a change of badge and it is not just a paint job on boats; it is the additional resources that that Australian coastguard needs. If the Liberal and National parties had adopted Labor’s view about a coastguard years ago when we advocated it we would now have extra patrol boats on the water actually apprehending these illegal vessels—not taking their fishing nets and slapping them on the wrist and sending them away but actually apprehending the vessels. The boats would be there if the government had done what Labor said four years ago.

Even at the last election Labor made clear its ongoing commitment to the creation of a coastguard. At the last election we committed to the acquisition of eight new vessels, three new helicopters and another 250 personnel. That is what is going to make a difference. That is what is going to determine whether this law is ever used. It is all good and well for the parliament to pass laws about punishing those involved in illegal activities. If you do not actually have on the ground the practical measures to catch them, this law will not be doing much at all. The practical measures are a homeland security department and a coastguard. Labor is committed to both.

It is about time the government recognised the necessity of that, swallowed its pride and conceded that in 2002 it got it wrong and in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 it has got it wrong. It needs to now accept the need for a coordinated homeland security department and actually put some real resources into funding an Australian coastguard and not the mickey mouse changes that the Treasurer announced, catching 400 boats a year instead of 200 and still letting 12,600 go. That is not a solution. The people in Northern Australia understand that. It is about time the Howard government did too.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As my colleagues have observed, the government seems absolutely disinterested in the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006, at least insofar as the backbench members of the government. I wonder what that says about them, frankly. I wonder why the member for Leichardt has chosen not to speak on this legislation, I wonder why the member for Solomon has chosen not to speak on this legislation and I wonder why the member for Kalgoorlie has chosen not to speak on this legislation. After all, whilst the member for Solomon’s electorate does not have any coastal water—that is all in my electorate—he is always someone who seems to opine on every other issue to do with Northern Australia, regardless of whether or not it has got anything to do with his electorate; yet he is nowhere to be seen on this piece of legislation. We do not see the member for Kalgoorlie, who has a huge coastline and has had large numbers of foreign incursions in terms of foreign fishing vessels caught off the Western Australian coast. We know the member for Leichardt has a great deal of knowledge about Cape York and the gulf, but again he is not here to advocate the government’s position on this legislation either. I wonder why that is. I commend the member for O’Connor, who did have the foresight to get up and make a contribution and, from what I heard of it, in parts a very worthy contribution—and I would not say that often about the member for O’Connor’s contributions.

This bill will provide for the first time detention and fines as penalties for people caught fishing illegally between three and 12 nautical miles from Australia. These, of course, are the waters in Australia’s fishing zone between the state and territory jurisdictional boundaries and the 12-mile limit of the federal boundary. Given the scale of the problem of illegal foreign fishing in Australia’s northern waters, this is only a tiny contribution to fighting the problem of illegal fishing. What it does do—and I note the contributions from my colleagues on this side of the chamber—is highlight the government’s abysmal failure to properly police Australia’s northern coastline and to deter foreign fishers from illegally plundering fish stocks. It is not—as I have had cause to talk about it in this chamber on a number of different occasions—as if these foreign fishers are just swanning around Australia’s northern waters, throwing their nets or lines out, taking the catch and then nicking off. That is not the case at all. What we know to be the case is that foreign fishers are using Australian shores, landing their vessels and in some cases setting up caches of food and even going so far as sinking wells for fresh water.

We know from observations made by Indigenous rangers and by Customs, Quarantine and, indeed, Defence that they are using sites across the coastline to deposit their catch, principally shark fin. We know from observations made on Groote Eylandt that they actually use the land to deal with the catch. We know from observations made by other Indigenous people across Northern Australia that these people may spend some considerable amount of time on Australian soil. Not only does foreign fishing raise major problems and concerns for us but clearly quarantine issues are of great importance to us all and, potentially, defence issues which go to the heart of the so-called war on terrorism.

We have heard a lot said by the government over the years since 2001 about the need to protect Australia’s borders. What they have demonstrated by their lacklustre performance and failure in the area of prevention, detention and deterrence of foreign fishing vessels is how porous Australia’s northern borders are. It is almost as if any Tom, Dick and Harry could get in a canoe or an outboard and just make landfall. That is about the sum of it.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What if they are bringing drugs in?

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As my friend has pointed out: what else could they be bringing in? They could be bringing all sorts of contraband onto Australian soil. We do not know. Hypothetically, we do not know whether they have not deposited a sleeper somewhere in the Australian population as the result of landing on Australia’s northern shores. We do not know that, but surely it is possible. The Australian community would be wise to remember the breast-beating that goes on on behalf of the government in its ability to protect Australian borders when they contemplate these salient facts.

Even if you assume—and I do not—that these proposals will make a substantial change to the way in which we are able to apprehend foreign fishers, the deterrent value of the offences proposed in this bill are indeed very questionable. It is an economic proposition for impoverished Indonesian fishermen to return again and again to Australia despite the threat of being caught and losing vessels. I ask: will a prison sentence make a difference? Already we know that many of the fishermen are making multiple visits to Australia. There was notably one who was finally caught in Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory. He had not made his first, second, third or fourth visit. He had not made even his 10th, 20th, 50th, 60th or 100th visit. This person, before being caught, had made 103 voyages to Australia. What does that tell us? If you are an Indonesian fisherman, you would say, ‘Mate, what are the odds of being caught here?’

We also know that there is an economic imperative, apart from the fact that the fishermen, on just the odds, are not going to be caught in the first instance. We also know that the economic imperative driving this, at least so far as the Indonesian fishers are concerned, is the fact that the Chinese fishing fleets have overfished and denuded Indonesia’s own waters. So the economic value of the catch has increased as a result of the depletion of fish stocks in Indonesia. The opportunity—it is clearly not a challenge—for these Indonesian fishers is to say: ‘Hang on, we’ve got no fish stocks. We know that there is a real and ready market, a profitable market, for these fish we might catch illegally in Australian waters. Let’s give it a punt; let’s have a go.’ Of course we now know from the observations made by Customs, Quarantine and indeed the Australian defence forces as well as others, such as the Australian fishing industry—commercial and recreational—that we are now getting these mother ships coming to Australia, freezer vessels carrying large stocks of illegally caught fish.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the Chen Long.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the Chen Long. You wonder, in those circumstances, why it is that the government pretends that this piece of legislation is going to make a material difference. I go back to the point about the potential for profit at very little risk by these illegal fishers. I recall the member for Chisholm’s mention of Dr Jim Fox, from ANU, who said:

... poor Indonesian fishermen will not easily be turned away from the lucrative shark fin trade because they receive exorbitant prices in China for their catch.

I know Professor Fox. If anyone knows this subject as to what is happening in Indonesia, it is him. He went on to say:

... the level of over-fishing in Indonesian waters by Chinese crews is so great that Indonesians are being forced to fish in Australian waters.

We know that to be the case. As I said, one fisherman caught in Arnhem Land had made 103 trips prior to being caught. Of the 4,122 recorded sightings—those are just the recorded sightings—of foreign fishing vessels in the Australian fishing zone between January 2004 and January 2005, how many do you think were actually apprehended—one per cent, 10 per cent or 15 per cent? You would hope so, wouldn’t you? No, less than 0.25 per cent were apprehended. We have a problem of huge magnitude here which we all acknowledge, but I am not certain that prison sentences and fines should be the front line of our response.

In estimates last week, the Managing Director of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Mr Richard McLoughlin, told the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee:

There are many more vessels apprehended outside the three- to 12-mile zone than are apprehended inside of it.

Of course, as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, we cannot impose custodial penalties on illegal fishers beyond the 12 nautical mile zone. However, it is interesting to note that Coastwatch reports that in 2005 there were more than 13,000 sightings—

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were 78,000 illegal fishermen.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were 78,000 illegal fishermen and 13,000 sightings of possible illegal fishing vessels operating beyond this 12-mile mark. We know, for the reasons I pointed out earlier, that the number of illegal fishing vessels coming to Australia’s northern coastline is growing at an ever-increasing rate.

This bill is, in my view, an admission of failure by the government—and it is there in the budget for all to see. We note that $320 million was provided for in the budget to address this issue, but what is the money being used for? $47.9 million is for quarantine risk management and boat destruction. Once we have caught the small number of vessels we are able to apprehend, we will go out and destroy them. There is $16.5 million in capital expenses as an after-catch expense; $70.3 million for the transfer of apprehended fishermen to Darwin; $18.5 million for charting and surveying northern waters, which includes the Torres Strait and Barrier Reef but not the places where illegal fishermen are coming into Australian waters; $49.6 million for detention services for immigration; another catch expense of $2.7 million over two years for improved office space for the Joint Offshore Protection Command headquarters; and a further $20-odd million for office space for other relevant agencies.

What are the preventative measures? On the assertive side, we have had another $34 million for increased aerial surveillance for Customs and Coastwatch. Without denigrating the professionalism and commitment of the crews involved, this has proved to be of little use against Indonesian fishermen. There is another $31.7 million for the use of the Southern Ocean patrol vessel in northern waters, which of course must leave the patagonian toothfish fleets from Russia applauding. Who is doing the job of patrolling them? It is an admission of failure. Of course, the minister proudly boasts that we will be able to double the apprehension rate as a result of these budget measures. Will it double? That is pretty good. It will go from 0.25 percent to 0.5 per cent. It makes you wonder, doesn’t it? How could you boast that you are doubling something which is almost infinitesimally small? We know that if this were an Aboriginal organisation—and I am aware of many Aboriginal organisations—and they had put in this sort of performance, they would be defunded. That is the truth of it.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Slam-dunked.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. We know that, on the funding for the Aboriginal ranger program for Indigenous engagement, the Northern Territory government did not ask for a large amount of money but suggested in a program submission from Kon Vatskalis, who is the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, that they could do with $12 million. If they got $12 million they could employ a significant number of people across the Northern Territory to act as eyes and ears. He said in a press release on 5 January:

It will provide more jobs ... with the creation of 29 full-time and 14 part-time positions for Indigenous people living in remote areas of the Territory.

We know we have $12 million; that is for the whole coastline. There is 10,000 kilometres of coastline in the Northern Territory alone. Leave aside the Cape York area, the Eastern Cape, the Pilbara and the Kimberley coast—they are not included in that assessment—and $12 million over four years is all that is being provided for Indigenous engagement to assist the Commonwealth in doing the work of observing and then potentially apprehending foreign fishers.

My friend the member for Brisbane has already spoken about the use of defence resources in this effort. I want to emphasise that, if we are fair dinkum about preventing and apprehending illegal fishers and being far more successful, we need to use all of the resources available to us. Frankly, that is not what this bill will do. Not only are the budget measures for Indigenous rangers insufficient but also it has yet to be learnt how they in fact hope to expend them. What we were hoping is that they would engage Indigenous rangers across the coastline and provide them with some resources and training so that they could operate effectively in a coordinated fashion with AFMA, Quarantine, Customs and indeed the Australian Defence Force. That appears not to be the case. We have largely chosen not to provide these community members with much needed employment. Nor have we used their intelligence about their country and their seas. That is a grave disappointment. As the member for Brisbane said, not only do we need our eyes and ears on the land—and I mentioned earlier the issue of people making landfall—but also we need to have a far more extensive deployment at sea. Belatedly, I have come to the view that Coastwatch is the only answer. That is not to say that the Australian Defence Force personnel who are involved in the current mission do not do a good job—they do—but they are severely underresourced, as are the Customs people and the Coastwatch people generally. Labor will support this legislation, but I think it is flawed and the government will not do anything of great substance as a result of it.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to follow the honourable member for Lingiari in this debate. I want to place on record my appreciation of the efforts of the honourable member for Lingiari and Senator Crossin, from the Northern Territory, who arranged for me and other colleagues on the maritime task force to meet a range of people in Darwin who are concerned about illegal fishing, including the Northern Territory Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries and his officers. They also arranged for us to go out to Maningrida to meet the Indigenous community there so we could listen to and share their concerns about the current situation. I do thank the honourable member for Lingiari. My understanding of the problem has been increased immeasurably.

The Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006 amends the Fisheries Management Act 1991, the FMA, and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984, the TSFA, to provide for increased fines and custodial sentences of  up to three years imprisonment for persons caught fishing illegally in those parts of Australia’s territorial sea that are subject to Commonwealth fisheries jurisdiction. Currently there are custodial penalties in both acts but they generally apply only to non-fishing offences such as obstruction and providing false information.

The new penalties will apply to fault based indictable offences and not to the strict liability offences. The area covered by this legislation is a zone beyond the three nautical mile state and territory jurisdictional limit and the 12 nautical mile federal jurisdictional limit. Australia’s exclusive economic zone, which extends from 12 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles, has been excluded from these new penalties because Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and, as such, is prohibited from imposing custodial penalties on foreign fishing offences beyond the 12 nautical miles territorial sea limit.

As the honourable member for Lingiari and other speakers on this side have indicated, Labor supports this bill. It is a step forward but it is a minuscule one. I am very pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the member for Flinders, at the table for this reason: when I was speaking on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Cooperative Fisheries Arrangements and Other Matters) Bill 2005 [2006] the honourable member for Flinders sought to intervene and asked me a question. I was happy to take it. He said to me:

I ask whether the member for Chifley endorses the agreement that the foreign minister has just come back with from Jakarta this very day in relation to joint cooperation between the militaries and joint cooperation between the two countries.

In other words, there was an agreement for joint patrols between Indonesia and Australia. Parliamentary Secretary, where is that at? Why have we no projections in the budget about the effectiveness of these joint patrols? Why can’t we be told—if not me, the people of Australia—when they will commence? How many vessels will be involved? Will we use the now unmothballed minehunters—the slowest of any naval ship; a vessel completely unsuitable for this task because of its slowness—as a joint patrol? Whilst I would welcome joint patrols by Indonesia and Australia, I think the parliamentary secretary knows, as I know, that that is years away and it is no solution.

The honourable member for Lingiari mentioned that in 2005 there were more than 13,000 sightings of possible illegal foreign fishers operating within Australia’s fishing zone. I will repeat that: 13,000.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is shocking.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is shocking. On a very conservative estimate, that means some 78,000 illegal fishermen are coming here and fishing illegally. We, as the opposition, and the people of Australia—particularly Northern Australia—are supposed to congratulate this government because it wants to intercept some 4.62 per cent of the boats that are coming here illegally. We are supposed to congratulate the government because in 2005 there were 78,000 illegal fishermen coming here and now, as a result of this magnificent budget, there will be only 74,300 coming here—and that this is some huge improvement on the situation. These illegal fishermen are violating our sovereign territory, and it is an absolute disgrace.

It is true that our defence forces are very stretched. I will have an opportunity to talk about the redeployment of troops to East Timor, the additional troops that have already been redeployed to Iraq and the redeployment of troops to Afghanistan. I have nothing but admiration for our defence forces, particularly the serving men and women in those forces who do us so proud. But this is a responsibility that they cannot currently manage, and I cannot see any prospect in the near future that they will have any increased capacity to manage it. Again, as the member for Brisbane, the shadow minister for homeland security, has pointed out, deploying minehunters is singularly inappropriate.

Let us understand the character of the problem. Firstly, the government have what I and people in Northern Australia call a ‘catch, kiss and release’ policy. When they catch these vessels—and these are vessels that are catching our sharks and fish, raiding our reefs for trochus shells—they confiscate their equipment, the least expensive element on those boats, let them go free and say: ‘You naughty boys. Bye-bye; don’t you dare do it again.’ And, as the member for Lingiari has pointed out, one person has recently been caught who has made 103 trips to this country—has violated our sovereignty 103 times—and the government just do not care. They do not see it as a problem. It is a monumental problem.

The honourable member for Lingiari knows that only too well when talking about quarantine problems. The black stripe mussel infested Darwin Harbour. It cost $3 million just to rectify that problem. These vessels are landing on our coast. It is not as though they are being intercepted at sea or within the three-mile limit—they are landing. I will tell the House how these vessels operate as they get close to the coastline. They go up the tidal streams—which are largely uncharted—where our naval boats are not permitted to go. There are so many areas on our northern borders and the coast of Western Australia that are uncharted. They go up those tidal streams and they get into the mangroves. They stay there during the day, then they do their fishing at night.

I put a question on the Notice Paper: ‘How do you detect these 13,000 illegal fishing boats—wooden vessels—when they come at night-time? The government do not say, ‘We’ve got coastal surveillance.’ They say, ‘We have aeroplanes up there and at night-time they can pick them up.’  They cannot. Our normal radar and other detection devices will not pick up wood. So the very basis of the way we are operating allows these 78,000 illegal fishermen to remain undetected.

We are outraged on this side of the House about the problem. I notice the honourable member for Kennedy is in the chamber. He will be concerned about the pearling industry. Australia has the last wildlife pearling industry and it is performing superbly over in Western Australia. What will happen if it gets an infestation of black stripe mussel or any other matter brought in by these illegal fishers? It will be wiped out. We will not only wipe out something of great economic value and beauty in Australia, which provides for the livelihoods of many Australians, but we will wipe it out for the world, and this government does not seem to care.

On these boats they have chickens and birds. The biggest threat to Australia from avian flu comes from these 13,000 illegal fishing boats that are landing—not all of them but heaps of them—on our coast in uncharted waters where the Navy is not permitted to go. You cannot send a patrol boat up tidal creeks and rivers—that is where these vessels hide, that is where they camp and that is where they eat—because they cannot get there, nor can the minehunters. We all know that these illegal fishermen are getting on our reefs. They are taking trochus shells. Not only are they taking sized trochus shells but also they are taking all trochus shells and any other shells on the reef.

The Aboriginal communities that are spending their own money to reseed these reefs get not one dollar out of the environmental budget for the work they are doing, and shame on you, Parliamentary Secretary, and your government, for that. But what are we supposed to do—land a minehunter on top of the reef and blow it up and then ensure that the Indonesians cannot rip the reefs bare? Is this the operational theology behind having minehunters? You are grossly deceiving the people of Northern Australia and you are not doing enough. We have a significant problem. The only solution is not to place greater burdens on our already stretched defence forces who are performing so magnificently, but we do need a separate coastguard.

The people of Australia were outraged when the Chen Long was discovered—a Chinese mother ship with a huge amount of fish on board. What did the government do? It spent $348,000 of taxpayers’ money on the detention of Chen Long, ensuring that the refrigeration system did not collapse and that the 630 tonnes of reef fish found inside was not spoilt. Then what did we do with the Chen Long? We said: ‘Bye-bye. Take that valuable 630 tonnes of cargo and off you go.’

Now we have had another Chinese mother ship discovered in our northern waters. What are we going to do? Are we going to spend half a million dollars preserving that cargo and then say, ‘Bye bye, ta-ta, it doesn’t matter’? When the state fisheries departments have to close down fisheries because of the way they are being pillaged by these 78,000 illegal fishermen, I think it is a disgrace. Ordinary Australian fishermen who want to have a sustainable, long-term viable industry are being punished when they are doing the right thing. I say to the government: why won’t you stand up for Australian fishermen? Why won’t you stand up for the people of Northern Australia? Why won’t you do something to seriously tackle this absolute breach of our sovereignty? Well might the parliamentary secretary at the table smile, because, if there were this many illegal fishermen being sighted off Melbourne or Sydney, it would be a matter of utter outrage. The saddest and most distressing thing I find is that, when you speak to the people of Northern Australia—whether in Queensland, the Northern Territory or Western Australia—they think that the people of the eastern coast of Australia do not care.

I just want to finish on this note: these illegal shark boats usually trail two- or three-kilometre long-lines. I ask the parliamentary secretary: do you know what bait they are using? They are catching dolphins and cutting them up and using them as bait. You will often find that these fishing boats have a harpoon at the front. It is to catch and kill the dolphins. Mr Deputy Speaker, can you imagine how much dolphin bait goes on one long-line of three kilometres? I have seen these long-lines at Maningrida. The hooks are very long and very sturdy, and at about every metre there is another hook. Maybe I have got that wrong; maybe it is a bit more than a metre. But that is a lot of dolphins. And I think that people in Melbourne, in Sydney, in my electorate, in the electorate of Throsby and even in the electorate of Flinders would be very upset when they learn that this government is doing nothing to stop the slaughter of Australian dolphins in our northern waters, which are being used by these shark boats to catch sharks. If you like sharks—and I am not a great fan of sharks—they are being caught at such a rate that there is real concern about the ecosystem that sharks form a vital part of.

Whilst the opposition is supporting this bill, we believe that there is a problem in Northern Australia that requires a concerted, multidisciplined, multidepartmental approach. Just embedding in the Department of Defence a new unit for better cooperation will not provide the manpower, the resources or the vessels. Yes, I do support diplomatic efforts, but do not come back here trumpeting that a joint patrol between Indonesia and Australia is going to solve the problem when you know that any patrol is some years away and may in fact never happen. If you are so confident about how joint patrols are going to nip this problem in the bud, just share with us, in summing up this bill, when they are going to commence; how many Australian vessels will be involved; whether they will be patrol boats, minehunters—or destroyers, for goodness sake; what the Indonesian component will be; how many vessels they will be putting into these joint patrols; and how long they will patrol for and in what area. You cannot fool the people of Northern Australia. They know they have a major problem and they want much more action— (Time expired)

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to commence by thanking Gary Ward and the fishermen of Karumba who were instrumental in securing 60 Minutes, and I would like to thank 60 Minutes staff on the wonderful expose they did on the appalling failure of the federal government. I am very much in sympathy with the opposition on the issue of a coastguard service, but I am not in agreement with the opposition on how to go about it. I always feel that I am a minority of one here on the issue of defence. I do not know whether that is a northern perspective, because we were to be handed over to the Japanese in the last war—we that were north of the infamous Brisbane Line were to be sacrificed. I have news for the Western Australians, because the Brisbane Line included them. The Brisbane Line actually only recommended the defence of the golden boomerang from Brisbane through Sydney and Melbourne and around to Adelaide. The rest of it could not be defended, to quote General Mackay.

Gary Ward and other fishermen at Karumba have been saying for ages that these people have been coming in. I needed something substantial to go forward with and we could not get people to come forward with photographs or anything of that nature, but 60 Minutes were alerted by the fishermen at Karumba and other people and they came in and exposed fully and completely exactly what was going on. If ever one has seen an absolute farce, it was this Australian boat—and I think the poor old commander of that patrol boat is probably rowing a patrol boat out at Boulia or Bedourie at the present moment for allowing 60 Minutes on the boat.

But they assailed this Indonesian fishing vessel and they called out in English for it to heave to, that they were in Australian waters. The Indonesian vessel gave the Indonesian equivalent of two to the valley and took off. So they again hailed them on the loudspeaker—in English, and none of them spoke English—and they just kept taking off. Then they put out a rubber dinghy as a boarding party. This Indonesian boat had sharp poles that were poking off, and if the dinghy got close, of course, they would have punctured a hole in the dinghy. They kept going and eventually crossed into international waters, again waving the Indonesian equivalent of the two-up signal to the Australians. Anything more farcical would be hard to imagine.

I want the House to know what exactly takes place here. Most of these sightings are not by Coastwatch at all. In fact, I suspect very few of the sightings are by Coastwatch. They are by fishermen. But whether it is fishermen or whether it is the Coastwatch aeroplanes that fly over, they then communicate back to the Coastwatch base, which is in Brisbane or somewhere down south where people have no understanding of what actually takes place in North Queensland or how North Queensland works—but, anyway, that is the way it works.

They then contact a patrol boat in Cairns or in Darwin, and sometimes they have some of these new boats which are available to Customs, Quarantine and Coastwatch. These boats are not equipped with armament or anything of that nature. They are just a big fast boat. They have a very big draught, so they cannot go into any shallow waters, and the area near and dear to my heart, of course, is the Great Barrier Reef and its surrounding waters and also the Gulf of Carpentaria, where my own family comes from. There is so much shallow water in those places that a small typical dory fishing vessel out of Indonesia can go in any of these places and none of these boats that are sent out to assail them can. In addition to that, they simply wait for nightfall. Also, as the previous speaker, the member for Chifley, pointed out, these are wooden vessels, so they cannot be sighted by radar at night—not that sighting by radar is a very efficient method of picking up boats of an evening. They simply slip away into international waters.

In the days not so very long ago territorial waters went to 23 kilometres out. Why 23 kilometres was chosen was that that was the range of a cannon. The concept was that you could control the waters the distance that you could fire a cannon over. That is pretty effective today. You own what you can control. In the most disgusting and appalling piece of insensitivity and stupidity, this government has limited the number of our fishermen to 6,000. That is all that are licensed between the five-kilometre and 200-kilometre distance. Only 6,000 Australian fishermen are allowed into our waters, but we find out now that in 2004 we sighted 9,639 foreign fishing vessels—and we do not sight all of those that come here. So we authorise 6,000 Australians to go in the water but we allow 9,639 foreign fishing vessels to fish in our water. That is bad enough, but in 2005 that had leapt up to 13,018.

My problem here is that we do not have anything that remotely resembles an efficient system for picking these people up, because the patrol boats are only based at Darwin and Cairns. For those people who are ignorant of seagoing, you cannot really average a speed of more than about 15 or, at the very most, 20 knots. So you are going at about 30 kilometres an hour, and for those who do not know their geography it is about 1,000 kilometres from Cairns up to the Torres Strait, where you can turn west and then come back down into the Gulf of Carpentaria. So, if you are waiting for a boat to arrive from Cairns, I think we can all rest assured that the Indonesians will long since have gone by the time it arrives. Night falls in the meantime—probably twice before the patrol boat gets there—and of course no-one knows where they are. They have gone; they have vanished.

If you ask what should be happening here, the first thing you need is for boats to be properly based at Karumba permanently. I am not saying that they should live there permanently, but you can have a crew there and they can be rotated out to Darwin or to Cairns. They are hardly in a position to be living at Cairns, one of the great tourist destinations of the world. But you cannot base boats of any size or capacity at Karumba because it is not a proper port. It is made for small fishing vessels and we have enormous difficulty getting boats to take even 1,000 head of cattle on them—and that is a very small boat—up the river at Karumba.

It does not take a lot of time, money or effort to build a port in the gulf. At the very most you are probably looking at about $25 million to build an adequate port that can house two, three or four patrol boats. If you are saying we should adequately patrol with these boats, then you are going to need a lot of boats. The coastline of Australia is greater than that of any other nation on earth, with the exception of Canada and Russia but there is hardly any necessity for them to patrol their northern coastlines, being all ice running to the North Pole. But that is not so in Australia’s case.

In 10 years time our two nearest nations, the Philippines and Indonesia, will have a combined population of around 300 million and a lot of those people, probably a third or possibly as many as a half, will go to bed hungry each evening. If you are going to attempt to deprive people who are hungry of this fishery then they are going to get pretty mad. Say we as Australians envisaged the people of Arnhem Land deciding to have a vote on whether they should secede from Australia. Say they invited the Indonesian army to come in and oversee the elections with the blessing of the world body, the United Nations, who came in and oversaw the decision by the people at the ballot box. If the people decided to secede from Australia and the Indonesians stayed to see that the independence of these people was respected, I think a lot of Australians would be pretty mad. If you put your feet in the shoes of the Indonesians—and a lot of them do not have shoes—you will see that they have a very good reason to be seriously antagonised by us.

As a result of this legislation we are going to have a lot of photographs in the Indonesian press of people going to jail in Australia for trying to catch some fish to feed their families, and the people up there are going to get pretty mad. I am not saying that we should not do these things, but I am pleading with the government not to go racing around the place forcing its own viewpoint upon other people, acting tough and generally having an extremely loud mouth. A person I admire greatly in history is Theodore Roosevelt, whose famous quotable quote was, ‘I speak softly but I carry a big stick.’ Unfortunately, the governments of Australia have had a very loud mouth indeed but we have no stick at all. What our stick amounts to is six frigates; that is what we have to protect Australia with. I do not know if people are familiar with naval warfare but in the Falklands War there were two British destroyers—not frigates; these were big vessels that you could pump a few bombs into and they would keep going. In the Second World War many of the destroyers took something like 40 or 50 hits and were still able to be operated. All that the Argentinians had were five Exocet missiles and two of those five missiles took out those two destroyers. So I leave it to your imagination how fast someone could deal with six frigates, and we are now going to spend what will be, ultimately—I do not think anyone is questioning this—the best part of $2,000 million on two destroyers.

Those of us who had the pleasure of going along and listening to the missile boss from the United States noted he was asked about the danger and the threat of attack from a low-technology country. A few of us laughed and he said, ‘What would you consider to be a low-technology country?’ A few of us laughed again and he said, ‘If you’re thinking of Indonesia, they had contracted to buy the latest generation of Exocet missile.’ One of those destroyers that went down in the Falklands had an interception capacity on it. But the Exocet is a very sophisticated piece of weaponry and it penetrated the interception system of the British Navy—and that was a mark 1 Exocet. He said the Indonesians had contracted to buy mark 3 Exocets and that, as luck would have it, their economy collapsed. If you want to read the book by Joseph Stiglitz, Globalisation, you will find the book mainly concentrates on what the International Monetary Fund, the Anglos—as far as the Indonesians are concerned—did to their economy. When the dust had settled, instead of there being $1,800 in income per person, there was $1,000 in income per person. To put that into perspective, we have $19,000 in income per person and the Japanese have about $30,000 in income per person.

This government seriously thinks that it can go on provoking its neighbour—with a population of 200 million and dominated by Java, a country that has a very strong history of colonialism and expansionism and very aggressive religious beliefs to go along with that—and then protect itself. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage sitting at the table grinning. There was someone sitting in this place grinning in 1939 when people got up and said, ‘Hey, these Japanese could come down here,’ but the people were told by the government of the day that we had a wonderful navy and a brilliant army and that the Japanese were a third-rate Asian power. I think there were 17 naval engagements between the Americans and the Japanese in the Second World War and the Japanese won every single one of the engagements with the exception of Midway. In the last engagement, the battle off Guam, the Americans lost 12 of their 13 vessels and the Japanese lost none. If you like to read your history books, read the three books on the Kokoda Trail and you will find that there were no American aeroplanes flying around Kokoda because most of them had been taken out of the sky by the Japanese at the time. But yet in this place we have the same smiling, grinning imbeciles, as the parliamentary secretary—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Kennedy will withdraw that.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not saying that he is an imbecile, Mr Deputy Speaker. I withdraw that. I am just saying that he is smiling and grinning. We had the same people in here smiling and grinning at that time. But, unfortunately for him, people write and read history books and they remember with very great bitterness the people who left our country open to the terrible invasion that was pending in 1942.

It will cost $73 million to put a patrol boat out there with five guided missiles. It costs about a million dollars apiece for a cruise missile. The interception capability is very expensive, and I am told it runs to about $32 million. You need a helicopter with radar equipment so you can see a long way—and you might be talking about $1 million or $2 million there. So you have a figure of about $75 million. You would want 100 of those, and I dare say that is seriously what we need. If you are serious about denying our coast, our waters, to these people and you are serious about being able to defend our country, instead of throwing $2,000 million away on two destroyers when five Exocet missiles were able to take out two in the Falklands War, I would think that it would be infinitely more valuable to go down that path.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you might say, ‘How do you finance this?’ If we have a coastline of 15,000 kilometres or so to patrol, we are entitled to charge people a customs charge of 10 per cent on everything that comes into this country. That just might help some of our manufacturing and primary industries in this country to get back on their feet. One thing is for sure: if you are going to build 100 patrol boats over a 10-year period, you most certainly will become the leading small boat builder in the world. You will have great technologies in this country, and at long last you will return to having a serious technology availability in this country. So there are enormous side benefits to going down this particular pathway.

If you do not control your own waters there will be problems. I have watched something like 2,000 North Queenslanders lose their livelihoods because of the actions of this government in protecting our fisheries from our Australian fishermen. It would be very nice if they protected our Australian fisheries from foreign fishermen instead of destroying the livelihoods of Australians. I put on record again that the parliamentary secretary at the table thinks that it is funny when 2,000 Australian families lose their livelihoods—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do not misuse your position to make false allegations.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The parliamentary secretary will have a chance to reply.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

for no purpose whatsoever except to earn some votes in Sydney and Melbourne and then you cannot defend your waters against 13,000 vessels. And you have the hide to come in here and laugh at us!

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do not lie.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary will withdraw.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, he just called me a liar. I defy him to point out—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The parliamentary secretary will withdraw that.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

where I have told a single lie or anything remotely resembling one.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Kennedy—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take his interjection, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I stop and say: where was the lie? (Time expired)

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to sum up on behalf of the government the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006 I want to set out three principles that govern the Howard government’s activities in relation to foreign fishing. First, we set out to destroy the practice of foreign fishing in Australia’s northern waters, and we do that with an absolute ferocity of intent. Second, we do that through a clear commitment to destroy the boats and to destroy the livelihoods of those criminals who have no concern for Australia’s territorial boundaries or our marine resources. Third, this bill as a part of that is about jailing offenders. Not only is it about jailing the ringleaders, the ship’s captain or the organisers who are apprehended but also it carries the potential for penalising the full complement of the ship’s crew, those who would seek to violate our territorial integrity, who would pillage our marine resources and who would put at risk our quarantine protections and our natural resources.

We make no apologies for putting in place one of the toughest, if not the toughest, marine resource protection regimes in the world—the destruction of boats, the destruction of property, and jail not just for the ringleaders but also for the full complement of a ship’s crew. This is a powerful regime designed to destroy in toto illegal fishing practices, whether they come from Indonesia or other parts of the Asia-Pacific region, and it does that backed by a $390 million package. It is not legislation that is unsupported. It is legislation with the full resources of the Commonwealth of Australia, the Australian government, designed precisely to eradicate the practice of illegal fishing in Australia’s northern waters. It is wrong, it is unacceptable and we will not tolerate it.

In addressing the statements made by various members of the House, and I appreciate all of those statements, I particularly want to run through three items: firstly, the problem; secondly, the overall package and the solution we take; and, thirdly, the particular elements of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006 and how they will increase jail penalties for illegal fishermen—whether they be organisers, ringleaders or ship captains—with the potential for doing so with the crew so that there is a clear and present threat and practice which can be used against anybody involved in illegal fishing.

The problem is well known. Firstly, there is the pillaging of Australia’s fishing resources, which has been brought to the attention of this House by the member for Solomon, the member for O’Connor, the member for Kalgoorlie, the member for Leichhardt and other members of the government over the past few months. They have been unrelenting as representatives of the northern regions in making the case that there is an issue here.

We can see that there is a threat to our fishing resources. There is also a clear and present danger in our quarantine protection of Australia. Whether that danger be due to transportable diseases in the fishing industry, the pearling industry or ancillary marine and maritime industries, it is unacceptable. We take absolute responsibility for the quarantine task on our watch and we are dealing with it.

I pay tribute to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Peter McGauran, and in particular to the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Abetz, who in the few short months since his appointment has traversed the country not once but twice to win the support of the states and territories and to win from the Prime Minister and Treasurer an unprecedented budgetary package. I also thank the Treasurer, Peter Costello, and the Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, both of whom have been unstinting in their support of this issue.

So what are the core elements of this package designed to eradicate once and for all the problem of illegal fishing in the north? There is a sea ranger program which draws from the Indigenous residents on the coast of Northern Australia. There is almost $7 million to assist these communities to assist the rest of Australia. It is good policy and a good marine protection measure. It is also great community development. The second element is the destruction of boats—and we will go to extraordinary measures here. If you are willing to encroach upon our waters, whether it be inside the 12 nautical mile zone or in the 12 to 200 nautical miles of our exclusive economic zone, we will catch and destroy your boat—your most valuable capital asset. That is a powerful disincentive and an appropriate punishment for the crimes carried out by these people who pillage our fishing resources. That is a critical step forward.

All up, there is $390 million in funding. There is $11.7 million for joint offshore protection. There is $7.9 million for joint operations with Indonesia. The member for Chifley asked what we are doing with Indonesia. We are allocating $8 million to prevent and deter illegal fishing onshore as well as to carry out joint operations. There is $33.8 million to deal with the quarantine risks from illegal fishing. That includes $16 million for vessel disposal facilities in Broome, Darwin, Gove and the Torres Strait where these vessels will be destroyed. There is $1½ million for increasing officer training for Customs. Most significantly, there is $233 million for increasing the apprehension of illegal fishing vessels, whether it be between three and 12 nautical miles from our coast or between 12 and 200 nautical miles. That is at the heart of what we are doing. There is funding to deal with foreign fishing vessels on the Great Barrier Reef, particularly in response to the issues raised by the member for Kennedy, and $34 million to conduct aerial surveillance. All of this is backed up by another significant layer of funding across a range of activities.

As I said at the outset, the fundamental purpose of this bill is to increase to two to three years the custodial sentences for those who violate our waters. We are talking about jail for fishing captains, jail for ringleaders and jail for the organisers of illegal fishing in Australian waters. We make no apology whatsoever for taking a measure which is fundamentally about border protection and protecting our marine resources. This measure is uncompromising in terms of jail sentences and it is backed by fines and the destruction of significant capital assets. That is what this bill is about.

I accept and appreciate the views of all who have spoken, including members of the opposition, the member for O’Connor on the government side of the House and the member for Kennedy in his own world as an Independent. I thank all who have made a contribution. This is a strong package and it comes with bipartisan support. I thank the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Abetz, and all the other ministers who have supported the package. I thank the members for Solomon, O’Connor, Kalgoorlie and Leichhardt, who have fought for this package.

There is funding of $390 million, legislation to jail offenders and a policy which is absolutely clear. We will destroy the practice of illegal fishing and we will not stop until we have achieved that aim. We will do that through the destruction of significant capital assets—the boats—and associated fines for those who breach our territorial boundaries. Through this legislation we will jail not just the ringleaders and the skippers but also the crew. We will be uncompromising in pursuing these goals. This is good legislation. It protects our borders and it protects our marine resources. I commend the bill to the House.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Corio has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.