Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition supports the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Recreational Fishing for Mako and Porbeagle Sharks) Bill 2010. We support it because we proposed it. We support it because we argued for it. We support it because we ran a campaign through the agency of Senator Richard Colbeck over summer to bring this bill to pass. The bill rectifies another error from the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett. It was patently obvious to everybody associated with recreational fishing in Australia that the government had made a mess of the recreational fishing sector in November last year when the minister listed for prohibition recreational angling for mako and porbeagle sharks.

He did that despite there being no evidence that these sharks were facing an extinction threat in Australia. And it came as a result of the government’s own attempts to get these sharks listed on an international convention which related to Northern Hemisphere stocks but not Southern Hemisphere and, in particular, Australian stocks. The result was very simple: a healthy recreational fishing sector was cut off. It was through the agency of Senator Richard Colbeck and through the numerous different fishing associations in Australia, such as the Game Fishing Association, RecFish, TARFish, VRFish and the Fishing and Boating Council, that we were able to get a successful campaign up and running throughout the summer to make it clear that that decision by Minister Garrett was wrong and needed to be overturned. This bill seeks to overturn the decision by Minister Garrett. It was introduced by the minister to rectify his own error. It is the latest in a series of errors which undermine his ability to continue in his portfolio. We have elsewhere made the case that the serious errors that led to catastrophic human consequences in the Home Insulation Program should have been in themselves enough to terminate the minister’s ministerial career. This is another error.

What we saw was a decision by the minister to operate through an international forum which was carried out with blind disregard to the circumstances in the waters around Australia. A recreational fishing sector which had been conducted carefully, which had been managed well, which had operated appropriately, was brought to its knees overnight. The ban was due to come into force on 29 January. On 25 January the minister announced the reversal of his position. This bill now seeks to bring to pass the changes which the recreational fishing sector campaigned for and which my state colleague Neale Burgess MP, the state member for Hastings in Victoria, Sarah Henderson, the Liberal candidate for the seat of Corangamite, and Bob Baldwin also campaigned for. We know that Senator Colbeck led the charge on the campaign, which I helped participate in.

These changes should not have been necessary. It was a bad decision. The minister should have recognised that at the outset, having made a bad decision. It should not have required public meetings around southern New South Wales and the Victorian coast to have it reviewed. There were 300 fishing folk who came to Hastings, just near my office. They met outside for a public meeting. There were 500 who went to the coast in Corangamite for a meeting organised by Sarah Henderson. There were also meetings elsewhere in Tasmania. It should not have required a major public uprising by the fishing community to show the errors of the minister’s ways.

However, there is a systemic problem in the way in which the government has gone about managing many environmental issues: snap, unilateral decisions, taken without any understanding of the consequences, have brought about unintended outcomes. We saw that in relation to the Home Insulation Program most catastrophically. We saw that in relation to the Green Loans Program, which has been a financial disaster for thousands and thousands of assessors who relied upon the work of the government. We saw that in relation to the overnight cessation of the solar rebate program, which was put in place by the previous government and mismanaged by the current government. And now we see that in relation to the management of Australia’s fisheries and the decision to bring recreational fishing to its knees overnight on the basis of no scientific evidence.

Now that the minister has reviewed his position it has been confirmed that there was no scientific evidence as the basis for that decision. So it is very clear that what the public saw, what the recreational fishing community saw, what Sarah Henderson saw, what my state colleague Neale Burgess saw, and above all else what Senator Richard Colbeck and the member for Paterson, Bob Baldwin, saw, was correct: this was a sustainable, well-managed recreational fishing sector involving highly capable and competent people, such as the Game Fishing Association of Australia, RecFish, TARFish, VRFish and the Fishing and Boating Council. All of these groups did the right thing. They helped collect 9,000 signatures. A petition was tabled in parliament opposing the ban. There was a massive phone campaign by those recreational fishing community members. They have done a tremendous job. I am delighted that this bill has been drawn to the parliament’s attention, that the bill has been introduced. We campaigned for it, we support it, we believe in it and we will now see that it passes through the parliament as expeditiously as possible. I thank the members of the fishing community who brought it into being. I commend the bill and I condemn the minister.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Flinders, an eloquent speaker at the best of times, tells a story—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the best of times?

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will give credit where it is due. He tells a story but he never tells the full story. I would like to correct the record for those listening and for Hansard. Essentially, what we have in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Recreational Fishing for Mako and Porbeagle Sharks) Bill 2010 is an amendment, required because this government was forced under the legislation of the former government—that is, the government of the member for Flinders made it mandatory—to list a threatened species in our legislation. That is what the member for Flinders did not say: under the legislation that we are bound by, both nationally and through our signing of the convention of 1991 in relation to this, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, it was mandatory—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Except you guys argued for the listing of the species in the first place!

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Flinders, who wants to make a noise or a squeak on the way out of the House, at least now knows what the full story is. I wish that he would tell the full story. He forgot to mention that members on this side of the House, the member for Braddon—moi, if he has forgotten—and the member for Corangamite, to name two, along with their communities of fishers, were also onto this issue, which arose because we were forced by the former government’s legislation to carry out our obligations. That is what a responsible government does.

In his frenzied attack on the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, the member for Flinders forgot to mention (1) that the minister himself was bound by the act and (2) that the minister moved quickly. To resolve this issue upon investigation required more than regulatory changes. It also required more than administrative changes. It required a legislative change. Nothing moves quickly in this place. Nothing moves quickly unless those opposite are trying to think up a new policy on the run. Nothing moves quickly in this place when drawing up legislation. However, that is what this amendment is designed to do. I am glad that those opposite are going to support this, because we are trying to introduce an amendment to fix up a situation which does not allow enough flexibility and unfortunately has negative consequences for offence provisions under the current act. That is what this legislation is essentially trying to do.

I would like to take the House through this because it is an important story and it is going to have a positive result—not just because we have both sides of the House going about our business, as we should, in a responsible way but also because it will allow recreational fishing to continue in a sustainable way in our waters, particularly down Tassie way. We have magnificent waters both onshore and offshore and we have a lovely recreational fishing industry. I encourage everyone to come down and participate in it. I think I am the only person who does not fish up my way. No doubt I will develop the patience to do that.

Effectively, as the minister made clear in his second reading speech, the introduction of this legislation is trying to overcome an inflexible provision under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999. It intends to make recreational fishing of shortfin mako, longfin mako and porbeagle sharks legal. Once any species is listed under appendix I of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals as being in dire threat or under appendix II as maybe being threatened, under the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 of this country we are obligated to list it as a threatened species. That is what happened. We were obligated under an international convention and our national law to list them. Once that was done, it unfortunately threatened recreational fishing, particularly of the shortfin mako shark. That is basically what the situation is.

Rightfully so, fishing groups, particularly recreational fishing groups, were mad about this. That was for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is an important recreational hobby. People have been doing it for a long time and have invested in equipment—particularly boats, reels and so forth—and it is important to them. Secondly, it plays an important part in recreational fishing clubs. Thirdly, in the main, the fishing of mako sharks in particular and most of our recreational fishing is done in a very sustainable way. As the member opposite pointed out, there was no scientific evidence to suggest that the mako shark was threatened in our waters. We acknowledge that. But what the member for Flinders did not point out was that under the 1999 act of the former government and because of our obligations to the international Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals we were obligated to put a moratorium on the fishing of the mako shark. That is the situation.

Those opposite will ask why we did not just ring up and say, ‘Hey, forget about it.’ The problem is that under those obligations we could not make a regulatory change, nor could we make an administrative change. This required a legislative change, which we now have before this House. We acted a hell of a lot quicker than those opposite ever acted on any other issue requiring legislation. The point is that we are obligated under the current act, the act of the former government, and under appendices I and II of the international convention listing threatened species.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Baldwin interjecting

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No amount of cat-calling from the member for Paterson is going to change that. It is very sad that the member for Flinders did not tell the whole story in his attempts to run out and attack the minister for the environment. He forgot to mention, too, that those on this side of the House have been working constructively and closely with the fisher groups and also with the minister to get this change. But the member for Flinders did not mention the member for Braddon. He did not mention the member for Corangamite and others. Why would that be? He was not trying to score a political point, was he? Was he really trying to fix the situation or was he trying to ramp up some public meetings and put out another petition, knowing very well that the minister would meet the obligation to introduce legislation rather than regulation and administration to change the current law forced on us as part of the Howard government’s legislation? The minister acted responsibly and quickly, and I thank all those on this side who worked with the minister instead of grandstanding in little public meetings, knowing very well that we could do nothing until the legislation was passed. I commend the minister for his action on this. I certainly commend the member for Corangamite—and the member for Braddon, frankly—and all those on this side who tried to do something about it. Shame on the member for Flinders for not telling the full story about what was necessary to change this legislation.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Braddon will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.