George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for . I remind the minister that Australia imports over 70 per cent of the seafood we consume and at current consumption levels we are projected to require an additional 850,000 tonnes by 2020. Given that the minister plans to deny access to valuable fisheries across Australia as a result of his massively expanding marine parks, what will the impact be on the price of seafood as Australia imports more and catches less locally?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. I am not surprised, given the distance all these zones are from Mackay, that he has gone off any questions about recreational fishers and gone to the commercials. I am not surprised at all by that. He wants to know what the commercial impact will be. When the impact on the gross value of production is in the order of between one and two per cent then that will be the impact. Between one and two per cent is the impact.

Mr Christensen interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dawson has asked his question.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting when we hear the claim from those opposite—

Mr Christensen interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dawson is warned.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

about to what extent we are already importing seafood that people eat, because it is true we import extraordinary amounts at the moment.

Mr Christensen interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Dawson will leave the chamber under standing order 94a. The minister will resume his seat.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would appeal to you respectfully: given the minister is clearly refusing to answer the question he was asked, is it any wonder the member for Dawson is frustrated? I would ask you to bring the minister back to the question.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The member for Dawson will leave the chamber under standing order 94a. I gave the member for Dawson significant opportunity to rein himself in. I understand his frustration, but it is not in the standing orders to hurl abuse across the chamber. The minister has the call and he will return to the question before the chair.

The member for Dawson then left the chamber.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question referred to the extent to which we import seafood. It is also important to remember that, as a trading nation, we also export massive amounts of seafood. If you go through our highest value fisheries like the southern bluefin tuna fishery, we export 98 to 99 per cent of that catch. You have large amounts of export with the WA rock lobster industry as well. So to simply look at the import figures and make those sorts of assertions does not add up and shows a lack of understanding of how the Australian fisheries industries actually work. We have had similar claims about the impact by references to a large trawler that is allegedly coming into Australian waters, whereas in fact that trawler has made no application to do so at all. What we have there is the classic example of a fear campaign running off the back of one to two per cent of gross value of production.

If we had not conducted the level of consultation that we had and simply gone with initial maps then you would find a much larger impact. But, as the consultation took place around the country, we made sure that, from the initial scientific basis wherever we could shift a boundary to minimise the impact on commercial fishers but to get a similar environment impact, we made those changes—and we make no apology for doing that. Wherever it has been possible to improve the socioeconomic outcomes without in any way reducing the environmental outcomes, we have done that. We have done that with the direct opposition from those opposite, saying it should be science based and nothing else, but that is exactly the approach which has minimised the fear campaign that the member would otherwise be wanting to refer to.

What he is saying there ultimately has no foundation when you get to your one to two per cent across your oceans figure. What we have is an environmental outcome that is world leading and done in a way that respects the people who want to get in a tinnie and fish and the people who make a living from fishing. You only have to look at the direct impact on those who have made comments, such as ones within the electorate of Leichhardt who have said what they want now is certainty to have the negotiation with government and know exactly what the outcome is. Tourism gets its benefit and you get the economic decisions made using the template that was given to us when the south-east was done by the Howard government.