Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Community Services ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in support of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill. As many people in this place would know, what has become known as the super-trawler debate has been very big in Tasmania and the changes proposed in the bill are very important to my fellow Tasmanians. I have been contacted by many Tasmanians as part of what has truly become a grassroots campaign. Thousands of petition signers live in my electorate and thousands of people have personally contacted my office—it is a very big issue in my home state of Tasmania.

I want to spend some time talking about what this bill does and about the local Tasmanian campaign. The bill strengthens Australia's fishing industries, both commercial and recreational, by ensuring proposals for large-scale operators are given proper consideration before they get the go-ahead to fish in Australian waters. We as a government are taking a cautious approach. We know that a vessel of this size has not been in Australian waters before. This is the second biggest fishing vessel on the planet, and we do not want to be rushed into any decisions. We want to make sure we know the impacts of it before we give it the green light. We want to make sure we know what will happen. We know the science behind the current quotas is sound, but of course the science has not been done on the long-term effects of a vessel of this size. We certainly know that local community concern has been led, particularly in Tasmania, by the recreational fishers themselves, who are really concerned to make sure we get this right.

This bill is essentially about giving the government time to make sure that we get any decisions that we make on a vessel of this size right, because it is really important. We have said that we are not ruling out a super-trawler in the future, but we want to make sure that any assessment process is done properly.

The Fisheries Management Act has been in place for some time, since 1991, so it is now more than 20 years old, and that is why we have also announced an overhaul of the fisheries policy and legislation. We have said that that will be a root-and-branch review to identify any improvements or changes that need to be made, because we do want to make sure that we have sustainable fisheries going into the future for Australians, including of course Tasmanians. Tasmanians were also very concerned about bycatch and the impacts of the super-trawler on bycatch, so I am glad that Minister Burke has also addressed some of those issues.

I want to take the time to thank the minister for fisheries and the ministry for the environment for their responsiveness over the last few weeks when they have been contacted by me and other Tasmanians—our two senators, Lin Thorp and Carol Brown, and, in particular, Sid Sidebottom, the member for Braddon and the parliamentary secretary for fisheries. The member for Braddon has been on the ground in Tasmania talking to recreational fishers and other people in the community who have concerns about this trawler coming into Australian waters. He has been very busy. He has taken a very considered approach. He obviously has concerns about his local community and about the broader sustainability of fisheries around Australia. He has been doing a great job on the ground in Tasmania.

We have seen what is a unique grassroots campaign in Tasmania, led by the recreational fishers, as I said before, and I do want to congratulate some local people who have been instrumental in that campaign. Tyson Clements, Martin Haley and Nobby Clark are well known to any representative of Tasmania who has been lobbied on this issue in recent weeks and months. In fact, I think I first met with them around two months ago. They are very passionate individuals and they have been fighting for this not for themselves but because they wanted to make sure Tasmanian fisheries were protected in the long term. They were really concerned about the future of recreational fishing and commercial fishing, and their sustainability. They wanted to ensure that their children and grandchildren had the benefits of the unique lifestyle that Tasmania offers. We know that Tasmanians are particularly passionate about their lifestyle and our environment. They understand that decisions about Australia's fisheries are based on science and should continue to be, and I certainly agree with that. They are just saying, 'How can we know we've got it right, when a super-trawler of this size has never been in Tasmanian waters before?' I think that is a valid argument and, clearly, the government think that is a valid argument. That is why we are taking our time to look at the issues that have been raised to make sure that we do the work before we allow this vessel to operate. There have been a lot of accusations around the place about knee-jerk reactions, about the government bowing to pressure, but this is not about that. It is not about populism. It is about doing the right thing. It is about representing our constituencies, it is about understanding the concerns in the local community and it is about—

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you ignore the science!

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Community Services ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

making sure that we get our decision-making right and that the science is right before we go ahead and allow this vessel to fish in our waters.

There were some outbursts from my opponents, the Liberals, over there. There was an editorial in the Tasmanian Examiner yesterday, written by the deputy editor, Barry Prismall, in which he said that the Liberals in Tasmania have been strategically outmanoeuvred by the Labor Party in Tasmania, and:

It is mystifying that the head of the next Liberal half-Senate ticket, Senator Richard Colbeck, is defending the super trawler.

They do not oppose the super-trawler, but the rest of Australia does. It is only the Liberals in Tasmania who do not realise that this is a big issue in Tasmania and in the rest of Australia.

I commend the bill to the House.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012. This government could not hold a line between the kitchen sink and the stove. Really, the backflips on policy week after week are becoming so monotonous as to be almost not worth comment. The similarities between this issue and the live cattle export dispute are enormous: within a few days, a government has gone from supporting an industry to suspending the industry.

Last week, with the exception of four or five people, everybody on that side of the chamber supported allowing this vessel to come into Australian waters; this week, they have completely changed their view. What has changed in that time? There has been a public campaign led by GetUp! and the Greens—around half a million emails. And we saw it happen before in the live cattle dispute. The Left of Australian politics has Labor running scared. This just joins a long line of policy backflips—I will not take you through them, Madam Deputy Speaker, as we often do on this side of the chamber—

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

No, you won't, because you'll be relevant to the bill!

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but the most notable, of course, is the carbon tax.

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

You'll be relevant to the bill, so you won't, actually, thank you!

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The government bill in this case is a knee-jerk reaction and a total overreaction, despite the minister's comments. It proposes that the minister have the power to suspend any fishery for a period of up to two years, and one of the reasons for this, one of the trigger points for this, is that there are 'social concerns'. Social concerns? What the hell are they? What are social concerns? It is ill-defined, and I do not think the minister's office can define it either. It is preposterous. This bill is far too broad, it is ill-defined and it is totally irresponsible. Most importantly, it walks away from all the scientific work and processes that have gone into the approval of fishing licences.

AFMA, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, are recognised as running the second best managed fishery in the world. We are right up there with the very best. Their work is backed up by the CSIRO and by the South Australian Research and Development Institute, and they all approve of the methodology that has been used. But the government have chosen to throw all of that out and then turn around and say, 'We need more study on this.'

Really what the government are saying to AFMA, to the CSIRO and to SARDI is, 'We don't trust you. You don't know what you're talking about, but the senders of the emails, GetUp! and the Greens, know what they are talking about.' It has really outraged an enormous number of people in the community. These campaigns have many supporters and are very effective. That is why the government have buckled. The problem is, if you have a strong minister, if you have a strong government, they get out and lead the debate with reason. In this particular case, once again they have run for cover. In fact, the bill has been brought in in such a rushed manner that they now seem to be relying on the member for Dobell, who is suspended from the Labor Party, to bring in amendments to try to save their bacon from the wrath of the recreational fishing industry. But they still have not got it right because they have upset the charter industry as well. There is total confusion.

Already in the industry there is talk of financial tightening, of increasing risk. We have a lot of contacts in the industry. At this stage it is anecdotal, but the talk is that financiers are becoming nervous about backing the fishing industry in Australia. There is good reason for that. The government's grab of marine parks, both Commonwealth and state parks in the case of South Australia, have caused a lot of nervousness. In my own state the abalone industry and the crayfish industry are feeling extremely threatened by the state marine parks. The Commonwealth marine parks off South Australia are not quite so bad but certainly the grab for this enormous slab of the Coral Sea has caused a lot of uncertainty in the industry. This legislation is another grab for power which puts more uncertainty into the fishing industry.

If finance does tighten for the industry then once again we will have a dispute on our hands similar to the live cattle dispute. If the bankers are saying to these long-term fishing families, 'We're not going to bankroll you for another 12 months, we're not going to allow for the upgrade of your boats', then you will see the knock-on effects. I will come to some of the local effects because the electorate of Grey has a very close association with this matter. At this stage the MV Abel Tasman, formerly the Margiris, is anchored in Port Lincoln. Port Lincoln is the home of the biggest fishing fleet in the southern hemisphere. Understandably, there is a lot of anxiety there about this vessel being in port and what it might be doing when it goes out to sea. Quite rightly, they have raised concerns about the links of super-trawlers to overfishing around the world.

It is worth recounting a little bit of history here. The success of Port Lincoln today is based on modernisation and being able to adapt to the environment and to the economic climate of the time. Port Lincoln became a boom fishing town in the sixties and seventies on the back of the vastly and quickly expanding wild-catch tuna industry. It seemed there was an inexhaustible supply of tuna, but that was not the case—and we know that has happened in many fisheries around the world. Eventually the wild-catch tuna industry virtually collapsed—it was almost wiped out—but the industry was able to revive itself. In fact, fishing stocks are increasing every year at the moment. The recovery is quite remarkable, but it is recovering because of good fishing management through the enforcement of international quotas. There were some difficulties a few years ago with one of the major parties taking beyond-quota fish, but by and large that has been fixed up now. Since that problem has gone away, tuna stocks have been bounding back quite quickly.

The other thing that happened at the same time was the establishment of the tuna farming industry. This has made an enormous difference in Port Lincoln. It required a complete change to technology. It required more powerful boats to drag the tuna back from out in the Great Australian Bight so that it is not damaged as it makes its way through some of the heaviest seas in the world. The tuna is dragged back to Port Lincoln and put into tuna farms, where it can be turned into a high-value product. The industry had to adapt completely, to change its practices and to change its equipment. That is what we are looking at here: an industry trying to adapt to the economic climate and the environmental impact of the times.

I am concerned that this bill is standing in the way of technological adaptation. I was a farmer before I came to this place—I have used this analogy in a few places. What the government is trying to do here is the same as if you were to stop two or three farmers from getting together to get rid of their old header to buy a decent-sized new harvester because they know that they will be able to get their crop-off in a more timely fashion and that it will be in better condition. That is a very important point. I want you to hang on to that, because having the right tools for the job makes an enormous difference to your return. I have sought a lot of advice on this issue because it is so closely linked to my industry.

I know many people in my electorate will not be pleased with what I have to say on this, but I make the point—as I often do—that the way I think democracy should work, and the way it does work, is that we elect people to the parliament to make decisions on our behalf because we trust their reasonable nature. We trust them to get all the facts and to make a reasonable decision. When we leave public life, we do not have the ability to amass all the facts. So much of what we know is brought to us in little snippets. Unfortunately that is the case for the general public. They elect us because we have the time to get to the bottom of issues. I have sought as much information on this issue as I could possibly find. It is worth getting some of the background on the page.

The Abel Tasman, if approved, will be operating on existing quota. It has 18,000 of the 32,000 tonne total allowable catch in the industry. It is true that this quota has recently been expanded. Whether or not that total allowable catch is sustainable is a very good question, but it is not a question for this particular vessel. That is about the overall management of the fishery, which is what we entrust the scientists, who are recognised as some of the best fisheries managers in the world, to do.

At this stage, Australia only produces 25 per cent of its own seafood. Considering the vast amount of ocean space we have, one would think that probably we do not fully understand our stocks. This advance gives us the possibility of understanding more.

We have local owners of the quota. In fact, they have accumulated that quota on the open market, just the same as any other fisherman would accumulate the quota. They are long-term Australian companies and they have effectively leased a ship, just as a ferry operator would do, just as many plant operators do. They go and get the right machine for the job and they bring it in. The target fish in this case are of very low value. They are not of interest to the Australian market, and it is not the kind of fish we eat. At this stage, the fish brought to port are not for human consumption, and that is because the vessels being used at the moment have neither the range nor the capacity to preserve the fish properly once it is brought on board. That means they cannot freeze it. So they are limited to around one week from port. By the time they come back into port—and remember these fish are not gutted, so they do not keep a long time in the chiller—this food is no longer safe for human consumption. So it becomes a lower value product than it would otherwise be. The ability of the ship to range much further than the current vessels means that the load of the 18,000 tonne quota that it would take—half from east of Tasmania and half from west of Tasmania—will be spread over a far greater portion of the ocean. So it is much less likely to have local impact. The boats are currently fishing the same quota. Despite the pictures in the paper of the fishing nets and the comparisons, they actually use the same equipment as the Abel Tasman is intending to use. But, of course, they do not have the reach because they do not have the freezer capacity.

I have had, I think, very justifiable concerns raised with me at a local level by the sardine industry in South Australia. The sardine industry was established to provide feed for the tuna industry. They have a quota of 34,000 tonnes. It is a state managed fishery. They are concerned about the possibilities of bycatch on the Abel Tasman and quite rightly; why would you not be concerned? I made some inquiries, and I would like to get this on the record as well. The facts are that the Abel Tasman will not have quota for sardine. So if they bring sardine on board they cannot land it. Some might say that they can just chuck it back in a sea but of course if they are catching bycatch, it will be mixed up with the red bait and the other taken fish. So if it is mixed up then their load, their catch, is contaminated and becomes virtually worthless because these are small fish. You cannot afford to sit down and sort them into little heaps and say, 'We have sardines over here and the red bait over there.' So as soon as they start catching sardine—remember there are three observers on this boat and a number of cameras—it is not in their interest to remain there anymore. So I assure the sardine industry back in South Australia that we have looked at this issue, and they should feel comfortable with the outcome. It is a matter of fact that the sardine industry collects a bycatch of red bait. But that is another story.

In balance, the legislation before the House now is a complete overreaction. The outrage against the Abel Tasman and Seafish Tasmania is confected in many cases by people who have a political agenda. The legislation should be rejected. It is not good government.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is breathtaking the way the coalition has addressed this issue. We obviously see the track record that they had prior to the 2010 election— out there mendaciously misleading the entire electorate about the marine bioregional planning process in one of the greatest disinformation campaigns ever seen. In fact, I recall the Leader of the Opposition down in Narooma hanging out a rod, trying to tell people that this was going to be the sort of activity that was going to be affected by the process. He would have had to have been able to cast that rod three nautical miles out to sea to have been anywhere near the region that these marine bioregional planning processes are addressing. So clearly he was out there trying to cause the same sort of hysteria, the same sort of deception and misleading reaction in the community that he has followed as part of his playbook in relation to the carbon tax. How could you take anybody on that side of the House seriously when it comes to dealing with an issue to do with our marine environment? They are out there trying to tell you that this is all about reacting to the Greens, when we know for a fact that what this is about is allaying the concerns that exist amongst our commercial fishers and recreational fishers as well as those who are concerned about the marine environment. If you were honest about that then you would admit it.

Let us remind ourselves technically what this bill does. It enables the minister to prohibit declared fishing activities with an independent expert panel being involved to assess the potential environmental, social or economic impacts of that activity. That would only be activated, of course, where there was a concern and uncertainty about those impacts and about the need for further assessment. As parliamentary secretary for fisheries in the last term, I was very proud to have taken a very keen involvement in refining and improving the regulation of our fishing industry. I was proud to have presented legislation creating comanagement regimes so that our commercial fishers could work more effectively with the regulatory authorities. We have seen some wonderful examples of how that can work; for example, the Spencer Gulf prawn trawlers do a magnificent job of their comanagement relationship with South Australian state authorities. We are now seeing this sort of relationship grow because the fishers in this country do get maligned unfairly by some; they are out there interested in preserving and sustaining their own industry. We do have world's best practice fishing management in this country—that is the truth of the story. With our vessel video monitoring systems and the way we set up the operation of the ships and the tracking of the vessels, it is certainly a commendable operation.

Further than that, we have people interested in the marine environment itself and in recreational fishing. I was very pleased and proud to have regularly conducted roundtable meetings here in Canberra with all the stakeholders in the recreational fisheries industry. We were able to bring on board all their concerns in the way that we dealt with these issues.

Also, of course, I was able to negotiate and deal with AFMA in finally setting the quotas for our national system of fisheries. There was some concern initially with how those quotas were being determined. In relation to abundant species there were quotas set and, fine, that would not be a problem in the short term; but I wanted to make sure that the quotas we set would give us sustainability in the long term. We certainly saw that. There was flexibility on the part of AFMA and I very much enjoyed working with Michael Egan and with James Findlay from AFMA. There is a high degree of independence in the way those authorities operate.

One of the concerns that has emerged with this issue is the inability of the relevant ministers to take action where something has not quite fit within the regulatory regime. I will come back to the biomarine regional planning process, because this really goes to the credibility of the coalition. I mentioned the misleading conduct and the statements and claims made by the Leader of the Opposition in the 2010 campaign. Of course, I travelled this country far and wide, to the great state of Western Australia, as the member for—

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Brand.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Brand, sitting here today in the House, representing it very well—

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You need to come to the great state more often.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely. I had the great pleasure of meeting with Recfishwest and the commercial fishing organisations in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Tasmania—all over this great land. We worked very hard to make sure we got the balance right in the greatest marine conservation effort in the entire world in relation to the sheer scale of the challenge we were dealing with, in addition to making sure that that complemented the sustainability of our fishing industry and took on board their concerns. There was extensive consultation. That is why we are reacting to the current situation with the Abel Tasman: we are concerned to make sure there is even further consultation and scientific analysis. Our track record on this really requires people to accept the merits of our bona fides in this respect.

To highlight that, I will talk about the fishing co-ops on my own coast, in Twofold Bay, Bermagui and just out of the electorate at Ulladulla, all of which I have visited and had extensive dealings with. When a great bloke named Rocky Lagana, who owns the Bermagui Fishermen's Co-operative, was asked about the impact and the marine bioregional planning process, he said: 'Our biggest concern is on the Far South Coast, where a lot of little fishing villages—Bermagui, Ulladulla, Eden—and the community rely on seafood and our commercial fishers to stay financial, and I think the government has brought that on board. We've talked to the government for the last two years about all this and I think they've listened to us. We are quite happy at Bermagui with the outcome that has been achieved. At the co-op at Bermagui we put in a submission from the very early days when it was announced that this was the area that they were looking at to put a marine reserve in and we've had a lot of discussion with the government about where it should go and the effect it will have on small coastal communities.' He went on to say, 'I don't think it's going to have a huge impact on Bermagui as a community', and he thought it was a good outcome for the Far South Coast.

Our rec fishers have understood that that process also can serve their situation. The rec fishing industry in my region is critically important. One of the biggest activities we have in the region is the Bermagui Blue Water Classic. It is the oldest game fishing club in Australia to conduct that activity. Last year something like 63 vessels were involved in the competition. We also have the Eden game-fishing competition. A lot of tourists come into the region to pursue their recreational activities in this respect. It is those rec fishers and commercial fishers that have been coming to me and my own region concerned about this super-trawler.

The problem we have is that, whereas we have a very good regulatory regime and the quotas that have been set are sustainable in terms of the entire national stock that exists, what we did not have the experience of in the past is a vessel of this scale, of this size, which is capable of storing more than 6,000 tonnes of fish, and the impact that such large-scale fishing would have in one particular location. This is highly relevant to my own region because this vessel would be fishing off our coast in south-east New South Wales. We do not know what the impact would be of such a large take in one particular locality.

There are a couple of very innovative and entrepreneurial fishermen at the Twofold Bay co-op by the names of Gary Warren and Stan Soroka, who have done a fantastic job in recent years of developing a consumer market for these very species, for skipjack, mackerel and redbait. Notwithstanding the fire they had in their processing plan a couple of summers ago, they really persevered with their efforts and have built up a market in this area. What impact would there be from the other species that relate to these species and that would be the target of fishing in terms of the biodiversity and sustainability of the marine environment in that area for our commercial and rec fishers?

I am not saying that it is unsustainable. What we need to know is: what is the real science? What is the conclusive answer to this? How could anybody—any Independent, any coalition member—be against acquiring more scientific knowledge about how this vessel would operate for the long term, for the future? It is the first time we have had a vessel of this type approaching our waters or seeking to fish in our waters. If we can resolve this situation with this vessel then the circumstances in the future will become clearer for any other vessel of its type or nature seeking to operate in our waters.

Obviously, the problem here is that the coalition refuse to take an evidence based approach to any kind of policy. We have seen them reject the Productivity Commission on issues such as the wheat market. We have seen them defy the advice and recommendations of the OECD, the Productivity Commission, Dr Shergold, Ross Garnaut and many authorities in relation to a market based approach to dealing with climate change. We have seen almost half of the members of the coalition defy the evidence of 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists. The coalition seems to have some kind of strange aversion to taking an evidence based approach to policy formulation.

Certainly those opposite do their very best to get out there and to obfuscate and muddy the waters about the science that is out there. Now, we have science—it is true—about the sustainability of the quotas globally that have been set for the nation in relation to this particular species. We can have some confidence about the ongoing sustainability of that species in relation to that quota. But what we do not know—what we do not have complete understanding or confidence in relation to—is the local impact. What would it do to my south-east coast fisheries to take 6,000 tonnes of redbait and skipjack mackerel from that resource?

I am also concerned about the particular techniques this vessel would use. We know there is a particular bycatch challenge with this. If you have seen the photographs of the massive trawling operation that hangs off the back of this huge factory ship you have to be seriously concerned about that. We need to know what the impact would be. It is okay that the minister had the power to attempt to move the vessel on, where evidence of bycatch was happening, but what about the related species that are not protected under the EPBC and the impact on a local setting in that respect, as well? These are the things we need answers to, and that is what this legislation seeks to do. How could anybody be opposed to seeking those answers?

We have a unique marine environment in our region off south-east New South Wales. It is an area where you have the confluence of major current systems, where it is very important to be able to monitor that to determine the effects of climate change. It is a unique marine environment. That is why the Sapphire Coast Marine Discovery Centre at Eden is doing such a wonderful job, and why we have put funding into it. It is really lifting the veil on some of the things we have not learnt about that unique environment and about the impacts of climate change. So it is very important that we know that a vessel of this kind is not going to come in like a bull in a crockery shop and, even though it is not bottom-trawling—we know the bottom will be secure in the operation of a vessel of this kind—we just do not know the impact that it would have in a region like mine, in particular.

So it is in tune with the very essence of the way this government operates to get out there, to consult, to allow our commercial and recreational fishers and people concerned about the environment to be involved in this process, because we understand these days that to have an effective industry—an industry that will be sustainable—you also have to have the social licence. And the social licence should include not just those concerned about the environmental impacts but those who will have, if you like, the downstream effects in relation to their commercial operations and in relation to the huge tourism and other related industries that are associated with our recreational fishers.

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

You have taken that out of the bill.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why would anybody from that side stand up and oppose that? Why would the member for Dawson or anybody else who has significant recreational fishing or commercial fishing in their electorate seek to oppose those people and those interests in having a say, in being consulted to ensure that their views and their information are included in determinations by the regulatory authorities and by the ministers? What is wrong with that? What we are seeing here today is not an argument based on this legislation or the things that it seeks to fix; what we are seeing today is the 'Tony Abbott Leader of the Opposition playbook' being rolled out yet again, ad nauseam—and the public is nauseous in relation to this tactic. The tactic has completely worn off. You are going down the wrong road; give up on this course of action.

What the Australian public wants to see from you is cooperation in the national interest, for once. They are sick and tired of the negativity. They are sick and tired of the mindless point-scoring, the cheap politics and the mendacious approach to every issue that comes into this place. They are sick of the 'no, no, no' approach to dealing with the issues that confront this nation. For once, come on board with something that takes into account the things that make good policy. Vote for this legislation.

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

Thank you very much. The previous member is probably not aware—he might need to pick up the phone and call the manager of government business— to find that they have given the member for Dobell amendments to move that get rid of the social impact issue that he just spent so much time talking about.

I do not support the supertrawler fishing in Australian waters. I have been on the record as saying that. If you look at the size of the thing and the size of the nets you just get a feeling in your bones that it is not right. And locals in my electorate have also been concerned about it. I refer to Lance Murray from recreational fishing group Sunfish Mackay, who pointed out to me that the superboats strip these migration routes fairly bare and that once the bait and fish stocks are gone they are gone forever. I refer to commercial fishing operator Greg Smith in Bowen, as well, who also has some strong concerns about what it might do to migratory stock.

But the fact is that this Gillard Labor government and its environment minister, when he was fisheries minister, actually invited the supertrawler here. He did so in 2009, when he was minister for fisheries and overseeing the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. In the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy in October 2009 they say:

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

He was the minister at the time, basically inviting this vessel into Australia. And the government has been defending why it invited them here. The current minister for fisheries, in the other place, as late as Monday this week was raging against the Greens, who were essentially putting forward a proposal similar to that which the government is putting forward now. He said that the Greens motion could harm fisheries across Australian Commonwealth waters. Well, 'hear, hear,' to that. He said:

This disallowance motion is a message that the Greens political party do not support sustainable catch limits based on science. It is a message that says the Greens want fisheries managed by politics, not qualified fisheries managers. And it says that the Greens do not support the commercial operators who fish in some of the world's best managed fisheries.

He went on:

… I have no doubt that the same disregard—

by the Greens—

for the science and management of our commercial fisheries will be extended to the legitimate pursuit of recreational fishing.

That was the fisheries minister in the other place on Monday of this week. By Thursday of this week there had been a complete U-turn.

I say to the environment minister and to the fisheries minister: you created this problem. Why did you ask the Margiris to come to Australia to fish in our waters in the first place? Why did you ask a foreign supertrawler to come here when at the same time you were planning a network of marine parks around the country, a network of massive zones where Aussie fishermen, both commercial and recreational, could be locked out forever? Why did you do that? Once again, see how hopeless a government this lot are. They are making it up as they go along. They waited for the supertrawler to get here, to get to the point where the nets were almost in the water and then they cried 'Foul!'. Now an Australian business that has put considerable dollars on the line to get this ship out here is substantially out of pocket, 50 people are out of a job and, what is worse, the taxpayer is probably going to have to cough up for the absolute incompetence of the minister for the environment and the minister for fisheries. You should not have invited them here in the first place.

How do we do deal with this one fishing vessel? A simple way, as I have said, would have been not to have invited it here in the first place. But now that the Greens tail is wagging the Labor dog on this issue, substantially after the fact, how can they deal with it? They could have had a specific bill giving either the environment minister or, probably more appropriately, the fisheries minister the ability to deal exclusively with the Margiris. But, no, they have sought to use an atom bomb to kill an ant. The environment minister has brought before this House legislation that gives him the unfettered power to unilaterally declare unsustainable any fishing activity in Australian waters and to ban it for two years. That cure, my friends, is much worse than the actual disease. That cure in the hands of this environment minister in a dog of a government that is being wagged by its Greens tail could wipe out any form of fishing, anytime, anywhere in Australian waters with the stroke of a pen—or, at least, it would have been any form of fishing. The Recreational Fishing Foundation issued a statement yesterday, in which it said: 'It should not be about stopping mums, dads and kids from going and catching a fish in Australian waters.' It called on the government to amend the legislation immediately, because it had absolutely stuffed it.

The government got the member for Dobell to do its dirty work and fix up this absolute mess of a bill with his amendments. But even with those amendments the bill will still affect any form of commercial fishing—including charter fishing, which actually takes recreational fishermen out into Commonwealth waters. It will still affect those people. It will be one man's decision, because, despite what the legislation says, we know that the fisheries minister is a lame-duck minister and that he will have to bow or curtsy to whatever decision the environment minister makes. We have seen that in this case. Poor old Joe! He was busy defending the supertrawler—

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

Order! The member for Dawson will address members by their proper title—as is in line with what you required yesterday.

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

Poor old minister. On Monday he was busy in the other place defending the supertrawler on behalf of the government—backing up a decision the environment minister had made when he was fisheries minister to get the supertrawler over here—saying things such as: what the Greens wanted to do was have fisheries managed by politics, not qualified fisheries managers. He was saying that, only to have the rug pulled from under him the very next day, when he stated that he now had a degree of uncertainty about how the vessel was going to operate in these waters. What a shambles. What a lame-duck minister he is. In reality, we will have one minister making these decisions with the stroke of a pen. He will have that power with but one limitation. What is that limitation? It is stated in the original legislation, which says:

(3) The Minister must not make an interim declaration unless the Minister and the Fisheries Minister agree that:

(a) there is uncertainty about the environmental, social or economic impacts of the fishing activity;

That is in the legislation that was originally brought to this place. It mentions social impacts. What exactly is the social impact of fishing? What does social impact actually mean? If we look at the Oxford dictionary, we see that 'social' is relating to society, of course, and 'impact' is a marked effect or influence. So the minister is going to step in and ban any fishing business—commercial or tourist charter fishing—that he deems to have some marked effect or influence on society. That would give me a lot of confidence if I were a lawful Aussie commercial fishing operator who was seeking to expand or to pass the game onto a son or daughter and I knew that the minister could close my paddock down because he thought that my activity had a marked effect or influence on society. No wonder Brian Jeffries, a director of the Commonwealth Fisheries Association, has said that the issue is all about fishing rights. No wonder Dean Logan of the Australian Marine Alliance has said:

If this bill passes it will give the Department of Environment … the authority to stop [bluefin tuna fishing] … all the way down the east coast … in Commonwealth waters.

He went on to say:

Bluefin tuna have been earmarked by environmental NGO's as a target species that they believe to be 'threatened' …

…   …   …

… sceptics could see this as an insidious ploy to achieve a pre-determined Green outcome with a massive decoy. Regardless of the hypothesis … professional fishermen do not deserve to be punished any more due to Ministerial incompetence.

It is a good point that Mr Logan makes. Does a campaign being run by the Greens against another commercial fishing activity mean that that fishing activity will have a social impact as defined by the original bill? If ragtag leftie groups like GetUp! or Greenpeace target the voters of the member for Melbourne—all those inner-city Melburnians—with massive billboards and Facebook pages and email campaigns to close down bluefin tuna fishing because they do not like it, does that mean bluefin tuna fishing constitutes a social impact as defined by the original bill.

But again it is the member for Dobell to the rescue, with his amazing amendment powers that have no doubt been derived from the office of the Leader of the House. Social impact? Zap, it is gone. Economic impact? Zap, it is gone too. But the environmental factors remain, which means that the minister still has the unfettered power to stop on a whim any lawful commercial fishing activity in this nation if he believes it poses an environmental risk—there need be no science and no consultation entered into.

If the Pew foundation widened its scope and decided to lock up all northern waters to commercial fishermen across the entirety of, say, the Great Barrier Reef catchment area, which is under Commonwealth control, if they bombarded the minister with email after email and they got phony reports funded by the environmental lobby to get a specific outcome, could commercial fishing in North Queensland suddenly be defined as something that has an environmental impact? The answer is, yes, it could, because the bill, even with the proposed amendments, still gives the environment minister unfettered power to put a stop to any commercial fishing anywhere at any time. And it could have stopped recreational fishing too if we had not pointed out the problem with this bill. This is marine parks by stealth that gives the environment minister the right to stop commercial fishing and tourism charter fishing. Why do you need such a nuclear bomb of a response to squash one trawler unless of course you are gearing up for a scorched earth policy?

Now we hear that there are more amendments on the table perhaps to do with the member for Kennedy, who I know is a supporter of the North Queensland industry and would not be able to bring himself to support the original bill or the bill in its proposed amended form. It shows what a mess of a government this is, making it up as it goes along. The environment minister has proven he does not give a damn about what the Australian commercial fishing industry—or the recreational sector, for that matter—actually thinks. He has proven that through his attitude to them on his marine park fishing lockout proposal. He proved that when announcing the consultation for the proposal, saying, 'It is too late for people to say they want this line shifted or that zone painted a different colour. The question now is very straightforward: do we go ahead with the most comprehensive marine park network in the world or do we not?' That is some consultation—just take it because we are certainly not going to leave it, not with the Greens' tail wagging this dog of a government. That is his approach. So the minister has form in ignoring the fishing community. He has form in upsetting them. It would not be hard to conceive that this environment minister and this dog of a government, being wagged by the Greens tail, could lock up a fishery, that he could ban any commercial fishing anywhere in Commonwealth waters at any time he chooses.

Now there is talk of a root-and-branch review . I saw in the Australian yesterday the head of WA's Austral Fisheries saying that the outcome of this review could be 'Armageddon' for the commercial fishing industry in this nation. He went on to describe the review as something that is 'inspired by politics'. Again, it is not difficult to see where all of this is heading, because already the tail is wagging. Greenpeace's ocean campaigner Nathaniel Pelle has said this week that:

… fisheries management needs to be changed to be based on ecosystem management and the "precautionary principle", where if there is a risk of damage—even if the scientific evidence is uncertain—fishing should not be allowed.

So there we go—there could be the precautionary principle in place with fishing. What is happening? If when you dangle a line over a boat you may catch a fish, well, don't do it. That is ridiculous, but that is the direction we are heading in.

This is why the Australian commercial fishing industry is against this proposal. This is why the recreational fishing sector was against the original bill that was put on the table, and a lot of them are still against it. This is why the Liberal-National coalition is against the bill as it currently is. I call on the government to deal with the actual problem, the problem that they created. Deal with it and deal with it alone and let us keep Australia fishing without this dark shadow of bans hanging over every tinny, longline fisherman, trawler, charter boat and commercial fishing operation in this country. Come and talk to the shadow environment minister. Come and talk to the shadow fisheries minister. Let's put something on the table that deals exclusively with the supertrawler Margiris. Let's not use an atom bomb to kill an ant. Let's not destroy the Australian fishing industry or give the minister the power to destroy it with this bill.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk briefly about the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 because I have a very keen interest in marine biology. This bill draws a very stark contrast between Labor's view of the environment and the view of those opposite. I think that is best exemplified by the comments made by the member for Dawson just now. As usual in the comments that we hear from those opposite there has been overblown language like 'Armageddon' and 'atom bombs'. There has been the extreme language typical of those opposite, with no measured or reasoned response. It is always overblown and extreme.

Our oceans and waterways are critical to our survival in so many ways. We are a very dry continent surrounded by vast oceans. It is the role of good government to protect our natural resources and our oceans. It is the role of government to respond when the community expresses concerns about something as significant as this. The Gillard government have shown that we take the environment seriously. Unlike those opposite—and we have just heard from one of them—we believe that human beings influence the environment and that we must therefore take every possible measure to reduce the impact we have on the environment. Overfishing or inadvertently killing marine life is something we must prevent.

I am very supportive of the approach taken by the environment minister to extend his legal powers over the supertrawler FV Abel Tasman. What Minister Burke has done is ensure our precious oceans and fishing waters are properly protected, because if we get this wrong, if the science and advice is not double-checked, the outcomes could be very damaging. My office—and I am sure those of many others here—has been contacted by Canberrans and other Australians concerned about the possibility that this supertrawler could catch marine life like dolphins, seals, seabirds and threatened or protected species.

Anyone who has spent any time swimming in Australia's oceans, particularly in the Great Barrier Reef, begins to appreciate the sensitivity of our marine life and our oceans and to value them. I have been very lucky to have had the experience of spending quite a bit of time swimming and snorkelling up on the Great Barrier Reef. There is a whole new world down there that I have been lucky enough to see and appreciate, and I want to cherish it.

At Christmas time I, like about two-thirds of Canberrans, head to the South Coast. It is sort of Canberra-by-the-sea at Christmas time. I, like everyone else, headed down there for a break and there are a lot of areas that are protected now. The marine life has been protected. There are a lot of zones up and down the South Coast that are now protected. We were down at Guerilla Bay and there is a lovely little inlet there with a cave under the water that you can go snorkelling in. For the first time, I saw a seal at Guerilla Bay. It was just extraordinary, because like everywhere along the South Coast there are Canberrans who have been going there for decades. There was a man on the beach who had been going there since 1961 and he said this was the first time in his life he had seen a seal in Guerilla Bay, which is pretty extraordinary, given the location. I think that highlights what can be achieved when we look after our marine life and protect our marine areas and how they can be replenished and rejuvenated as a result of our taking care of them, taking them seriously and cherishing them.

I understand the concerns about this particular issue. As I said, I have had many, many people from my electorate as well as throughout Australia contact my office, because the stakes here are very high. We are not talking about a simple fishing vessel here; this is about a supertrawler. It is the industrialisation of fishing. If something goes wrong, if the science is not as originally predicted, then the price we pay will be irreversible.

There are also genuine concerns, despite what the member for Dawson said, from some recreational fishers. They are people like me who have a genuine concern about our marine life and the health of our oceans. There are also concerns that we get this right so that future generations have sustainable fish stocks. I remember my husband telling me about a time he was flying up to China, I think, or somewhere in North Asia. It was at night-time, he was up in the cockpit with the pilot and they were looking down on the waters there. It must have been some bay that he was overlooking. He said that there was a row of lights, of boats in the ocean, almost cheek by jowl. They were lined up right across the ocean, going out to fish in those oceans. Just think about the consequences and what that means, the impact on the marine life when you have those sorts of volumes, not just here in Australia but throughout the region. It is incredibly important that we have sustainable fish stocks in Australia but also throughout the world. That is why I really welcome this decision by Minister Burke.

I also welcome a cautious approach when it comes to the sustainability and future health of our oceans and our marine life. I would have thought that those opposite would share our caution when concerns are raised and join with the government in ensuring critical decisions are made based on the best scientific evidence. It is the right thing to do, to put a pause on fishing activities like this and make the right decision. Like many others, when I first heard about this supertrawler I was concerned. Like many others, I made my concerns known and this is why I am so pleased with the actions taken by the minister to ensure further investigation of the issues and the evidence.

I also welcome the review that the minister has announced into fisheries management. Fishing techniques have changed dramatically over recent decades. We have not had a review of this nature for 20 years. I think the last really serious world-leading fishing management approach was taken by the Hawke government in the early 1990s. So I really welcome the review and this root and branch assessment of how we maintain our fisheries and our world leading status in that area. I commend the government for responding to a matter of great importance to the people of Canberra and to Australians and to the future of our fisheries and our ocean life.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak strongly against this bill in front of us. It is not because I am enamoured of the concept of the supertrawler but rather for three fundamental reasons. First, in no good conscience could I support a bill that gives such unfettered power to a minister to close down fisheries on a whim. Second, this bill represents a decision of the minister which is completely at odds with everything he has said and done over the last three years. By making this decision at the last minute, he causes 50 jobs to be lost and creates investor uncertainty for everyone. Finally, the independent expert authorities give us no reason to make such an immediate and hasty decision.

I will move to the first point that I have outlined. This bill is an attempt to address community concerns about the supertrawler, but in writing this bill and putting it through the parliament the minister has gone to an extreme situation. You just have to look at the operative clause of the bill in front of us. The operative clause says that the minister can make a decision to stop any fishing going on if there is any uncertainty about the environmental, social or economic impacts of the fishing activity. It is an extraordinary clause in this bill. If the minister believes there is any social, economic or environmental uncertainty in relation to the activity in question, the minister can immediately close down that particular activity which he or she may be concerned about. The types of things which the minister may be concerned about can include—and this is also in the bill itself—the method of fishing; the type of vessel used for fishing; a method of processing, carrying or transhipping of fish; or any area of waters or of the seabed.

So, on the basis of the smallest social complaint, the minister is able to make a decision overnight and close down an entire area, close down an entire type of fishing, or close down any type of vessel for any social, economic or environmental complaint.

It is extraordinary. You can imagine the implications, if we pass this bill, as to what GetUp! and the Greens will continue to do. They will start campaigns not just on the supertrawler today; mark my words: tomorrow it will be the next level of boat or it will be the next type of waters which they are concerned about. They will show that one seal has been killed somewhere and demand that the minister close down a certain area of water from further fishing. This puts into jeopardy every single commercial venture and every single social fishing expedition people may enjoy.

It is not just us saying this. The peak fisheries body, the Commonwealth Fisheries Association, which represents the interests of fishers in Commonwealth managed fisheries—a significant part of Australia's $2.2 billion seafood industry—has this to say about this bill:

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

That is the view from the peak body, the Commonwealth Fisheries Association—that it is simply not acceptable because it creates so much uncertainty, not just for the large trawlers but for commercial and recreational fishers as well. It is fundamentally unacceptable to give the minister so much power in order to make a decision based on a whim.

The second reason that I speak against this bill is that it represents a decision of the minister which is completely at odds with everything that he has said or has agreed to up to this point. It makes a mockery of the entire Australian Fisheries Management Authority process. Let me give you some context in relation to this decision, Mr Deputy Speaker. Here in Australia we have some of the most sustainable fisheries management practices in the world. It is widely acknowledged across the planet that we have some of the most sustainable fisheries management practices in the world. The fisheries are overseen by an independent statutory authority, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, and it takes advice from scientific experts about the environmental implications, what catches we can take et cetera, to ensure that the fisheries are sustainable. In its own words, it says it takes a conservative approach to the management of our fisheries so that they are sustainable. I should point out that every single one of the commissioners who sit on the Australian Fisheries Management Authority has been appointed by Minister Burke, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, the key minister here. This authority sets the total allowable catches and it polices them. That is what it does, and it does an exceptionally good job at it. No-one has ever criticised this authority for not doing its job well. It does an exceptionally good job. If there are any concerns in relation to it, they are properly taken up with the authority.

Three years ago, on the advice of the authority—in fact, under the auspices of the authority—the minister launched the small pelagic fishery harvest strategy. This is a strategy which, based on the science at the time, provides the overarching framework for fishing in the nation. In this document, which was launched in June 2008 but revised in October 2009, Minister Burke in fact invites supertrawlers to come to our fishing locations. It is right here on page 1 of the document. Mr Burke invites large-scale factory freezer vessels to come and fish in our areas because they provide economies of scale. That occurred three years ago.

Over the last three years, AFMA, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, has been giving the all clear to this supertrawler along the way. As recently as last week, Minister Burke himself announced that, after a 'rigorous assessment' of the environmental impact of the supertrawler soon to commence fishing, he would impose 'tough new environmental conditions' to ensure 'world's best practice' fishing was adopted. He went on to say that this would 'ensure that the environmental impact is no more than if the same quota was being fished by a smaller vessel'. That occurred one week ago.

So three years ago Mr Burke invited the supertrawler to come down to fish. Over the course of the three years, his independent export authority, the commissioners of which are all appointed by him, gave the all clear, encouraged the supertrawler, did all the negotiations and signed off on all the scientific and environmental considerations. One week ago, Minister Burke said that there is no problem here and that there is no difference between one large boat and multiple small boats. Even as recently as Monday, the day before the decision, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry himself, in the Senate, again gave the all clear to this occurring. He said:

… I will not allow the emotive politics of the Greens political party to run fisheries management policy in this country. We will ensure that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority is independent, that it makes independent decisions based on the science through its expert commissioners and on the facts that are presented to them.

That was on Monday. On Tuesday, we had the minister make the decision, because of the campaign of GetUp! and because Kevin Rudd was going to support Melissa Parke's bill, and 50 jobs were gone overnight.

This is no way to run our fisheries. It makes a mockery of the entire process. Even overnight, the Dutch Deputy Prime Minister—and bear in mind that the Dutch are some of our key allies—has called the fisheries minister to express his concern over what has occurred here, and he has made this public. Rarely does it occur that a head of state, a deputy head of state or a head of government makes public their concern about the governance of another country, particularly when they are from a country which is such a strong ally of ours. But this is on the front page of the Australian today. The Deputy Prime Minister of the Netherlands is expressing his concern, and he is doing so because it has been a seven-year process and yet, overnight, with no warning, the decision has been made to simply halt this action.

The question was asked, and I know our shadow ministers have asked Minister Burke: did you seek advice on this decision? Did you speak to any experts, any scientists? Did you go and speak to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority before you made this decision? Apparently the answer was no. He did not need to speak to anyone. He spoke to his department, apparently, but did not speak to any experts before making this decision. I just find this absolutely extraordinary. It is no way to run a country to make such decisions like that.

My third reason for strongly opposing this bill is that the independent authorities, the expert scientists that the other side of the parliament constantly say that we should be relying upon, give us no reason to make such an immediate, hasty decision. In fact, the advice coming from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority is quite clear. They say that no more than seven per cent of the fish stock may be taken from any fishery, and they say that there is no evidence that larger boats pose a higher risk to the fish stock or to the marine ecosystem than smaller boats. That is the advice from the government's appointed commissioners in charge of managing our fishing authority.

If we are concerned about the impact on the environment from new developments in fishing technology, we must go through a proper process of reviewing the overall system. If you are concerned about our quotas, then go through a proper process where you consult with the industry and consult with other stakeholders about your concern about the quotas being taken, but do not just make a decision on the run, like this government did on Tuesday, out of the blue, and create so much uncertainty for the entire fishing industry in doing so.

This is not the first time that the government has made such decisions, because we know it did exactly the same thing in relation to live animal exports. On that occasion, it was a television program which caused it to make a decision on the spot which shut down an entire industry, put hundreds of people out of work and put into jeopardy the food security of one of our near neighbours, Indonesia. This government has form in this type of decision making, but this is not the way to run the country. If this government is serious about managing our fisheries then it should listen to what the Australian Fisheries Management Authority has said. It should conduct its processes rigorously and systematically over time, listening to the stakeholders and doing proper consultation, rather than having this knee-jerk reaction, making decisions on the run because of a GetUp! and green campaign.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to a debate which enables us to shine a spotlight on fishing and the way we sustainably manage a precious resource in this island nation, a debate which enables us to talk about the ecology, ensuring that we get the right balance between the ecological management of the fishing stock, the commercial interests and the recreational interests in fishing in this country. Of course, Deputy Speaker, you would know very well that any time a government, local, state or federal, seeks to regulate in the area of fishing or the use of our oceans it excites the passions of this nation. That is so because Australians love the water and they love their fishing. It was so when the government moved, quite properly, to establish marine parks in this country. At that stage we saw many people entering the debate in defence of recreational fishers, raising, in our view, unfounded concerns about the impact that those marine parks would have on the enjoyment of recreational fishing. It is disappointing that some of those speakers have not come to this debate with the same passion.

I would like to say a few things about the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012. The bill will provide for the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, jointly with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, to declare a fishing activity where there is some uncertainty about the environmental, social or economic impacts of that fishing activity. Once the ministers jointly declare an activity, that activity may be prohibited for a period of up to 24 months. During that period the bill provides for the establishment of an expert panel and for consultation to occur regarding the economic, social or environmental concerns that led to the declaration of that activity. In short, it enables a process for further scientific, economic or social impact studies to be done on the specific activity which has excited the declaration and the concern of the minister and the community.

It is a good process. It has come about because we have discovered, through the recent events surrounding the Margiris, now the Abel Tasman, that there are gaps in the laws, gaps that do not empower the Commonwealth government to appropriately respond to community concern around the ecological impacts of large-scale factory ships such as the Margiris.

It is worth saying a little bit about the Margiris, because it is obvious that the appearance of this ship on our horizon is what has led to this debate before the parliament. It is unprecedented. There is no doubt that we have factory ships, or large-scale trawlers, operating in Australian waters at the moment. That is absolutely true. But there is nothing on the scale of the Margiristhe Abel Tasmanoperating in Australian waters. It is a 140-metre long ship. As some recreational fishermen in my electorate have said to me, it is about 100 times the size of the trawlers we see in Wollongong Harbour and Port Kembla Harbour, trawlers which operate along the coast. So it is a giant. It has nets in excess of 600 metres. Just to put that in some perspective, a net that size would be big enough to more than surround the Sydney Cricket Ground. These are enormous enterprises. Its freezers have a holding capacity of over 6,000 tonnes. That is more than four times the holding capacity of any ship which currently operates in Australian waters.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your minister approved it.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have significant concerns about the operation of these factory ships, these super-trawlers, not only in Australian waters but anywhere else. The sophistication of these operations really does take the chance out of the fishing exercise. They simply do not miss. The fact that the Margiris has freezers on board which, as I have said, hold up to 6,000 tonnes of fish at any one point in time enables it to concentrate its fishing activities in one particular area—effectively depleting the stock in that area. We are talking about a fishing or trawling capacity which has never before existed in this country's waters.

It is not just about the quotas. It has been argued that it should not make any difference whether the Margiris is a big ship or a small ship, that it is the quota—the Margiris's quota is 10 per cent of the total catch—we should focus on. There may be some merit to that argument, but I would make this point: when you have an operation as massive as the size of this ship permits, the bycatch is a major concern. Whilst the owners of the Margiris may have a licence which only permits them to take about 18,000 tonnes of mackerel and red bait, they have to throw a hell of a lot of other fish away in the process of obtaining that 18,000 tonnes. It is has been suggested to me that the bycatch can often exceed the amount the trawler extracts legally in filling its quota. It is not the same as when you or I go fishing. When we pull in a fish which is undersized, oversized or not what we are after—not edible—you can just throw it back and it swims off, maybe with a bit of a sore mouth or a scar. Once fish are caught up in the massive super-trawler nets, they are either drowned or crushed by the exercise. You can be throwing away as many dead fish as you are bringing in and sticking in your freezer. So there is a lot of legitimate scientific concern about the impact of a ship this size operating in our waters.

I have heard a number of objections and interjections during the course of this debate, most recently from my friend the member for Hume, who is in the chamber at the moment. I also heard the contributions of the member for Dawson and the member for Aston. I will go directly to some of the concerns they raised. I never thought I would agree with the member for Dawson on a major issue, but we heard him say that he actually opposes these super-trawlers, these factory ships. But he also opposes this bill. The reason he is going to oppose the bill is that he did not like the process by which the bill came before the House. That is the essence of his argument. He says he hates the fact that we are going to have a factory ship operating in our waters. And I believe him on this—he has form. I have heard him speak quite passionately on many occasions in defence of recreational fishing and small-scale commercial fishing. So I believe he is genuine when he stands in this place and raises concerns about the impact of a large ship like this on commercial and recreational fishing, particularly in relation to his electorate.

But, if he is right and there was some problem with the process by which the bill came before the House, doesn't opposing it just compound the problem? If he says, 'In spite of my objections, I am going to vote down this bill because I did not like the process by which it came before the House', doesn't that just compound the problem? This is a perfect example of how the opposition operate—they will put politics before principle every time. We heard it from the member for Dawson just now. We heard him stand up and say, 'I want to see this factory ship banned from our waters', but in the next breath we heard him say, 'I am going to vote against the only show in town which gives us an opportunity to do that.' We have seen no better example of how those opposite put politics before principle every time.

The reason for opposing this legislation given by the member for Aston, whose contribution was immediately before mine, was that he is a champion of the science. It is very refreshing, I have to say, to see members of the Liberal and National parties championing science. They do not have a lot of form in that regard. You will never see them championing the science when it comes to climate change and you will never see them championing the science when it comes to a whole heap of other environmental activities. But on this one they have stuck their hands up to champion the science. If that is their real objection, they should support this bill, because this bill provides for an expert scientific panel to be brought together to investigate and make recommendations about the specific activity which is the subject of the declaration.

So, if their objection truly is to making regulations or government decisions that are not based on science, they should support this bill, because that is exactly what the bill is designed to do—it is designed to empower the minister for the environment and the minister for fisheries to put in train a process which enables us to marshal the most up-to-date and most specific scientific evidence available to see whether the existence of a factory ship such as the Abel Tasman will have the ecological impact that many of us in the community fear it will. If their objection is that we should not be making regulation or decisions that are not based on science—it is a novel objection from those opposite—then that is a reason they should support this bill.

Another issue that has been raised by members of the Liberal and the Nationals, sometimes in debate and sometimes outside the chamber, is that the owners of the Abel Tasman have invested in the ship and suspending their operations, however justified that suspension might be, is unfair. I have some sympathy for that argument, but I have done some research into it as well. I have learned that this ship does not operate exclusively in Australian waters. It operates here for a relatively short period, and it operates in many other countries as well. I note in passing that we are not the only country to have contemplated banning the ship from operating in coastal waters. Other countries have banned the operation of this and other ships from their coastal waters because of the fear, or the proof, of the devastating impact it can have on marine life in coastal waters. We are not the first country to contemplate this and I daresay we will not be the last, given the increasing awareness that countries around the world have about the impact of overfishing and intensive fishing practices on our marine resources.

I support the bill and welcome the fact that we have been able to have this debate. If we want to continue to enjoy our fishing industry, our wonderful marine ecology and our recreational fishing, we need to ensure that we are responsibly managing our coastal resources. This bill puts in place additional powers for the ministers to do that, and to do it in a way that is based on science, on economics and on an apprehension of the social impacts of these more intensive, large-scale fishing practices. For these reasons the bill should enjoy the support of all members of the House.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an absolute mess! I never thought we would be back here so soon trying to clean up another absolute debacle, but we are. We are once again here debating legislation as a result of this government following GetUp!, deciding it will make policy on the run as a result of what GetUp! has had to say. The best way to describe the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill is GetUp! governing. It is a complete mess; it is a complete overreaction to a problem. It reminds me of what we saw with the Indonesian live cattle debacle. If proper processes had been followed from the very start, this bill would not be here today.

Let me step back and look at the roles each of the relevant ministers have played in the bill being debated today. There is the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who has failed to do his job of standing up for AFMA and standing up for the science-driven processes that drive AFMA. He has been asleep at the wheel once again, like he was with the live cattle debacle. He has not put the science out there, he has not defended the science, and where questions have been asked about the science—relevant and pertinent questions, particularly when it comes to the impact on local fish stocks—he has not said anything. As proof of that, on behalf of the recreational fishermen in my electorate I wrote to the minister on 9 August asking him about the concerns they had raised about the impact on local fish stocks. I have not even had the courtesy of a reply yet. In the paper today we now see evidence that issues were raised about this as early as June, and yet there is silence from the minister.

What about the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, who is responsible for the great drafting of this legislation? Based on this piece of legislation the minister for the environment could not draft a grade 2 essay. It had been in the parliament for less than 12 hours, and we already had the member for Dobell and others already proposing amendments to him and telling him he had completely messed this up. And he has messed it up. Instead of boasting about what happened to the Greens in the council elections in New South Wales, maybe he should say their performance was because he is now so caught by environmental groups that he is the reason the Greens are declining—because they are all looking to him and saying, 'Minister for the environment, you are greener than green'.

That is the problem.

The minister for the environment should also look at the way he goes about things. Instead of his 'I, I, I', he should be thinking, 'I am part of a process. I should listen to what the minister for fisheries and the minister for trade have to say. I should listen to the party room, to the collective voices.' Rather just going out and saying, 'I am wonderful, I am this, I am that, I did this', he should just let go of the ego a little bit and get back to governing properly and with due process. We have that great example of him heading off to Victoria on a big media junket to try and highlight the impact of the trial the Baillieu government were going to do, putting cattle back into national forests. Now, there are some serious issues there, but what did the minister for the environment do? He got in his four-wheel-drive, with a great media pack behind him, tried to drive up into the Alps and got bogged. And that was the news story: he got bogged and then had to go back—all because it was a complete media stunt to get attention for himself rather than deal with the issues as he should have been doing.

Then there is the minister for trade. Where has he been? We know he was mute when the decision on the live cattle trade with Indonesia was made in the cabinet room. Now we find out that the Dutch government are watching this issue unfold and saying, 'What the hell is going on in Australia?' Our good reputation is now being trashed. The sovereign risk for Dutch companies is now being trashed. And where is the minister for trade—I mean the minister for the Whyalla wipe-out? Where is he? He is again mute on an issue which fundamentally goes to how we are seen internationally, particularly how our trade performance is seen internationally, and about how overseas companies can invest in this country without sovereign risk.

Apologies to Lewis Carroll, but I think he is going to have to rewrite Alice in Wonderland, because we have the minister for fisheries, Tweedledum, and the minister for the environment, Tweedledee; but now there is this new character, the minister for trade, Tweedledo-nothing—Tweedledum, Tweedledee and Tweedledo-nothing. That is what this government are like. The process around this is a sham. It would be laughable if it were not such a serious matter, because look at the powers the bill gives to Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The bill gives the minister the power to, with a stroke of a pen, prohibit fishing via an interim declaration, stating:

When making an interim declaration, the Minister may identify a fishing activity by reference to all or any of the following:

(a) a method of fishing;

(b) a type of vessel used for fishing;

(c) a method of processing, carrying or transhipping of fish that have been taken;

(d) an area of waters or of seabed.

So these minister's powers, which are not based on good process, not based on the science, can have an impact depending on the type of fishing, whether recreational or commercial; and the size of the boat, big or small; and so on. The only thing that is not mentioned in the bill, that they have not tried to cover, is the old fishing rod. It surprises me that they have not put that in there as well. I am surprised that they do not also want control of the fishing rod or, by extension, the handline. But they have not gone quite that far.

Under the bill, the government can prohibit a fishing activity if there is 'uncertainty about the environmental, social or economic impacts of the fishing activity'. They are saying: 'Forget about a science based approach, forget about driving industry certainty based on the science; we're going to take into account the social or economic impacts.' In particular, the 'social' aspect of this should be of great concern to everyone, because, as I said at the start, what we are seeing here is GetUp! governing. We are not seeing due process. We are not seeing the government listening to the scientific community or thinking about the various issues at stake and saying, 'Okay, if there are questions about certain parts of the science, let's have them investigated and looked at properly.' What we have here means that, if there is a campaign by people who are opposed to fishing full stop, their considerations can be taken into account and lead to the prohibition of certain types of fishing. For instance, if a popular fishing competition had been occurring for a number of years but, all of a sudden, there was a social media campaign against it, the bill gives the minister the power to stop the competition. It is not based on asking whether the catch from the tournament has any impact on fish stocks. Basically, the minister would have the power, based on a few emails and a few tweets, to stop such an activity.

The reason this is so alarming is that, when it comes to Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, there are people whose intentions might be fine but who do not know or understand the science and the practices behind what occurs in these important areas of our economy. Because of that, through misinformation and misperception, they can be misled. What we do not want to see is a government that will flip-flop, overreact or have a knee-jerk reaction to these types of issues, because it puts investment in those important areas at risk.

At the moment, with this bill before the parliament, who would invest in commercial fishing, knowing that, due to a social media campaign, the licence for that commercial fishing could be just pulled away? We will freeze investment in commercial fishing and Australian commercial fishing is the most sustainable in the world. AFMA has the best reputation of any fisheries management authority in the world, yet through this whole debacle we see all that trashed by these processes and trashed in an absolutely appalling way.

I cannot, in good conscience, support the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 because it puts in jeopardy our way of life in Australia and I do not want that to occur. I do not want to allow fishing to be held to ransom by social media and I do not want governing to be held to ransom by social media.

We need to step back, to go back to proper process. We have to make sure that we govern this country with certainty, to ensure that people are encouraged to invest. Let us get on the record once again that the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, through his policies, encouraged this vessel to come here. We need to remind everyone that there are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large-scale factory freezer vessels. That is what the minister for the environment put in a publication in 2009. He tried to walk away from it yesterday, but he should be responsible enough to say, 'Yes, I did put that publication out.' So we encourage them to come in, and then what happens? There is a campaign against it. Does the minister say, 'Let's review the science again. Some issues have been raised with us, especially to do with local fish stocks. Should we look at the science around those areas and make a considered opinion? No, we won't, we will have a knee-jerk reaction. We will say to the people we encourage to come to Australia, "Sorry, sovereign risk, so you are basically parked for two years while we try to deal with the mess we have created."' At the same time, the government do not defend the science which has ensured that our fisheries management is regarded as absolutely world-class.

In my time in this parliament I have now seen two debacles. How this government handled live cattle export to Indonesia was a disgrace and the impacts are still being found. If this bill passes, it will be a similar debacle because the powers it will give to Tweedledum and Tweedledee are beyond the pale.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I compliment the member for Wannon on his contribution today. While he put a little bit of humour into the debate, he raised very serious matters associated with the fishing industry in this country. At the outset, can I make the point that the coalition supports sustainable fisheries management and practices. I also put on the record that it was Minister Burke who created this issue by inviting these types of vessels to Australia as part of his 2009 Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy. Page 2 of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority strategy states:

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

That should have sent a very compelling message to the fishing industry that the minister was already focused on what he was going to do in terms of bringing large fish-harvesting vessels into our waters. Let us talk about the unlimited power on the basis of social uncertainty, which the minister has talked about. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 gives the minister extraordinary and unfettered powers and threatens every Australian family fishing operation. The bill states at 390SD(2):

When making an interim declaration, the Minister may identify a fishing activity by reference to all or any of the following:

(a) a method of fishing—

which the member for Wannon alluded to when he talked about where we go next, to the banning of fishing rods or handlines—

(b) a type of vessel used for fishing—

I have a vessel which I use for recreational fishing. I do not get to use it much but I have it down on the coast at Bermagui. I noticed with interest the member for Eden-Monaro voicing for the first time some concern about the fishing industry at Bermagui, which has a considerable number of commercial vessels. The bill continues:

(c) a method of processing, carrying or transhipping of fish that have been taken;

(d) an area of waters or of seabed.

I want to talk about sustainable fisheries and the way in which the fishing industry and the recreational fishermen in this country have looked after them. A few years back, we had a very serious problem in relation to the way kingfish were being trapped in our waters, on what it was doing to their numbers. The problem was rectified not through pressure from the environmental groups that drive this country but from pressure by the recreational fishing groups who are concerned about what this was doing to the species. I remind the community that it has not just been kingfish; it has been ongoing in the protection of our crustaceans, shellfish and the many other species around our coastline.

I have concerns about, and did have concerns about, what this minister was promoting in terms of this huge gigantic trawler. Why did I have concerns? Because his language when he was talking about it was the same language as the language he used when he was talking about shutting up our national parks in Victoria. I had a few words to say to the minister about that particular issue because shutting up the national parks to cattle grazing has been proven in the past to be a catastrophic exercise on behalf of the flora and fauna within those national parks. I do not want to see that happening with our fish stocks. In closing off on that particular comment, in 1992 I warned another environment minister about the repercussions of that particular move, and in 2003 we saw what locking up a national park can do not only to our native flora and fauna but what it can do to people's lives. I was proven to be correct on that.

The minister has gone to the extreme by giving himself unlimited powers which will impact on every family fishing boat around the country. The minister must not make an interim declaration unless the minister and the fisheries minister agree that there is uncertainty about the environmental, social or economic impacts of the fishing activity. Once more, the government is making policy on the run, and in the process is giving the minister unlimited powers that go way beyond addressing the current issue and the current concerns. The minister, under this act, will be able to overturn any fishing activity on the basis of even the slightest social complaint. And, importantly, any fishing activity can be overturned without the need for evidence. Uncertainty can be created by a complaint from a political source. The same absolute powers apply to economic or environmental complaints. In a new addition to the EPBC Act, the criteria now includes social impacts. It appears that the act is no longer about the environment.

What about sovereign risk, which has been raised here today by a number of people? This decision creates sovereign risk issues for existing fishers who hold licences to fish in Australian waters. Australia's commercial fishing industry will not have the confidence to continue to invest if any quota and/or licence can be overturned at the whim of the government.    This decision makes a mockery of the whole Australian Fisheries Management Authority process, which the government relies on for its scientific advice and, which, once again, the member for Wannon referred to.

The precedent of ignoring your own independent management processes and world's best science quite frankly terrifies me in relation to my own concerns about the state of the industry. It is obviously a knee-jerk populist decision with ramifications that are endless in their connotations. The decision this week follows on from the disastrous chaos created by the government with the ban on live exports which resulted in an industry brought to its knees.

And what about the harvest strategies? Australia's fisheries are independently benchmarked. The management strategies are developed based on science and extensive consultation with a broad range of stakeholders, which of course includes the people within the industry itself—that is, the people in the commercial fishing business and the people in the recreational fishing business, which creates a very solid economic base for many of the rural and coastal towns in this great country of ours.

The small pelagic fishery harvest strategy was released in June 2008 and revised in October 2009 with Minister Burke as the fisheries minister. Specifically, that particular strategy states the following:

… small pelagic species are caught in high volumes and have low unit value. Additionally, there are high capital costs associated with the large scale catching units and specific processing infrastructure required. As a result, fishing operators need to have heightened efficiency—

wait for it—

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

Three years ago this current minister made that statement.

Let us now look at that other minister, that very competent, in some people's eyes, agriculture minister who sits in that other place, Minister Ludwig. In August he said in response to a Greens' motion—and you have to really listen to this because it indicates the hypocrisy and the double standards of this government:

This disallowance motion is a message that the Greens political party do not support sustainable catch limits based on science.

I agree with that.

It is a message that says the Greens want fisheries managed by politics, not qualified fisheries managers. And it says that the Greens do not support the commercial operators who fish in some of the world's best managed fisheries.

That message should be well understood, because I have no doubt that the same disregard for the science and management of our commercial fisheries will be extended to the legitimate pursuit of recreational fishing. As Minister for Fisheries—

this is the now agriculture minister—

I will not allow the emotive politics of the Greens political party to run fisheries management policy in this country.

Yes, good on him!

We will ensure that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority is independent, that it makes independent decisions based on the science through its expert commissioners and on the facts that are presented to them. They will continue to make decisions based on sound judgment to ensure that fisheries are sustainable and meet all the ecological requirements—and, moreover, predicated on the precautionary principle so often espoused by the Greens.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He said that?

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gets better:

Why? Because AFMA will continue to apply sound policy to ensure that we will have sustainable fisheries now and into the future. For those reasons, the government opposes this motion.

That is what Joe Ludwig said in the Senate on 23 August 2012, when speaking on the motion to disallow the Small Pelagic Fishery Total Allowable Catch (Quota Species) Determination 2012.

Let us now talk about the science in relation to the other genius minister from this government. AFMA reaffirmed the science regarding the operations of the company on Monday. Minister Burke reaffirmed the science last week. Minister Ludwig reaffirmed the quota on 23 August and Labor voted on it on Monday, 10 September. The quota is not reduced. Burke called for 'large factory freezer vessels' in October 2009 when he was fisheries minister.

In general, I make this point: this legislation is just another tool for the Greens and environmental groups to campaign against our fishing industry. Minister Burke's concerns are based on the capacity of the vessel to fish in one place for a considerable time. The solution to that problem of course could have been to amend the Fisheries Act to allow move-on provisions or spatial management that would prevent localised impacts. The coalition would have supported those moves. Minister Burke is saying, 'If you don't know everything, do nothing.' Minister Burke is not trying to find a way to make it work. He has been desperately looking for some way to lock up more water.

Minister Burke has trashed the reputation of the AFMA commission, and he appointed every member of that commission. Minister Burke has also trashed the reputations of our world-leading scientific community and institutions who had done the science. This government have demonstrated once again that, if you do everything asked of you and then some extra, it is not enough: they will shaft you, they will shaft your business and they will shaft your employees. How can any business operate in an environment such as this? This government now operate on the basis that if a minister is uncertain then nothing should happen. Worse still, this minister did not take steps to find the answer to the things he was uncertain about. He just shut the business down. What message does this give to our researchers and innovators? 'Don't explore your science' means nothing. I think I have said enough on this.

In closing I will quote from a media release by the Australian Marine Alliance:

In summary, skeptics could see this as an insidious ploy to achieve a pre-determined Green outcome with a massive decoy. Regardless of the hypothesis recreational and professional fishermen do not deserve to be punished any more due to Ministerial incompetence.

I think that says it all.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012. Frankly, I am not shocked that we find ourselves in the situation where we have, on yet another issue, a government making it up as they go along. It makes me wonder: what is the use-by date on government policy these days? You would have to classify the product of government policy these days as clearly perishable, because it really does not last very long at all before coming into this place. All it requires is some tweets or an ABC Four Corners program or something of that nature and this government will put themselves into all sorts of convulsions. As my colleague the member for Wannon said, it is government by GetUp!—and that is what we are seeing here.

What is required in these situations is a sober reflection on the serious issues that are at stake here, not the sorts of knee-jerk convulsions that I thought were limited only to the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness when holding press conferences, jigging himself about in public display. But I suppose what we are seeing in policy terms here is pretty much the same as what we saw from the minister for trade on that occasion. We have a government here that is once again, while claiming to be immutable on these sorts of topics, performing a backflip in the space of hours in response to a few tweets and demonstrating that they just do not believe in anything. It is not hard to change your mind as constantly as this government does from one day to the next when you do not believe in anything in the first place. I think this is a matter of significant concern to the Australian people. This is not just a moving feast; this is a moving farce. We are constantly faced with these issues from this government on a regular basis. This matter involves very serious issues that affect not only the sustainability of our environment and our fisheries but affect the thousands and thousands of people who depend on the fisheries industry for their livelihoods.

The complete U-turn on the supertrawler Margiris is just another example of the Labor government making up policy on the run, oblivious to or regardless of the sovereign risk they have created for this nation. At the heart of it, that is why the coalition are so concerned about the way this matter has been brought into this place and it is one of the critical reasons we are not signing up to what the government have sought to impose on this parliament today. There was the live cattle fiasco, there was the East Timor farce, there was the Malaysian people-swap—and it goes on and on and on.

As the government keep making it up as it goes along, it seems to be governing as if there were no yesterday. So, whatever you said and whatever you did yesterday does not matter, and there is no tomorrow. There are no consequences that one has to be accountable for tomorrow; the government lives in the moment. This government constantly lives in the moment. It lives within the space of 130 characters on Twitter rather than actually looking at the broader perspective and at what is necessary to deal with these very sensitive matters before the parliament.

I said the other day that the government had finally stopped a boat and that on this occasion they had stopped a legal one, and it is one they had actually invited in. This is at the heart of the confusion and the uncertainty that the government I think create for themselves, not just on this decision. What confidence can any commercial operator, any investor, have when the government are so clearly and plainly willing to turn policy on its head after working for years and years with a company, indicating all along that there would not be a problem?

It reminds me of that bloke who used to be on the Vicar of Dibley. He used to sit on the parish council, and his contribution to a meeting, when he was asked a question about something, was, 'Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes—no!'' 'No', at the end of the day, was ultimately his answer, but you were always led to believe that he was going to take a different view. And that is what it is like with this government: yes, yes, yes, yes—no; yes, yes, yes, yes—no. What confidence can people have when this government makes policy decisions the perishability of which is so plainly on display in what we have seen here today? It was the minister for fisheries, now minister for environment, who invited large-scale factory freezer vessels to Australia when he said, in relation to the 2009 Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy:

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

You would think, if you were someone who was interested in bringing such a vessel to Australia that that was a pretty good indication that the government was actually on board with this decision. But in 2008 Minister Burke, as fisheries minister said:

small pelagic species are caught in high volumes and have low unit value. Additionally, there are high capital costs associated with the large scale catching units and specific processing infrastructure required. As a result, fishing operators need to have heightened efficiency; and

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

I lament the fact that companies seeking to operate and employ Australians, as this one has done, cannot rely on the stated positions of this government in making decisions about their future and about the future of their operations so that they can make commitments to people in terms of putting employment in place and going about their business.

If the government wants to know what is crashing business confidence in this country they need to look in the mirror, because it is this flip-flop attitude which does not give business any confidence. Of course there are massive problems of increased regulation under this government, which is having a massive impact on productivity and innovation, but when you overlay that with the uncertainty which comes with the way decisions are made in this country you only get yourself into a more serious situation.

I note that even the member for New England this morning, when he was commenting on the ABC, highlighted this issue of sovereign risk, in his understanding and in working through these issues today. I think he was making some very good points. I hope he follows through later today, when this bill is finally considered, having reflected on the very important points that he has raised about the way in which this matter has been handled. As he said this morning, it is not just this issue that is at stake. If this bill is passed today, and this parliament supports the flip-flop attitude of this government, then it is sending a message, as is the government, that investors can have no confidence in the decisions of this government, and business will make investment and employment decisions on the basis of that. How that can be in the national interest is completely beyond me.

The government has been saying how devastated the Greens were after the New South Wales local government elections. They have been trumpeting up their position. I am not quite sure that they have actually reflected on the primary vote results for the Labor Party in those local government elections, but they were at much pains to go out there and trumpet the fact that they had put the Greens in their place, and that the Greens were no longer the tail that was wagging this dog of a government. But it is true that the Greens are the tail that is wagging this dog of the government on a daily basis. Even the minister for fisheries has said, as the member for Hume just reminded the House:

… I will not allow the emotive politics of the Greens political party to run fisheries management policy in this country.

That is tough stuff. He said:

We will ensure that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority is independent, that it makes independent decisions based on the science through its expert commissioners and on the facts that are presented to them.

It would have been great if the companies involved here could have relied on that statement, because he was really putting it out there. He continued:

They will continue to make decisions based on sound judgement—

at least someone was!—

to ensure that fisheries are sustainable and meet all the ecological requirements …

Now there have been a couple of tweets and this minister has turned into a twit in terms of how he has responded to these issues. But he has form, as we know, in relation to the live cattle trade. He absolutely has form when it comes to these issues: talking tough and rolling over. I see it in my portfolio on an almost daily basis. The government seeks to talk tough on these issues but does not have the substance to back up the claims when it really counts.

It is what you do that counts. People make judgements about your performance—on what you do—and what they see happening as a result. And what they are seeing happening in this parliament today is a government that simply cannot make up its mind. It is being blown to and fro by the huffs and puffs of the Greens and GetUp!. That is what is running the policy of this government. That is what is driving them. That is what has become the artificial soul of this government, because this government does not have a soul. It does not believe in anything. It is simply made up of those who will do whatever deal they think will keep their Prime Minister in power and keep themselves in power, and they are trying to manage an unravelling farce which is very plain to the Australian people.

I have concerns, as do my colleagues, about the extensive nature of the powers that are placed in this bill. The overreaction to the issues that are being raised here are similar to the responses we have seen from the government on other occasions.

There have been offerings from the member for Dobell, on which the government is relying, to try to tidy up their first attempt in this. It is not the first time the government has relied on the member for Dobell. The government relies on the member for Dobell every single day for their legitimacy as a government. And it is for them to explain that to the Australian people. It is surprising that they are now relying on the member for Dobell to try to clean up this latest knee-jerk mess that has been brought into this parliament.

The amendments of the member for Dobell, which insert the word 'commercial', do not deal with the problem of charter boat operators, which are—guess what?—commercial. As a result, the protections offered here, at the last minute, do not afford the protections that we believe are necessary to ensure that we are in a position to protect the very important matters that are at stake in this debate.

There are some important facts. The vessel is targeting small pelagic fish. Pelagic fish live near the surface in the water column, not on the bottom of the ocean. They swim continuously in open water and they tend to be nomadic. The Small Pelagic Fishery is managed by AFMA under a statutory management plan. Fish are caught under a quota system. No boat size limits apply in this fishery or in any fishery managed solely by the Commonwealth. The total allowable catch for each species in each zone of a fishery is set annually by AFMA, which the minister who is now the minister for environment endorsed. There are seven such allowable catch limits for the Small Pelagic Fishery. They are set by the AFMA commission, which considers advice from the Small Pelagic Fishery Resource Assessment Group, the South-East Management Advisory Committee and AFMA management and considers other information. The members of this group have expertise in commercial and recreational fishing, conservation matters, fisheries management and fisheries science. It does not include Twitter. I suppose the government has chosen not to listen to the commission because of its inexperience with Twitter, which is where the government gets its advice from. It includes representatives from AFMA, resource assessment groups, states, industry bodies, scientists and economists. It also has representatives from the environment and recreational sectors. AFMA must be informed of all catch landed and it must verify this information. The harvest strategy is more precautionary than the Marine Stewardship Council's global best practice. The harvest strategy is based on sound science, recognises the ecological importance of the species and is precautionary. The strategy has three tiers, which allows for higher potential catches where there is a higher level of information known about the stock. The harvest strategy restricts the total catch for each species to a maximum of 20 per cent of the estimated stock biomass. It limits the catch in a way that ensures fishing does not cause the stock to decline to unsustainable levels. Total allowable catches for small pelagic fisheries are small. They are set at 10 per cent of stock for the redbait east fishery. For all other small pelagic fisheries the Margiris will be harvesting, the current allowable catch is 7.5 per cent of the estimated stock biomass.

The advice was clear. This government always says it likes to take advice. The science supports the position the government took previously, but it is in conflict with the urgings of what has become the soul of this government: GetUp! and the Greens. As a result, we are seeing a backflip which we can add to the many other backflips we see daily from this government. I call on the parliament not to allow this farce to pass the parliament; it must restore some sense to this debate.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012. This is a complete and utter joke. I have been trying to keep track of the amendments being rushed in—three lots in three days, with another series of amendments only one hour ago—as this government responds to an online campaign., as it reacts with a knee-jerk and moves away from policy settings because of Twitter, Facebook and emails. This is no longer a debate about sustainable fisheries management, quota management and how commercial fishing operates. This is now a debate about Labor and what it believes.

All was apparently going well until the member for Fremantle decided to introduce a private member's bill. Then Kevin turned up. The dear old member for Griffith decided to support the member for Fremantle, and now we have a farce of the highest order. We now have the live-cattle-trade disaster operating on the water.

Be in no doubt that the coalition supports sustainable fisheries management and sustainable fisheries practices. We stand for sustainability, but it seems like we are the only party that actually has a view on a disciplined approach to the sustainable management of our fish stocks. It seems like we are the only party that stands up for recreational fishers. The government is in a mess on this—a mess that is entirely of its own making. It is a mess that involves leadership of foreign countries as they seek to understand the level of sovereign risk this government has again put into our economy. This is policy on the run. This government is making it up as it goes along. There have been three sets of amendments to legislation that was formed on the back of a Twitter campaign, after years and years of negotiation. If that is not making it up as it goes along, give me another definition. They have spent years formulating a policy position that they have junked, and then they add amendment after amendment on top of that junked position. If that is not making it up as you go along, can someone please tell me what is? I do not believe the Labor government knows what it wants to achieve. It certainly wants to achieve the stopping of the rise of 'St Kevin'. It certainly wants to achieve the appeasement of a narrow-interest set of Greens, whose vote is now collapsing across the country but whose vote is crucial to keeping this government in power. This debate and this farcical series of multiple amendments is not about sustainable fisheries, it is about the government sustaining itself. It is policy on the run.

History is always instructive. It gives us a lesson on where we have come. History in this case frowns deeply upon this government that is making it up as it goes along. Tony Burke, as the minister for fisheries, created this issue, he was the inception of this issue, because he invited this larger type of vessel as part of his 2009 Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy. It was his strategy. It was his invitation. I will quote what he said on the matter, because it is instructive:

That is what he said—it may include large-scale factory freezer vessels, vessels such as the Abel Tasman, which this government is now going into hyperdrive and overdrive to try to stop.

But, then again, Peter Garrett, the member for Kingsford Smith, had it right in 2007 when he famously said, 'Once we get in we'll just change it all.' I do not think even he envisaged the degree of change this hapless and hopeless government would be inflicting on a daily basis and—looking at the series of amendments coming through—on an hourly basis.

On 23 August we had Senator Ludwig, the current minister for fisheries, criticising the Greens for wanting fisheries managed by politics. Minister Ludwig—that famous minister responsible for taking food away from the Indonesians by banning live cattle export, destroying an industry and displacing thousands of workers, including 600 Aboriginal workers on northern stations—promised that emotive politics would not run fisheries management policy. If years of work followed by a Twitter campaign and now rushed bills, three sets of amendments, proposed private members' bills and a government in chaos is not emotive policy, can someone please tell me what is?

The current minister promised no emotive policies. What is more, he supported the ability of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to make independent decisions based on science to ensure the sustainability of Australia's fisheries. Yet here we are debating a Labor bill slapped together on the back of a beer coaster—probably the same beer coaster this hapless minister wrote on to put together the cancelling of the live export trade to take food away from our most important neighbour, Indonesia—a bill that has now had three lots of amendments, some of them rushed in by none other than the member for Dobell, Craig Thomson. There have been multiple amendments.

The minister said 21 days ago that he supported the ability of the authority to make independent decisions based on science to ensure sustainability. Can the government really look the nation in the eye and say the debacle we are debating today of a rushed bill with rushed amendments really lines up with the government's rhetoric of 21 days ago that they would make independent decisions based on science to ensure sustainability? No wonder people are confused. No wonder people are astonished at what this government is doing. No wonder there is enormous uncertainty in the industry. No wonder we are talking, once again, about sovereign risk.

Labor's policy on the run has again created enormous uncertainty in the industry, enormous uncertainty for those who hold licences to fish in Australian waters and enormous uncertainty for those who lease vessels and seek to bring in vessels or seek to partner with Australian industry. Is it not enough, I ask the government, that you have destroyed the live export of cattle? Do you wish to destroy commercial fishing in the same way? Is that your intended aim? Australia's commercial fishing industry cannot now have the confidence to continue to invest in any quota and/or licence because this bill and its farcical amendments will allow anything to be overturned at the whim of the government.

The Dutch Deputy Prime Minister, Maxime Verhagen, even telephoned the hapless Joe Ludwig on Tuesday to ask why Labor wanted to ban the Abel Tasman, a ship brought to Australia through a private joint venture after seven years of negotiations. After seven years of negotiations, three years of ministerial strategic discussions and one or two days of nonsense from the Labor government here we are.

We oppose the legislation, suffice it to say. It gives unlimited power to the minister on the basis of social uncertainties. One of their three amendments actually knocked out the word 'social' and replaced it with 'commercial'. Frankly, who would know with the number of amendments running through on this hapless bill? It presents enormous risk. There is no indication as to what the term 'uncertainty' means and it provides scope for the minister to stop any fishing activity without any substantive case. The minister could simply wake up in the morning and decide he does not feel good about catching small, defenceless fish and that he is going to refer, on a whim, all commercial fishing ventures to get greater scientific input, which will take two years.

I saw students from a school before—Trinity Lutheran College. It is a great school in my electorate. As I was walking back from the area past Queens Terrace Cafe I walked past the Magna Carta signed at Runnymede in 1215. We have one of only a few copies. I read through the opening paragraphs about the rights under law. Next to the Magna Carta is the fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States—the first 10 comprise their bill of rights. The fifth amendment talks about how, before freedom is taken from you, you have the right to appeal to a court of law. The fact is this bill takes freedom away from commercial fishers. They have in good faith invested in equipment and quotas and done all that society has asked of them, and this government can come in on a whim to take it away. I wonder if we were standing in the House of Representatives in the United States of America whether this bill would survive the fifth amendment of the US constitution.

I am not a lawyer. I am a former Army officer and businessman. I live in the real, practical world where this is nonsense. If you tried this on in a business setting, any business relationship would be quickly axed and your services quickly terminated. If I were to take this to the local pub and ask, 'What you think, team? Does this survive the pub test? For the average Australian, the average reasonable man, is it reasonable that a minister could be able to cancel your livelihood on a whim with no appeal because of a social or other commercial issue? Is that reasonable?'

I think the average man or woman would say no. They would question the implied freedom within that and they would say this is big government going completely and utterly absurd.

Our side of politics does not believe in big government. We believe in individual freedom. We believe you should be free to pursue life, liberty and loves. If any of those are taken away then you have the right to the courts. This bill says you have no such right. It gives unlimited power to the minister on the basis of uncertainty. All fishers will be concerned—no question about it—that these powers can be used against them. This is a cloud over the entire fishing industry.

The issue is no longer about this trawler, and frankly it is only large because of the fact that it has factory freezing and processing on board. This is about how we do business in Australia. This issue is about how a government governs, whether it takes a long-term, unemotive, scientific and disciplined approach. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Joe Ludwig, just 21 days ago criticised the Greens. He said the relevant authority would make independent decisions. He said they would be based on science. He said it would be about ensuring sustainability. He said that 21 days ago. Does the man have such a short memory that he cannot remember what he said about providing certainty to an industry?

Every resource based industry should be concerned with this decision. And for what? The concerns held about one vessel fishing in one place to catch a quota of fish. The quota of fish will be caught anyway. This is not about reducing the amount of fish caught; it will be caught. People who hold the quota to catch the fish simply got together to hire a larger vessel to be more productive. The government speaks about a productivity agenda. Here you have it in real life. People holding quotas to catch fish have got together to be more productive and this government, in an act of simply changing its mind after a Twitter campaign, says: 'No, you can't be more productive. You must go back to catching your individual quotas.' The same number of fish will be caught, except this boat, all the science tells us, will have lower bycatch because of a whole range of inspectors, technologies and cameras on board.

The solution could have been to amend the fisheries act to allow for move-on provisions or spatial management that would prevent localised impacts. We would have supported these moves, but no. The minister is saying he cannot do anything. The minister is saying that productivity is off the table. The minister is saying in response to a Twitter campaign, 'No more.' What is next? What is the next Twitter campaign? What is the next harebrained scheme to come along and lead this government to make it up as it goes along? The nation can only wonder.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012. Like the rest of the coalition, I oppose this bill because it is a bad bill and it has been poorly thought through. Not only that, we have seen chaos and confusion reigning over this bill. As I understand it, less than 24 hours after its introduction and a little over an hour ago the government foreshadowed several amendments to its own bill. But this bill has nothing to do with protecting Australia's fish stocks. It has nothing to do with large trawlers. It is simply about increasing the arbitrary powers of government.

This bill is simply policy on the run. It is a knee-jerk reaction to a social media campaign that does not dealt with the issues. It is all about appeasing a scare campaign from the Greens, who we know are completely anti-fishing and would happily see the entire Australian fisheries industry shut down. When you look through the detail of this bill, it should terrify every small family fishing operation in our nation. Now, at the stroke of the minister's pen, they can be driven out of business and lose everything. They would have no right of appeal, no court that they could turn to.

When we see such knee-jerk reactions and such backflipping legislation as this introduced into the House, is it any wonder that only last week we saw that Australia has slipped down the global rankings in the recently released World Economic Forum's Global competitiveness report? Under this Labor government, in just about every single measure, including our international rankings for reliability and wastefulness of government spending, we are slipping down the ladder. We are going backwards as a nation.

This legislation is bad for many reasons. It is bad because of its ill-defined terms. This legislation provides:

(3)   The Minister must not make an interim declaration unless the Minister and the Fisheries Minister agree that:

(a)   there is uncertainty about the environmental, social or economic impacts of the fishing activity …

Can anyone on the other side start to give us a definition of what is meant by social uncertainty? Can just one member give us a small explanation of what social uncertainty means? Unlikely. The legislation also provides:

(2)   When making an interim declaration, the Minister may identify a fishing activity by reference to all or any of the following:

(a)   a method of fishing;

(b)   a type of vessel used for fishing;

(c)   a method of processing, carrying or transhipping of fish that have been taken;

(d)   an area of waters or of seabed.

These are very broad-ranging powers. Typically, this government has not thought through any of the unintended consequences. Let us just for a minute look at some of the unintended consequences of this poorly thought through legislation and this government's making policy on the run. This legislation gives the minister unlimited powers which go way beyond addressing the current issues and concerns. Every family fishing operator around our nation will be impacted by this. It is simply a Trojan Horse. It has put a cloud over our entire fishing industry. If this legislation passes, the minister can, at the stroke of a pen—without consultation, without warning, simply because he wakes up one morning and considers there is social uncertainty—close down any fishing business in the nation.

In fact, it is this legislation that creates massive economic uncertainty for every small, medium and large fishing business and their employees. They are now faced with great uncertainty, with no right of appeal and no court that they can go to. This legislation itself creates massive social uncertainty for every small, medium and large fishing business and their employees. If this legislation is passed, what happens next time when these small businesses in the fishing industry sit down with their bank for a review? The bank will see that the risk and uncertainty for those businesses has increased simply because of this government's legislation. The business risk has increased, so what will the banks do? Will they ask the small businesses for extra security? What if the businesses do not have the extra security to put in? Will the banks withdraw their facility because of the increased risk created by this government? This is something the government simply has not thought through.

But it is not only businesses currently operating in the fishing sector that are exposed to this ill-thought-out legislation. This legislation sends a message to every potential investor in Australia, in every sector: 'Be afraid, be very afraid, of this Labor government.' This legislation sends out the message: 'If you have met all the rules, requirements and requests of government, if you have worked for years and spent millions of dollars to set up a business here, under this Labor government there is a sovereign risk, for without warning and without consultation, at the last minute, after having done everything that has been asked of you, after having complied with every regulation, this government, on nothing less than a social media campaign, can shut you down and change the rules, after the money has been committed.'

Sadly, this is not a one-off. This Labor government already has form on spooking investors by abrupt decisions and reversals on mining taxes, the carbon tax and live cattle exports. No-one will ever know what investment dollars have been scared off from our country. No-one will ever know what jobs have failed to be created because of the risks that this government has created. Talking of jobs, this legislation is going to kill off jobs directly. This legislation means that 50 Australians, including 45 people engaged in work in Devonport, will lose their jobs. The minister should today, after parliament finishes, jump on a plane, fly down to Devonport, look these people in the eye and apologise to them for costing them their jobs. What other jobs are these people going to find when we close industries down like this? We can only finance Public Service jobs from Commonwealth revenue. Next year could we give these 50 people alternative jobs in the Public Service? It would be great if we could. But next year we need to find, from government revenue, $7 billion to pay interest on the debt that this government has created with its reckless spending. That $7 billion, which we will spend from government revenue to pay off the debt, could have employed 100,000 public servants at $70,000 each. But we cannot do that, because that money instead will go to pay the interest on the debt created by the government's reckless spending.

What is also very concerning about this legislation is how it has been brought about by a misinformation campaign by the Greens. When I first read about this and looked at the papers, the story that came across in the media was that this giant foreign supertrawler was going to come to Australia and vacuum out our entire fish stocks. But the truth could not be further from that misinformation campaign. Simply, there is a strict quota that this trawler will be allowed to take. That quota is the same, whether it is taken by one, two, three, four or more boats. That quota is just 10 per cent of those fish stocks.

It is worthwhile looking at just how well managed our fish stocks are and just how little Australia takes as a nation. We have one of the largest coastlines in the world, yet in Australia we import 70 per cent of the seafood we eat. Only 30 per cent of the seafood we consume here comes from Australian waters. The rest comes from overseas. If you look at marine catches from around the world, you see how little we take and how well protected Australia's fish stocks are. It is quite amazing. China, with a coastline smaller than Australia's, takes over 11 million tons of marine catch every year. Our northern neighbour Indonesia takes close to 3½ million tons of marine catch every year. Thailand takes close to 2½ million tons of marine catch every year. Australia takes less than 200,000 tons. We take less than one-tenth the sea catch that Thailand does. This is how well our fish stocks are protected. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with those fish stocks.

I will conclude with a comment that shows how bad this legislation is. Around the world, people need protein. There are many ways that we can get protein. Our fish stocks are the most efficient way, especially in measurements of greenhouse gas emissions. Our seafood is our most sustainable, best, ecologically proven way of providing that protein. For example, the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide emitted per ton of live weight of poultry meat versus wild-harvest fisheries is worth noting. For beef operations, it is 11.3 to 18.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per live tonne of meat, yet for herring and sardine fisheries—what we are talking about here—it is 0.07 to 0.36 tonnes. Our fisheries are one of the most sustainable industries that we have. This is simply bad legislation. It should be opposed. It should cause great concern to every business and every Australian out there. I cannot support this legislation.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What do we know? We know that our oceans have never been subject to anything like the Margiris, now called the Abel Tasman. This massive 9½-thousand-tonne, 142-metre trawler is twice the size of the largest trawler to have ever fished in Australian waters and can catch more than 90,000 tonnes of fish every year. We also know that supertrawlers have developed reputations all around the world for devastating local marine environments, vacuuming tonnes of fish out of the food chain and killing dolphins, seals and turtles. We also know specifically with regard to the area around Tasmania where it was proposed the Margiris would operate that there is a very real, appreciable risk of localised depletion. The way that this supertrawler would have operated, because it would have caught large numbers of small species close to the surface, would have only enhanced those risks.

We know that these risks are real. Large surface schools of jack mackerel were once common off Tasmania until they were targeted by trawlers more than 20 years ago. These surface schools have since disappeared and have not been seen since. The Margiris supertrawler would have been able to come in and continue vacuuming fish from closer to the surface in particular localised areas, in the context where there is currently no federal government strategy to deal with the problem of localised depletions. There is no federal industry strategy to deal with the problem of localised depletions.

We also know that supertrawlers threaten not only the fish but also other marine life such as dolphins, seals and seabirds, which they are not targeting, simply because they have such huge nets and that is the way that they operate. This has been the experience around the world. And there was never going to be 100 per cent observer coverage of what the Margiris would have done.

We also know that, as far as stock management and those broader fisheries management issues are concerned, we do not have timely and accurate estimates of the fish numbers or how those fish numbers change over time. Blue mackerel were last surveyed in 2004; red bait in 2005 and 2006; and the data for jack mackerel comes from 2003.

As far as this particular supertrawler is concerned, as recently as March this year this trawler was fishing near West Africa off Mauritania and Morocco, where most of the targeted fish stocks are considered fully exploited or overexploited, and local fishermen reported it increasingly hard to find fish and having to go further for longer to get their catch. In December last year, 2011, the Margiris, along with other EU trawlers, was ordered out of occupied Western Sahara waters after the fishing agreement they were fishing under was voted down by the European Parliament following advice that they were breaching international law.

We in the Greens have known these things for some time, but so have the local communities in Tasmania and so have the recreational and professional fishers in Tasmania. They knew that this supertrawler would have threatened their livelihood. They knew that the quota had been doubled previously, precisely to allow this supertrawler in. The recreational and professional fishers, concerned about their livelihoods, wanting to make sure that they could take their kids and their grandkids fishing, came to us in the Greens because neither the Liberal Party nor the Labor Party would listen.

The Greens worked with them and with a range of environmental groups to organise public meetings to try to get their concerns addressed. We did not get satisfactory responses from Seafish, from AFMA or from the fisheries minister. So, in the Tasmanian parliament, the Greens moved a motion opposing the operation of the Margiris in those waters, and others eventually came on board and supported that. Senator for Tasmania Peter Whish-Wilson asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry more than 30 questions on notice about this and was fobbed off every time. He was told that the science was all solid and there was no need to inquire further.

Federally, the Greens were the voice of the majority in this debate, when neither of the other parties were willing to listen or wanted to know.

Almost a month ago, back on 15 August, the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Christine Milne, wrote to the Prime Minister and said:

The Greens do not believe this supertrawler should be permitted to operate in Australian waters as the evidence indicates it's a subsidised vessel and there are real issues with quotas being exceeded, death of bycatch species, localised depletion and impact on other fisheries.

We urged the Commonwealth to put in place management plans to prevent localised depletion of stock and we proposed that not only should the government refuse to permit the trawler to operate in Australian waters:

… but that regional development funds be made available to support the construction of a Tasmanian-made purpose-built vessel to monitor and research existing fisheries and for scientific research including marine protected areas.

Central to the Greens is the interconnection between these environmental concerns and the social and economic questions affecting communities in Tasmania. The people who came to us were not only concerned about their own livelihoods but they understood that we needed sustainable fisheries to operate in Tasmania for the sake of the Tasmanian economy, for the sake of Tasmanian society and for the sake of the environment. We are pleased the government has responded.

There has been much talk of this response being somehow unjustified because people's voices were heard through campaigns on social media. What this shows is that sometimes the community can win against big business. Especially when the Greens are in parliament and acting as the voice of the community, the community's need to preserve recreational fishing, professional fishing and the environment can win out against big business.

We are pleased the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 has been introduced and we will support it. It is disappointing that all it does is stall the arrival of supertrawlers for, potentially, a year past the next federal election. Given what we know and given what uncertainties there are about the effect these supertrawlers will have on the environment, on society and on the economy, they should not just be stalled; they should be banned. When we reach consideration in detail, I will move an amendment to that effect.

We support the legislation and we especially support its emphasis on the social and economic uncertainty that a supertrawler would have created. Above all, the Greens care about the environment and people. This is an instance where doing the right thing by local communities and doing the right thing by the environment work together hand in glove. We are pleased that finally, after months and months of campaigning, we are now seeing action. It would not have happened without the Greens.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If ever there were a speech to challenge Labor to put the Greens last on their how-to-vote cards, that was it. If ever there were proof that this is government by social media, the supertrawler debate is it. This is true Labor, a party far removed from Ben Chifley's idealistic light on the hill. Now it is nothing more than a blight on the hill.

Banning the Abel Tasman is not about science. It will subject taxpayers to compensation claims. It will cost Australians jobs. This is more of what we saw last year with the live cattle fiasco. This is policy on the run and legislation by overreaction. It is a knee-jerk reaction to a campaign on Facebook and Twitter orchestrated by the Green lobby—by leftie lobbyists, including Greenpeace and GetUp!

Banning live cattle to Indonesia, one of our largest trading partners, followed the broadcasting of an ABC Television Four Corners program. Without so much as a thought about how her swift response would affect regional Australia, the Prime Minister stepped in and banned the export of live cattle to all Indonesian abattoirs, even the ones using Australian standard stunning killing. Just like that, she stopped it forthwith—no correspondence entered into.

The ramifications of that decision made in blind haste are still being felt today. Aboriginal stockmen are still out of work. The cattle industry has not fully recovered. The shutdown cost business in the Riverina dearly. Family owned and operated Byrne Trailers in Wagga Wagga manufactures specialised livestock transport equipment. When the cattle being shipped to Indonesia stopped, so too did the orders for trailers. It cost Byrne Trailers tens of thousands of dollars. Similarly, the supertrawler stand-off between the Dutch and Australia will also cost someone, if not everyone involved, a lot of money. But what does Labor care? Precious little, obviously.

The Netherlands has insisted the Gillard government explain its decision to bow to a pressure group campaign and, effectively, ban the vessel from fishing in our waters for two years. They now know how Indonesia felt last year. Dutch Deputy Prime Minister Maxime Verhagen telephoned the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Joe Ludwig, on Tuesday, inquiring why Labor wanted to ban the boat. It seems the only boats Labor are able to stop are boats in Senator Ludwig's portfolio area—boats with our cattle on them or boats people want to use for fishing. This is in complete contrast to the people smuggler boats, which have brought 10,000 illegal immigrants to our northern shores already this year.

Labor's move to bully the Dutch smacks of rank hypocrisy. The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, in his previous role as fisheries minister, actually invited the Margiris, now the Abel Tasman, into Australia when he called in October 2009 for large-scale factory fishing vessels to come to Australia. A paper was signed by the minister encouraging large-scale factory fishing vessels to come to this country to fish in our waters. How can he then stand in this place and call for the complete opposite?

But it goes further than that. The wording of the bill and the amendments by the supposed Independent, the member for Dobell—no doubt cobbled together in the office of the Leader of the House to save some face for Labor—go much further than stopping the Abel Tasman.

They strike at the very heart of fishing generally.

The Australian Marine Alliance accused Labor of hastily drafting a bill which would give the minister for the environment and his department almost unfettered authority over all forms of fishing. This bill has nothing to do with the Abel Tasman, about which people have genuine concerns. Mind you, the take by that particular vessel will not be any greater than would otherwise have occurred. Not one fish more will be taken from the sea. I understand the concerns of those about what supertrawlers could do to fish stocks. The week before last I was at a place called Bay Bulls in Newfoundland, Canada, once wholly reliant on cod. On 2 July 1992, commercial cod fishing was banned and 19,000 people lost their jobs in the area. Of course we do not want our oceans depleted such that fish are pushed beyond the brink. On the other hand, we cannot allow the government to continue its war against fishing, to continue its war against cattle, to continue its war against agriculture.

The Abel Tasman was brought to Australia in a private joint venture after seven long years of negotiations—seven years of discussions, of investment, of planning, of organising staff. And for what? To be told 'Go away—while you were once invited, now the Labor government does not want you.' There is a better way. This bill needs to be opposed. The minister needs to explain why he has reversed the policy he introduced as fisheries minister nearly three years ago, which stated 'There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large-scale factor freezer vessels,' and why he effectively invited the Abel Tasman into Australia by promoting large-scale factory freezer vessels, and what actions he will take to compensate the 50 Australian workers who will lose their jobs as a result of this legislation.

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

What about the thousands you lot are sacking in WA?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't you start, member for McEwen. Your government has overseen the greatest debt and deficit this country has ever seen, and you sit there smugly saying we are costing jobs. Don't you start.

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

So you are not costing jobs?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can have your turn in a minute.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for McEwen will cease interjecting and the member for Riverina will direct his comments through the chair.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill gives the minister unfettered and extraordinary powers and threatens every Australian family fishing operation. In an attempt to supposedly address community concerns about the Abel Tasman, the minister has gone to the extreme—the green extreme, as per usual—by giving himself unlimited powers which will impact upon every family fishing boat around the nation. My electorate of Riverina is landlocked, but this is of great concern to me and to those people who enjoy fishing and who do not want to see Labor continue to be led by the nose by the green lobby. Not content with putting up barriers to fishing, under the guise of national marine parks, the minister will stop our people from fishing but he will not prevent illegal fishing boats from taking whatever they like as long as they go undetected. Given this government's record on border protection, that could amount to a lot of fish.

Once more the government is making policy on the fly—it is policy on the run—and in the process it is giving the minister unlimited powers on the basis of social uncertainty, whatever that means. That goes way beyond addressing the current issue and concerns. The minister will be able to overturn any fishing activity on the basis of even the slightest social complaint—supposedly social uncertainty.

There is a message there: get a greenie, leftie idea, turn it into a social media campaign and watch this government jump. Watch it twist. Watch it turn. There does not have to be any evidence, and uncertainty can be created by a complaint from a political source. The same absolute powers apply to economic or environmental complaints. Don't we know how this government twists and turns when it is subjected to environmental lobbying! The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act will no longer be about the environment. There is no indication of what the term 'uncertainty' means, and the bill provides scope for the minister to stop any fishing activity without any substantive case.

This is a threat to the entire fishing industry. One problem should not create a greater problem for an entire fishing community. The decision clearly creates sovereign risk issues for existing fishers who hold licences. Australia's commercial fishing industry will not have the confidence to continue to invest if any quota and/or licence can be overturned at the whim of the government. Businesses and private individuals are worried about the power of mob rule and that, essentially, is what happened with the live cattle farce. We heard the member for Melbourne talking about how the Greens were there to stop the business—he said they could stop big business in its tracks. He is so right, because this Labor government is beholden to the Greens, is beholden to Senator Christine Milne and the rest of her coterie.

Seafish director Gerry Geen said on Tuesday the decision would cost 50 Australians, including the 45 engaged in Devonport, Tasmania, their jobs. The report of his fears is worth repeating as a message of dire warning:

'It is going to be hard to have to tell those employees, some of them who were long-term unemployed, that we no longer have a job for them,' he said.

'It seems that after we have met every rule, regulation and request made of us; after years of working with the relevant authorities, that in the end the government reacted to the size of the Abel Tasman and not the size of the quota and the science that supports it,' Mr Geen said.

This decision sends an awful message to all potential investors into Australia to be very, very afraid. It shows that this government can and will change the rules after you have committed to a venture, putting at risk the investment, the jobs and all the hard work of many people over many years. And then, when you have met all the new rules and all the requests, it can still just shut you down. Haven't we heard that from many, many people. We have heard it in the cattle industry, we have heard it in the irrigation industry and now we are hearing it in the fishing industry.

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

What about teachers and firefighters?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't start talking about teachers—your government, with the Gonski report—

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Riverina will direct his comments through the chair and the member for McEwen will cease interjecting.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They talk about bringing in a national curriculum and forward funding, but it is not going to happen until at least 2025 under that mob.

We heard the member for Hughes talk about the fact that 70 per cent of the fish that we eat comes from overseas. He also told us that China fish 11 million tonnes of marine catch every year from international waters; Indonesia, nearly 3½ million tonnes; and Thailand, close to 2½ million tonnes. How much does Australia fish? It is less than 200,000 tonnes. That is a telling statistic.

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority manages fisheries in real time and has the powers to take immediate action if and when required. Commercial fishers know how seriously AFMA takes its responsibilities in all fisheries. The Greens do not support sustainable catch limits based on science. We know that. Everyone knows that. The message is that the Greens want fisheries managed by politicians, not by qualified fishery managers. The Greens do not support the commercial operators who fish in some of the world's best-managed fisheries, nor do Labor. It is Labor, it is the Greens; it is their way. They do not support the science, they do not support commercial fishers, they do not support the fishing industry and they certainly do not support farmers—and we see that in every way and in every one of their policies.

This bill does not merit supporting, and it will not be supported. This bill is about appeasing the green lobby. If this goes through, you have to wonder which agricultural industry will next be in the Greens' and Labor's crosshairs. Thank you.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012. There has been much conversation and debate about how we got to this point and a lot of casting of aspersions on motives. I think, at the end of the day, good policy requires us to address the content of the legislation. Rather than question why we are here and whose motives contributed what to that process, it is a matter of what legislation is before the parliament, what the intent of the legislation is, whether it will be achieved and whether it is something that as a nation we seek to support. On those bases—not on the basis of all the spurious mud-slinging we have heard from the other side—I support the bill before the House.

As a local member I have had representations from people in my area about their concerns. So I am pleased to support the bill today, and I wanted to recognise the significant number of representations that have been made to me and to local people who have expressed their views to me on the matter. I want to acknowledge the important work of our ministers in finding an appropriate way to deal with what is an important issue. The minister for the environment said on 11 September, only this week:

If we get this wrong, there are risks to the environment, to commercial operators and to everyone who loves fishing and they are risks I am not prepared to take.

Hear, hear, I say.

As the minister has outlined, it is important that this parliament provides the government with legislation that enables the minister to give proper consideration to proposals about new fishing technologies and techniques. It recognises that the Commonwealth Fisheries Management Act began operating in 1991—that is, over 20 years ago. Often, when we debate things like the National Broadband Network in this place, I point out to people that 20 years ago, when I was a young mum—my boys were just born—the technology that faced us at the time was profoundly different from what we face today. At that point in time, we had one house address and one fixed phone line. It was very easy to fill out a business card because there was not much to put on it. It is very, very different today.

The area of this legislation is no different. Technology over 20 years has significantly changed. In 1991, supertrawlers such as the one now named Abel Tasman were not envisaged. As Cunningham is a coastal area in the Illawarra, we well understand the critical importance of our marine and fisheries management, the sustainability of the industry and the need to stay ahead of technological developments in the interests of the various groups who rely on our marine environment. The Abel Tasman is the second biggest fishing vessel on the planet. It is indeed a 'super' trawler. It has a storage capacity around four times that of other factory fishing operations in Australia—vessels that have a storage capacity of around 1,500 tonnes.

In following the media conversation on this matter, I came across an article that was written by a former member of this place, one Wilson Tuckey. He is not someone I regularly found myself in agreement with, but he did make some very interesting points in this article that was published on 27 August this year in the Australian Financial Review. He said:

Put simply, the world has got too smart at catching fish.

Further on, he says:

To put it in the words of a long-term fisher: when he started out the boats were small and slow, which restricted fishing days according to weather conditions and the distance a vessel could travel. And locating fishing spots and relocating pots required dead-reckoning navigation and good luck, thus giving the lobster an even chance.

He was talking about lobster fishing in his own region. He goes on:

All this changed with the advent of larger and faster vessels, GPS navigation linked to autopilots and seabed radar in its various forms.

Human innovation in the fishing industry has reduced the capacity of fish to maintain a breeding stock sufficient for a harvestable food chain for the fish and we humans.

So Wilson Tuckey is concerned by what he is seeing develop across some of the marine industries in the area that he previously represented. He has expressed his concerns about what impact certain technologies have had on the sustainability of this industry. Now, I do not pretend to totally agree with all his answers and responses to those developments. But I do think that the bill before us is a reasonable and measured response to some of those challenges, particularly those presented by this supertrawler.

The science behind quotas is sound, but we need to consider the science around the extended long-term capacity of a ship such as this one. In this legislation, we are adding the means by which it can be assessed prior to operating, to be sure that we are not putting our marine environment at risk. It is made clear that the bill does not impact on the ability of quota holders to fish in Commonwealth marine areas using fishing methods and vessels that have employed in the past.

These actions by the government will only serve to strengthen the Australian fishing industries, both commercial and recreational, by ensuring proposals for large-scale operators are given proper consideration before they are given the green light.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 establishes a two-stage declaration process involving both an interim declaration and a final declaration. That works in this way. The interim declaration process facilitates the prohibition of a declared fishing activity, while consultation with affected operators occurs over a period of up to two months. The final declaration process, the second part of the two-stage process, imposes a longer term ban for a maximum of two years while an expert assessment can be done undertaken regarding the potential impacts of the fishing activity. Both declarations require the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to agree that there is uncertainty about the environmental, social or economic impacts of the fishing activity.

Further, the environment minister must, in making a final declaration, take into account the comments provided by affected fishing concession holders and can only make a final declaration in relation to the same activity that was the subject of the interim declaration. This ensures there is procedural fairness in the two-stage process of consideration. If the assessment identifies that the activity will or may have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance, the relevant provisions of the EPBC Act would apply. For example, the person undertaking the activities would be required to refer the activities to the minister under section 68 of the EPBC Act, or the minister may call in the matter under section 70.

If the assessment report indicates there are no significant impacts for the fishing operation, then they fishing activity may proceed, subject of course to regulation under the fishing management arrangements in place for the fishery and for the operator. There must be investigation of matters presented by such a super trawler: questions such as the impact of its capacity to stay on a single school of fish and to take many hundreds or indeed thousands of tonnes of an individual species, the potential for bycatch of protected species over an extended period of fishing a single school and the uncertain impacts of a target species catch of that magnitude on dependent prey species. Again, these were some of the issues that Mr Tuckey went to in this article. He was specifically referring to an issue which had happened in the northern hemisphere, which the previous speaker, the member for Riverina, referred, talking about destroying cod fish breeding stocks and the collapse of the North Sea cod fishery as a result of practices, which had been in place there for centuries, being progressively replaced by vessels and technologies along the lines of supertrawlers. He makes the point that for many years the cod wars in Iceland created a real battle over the sustainability of the fish stocks and their traditional fishing methods. He makes some very interesting points in the article and I would encourage some of his former colleagues to perhaps to have a look at it.

He does, I would suspect, commended us to go back to a simpler but unsustainable response to those sorts of challenges. The point he makes about the speed with which technology can move and its adaption in all sorts of aspects of our life, including in an industry like the fishing industry, are significant. We have a responsibility, not only to those who are currently involved in the fishing industry as commercial operators or indeed as recreational users of our marine environment but also to future generations who, one would hope, would still be able to participate in the fishing industry in the future, to take these challenges seriously.

The minister outlined that he had had a look at and sought advice on what actions and powers he may have to look at these matters under the existing act. He was of the view, when the advice came back to him, that it was insufficient to enable him to respond in a meaningful way to the challenges the super trawler presented. So the bill before us puts in place the powers to enable a measured, sensible assessment of the technology and its impacts. It does not prohibit the technology in the longer term but it does seek to get some expert views and up-to-date science on the issue it confronts us with.

In amending the act, the bill provides for the minister to establish an independent expert panel and for them to conduct an assessment into the potential environmental, social and economic impacts of a declared fishing activity and to prohibit the declared fishing activity while the assessment is undertaken. The minister will have the flexibility obviously under the act to establish the panel, to appoint panel members having regard to the expertise required for each particular assessment, which would obviously vary depending on the nature of the particular fishing activity and its potential impacts. It may also comprise a variety of people with environmental and economic expertise, including scientists and economists.

The amendments enable the minister to specify the manner in which the expert panel is to carry out an assessment. This provides, again, the minister with the flexibility to determine the manner in which the assessment is conducted, having regard to the nature of the fishing activity and its proposed impacts. For example, in some cases a desktop review of the available scientific literature may be all that is required. By comparison, in other cases it may be desirable for the public to have an extensive input into the assessment process. So the expert panel, its methods and make up in this particular amendment bill, are designed to ensure that people with real and meaningful expertise can be pulled together to deal with the particular aspects of the new technological change we are confronting in assessing whether or not such activity should be allowed to proceed.

It is important to recognise that having done all that, if at the end of that process it is quite clear that the issues of concern have been allayed, then the activity can proceed. So it is not a blanket ban. It is not saying that technological improvements and changes are in and of themselves a bad thing and should be prohibited. It is simply saying that in this age where technological advances have moved beyond a limited range of industries and into a much broader range—in this case, the fishing industry—we need to be able to respond to the challenge we are confronted with in terms of providing sustainability into the future. What the ministers have put together in this proposed amendment bill is well targeted at achieving that. Regardless of the carry-on from the other side about what might motivate such an outcome, I would have thought that the priority for them at the end of the day would be to actually see good legislation in this place that has positive outcomes for our nation. I would argue that that is exactly what this does. There is no surprise that they are fear-mongering again, and I think it is a disappointing contribution to the debate that they are doing so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is nothing more inevitable than change. Change is with us all the time; it always has been and always will be. First there were stone tools and then the invention of the wheel. Later we had weaving machines and the Industrial Revolution more generally. There was the steam engine, which caused enormous change in the economy, in society and in the way governments dealt with the regulation of the economy. Later we had fixed-line phones, which are now almost extinct, because another technology, the mobile phone, came along and effectively took its place. Also, there has been a lot of conversation today about Twitter and other social media and such technologies. All of them have brought great change. Going back to the steam engine and railways, the monopolies involved caused the US to put in place anti-trust laws, which are among the more well-known laws that exist to this day in the United States.

So, change is with us all the time and societies and governments have to adapt to that change. This bill is very much about change. What is driving the government's policy—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful for the interesting dissertation on the history of change in the world, and I know that the Chief Government Whip has been called in at the last minute, but do you think, Mr Deputy Speaker, he could actually get to the bill.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I ask the honourable Chief Government Whip to speak to the bill.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, some things do not change, and that is the member for Mackellar's constant frivolous points of order in this parliament. They may be very amusing for many in the House, including those who sit on the other side. But I was being very relevant, because this bill deals with change, it deals with technological change. This is the government's response to a technological change that not too many people anticipated. It certainly was not part of the Australian conversation only a couple of months ago. I am referring to the arrival of the supertrawler. As I understand it, the Abel Tasman is the second biggest in the world. That is not a subtle change in the way our commercial fishers do their fishing.

I was interested to hear the member for Cunningham earlier today quoting none other than someone who used to sit on the other side, Wilson Tuckey, whom I actually have enormous regard for. He is quite knowledgeable in this area. He made the point that the problem with fishing is just that we have got too smart and too good at it. This has the potential to enormously impact on our marine life and the sustainability of commercial and recreational fishing in this country.

To put this conversation very plainly for those who may be listening at home, let me say that for all of its complexities this is a pretty simple story. New technology has come along allowing a big trawler with huge refrigeration capacity to stay out there in the same waters for a great length of time with huge nets and therefore take enormous volumes of fish. And, of course, such fishing is accompanied by serious risks in terms of the bycatch.

I have heard people criticise us for responding to community concerns, but I think that is why we are here: to respond to community concerns. The government has said 'Let's pause and make sure we understand the science so that we do not make a mistake here.' And these are very high stakes: they are high stakes in terms of our marine environment and in terms of the sustainability of fishing in this country, whether it be commercial or recreational. That is the government's position, and I think it is very reasonable. If in doubt, leave it out. Take a pause and have another look at the science by establishing an expert panel to assist the government in assessing these things.

In contrast, the opposition has decided just to oppose the bill. Why? Because they see some political opportunities in it. When you reflect on it, why would they oppose a pause? Why wouldn't they join with the government in saying, 'There is community concern about this new technology. Let's have a pause and get the science in and have a look at the economic impacts and ensure we have got this decision right.'

No, that is not their modus operandi. Their modus operandi is just to say no and, in doing so, hope to score a political goal or two—very disappointing.

Then there are the Greens. As I understand it, the Greens have a slightly different view than the government: they don't just want to pause and look at the science; they just want to oppose it. They just want to say to the company involved: 'No, you're not going to be able to use this technology, regardless of what the science says.' Why do they say that? Are they seriously arguing that the science is wrong? Or that is should not be reviewed? What are they saying? Why are they arguing that this technology should never be put to use? I suppose the answer is: form. This is the modus operandi of the Greens: oppose everything—forget about economic opportunity, forget about jobs, forget about the other benefits that flow to the community; just say no. Theirs is a zero tolerance approach: if in doubt at all, just don't do it.

This is why, for example, the Greens want to close down the coal mining industry in the Hunter Valley. This is a ridiculous proposition. Coal mining has lived in harmony with agriculture and viticulture in the Hunter Valley for years. There have been pressures and strains—and, again, government needs to be constantly adjusting its regulatory platforms to reflect technological change in the coal mining industry, which is allowing us to mine much more coal much more quickly than we ever could before. That requires a government response. And government is constantly responding to those changes in mining by adjusting its policy setting. There is no better example of that than the EPBC itself, which not that long ago did not exist but, even in its early days, probably did not have an application to mining. So, technology changes and government policy needs to change as a response; and no-one should be surprised by that.

Coal-seam methane is another issue for people like me, representing the community in the Hunter Valley. The government has really taken the same approach: there is concern about the science, there is still some doubt about the impact on water tables et cetera, so we have established an expert scientific committee to ensure that those questions are properly tested. So this idea from the Greens that we should just approach every policy issue, every challenge in the community, by beginning with a big 'no' is just wrong. People have to earn an income to put food on the table, raise their kids, pay school fees et cetera. Imagine the Hunter Valley's economy if we decided to shut down coal mining. The proposition that this should be ruled out forever and a day is almost as ridiculous.

Let us not pretend that these are easy issues; they are not. If you listened to those sitting on the other side, you would think they were. I heard the member for Fadden speak with some passion. He was talking about applying what he called 'the pub test'. He put the proposition that if he took this piece of legislation being proposed by the government into his local pub people would see it for what it is and they would reject it immediately. I find that pretty interesting because, increasingly in my electorate—working class people who toil in the mines, in a manufacturing industry or elsewhere throughout the week—look forward to their weekends, and they say to me, 'You know what my real concern is? I just want to go to work, put food on the table for my family and send the kids to have a good education; and then on the weekend I just want to hunt or fish'—some say 'hunt', some say 'fish', some say both.

There is this growing concern, if not just a perception, in some of my communities, that governments are stopping them from doing these things—stopping them from hunting, stopping them from fishing. I understand some of those sentiments, quite frankly. Today, as we debate this bill, a lot of those people will be out there asking themselves the question, having seen some of the photographs, illustrations and indeed cartoons in the newspapers, whether they are going to continue to have something to fish for if these supertrawlers come into existence in Australian waters. That is the pub test, as far as I am concerned. I have no doubt that, when I go back to my electorate tomorrow, that is what people will be saying to me. They will be saying, 'Gee, we've seen that new fishing vessel. It's huge! No wonder people are concerned. And I think the government were absolutely right to pull it up, to take a pause and to have another look at the science to make sure it's right; because, if it's not right, that's going to have enormous ramifications for those of us who enjoy a bit of recreational fishing.'

Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, I have some sympathy for people like you, who represent people in Tasmania—people like the member for Braddon and others. This must be a very difficult issue down there because this new vessel carries with it some employment opportunities. I want to pay tribute to people like you, the member for Braddon and others, who have led the debate within the party room in this building to ensure that this government gets this balance right. The government could have done three things: it could have just closed its eyes and let it rip, let the vessel do its thing; it could have said, 'No, it's not worth the risk; we don't understand this technology so we're going to legislate to stop this from happening'; or it could have taken the middle ground, as it has done, and said, 'We're not certain about this; there's a lot of community concern out there and it makes sense to take a pause, to get an expert panel in, to ensure we understand the science—not just the immediate impact in terms of the science but the long-term impacts.' And that is what you and your colleagues have been doing inside the building, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not sure that the outcome today is exactly what you were looking for. I will allow you to express that to your constituents. But I would have thought that this will be seen in Tasmania as the sensible thing to do to ensure that we get it right.

Interestingly and coincidentally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a couple of mates holidaying in Tasmania at the moment—one a coal miner, by coincidence, because I have just been talking about coal mining.

I exchanged a text message with one of them today on another matter. So I took the opportunity to say, 'Mate, what are they saying down there in Tasmania about the big trawler?' He said, 'People down here think that the government is doing the right thing.' My friend Mark is having a bit of a holiday down there. He is a good talker—I will not mention his last name without his authorisation—he loves to go into a pub, a service station or news agency and have a yarn. He is a pretty good barometer. If Mark has put the test in Tasmania and got that sort of feedback, then I reckon the government is probably on the right track and I am very confident that that is the case.

So I say to the crossbenchers, who I know are also finding this a difficult issue: come with the government; it makes sense to come with the government. We are not taking either of the two extremes—that is, to say no or yes without qualification—we are taking a pause to make sure that we get this right. On all of these issues I appeal to members to reject the Greens' approach to these things. When we have economic interests sometimes competing with environmental interests, we need to get the balance right and take the sensible approach.

As I said, we have had a range of industries in the Hunter Valley—coalmining, aluminium smelting and power generation—coexisting with agriculture, viticulture and the like. There is no reason we cannot do that in the future if we continue to adjust the regulatory regime to suit changing climate conditions and changing technology, which is exactly what we are trying to do here today in terms of commercial fishing.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012. I would like to commence by making a couple of observations about the nature of the debate this morning, particularly regarding the contributions from those opposite. Here we have a situation that involves fishing and a fishing industry that is vital to Australia's biodiversity. We have, watching from the sidelines, five million recreational fishers, who understand very clearly that a vessel of this size is untested in our waters. Yet, despite that uncertainty, the widespread concern in the community and a lack of good evidence, those opposite stand up and say, with their arrogance, that we should push on regardless. This seems to be a bit of a problem for the Liberal Party and those opposite. Just this week we have seen the same sort of arrogance where the Premier of Queensland, Campbell Newman, attempted to lecture the mining industry, by saying that they needed to change their workplace practices. Even Clive Palmer bit back at that one.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the Labor Party is trying to filibuster—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is your point of order?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Seniors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is that this is not an industrial relations bill; it is about fisheries—

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member for Robertson will speak to the matter before the House.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was discussing the arrogance of those opposite and of the Liberal Party generally in terms of responding to the facts. We get this constant litany—and it was embedded in each of the contributions of those opposite this morning—that they know better. They always assert that they know better than anybody else. They were wrong on 1 July and they are wrong on this matter.

In place of relentless negativity and with an absence of fact, I think it is pretty important that we get some facts on the record. People in the community who are listening to this debate, people who are interested in fishing, people who care about this matter—there are five million out there—might be interested in getting some facts about the size of this boat.

In fact, the former Margiris, now named fishing vessel Abel Tasman, is the second-largest fishing vessel on the planet. We are not talking here about some small thing that is going ahead into our wonderful marine environment; we are talking about the second-largest vessel on the planet. This is not a situation where we as the government should be rushed in to make decisions about how that vessel should operate in these waters. Of course, we should always be guided by science and good evidence, and the science behind the current quotas is certainly sound. But the problem we currently face with the fishing vessel Abel Tasman is that the science about the long-term effects of a vessel of this size is simply not known to us. The science has not developed to a point where we can in a safe, judicious, informed and careful way determine whether this is a good thing for our local environment. We should be taking this cautious approach to ensure that our fisheries, managers and environmental assessors, who are otherwise doing a wonderful job, have the opportunity to take this matter on board and give it proper consideration.

This legislation does not forever rule out a supertrawler. But we are adding to the means by which it can be assessed, prior to it operating, to ensure that we do not put our marine environment at risk. The Australian people broadly and generally would think that is a very good thing. In contrast, those opposite, with that supreme arrogance that I spoke of earlier, think they know better and they want to press on regardless—regardless of the immediate impacts, regardless of the impacts in a year's time, two years time or 20 years time and regardless of the interests of five million fishers around this country.

We know that this fishing vessel does not actually fit with the rules that we currently have. We know that AFMA are a world leader in the management of our fisheries and we know that they take confident and decisive action when they need to.

But right now it is very clear that they need time to give consideration to the precious natural resources that we have in our fishing stocks. It is incumbent upon this parliament to provide the type of legislation that will enable us as a nation to stay out in front and give proper consideration to all the proposals that involve new technologies and techniques. In 1991, some new, important legislation, the Commonwealth Fisheries Management Act, came into force. Things have changed since 1991. I recall significant change in my life in that period, and certainly technology has overtaken us at an amazing rate. It is important that technology serves the purposes of the community and that we are not rushed ahead of our own interests and what our environment can actually sustain.

In terms of the five million recreational fishers around Australia, I would like to put on the record how critical fisheries have been to the Central Coast. We still have a small but active fishing fleet. On Sunday morning, when I went for a walk around the rock platform at Pearl Beach, in one of the most beautiful parts of my seat, down on the Bouddi Peninsula, I saw active local fishermen checking their lobster pots. We saw a successful catch of six lobsters in one pot. Four went back and two were retained. Our fishermen rely on a healthy, sustained environment for their livelihood. But the people who fish for enjoyment, for sport and recreation, also have quite a prominent presence on the Central Coast, and there are a number of significant local businesses who deal in recreational fishing.

I would like to give a particular plug to the Central Coast Gamefishing Club, based right in the heart of the Central Coast. It started out as many fishing clubs around the country have—with just a couple of mates who had had a single-minded love of the sport for many years. They established a club, and they now have 230 members. They have tournaments and competitions and they really want to make it family friendly. The threat to their recreation is something that should not be taken lightly. The threat to their recreation by the second largest fishing vessel in the world is something this government is taking seriously, and, if amendments to legislation are required to enable a judicious response, that is exactly what we will do.

Unlike those opposite, with their relentlessly carping, negative version of reality, this government is about building Australia, building our capacity and ensuring a balanced response to the challenges that presents. We are a responsible government. Because of that, this legislation seeks not just to ban the boat—which is certainly what we heard the member for Melbourne speak about—but to, in a very judicious way, delay the action of that boat by two years to allow proper scientific, evidence based consideration to be undertaken.

There are a number of amendments before the parliament. They are designed to enable our fisheries managers and environmental assessors the tools that they need to give the proper scrutiny to proposals that we could only characterise as being unprecedented. We know that natural justice and procedural fairness are absolute cornerstones of democracy, and we need to make sure that our fishing concession holders, including people who do have the opportunity to access new technologies and techniques, have access to those, even if it is controversial. What we cannot do is proceed at pace without access to the critical advice that should inform judicious decision making. That is why this government is taking a balanced approach.

If this legislation passes through the House today, delaying a possible entry into our fishing area for two years, we would be able to gather in that period sufficient evidence to reveal whether or not what the fishing vessel Abel Tasman is proposing to do would have a significant impact. If that becomes evident in the collection of evidence, obviously it would need to go to further environmental assessment processes under the EPBC Act, and that is appropriate.

What does this legislation do? There are two stages in the declaration process under this bill, involving both an interim declaration and a final declaration. The first part, the interim declaration, makes it possible to have a prohibition of a declared fishing activity while consultation which affects the operators occurs over a period of up to two months. The final declaration, which is the second declaration process under the bill, imposes a longer term ban, with a maximum of two years, to enable an expert assessment to be undertaken of the potential impacts of the fishing activity. Importantly, they are two different instruments, but both require the environment minister and the fisheries minister to agree on whether there is uncertainty about the environmental, social and economic impacts of fishing activity. What this legislation will require of the environment minister is that, in making their final decision, they take into account the comments provided by the affected fishing concession holders, and they cannot make a final declaration in relation to the same activity that was subject to the interim declaration. This is structured in such a way as to ensure procedural fairness. The obvious objective of that prohibition is to prevent the declared fishing activity from occurring. We need this assessment to be undertaken. As I said before, if the assessment identifies that there is harm then there will be further action.

One of the terms that has been bandied about in this debate is 'bycatch'. I have to confess that I am not a very successful fisherwoman in my own right; however, I do fondly recall many great fishing adventures with my father. Gladly, I had a little more success when he was with us. I remember catching wonderful bream on holidays up at Iluka. People like me, who enjoy fishing from a boat close to the shore or fishing from the seashore, do not have a working knowledge of all the language that is being bandied about in this debate. This term 'bycatch' is very important in the debate. What does it mean? Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch2000 was endorsed by Minister Truss and Minister Hill at the time, and that policy makes it very clear at a broad level that the definition of fisheries bycatch includes lots of things: all material, living and nonliving, which is caught while fishing, except for the target species. The reality is that—I know it might surprise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and anybody who is listening—there can be a little gap between what the policy and legislation might have as its intent and what is actually practised in the field. Very significantly in terms of this word 'bycatch', the term is used differently by different parts of the industry and stakeholders. We need to protect seals, dolphins and seabirds. We need to act with caution and I recommend the passage of this bill to the House.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to support the Environmental Protection and Diversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012. For the benefit of those listening, I point out that this debate is basically about the supertrawler but obviously the legislation before the House is this bill, a piece of legislation that is about preserving species forever, for the future. For the young children up in the gallery listening, we are talking about making sure that all of the species that are in Australia at the moment are around when your grandchildren are around. That is what the legislation in used for. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation mostly; both sides of the House support it.

The member for Flinders, the shadow spokesman on the environment, would agree that this is important legislation, although I think yesterday the House was presented with a letter that he wrote asking for the preservation of the Tasmanian tiger. I think the horse might have bolted on that one. When we write letters, the devil is in the detail—I assume he meant Tasmanian devils. Nevertheless, the legislation that we are talking about is all about preserving species, and this declared fisheries activity bill is about making sure that all the bycatch, as referred to by the member for Robertson, is not going to be impacted on. How so? By having significantly large trawlers such as the current one that is in the media.

Environmental protection is something that is important to me, and obviously the people in Moreton, the electorate that I represent. Even though it is an inner-city electorate a long way from most of the fishing parts of Australia, a long way from the Coral Sea, nevertheless a lot of people in my community have spoken about the marine parks, particularly in the northern part of my electorate up near the Brisbane River. Numerous individual and community groups come to me urging me to support the Coral Sea. They have also written in about the supertrawler legislation. The people of Moreton realise that all our precious oceans need to be protected. Australia is quite unique in that we control and look after, basically for the rest of humanity, 11 per cent of the earth's surface. We are a small country but we are responsible for a big chunk of territory, obviously most of it marine. This is an important issue in Queensland and it is certainly a topic we have been hearing some contradictory views on from those opposite. I will particularly focus on the Queensland representatives that have spoken.

It started for me back in the 2010 election campaign when Senator Boswell from Queensland put out some quite misleading information about fishing and what the Labor Party was going to do for fishing. He put fear into every tinnie owner in Queensland by suggesting that Labor was going to stop people from fishing. We go back to the facts—there is not going to be an impact on 96 per cent of the Australian coastline, wherever you walk down to the water. You can still throw the line into 96 per cent of Australia's water. And in some of the parts where you cannot it is because the Army is doing exercises there, and the like. In the last few weeks we had Senator Boyce putting out information and running a campaign—giving out free fish and chips at an event down in the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate—also suggesting that the Coral Sea legislation will stop you from jumping in your tinnie and going for a fish. Well, it does, as long as your tinnie can go more than 400 kilometres offshore. That is a pretty big tinnie as far as I can work out—if you can go offshore 400 kilometres to fish.

Then we have had comments from Senator Joyce. The last name of the member for Brisbane is Gambaro, which, in Brisbane is synonymous with seafood—her family has had a long connection with seafood. She has been part of this duplicitous campaign suggesting that the Labor Party has a campaign to stop people throwing a line in. It is certainly a very duplicitous campaign—a load of codswallop, you might say.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is something fishy about these stories.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Something fishy entirely about these stories. I follow a couple of the LNP members on Twitter, the member for Wright and the member for Dawson. Immediately they started trotting out the same party lines. The member for Fraser is a bit of an expert on Twitter; I think there is a rule of thumb that the more there is one voice putting out a proposition, the less thought has been given to the proposition by the person putting out the idea. That applies to both sides of the chamber, I would suggest.

The member for Dawson and the member for Wright were immediately putting out these lines about the supertrawler. When you listened to the speeches of the member for Herbert and the member for Leichhardt, you could hear that they were floundering when it came to the logic of what they were actually doing. They were in deep water; they were lost. The day before, the member for Dawson had said, 'We must stop this supertrawler.' He backflipped straightaway and said, 'Oh, no, the party lines are that I must say this.' I know that is tough for a backbencher, when you are being asked by the people in headquarters to parrot—or parrotfish—some lines. Nevertheless, that is what he did.

I am not sure what we pay the clerks of the House, but it is not enough when they have to hear 30 people give the same speech—the same speech that none of them particularly believe. Those are tough yards. They should have some sort of danger money built into such speeches.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, the content relevant to the bill has been filleted out of this contribution. Perhaps you might make sure, even as a matter of bycatch, there is some relevance to the member's contribution.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member to pick up the wave of the bill.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought he was going to accuse me of 'jumping the shark' with my lines there, Mr Deputy Speaker. Obviously, this is all about the supertrawler, but I just wanted to give a bit of context. That is why I am proud to be on this side of the House: we are committed to protecting our ocean environments through the world's largest network of marine reserves and also by having legislation to respond to this supertrawler. That is a lesson in the history of the fishing industry as well. These reserves, which seem to be largely opposed by the LNP members of Queensland, will protect some of Australia's most precious ocean ecosystems—for the last time in the history of humanity that we can do this. We have done so on land. Admittedly there have been some retrograde steps, particularly in Queensland, as now we have shooting and fishing and motorbikes and all sorts of things going back into national parks. How that can be preserving things for the future, I have no idea. It is back to the old Joe Bjelke-Petersen days—the attitude to sandmining on Fraser Island and the like. How Premier Newman, whose father fought to protect Fraser Island, can oversee a government that steps in and wrecks some of our national parks is beyond me.

I am particularly passionate about the Coral Sea. It is globally recognised as an extremely important marine region, both because of its biodiversity and because of its World War II history. I was up in the Solomon Islands recently. I was able to go to some of the battle sites, to Alligator Creek, which is famous, especially if you have seen the HBO series The Pacific. Minister Clare wrote an article about Milne Bay and some of the battles there. This is a unique part of the world that we should be preserving. International studies have highlighted how the Coral Sea is one of the last remaining areas of the world's oceans where large-scale and biologically rich ecosystems remain relatively intact. Its reef systems support tropical ecosystems rich in hard and soft corals, sponges, algae, fish communities—such as clownfish, like Nemo, if you have seen the movie—and other sea creatures. Many globally threatened corals and other marine animals are known to live there. Many species are known to occur only there—nowhere else in the world. That is why it is so important that we should be grasping this opportunity for our generation and this parliament. Instead, we have the politics.

As stated earlier, I think the opposition's position is a little bit flaky. One day they want to stop the trawlers but they are simultaneously opposed to protecting the Coral Sea and other marine reserve areas. I note, being married to a North Queenslander, that the Coral Sea is a critical habitat for black marlin, which is important for tourism, because they undergo seasonal movements through the Queensland plateau area. It also has important nesting and foraging sites for a wide range of seabirds. The new marine reserves take the overall size of the Commonwealth marine reserves network to 3.1 million square kilometres, which would be the largest represented network of marine protected areas in the world. Those in the 43rd Parliament could sit back on our rocking chairs in the future and say, 'We did that.' I am hopeful that everyone in this chamber would want to be on the right side of this opportunity in history.

Together the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the Coral Sea, which abut each other, will become the largest adjoining marine protected area in the world, covering 1.3 million square kilometres. Unfortunately, the day after the Newman government was elected, almost the first thing that Deputy Premier Seeney—good old National Party roots—said was that he wanted to decrease the size of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Unbelievable! He was particularly focused on the Gladstone Harbour area. I looked for the member for Flynn's speech to see if he stood up and said, 'We actually think pretty highly of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.' It is pretty iconic. Most people in the world have heard of the Great Barrier Reef at some stage or have seen it in movies and the like. The member for Flynn, on this topic, was totally silent.

Obviously, whenever we are going to make decisions about fishing there will be some impact on local jobs and perhaps on some of the people who love to fish. As I said, the marine parks are 400 kilometres offshore, but it will have some impact. For those fishermen—just like the Howard government—the Gillard Labor government will be delivering an adjustment package. We have already had a commitment of $100 million, which will be worked through on a case-by-case basis to help the fishers who need it. So, for those people who read those fantasy emails put out by Dean Logan—they are almost like a fantasy novel—what he is suggesting to people is a total red herring. Too often, responsible, sensible people have swallowed this line. The Cairns Regional Council responded to his suggestions and said, 'This is going to have a great impact on the Cairns economy.' The reality is that Cairns is doing it a bit tough at the moment. Between the high dollar, the GFC, tourism and a few other things, Cairns is doing it tough. The report the Cairns council relied on was riddled with errors and inaccurate assertions. ABARES, which has empirical data, found that commercial fishing makes up only two per cent of the Cairns economy and the city will be able to adjust. In fact, there will be opportunities to benefit if we have some Coral Sea protections. Cairns could become a centre for managing the marine reserves. The $50 million national management budget will flow through the Cairns economy over the next few years and there will be some great opportunities.

I would suggest that people like those in the Cairns Regional Council should read the article by Tim Winton. I think it is available if you google it. Tim Winton is the famous Australian author of Cloudstreet, Breath and other books that often deal with the Western Australian marine environment. He wrote a wonderful article dealing with this. It is basically a transcript of the speech he gave here at Parliament House a few weeks back.

The bill currently before the House will go one step further to protect our marine life. To borrow a phrase from my learned colleague the member for Fremantle, who called this supertrawler the 'Godzilla of the sea', this will be a great outcome. It is incumbent on this parliament to provide legislation that enables us as a nation to stay out in front and give proper consideration to proposals about new technologies and techniques.

At the time the Commonwealth Fisheries Management Act came into force in 1991, supertrawlers the size of the Abel Tasman were not on the horizon. As the second-largest trawler in the world it has a storage capacity around four times that of other fishing operations in Australia, and there is a large amount of uncertainty as to what the size and capacity difference means in terms of impacts on the environment. As Minister Burke pointed out, the big difference is that it can stay out at sea because it chills the catch. That is not something that we had considered previously.

Our fisheries and marine management is world class. People from around the globe look to us for the lessons we have learnt. Nevertheless, we must ensure that we are not asking our fisheries managers or environmental assessors to enforce out-of-date legislation that is not keeping up with significant changes in fishing practices or environmental conditions and vessels such as the Abel Tasman. This bill will keep fisheries management mechanisms at pace with the changing industry. The effect of a rushed decision now may have unacceptable and unintended consequences for threatened or endangered species for which we are accountable to future generations.

If I wanted to talk about protecting our environment I could talk about the cuts that Campbell Newman has made to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the 220 jobs cut from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, which will have a significant impact, but I do not have time. (Time expired)

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Balancing the economics of fishing is no easy task. Quentin Grafton, one of Australia's leading economists of fisheries, has argued that the massive expansion in fishing over the past 50 years has brought the industry to what seems like a paradox, where an immediate reduction in worldwide catch would actually increase future profits of the industry—he estimates it may be by as much as $50 billion a year. There has been overfishing throughout the world and that has led to stock declines so severe that about 15 per cent of all exploited capture fisheries have collapsed or are at less than 10 per cent of their unexploited levels.

Quentin Grafton argues that world capture fisheries reached a plateau in the early 1990s and that aquaculture must be the future of fisheries. It is a classic collective action problem: because the fish in the sea are not owned by anyone there is an incentive for every individual fisher to overfish. Good fisheries management recognises this. It recognises that if each individual fisher—each fisherman and fisherwoman—is able to go out and take as much as they want then there will not be enough there for the future. We need to make sure that we have a set of policies that recognises not only individual species but also the ecosystem in which they operate.

In that context, the Abel Tasman poses a substantial challenge. This is a supertrawler that has a storage capacity of 6,000 tonnes. The weight of fish that this supertrawler can take is equivalent to 6,000 small cars. That makes it the second largest supertrawler in the world—the largest ever to have fished our waters.

We know a lot about the science of fishing in Australia. We have dedicated teams of researchers looking at the science and the economics of fishing. And I have great respect for those scientists. But when we are dealing with an entirely new way of exploiting fish stocks we need to be very careful. And we need to be careful particularly in the global context, where we know that, as a species, we have overfished and we need to cut back.

The challenge that the Abel Tasman poses to fisheries management is its ability to stay in a single place and to take huge amounts of fish from a single part of the ocean. The impact that that has on a species is complicated. If species move around a great deal then the impact on biodiversity of focused fishing in a single part of the ocean may not be so large. If species are restricted to certain parts of the ocean then it could have substantial impacts on fish stocks. We need to be careful in moving towards this.

When the Commonwealth Fisheries Management Act came into force in 1991 there was not a prospect of supertrawlers the size of the Abel Tasman. They were as distant then as the aviation of today was to the Constitution founders of 1901. They just were not contemplated. So we need to make sure that legislation keeps up with technological developments.

If you listened to the other side you would think that this was an assault on the very foundation of society itself. I was struck by the speech of the member for Fadden, who quoted the Magna Carta—surely a sign that we are about to move into crazy email land—and then talked about how this legislation was impinging on life, love and liberty. I thought he was actually going to talk about same-sex marriage at that point, because that seems the logical place to go with those words, but, no, he was talking about legislation that would allow the minister to restrict the activities of a supertrawler in Australia's waters.

We, of course, have a framework that regulates fishers already. We impinge on the liberties of the fishing community in order to make sure that their industry is stable. Member for Fadden, that happens already. But here I am struck by the way those on the other side are standing up for big fishing operations just as they stand up for big miners and big polluters.

The old argument of the left was: they stand for capital and we stand for labour. I always thought it was a bit more complicated than that, but sometimes that is the way it feels. There is no more capital-intensive fishing operation in existence than these supertrawlers. The ratio of what they spend on machinery to what they spend on people is higher than for any other form of fishing. Let us not have lines about the impact on employment—capital-intensive fishing, such as a supertrawler, employs fewer people than labour-intensive fishing. As we have seen those opposite stand for the big miners and big polluters, they are now standing for the big fishers. We need to be cautious. As the minister has pointed out:

If we get this wrong there are risks to the environment, to commercial operators and to everyone who loves fishing and they are risks I am not prepared to take.

The minister has pointed out that he has been lobbied by a number of Labor MPs. This is an issue that concerns me, but I cannot claim to have had the passion on this issue that the member for Fremantle has had. I pay tribute to her and to her hard work and devotion to this issue.

This bill will not impinge on recreational fishers. The minister has bent over backwards to put in place amendments that make sure that if you are going out in your tinnie to pick up a couple of fish for dinner this bill is not going to impinge on you. This is a supertrawler bill. Make no mistake: if those opposite vote against it, they are saying that they are happy for the supertrawler to come into Australian waters regardless of the uncertainty that we have over what it will do to long-term fish stocks. That is not a pro-fishing position; that is an antifishing position. That is saying: 'We're not going to go and find out any more. We're not going to get any more research to find out how this impacts on the sustainability of an industry we love. No, just let it rip! Let the most capital-intensive form of fishing come into our waters and take what it needs.'

I have no problem with the fish from the Abel Tasman being exported. Australia has a proud export industry. I think it is a terrific thing that we produce many agricultural services and manufacturing goods that are used by the rest of the world—that is not an issue. I am an open markets guy; I am entirely relaxed about the export capacity. What I am concerned about is the sustainability of our fishing stocks and making sure that we have all the science we need to make those decisions. The minister is making sure, through an expert panel, that we explore the impact of the FV Abel Tasman before it is given approval to fish in Commonwealth waters. Using an expert panel will make sure that we make the right decision, that we undertake an open and transparent assessment process and that we have public confidence on this issue. I have been contacted by a number of my constituents who have raised concerns about the supertrawler.

I think they raise perfectly reasonable questions that suggest that we need to make sure that the decisions are based on sound science. The current regime is based on 1,500-tonne storage capacity vessels. We need to make sure that that is updated for 6,000-tonne storage capacity vessels and we need to recognise that there is always uncertainty in the science. We do not dispute the AFMA science on catch limits and the effect of localised depletion on target stocks, but the Abel Tasman's capacity to stay on top of a single school of fish, to take hundreds or thousands of tonnes of an individual species, means that it is uncertain what impact the Abel Tasman may have on individual species.

The Commonwealth policy on fishing bycatch, endorsed by then ministers Truss and Hill, makes clear at a broad level that the definition of fisheries bycatch includes all material, living or nonliving, that is caught while fishing, except for the target species. But in practice that term is used differently by different parts of the industry and by stakeholders. What we are concerned about, for the purposes of the EPBC Act, is bycatch of protected species. We are concerned about the impact of the Abel Tasman on seals, dolphins and seabirds. We need to make sure that the impact on those species is no larger than it needs to be.

In doing so, we need to make sure that we do not adversely affect recreational fishers. I have been contacted by recreational fishers who say that they support this bill. Why wouldn't they? They are not the ones going out with a supertrawler. They are the ones who want to make sure that Australia's fish stocks can be managed not just for our generation but for future generations. We are here not just for ourselves but for the generations to come. The work we do in parliament recognises that policy has continuity. We want to leave the country and the oceans better than we found them, not worse than we found them. We do not do a service to future generations if we allow a supertrawler to take fish species in a way that does irreparable damage to the oceans.

As previous speakers have noted, this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012, fits in with a Labor tradition of standing up for our oceans. The marine parks that have been announced form a historic network. They fit in with a Labor tradition of looking after the environment. It is a Labor tradition that saw the creation of Australian national parks in the 1940s and 1950s, saw us sign the Kyoto Protocol and saw us move to put a price on carbon pollution, because if you do not put a price on carbon pollution you do not save the Barrier Reef. We need to leave a legacy in the oceans for our children. The previous speaker, the member for Moreton, noted that, in a splendid speech in Parliament House, the great Australian author Tim Winton highlighted what a legacy moment that is.

Sitting alongside the network of marine parks that we have established is good fisheries management. It is making sure that we do not do harm to the oceans that cannot be undone afterwards. That fits in with a Labor legacy of listening to the scientists and the economists and thinking for the future. Too often I worry that those opposite are here just for the here and now, for what can be grabbed—that they are the supertrawlers of the policy world: they grab what they can and get out. That is not the Labor view.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 1.45 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.