Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to rise today to speak on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Bill 2017, because I have great childhood memories when it comes to fishing. Growing up in the northern outskirts of Brisbane on the doorstep of Moreton Bay, my father, Ron, would often take me out fishing. He developed a love of fishing in me from a very young age. My father had an eight-foot punt and a 12-foot punt with small engines on the back, so we had flat-bottom boats. We would often get up Saltwater Creek, the Pine River, Cabbage Tree Creek and Nundah Creek. We would go mudcrabbing and fishing for bream and flathead—great childhood memories. Sometimes we would get out the front around Scarborough reef, or out in Bramble Bay and around Woody Point.

One day, when I was about 12, we went out and caught a massive flathead of about 70 centimetres—this was before you let them go; this was when there were plenty of them around—a stingray, a grey nurse shark, which we let go, and a whole lot of whiting. Great childhood memories. We would come home and have a bit of a feed. I love eating seafood. We would also camp up on the banks of Saltwater Creek, which is now all a state green zone to allow crabs and fish to breed up and repopulate. We would camp up there and go crabbing for a couple of days. Great childhood memories. As a father of three boys myself, it is important to me that my sons can also enjoy fishing when they choose, as they get older.

Aussies are a nation of seafood lovers. We consume some 14 kilos of seafood every year. That is below red meat, which is about 31 kilos, and chicken, which is 21 kilos, but I think we would eat more seafood if there was more of it and it was a little bit cheaper. Seafood, generally, is health for you. Fish is. It is a good thing to eat. Throwing another shrimp on the barbie is not only a part of our national identity but an important part of our economy, too, even though that phrase was used for a tourism campaign in America. We call them prawns here. Currently in Australia, the fishing industry is worth $2.8 billion and employs over 14,000 people. We want to ensure that the fishing industry continues to grow—not just recreational fishing but commercial fishing as well, which is very important.

The bill before the House today seeks to amend the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 to recognise and give a greater voice to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander fishers and recreational fishers in the management and decision-making process related to our Commonwealth waters. Other minor amendments include increasing the size of the Australian Fishing Management Authority board from seven people to 10 people and extending the eligibility criteria to ensure that those appointed have expertise in matters relating to recreational Indigenous fishing.

Extending the board will allow a broader range of views and ensure the committee has an appropriate mix of skills, knowledge and experience to fulfil its role. It has also taken steps to ensure that the Australian Fishing Management Authority is completely independent. This will only strengthen the integrity of our fishing industry. We are proposing that no person who holds an executive position on a fishing representative organisation be allowed, which I think is important, because they can be biased. If you have someone just representing a board of recreational fishers, some of those people want to close down commercial fishing, which I think is wrong. So, they need to be independent, with independent skills. We further propose that no person holding an executive position in a fishing industry association be allowed to be appointed as an Australian Fishing Management Authority commissioner.

These amendments will give a greater voice to and recognition of all parties involved in fishing practices. Currently, there is little input from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander fishers in fisheries management. We believe that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customary fishing should be incorporated into fisheries management systems.

To quickly explain what we mean when we are talking about Commonwealth waters, it is the waters that surround Australia from three nautical miles to 200 nautical miles out to sea. It accounts for only six per cent of our commercial fishing, which I think is a bit of a shame. I think we could do a lot better in that space. New Zealand, which has waters a lot smaller than ours, has output that is much bigger. Part of that is because the fish down there are fed better and grow better, apparently, and the environment is better for them to repopulate quickly. But I still think that in commercial fishing Australia isn't doing enough. Australians want to eat fresh Australian seafood, and not everyone wants to go out and catch it themselves.

All of the eastern side of my electorate of Petrie is on the waterfront—the Moreton Bay area, Bramble Bay and Deception Bay. Over the Christmas period in 2014 I went out on the Marvin, a prawn trawler that works in state waters but not in Commonwealth waters. Gee, those guys work hard. I went out about 6 pm and came back at about 8 am the next morning. You set the nets at about 8 pm and it trawls, and at 10 pm you have to pull up the nets and sort the catch. The net is immediately dropped back out, at 10, so by the time you finish sorting the catch, which takes about an hour-and-a-half, you have half an hour before the net comes in again and you have got to do it all again—no sleep, right through the night. They work extremely hard. We were catching bay prawns, tiger prawns and sand crabs. A lot of the bycatch is thrown overboard. There isn't a lot of bycatch. There were a few small whiting and small crabs. Interestingly enough, the dolphins are down at the back of the boat knocking off the part of the bycatch that goes back, and sharks underneath that get the crabs. It was an interesting night, and I encourage members from all parties who have local trawlers—I know the member for Solomon would in his electorate—to ring them up and go out with them for a night. It is extremely interesting. You see how hard they work and you develop a better understanding of commercial fishing.

There are a few little things—red tape—that frustrate commercial and recreational fishers. The boat I was on had two licences, a 45-foot licence and a 30-foot licence, and they were using, I think, the 30-foot licence that night. They are not using the 45-foot licence because they don't have a 45-foot boat at the moment. They wanted to lease their licence out to another 30-foot boat, but they couldn't do it under the 45-foot licence. It just doesn't make sense that a smaller boat couldn't use the larger boat's licence—it has to be exactly 45 feet. A lot of the boats are older. There isn't a standard 45-foot new boat—you have to have one custom-made and it costs millions. I mention that because red tape can be an issue. That is a state government issue in Queensland, but we need to think about that federally, as well.

There are three types of fishing. With Indigenous fishing, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are allowed to catch fish, turtles, dugong and whatever it is they catch for their own consumption. I think that is appropriate, as long as it is not sold commercially ongoing. It is for only what they can eat.

As I said, recreational fishing is extremely important—thousands of jobs; people like to do it. I went out fishing in commercial boats on the Coral Sea with my father in my early 20s. I have been fishing up in the electorate of the member for Solomon, on Melville Island, at the fishing lodge on Indigenous land up there. It's a great thing, recreational fishing, and we need to allow Australians to fish in Australian waters. We need to make sure we have appropriate rules that enable it to be sustainable for generations to come.

Commercial fishing is also important, and I don't think parliamentarians do enough to make sure that we can support them. We have the third-largest fishing waters in the world, yet we are 60th in productivity, which goes to my point about commercial fishing. Queensland I think is also lagging behind, because we make up only 11 per cent of commercial fishing in Australia. If you look at somewhere like Tasmania, they have a lot more commercial fishing than we do, but partly that is because they have a lot of aquaculture down there, which is great; we all like to eat Tasmanian salmon. But I think Queensland should also be trying to look at how we can improve aquaculture in our state and make the most of it. Not everyone wants to eat cheap Indonesian basa or Vietnamese fish. We want to be able to go and buy Australian fish, and it's very difficult, if you go to the local fish and chip shop, to get it.

We've also done a little bit with green zones. In November 2012 the previous, Labor, government expanded the marine protected area to some 3.2 million square kilometres. Following considerable concern from communities around Australia—recreational fishers who would have been locked out and commercial fishers who would have been locked out—part of our election commitment in 2013 was to review it. There were a lot of keen consultations. It was robust, comprehensive and scientific. The Director of National Parks is currently preparing management plans for Australia's marine parks following two public consultation periods, and these plans will soon be provided for government's consideration.

The coalition government is investing a substantial amount of money into marine parks for conservation, for fishing and for recreation. We've allocated $56 million to implement new zoning, and we'll wait for the formal advice. We have increased the proportion of the estate that is under a higher level of protection from 60 to 63 per cent. My understanding is that the actual conservation side of it will increase from 60 to 63 per cent. We maintain the number of high-value ecological features protected at 331, and we've significantly increased the number of ecological features protected on the sea floor from 192 to 265. The plans cut the impact to business in half, which I think is important when compared with the previous zoning, from 8.21 million to 4.1 million. Eighty per cent of the estate is open to commercial fishing, compared with 64 per cent under Labor. I'm not being political when I say that; I'm just saying that we need to make sure we are looking after commercial fishers as well. The draft plan also restores access for recreational fishing.

The bill has received widespread support from peak industry bodies, including the Commonwealth Fisheries Association and Seafood Industry Australia. These amendments were not considered lightly. The various bodies consulted on the amendments were the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance, the Australian Public Service Commission, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the Commonwealth Fisheries Association, the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation's Indigenous Reference Group, and the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council. I wonder how we get anything done when we consult that widely, quite frankly. I mean, that's a lot of consultation. If we have to go through that for everything, then, yes, I do have concern, once again, regarding red tape. That's a lot of consultation. I think we need to be much better at reducing red tape. A number of bodies representing recreational and Indigenous fishers made comments on the inquiry—the Victorian Recreational Fishing Peak Body and the Tasmanian Association for Recreational Fishing—but, once again, I can see nothing from Queensland there. So I would say to those in this place that recreational fishing is important, and this bill gives them a voice on the board.

I know the member for Solomon has established a group here, the Parliamentary Friends of Recreational Fishers, to support recreational fishing. But I still think we should be focusing on commercial fishing as well. We can have a great environment, make sure we have good breeding grounds and make sure there is a certain bag limit, but, please, whoever's in government: let's look after commercial fishing as well. Our population will only get bigger. We want to eat clean seafood, and most Australians do not have the time to go and throw a recreational line in or go out fishing. We need to make sure they can buy it at a reasonable price. More thought needs to be given to aquaculture as well.

It is important that governments continually revise their legislation to ensure they are looking after Australia's needs. Recreational fishing is becoming more and more prevalent in Commonwealth waters as boats and so forth improve. It's important that the interests of recreational fishers are considered in Commonwealth fisheries management, but not at the expense of commercial fishing, which also should be encouraged. I do support this bill.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the government's changes contained within the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Bill 2017, and I will make some other comments as well that are relevant to the topic. Indigenous and recreational fishing issues are really important to people in my electorate, which covers Palmerston and Darwin, the northern capital of Australia. But in fact these issues, as the member for Petrie mentioned, are important to people Australia-wide. I've been very fortunate to enjoy fishing in the Territory, with first nations friends, and in other magical parts of Australia—and not only in the member for Petrie's electorate. Last night I caught up with my brother-in-law, who lives in the member for Franklin's electorate now, and we've thrown a line in down there in the Derwent. But previously, when he was living in north-east Arnhem Land, in the member for Lingiari's electorate, we've pulled in some barra down at East Woody Beach, and seeing first nations people fishing on their country is a special thing, a sacred thing. It is one of the many reasons we support this legislation, because it's important that there is a stronger voice for them and for recreational fishers in general. We recognise the cultural and family importance of fishing as well as the importance of protecting our marine environment and resources. It's important to rec fishers but it's obviously incredibly important to first nations peoples.

A couple of weeks ago I went fishing, again in the member for Lingiari's electorate, with some first nations friends to a beautiful place in the Top End called Bynoe Harbour. I want to put on the record my thanks to the extended Clarke family for that opportunity. We did all right. We caught a couple and we got some muddies. It was a great feed and a great experience to be out on country with them. To Indigenous Australians, fishing is a source of joy and helps forge family bonds. It also results in a great feed of fish—normally; you can have some slow days.

As the member for Petrie mentioned just a little while ago, it's for some of these reasons that we established, on the member for Hunter's suggestion, the Parliamentary Friends of Recreational Fishers group. It is a multiparty group, and one thing we've done in recent weeks, on 15 October, was to go on Gone Fishing Day. Well done to the national rec fishing body, which had a great activity down on Sydney Harbour, but for Gone Fishing Day I went fishing locally in my electorate at the mouth of Rapid Creek. I was joined by David Ciaravolo from the Amateur Fishermen's Association of the Northern Territory—he's the executive officer there—and also by my good friend Kenny Vowles, the NT government's Minister for Primary Industry and Resources. It was a great morning. We had many members of the community come down with their kids and throw in a line, and both AFANT and my office presented—and will do when I get back to my electorate—just small tokens for those families who took their kids out fishing. Through AFANT, the amateur rec fishers of my electorate and the broader Northern Territory have a voice. But this legislation is important because we make sure that that voice has a proper place in the discussion of issues around that balance of marine protections, enabling the commercial fishermen to make a living and provide fish for those who can't go fishing and get their own feed of fish; but also that enables fishing stocks to be sustainable, so that rec fishers, including first nations fishers, can continue to enjoy that pastime.

Through all these experiences that I've outlined I had the opportunity to hear Indigenous and rec fishers' concerns with the current legislative framework and processes around the management of Commonwealth fisheries. They've been unhappy with the lack of representation or genuine engagement avenues available to them. I think that is fair to say. Indigenous and rec fishers are particularly concerned with the process undertaken to allow supertrawlers to fish in Australian fisheries, due to the fact that there was no formal process by which they, rec fishers and first nations fishers, could have their say. Recreational and first nation fishers obviously deserve the opportunity for better engagement with government. Rec and first nations fishers are entitled to a genuine say in key decisions about access to and management of key fisheries.

Therefore, as I've stated, Labor is supporting this bill, because it does provide for explicit recognition of recreational and first nations fishers in Commonwealth legislation. I welcome the fact that these amendments will require the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to ensure that the interests of all fishers are taken into account in Commonwealth fisheries management decisions. I also welcome that other minor amendments in the bill allow for increased opportunities for membership of AFMA advisory bodies and extend the eligibility criteria for serving on the Australian Fisheries Management Authority Commission to include expertise in matters relating to recreational and first nations fishing.

In practice this bill will require the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to take reasonable steps to ensure it has received adequate advice on relevant recreational and first nation interests, in addition to commercial fishing and environmental interests and scientific expertise, prior to making management decisions for Commonwealth commercial fisheries. Let me be clear that, while we support these changes, Labor will ensure that the consultation and opportunities for engagement enabled by this bill actually do occur.

The member for Petrie mentioned the need to support commercial fisheries that are doing the right thing. That is very true. As I said a little while ago, Indigenous and first nations and recreational fishers are particularly concerned with the process undertaken to allow supertrawlers to fish in Australian fisheries due to the fact that there was no formal process by which they could have their say. So, owing to the potential impacts that industrial fishing processes, such as supertrawlers, can have on fish populations in the marine environment far beyond where they actually operate, it's important the Australian community, particularly Indigenous and recreational fishers, are afforded the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals.

There are many instructive examples from our region of what can happen if industrial practices are allowed to occur without adequate oversight. In Timor-Leste, a near neighbour of my electorate of Solomon, boats of Chinese fishing companies have been found with massive numbers of sharks on board. The effect that this has on the economy and wellbeing of fishers in Timor-Leste, with the economic cost and health cost of taking away that food source, is a very serious issue. This is in our region, to the north of our country. A joint operation was conducted at dawn on 9 September this year by the marine conservation group Sea Shepherd Global with the Timor-Leste National Police, which resulted in the capture of the Hong Long Fisheries Pingtan Marine Enterprises fishing fleet at anchor off the coast of Com in Timor-Leste. Com is one of the most beautiful places in the world. It is on the north-east side of the half-island of Timor-Leste. That is where that joint operation occurred. At the request of the Timorese police, Sea Shepherd's patrol vessel, Ocean Warrior, approached these foreign fishing vessels. Once those vessels were secured by the Timorese police, the Sea Shepherd crew members assisted in documenting the catch on board, confirming suspicions that the fleet were targeting sharks as opposed to engaging in broad-scale fishing.

I want to commend the Timorese national police force and the other organisations involved in the operation. In particular, I want to commend the Australian Federal Police on the capacity-building work that they do with the Timorese national police, including in areas of investigations and enforcement operations. The Timorese police force were aided by the Australian Federal Police. It is very important work for the Australian Federal Police to be doing, I'm sure members would agree. The Australian Defence Force's Defence Cooperation Program is also working very closely with the Timor-Leste Defence Force, doing great work with the navy and army over there in Timor-Leste. I commend them on that work they are doing also. Inconveniently, fish do not abide by international boundaries. This highlights the importance of acting together with our regional partners to protect fish stocks and our marine environment.

On a more local level, these examples highlight the potential impact that industrial-scale fishing practices can have on marine ecosystems well beyond the area in which the fishing occurs. We need to be acting together. Something I want to raise with my colleagues is that we need to look further into ways to ban these supertrawlers and industrial-scale fishing practices for good from the Small Pelagic Fishery. On 7 September 2015 the Senate referred the following matter to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry, to report by 30 April 2016:

The environmental, social and economic impacts of large-capacity fishing vessels commonly known as 'Supertrawlers' operating in Australia's Marine Jurisdiction.

Let it be noted that the reference was opposed by the Liberal and National coalition senators.

This is a problem. It's a problem in this country and not only for amateur recreational fishes. It's not just a problem for first nations fishers. It is a problem for commercial fishers. One of the committee's recommendations was that the Australian government ban all factory freezer mid-water trawlers from operating in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery. The coalition—those opposite—rejected that recommendation. Labor, having listened to ongoing concerns from the community and across the country, proposed this inquiry in August 2015 to examine the environmental, social and economic impacts of large capacity factory trawlers in Australia's marine jurisdiction, and in government Labor ensured appropriate consideration was given to the impact of large capacity factory trawlers on Australia's fisheries by amending the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Our amendment guaranteed Australia's waters were adequately protected from risks associated with the use of large capacity factory trawlers.

Labor remains committed to preventing the operation of large capacity factory trawlers in Australian waters unless a thorough assessment against the most up-to-date science can verify that such operations will not undermine small pelagic fisheries and recreational fishing spots. I have used the example of Timor Leste. If the Timorese allowed foreign vessels to take everything away, that would wreck a sustainable fishing industry for that developing country, which is unacceptable. I support this bill to give a greater voice to first nation and rec fishers.

Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've risen from my sickbed to speak on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Bill because recreational fishing in my electorate is highly important. I apologise if I struggle, but I will do my best. It won't be pretty but we'll give it a go. On this side of the House we welcome this legislation, although I will suggest later in my contribution that the government could go further. More than 85 per cent of Australia's population lives within 50 kilometres of the ocean. Fishing in Australia is a cultural pastime embraced by all Australians. There have been many attempts to quantify the value of recreational fishing and none yet agreed upon. The Australia Institute of Marine Science's December 2016 report contained an analysis of the value of Australia's marine industry. Contained within that report was information that recreational fishing contributed almost $2.2 billion directly to the economy in the 2013-14 years. It also stated that a further $1.5 billion was indirectly contributed to the economy, giving a total value of $3.7 billion. These are significant figures, but they do not take into account the value of repairs, maintenance, marinas and other infrastructure or tourism activity. AIMS do not attribute the value of these sectors between the recreational and commercial sectors. It would be fair to say, though, the conservative $3.7 billion figure demonstrates how big recreational fishing is. Tasmania's peak recreational fishing body, TARFish, is currently in discussions with other bodies in the Commonwealth to finalise an agreed methodology to properly determine the value of recreational fisheries.

The AIMS figures are also interesting when compared to the commercial sector. AIMS state that the value of Australia's recreational fishery in 2013-14 was more than twice the value of Australia's commercial wild fisheries and four times the value of marine based aquaculture. In my state and nationally there continues to be significant growth in aquaculture, but on these figures the commercial sector has some way to go in terms of its economic value. The AIMS data in itself demonstrates a clear need to strengthen the engagement of recreational fishers in Commonwealth legislation and decision-making. In my state and my electorate the recreational fishing sector will welcome this legislation. In some ways it mirrors Labor's national recreational fishing policy that we took to the last federal election.

Recreational fishing is part of Tasmania's social and economic fabric. As an island state, Tasmania actually has a longer coastline than either New South Wales or Victoria. Our inland waters are home to Tasmania's world-class trout fishery. This fishery is estimated to make an economic contribution of around $50 million per annum to Tasmania's economy. It attracts visitors from interstate and overseas who wish to be challenged by some of the best site fishing opportunities for trout in our pristine inland waters, many of which are contained within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

Our marine waters are home to world-class game fishing, a stunning rock lobster fishery and the best inshore flathead fishing in Australia. Catching a feed of flathead is one of the great Tasmanian pastimes, which can be enjoyed all year round. It's been estimated that around 115,000 Tasmanians, or one in four people, enjoy recreational fishing. I remember as a child going to my local port, to the wharf—when you used to be allowed onto the wharf—and fishing for flathead. Nowadays it's a bit hard to do that on our wharves. Still, it's such an important pastime that generations of Tasmanians have enjoyed.

Marine and Safety Tasmania, or MAST, has stated that Tasmania has the highest level of recreational boat ownership of any state or territory in Australia, at one in 17. For the 2016-17 year, over 30,000 boats were registered in Tasmania. It has also been established that 90 per cent of all registered boats are used for recreational fishing. Conservative estimates place the value of Tasmania's recreational fishery in excess of $200 million. Tasmania's Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, IMAS, has just commenced a survey of the Tasmanian population to determine the number of persons who go fishing and their demographic make-up. IMAS previously researched the major drivers of recreational fishing in Tasmania, and it states:

Overall, Tasmanian recreational fishers assigned the highest importance to non-catch related motives – "being outdoors" and "relaxing/unwinding" - followed by catch-related motives – "catching fish for food" and "for enjoyment/sport". Social motives – "spending time with family" and "spending time with friends" - were next in importance.

Given the value of recreational fishing, it is somewhat extraordinary how the fishery has been treated by this government when it comes to the debate over large-scale factory freezer trawlers that operate in Commonwealth waters. The public record states that this government has been and continues to support supertrawlers, initially in the Margiris and then the Geelong Star.

When Labor was in government we stopped the supertrawler, but once the coalition assumed office there was no greater champion of supertrawlers than the former assistant minister from Tasmania, Senator Colbeck. In 2015 Labor tried to ban the Geelong Star but was stopped by the coalition. Labor still holds genuine concerns about the impact of industrial-scale fishing operations in the small pelagic fishery. It is true that the fishery operates under a scientifically assessed quota management system. Equally true is that there have not been sufficient scientific studies to give the wider community confidence that large-scale harvesting of fish stocks from a single area would not have a long-term impact on the overall fishery. Localised depletion is a genuine concern for recreational fishers, particularly those from Tasmania. Tasmania's peak recreational fishing body, TARFish, believes there is a lack of knowledge on the rates of movements of species within the fishery, a lack of knowledge on the time it will take for local populations to recover from industrial-scale fishing and a lack of knowledge on one particular species, the jack mackerel, on the east coast of Tasmania. The jack mackerel is a particularly important species as a source of food for our tuna populations. It is also an important species for the recreational tuna sector.

A real contrast exists between the precautionary approach of this side of the House when it comes to supertrawlers and the approach of the other side. I do welcome that this legislation contains some provisions from the Senate Environment and Communications Committee inquiry into factory freezer trawlers. It may be that another Margiris or Geelong Star could be avoided in the future with a new requirement for AFMA to consider recreational fisheries in its decision-making process, as recommended by the Senate inquiry. Perhaps if this legislation had been in place a few years ago this entire debate could have been prevented.

There is no doubt the coalition has suffered political damage in my state with their blind support of supertrawlers. At the Tasmanian level the Liberal Party's ignorance could never be more stated than by having a passing glance at the actions of the Hodgman government. For a long period they were happy to stay silent and let their federal colleagues do the running. But in an effort to minimise the political damage inflicted by their federal colleagues, and with an election less than 12 months away, the Hodgman government introduced legislation to ban trawling in state waters—a political stunt if there ever were one, because trawling has been banned in Tasmanian waters for decades.

At the commencement of my contribution I mentioned that Labor will be supporting this legislation. I also mention that on this side we believe things could be still done in a way that complements this legislation. At the last election Labor had a policy to establish a national recreational fishing council that would give our recreational fishers a seat at the decision-making table. Chaired by the agriculture, fisheries and forestry minister, the council would include representatives of both recreational fisheries and relevant government departments. The council would tackle issues like small pelagic fisheries management, boating and fishing infrastructure, conservation, access to national marine parks, and other issues of concern to recreational fishers. In effect, this body would have been the national peak body at government level for recreational fishers. It would have given recreational fishers a direct say in management decisions.

Having perused the explanatory memorandum for this legislation, I would be interested in hearing from the opposite side as to whether recreational fishers will have that direct say in future AFMA management decisions. For example, will there be a recreational fisheries representative on AFMA's management advisory committees, or will this legislation just be lip service? I hope one of the government's speakers can clarify this point, as it is very important to Tasmania's recreational fishers.

This legislation is well overdue and I know recreational fishers from my state and electorate will welcome it. The proof, as they say, will ultimately be in its implementation. I look forward to seeing it becoming a reality and to recreational fishers being placed in national fisheries management decision-making.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like my colleagues from Braddon and Solomon, I am glad to speak on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Bill 2017, which we support, while recognising what it does in terms of fisheries management—there is bigger question of fisheries management and ocean protection—is relatively minor. It must be seen against the background of other actions or inactions that are the responsibility of this government that don't help in putting Australia on the path to sustainable fisheries and a properly protected ocean environment. There's no doubt that careful, clear-eyed and rigorous management of Australia's fisheries is critical as part of the wider task of protecting our oceans. We are the only continental island nation and as such we have one of the largest and most important responsibilities when it comes to the stewardship of the sea. We should never underestimate the significance of that role.

Australia has the sixth-largest land mass but the third-largest exclusive economic zone. That is because we take responsibility for a large area of sea. So Australia, among all nations, should understand that the ocean is the lifeblood of our planet. It's the once great primordial soup of the earth's biodiversity which now suffers species depletion and habitat loss through our neglect. It is the largest source of protein on the planet, but its potential as a food source is threatened by overuse. It is a significant factor in shaping our climate, as well as a clear medium through which the effects of climate change can be felt and measured. For all those reasons, Australia has to approach fishery and ocean management with the utmost seriousness and the utmost care.

There is no doubt that we have the potential to be a leading influence in modelling and practising the highest standard of ocean protection and sustainable use. We have been a leader at times in the past, especially in relation to Antarctica. We have both a national interest and an international responsibility to look after our oceans. Sensible and sustainable fisheries management is core to that work. Fishing is central to the social and economic life of communities around Australia and, certainly, in my electorate of Fremantle. I will say a little bit more about that in a minute.

There is, of course, an economic use aspect to sound fisheries regulation, but there is also an essential ocean protection aspect. Ultimately, ocean protection is paramount. Ocean protection has to be the overarching concern, because, if you don't preserve marine ecosystems, fisheries will inevitably deteriorate and eventually collapse. So when it comes to good fisheries management, the false dichotomy between economic use and conservation has to go straight out the door. There is no fundamental conflict between economic use and conservation. They are really one and the same.

The value of Australia's wild-caught fisheries is considerable. In 2014-15 it was $1.6 billion. Within the Commonwealth fisheries, which is principally what we are concerned with, it was $350 million, and that doesn't include bluefin tuna, which is caught in the Commonwealth Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery and towed to mariculture pens in South Australia to be grown out. The value of that fishery is a further $120 million. While we manage our fisheries, particularly in Commonwealth waters, reasonably well by international standards, we don't have a perfect record. It is salient for us to reflect on the fact that, of the 93 fish stocks managed solely by the Commonwealth, in 2015 three were classified as being subject to overfishing and a further 11 were classified as being uncertain with regards to fishing mortality.

I mentioned before that fishing is a big part of life in my electorate of Fremantle. Recreational fishing is a significant pastime for people in Western Australia across the board. In Fremantle we have the beautiful Indian Ocean as our coastline, and the Swan River as well, and fishing is something that thousands of people in my electorate enjoy as part of their birthright. Fremantle has a significant commercial fishing tradition and industry. There are over 400 fishing vessels that currently operate out of Fremantle. It is an industry that started at the turn of the century. It was largely created by Greek and Italian migrants who, in 1947, created the Fremantle Fishermen's Cooperative. The industry continues to be a very vital social and economic part of my community. In fact, this coming Sunday I will march as part of the annual blessing of the fleet, which is a distinctive ritual in Fremantle that is devoted to the safety and wellbeing of the fishing fleet and all of the fishing men and women who are engaged in it.

WA does have a history of commitment to sustainable fisheries and it has made some new ground in that area in the 21st century. In fact, I think it is right to say that the Western Rock Lobster Fishery was the first fishery in the world to be certified by the Marine Stewardship Council, in 2000, and it has maintained that certification ever since—for 17 years, which is incredibly laudable and they are to be congratulated for that. Western Australia's Peel-Harvey Estuary Blue Swimmer Crab Recreational Fishery is the first recreational fishery to be certified by the Marine Stewardship Council, and our South Sea pearl fishery was the first gem fishery to complete that certification. That is something that is worth noting.

This bill, essentially, makes some changes to the way that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority operates. AFMA has a central role in managing our fisheries sustainably. The bill requires that AFMA now take input from, and consider the interests of, all users of fisheries, including recreational, Indigenous and commercial fishers. That is a sensible and welcomed change that the government has brought in, and we support it. It is a change that is not being made before time. It responds to the Senate inquiry into factory freezer trawlers. Other contributors to this debate have made reference to that, and I will come back to it. It also responds to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into marine fisheries and aquaculture. As members may know, the terms of reference of that inquiry were to look at the extent to which fisheries management regimes align with and protect the interests of the wider community, in particular the balance between commercial, recreational and Indigenous fishing, conservation interests and consumer interests.

A key point made in that draft report was that the impacts of recreational and Indigenous customary fishing activity have been largely uncounted in Commonwealth, state and territory fishery management regimes. There needs to be a greater recognition of recreational fishing in fisheries management and there has been relatively poor input from Indigenous people in fishery management. Indigenous customary fishing should be incorporated into fishery management systems. I thank the member for Solomon for speaking about some of those matters in depth.

I do want to put the change in this bill in the wider context of ocean protection because it is impossible to separate them. I guess that goes back to what I was saying about supertrawlers. In the pursuit of effective and sustainable marine protection, Labor continued the work begun by the former Howard government in moving towards a system of national marine protected areas. That was based exhaustively on the science and on extensive consultation. I will take people back to 2012, when the network was settled. The World Wildlife Fund welcomed that reform and congratulated the federal government of Australia on finalising the boundaries and basic layout of what was to be the world's largest network of marine parks. They stated at the time:

This is an historic moment for marine conservation in Australia. The establishment of this national network of marine parks is a world-first at this scale. It’s an essential step forward for the protection of Australia’s diverse and unique marine wildlife.

Today’s announcement is in line with scientific advice and has strong public support. We understand that in this phase, the government received 80,000 submissions which overwhelmingly supported the new marine parks. This latest demonstration of support builds on the waves of enthusiasm from hundreds of thousands of people all around the country over the past couple of years.

I thoroughly agree with that. It was a properly conducted process and it established a new high standard in marine protection, which I think is rightly Australia's role in the world for some of the reasons I've mentioned before.

Since that time, and certainly since the Abbott-Turnbull government was elected in 2013, that reform has been steadily diminished, chipped away at, torn down and undermined. We've had four years of unnecessary delay. The member for Petrie talked about processes that go on forever and the fact that the community gets frustrated when there are interminable delays, endless reviews and so on. In 2012, following on from the work that had occurred under the Howard government and the exhaustive process that took the science as its No. 1 reference point and took as its next point of reference the submissions of tens of thousands of people in the Australian community, this historic reform was delivered.

So we were there in 2012. We then went into a further unnecessary bureaucratic process, which has taken most of the last four years. Where has it got us to?

It has got us to a moth-holed, shredded, torn-up version of that historic and rigorous marine plan. It has reduced marine protected areas by 50 per cent. It has stripped away 40 million hectares of marine reserves, including reserves that cover the Coral Sea; the deep ocean area known as the Diamantina Fracture Zone; and in my area, the Perth Canyon, one of the very few known feeding zones for the blue whale. One thousand, four hundred and sixty scientists worldwide have signed a petition decrying that backward step, including Dr David Suzuki, who described the vandalism as 'sickening', and I agree.

One of the most disappointing aspects of the government's gutting of Labor's national marine protection network is the removal of huge areas of marine sanctuaries, despite the overwhelming public submission support for that protection. The only apparent logic to this removal in relation to some of these far offshore areas is that, although they don't have any fishing use now, they might have some prospective fishing value. But, as I understand it, and this is based on my close engagement with the fishing industry, including the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council, the only possible fishing value of those areas would be through large trawling vessels with on-board refrigeration—in other words, supertrawlers. So the government have gutted this historic and scientifically supported marine plan in the name of supertrawlers in the future, essentially. They've taken away 50 per cent, or 40 million hectares, of marine protection based on the possibility, at some point, of supertrawlers coming in—which everybody knows, and all the science shows, would be devastating to the marine environment, to fish stocks and to the local fishing industry. That is very, very hard to understand.

Labor members support the bill because it makes some minor but laudable changes to the way that AFMA works. But the bill does nothing to counteract or mitigate the enormous harmfulness of the government's vandalism in relation to marine sanctuaries. In every area, it is a strange pattern: Labor creates; the government tears away. The national marine protection plan; needs based school funding; the NDIS; NBN—they all start with 'n', interestingly: all of these things that Labor comes along and creates, the next lot come in and hollow out and strip away. They find reasons to make them, at best, a far, far weaker version of what was created.

There is a very bitter irony in the fact that this bill we're looking at today puts in place the opportunity for recreational, Indigenous and commercial fishers to have greater input into fisheries management, but that the government's approach to the national marine network completely ignores all of the evidence from the community about its view of Labor's national marine protected area plan. The Department of the Environment and Energy itself has revealed there were 82,000 submissions received on the marine management plan through this further, pointless four-year process—82,000 submissions—and they were overwhelmingly in favour of the plan as Labor had settled it. Ninety-seven per cent of the submissions from recreational fishers supported the plan that Labor put in place in 2013. So 97 per cent of all of the recreational fishers said, 'Leave it as it is,' but this government is intent on ripping it down.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My electorate has some of the best fishing spots in the country, if not the world. I know colleagues from Queensland and the Northern Territory, and perhaps my friend the member for Fremantle, may scoff. Jealousy is a terrible thing! From the east coast beaches to the many lakes in the Central Highlands, people travel across the globe to come to Lyons to fish. My state of Tasmania also has a long, enduring and resilient Indigenous culture, and, as you might expect, with a landmass cut off from the mainland for tens of thousands of years, the ocean forms a significant part of that culture. For thousands of years, people have fished the waters off Tasmania for sustenance, and, more recently, for recreation.

I am pleased to support the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Bill 2017, as it seeks to strengthen official engagement between recreational fishers, Indigenous fishers and commercial fishers regarding the management of Commonwealth fisheries. For tens of thousands of years, Indigenous Australians managed fisheries, and that is why it is important that their voices are heard and taken into account when decisions are made about Commonwealth waters.

Last year, a study was announced by the Tasmanian Centre for Marine Socioecology to investigate the potential for Indigenous and commercial fisheries to operate as a key economic component in Tasmania's regional communities. The study, titled ‘Wave to Plate’: establishing a market for Tasmanian Aboriginal cultural fisheries, is funded by the Australian government's Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, in association with the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment and the CMS. Professor Stewart Frusher, director of the CMS, says that the project has great significance and will begin the journey to understand how Indigenous fishery cultural practices can integrate with and help to build regional economies.

Emma Lee, a Tasmanian Indigenous woman and PhD candidate, recently spent six months in the Basque Country of northern Spain studying the fishing industry to bring that knowledge back to Tasmania. Emma is the first Tasmanian Aboriginal recipient of the Indigenous Fellowship in the prestigious and internationally competitive Endeavour Scholarships and Fellowships program. She sees this study as a way to connect fishing—which boosts communication, self-esteem and connectedness—with land, building pride and self-worth. There is nothing like providing food for one's family to generate a sense of pride and self-respect. Emma says that, if we can harness that positivity, we can transform regions of unemployment into vibrant food-producing regions. The study's end-vision is to incorporate Indigenous culture with Tasmania's growing seafood and tourism market. The Wave to Plate movement is, like the more well-known Paddock to Plate movement, gaining traction in Tasmania as our community and particularly visitors to our great state seek more connectedness with the origins of their food. There are 1,900 businesses involved in the movement, servicing 1.26 million visitors, who spend around $2.23 billion in Tasmania—and I am confident those numbers will grow.

This legislation will also ensure that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority takes into account the interests of recreational and commercial fishers. Recognition of Indigenous and recreational fishers is not currently explicit in Commonwealth fisheries legislation, which primarily regulates commercial harvest of fish stock. The bill inserts an objective that will require AFMA, the minister and joint authorities to have regard to ensuring that the interests of commercial, recreational and Indigenous fishers are taken into account in the context of managing Commonwealth commercial fisheries.

Other minor amendments in the bill allow for increased opportunities for membership of AFMA advisory bodies and extend the eligibility criteria for serving on the AFMA commission to include expertise on matters relating to recreational and Indigenous fishing.

I am pleased to see recommendations included in this bill that arose from the Senate's inquiry into factory freezer trawlers, but I am disappointed that the legislation does not incorporate the inquiry's key recommendation, which is to ban the vessels. There is simply no place for factory freezer trawlers in Australia. I made it clear during my election campaign that I was opposed to these vessels and that I would be, and I remain, a voice within the Labor Party that wants to see these vessels permanently banned from Australia. I note that the Senate inquiry recommendation to ban these vessels from operating in Commonwealth waters was reached with the full support of Labor senators. Labor stands with recreational fishers against factory freezer trawlers. I do accept that scientific experts contend that our fisheries can accommodate the quotas allocated to such vessels, but that doesn't mean we should accept such vessels as part of our commercial fishing sector. As I have said before, just because a fishery can accommodate a quota being taken from it, it doesn't mean the quota should be taken. By all means, if the expert advice is that a fishery needs to be harvested to head off environmental imbalance or harm then it should be fished. But it may be better to allow a fishery to simply remain in place, unharvested, rather than sell it for peanuts to these factory freezer vessels. Let the fishery grow. I see no harm in allowing fish stocks to grow.

Members may recall the Geelong Star, which was given permission by this government to harvest the Small Pelagic Fishery off the south coast of the mainland and the east coast of Tasmania. This vessel was of negligible benefit to the Australian economy. It provided few jobs, certainly none that were ongoing, and its other economic inputs were marginal at best. While here, that vessel killed a number of dolphins and seals, and the fate of the protected whale shark remains unknown. There were no tears shed in Tasmania when the Geelong Star headed off over the horizon. In fact, I challenge anyone opposite who supports factory freezer trawlers to point out any community in the world where these vessels have fished that have a happy story to tell. The only people who benefit from factory freezer trawlers are the corporations that own them.

Australia's commercial fishing sector is best served by Australian flagged commercial trawlers, crewed by Australians, home porting in Australia, being maintained in Australia and processing and exporting from Australia. Commercial management of our fisheries should examine not only what can occur but what should occur and, when determining whether quotas are allocated, the community benefit should be weighed alongside the private benefit. Our fisheries belong to all of us, not just a handful of international shipping corporations.

As members might expect, Tasmania has a thriving recreational firing sector. Indeed, it has the highest participation rate of any state or territory of the Federation—115,000 Tasmanians fish, which is about one in five Tasmanians, and there are 30,000 registered recreational vessels. Unfortunately, we can only guesstimate the economic value of recreational fishing to Tasmania—we guesstimate it's around a couple of hundred million dollars—because the federal government is dragging its feet on working with the Tasmanian recreational fishing sector and businesses to draw up a detailed economic profile.

Earlier this month, thousands of Tasmanians enthusiastically took part in the second annual Gone Fishing Day calendar of events, with five days of saltwater events and five of freshwater. We are truly blessed in Tasmania with great fishing. Whether it is in a creek, a lake, a beach or the deep ocean, we have some of the best in the world. We will have the World Fly Fishing Championships in Tasmania in 2019, and we have a burgeoning swordfishing sector off the south-east coast. A three-year research project into the sustainability of swordfish is concluding this year and early indications are very promising for a sustainable fishery ahead. Swordfishing is a sector of the industry that is growing by word of mouth. The chatter has gone through the community like wild fire about how good it is in Tasmania and the fact that in Tasmania it's a daytime experience. You don't have to be out in the dead of night. In fact, the sector is becoming so popular that, without proper management, it does risk becoming—oh, my speechwriter!—a double-edged swordfish. I should read these speeches before I give them! That is why it is important for recreational fishers to have a seat at the table—because they know the issues involved.

Fishing season in Tasmania is just kicking off. I am told squid is a bit quiet and it is a little early for swordfish, but there was very good southern bluefin fishing up until a month ago, which is later than usual. It used to be a three- or four-month season but it is now nine months long. As we know, waters are getting warmer over summer off Tasmania and this is bringing different species down, including albacore and marlin. The warming of Tasmania's coastal waters does of course have significant implications for fishery management, and the input of recreational and Indigenous fishers will be invaluable in developing appropriate mechanisms to take account of it. That is one of the reasons Labor are happy to support this bill. It is long past time that Indigenous and recreational fishers had a seat at the table in the management of Commonwealth fisheries, and we are very pleased to support the bill.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill, the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Bill 2017, reflects the Australian government's ongoing commitment to the long-term sustainable use and development of Australia's fishery resources for all fishery users—commercial, recreational and Indigenous. As stakeholders in Commonwealth fisheries, it is important that recreational fishers' and Indigenous fishers' interests are identified and taken into consideration by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, or AFMA.

The bill improves the transparency of arrangements for AFMA, giving consideration to the interests of all fisheries users in its decision-making process. The bill improves recreational fishers' and Indigenous fishers' formal mechanisms for conveying their interests around the management of Commonwealth fisheries. The inclusion of an additional objective in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 is consistent with representations from recreational and fishing advocacy groups and Indigenous advisory bodies.

Eligibility criteria for appointment of AFMA commissioners will be broadened to include expertise in matters relating to recreational and Indigenous fishers. This will enhance the capacity of the commission to respond to future challenges in fisheries management. Increasing the maximum number of members on AFMA's advisory committee from seven to 10 improves opportunities for representation from all relevant stakeholders, including recreational fishers.

This is welcome legislation that provides significant improvement with regard to the management of our fisheries. It ensures that the interests of Indigenous fishing groups and recreational fishing groups are appropriately taken into account. I certainly commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.