Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

It was an interesting contribution in part from Senator Abetz to Senator Siewert’s disallowance motion on the southern bluefin tuna quota. He never misses an opportunity to develop his conspiracy theories, which we have just heard. He is a bit like the Greens in that regard. They have always got their conspiracy theories and Senator Abetz equally has his conspiracy theories, and it is a very interesting theory that he puts forward. As Labor spokesman on agriculture, fisheries and forestry, I am very happy to put on the record our position in relation to current policies, and I will help Senator Abetz by doing that now.

The Labor Party is of the view that seafood is becoming an increasingly important part of a healthy, balanced diet. Recent surveys show that consumer awareness of the health benefits of seafood is on the rise and consumers are responding by purchasing more seafood meals. Demand for seafood, especially locally produced Australian seafood, is growing in the domestic market. In a broad strategic context, it is therefore critically important that the Australian government secures the supply of seafood for future generations. This requires a comprehensive long-term strategy for sustainable aquaculture development and fisheries management. The Howard government, frankly, has failed in its duty to provide the framework for sustainable management of our valuable fisheries resources. The government has failed to provide adequate investment in programs to underpin the sustainable growth of the Australian aquaculture industry. The government has failed to provide a fair trading environment for local seafood producers.

Let me provide some explicit examples of where the Howard government has failed the seafood industry and seafood consumers. Firstly, the government has not provided an adequate level of protection from imported diseases—diseases which could potentially have a devastating financial impact on the Australian seafood industry and an unquantifiable impact on our marine ecosystems. Right now the Howard government is allowing diseased imported prawns to enter Australia, which represents a direct threat to the disease-free status of the $450 million Australian prawn industry.

Secondly, the Howard government has an appalling record on seafood labelling. Only recently has it decided to move to introduce ‘country of origin’ labelling on imported seafood products. It took nearly 10 years of concerted efforts on the part of seafood producers and their representatives to get the government to sit up and pay attention to the importance of the role that labelling plays in ensuring there is a level playing field between local and imported seafood produce. What has the Howard government done about the enforcement of labelling laws? Nothing. It established a 1800 number for the public to report false labelling, yet there have been continuing reports of inaction in response to complaints made to that very hotline. False labelling still remains a critical problem in some retail outlets and it remains a legitimate concern of the fishing and aquaculture industries.

Thirdly, the Howard government has failed to take seriously the longstanding concerns of local seafood producers about the lack of a level playing field with imported products. The Australian seafood industry is required to meet standards that are amongst the highest in the world for food safety, quarantine and environmental protection. These requirements impose significant costs on the local industry, and most local producers are happy to meet those requirements. However, there is no such requirement for imported seafood products. Seafood imports are not required to meet the same benchmarks as those imposed on our local industries. This creates a very unfair trading environment, where Australian law imposes significant costs on local producers and yet allows a vast amount of imported product that does not meet the same standard as domestic produce must meet. This has been a concern of local seafood businesses and families for much of the past decade. It is a large part of the reason why the balance of trade in seafood products has been steadily growing in favour of imports. It is also why Asian seafood imports can arrive in Australia at such a low cost. The Howard government has had 10 years to address this concern and yet it has done nothing about it. The Howard government, frankly, has run out of ideas to assist the local seafood industry and is not interested in addressing the unfair playing field for local seafood producers.

Let us look more closely at the Howard government’s management of our existing fish stocks. Successive ministers have failed in their duty to provide for sustainable management of fish stocks. Let me substantiate this observation. The Howard government recognised its own inadequate management of Commonwealth fisheries back on 14 December 2005—more than 14 months ago—when the then Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Ian Macdonald, announced a $220 million package called ‘Securing Our Fishing Future’. At that time, the minister said:

... the Australian government has made it very clear that it wishes AFMA to accelerate its current programmes to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, and to take a more strategic approach to setting catch limits in future.

The message from the Australian government is clear: overfishing in Commonwealth fisheries is unacceptable and, if you think you cannot operate in that environment, you should consider applying for the buyout. Last week the Bureau of Rural Sciences released its Fisheries Status Reports for 2005. This important paper highlights the Howard government’s legacy of failure in fisheries management. Twenty-four of 83 species assessed are classified as overfished and/or subject to overfishing. This is up from 17 out of 83 in the previous year. Of the remaining species, 40 are classified as uncertain. This means that almost half of the surveyed stocks might be overfished but the government does not know because it has not gathered enough information.

The Howard government has had 10 years to address this critical lack of information and to improve its fisheries decision making. It has clearly failed. Of the remaining species identified in the BRS report, only 19 are classified as not overfished. But perhaps the most worrying aspect of the BRS report is the finding that the number of species classified as overfished and/or subject to overfishing has increased from five in the first survey in 1992 to 24 in 2005. The $220 million buyout package is the government’s attempt to fix the mess that it has created by its own poor management.

Given the status of our fish stocks, and the uncertainty created in the Australian fishing industry as a result of the announcement, it is not unreasonable to expect that the government would act quickly in its delivery of the buyout package. But, as the industry knows only too well, the government’s delivery of a package has been plagued by delays, inaction and, of course, a change of minister soon after the initial announcement. Industry had to wait nearly 12 months before any licences were actually removed from any fishery. In the case of the Northern Prawn Fishery and the Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery, business had to endure nearly 18 months of uncertainty before any licences were removed. Fishing families and onshore businesses which have been impacted by the government’s decision are still waiting for funding to flow from the onshore business assistance package. One wonders whether they have been delayed until this year for reasons that are obvious to everyone looking at the electoral cycle.

Labor will be taking a very close look at this aspect of the package to ensure it does not unfairly impact on working families in coastal regions and towns. This is yet another example of the Howard government’s unfair and uncaring attitude towards seafood producers and their families. To add to the litany of blunders, the government has added a whole new layer of uncertainty by proposing a radical restructure of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. Labor is concerned about the impact that these changes may have on staff morale within AFMA and on communication and consultation with industry and non-government sectors. It is clear from this summary that the Howard government does not have a well-thought-out plan for the Australian seafood industry. Its approach to fisheries management has been piecemeal and ad hoc, lurching from crisis to crisis. It has lacked a comprehensive strategic approach to the seafood industry.

So what of the southern bluefin tuna and the motion from Senator Siewert? Everyone should be concerned about the state of the southern bluefin tuna resource. By even optimistic estimates, the spawning stock is at very low levels. All this was confirmed by the BRS status report, which I have already referred to. The critical issue which we all need to focus on is how to fix the problem. Senator Siewert’s solution is to disallow the AFMA decision to set the Australian quota at 5,265 tonnes, the same level it has been at since 1989. We think this is the wrong solution.

Firstly, the Australian quota issued by AFMA is the same as that decided by the international Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna in October last year. At that time, the CCSBT showed some strength by cutting Japan’s quota by more than half, from 6,065 tonnes to 3,000 tonnes for at least the next five years. This was a penalty for an independent panel finding that Japan had overcaught about 178,000 tonnes of southern bluefin tuna in the last 20 years. Senator Siewert’s solution would punish Australian industry for Japan’s overcatch, and we think that that is unfair.

Secondly, the CCSBT decisions show that the CCSBT can be an effective international body. What Senator Siewert’s motion does is reject the CCSBT decision. Again, this would only devalue that organisation just when it is showing some strength. It is important that responsible nation members, such as Australia, remain supportive of the CCSBT. Sound governance of our international waters is the key to long-term sustainability of migratory fish stocks such as the southern bluefin tuna.

Thirdly, the CCSBT decision was to fix Australia’s quota at the same level for the following three years; however, AFMA’s legislation allows it to be set for one year. This more conservative approach to managing the Australian component of the catch quota is supported by Labor. We think that allows scope for revision, if it is needed, by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, even though we would be entitled under the ruling by CCSBT to fix the quota at that level for three years.

Finally, Senator Siewert must know that the vast majority of the Australian quota is normally caught by mid-March. Therefore, the practical effect of the motion is largely to provide comfort to the countries which overcaught and created problems for the stock. Southern bluefin tuna is a very important resource for Australia. It earns around $200 million of high value added exports and it generates about 2,000 jobs. However, this export income and these jobs will not continue if the resource is not sustainably managed. The challenge is to find the best strategy to rebuild the southern bluefin tuna stock. We think that stopping Australian fishing this year will only be counterproductive. Taking a decision to stop Australia from fishing southern bluefin tuna would not influence any other country and would considerably weaken Australia’s position in the CCSBT. What the government has to ensure is that overcatch never occurs again. This can only be achieved by being in the CCSBT and developing and enforcing the strictest regulations.

Some might suggest that all of this is dependent on Japan and that Japan could enforce a most rigorous regime because it is the main importer, in terms of commercial marketing, of the tuna. But that is another issue which needs to be taken up with the CCSBT by Australia. Of course, that is something Labor will be looking closely at in terms of the position we take to the election. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to disallow this regulation. We do not believe that we should be saying to the Australian tuna industry, ‘You will be shut down for a year.’ We do not believe that the people who are employed in the industry this year should be told that their jobs are finished for the year. We believe that the arrangements, having been based on a scientific assessment and on Australia’s responsible performance in this fishery for some time, ought to be as proposed in the regulations. We will be voting against the motion.