Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I cannot say I am surprised at the government’s response. I am surprised at the ALP’s response because they quoted figures from the latest BRS report about the state of our fisheries which must send shivers up the spine of any Australian, but particularly up the spine of anyone interested in the marine environment. The science shows that this species is endangered, that it is under threat and that Australia should be taking action. If this action is not taken, if Australia does not reduce its quota and if fishing continues at these high levels, there will be no fish into the future, so fishers will be put out of work. They will not be able to rely on this fishery for their income. We seek to disallow this quota because we believe it is too high. As I understand it, it is a fallacy to claim that if we do not take our quota we will not be able to participate in the commission. That is not true. I am sure Australia is creative and can find a way to work with other fishing nations in any case.

I am not sure of the date of the quote that Senator Abetz took from the Australian Conservation Foundation, because Senator Abetz did not give it, but those of us that have been involved in marine conservation for quite some time will know that, until fairly recently, there was no ecologically sustainable assessment of Australia’s fisheries. So, when that statement was made, it was true. There was no assessment. It is only relatively recently that Australia’s fisheries have undergone a sustainable fisheries assessment process, and it has been quite an extensive process.

As for saying that we do not compliment or take note of successful or positive initiatives that are put in place, I think Senator Abetz has a very short memory. He will remember that we were actually very supportive of the $220 million fisheries package that was put forward. We were very supportive of that and I have been very supportive in the media about the tuna fisheries industry and fishers’ efforts to reduce the impact of their long-line fisheries—I am talking about Australia’s fishers, not other fishers—and to reduce Australia’s impact on albatross and other marine species. Senator Abetz, as I said, has quite a short memory on those issues. I think that he is misquoting the science. The science is very clear. The science on this species and other fish species is very clear, and it shows that humans are endangering tuna and other species and it is time that we took action to reduce our quota.

I outlined a range of measures that this government could be taking additionally to the measures that they are taking, because I do not think the measures that are being taken at the moment are effective, and neither do international organisations such as Humane Society International and World Wildlife Fund. World Wildlife Fund was extremely disappointed about the outcomes of the regional fishing organisations’ meeting held just last month in Kobe. It was extremely disappointed that they did not go far enough and they did not introduce the measures that are needed to start addressing tuna management around the world. To claim that there is now some sort of international framework in place that will ensure sustainable management of tuna requires a very far stretch of the imagination. There were very, very small steps taken, and no significant steps were taken that will ensure tuna management into the future.

I am extremely disappointed that the coalition and the ALP will not be supporting this disallowance motion. I believe that we need to very seriously rethink how we manage tuna stocks in this country and we have to start now before it is too late. It is very late in the piece that the coalition has acknowledged the impact of climate change and the fact that we have to be managing our water better. We are now in a major water crisis that is resulting in a major environmental crisis for the wetlands throughout the Murray-Darling Basin, and it looks as though we are going to have a ‘minute to midnight’ response when it comes to managing our fish species as well, unfortunately. As I said, I am very disappointed that there is no support for this disallowance motion.

Question negatived.