Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, very much, Senator Siewert; I was hoping that interjection would be made. As you and I both know, as soon as the drop in crayfish numbers was raised Mr Moore acted without hesitation, in the face of enormous criticism, to introduce quotas so that he could get on top of that issue. Are they on top of it? I do not know. But you and I both know, Senator Siewert, that has been—through you Madam Acting Deputy President Boyce, I apologise—an exceedingly well-managed fishery over many years and that the minister acted on the scientific advice of advisers, industry and others in making his decisions. I have no doubt that he will review its performance over time. He will review those outcomes and, if need be, make further changes. That is all we want from Minister Burke. Because he has failed to deliver it, it is essential that these actions come back to this parliament, to both houses of parliament, so that they can be reviewed. I will quote again, if I may, from Mr Moore's statement:

Western Australia’s fisheries are well managed and regarded as some of the best managed in the world and as such, I do not see the need for the extensive network of ‘no take’ zones proposed by the Commonwealth.

Ideology replacing good policy and replacing science: it is regrettable. Mr Moore went on to say:

The Federal Government is always saying we should pursue evidence-based policy. In this case, it is just drawing lines on a map without any real regard for environmental outcomes or the long-term impacts on the Western Australian and broader Australian communities and businesses.

That is the circumstance in which we find ourselves.

Minister Burke has assured the parliament and the community that he has participated in a widespread consultation process as part of his bioregional planning process. Let me quote from just a couple of those who have made submissions to inquiries regarding this and put to the test whether my experience of last December, when I was refused the opportunity for a briefing from Minister Burke's staff, has been shared by others. Dr Ken Coghill, a former Speaker of the Victorian parliament said:

My clear perspective is that it is absolutely important to effective parliamentary democracy that the parliament have the opportunity to scrutinise and, if appropriate, disallow any action taken by the executive.

Let us hear from the Abalone Industry Association of South Australia, which said in its submission to the inquiry:

It is a real slap in the face to the good work done by our Government Fisheries Managers and Industry.

That is presumably the South Australia government—

We are very uncomfortable with the fact that the final decision of adopting the bioregional plans rests with the Minister for Environment only. We would prefer to have a far more rigorous and robust process through the parliament that doesn’t have the potential to be clouded by extreme green views.

A Mr Cameron Talbot also made a submission, in which he said:

I’m concerned that lobby groups like PEW, WWF and AMCS seem to get access to Ministers and control of what happens.

They certainly did far better than I did when I made my approach to the minister. Mr Talbot went on to say:

The Department does not consult us or simply ignores what we have to say. I feel that democracy has been lost and further more my faith in the Labour party has gone with it.

He goes on to speak about the fact that many fishermen and fisherwomen are Labor Party members and about how disappointed they are. I could go on and on about this process. I ask the question of those who would say that they are not supporting this motion by Senator Colbeck: what do they fear? We are elected senators of the Australian parliament sent by our states and territories to this place, and those in the other house are elected by their electorates to come here, to make laws. When there are circumstances in which legislation as it is currently formulated is deficient or incorrect it is up to us to correct it. There is no difficulty with the process of introducing disallowance legislation. It simply means, as we see in other instances, that it requires that the minister be diligent and that he and his staff, and those of the departments who are backing them up, do what they say they are doing. We have seen in this case that, demonstrably, there has not been the consultation and there has not been the science. There also has not been the rigorous approach in the areas to which we on this side of the chamber have drawn attention—that is, the functions and obligations of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

One of the wonderful things about this whole topic is that our capacity to come up with scientific validation is improving all the time. Senator Siewert and I are both well aware of work done at the University of Western Australia and other institutions, which enables them to monitor in real time fish stocks: numbers, ages, sizes et cetera. Let us use this data; let us develop plans; let us take the community with us and then let us review it over time. There are areas and times when we do have to stop fishing, be it commercial or recreational. For example, because of a breeding cycle or in response to the population size, density, pressure and age of the fish species concerned. But let us do it based on the science. Let us have the confidence in ourselves to feed this information back to the community. Let us not be so arrogant that we are not prepared to change our policies or our plans so that over time we can actually achieve what we all want to achieve: a sustainable marine bioregion and a sustainable terrestrial environment in this country