Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

They go well outside the three-mile limit into Commonwealth waters. You look at the sophistication of the charter boat industry that works around Cairns and brings millions of dollars of tourist funding into that area. One in 10 bed-nights around the Australian coastline is directly related to recreational fishing. In fact, it is something of the order of a $10 billion a year industry when you add up all the components of it.

Let us come back to the matter before the chair, which is talking about the risk to Australia's marine environment from the process that the government has put in place. That is the critical thing: what is the risk that is being posed to the marine environment particularly by the commercial, charter and recreational fishing sectors? That is the thing that this government has not considered as part of the process and it is certainly the thing that the government has set aside as part of its decision-making process as to this development of marine protected areas around the Australian coastline. Just like Tony Burke did in Tasmania with the intergovernmental forestry agreement—where the industry sat down with Tony Burke on the Thursday night before the agreement was signed and there was the signing of the agreement by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Tasmania on the Sunday morning—Tony Burke has shafted the fishing industry in Australia, just like he shafted the forest industry in Tasmania.

The fishing industry thought they had some semblance of understanding of what Minister Burke was going to do when they had their final meetings with him. They thought that they had been able to agree on some changes, but what happened when the maps were finally released? Exactly the same thing that happened in Tasmania when the intergovernmental agreement got released: there were special things put back in for the Greens and the environmental movement between the time of the final meeting that was held with the industry groups and the time of the release of the maps. So an industry was shafted in Tasmania by Tony Burke and, again, this industry was shafted when these maps around the marine environment were released. So there was no concern about what the risks might be, no measure of what the risks might be and no consideration of the relationship.

We talk about consultation through this process. I note government members have talked about 'consultation'. It was not a consultation process. It was a show-and-tell process. Tony Burke turned up with maps. He put them on the table and said, 'This is what you're going to get.' They thought they were getting a deal and they thought there was some negotiation but, as I have said, at the final meeting, after the influence of the Greens and the environmental groups, an industry was shafted yet again—just like happened in Tasmania.

Senator Cameron comes in here and talks about 'their record'—and he is leaving the chamber as I speak—but the record is just like before the last election when Julia Gillard said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Industry in Tasmania thought they had a deal with Tony Burke but they were shafted in the three days between then and the signing of the intergovernmental agreement on forestry. And, again, the industry were shafted here, proving again that you cannot trust the Labor Party at their word and you cannot trust their promises and you cannot trust what they say.

They characterise these marine parks as being well offshore so they will not impact on the recreational fishing sector. That is a big characterisation and the members opposite have made a big deal of this. But what they neglect to tell the community is that, by closing those areas out deep right out towards the outside extent of Australia's economic zone, they are taking that area away from the commercial fishing sector. So where is that sector going to fish? They cannot fish out in the grounds where they would be normally fishing, so they have to come in and fish on top of the recreational fishing sector area. So the government tell a lie when they say to the recreational fishing sector, 'This will not affect you.' Of course, it is going to affect them because the commercial guys are then pushed back inshore, they have to fish closer in and they have to fish on top of the other area, so effectively they are all fishing for the same fish stock. So the suggestion that there is no impact on the recreational fishing sector, because everything is out wide and away from the little tinnie with the five-horsepower motor, is a complete insult to the recreational fishing sector. Those in it are much more technologically minded than a lot of people on the other side of this chamber who are talking in last-century language. In the Greens' world if it is not locked up it is not protected. They do not recognise the strength of Australia's fisheries management, which has been globally benchmarked as amongst the best in the world.

So how can we manage our economic zone in other ways other than just locking it up, which is what the Greens would like to do and a large chunk of the Labor Party would like to do? We have strong fisheries management. We assess the risk. We have gear restrictions. We have total allowable catches. So we have all those restrictions. The coalition is not saying that we should not have marine parks, but you do not have to lock up huge swathes of Australia's marine environment, so locking ourselves out of potential future fisheries. Tony Burke talks about how they are going to compensate the industry. He is not looking forward at all in relation to this except for locking stuff up. What about the future demand for seafood here in Australia, which is going to grow by about 850,000 tonnes by 2012? That is double what we consume now, and we already import 70-plus per cent of what we consume. Where is that seafood going to come from? It will not come from well-managed and sustainable fisheries like we have here in Australia. It is going to be imported. Go and have a look at the map as to where most of our seafood comes from and then overlay on that the map of fisheries management in most of those areas. You go and have a look at that information and you will find that all we are doing by locking our oceans up is exporting our problem. We are not dealing responsibly with our own situation.

So the Greens just say 'lock it up', the Labor Party go along with that and Tony Burke sits down with industry, makes out he has got a deal and then shafts them in the next few days. It would be really nice if just one member opposite—and I notice Senator Singh has come into the chamber now—would be prepared to address the matter. What is the risk? Could Senator Singh tell us what the risk is to Australia's marine environment from our commercial, recreational and charter fishing sectors? It would be really nice for those opposite to demonstrate what that is.

Senator Faulkner talks about the environmental record of the coalition. He said he started this process back in the nineties but, of course, it was the coalition that put in the EPBC Act and it is the coalition that has been a strong partner—certainly through Senator Macdonald and after him Senator Abetz—in ensuring the strength of our fisheries management, one of the things that ensure that our fish stocks are sustainable. Look at the annual report on our fish stocks which came in under a coalition government and is printed every year and gives a clear demonstration of the sustainability of Australia's fish stocks. The government members are not prepared to accept any of those sorts of things. Of course, every seafood species that is exported out of Australia has to be assessed as sustainable under the EPBC Act.

So there are a whole range of protections that were put into place by the coalition when we were in government, and yet this government has still failed all throughout this process—all throughout its show-and-tell consultations process; not genuine consultation but 'show and tell, turn up, deliver the maps and this is what we are going to do'—as it has not yet put on the table a demonstration of the risk. All it wants to do is appease the Pew foundation and other groups like that and lock Australians out of Australian waters. (Time expired)