Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, certainly. Madam Acting Deputy President, through you, I ask the next speaker to tell me what is offensive about that, what is wrong with that. Finally, can I ask the next speaker to advise what is wrong with members in this chamber and in the House of Representatives, what is wrong with the elected representatives of Australia, having a say on these things by making the minister's decisions disallowable instruments. Please, if you can give me a decent reason, Madam Acting Deputy President, or any speaker in this debate, on what is wrong with those aspects, which are what this bill is all about, I will listen intently. But I guarantee there will not be a speaker opposing this bill who can explain what is wrong with those four principal elements of the bill.

Madam Acting Deputy President, that will bring you back to the inevitable conclusion that this is all about the Greens telling the Labor Party that, unless they go along with what their wacky supporters require—that is, to shut down fishing in Australia—then the Greens are out of the coalition and Ms Gillard will have to go to an election which she knows she will lose remarkably.

The coalition is proud of its record in the management of our seas.

We have always taken into account the advice of qualified, independent scientists. I would point out that in Australia the latest Commonwealth fish data reports confirm there is an ongoing improvement in fish stocks. No-one else will ever praise me, so I might have to praise myself and say that I am very proud of having a significant role in getting Australian fish stocks to the state where they are more sustainable and improving each year. Of the 96 fish stocks assessed in Australia, 71 are not subject to overfishing, which means that they are being harvested at the appropriate level. All those statistics show that Australian fisheries are well managed.

If you take the advice of some of the world's leading scientists, then I will quote just one. Dr Ray Hilborn, a professor of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences from the University of Washington, says that 'Australian fisheries are well managed, sustainable and do not need further locking up to protect them from overfishing; the existing tools are working'. He goes on elsewhere to say that, 'Closing Australian areas to fisheries will not increase food production from fisheries; it will reduce it'. He then goes on to say that, 'Reducing access to Australian fish stocks is irresponsible'. And he says further that, 'Reducing access to Australian fish stocks results in Australia importing more fish, often sourced from areas that have less sustainably managed fisheries at a much higher environmental cost, 'effectively' as he says, 'offshoring our domestic requirement'. Look at what the serious, learned expert scientists in this area say.

Here is a bill which should receive universal support because it is all about properly managing our oceans and our marine areas. It is about getting the right advice, not advice tainted by various environmental groups who have a particular agenda. I have quoted the WWF, who on one hand want to ban commercial trawling but on the other hand are charging Australian commercial trawlers to give them a marine stewardship certificate—getting some money off them and saying it is okay. You cannot take notice of the people who support the Greens and who, because of that, impose upon this dysfunctional government their will.

This is a bill which anybody who has a serious interest in management of Australia's oceans would support. It is the sort of bill that would enhance Australia's world-leading reputation. Look at the way the Labor Party administer this. I mean, Ms Gillard and Senator Siewert are quoted as saying the compensation for all of these closures will be $100 million. I have to say that when we were in government we were in error. We thought that the compensation in relation to the Great Barrier Reef closures—something we were very proud of—would be about $10 million. The last I heard it was $250 million and rising. Ms Gillard, in her typical 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead' approach, says, 'This will only be $100 million'. Mind you, it is $100 million the Labor Party do not have. They do have a $120 billion black hole, and they can add this $100 million to it—but it is not $100 million. If people are to be compensated for the results of the Labor Party's mismanagement of our marine bioregional planning processes, the bill will be up in the billions of dollars. The Labor Party do not allow for that. We know them—they will not bother about compensation. They will not do what the coalition government did and try to adequately compensate all of those businesses and all of those people who were impacted by the decision. You can be assured the Labor Party (a) will not be interested in doing it and (b) will not be able to afford to do it.

I conclude my remarks on this by challenging further speakers to tell me what is wrong with the four principal elements of this bill: getting independent social and economic assessments done, getting independent scientific peer-reviewed advice and having the decisions as disallowable instruments. I look forward to hearing why they oppose it. (Time expired)