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

I rise to strongly support the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Making Marine Parks Accountable) Bill 2012, proposed by my colleague Senator Colbeck, and to emphasise the fact that any reasonably minded person in this community who values democracy and who values decisions made on good consultation and scientific evidence would also support it. It points exactly to the direction the coalition would go in this area.

The bill requires four particular points to be undertaken: firstly, the commissioning of an independent social and economic impact assessment before any proclamations are made. We currently see an absence of that in the efforts of Minister Burke. Secondly, obtaining independent scientific peer-reviewed advice before making any proclamations. How amazing that would be from this government? Thirdly, establishing independent scientific reference panels and stakeholder advisory groups, suggesting that over time that both of these groups would have an intimate role associated with decision making into the future. Finally, again, because of the dereliction of this minister, the bill will put parliament in charge of the final decision-making proclamations becoming disallowable.

Naturally, the coalition has the high moral ground here because it was under the Howard government that the then Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Minister Hill, introduced the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which is world's best practice and has become the benchmark around the world in this area. Again, it was under a coalition government that the process of establishing marine protected areas around Australia's coastline was commenced.

I go back again to those four points: consultation; scientific peer-reviewed advice; independent scientific reference panels and stakeholder advisory groups; and parliament in charge of the decision making rather than the minister.

Let me reflect, if I may, for a few minutes on each of those four principles. Currently, we are faced with a 30- day consultation period on the management plans proposed by the minister—but not 30 days now because, seven days from today, on 14 February, the consultation period closes. One would have to ask: why the rush? One might also reflect on the fact that, in the middle of probably their busiest fishing season, commercial fishers in fact have to consider management plans not for one bioregion but for more than one and, in fact, in some instances, seven. So there have only been two limited periods for public participation in the development of these management plans. The first was one month, from mid-November to mid-December, and now we have the final seven days. That seven days left is all that is left so that the locking up of 2.3 million square kilometres will be for a 10-year period. I find that to be totally and utterly unacceptable.

When one comes to the question of consultation, it is important to reflect on an opportunity lost by Minister Burke. I now go back to quotes from May 2011, when the media announcements were first put into the public arena regarding community engagement. At that time, the Western Australian fisheries minister, Norman Moore, indicated that whilst he had not seen the documentation and, in fact, neither Minister Burke nor his senior officials had offered Minister Moore the courtesy of consultation he, nevertheless, went ahead and said:

Although I have not yet had the opportunity to study the documents in detail, I remain hopeful that the Commonwealth has taken a balanced and pragmatic approach to proposed marine reserves which minimises the social and economic impact on stakeholders such as the fishing sector.

What an insult that the minister responsible for the greatest degree of coastline around the Australian coast, being the Minister for Fisheries in WA, had not been consulted. But on 19 October 2011, after he had directed his fisheries department to present a submission to Minister Burke he said:

We are still yet to receive any information about the points raised and about the process going forward. This leaves the State Government and WA community uncertain and concerned about the future access to our most precious waters and aquatic resources.

If that is the Labor government's consultation process, and particularly that of Minister Burke, it is little wonder that Senator Colbeck has based his first point in his bill around consultation.

I go to the question of science. We are not dealing at the moment with an innate object; we are dealing with a marine biological entity. We are dealing with a dynamic entity—an incredibly large area. We are the biggest island continent so therefore we have the largest area of waters around our coastline. Fish cannot read. They do not know the lines on Minister Burke's map. Nothing, of course, in the marine environment is permanent. So where is the scientific case that Minister Burke put forward to defend the decisions he is making with regard to tying up 2.3 million hectares of the Australian marine reserve? Unfortunately, it is not there. It is absent. He has treated this community as abjectly as he has treated the wider community in terms of consultation.

I ask as a scientist: where is the scientific monitoring? Where is the evidence of monitoring? Where is the evidence we need for a fixed 10-year period to close up all of this marine area? Where is evidence that monitoring will be undertaken? Where is evidence that we will see the results and—heavens above!—we actually might see some decisions? It is to be hoped by the vast majority of the Australian community that after 14 September this year there will be a government in place that will direct that this appropriate scientific evaluation and monitoring be undertaken. I am sure we will see decision-making made in relation to the progress of science.

I go again to the western rock lobster fishery as an example of management in a dynamic environment. As people will know all around this chamber, that particular fishery has been regarded as an international benchmark. In recent years we saw a steep decline in the number of mature crayfish. Scientific evidence—yes, the scientific evidence!—preceding that indicated, because of the studies undertaken by the Western Australia Department of Fisheries, that we were going to see a rapid decline. I do not think we yet understand the full reasons for that decline, but nevertheless it occurred.

But what happened was that Fisheries Minister Moore took the necessary decisions. He introduced, for example, greater restrictions on fishing limits. He introduced restrictions on pot numbers and he actually introduced a process whereby from the beginning of the season in the middle of November through to Easter of each year the fishermen could decide when they wanted to fish to get up to their quota. That, in fact, has introduced a most interesting economic model, because now the crayfishermen, instead of fishing every day, will choose. 'Is it Christmas? Is it Chinese New Year? When is the best for my business to undertake my fishing activity so that I can retain my quota, so that I can make sure that the fishery itself is preserved?' That is the result of good science. That is what is lacking in Minister Burke's attempts and that is of course what Senator Colbeck wants to see return to this debate.

We have the circumstance of environmental impact associated with the science and, if one talks about protein, fish protein has probably amongst the least adverse environmental impact of any form of protein. When you look, for example, at the amount of water that is needed, and fertiliser, pesticides and antibiotics, we know that in the capture fisheries no pesticides, antibiotics or fertilisers are used. So there are very, very compelling reasons why good science should precede decision-making and, more to the point, that when decisions are put into place we can monitor the effect, whether positively or negatively, and make further management decisions—not a one-size-fits-all, 10-year blocking out of these particular marine protected areas.

I go back again, if I may, before concluding comments in this area, to the Fisheries Minister Moore from Western Australia, in which he sums it up well when he says:

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.

He understands it. For the life of me I do not know why the minister or his department do not.

Let me put on record some other quotations, if I may, with regard to the science and the impact of the science. These are quotes from a Dr Ray Hilborn, Professor of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University of Washington, and Dr Bob Carney AM, Emeritus Professor in Fisheries Management here in the University of Canberra. Dr Hilborn says:

When you're not over fishing, marine parks simply reduce the amount of fish yield you can get by locking up areas. And the result is that you're going to have less seafood produced in Australia and you will need to import more from places that are typically much less sustainably managed.

Again from both Hilborn and Carney:

It is difficult to understand … why Australians believe they need to implement additional, alternative restrictions on fishing, such as more fishing closures in MPAs!

As they assert by their paper's title, 'Australian seafood consumers have been misled by prophets of doom and gloom'. These are internationally regarded scientists. I quote yet again:

Australia’s fisheries are amongst the best managed in the world and they are without doubt sustainable.

…   …   …

… Public perception has been distorted, primarily by numerous NGOs and others who benefit from projecting apprehension in seafood consumers.

…   …   …

Australian[s] have been told by health professionals and authorities to eat more seafood, yet the country has a serious and growing shortage of locally produced product and no obvious policies for food security or increasing domestic supply of fish.

All of this leads me, I think, to the most disturbing statistic that we will hear today, and that is that 70 per cent of the fish consumed in this country is imported. In the nation which is the world's largest island continent, we are importing 70 per cent by weight and we are consuming 70 per cent imported fish. This, of course, raises the question: where is it coming from? What is the level of sustainability of the fisheries of the countries from which it is coming? Should we not have some level of responsibility in our region? Clearly there is a demand for fish, and there is an increasing demand, in my view, for us to satisfy that need domestically.

I turn to the question of impact, particularly on the commercial fishery but also on recreational fishers. We are seeing, and we will go on to see, environmental degradation in our region particularly in the marine environments if in fact we continue on the curve we are on—that is, increasing importation of fish. This, of course, also raises the question of the quality and safety for our own consumers of imported fish. Surely we can sustainably manage our own fishery to make sure that we can in the main provide for this need ourselves. All we are doing is arrogantly shifting the problem elsewhere. I understand that more fish are now taken in aquaculture arrangements than in the wild catch, and that is fantastic. That is great, because it could introduce a new industry. So you say, 'Where's the catch?' The simple fact of the matter is that there is an increased catch of the wild fish population to feed the fish that are being grown in the aquaculture environments. Therefore we again have a challenge in this area.

The second commercial impact which I wish to address is that of the debacle engineered last year by Environment Minister Burke, and that was that of the Abel Tasman. I do not want to reflect for long on this particular regrettable situation, except to say that it was when he was agriculture and fisheries minister that Minister Burke not only learned about that vessel but encouraged the proponents of the vessel to bring it into Australian waters. Then, with a different hat on and in a different timeframe, no doubt influenced by minority groups, he reversed the decision. Let us reflect for one minute on what would have been the outcome. First of all, there would not have been one kilogram more fish taken by the Abel Tasman than would have been taken by a number of vessels making up the same tonnage—not one kilogram more. Secondly, the Abel Tasman was to fish in waters that our closer coastal vessels were not accessing. Thirdly, if our own local vessels had been accessing fish in those more remote areas, they did not have the freezer capacity on board for that product to be used for human consumption, in which case it would have gone as protein for pig and other feed. Finally, the environmental oversight of the Abel Tasman would have been vastly greater than for multiple vessels catching the same tonnage.

This creates a sovereign risk yet again for this country. In this case, the environmental minister must have seen the restrictions and the conditions placed upon that company and its vessel and must have been happy with them. Otherwise he would not, as fisheries minister, have encouraged it to come into our waters in the first place. At the same time, he absolutely insulted his own experts in the Fisheries Management Authority—all of whom on that particular board he had appointed himself—by turning around and rejecting the evidence that they brought before him in making his decision.

If ever there needs to be validation for the last of Senator Colbeck's points—that is, the point of taking the final decision making away from the minister and placing it here before the parliament—one need only reflect on those two words 'Abel Tasman'. Minister Burke has abrogated his capacity to make that final decision on behalf of the Australian parliament and the Australian community and that is why a disallowable instrument must come into play so that decisions of this nature can be made by the parliament and not by the minister, unusually influenced as he was.

Remaining for a moment with the commercial impact, the paltry figure of $100 million has been allocated by this government. It is going to require vastly more than $100 million to compensate commercial fishers for the loss they will incur if and when these marine parks are confirmed and locked up for a 10-year period. Estimates are that the future need for seafood in this country will grow by 850,000 to one million tonnes by 2020. I ask the question: where is this going to come from if we continue with the plans we have?

I refer again to the commercial impacts. How significant is it, as we go back and join with the consultation process, that the National Seafood Industry Alliance withdrew from negotiations with the government in November last year, as did the Australian Marine Alliance itself? Organisations representing more than 90 per cent of those involved in this industry had so little faith in this government and in this minister that they withdrew from consultation.

So what is the impact on recreational fishers? One would almost think that there has been an attempt to pit one against the other, because as we know the states and territories have responsibilities out three nautical miles, after which the Commonwealth takes over, and the impact is that, as would always be predicted, commercial fishers are now coming into areas which were the province of recreational fishers. This is deliberately pitting those two groups against each other.

I return to the points made in Senator Colbeck's bill: independent assessment, scientific review, scientific and community involvement and, of course, parliament in charge of the final decision making. I urge all senators to support Senator Colbeck's bill for the very logical reasons I have presented.