Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Making Marine Parks Accountable) Bill 2012. I do so in my capacity as a senator, but I should declare that I am also a very keen recreational angler—note 'very keen'; I did not say 'very successful'. But let me assure you, Mr Acting Deputy President Edwards, I am not an unsuccessful fisherman because the fish are not there—there are plenty of fish. I would suggest it is more down to my lack of skill in that particular area. That is why I will take a practical and, I would say, a sensible approach in my contribution to this bill.

My state of South Australia has a reputation of being very productive as a fishing state and also of being very innovative in aquaculture, developing fish farming and fish fattening techniques, which are enhancing the value of the wild catch by commercial fishermen, particularly with tuna and also tried with kingfish. South Australia has also been a pioneer in research into the spawning of tuna. It has not been commercially viable but, nonetheless, it has been a world first with regard to southern bluefin tuna, kingfish, mulloway and other value-added propositions. These are all positive developments for the fishing industry in South Australia.

I believe the commercial fishers in my state and, I am sure, with very few exceptions around the country are great custodians and stewards of the environment. They know that their livelihood is absolutely dependent upon sustainable fishing practices. They know anecdotally, instinctively and through the scientific research they commission what fish stocks are like around the world.

I recall that when we were in government that the overfishing of tuna was the subject of global discussions. The international organisation concerned with that discovered and disclosed that there were nations that were severely overfishing their tuna quota. Accordingly, quite significant quota reductions were made. But I also recall that Senator Abetz, who was the then minister responsible for fisheries, went into bat for the Australian tuna fishers because their husbandry, their fishing practices and their responsibility to adhere to their quota were the best in the world. Accordingly, we received no reduction in the tuna fishing quota for South Australian fishers.

That is an important point to make, because Australian commercial fishers are at the forefront of world best practice. Senator Joyce has often said in discussions on fishing that we take less per hectare than many other nations around the world. We are good custodians and stewards of the environment, seeking a sustainable balance between meeting the needs of our commercial operators to make a dollar and feed as many Australians as they possibly can with the wonderful resource we have available to us, and keeping a balance for the many millions of recreational anglers around Australia. I think angling is the highest participation recreation in the country, and so it should be—it is good clean healthy fun and you can have a feed at the end of it.

That preamble is designed to say that we need balance in our approach to how we manage our fisheries and to marine conservation. We have to balance the needs of our society: our commercial fishers, our recreational anglers, preserving and protecting the marine environment for successive generations as well as allowing fish stocks to rebuild where appropriate. You can do that by not locking up vast areas of fisheries based on spurious grounds but by keeping things in balance, by taking a balanced approach to it. That is something that Senator Colbeck has recognised in introducing this bill, which I commend him for, but it is something that this government completely fails to adopt—and not only in this area but in so many other areas of their policies.

The coalition want to make sure that decisions are being made in the very best interests not only of fishers but also of local communities—who depend not just on the tourism but on the dollars that flow through from the catching, processing and distribution of fish—as well as in the interests of marine biodiversity. The coalition's position is quite clear. We actually started the process of establishing comprehensive marine bioregional plans. This included the determination of marine protected areas around Australia's coastline. And the former government, among the many commendable things it did with respect to fishing, also engaged in an extensive and cooperative consultation process before any marine protected areas were actually declared. That is a very important point to make and I am going to contrast that with the consultation, or lack thereof, by the current government.

The consultation the former government undertook ensured an appropriate balance was struck between protecting marine biodiversity and minimising social and economic impact on fishers, businesses and coastal communities. Ultimately, it was about trying to deliver better outcomes. The final result was a greater area protected, with less impact on industry. It was—to put it in simple parlance—a win-win scenario. Unfortunately, the Gillard government, and the Rudd government before them, do not have an effective track record of win-win scenarios in any aspect of legislation. Importantly, they have a very poor track record of effective consultation.

There is right now considerable angst amongst fishermen regarding the declaration of marine national parks. These concerns, the fishers tell me, are simply not being heard appropriately or adequately by the government. They believe that the consultation process is absolutely flawed, and that means the results that are being delivered are also flawed.

Currently, the environment minister has sole power to approve the adoption of bioregional plans, and the declaration of bioregional plans and the marine protected areas have significant environmental and socioeconomic consequences which must be properly assessed. Through this bill and in our approach to this whole area of management, the coalition is absolutely committed to returning balance and fairness to marine conservation. If you do not get the balance right and it is not fair, it will be a lose-lose situation for everybody.

In one aspect I congratulate Labor: they are continuing to further explore the coalition's policy. But they have failed terribly in adopting a balanced approach to marine protected areas. Labor have failed to engage in appropriate consultation, as I mentioned, with the fishing industry and the wider community. Do not take my word for it; I am sure there have been many quotes from people who share those concerns, and I will get to some in a moment. Many in the communities who directly rely on fishing are directly threatened by Labor's inability to consult on whether a region should be declared a marine protected area.

Unsurprisingly, many recreational and commercial fishers, businesses directly related to the fishing industry, businesses unrelated to the fishing industry who get the spin-off of community benefits that come through with additional resource activity, and communities who rely on fishing have raised substantial concerns about Labor's handling of marine protected areas. Stakeholders in this important industry are raising concerns about the integrity of the consultation being conducted under Minister Burke's guidance. Among the coastal communities there are rumours of politically motivated deals—which will be unsurprising to many who are familiar with Labor's way—of secret maps that some stakeholders get to see but not others—again, unsurprising given Labor's track record—and of marine science being ignored as lines are drawn and redrawn on maps. Again, this is unsurprising when you compare Labor's track record of looking at the science—credible science—and its policy agenda. It is clear to many people in the general community who are involved in the benefits of fishing in this country that Labor has failed miserably.

I regret to say that Labor's Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has taken a hands-off approach. He is like Pontius Pilate: he has washed his hands of it and said, 'I don't want anything to do with it,' failing to ensure that the interests of commercial and recreational fishing sectors are fairly represented. It is as if Minister Ludwig again plays second fiddle to Minister Burke.

Minister Burke, quite simply, has a chequered track record which calls into question whether we can rely on his good judgement or his acceptance of good science in making a good decision. History would suggest that we are right to have our doubts. Most recently, the declared commercial fishing activities amendment to the EPBC Act demonstrated that Minister Burke is prepared to make political decisions and not scientific ones. And after introducing this amendment, there were further amendments needed because he had not properly thought through the position he was putting to the Australian people. It was clearly an example of policy on the run. It forced a backflip by Minister Ludwig, and the declared commercial fishing activities bill showed Tony Burke's desire was more or less to lock up more water

He trashed the reputation of the AFMA Commission even though he appointed every single member of that commission. He was prepared to trash their reputations to further his political agenda. He also trashed the reputation of our world-leading scientific community and of some of the institutions that have done the science on the impact of fishing and, in particular, the amendments I just referred to. In doing so, the government sent a clear message to commercial operators in Australia not just in fishing but also in other businesses. Effectively, it said, 'If you do everything that this government asks of you, and then you do a little bit more to comply with our demands to adhere to our stringent criteria, the red and the green tape, it is simply not enough.' The government will still take away your rights. It will still interfere, notwithstanding that you have complied with every aspect and more of what it has requested of you. The government will damage your business, impact your employees and hurt and harm Australia's international business reputation if it serves its purpose politically.

I ask: how can any business in Australia or considering investing in Australia operate in an environment such as that?

I know myself there are business people that are operating here, and international business people too, who are asking themselves that very question. They have grave doubts and concerns about the risk of investing in this country because of this government and decisions taken by people like Minister Burke. So a more simplistic question is: should Australian fishers trust a man with this shambolic track record? I think it is a rhetorical question and it needs no answer, but let me suggest to the Australian people that the answer is no. Yet currently the environment minister has the sole power to approve the adoption of bioregional plans. These plans for marine protected areas have significant environmental and socioeconomic consequences. I believe it is therefore inappropriate for these declarations to be made without the opportunity for review. I note that these are not disallowed instruments.

The minister has displayed a complete lack of leadership. He has displayed an inability or an unwillingness to inform himself of the fundamental peer reviewed science that supported, noting my reference earlier, the small pelagic fish harvest strategy that he oversaw as fisheries minister. So it begs the question: how can we trust him to have understood the science around marine parks? How can we trust him to have informed himself of the science around marine parks? Once again the question is: who has been consulted? What reputable scientists has he talked to? I think this is another vote by a minister against sound peer reviewed science that supports fisheries management in Australia.

My colleague Senator Back, in his previous contribution, made reference to Dr Ray Hilborn who is a professor of aquatic and fisheries sciences at the University of Washington. He maintains that Australian fisheries are well managed; they are sustainable and do not need further locking up to protect them from overfishing; the existing tools are working. He believes there is no threat to marine conservation; no marine species have gone extinct; closing Australian areas to fisheries will not increase food production from fisheries and will in fact reduce it. Well-managed fisheries are important—I think we all acknowledge that—but they are more environmentally sustainable than most other protein sources, according to Dr Ray Hilborn.

If we close the ocean and take less seafood the environmental cost of the alternatives is much higher than the environmental cost of fishing. In Australia, the US and a number of other countries, stocks are rebuilding and not declining The anecdotal evidence in South Australia would support that point of view. The commercial and recreational anglers who chase tuna are saying they have never seen so many fish as they have seen this year. Australian fish stocks are healthy. It is something that the minister does not seem to want to acknowledge—and I have to wonder.

I gave a speech in this place in 2006 or 2007 in which my concern was the extreme ideological agenda of people like Peter Garrett, who is now a minister and the member for Blaxland, I think, and who I think as Chairman of the Australian Conservation Foundation wanted to completely ban any commercial harvest of bluefin tuna on the basis that they were an endangered species. I warned then the fishers of South Australia and the nation that this was a sort of ideological bent that was going to be brought in if a Labor government crept into power, and it has been strengthened since they have had this alliance with the Greens Party. No longer is there balance; no longer is there a commitment to a sustainable harvest; it is a commitment to saying human needs should be second rung to preserving a declining fish base. But the evidence is not there that the fish stocks are declining—and it is certainly not due to my fishing, let me assure you of that, Mr Deputy President.

The evidence is that Australia has one of the best managed fisheries anywhere in the world particularly in the south-west region where Minister Burke's determinations can significantly damage the economic potential of not only my state but the whole south-west region right through to Western Australia and Shark Bay, which is in WA. That is why I support Senator Colbeck's bill. He is trying to restore some balance, some common sense and some integrity to the decision making, things that this government has woefully overlooked.