Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Small Pelagic Fishery (Closures Variation) Direction No. 1 2015, made under subsection 41A(3) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991, be disallowed [F2015L01450].

This motion I have moved is to disallow a set of regulations that were tabled on 12 October. Those of us in this place understand that all senators have the right and the privilege as parliamentarians to move to disallow regulations within 15 days of them being tabled in the Senate. This disallowance is quite simple. It is to stop a new set of regulations that remove an existing night ban on fishing by the supertrawler called the Geelong Star.

I want to make it very clear to those who may read this Hansard or who may be listening to this debate that this is a function of being a senator: having the right and the privilege to move a disallowance. But it is not something to be taken lightly. We are here as elected representatives for our voters, for our members and for those who share the same values as we do. On top of that, and most importantly, we are here to represent our state. In my case, that is the state of Tasmania. I know that this issue is not just something that people feel strongly about to the point where they may disagree in arguments. They actually go out of their way to tell you that they have significant concerns over the operation of large factory freezer vessels in Australian waters.

The next thing I want to point out is that the government have an existing ban in place for supertrawlers. The legislation was brought to parliament, to both houses, last year, and they implemented a ban on large factory freezer vessels over 130 metres in length. I have yet to receive an explanation at all from the government or from AFMA as to how that 130-metre limit was set. There has been no explanation about how a trawler that is slightly less than 100 metres is any less dangerous to marine life than a boat over 130 metres. Nevertheless, we still have acknowledgement from the government that these kinds of vessels should be banned, so they banned vessels longer than 130 metres.

Why have they banned these vessels? I can just guess that they have also received feedback from communities around the country, from fishing communities, from conservationists and from seaside communities, that they have grave concerns over very large factory freezer vessels operating in our waters, taking and targeting small pelagic fish. These fish are essentially in the base of our food chain in the ocean for a lot of other species of fish—target species of fish for recreational fishers—and of course for marine life such as dolphins, seals, penguins and seabirds. They all feed on these building-block fish, the small pelagics.

The government may also be concerned about the international reputation of these vessels. These are vessels that have helped break the ocean everywhere they have fished. They have plundered the seas all around the world. That could be a reason that the government do not want to see these kinds of vessels. But also they know that this is a slippery slope to seeing a lot more industrial fishing in this country, industrial fishing that may allow other supertrawlers to come here and that may increase the total allowable catch for small pelagic fish into the future. We have seen a lot of pressure and a lot of lobbying and an enormous amount of debate in the Senate and around the country about the arrival of the Margiris, or Abel Tasman, and the current supertrawler, the Geelong Star. We have seen an enormous amount of debate.

Clearly, the Liberal government have facilitated the arrival of both these boats. They have been champions of supertrawlers. It concerns a lot of people, given the public discomfort and in some cases even outrage over the arrival of these boats, that nothing is going to stop them, and we will see a lot more of them into the future.

For me, it really hit home to me last Christmas when I was lucky enough to sail on a boat in Sydney to Hobart race. I was on a yacht, and I was hundreds of kilometres off the coastline, off Tasmania. Acting Deputy President Bernardi, you have been there yourself. I remember seeing one of these bait balls—what fishermen call bait balls—where a lot of the small fish are schooling. You can spot them from a mile away because seabirds come from every direction. When you get close to one, and we sailed close to one, you see the dolphins. I even saw pilot whales. You see seals, and of course fairy penguins are another example. They feed on these fish, and it is amazing to watch.

You can imagine that a large factory freezer vessel out there catching these fish is going to have impacts on the marine life that also feeds on those fish. This was pointed out to us by the independent scientific panel that was set up by Labor on the arrival of the first supertrawler, when it looked at the potential impacts of this kind of fishing activity. It made it very clear that these were risks that needed to be addressed and that these kinds of marine life feeding on these small pelagic fish would be impacted by this kind of fishing activity.

To me, it really hit home. Where my family and I go for our summers and where I go surfing with my kids, every night when my kids were young we would go and watch the fairy penguins. They leave at sunset, and they go out. They catch these fish, and they come home, and they feed their young. Those are the same fish that are going to be targeted by this vessel. People think through these kinds of things, and they wonder what impact a future of industrial fishing in this fishery will have for marine life.

We then have to ask ourselves why, with the arrival of the Geelong Star, a smaller boat than the Abel Tasman, at slightly less than 100 metres, this boat was allowed to go fishing without the proper precautions being put in place to prevent the bycatch of seals, dolphins and other marine creatures. This is what we are debating here today. This is ultimately what this disallowance motion is about. The Greens feel very strongly that we should take the strongest possible precautions to protect especially cetaceans such as dolphins, and seals and other marine life—the strongest possible protections.

Why do we protect dolphins and seals? People may not be aware, even in this chamber, that dolphins and seals are protected under Australian law. They are protected. It is an offence to harm a dolphin. The maximum penalty is two years in jail or a $180,000 fine. Seals are also protected with similar clauses under a different section of EPBC. The fishing industry gets an exemption. They are allowed to kill dolphins and seals, but to do that they have to have a fisheries management plan in place—a vessel management plan.

In the case of the Geelong Star a vessel management plan was put in place but minister Hunt has to sign off on it. I will read how the minister may accredit plans, regimes or policies if the minister is satisfied:

(f) the plan, regime or policy requires persons engaged in fishing under the plan, regime or policy to take all reasonable steps to ensure that cetaceans are not killed or injured as a result of the fishing …

When the Geelong Star arrived here it went out on its first weeks of operations and killed nine dolphins, including four dolphins in one throw of its net, and 12 seals—not to mention 10 tonnes of other bycatch that was later discarded. The 'proverbial' hit the fan and a number of mitigation measures were put in place to protect protected species in this country—dolphins and seals.

Essentially, two things were done. A night ban on fishing was put in place because that is when there is most activity in the small pelagic fishery, especially closer to the surface. That is when the dolphins and seals are most active and it is also when it is harder to see these protected species around the nets. Another mitigation measure put in place was essentially a move-on clause—a sting in the tail—where if a dolphin was killed the supertrawler would have to leave that area for six months and fish somewhere else. So there were two mitigation measures in place, and I have to say I felt very glad they were put in place. I remember being outraged and speaking to the media, and it was not just me. Minister Hunt came out and spoke to the media and said very similar things. I have his quotes here in front of me. He said that 'dolphin bycatch is simply unacceptable'. I am glad our environment minister came out and made such statements. This is only part of his quote as it is too long for me to read, but he said:

I would hope that the position that myself and others have taken—

that is, the precautions I have just talked about—

has compelled AFMA to put in place a really tough restriction with some very final points that if there are any more failures then there will be big consequences. They’ve already imposed consequences but they’ll go further. The dolphin by-catch is simply unacceptable.

So we have an environment minister that is speaking out on behalf of protected species as I would expect him to.

The next question is: why was the night ban lifted? Let's make it very clear. There is no science behind the protection of dolphins and seals. It is not about them being endangered or critically endangered. We protect them under our laws because we value them. People love dolphins and they love seals. They have an affinity with them. They have a very strong affinity with highly intelligent, highly social marine creatures. That is why they are protected. That is why if I were to shoot one with a spear gun and drag it up on the beach I would hope there would be someone there to protect me, because I do not think people would be very happy. They are protected in this country for a good reason: basically, we love them. As a surfer I especially feel I have a very close affinity with dolphins and seals.

It is also worth pointing out that, in the reporting period we have seen already, the Geelong Star has accounted for nearly three-quarters of the dolphin mortalities by the fishing industry over the first reporting period—

Senator Ruston interjecting—

That is correct, and I could give you that later, Senator Ruston. So this is a high-risk fishing activity, as is pointed out by the independent scientific panel. The Greens and others feel we need to take the strongest possible protections for cetaceans that are protected under our laws—for dolphins and seals. They are high-risk bycatch, and we need to do whatever we can.

I am concerned about the precedent of removing the night ban. I asked AFMA directly at estimates why the night ban was removed, and they were very open and honest with me. They were not trying to hide anything. We talked about how site was important and how at night-time you cannot see things such as dolphins and seals. We talked about the seal excluder device and for incentives to get the vessel to basically do whatever it takes to mitigate. We said:

Senator WHISH-WILSON: You implemented a night ban on fishing for the Geelong Star?

Dr Rayns: Yes.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Did that work?

Dr Rayns: It worked in the sense that it did not lead to any further dolphin mortalities. However, we also have to balance that with enabling the vessel to fish and bearing in mind that we are trying to balance a set of regulations to make sure we are protecting protected species and, at the same time, reasonably allowing the vessel to fish.

So AFMA made a decision, and I understand that they consulted other stakeholders. They made a decision that the economics of this boat, this supertrawler—I am not sure how many Australians it employs or how much tax it pays as a foreign vessel, but we know that it is planning to sell its fish to Africa—had to be balanced against the protection of protected species. Some people have different views from me on which is more important or where that balance should lie, and clearly my party's view is different from AFMA's. We feel we should take the strongest possible protections, including maintaining a night ban.

Let me wrap up in the next five minutes by saying AFMA's own media release from the time when the night ban was put in place was that it was a logical mitigation measure. But the companies lobbied have it removed; the supertrawlers lobbied to have it removed, and now it is no longer necessary because there are other measures in place, such as a move-on clause.

I am concerned that if we do not make a stand on this night fishing ban the next thing is going to be a dolphin move-on clause and that is going to be lobbied to be removed. AFMA have not confirmed—I would be happy for the minister to confirm today if she wishes to—that observers are even going to stay on this boat. It was only for 10 trips initially. We put pressure on them and AFMA said the observers would stay on the boat for 12 months. That is up soon; what happens after that? How much more lobbying is going to occur around these regulations? How can we have any certainty, and how can the public have any certainty around these regulations? The government themselves put these regulations in place. They put the night ban in place, and they said it was the right thing to do.

Senator Colbeck, on his own website, said that the night ban was an important measure to protect dolphins and seals. He said that on his own website. All we know is that it has been removed because of the economics of this operation, and that is a decision that has been made by AFMA. Even if it is in relation to consultation with other experts, it is the balance in the fishery between letting the boat fish and protecting protected species that AFMA has made this decision on.

What we are looking at here today is actually quite simple, and we have got a simple decision to make—a very important value judgement. Do we back the economics of what is, I think, a very divisive and unpopular fishing activity, being a large industrial factory freezer in our waters? I personally question the benefits of that fishing activity. Or do we look after our loved marine life?

I have, through freedom of information, copies of conversations between the AFMA observers who were on board the boat when the dolphins and seals were originally killed. I have copies of those. They are actually quite compelling. I felt sorry for the AFMA observer who, at one stage, actually said in exasperation, 'There really isn't anything further we can do to prevent the deaths of these dolphins and seals.' At that stage there were 42 seals around the net. But they made it very clear, and I am happy to give the minister copies of these conversations. It is a whole chain of emails around when the proverbial hit the fan and the boat's first few weeks of operations. There is even pressure shown in those first few weeks by the company to reduce the aperture on the seal-excluding device, because up to 30 per cent of their fish were actually swimming out of the nets because the seal-excluding device was too wide. Even with the device that wide, they were still killing dolphins and seals.

We will probably hear from the minister that since the night ban has been lifted there have been no more dolphins killed. I would like to know if there have been any more seals killed, because they only get reported every three months and we have not had an update for some time. But remember: this ban was only lifted seven weeks ago. Looking back and saying, 'There have been no dolphins killed since late June,' that is because there was a night ban in place. I do not think it is unreasonable for us, when we are representing the people who voted us in, and the constituencies in our state that have significant concerns around this, to raise these issues in parliament. I would like to see the strongest possible protections for dolphins and seals kept in place for this boat. I believe I speak on behalf of a lot of Tasmanians and no doubt other people around the country. We have protected species in this country for a reason, and I think the simple reason is: these sea creatures are valuable to us. They are valuable to each and every one of us. I welcome the debate from the minister and from other senators, and I look forward to the vote.