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

I also rise to speak on the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee inquiry into factory-freezer trawlers, which I attended as a Greens representative. The Greens have campaigned consistently since 2012 against the arrival and operation of large factory-freezer vessels, often known as supertrawlers, in Australian waters. We have always opposed them; we have been consistent in our position. The key reason for that is the threat that they pose to marine life, especially to marine mammals, and we believe that there is uncertainty in the science. We have never questioned the quality of the science that has been done, but we have questioned the quantity of the science that has been done.

The Small Pelagic Fishery that has been targeted by these large freezer vessels has had problems in the past. It went into decline off Tasmania and south-eastern Australia 12 years ago. Some scientists even say it collapsed. Then, suddenly, although the fishery had not been accessed for 10 years and no data had been collected, we had a robust viable fishery able to be accessed by some of the largest factory-freezer vessels in the world. The Greens have always been concerned about the specific acute impacts, called localised depletion, on the species that live off the small pelagic fish, such as seals, dolphins, penguins and a number of finfish—which, of course, is the reason that rec fishers in this country have been so outspoken in their opposition to these large factory-freezer vessels.

I note that the coalition senators have put in a dissenting report to this Senate committee report. I will express my thoughts on this. It is disappointing that they have put in a dissenting report. This is a very well-written report. It is a long report that includes a lot of information, including scientific information. It acknowledges the scientists that have contributed to this debate, it acknowledges the Fisheries Management Authority and, while it clearly points out issues with their management of the Small Pelagic Fishery, it also acknowledges that Australian fisheries are the best managed fisheries in the world. But that does not make them perfect by any means.

This supertrawler, the GeelongStarwhich is somewhere off Cape Town at the moment—has, I understand, changed from an Australian-flagged to a foreign-flagged vessel. I also understand that it is not coming back and that the reason it left was a commercial decision. They did not see any long-term future for them here, accessing the Small Pelagic Fishery in Australian waters. The key question is: why not? We know from the data that we have been provided that they have not met anywhere near their quota catch—their allowable catch. In other words, they have not been able to find the fish. You may have been able to mount an argument 12 months ago that the dolphin exclusion regulations put on the boat precluded it from operating in certain parts of the ocean—you could argue that. But that regulation was lifted some time ago. The clear fact is that this boat has not caught the fish that it set out to catch, and I question whether it has been able to find the fish. This is a very important issue to me, because I have raised issues around uncertainty in the assessments of the stock and where those stocks are. If this boat has not been able to find the fish, it clearly suggests that maybe we did not get it right.

This boat has gone off to other places to fish on the basis that the regulations in this country were too severe. They have lobbied to have regulations removed—we know that for a fact. They had the night fishing ban removed, they have lobbied to have the second AFMA observer removed from the boat and they have lobbied to have the exclusion zones for dolphins removed. They clearly see Australian fisheries as being too highly regulated for them. They have not been able to find the fish.

I also question their markets in Africa, where they are selling the fish. For those of us in this chamber who understand economics, the decision this boat operator and the shareholders who own the company made was to come to Australia to access and exploit the Small Pelagic Fishery and to sell these fish to Africa. I question whether their markets in Africa are sustainable. I would like to see the data on what kind of price they were getting for their fish and what kind of volumes they were selling there. I understand that market is not highly profitable and that there have been issues with that. That is another question that is hanging over this.

To those who have come out and said that some kind of populist movement in this country has killed the supertrawler, this is a decision made by the operators of this vessel that they did not feel they were making enough money in Australia and they have gone to fish elsewhere. We need to get to the bottom of that if we are to truly understand why. I think it is really important—whether AFMA do it now, and we can get more stats from the company—that we actually get that information to add to this piece of work that we have here from the Senate, which is a long piece of work and very balanced.

The key recommendation is that the government ban large factory freezer midwater trawlers from operating in the Small Pelagic Fishery. I note that coalition senators, on the first page of their dissenting report, disagree with that recommendation. They spend nearly two pages talking about input controls, which are where things that limit your fishing effort, such as the size of your boat, are not a basis for fishing regulation. Well, here is the point: the coalition banned supertrawlers, boats over 130 metres—a clear input control. We want to take this a step further, and the Senate has agreed that we need to ban all large factory freezer vessels operating in the Small Pelagic Fishery. The government could never explain to stakeholders, when they sat down with them, why and on what basis they were prepared to ban boats over 130 metres and not boats of 100 metres that have smaller factory freezers. It did not make sense.

The government cannot make the point in this dissenting report and publicly that they do not believe the Senate or any future government should ban factory freezer vessels, when they have done exactly the same thing themselves. If they are claiming there is no scientific basis for a ban on factory freezer vessels and if this is all about efficiency and they do not believe in the precautionary principle, they do not believe there is any uncertainty in these fisheries at all and they do not believe that any harm is being done to the marine environment, then why ban boats that are bigger and more efficient? I say to Senator Back that I do not think that even a 100-metre boat was efficient. The boat could not make any money. It has gone. They could not exploit this fishery in the way they expected. I question whether they were able to find fish stocks. I know someone fairly learned who said they needed to spend more time being able to find the fish stocks, but what company is going to tie up their money keeping an asset in another country when there are other fisheries they can go off and plunder? It seems that that is what they have done.

I would support Senator Urquhart's final comments—good riddance; I do not want to see any factory freezer vessels back in this country. This is the biggest environmental campaign I have seen in my time in the Senate. It is not just environmental campaigners; it is also recreational fishing groups who feel their voice has not been heard. They do not feel they have had a say in the management of this fishery. Believe me, while environmental campaigners have stood side by side with the recreational fishing groups on this issue, we do tend to have some very robust discussions on other issues, and we do not believe they are perfect by any means. Sometimes their catch can be unsustainable as well, and we have always had that open conversation with them. But in this instance they were asking for their voice to be heard. They target the finfish. They all spend a lot of money on their boats. It is a big part of their life. It is a great joy to them to go out and catch fish, and this boat posed a risk and a threat to them that they felt was never properly assessed. Over the years there have been a number of attempts by government to negotiate with them, such as on exclusion zones for this trawler; they have also failed. There have been attempts to incorporate stakeholder feedback in this fishery that have not been successful.

If you go on the principle that there is no problem with this kind of thing unless any harm is being done—in other words, no harm done, no problem—and if someone wants to spend the money, let them go fish, let them exploit this fishery, I would argue as a Green and as someone who deeply loves the ocean that killing nine dolphins in your first two weeks of operation is doing harm. Fifty seals of different varieties have been caught by this boat in the last 12 months, as well as numerous albatrosses and all sorts of bycatch, including a whale shark. So you cannot argue that this is not doing any harm. There is uncertainty in the science, as you would expect for a fishery as complex as this. The precautionary principle should be adopted. I wholeheartedly endorse the Senate's recommendations in this report for a ban on these vessels. I would like to see that properly regulated and properly enforced in legislation.

Question agreed to.