Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries) Share this | Hansard source

I thank senators for the contributions made on a range of important issues relating to the work of the Environment and Communications References Committee. It's a committee that I used to be a member of. Indeed, I participated in some of the inquiries that Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Hanson-Young have spoken about. They've had their chance to say their piece, and we'll just leave that on the record.

But I do want to turn my attention to one of those inquiries that Senator Whish-Wilson referenced, and that was the one into the matter of finfish farming in Tasmania. That is something he did indicate to the Senate I would have a high level of interest in, and it is something that both he and I and Senator Urquhart and Senator McKim as well, as Tasmanians, have a strong interest in, albeit I expect Senator Urquhart and I are on a unity ticket with regard to the industry and not with Senator McKim and Senator Whish-Wilson.

Both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party support this industry in Tasmania that employs over 5,000 Tasmanians, predominantly in regional communities up the north-west, down the east coast and on the west coast. We talked about Macquarie Harbour and some of the issues that have occurred there. Down the Huon Valley, it's a huge employer in that area. It's something that both Senator Urquhart and I take very seriously and support.

The one thing with regard to this inquiry I want to focus on is the fact that this is about an industry in Tasmania, one that is regulated by the Tasmanian government and one that occurs within the waters governed by the Tasmanian government and managed by the Tasmanian Environment Protection Authority and the department of primary industries, water and the environment. That's something under the terms of our Federation that's well and truly within the scope of the Tasmanian government, not the Australian government. The committee report notes that extensively.

There are a range of recommendations that came out of the report. The three that I could see before when I was having a look through this report were recommendations for the Tasmanian government to act. The last time I checked in this place, the parliament we're in is the Australian parliament, to which the Tasmanian government is not accountable. They are the ones that those recommendations relate to.

Another point to make with regard to this industry is that there are—

That's a ridiculous proposition and not related to this debate at all, Senator Patrick. My point is that we've got an inquiry that at the time it was established we know the Tasmanian division of the Labor Party did not support, but the inquiry went ahead. The reason they didn't support it is that they knew it was a stunt. They knew it was just another beat-up. They knew that it was something that was going to be weaponised to try to trash an industry that, while not perfect, does a very good job of managing our environment.

This industry is proudly employing 5,000 people, something I support and something I want to see improved. If there are technological and regulatory improvements to be made in this industry, let's make them. Let's help them make them. That's why, rather than raking over some of these issues based on emotion, rather than fact and science, I'm keen to see what we can do within the Australian government's purview—that is, Commonwealth aquaculture. That's something you referenced, Senator Whish-Wilson—through you, Mr President—and I'm looking forward to having a science based, fact based discussion around what we can do to grow this industry.

I don't agree that these are a toxic, poisonous species of fish, as described by the previous speaker. These are a commodity farmed sustainably and one that we rely on for protein in diets and for economic support. This industry pays the wages of over 5,000 people. This is an important part of the Tasmanian economy and something that, as I said before—and I doubt Senator Urquhart would disagree with me—we in Tasmania are proud of. Ninety per cent of our population support that industry because they vote for the parties that actually support those 5,000 people.

I reflect on comments made by those who are opposed to it, again, based on emotion, not science and fact. They're cherrypicking stats and data rather than looking at these things in the context of the truth. We end up with these horrible emotive debates, which we need to steer clear of. As I say, that's my priority. That is what I'll be doing as we head into this work. The Blue Economy CRC is a fantastic institution bringing scientists together with industry and people who want to grow that sector and do it well. We have to remember that those industries that operate in the finfish-farming sector trade on brand. A lot of the evidence provided to that inquiry points to the fact that, in order to be successful in the marketplace, you have to be able to point to your record as environmental managers and ensure that you are doing the best you can.

I might just turn to the government senators' additional comments. Of course, it was clear at the time that the government didn't support the establishment of this inquiry because, as I've already outlined, it's a matter for the Tasmanian government. Insofar as the Commonwealth of Australia is concerned, we are heading down that path with Commonwealth aquaculture. That's something I'm very excited about and it's something, Senator Whish-Wilson, I can promise you I will engage with you on directly. We've already talked about it in brief. As work continues, I hope you and I can find a unity ticket to support a well-established industry based on science that actually will be good for the environment and the economy.

Sorry, I can't understand what Senator Whish-Wilson is saying, but my point is that I would hope we can find a way past the division and we could agree on that industry. I assume that's something you would like to see, Senator Whish-Wilson. I would invite you at some point in the future to come and stand with Senator Urquhart and me as Tasmanians to support the growth of this industry in Commonwealth waters. I think that would be fantastic. Imagine doubling the size of the industry and having 10,000 Tasmanians employed in this industry! That would be fantastic. We could do it based on science. I'm going to take a little punt here—not that I'm a gambling man—but I don't reckon I'll get any unity with the Tasmanian contingent of the Australian Greens. I don't think they'll stand with me, no matter what the science says, and they won't be standing with Senator Urquhart either to support growth, no matter what the Blue Economy CRC says. I expect we will be facing opposition to growth in that sector.

I'll go back to the government senators' additional comments. Obviously the government was opposed to the inquiry because it would be used as a platform for anti-industry attacks. Quite clearly that was the case; it happened. We noted also that the Tasmanian division of the Labor Party didn't support the inquiry. The points made by the government senators include the fact that there were appropriate systems and regulatory frameworks in place but, most importantly, that it was a matter for the Tasmanian government.

There's concern around the lack of response to this, but I think it's important to look at what has happened in Tasmania since that point in time, under the auspices of the Tasmanian government. They are the ones who are actually charged under regulation and legislation to regulate and manage that industry, to improve its future, to improve its impact on the environment and to ensure that it remains a strong industry. There have been a range of changes made to how they do business down there; not all of them, I have to say, have been supported by sections of the community.

No matter what we do, no matter how far we go to try and ensure an industry is sustainable, they will never ever be happy because trashing the brand of these businesses and the future livelihoods of these 5,000 Tasmanians who work in this industry is important for them, because it's about politics; just like this report was about politics. It's not about actually improving the future for Tasmanians and making sure that regional communities can survive. Senator Urquhart and I—and I hope she would never disagree with me on this—stand for those jobs. They are based on sustainable practices and science, and they improve every year. Every year those businesses get better at what they do. We support them to ensure that they can continue to improve and provide that important commodity to the Australian marketplace and, of course, exports.

As I said before, none of this is about committee report responses; it's about politics, it's about division and it's about running down Tasmanian jobs and businesses. I say to those who keep doing this and who keep highlighting divisions and trying to run these entities down: stop it. It's not what the majority of Tasmanians and, indeed, Australians want. They want us to get on with creating conditions that are actually supportive of jobs and creating environmental outcomes that are based on science, not emotion.