Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006, which we are considering today, makes a number of amendments to the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984. The amendments provide for increased fines and for custodial sentences of up to three years imprisonment for persons caught fishing illegally in those parts of Australia’s territorial sea that are subject to Commonwealth fisheries jurisdiction. The area covered by this legislation is the zone beyond a line three nautical miles from the coast, which represents the state or territory boundary and up to a line 12 nautical miles from the coast, which represents the rest of Australia’s territorial sea. Importantly, this legislation does not and cannot apply to the areas of the Australian fishing zone that lie out beyond the 12 nautical mile boundary of Australia’s territorial sea.

This legislation will therefore not apply to persons caught fishing illegally in the fishing zone between the 12 nautical mile line and the 200 nautical mile limit of our fishing zone. This is because, as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Australia is prohibited from imposing custodial penalties for foreign fishing offences beyond the 12 nautical mile territorial sea limit. This is not the first time that custodial sentences have been included in Australia’s fishing legislation, but in both the Fisheries Management Act and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act custodial sentences are generally provided only for non-fishing offences such as obstructing a fisheries officer or providing false information.

Labor will be supporting this legislation. We recognise that it is a very small step in the right direction. It will put in place a small additional deterrent for those foreign fishers who are considering fishing in our waters. Evidence was provided during estimates that the vast bulk of sightings by Coastwatch of illegal foreign fishers operating in Australia’s fishing zone are in waters beyond our 12 nautical mile territorial limit and will therefore not be subject to the new custodial provisions contained in this legislation.

The bill before us today is not likely to make a major dent in a problem that has basically been spiralling out of control for many years under a succession of Howard government fisheries ministers. We need to understand the dimensions of this problem. Last year, Coastwatch reported that in the 2004 calendar year there were 8,108 sightings of possible illegal fishing vessels in Australia’s fishing zone. Coastwatch now says that in the 2005 calendar year there were 13,018 sightings. Even if this figure has been inflated as a result of multiple sightings of the same vessel and of including vessels that have been legally transiting through our waters, it is clear that incursions by foreign fishing boats operating illegally in our waters are increasing at an alarming rate.

It is true that over time there has also been an increase in interceptions but, unfortunately, incursions have been increasing far more quickly than apprehensions. Even with the additional funding that was provided in this year’s budget, the government only expects to apprehend an additional 300 illegal foreign fishers a year. We need to put this in perspective. The number of sightings has been increasing by around 5,000 a year in recent years and the government has responded by providing funds to apprehend an additional 300 a year. No wonder this situation is spiralling out of control.

This is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue. It is not just the impact on our fish stocks and on the livelihoods of our fishing families and of fishing communities that we are concerned about. We are concerned also about the risks to our agricultural industries, and to our native flora and fauna, that these incursions pose. We have all seen reports of illegal foreign fishers bringing with them birds, dogs and other animals. We know that these animals are sometimes brought to camps on the Australian mainland. We know that many of these fishers themselves carry diseases such as tuberculosis and that their animals have the potential to carry bird flu, rabies and even foot-and-mouth disease.

But it is not only the quarantine risk that Australian fishers worry about. Australian fishers and officials are concerned that the illegal foreign fishers are becoming increasingly aggressive in the way they operate. Fishers have spoken about waking up at night out at sea and finding foreign fishers on their boat searching for food and water. There is concern about suspected links between some illegal fishers, drug importers and people smugglers.

There is also evidence that these fishers are becoming better organised. The minister himself has pointed to links between the foreign fishers and organised crime figures from Indonesia and elsewhere. Australian fishers and officials have reported that they are seeing more boats from the more distant areas in Indonesia as well as those from closer islands such as Roti who have been fishing in our waters for a very long time. As well, we are seeing bigger boats, ice boats and even mother ships and factory boats.

The changing nature of the problem can be seen in microcosm in the changing nature of the fishers that are being encountered in the so-called MOU box. When the sea boundary with Indonesia was originally negotiated, the MOU box, which lies within Australian waters, was set aside as an area where traditional fishers, principally from the island of Roti, could fish in the traditional way as they had for generations. These days it is not only traditional boats from Roti that are encountered in the MOU box. Today, powerful boats with relatively sophisticated fishing equipment are using the MOU box and, according to Australian fishers, fish stocks in that area have become severely depleted. This highlights the need for better cooperation between the Australian and the Indonesian governments, especially on issues such as who may fish in the MOU box area and other border related issues.

It is clear that illegal incursions in our waters by foreign fishers are out of control—out of the government’s control, certainly. The measures in this bill alone will do little to alter this alarming situation. This is a national problem demanding a coordinated national response. But the opposition is not convinced that we are getting a coordinated response—certainly not the one that is needed.

State and territory officers who are on the front line have reported that information sharing among the various authorities dealing with this problem is not always what it should be. They say there is a particular problem with some Commonwealth agencies who are very reluctant to share vital information. They say that coordination is not always as good as is desirable and the best, most efficient, use is not always made of existing, available equipment and human resources. Better coordination and cooperation between authorities is vital if we are to successfully overcome this problem.

I note that the minister has at last acknowledged the importance of this and that some funds for this purpose were made available in this year’s budget. But acknowledging the problem is not enough. This alone will not ensure better coordination and cooperation between Commonwealth agencies. Labor has long advocated bringing the federal agencies and equipment together in a well-equipped Australian coastguard as the best, most effective way of ensuring a well-resourced and well-coordinated response.

In addition there needs to be a renewed spirit of trust and cooperation between federal and state and territory authorities. On the ground at the local level in many places such cooperation between state and Commonwealth officers is the norm, and at the local level is where it should occur. The problem occurs much higher up the command chain. Ministers in particular have been far too fond of blame shifting and pointing the finger at one another.

We also need to utilise the local knowledge and long experience that lies in local communities, particularly Aboriginal communities, right across Northern Australia. Again, the government has finally come around to at least acknowledging that in many Aboriginal communities lies a wealth of experience that can be better used in surveillance and other activities associated with curbing illegal foreign fishing. But it is a very tentative start. It has become clear that to make the best use of Indigenous expertise a well-funded and well-coordinated program is needed. Aboriginal rangers should have training opportunities available to them that will equip them with skill sets roughly equivalent to those possessed by state or territory fisheries officers or national park service officers. They should also be provided with all the specialised equipment they need to do such a job. Better use should also be made of the resources and expertise of Australian fishers. Again, the government has made some noises in this area, but we have yet to see what, if anything, will happen in practice.

What is needed is a better focused effort from the Commonwealth. Labor believes this would best be done with an Australian coastguard. There needs to be better coordination across all levels of government and with the Indigenous community and Australian fishers. Much work also needs to be done with the Indonesians on issues such as the MOU box and the border and on finding viable alternatives for Indonesian fishers who have been operating in our waters. The legislation before us today has the support of the opposition, but no-one should pretend to believe that it will do more than scratch the surface in deterring illegal fishers from fishing in our waters.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ian Macdonald, I have Senator Bartlett next on the running sheet.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot say I have much enthusiasm to jump Senator Macdonald. I was keen to hear what he had to say about this. But that is all right; I will go first. The Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006 predominately deals with custodial penalties for foreign fishing offences in those parts of the Australian territorial sea that are within what is known as the Australian fishing zone. As I understand it, the waters that become subject to the proposed custodial penalties as a result of this legislation are those that are between three and 12 nautical miles offshore from the Australian mainland or from most islands, including those in the Torres Strait.

The Democrats, along with, I imagine, pretty much everybody in this parliament, have a concern about illegal fishing in Australian waters, particularly in respect of the environmental impact of uncontrolled or unregulated fishing. We have a concern in some areas, certainly not universally, about the environmental impacts of some legally authorised fishing as well. It is wider than just saying all environmental problems are due to illegal people and everything else is fine. Nonetheless, illegal fishing is a significant problem and one that does need to be dealt with more effectively. It is, of course, almost impossible to eliminate. I think we need to acknowledge and be realistic about that. But at the same time we need to do all that is reasonably possible to reduce its impact and extent.

The main aspect of this legislation is to deal with bringing in custodial penalties. That is an aspect that I have mixed views on in relation to the people that are likely to be predominantly caught by it and also how much actual practical benefit it will bring, purely based on a cost-benefit analysis and leaving aside the human consequences for those that get caught. There is also the issue of the disparity that will still be in place. These penalties will not apply for those areas outside the Australian fishing zone, further out into the exclusive economic zone, the EEZ, which goes out to 200 nautical miles. Custodial penalties will not apply in those areas because that would be not in compliance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Article 73 of that convention requires that:

Coastal State penalties for violations of fisheries laws ... may not include imprisonment—

for areas in the EEZ—

in the absence of agreements to the contrary by the States concerned ...

I did find it interesting to discover when looking at this area that we do not have such an agreement with Indonesia. I am a bit perplexed about why that is. I am sure Senator Macdonald, with his experience in this, would be able to tell us why. It is obviously crucial for us in making significant progress in reducing illegal fishing in Australian waters to have as much cooperation as possible from Indonesia in particular and also from some other countries in the region, most notably PNG, and further afield. But Indonesia is critical in this regard.

An aspect that also concerns me is that predominantly it will be poorer Indonesian fishing folk who will be likely to be caught up in the custodial aspects of this legislation. I am not convinced that locking up a lot of not terribly well-off Indonesian fishermen is necessarily going to lead to a dramatic increase in the environmental benefit, not just from the Australian point of view—environmental benefit is from everybody’s point of view. I note the comments made by Mr Wilson Tuckey, the member for O’Connor, in the other place in his speech on this legislation. He said:

… for the lesser individual, the crewman, this process of incarceration has not worked.

We do currently have scope for incarceration in some state waters, out to the three-mile limit. As I said, there are already some crewmen locked up as a result of fishing offences. I note Mr Tuckey’s view that that has not worked. I presume when he says that it has not worked he means that it has not provided an adequate disincentive to have a significant impact in reducing the extent of illegal fishing. I certainly find that a useful assessment of his. If that is the case, as he states, then I am not sure that expanding the number of people likely to be locked up or the length of time they are likely to be locked up for will be a net positive gain for Australia.

Leaving aside an examination of the human impact of locking up some of the poorer people and looking at it in terms of a purely dispassionate cost-benefit analysis of the extra expense to Australia of imprisoning people—which is usually not that cheap—and the overall net gain, as a consequence of that, with regard to reduced problems from illegal fishing, I am not necessarily convinced that that is the best way for our resources to be devoted. I am not just saying, ‘It’s terrible to lock people up and we shouldn’t do it,’ although I am not saying it is good to lock people up either; I am also saying that I am not convinced that being more hardline with imprisonment is the best way to direct our resources.

Clearly that is not the only area to which we are directing our resources, and I am not suggesting that it is; I am merely expressing my lack of certainty that this will be a particularly useful piece of legislation or the best way to direct our resources. I am sure it will be useful in a political sense. It is always useful to governments, when there is an issue of people infringing on an area, to say: ‘We’re going to be tough on this. We’re going to lock people up. We’re going to take a more hardline approach.’ When looking at the federal parliamentary arena, I often get the sense that, whilst in the broad, most people prefer to have the more national scope for taking on issues compared to the restrictions of people in the state parliamentary arena, sometimes there is a bit of wistfulness from some that they do not really get as much chance to jump on the law-and-order bandwagon as much as their state colleagues.

I occasionally see that they would love more of a chance to jump on the law-and-order bandwagon, do some chest beating and say: ‘We’re being tough on this. We’re locking people up.’ Obviously there is still some scope to do that, as we all know. Those chances are often taken wherever possible. It seems to be an almost irresistible instinct of politicians at all levels, wherever they can, to jump on the law-and-order bandwagon as a way of looking like they are tackling a problem. Again, I am not saying that such approaches are ineffective all the time. But I can certainly say that there are many times when they are not effective—sometimes they are completely counterproductive. I think we could be much more judicious with regard to that.

So there may be some political benefit in looking tougher in this area. I am not convinced that it will actually have a positive benefit in the area we are trying to deal with. It seems perplexing to me that there appears to be such a difficulty in detecting illegal fishing—and not just the act of illegal fishing. There are numerous reports—sufficiently numerous so that I find it difficult to believe that they are all made up—of many illegal fishing people stopping on Australian soil for a break, to recuperate and the like, before going back out to sea. Obviously there are issues there in terms of quarantine and other matters, but for me it is more a somewhat sad irony, I suppose. For all the farcical ranting that we have about border security and asylum seekers—who, of course, have nothing to do with border security at all because they pose no challenge to our security—we are somehow incapable of stopping fishing people from getting to Australia. And we are incapable of stopping them illegally operating in Australian waters. But as soon as there are refugees on these boats, we have the Navy at our disposal to go charging all around the place trying to stop them getting here.

Maybe if the fisheries department just pretended that these were not fishing people, that they were refugees, then they would be able to detect them all immediately. We seem to be quite happy to lock up refugees for many years at a time, certainly much longer than we lock up fishing people, so I am amazed that the fisheries department has not taken that approach. They might suddenly find themselves more able to detect all of these fishing people in Australian waters. It is astonishing that there can be literally thousands of illegal fishing vessels in Australian waters that we are not able to detect but, as soon as there are asylum seekers on a vessel, the Navy gets called out.

We have all of those resources used to grab a few refugees who present no threat to Australia at all, who do not challenge our borders and who do not impact on border security, but we cannot use those resources to deal with what is a threat to some extent. It is not a border security threat in any true meaning of the words—not that this government worries about the true meanings of words, of course—but there are certainly threats with regard to quarantine and impact on the environment, and to some extent there are economic threats. We do not have the resources available for that, but we can bring out the Navy to deal with asylum seekers.

I guess that shows the reality of this government’s priorities. But a bit of legislation saying that we are being tougher by locking up a few poor fishermen is not necessarily an adequate response, from my point of view. I suggest we redivert some of the literally hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into intercepting asylum seekers and put that towards intercepting and dealing with fishing vessels. I am sure that when Senator Ian Macdonald was the relevant minister he would have loved to have had a few extra hundred million dollars to deal with this issue rather than them being diverted to deal with asylum seekers. It is a bit of a shame that we have those distorted priorities, but I guess that is a reality we have been living with in the political arena in Australia for some years.

To conclude, on behalf of the Democrats I voice my scepticism about how effective this will be and I reinforce the point and join with all speakers, I suspect, in this debate in seeking to ensure we have more effective activities to reduce the amount of illegal fishing in Australian waters. It is important that we do have more successes in that regard. I do not dispute that other resources have been put into this area, some of which have had some effect. However, more needs to be done in that respect and I would suggest that there are better ways of directing resources than will be taken up as a consequence of legislation like this.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak briefly on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006 to explain why I was reluctant to let it go through as non-controversial legislation without making some comment. First, I would like to acknowledge the offer of the briefing and the briefing that we received from the minister’s office. It was very helpful in assisting us to understand some of the issues that I had about the legislation.

People in this chamber are probably well aware that the Greens have been concerned about illegal fishing and the depletion of our oceans for a very, very long time. We have no argument with the government’s rationale for taking action to prevent illegal fishing in Australian waters. As I have said, people are well aware that we have had concerns about this for a long time. The scale of quarantine risk and the depletion of fishing grounds are now recognised by everybody from Indigenous people fishing their traditional waters to state and territory fisheries officers, the Commonwealth fisheries agencies and commercial operators who are now confronting this issue on a daily basis. So on this basis I believe the need for action is noncontroversial.

There is evidence that the rapid increase in illegal fishing activity to our north is being driven by the collapse of fisheries in Indonesia brought on, at least in part, by the same industrial fishing fleets and illegal operators that are now pushing south towards Australia. But I do not believe that just throwing people in jail is the answer. I do understand that the government is taking other actions, and I will go into that area later. I am deeply interested in knowing what else the government is doing to deter the large-scale operators other than simply increasing the penalties for a large number of impoverished fishermen and fisher-people who are moving further and further south from their traditional fishing grounds.

The passage of this bill will certainly enable the government to say it is taking strong action against illegal fishing, but it does raise many questions. How many people does the government anticipate are likely to be charged under this new regime? Does the minister acknowledge that the number of people in detention could quickly become very large unless other elements of the government’s strategy prove to be successful and are implemented at the same time? Where, and for how long, will people be detained while their cases are pending? What will be the impact on the various state court and prison systems of the potentially large numbers of non-English speaking Indonesian villagers who will be moving through our judicial system?

As I have said, the Greens support sensible measures to protect the Australian marine environment and the industries that depend on it. I am aware that the government does have other actions that it is taking, although it seems to me at the moment that this legislation to throw people in jail seems to be dominating the headlines. I have mentioned elements of this plan before. The Australian Marine Conservation Society, for example, has published a very thorough and well thought out plan or concept of what needs to be put in place to deal with illegal fishing, such as to start with a better understanding of our seas and the impact of illegal fishing.

I would like to point here to the fact that we do not have a thorough understanding of that marine environment, our seas, and the impact illegal fishing is having. For example, during estimates I asked the Department of the Environment and Heritage’s Marine Division some questions about sharks. I asked if the department acknowledges that the true status of most shark populations in Australian waters is unknown, and the answer was yes. I asked if they acknowledge that the most basic biological information is missing for almost all species of shark, and the answer was yes. I asked the department if they acknowledged that the knowledge of habitat preferences and other ecological requirements is poor or unknown, and they answered yes.

Then I asked if they were aware that there is inadequate monitoring, enforcement and research programs specifically designed for sharks, and they said no. If they have already acknowledged that we have a poor understanding of their status, their biological information and their habitat preferences and other ecological requirements, I really do fail to see how they can then say that monitoring, enforcement and research programs specifically designed for sharks are adequate.

I also asked them if they believe that there is widespread concern about the apparent decline in shark numbers, and they answered yes. When I asked whether the National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks has been reviewed they said no. I am deeply concerned about those responses. I was very pleased that they were actually honest enough to admit that there were concerns about the knowledge of our shark populations, but I am deeply concerned that they could not answer that further action is being taken.

We have not yet fulfilled the first point of the Australian Marine Conservation Society’s 10-point plan—that first dot point. They also believe that we need to adopt a shared sea approach, which means working with our northern neighbours to protect our shared resources and seas. They also believe that we need to establish marine protected areas across the Arafura and Timor seas. I believe that an essential approach to managing our fisheries is to have a comprehensive, adequate and representative marine reserve system. We need to protect the species that are already threatened by fishing impacts.

Again, I come back to the information I have just supplied about sharks. We are not adequately protecting those sharks and we do not know enough about them yet. The AMCS also believe we need to improve the food security and livelihoods of coastal and Indigenous peoples. Again, there is much work that we could do in that area. We also need to recognise the rights of Indonesian coastal indigenous communities in the Arafura and Timor seas.

The AMCS also suggest, and this is an area they have talked about before, in point No. 6:

Breaking the illegal fishing trade cycle using international trade measures.

I believe that this is an area that is not being explored enough and that we need to take a much more lateral approach to using international trade measures. No. 8 in their suggested approach is ‘establishing a collaborative and comprehensive fisheries management framework’ for our northern waters, and I am aware that negotiations are going on between our governments on this very important issue. No. 9 is:

Implementing monitoring, compliance and surveillance operations.

Obviously, a large part of the work that the Australian government has been focusing on is surveillance operations, so we are starting to take care of that part. Point No. 10 recommends:

Building capacity of coastal and Indigenous communities to tackle illegal fishing.

I am pleased that money has been invested in helping our northern Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to tackle illegal fishing and that their important role has been recognised. However, I do not believe that all of the elements of this plan are being implemented. It would be very encouraging to see the government take a much more comprehensive approach to this important issue. I am concerned that what does appear to come out in a lot of the rhetoric is that the government is taking the path of least resistance.

While I agree that penalties need to be put in place, it cannot be the only egg in the basket. As I said, a much more comprehensive approach needs to be taken. Just heavily pushing the ‘lock ‘em up’ approach is not going to solve the problem. Also, while I think that we may agree to disagree with the government, I do not believe that the threat of jail in Australia will necessarily act as a deterrent when fisherpeople are trying to earn some money to support their families and put food on their tables. Instead of what is a significant push for jailing fisherpeople, I very strongly believe that we need to be tackling the Mr Bigs of this industry.

This will come as a surprise to many in this place, and it may be the one and only time it ever happens, but like Senator Bartlett I am going to quote Wilson Tuckey. He may not really like being quoted by a Greens senator, but here we go.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think his endorsement is in doubt!

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely! His endorsement is in grave doubt now!

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Kiss of death!

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes! In his remarks on this bill in the other place, he pointed out that it is not satisfactory to simply jail indigenous fishermen—he said ‘fishermen’; I tend to use ‘fisherpeople’ or ‘fishers’—while leaving the organisers untouched. I could not agree more. This is an extremely complex and difficult issue. There is no one simple answer and, while I do not think the government believes there is one simple answer, I am afraid that that is the message that is being sent. It requires a complex, careful response. As I have articulated and as the Australian Marine Conservation Society has very clearly pointed out, we are not going to solve this problem if we rely on just locking people up.

We need to look at the causes of this problem. We need to be investing in our near neighbours to increase their capacity to repair the reefs and to share some of our knowledge and expertise in fishing. I believe and acknowledge that Australia has some of the greatest fishing expertise and best fisheries management practices in the world. We lead the world in marine protected areas—do not take that as meaning that I think there are enough, because there are not—but it has to be acknowledged that we lead the world in trying to put in place marine protected areas. Do not rest on your laurels; we still have a comprehensive system to roll out by the year 2012 to meet obligations and commitments this government has made. We need to share that knowledge with our northern neighbours. We have to tackle this in a comprehensive way and we have to acknowledge it is going to take time. It is going to take time to repair reefs, to develop capacity, to find alternative industries for our northern neighbours and to develop the necessary protocols and regional fishing organisations. We are in this for the long haul: there are no short-term answers and we need a comprehensive approach.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say I am delighted to see such interest in the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006 and in fisheries management generally. I also have to say that, broadly speaking, I agree with what Senator Siewert and Senator Bartlett said in their comments on this bill. A lot of the things that they were both urging the government to do are things that the government has in place or has in mind, things that will happen in the fullness of time. I think the contributions by the last two speakers have been useful in that regard, and they did in fact recognise some of the good work that the government has been doing in recent years.

I am rather proud of my own involvement in this. About five years ago, when I first came to the fisheries portfolio, the rape of the patagonian toothfish in the Southern Ocean was in its prime and there was a lot of illegal activity in the north. Nothing had been done in the Labor years; I recall that no-one cared about illegal fishing anywhere then. In fact, illegal fishermen and boat people used to land on the shores of Darwin Harbour and catch a taxi into town. That is what the protection was like back in Labor’s time. Of course, things have changed considerably in the last five years. The patagonian toothfish, which was under severe pressure, has now, at least in Australian waters, been given some protection. I have to acknowledge an environment group in Tasmania, Isofish and its organiser, Alistair Graham, with whom I worked very closely when I was parliamentary secretary for the environment; we actually put in place some programs then to track the criminals around the world.

Over the years, the government has put a lot of money into the fight against the patagonian toothfish pirates in our territorial seas, particularly around Heard and McDonald Islands. I have to say with some pride—touch wood—that we have cleaned the pirates out of Australian waters insofar as the rape of the patagonian toothfish species is concerned. It is still a problem on the high seas. Several years ago, Australia took a leading role in forming an international task force to try and address illegal fishing on the high seas. Patagonian toothfish were our real interest, but other nations came together to join Australia and the United Kingdom in the High Seas Task Force that took forward a lot of measures to address illegal fishing on the high seas.

Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, the high seas have always been seen as the domain of the world at large. Nobody owned the high seas, so you could ply the high seas without particular rules and regulations. I guess that was good one, two or three centuries ago but, nowadays, when the marine environment is so fragile and precious, we have to look at some regimentation of the high seas. The High Seas Task Force, of which Australia was an initial member and a leading force in, pushed the envelope regarding what could be done on the high seas.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was to be reviewed this year. I must say that I have lost track of what exactly happened to it. I hope to be going to the UN in a couple of weeks time to see what happened with that. One of the things that I thought the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—which I will refer to as UNCLOS hereafter—should look at were regulations and rules on the high seas insofar as the environment and fisheries management are concerned. People who understand the UN system tell me that changing UNCLOS will take something like 20 to 50 years, and that is why the High Seas Task Force was trying to find new, different and immediate ways of addressing those problems.

Both Senator Siewert and Senator Bartlett again mentioned concerns about incarcerations. This is a good measure. This is a step in the right direction. It was initiated just before Christmas, and instructions were given to the departmental people to address this by bringing in legislation to correct the problem. Curiously enough, the idea came to us from the Indonesians, who explained to us that this is what they did with their illegal fishing coming from the Philippines in the north. I have to say with some embarrassment that the penny dropped. It had never been suggested by us prior to that, but it became very obvious that we should introduce this measure, and I am pleased to see the bill before the parliament today. It will be a step in the right direction. It will not make a great deal of difference to incarceration. Already, we incarcerate for fishing penalties through a backdoor method. Fishermen are fined and they have little prospect of paying the fine, so they are jailed by the state courts for non-payment of the fine—for contempt of court—rather than for the fishing offence.

Regarding the problems that Senator Siewert and Senator Bartlett mentioned about where to house the incarcerated people and how to deal with them, over the last few years both the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Customs people have got that down to a very fine art. It works very well and very humanely, and there are processes in place which deal with the real culprits—the captains and the senior fishing masters. The junior crew are usually sent straight back. This bill will not make a great deal of difference there, but it does give us the laws to arrest at first instance in the three to 12 nautical mile area. Quite rightly, people say as I do that illegal fishers should not be getting into the 12 nautical mile area, because, if they are into the 12 nautical mile area, they are almost on the coast. We really have to protect our borders at the border of the exclusive economic zone, at the 200 nautical mile mark.

In the last four budgets—it might even be five—additional money each year has gone into the fight against illegal fishing. I am very proud. Senator Ellison and Senator Abetz have continued that work and money continues to flow to help in the fight against illegal fishing. Senator O’Brien continues to make political points without being terribly helpful with the problem. He keeps talking about this ridiculous idea of a coastguard. Obviously, he does not really understand it, although we have tried to explain it time and time again. The arrangement we have now maximises the resources that Australia puts into the fight. The Navy, the Army, the Air Force, Customs, Coastwatch and the states all combine in the fight against illegal fishing. You get the maximum bang for your buck with the maximum use of resources. Australia, quite obviously, does not have the resources of the United States or the United Kingdom, but we do very well.

Senator O’Brien continues to make the political point of there being 12,000 or 15,000 sightings. Sure, there are a lot of sightings, but do you know why? It is because there is a lot of activity out there looking for illegal fishing boats these days. Years ago, you did not have many sightings but you then had few people out there looking for them. The increase in surveillance that we have had in recent years has meant that there has been an increase in sightings. I continue to say, regarding the raw figure that Senator O’Brien quotes with some relish—you would think he is almost delighted that, because these people are coming in, he can make a political point—that many of the sightings are sightings of the same vessel two, three, four and even five times over. The real number is not quite that. But let us not argue about the figures; there are still a lot of illegal fishing vessels coming from Indonesia—far too many.

Bear in mind also that this has been happening for about 10,000 years. The Indonesians have always fished off the north-west coast of Western Australia and in the Gulf of Carpentaria, but it has become a real problem in the recent past to the extent that it is now affecting Australia’s very careful management of the fisheries in those areas. But we have to address the problem. The only way I can see that you will ever address the Indonesian fishing problem is not just by continuing to put money into our gunboats, not only putting money into increased surveillance and enforcement, not only empowering Aboriginal communities—which I am delighted to say we have worked on very closely in the last couple of years; that program is coming into place and it can be increased—but we also have to get the Indonesians on side.

Perhaps this is not the right time of the cycle to be saying this, but I have always thought that we need to be very close to the Indonesians. I know some in this chamber and in this parliament like to criticise the Indonesians, indirectly—if not directly. I think that is foolish. Indonesia is our biggest neighbour: some 200 million-plus people. I often make the point that I live closer to the Indonesian capital than I live to the Australian capital.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Webber interjecting—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you do too; you live much closer to the Indonesian capital. We have to be good neighbours to the Indonesians, and they have to be good neighbours to us. I am sure they want to be. In my visit with the foreign minister, Mr Wirajuda, and the fisheries minister, Mr Freddy Numberi, before Christmas to discuss these issues, both these quite senior ministers indicated that they wanted to be good friends with Australia across a wide range of areas. If the fisheries issue was a needle in that relationship, they wanted to fix it up. They were both very keen do to that. A number of initiatives arose from that meeting and from a previous meeting between Mr Downer and the foreign minister. It is perhaps too much to say that we got a signed agreement, but there was a general understanding that we would have to have joint patrols along the EEZ line and, more importantly, we would have get the Indonesians on side to look for the Mr Bigs and do the sorts of things that Senator Bartlett and Senator Siewert have been, rightly, saying we need to do.

We need to track where the money is coming from to support the transport of the fish once it is brought to shore. We need people on the ground in Indonesia following those things through, seeing where the money is coming from and going to. We cannot do that. It is a sovereign country, so we can only do it if we have the Indonesians on side. I am delighted to say that in those general discussions there was a broad agreement that Indonesia would help.

We also raised the issue that I think Senator Bartlett referred to, that UNCLOS prevents the jailing of people on the high seas without agreement—I emphasise the UNCLOS terminology of ‘without agreement’. I think it is essential that we get agreement from the Indonesian government that we and they can both—it has to be a two-way street—jail in the first instance illegal fishermen apprehended on the seas between the 13-nautical mile and the 200-nautical mile area. If we got the agreement of the Indonesian government and we were able to form a treaty along those lines, we would be able to jail in the first instance.

As I said before, jailing probably is not the best outcome; prevention is the best outcome. Again, I think Senator Siewert or Senator Bartlett may have raised this issue. If they have not, others have said to me over a number of years: ‘These Indonesians are poor. You bring them in and put them in an Australian jail. They get a fresh set of clothes. They get the best toiletries. They get a health check they’ve probably never had in their own country. They actually get paid in some of the state jails and they actually go home having had a good look at another country free of charge and perhaps with more money in their pocket than they have ever had before.’ There are people who doubt the effectiveness of jailing.

We have to prevent them from coming and we cannot do that by ourselves. All the money in our budget would not provide us with enough gunboats and warships to do that. We have to get the Indonesian government on side and we have to work very cooperatively with them at the marine border, the EEZ line. We also have to get the support of the Indonesian government to do the work in the fishing ports in Indonesia.

We are doing a lot of work. We are doing it with the Indonesians and we have done some of this in the past. We have sent out a lot of information to Indonesian fishermen advising them what is permitted and what is not permitted, but more needs to be done. It can only be done if the Indonesian government are totally on side. I think there is a desire for them to do that and it is something the Australian government should be pursuing very forcibly.

At the estimates committees I asked the officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade whether this action was proceeding, and they assured me that it was, although I was not overly confident at the tone of their responses. I am sure that the wheels move slowly but—and perhaps Senator Abetz may be able to update us on this; my information is a little dated these days, although it is dated back to estimates committee insofar as that is concerned—it is essential that we work very closely with the Indonesian government.

I want to challenge a couple of the issues raised by other speakers. Senator Siewert, again, in spite of what I think are your party’s crazy ideas in many areas of public debate, in the area of fisheries management and fisheries protection, we have been fairly closely aligned. Your knowledge and interest in this area is something that I have appreciated. You should be aware, however, that Australia was one of the first signatories to the international plan of action on sharks. We have a plan of action and we are carefully pursuing it. Some of the state governments were a little recalcitrant coming into that plan. We eventually got them there. We are doing a lot of work in international trade measures and, in many instances, we have done that in very close cooperation with some of the environment NGOs around the world. Australia, as you rightly say—

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should take up whales.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was always able to avoid the whale thing because whales are not fish; they are mammals, and it was not really within our purview—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Campbell is doing a good job.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz is quite right: Senator Campbell is doing a marvellous job. Even those of you who do not appreciate Senator Campbell’s skills would have to accept that he is doing a magnificent job in trying to gather support against the Japanese. I do not think that anyone can criticise Australia in relation to our approach to whaling internationally.

There are always these sorts of comments, ‘You send gunboats down to protect Australia’s waters insofar as fishing is concerned; why don’t you do it with whaling?’ The simple answer is: where we protect patagonian toothfish with gunboats, we do the same for whaling because it is within Australia’s exclusive economic zone. Once outside that zone, we cannot help with patagonian toothfish and we cannot help with whaling either. It is the high seas, and it concerns the issue I mentioned before that really does need to be addressed at an international level. It is something that Australia has actually started that 50-year journey to try and address.

Senator Siewert mentioned regional fisheries management organisations, and I think she mentioned that Australia is at the forefront of activity to establish regional fisheries management organisations in our sphere of influence. The most recent has been the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Management Commission, chaired, I might say, very well by an Australian official, Mr Glenn Hurry. That is an organisation into which we and some of the environmental NGOs have put a lot of effort. We are now getting that new RFMO across the southern Pacific Ocean. There is work being done in the south-west Indian Ocean. Australia has been instrumental in getting the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission operational—I have often described it as being dysfunctional. We have actually achieved something along the line of getting that organisation functional and operating as it needs to operate to stop the huge overcatch of tuna in the Indian Ocean that will see the destruction of the species if the IOTC cannot address the issues.

There are a few other areas about which I want to take particular issue with Senator O’Brien. He talked about information sharing with the states. I wish Senator Abetz well in dealing with the states. He seems to have got off to a slightly better start than I did. I invited the Western Australian minister here on three occasions. On two occasions, he made the agreement to come but just did not bother to turn up, and then he criticised us for not sharing information with them. And information which did go to some of the states ended up in the newspapers, particularly that rag from Western Australia, the West Australian, where secret operations were printed on the front page. Why would you share information with these sort of people?

We have come a long way, but there is still a long way to go. This particular bill before the Senate today is another step in the journey that the Australian government is taking to beat illegal fishing whenever it occurs and to look after the marine environment. I certainly commend the bill to the Senate.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006 is the latest move by the Howard government to deal with the scourge of illegal fishing in Australian waters. There are many people in Australia who have been asking the Australian government for years to take decisive action to deal with illegal fishing. This is not something that took place overnight. Consider these figures: between 1 January 2003 and 31 March 2004, there were 1,588 sightings of possible illegal fishing vessels in Australian waters; in the calendar year 2004, there were 8,108 sightings of possible illegal fishing vessels; and in the calendar year 2005, this had jumped to 13,018 sightings. In 2003, we would have had perhaps an average of 132 sightings per month, in 2004 that had jumped to 675 sightings per month and last year that had reached the truly staggering figure of 1,084 sightings per month. At this stage, we have not been provided with any information about the number of sightings so far for this year. We can only hope that there has been a decrease.

The fishing industry, especially in Western Australia, has been raising this issue with governments for years. State and territory ministers have been raising the issue with the Commonwealth for years. I am sure that the Commonwealth agencies and departments such as Coastwatch, Customs, AFMA and the Navy have been reporting this surge of illegal fishing. Time and time again, we were assured by the Commonwealth government that they were winning the battle against illegal fishing. An almost tenfold increase in monthly sightings in a two-year period does not suggest that we are winning that battle. The surge in illegal fishing seems to actually be suggesting that we have lost the battle. It seems to be suggesting that we have run up the white flag, surrendered our sovereignty and declared that everything is going okay. The previous minister for fisheries, Senator Ian Macdonald, put out press release after press release saying that we were winning the battle—I have been told that this ran to some 150 individual press releases. It is a significant admission of failure that during that time we saw monthly sightings increase nearly tenfold. With the appointment of the new fisheries minister and a range of new budget initiatives to the tune of over $300 million, we are now seriously expected to believe that we are now winning the battle.

People would be more than justified in being cynical in response to the government’s latest announcements on dealing with illegal fishing. Illegal fishing affects this country in numerous ways. Firstly, our fishing resources have been ravaged by illegal fishers, putting at risk the Australian industry and Australian jobs. As I have heard people from the fishing industry say time and time again: ‘We are sticking to our quotas based on the best science available to ensure a sustainable industry. We are sticking with the government’s rules, yet we think they are letting the stocks be destroyed by illegal fishing.’

Although it may not be as significant an industry as some others in my home state of Western Australia, fishing is still a significant employer and earner of export income. We cannot expect our Australian fishing industry to comply with the rules when we do not protect the fishery in the first place. There is a fundamental flaw in the logic of sustainable resource management when it only applies to those people who are operating legally. A sustainable catch determined by the best data available is meaningless when our fish stocks are being pilfered by illegal foreign fishing.

Secondly, there is an incredible risk to the viability of Indigenous communities who are reliant on the sea for their livelihoods. Labor members and senators have recently travelled to communities such as One Arm Point in Western Australia and Maningrida in the Northern Territory. While there, they were shown the damage being done to Indigenous economic self-determination by illegal fishing. For the government to talk about economic self-sufficiency for Indigenous communities and then act inadequately to combat illegal fishing would be seen by many as a disgrace. There is no point advocating economic self-sufficiency when we fail to protect that resource. Trochus shell harvesting is at risk of collapse for the Indigenous community at One Arm Point, because we as a nation have failed to protect the reefs from pillaging by foreign fishing.

Thirdly, there is a risk to the biodiversity of our country. There are numerous reports of illegal fishing vessels arriving in Australia, landing and setting up camps. These vessels are not only carrying crews but in some cases animals, such as chickens, dogs and even one report of monkeys. Given the efforts we make in this country to protect our biodiversity through stringent quarantine systems, it is somewhat disheartening to realise that we are not doing enough to prevent foreign vessels carrying animals from landing in Australia. It is no good only enforcing Australian quarantine regulations at our major cities and towns when we fail to protect ourselves around the entire country.

It is not just the risk of the introduction of pests and disease that is affecting our biodiversity. Illegal fishing is killing anything and everything that can be used as bait. One of the officials of the Western Australian fisheries department told the Labor members and senators that, when fisheries officers were examining overhead photos, they could not work out what the circular patterns were in the water. Upon investigating, they realised that turtles had been staked through one of their flippers and left tethered to an outcropping or pole. Once their fishing was finished, the illegal fishers would then return, grab the turtles and go home.

I am not using these examples as a means of demonising illegal foreign fishing vessels and their crews; I am demonstrating that these problems have arisen because we have let it get to this stage. Where once most foreign fishing vessels were only operating in very limited areas along our northern and western coastlines, the evidence now suggests that they are travelling further and further along our coastline. Reports from representatives of the fishing industry in Western Australia are now suggesting illegal fishing vessels are appearing well down the Pilbara coast. Where only a few years ago most of the incursions were along the Kimberley coast, it is now clear that, as our fishing grounds are being devastated by illegal fishing, they are now travelling further to maintain their catch. There are now also reports of incursions along the Queensland coast.

This legislation will amend the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to provide for increased fines and custodial sentences of up to three years imprisonment for persons caught fishing illegally in those parts of Australia’s territorial waters that are subject to Commonwealth fisheries jurisdiction. These new penalties will apply to fault based indictable offences and not to strict liability offences. The coverage of these changes will apply to that area beyond the three-mile nautical state and territory jurisdiction and the 12-mile Commonwealth jurisdictional limit. Our exclusive economic zone, which extends from 12 nautical miles to its 200-mile limit, is excluded from these provisions because, as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, we are prohibited from having a custodial penalty regime on fishing offences beyond the 12-mile sea limit. I, like many other Australians, wonder about how this tough new regime is going to work. There may very well be over $300 million allocated over four years but, when there are over 13,000 sightings—over 1,000 a month—I am concerned that, even if we double our apprehension rate, we are still going to face a significant incursion into Australian waters. The member for Flinders in the other place said:

We will destroy the practice of illegal fishing and we will not stop until we have achieved that.

I am not interested in being told that this new package will do that because, like many representatives of the fishing industry in Western Australia, I have heard all of that before. Every time that the issue comes up, the government comes into this place and thunders on about how its latest initiative will solve the problem. Yet the illegal fishing vessels still come.

There is a strategy that should be followed to finally deal with the issue of illegal fishing. Firstly, we must ensure that our national rights and sovereignty are defended to the absolute limits of our capability. We must as a matter of course seize any vessel that is engaged in illegal fishing. Those fishing vessels must be destroyed either at sea or at destruction points on land. Of course there are risks associated with bringing vessels onshore for destruction, specifically the risk of marine pests that may be carried on foreign fishing vessels. However, we must not allow this to deter resolute action. The only way to stop this problem is to destroy the vessel. We must not make the mistake that we made with the administrative forfeiture where we would intercept the vessel at sea, seize the fishing gear and allow the fishing vessel to leave, because, when we do that, they go back to their home ports, take on new fishing gear and return straight back to Australian waters. People in the industry liken this approach to that of Rex Hunt catching fish: catch, kiss and release. It might make a good fishing program on television, but it is a pretty pathetic fishery protection program.

Secondly, we must create a single agency with responsibility for dealing with the problem. The current shared approach of involving numerous government departments, agencies and the defence forces has not worked up until now. A single agency with the jurisdiction to enforce any fishery, customs or quarantine power with dedicated patrol platforms, including aircraft, is needed. There must be one agency that can report back to this parliament and the Australian people about what is being done to deal with illegal fishing. To give some idea of the difficulties that the current multiagency approach provides, you only have to try to find your way through the maze at Senate estimates. To get the complete picture, you have to ask questions of AQIS, Customs, Defence, AFMA, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and sundry other agencies. If the government is serious about smashing illegal fishing, the time has come to put one agency in charge with dedicated patrol platforms to ensure that illegal fishing vessels are intercepted whenever and wherever they are breaking Australian law.

Thirdly, we must accept the reality that some work needs to be done to provide a different form of livelihood for those people engaged in illegal fishing. The bosses who control the illegal fishing industry to our north are making a fortune, but unless we work with the Indonesian government—and I agree with Senator Ian Macdonald—and through agencies like AusAID to develop reasonable alternative jobs then we cannot be surprised that more and more people are prepared to engage in illegal fishing. When you earn a pittance and the opportunity exists to earn a much larger income by engaging in illegal fishing then of course the bosses have no difficulty in sourcing recruits. Imprisonment and other penalties will, of course, make it less attractive. But you have to ask: ‘What would have happened if we had acted sooner rather than later?’ One of the tests of national sovereignty is to be able to defend yourself and your interests. We have failed that test for too long when it comes to illegal fishing.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006 is before the Senate and is part and parcel of a comprehensive suite of activities undertaken by this government to fight the scourge of illegal fishing. The contribution of honourable senators, for which I thank them, has highlighted the difficulty that Australia currently faces. Unfortunately, it seems that some senators opposite revel in the numbers and the difficulties that we as a nation face in that regard, and on occasions they misrepresent that which actually occurs. Just for the record: yes, there were 13,000 sightings last year, but it is accepted by most sensible commentators that the vast majority of those were double, treble and sometimes quadruple sightings.

Even if there were only 1,000 incursions, that would be 1,000 too many. There has been talk about the ‘catch and release’ suggestion, the legislative forfeiture that Senator Webber just referred to. She was at estimates, so she would have heard that the reason for that is largely operational. When you come across a couple of illegal fishing vessels and you only have one vessel to apprehend with, you have a choice. Do you apprehend one vessel and let the other one go, or do you undertake a legislative forfeiture on one and apprehend the other? I think most people would accept that doing the legislative forfeiture on one vessel and catching another is a better result than only catching one vessel. So far this calendar year, we have already apprehended 185 foreign fishing vessels and we have undertaken legislative forfeitures in numbers of, I think, the high 40s. That shows the resolve with which the government is approaching this issue—and that is before the new moneys become available from the budget announcements.

With regard to the MOU box, an area off Western Australia that has specific significance for traditional fishers from Indonesia, a memorandum of understanding exists between Australia and Indonesia. It is not legally binding, but I think we in this place would all agree that it is morally and politically binding. That memorandum of understanding specifically states that only traditional fishers are allowed in that area. ‘Traditional fishers’ means those without a motorised vessel. Therefore, motorised vessels in that area are apprehended and dealt with as though they were in any other part of the Australian fishing zone. This has been raised from time to time by fishers. I am delighted that the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council, after its meeting with Mr Downer, understood and accepted to a large extent that the abolition of the MOU box would, in practical terms, make no difference and the suggestion that the MOU box is being used as an avenue or a safe haven to make incursions into Australian water is incorrect.

Senator O’Brien once again raised the old hoary suggestion of the coastguard. I think the Labor Party are now on about version six of their coastguard. Each time they are challenged about the detail, they run away and decide on a different type of red to paint on the side of the vessels. Other than that, they do not really have much else to offer the Australian people. So the Labor Party decided on a task force to have a look around the country and make some suggestions. Mr Beazley, in his new aggressive, angry Beazley persona, had to indicate to the Australian people that the Labor Party’s policy on illegal fishing would be to sink them at sea. How hairy chested can you get? He said, ‘We would sink their boats at sea.’ When asked about it, he said, ‘Yes, we would take the people off.’ That is a good start. But would you take the fuel, the engines, the fishing nets and the fishing lines off the boats before sinking them? Had I been a journalist, with respect to that great profession, those are the sorts of questions I would have asked Mr Beazley. You would have seen him like a fish on deck, flip-flopping and floundering around, because he would not have known the answers.

If the nets go down with the boats, they will turn into ghost nets and turn our northern waters into a veritable junkyard. Sometimes we sink boats at sea—for safety and other reasons. But, if a boat is in a sufficient state, we try to destroy it on land. The reason for that is that, if you destroy at sea, bits and pieces can still float ashore and be a quarantine risk. We talk to the fishing industry, and they do not really appreciate getting their lines and nets caught up in bits and pieces of sunken Indonesian vessels. Even in the area of fisheries, Mr Beazley finds it difficult to come up with a sensible, comprehensive policy. No wonder he is struggling in other areas, such as workplace relations—but we will not go there this evening.

The package that Senator O’Brien sought to belittle has been welcomed overwhelmingly by the fishing industry, by the Northern Territory News, by the West Australian—what is it called? That is right, the West Australian!

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the West Australian! I won’t tell them you forgot their name.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say that Senator Ian Macdonald, who contributed in this debate as well, did a very good job in laying the groundwork for what we are now doing as a government.

We have been told by those on the other side that we should be doing more with the Indonesians. Yes, we should, and that is a good idea. We will always try to do more, but I cannot help but reflect, even in this area of relations with Indonesia. When Mr Howard was first running for the prime ministership in 1996, what was the great throwaway line of the Labor Party? It was that if Mr Howard were to become Prime Minister, we would not be able to have a good relationship with Indonesia. The relationship would be hopeless. Yet today at question time and all this week we have been told that our relationship with Indonesia is so good that we seem to do everything that Indonesia wants. The Labor Party cannot have it both ways on these issues.

I think Senator Bartlett asked why we do not have an agreement with Indonesia under UNCLOS—the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. If two neighbouring countries have an agreement in relation to imprisonment of illegal fishers then you can imprison them. The simple reason that we do not have an agreement is that the Indonesians will not agree. But, as Senator Ian Macdonald indicated, when he was undertaking those discussions with Indonesia, Indonesia revealed that they have in their territorial zone penalties for imprisonment. That is what this bill now does: it imposes the potential for incarceration, subject to judicial discretion, on those caught in the 12 nautical mile zone.

The suggestion was made by one senator—I think it may have been Senator Webber—of what would have happened if we had acted sooner. I simply say that no Labor Party senator has ever suggested that we ought to have this sort of legislation. It is a genuine government initiative, which I am delighted that Labor supports. But it is a bit rich to come in here and say that we should have acted sooner when no Labor senator made the suggestion before we as a government put it on the table.

Senator Bartlett then went on to talk about refugees. I will not dwell on that in any length other than to say that I reject his assertions in relation to the government’s policies. This evening we are dealing with the scourge of illegal fishing.

Can I move to Senator Siewert’s speech. ‘Just throwing people into jail is not the answer’ was one of her comments. I agree. What you need is a comprehensive package, and that is exactly what we are implementing. This is just part of the comprehensive package.

The suggestion was that we should try to target the Mr Bigs. Seizing their assets is exactly what hurts the Mr Bigs, because they are the ones who fund these boats. Sure, there are poor villagers onboard but, if you capture enough of their vessels, the economic viability of the total operation becomes so prejudiced that hopefully they will say that it is no longer economically viable, and as a result they will stay out of our waters. We also intend, as Senator Ian Macdonald indicated, to charge and pursue the masters and captains of the vessels. Juveniles, for example, will be sent home.

Senator Siewert asked—I think rhetorically—how many will be charged under this new law. I tell you what my hope and aspiration is: none, because I would like to think that nobody would ever enter our waters illegally. I think that is a bit of a naive hope, but how many people actually get that close to our shores remains to be seen. I think it will be a major deterrent because there have been reports of Indonesian fishers, in particular, seeking to enter our waters and coming on land or into our inland river system overnight and then going back out during the day. Now, if they are caught close to shore, they will face that extra penalty, and hopefully that will be an extra disincentive for them to come close to shore. What are the impacts going to be? It is hard to tell. I would like to think that this will be a deterrent to Indonesian fishers taking risks close to our shores.

I cannot help myself but mention that Senator Siewert was trying to take issue with the term ‘fisherman’. She is so politically correct that she wants the non-gender based term. But, of course, that is where people in this place and around Australia who are the politically correct mania police, as I call them, just fall over themselves—

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The mania police?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Their politically correct mania turns them into a police force, and they try to prosecute every potential offence. If you look at the history of the word ‘fisherman’, the ‘man’ bit comes from ‘manus’, the Latin, which is ‘hand’. So really the term is ‘fisherhand’ and therefore it is non-gender-specific and does not refer to the fisherperson’s sex. Nevertheless, if it made Senator Siewert feel somewhat purer for having said that, then I hope that she feels good about that this evening—albeit she is technically incorrect.

I have already thanked Senator Ian Macdonald for his involvement in this issue over many years. He has made a fantastic contribution and I am delighted that I can put that on the record this evening. He asked a few questions about what we are doing in Indonesia. Part and parcel of our new package is $1.2 million which is set aside for a public information campaign in Indonesia to try to dissuade them from undertaking activities, and part of that campaign will warn the villagers of the huge penalties that they now potentially face. Our package also includes an extra $6.4 million for staffing at our embassy in Jakarta.

Senator Webber made a contribution, and I accept her interest in this area, but I think I have already corrected her in relation to the administrative forfeiture matter that she raised. She also suggested that we needed one single approach on this. We do have that in the Joint Offshore Protection Command. When people are out on our waters, we do not want them to be alert only for illegal fishers; we want them to be alert for customs, for quarantine, for illegal immigration and other matters. That is why it is good to have a Joint Offshore Protection Command that takes all these things into account. It shows that the government is able to deal with all these things with the expertise of all those departments.

I think I have dealt with the matters raised by honourable senators during the debate. I thank them for their contribution and their support for this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.