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

I left off my speech on Tuesday quoting the Humane Society International’s submission to list the southern bluefin tuna as conservation dependent. In their application, they noted:

In 2003 it was found that an entire generation appeared to be missing from SBT stocks off Western Australia, that acoustic surveys of one- and two-year-old SBT found that between 1997 and 2000 the aged one cohort declined by over 200 per cent and since then it has been close to zero. Results from 2003 found zero southern bluefin tuna aged one. The survey did not operate in 2004, but in 2005 and 2006 the results were also close to zero. The near total absence of southern bluefin tuna in the survey area for six consecutive surveys, following four years of consistent detections, is of concern.

As the chamber might recall me saying, that is also the first action that I think the minister could be taking to start addressing the issue of decline in southern bluefin tuna stock. The second option that the minister could take would be to revoke the wildlife trade operation status of the fishery under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. There is no case to be made for this as a sustainable fishery and its recognition as such under the EPBC Act is now quite perverse.

Thirdly, the minister can nominate the listing of the species at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, commonly known as CITES. This convention is now the last resort for this species which has been so badly let down by the regional fisheries management organisations which have failed to protect it for the last 13 years. And, yes, senators will probably recall that I have mentioned some of these issues in the past when talking about the need to protect southern bluefin tuna. It is unfortunate that I have to keep repeating these statements and the fact that the quota has been set so high for southern bluefin tuna that it seriously endangers it. These actions both at home and in international fora to protect these species must reflect the much broader approach that we need to take to marine sustainability. The government has to acknowledge that the current approach has failed and that extinction of this species is now a very real possibility.

Southern bluefin tuna is unfortunately not the only species threatened in this manner but it is an indication of the crisis facing some of our fisheries worldwide. The Bureau of Rural Sciences confirmed that the number of Australian marine species considered overfished has increased from 17 to 24 and that the most severely overfished species still have no prospect of recovery. To safeguard the marine environment we must move to the kind of ecosystem and precautionary approach to fisheries management which is detailed in articles 5 and 6 of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. We have to move to a science based approach where regional fisheries management organisations are made more transparent and less prone to vested interests and the short-term demands of the market. We should immediately establish well-enforced large-scale no-take marine protected areas. We need independent observer schemes, real-time vessel monitoring and fish tagging. All of these must play a role in how we manage our fish stocks.

We believe that the government must take urgent action to start managing these fisheries better. They need to reduce the quota. These fisheries have an intrinsic value; they are not there just for fishing and they should not be mined as a commodity like dirt from a quarry. We really need to start managing these fisheries properly. Therefore, I have moved to disallow the quota on southern bluefin tuna. The quota is too high and is not supported by the science. We are in danger of sending a species to extinction.

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

This extreme Greens motion we are debating today is to disallow regulations allowing the sustainable harvesting of southern bluefin tuna. The consequence of this Greens motion would be to throw thousands of people out of work and destroy the city of Port Lincoln, as my colleague Senator Bernardi knows so well. I note Senator Bernardi’s presence in the chamber. He is a very strong champion of the Eyre Peninsula, Port Lincoln and the southern bluefin tuna industry. The Greens motion demonstrates as much as anything why the Australian Greens should never be trusted in any capacity with the Australian economy or, for that matter, with the Australian environment or with issues of sustainability.

The regulation we are debating today is the result achieved by Australia at the most recent Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, or CCSBT, and that was then translated into the Australian Fisheries Management Authority’s national catch allocation determination for southern bluefin tuna, which the Greens now seek to disallow. That determination is a landmark win for not only the Australian southern bluefin tuna industry but also southern bluefin tuna and international fisheries regimes. It is the culmination of many years hard work by the Australian government in documenting and exposing overcatch by the Japanese longline fleet and in working constructively through the CCSBT with other like-minded and responsible fishing nations to ensure the global sustainability of SBT stocks. It cements Australia’s reputation as a leading voice for the conservation and sustainable use of SBT and shows that when responsible fishing nations such as Australia are prepared to stand up and be counted great things can be achieved.

Rather than accept the kooky, nut bag, deep green, ideologically driven rhetoric of the Greens, let us instead look, as we on this side of the chamber like to do—and I know Senator Bernardi will join me in this—at the facts. And they are these: at the 13th meeting of the CCSBT the commission members agreed to reduce the total global catch from 14,925 tonnes to 11,810 tonnes, of which Australia would harvest up to 5,265 tonnes. In making its decision the commission took advice from its scientific committee comprised of independent international scientists respected in their fields. The catch level agreed upon by members is within the levels recommended by this independent scientific committee. Let me repeat that for the benefit of the Greens: it is within the level recommended by independent internationally renowned scientists. It is not a pie-in-the-sky figure, it is not a figure plucked out of thin air; it is a figure within the levels recommended by international experts.

Why should we as a parliament override their advice? Is there any better advice that has been put on the table for us to consider—other than extreme Greens rhetoric? There is no advice other than the gloom and doom that the Greens preach no matter what the topic is. There is no scientific evidence to back up the assertion that we should be disallowing these regulations. The simple fact is, as is so often the case, the Greens simply will not accept the verdict of the international scientists who are experts in this field. Why? The answer is simple: because it does not support their ideology. That is the simple reason. But make no mistake: the result that we were able to obtain at the commission is not only a win for the fish in that it puts them on a sound, sustainable footing; it is also a win for our Australian SBT industry.

Two other key agreements were also reached by the commission. Firstly, the reduction in the global catch would be largely borne by Japan, whose national catch allocation has been reduced from 6,065 tonnes to 3,000 tonnes—that is, a 50 per cent reduction—over the next five years. Why is that? This is in recognition of the gross overcatch of tuna, possibly up to 178,000 tonnes, by the Japanese over the past 20 years. At this point I record my appreciation of the Australian industry and the government officials who worked tirelessly to uncover the overcatch and also of the Japanese government for the very responsible way in which they approached the discussions on this critical but very sensitive point at the commission.

The second decision I want to refer to is that Australia would retain its existing national catch allocation of 5,265 tonnes for the next three years in recognition that its operations have been compliant with the rules of the commission. In short, this is a great win for the industry. It is an important recognition that their operations have been world’s best practice. It allows them to face the future with increased confidence and I am sure it is a great comfort to the 3,500 employees in Port Lincoln who are employed either directly or indirectly by the industry.

The good news does not end there. Additional proposed reductions agreed by the commission members will take the actual catch below 11,530 tonnes for the next three years. Remember, when you take into account Japanese overcatch the global total allowable catch is being reduced not from 14,925 tonnes to 11,530 tonnes but from somewhere in the order of 20,000 tonnes to no more than 11,530 tonnes.

The commission also agreed to implement measures to improve monitoring, control and surveillance in the fishery, including regulation of transhipping, 100 per cent observer coverage, a catch documentation scheme and a compulsory national vessel monitoring system. The commission also made a commitment to work on further measures including an independent observer program for fishing vessels, port state measures, boarding and inspection and a vessel register. Make no mistake, these outcomes were not easy to achieve. They were the result of tireless efforts by the Australian government and they are undoubtedly good for the industry and good for the fish.

Given that great record, what on earth are the Greens doing coming into this chamber seeking to move a disallowance motion? It is very disappointing and it does highlight a very important difference: the difference between the approach of the Howard government and the approach of the Greens to balancing jobs and the environment. I cannot put it more simply than to say: with the Greens it is either jobs or the environment, but with the Howard government it is jobs and the environment. We do not have to exclude ourselves from the environment, as the Greens would continually have us do. We believe that we are in fact part of nature and, just as much as other animals have the right to eat tuna, so do humans. It stands to reason that we harvest them sensibly and in a sustainable way and that is exactly what we were able to achieve in Japan just a few short months ago. On the back of that fantastic outcome for Australia that has got us credit all around the world, the Greens come in with their mantra of doom and gloom. They are not willing to recognise any of the expert scientific evidence or any of the advances that we were able to make and they just continue with the same old mantra of doom and gloom and say that this fish stock is going to become extinct. A lot more could be said about this motion but it is a matter of great regret that the Australian Greens are not willing to ever recognise the achievements that are made by any government anywhere in this country when it comes to matters of the environment.

It is a good occasion for us to also ask who would be running Labor’s fishing policy if they were to ever be elected to government, because that is a very important question that the Australian Labor Party needs to answer. For 10 years, the Australian Conservation Foundation had a policy of saying that wild fisheries were unsustainable, they should not be allowed and that exports of anything caught in the wild, in fisheries in particular, was not sustainable. Indeed, that same body said:

Tuna stocks have been devastated by Australian and international fishing fleets because of their high value in the Japanese ... markets. Tuna cages off Port Lincoln in South Australia, where wild caught tuna are fattened for later sale, are also controversial.

They said the groups—and that included the Australian Conservation Foundation—‘do not support the ongoing commercial targeting of southern bluefin tuna’. Who was the president of the Australian Conservation Foundation for that 10-year period? None other than the man who would be the environment minister in a Kevin Rudd led government. I say to the southern bluefin tuna industry of South Australia: beware, this is the man that may well be using an export licence or some other mechanism to put in train that which he actually believes and has put on the public record through his organisation, the ACF, for over a decade. The ACF actually said:

No existing commercial use of a wild stock, in particular those harvested for export, can be demonstrated to be ecologically sustainable.

The Labor Party have to come clean. Is this still Mr Garrett’s view or is it not? He has to tell the people of Australia, if it is not his view, why he misled the people for a decade. Was it simply to raise funds for his organisation that made him willing to mislead them or is he now willing to mislead the Australian people in the hope of getting elected, so he can then implement policies that he actually has believed in for the last decade? That is a very scary thought for every single fisherman and community reliant on our sustainably managed wild fisheries. It is hard to believe, but I think the Australian Greens might even take a slightly more extreme position than Mr Garrett.

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

Is it possible?

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

One wonders, Senator Bernardi. It is a wonder that there would be room left to be more extreme than Mr Garrett’s and the ACF’s position in that regard, but what I would say is that for the Australian Greens to have come into this chamber with this motion just goes to show how out of touch they are. They would be willing with this motion to throw 3½ thousand people out of work in Port Lincoln. Earlier today they would have closed down coalmines and, of course, reimbursed the workers. We are not going to be able to reimburse the sacked workers out of the taxes raised from the southern bluefin tuna industry anymore because we would be closing the industry down as well. The Australian Greens have to come clean and tell the Australian people exactly how they are going to fund all these kooky policies, or perhaps they are willing to ensure that every single Australian lives in poverty whilst we have a burgeoning environment around us.

All around the world the lesson is that, when you have poverty, you have the worst environmental management. Having a good, sound, rich economy, as we have at the moment, allows us to fund environmental issues, including remediation. That is why Australia is able to have the marine protected areas that she now boasts and the forest reserves that she now boasts whilst maintaining sensible wild sea harvesting and sensible native forest harvesting. We are getting the balance right and, rather than continuing the anger of that which may have been relevant 20 or 30 years ago, I invite those Green activists to take away their views of the world as it was in the 1970s, come into the 21st century and ask themselves, ‘Have things changed; are things balanced?’ and what they will find is a much, much better world, a much friendlier world and a much nicer world than they would seek to portray to the rest of the community. Just in case Senator Siewert is in any doubt, the government will be opposing her motion.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was an interesting contribution in part from Senator Abetz to Senator Siewert’s disallowance motion on the southern bluefin tuna quota. He never misses an opportunity to develop his conspiracy theories, which we have just heard. He is a bit like the Greens in that regard. They have always got their conspiracy theories and Senator Abetz equally has his conspiracy theories, and it is a very interesting theory that he puts forward. As Labor spokesman on agriculture, fisheries and forestry, I am very happy to put on the record our position in relation to current policies, and I will help Senator Abetz by doing that now.

The Labor Party is of the view that seafood is becoming an increasingly important part of a healthy, balanced diet. Recent surveys show that consumer awareness of the health benefits of seafood is on the rise and consumers are responding by purchasing more seafood meals. Demand for seafood, especially locally produced Australian seafood, is growing in the domestic market. In a broad strategic context, it is therefore critically important that the Australian government secures the supply of seafood for future generations. This requires a comprehensive long-term strategy for sustainable aquaculture development and fisheries management. The Howard government, frankly, has failed in its duty to provide the framework for sustainable management of our valuable fisheries resources. The government has failed to provide adequate investment in programs to underpin the sustainable growth of the Australian aquaculture industry. The government has failed to provide a fair trading environment for local seafood producers.

Let me provide some explicit examples of where the Howard government has failed the seafood industry and seafood consumers. Firstly, the government has not provided an adequate level of protection from imported diseases—diseases which could potentially have a devastating financial impact on the Australian seafood industry and an unquantifiable impact on our marine ecosystems. Right now the Howard government is allowing diseased imported prawns to enter Australia, which represents a direct threat to the disease-free status of the $450 million Australian prawn industry.

Secondly, the Howard government has an appalling record on seafood labelling. Only recently has it decided to move to introduce ‘country of origin’ labelling on imported seafood products. It took nearly 10 years of concerted efforts on the part of seafood producers and their representatives to get the government to sit up and pay attention to the importance of the role that labelling plays in ensuring there is a level playing field between local and imported seafood produce. What has the Howard government done about the enforcement of labelling laws? Nothing. It established a 1800 number for the public to report false labelling, yet there have been continuing reports of inaction in response to complaints made to that very hotline. False labelling still remains a critical problem in some retail outlets and it remains a legitimate concern of the fishing and aquaculture industries.

Thirdly, the Howard government has failed to take seriously the longstanding concerns of local seafood producers about the lack of a level playing field with imported products. The Australian seafood industry is required to meet standards that are amongst the highest in the world for food safety, quarantine and environmental protection. These requirements impose significant costs on the local industry, and most local producers are happy to meet those requirements. However, there is no such requirement for imported seafood products. Seafood imports are not required to meet the same benchmarks as those imposed on our local industries. This creates a very unfair trading environment, where Australian law imposes significant costs on local producers and yet allows a vast amount of imported product that does not meet the same standard as domestic produce must meet. This has been a concern of local seafood businesses and families for much of the past decade. It is a large part of the reason why the balance of trade in seafood products has been steadily growing in favour of imports. It is also why Asian seafood imports can arrive in Australia at such a low cost. The Howard government has had 10 years to address this concern and yet it has done nothing about it. The Howard government, frankly, has run out of ideas to assist the local seafood industry and is not interested in addressing the unfair playing field for local seafood producers.

Let us look more closely at the Howard government’s management of our existing fish stocks. Successive ministers have failed in their duty to provide for sustainable management of fish stocks. Let me substantiate this observation. The Howard government recognised its own inadequate management of Commonwealth fisheries back on 14 December 2005—more than 14 months ago—when the then Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Ian Macdonald, announced a $220 million package called ‘Securing Our Fishing Future’. At that time, the minister said:

... the Australian government has made it very clear that it wishes AFMA to accelerate its current programmes to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, and to take a more strategic approach to setting catch limits in future.

The message from the Australian government is clear: overfishing in Commonwealth fisheries is unacceptable and, if you think you cannot operate in that environment, you should consider applying for the buyout. Last week the Bureau of Rural Sciences released its Fisheries Status Reports for 2005. This important paper highlights the Howard government’s legacy of failure in fisheries management. Twenty-four of 83 species assessed are classified as overfished and/or subject to overfishing. This is up from 17 out of 83 in the previous year. Of the remaining species, 40 are classified as uncertain. This means that almost half of the surveyed stocks might be overfished but the government does not know because it has not gathered enough information.

The Howard government has had 10 years to address this critical lack of information and to improve its fisheries decision making. It has clearly failed. Of the remaining species identified in the BRS report, only 19 are classified as not overfished. But perhaps the most worrying aspect of the BRS report is the finding that the number of species classified as overfished and/or subject to overfishing has increased from five in the first survey in 1992 to 24 in 2005. The $220 million buyout package is the government’s attempt to fix the mess that it has created by its own poor management.

Given the status of our fish stocks, and the uncertainty created in the Australian fishing industry as a result of the announcement, it is not unreasonable to expect that the government would act quickly in its delivery of the buyout package. But, as the industry knows only too well, the government’s delivery of a package has been plagued by delays, inaction and, of course, a change of minister soon after the initial announcement. Industry had to wait nearly 12 months before any licences were actually removed from any fishery. In the case of the Northern Prawn Fishery and the Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery, business had to endure nearly 18 months of uncertainty before any licences were removed. Fishing families and onshore businesses which have been impacted by the government’s decision are still waiting for funding to flow from the onshore business assistance package. One wonders whether they have been delayed until this year for reasons that are obvious to everyone looking at the electoral cycle.

Labor will be taking a very close look at this aspect of the package to ensure it does not unfairly impact on working families in coastal regions and towns. This is yet another example of the Howard government’s unfair and uncaring attitude towards seafood producers and their families. To add to the litany of blunders, the government has added a whole new layer of uncertainty by proposing a radical restructure of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. Labor is concerned about the impact that these changes may have on staff morale within AFMA and on communication and consultation with industry and non-government sectors. It is clear from this summary that the Howard government does not have a well-thought-out plan for the Australian seafood industry. Its approach to fisheries management has been piecemeal and ad hoc, lurching from crisis to crisis. It has lacked a comprehensive strategic approach to the seafood industry.

So what of the southern bluefin tuna and the motion from Senator Siewert? Everyone should be concerned about the state of the southern bluefin tuna resource. By even optimistic estimates, the spawning stock is at very low levels. All this was confirmed by the BRS status report, which I have already referred to. The critical issue which we all need to focus on is how to fix the problem. Senator Siewert’s solution is to disallow the AFMA decision to set the Australian quota at 5,265 tonnes, the same level it has been at since 1989. We think this is the wrong solution.

Firstly, the Australian quota issued by AFMA is the same as that decided by the international Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna in October last year. At that time, the CCSBT showed some strength by cutting Japan’s quota by more than half, from 6,065 tonnes to 3,000 tonnes for at least the next five years. This was a penalty for an independent panel finding that Japan had overcaught about 178,000 tonnes of southern bluefin tuna in the last 20 years. Senator Siewert’s solution would punish Australian industry for Japan’s overcatch, and we think that that is unfair.

Secondly, the CCSBT decisions show that the CCSBT can be an effective international body. What Senator Siewert’s motion does is reject the CCSBT decision. Again, this would only devalue that organisation just when it is showing some strength. It is important that responsible nation members, such as Australia, remain supportive of the CCSBT. Sound governance of our international waters is the key to long-term sustainability of migratory fish stocks such as the southern bluefin tuna.

Thirdly, the CCSBT decision was to fix Australia’s quota at the same level for the following three years; however, AFMA’s legislation allows it to be set for one year. This more conservative approach to managing the Australian component of the catch quota is supported by Labor. We think that allows scope for revision, if it is needed, by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, even though we would be entitled under the ruling by CCSBT to fix the quota at that level for three years.

Finally, Senator Siewert must know that the vast majority of the Australian quota is normally caught by mid-March. Therefore, the practical effect of the motion is largely to provide comfort to the countries which overcaught and created problems for the stock. Southern bluefin tuna is a very important resource for Australia. It earns around $200 million of high value added exports and it generates about 2,000 jobs. However, this export income and these jobs will not continue if the resource is not sustainably managed. The challenge is to find the best strategy to rebuild the southern bluefin tuna stock. We think that stopping Australian fishing this year will only be counterproductive. Taking a decision to stop Australia from fishing southern bluefin tuna would not influence any other country and would considerably weaken Australia’s position in the CCSBT. What the government has to ensure is that overcatch never occurs again. This can only be achieved by being in the CCSBT and developing and enforcing the strictest regulations.

Some might suggest that all of this is dependent on Japan and that Japan could enforce a most rigorous regime because it is the main importer, in terms of commercial marketing, of the tuna. But that is another issue which needs to be taken up with the CCSBT by Australia. Of course, that is something Labor will be looking closely at in terms of the position we take to the election. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to disallow this regulation. We do not believe that we should be saying to the Australian tuna industry, ‘You will be shut down for a year.’ We do not believe that the people who are employed in the industry this year should be told that their jobs are finished for the year. We believe that the arrangements, having been based on a scientific assessment and on Australia’s responsible performance in this fishery for some time, ought to be as proposed in the regulations. We will be voting against the motion.

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

I cannot say I am surprised at the government’s response. I am surprised at the ALP’s response because they quoted figures from the latest BRS report about the state of our fisheries which must send shivers up the spine of any Australian, but particularly up the spine of anyone interested in the marine environment. The science shows that this species is endangered, that it is under threat and that Australia should be taking action. If this action is not taken, if Australia does not reduce its quota and if fishing continues at these high levels, there will be no fish into the future, so fishers will be put out of work. They will not be able to rely on this fishery for their income. We seek to disallow this quota because we believe it is too high. As I understand it, it is a fallacy to claim that if we do not take our quota we will not be able to participate in the commission. That is not true. I am sure Australia is creative and can find a way to work with other fishing nations in any case.

I am not sure of the date of the quote that Senator Abetz took from the Australian Conservation Foundation, because Senator Abetz did not give it, but those of us that have been involved in marine conservation for quite some time will know that, until fairly recently, there was no ecologically sustainable assessment of Australia’s fisheries. So, when that statement was made, it was true. There was no assessment. It is only relatively recently that Australia’s fisheries have undergone a sustainable fisheries assessment process, and it has been quite an extensive process.

As for saying that we do not compliment or take note of successful or positive initiatives that are put in place, I think Senator Abetz has a very short memory. He will remember that we were actually very supportive of the $220 million fisheries package that was put forward. We were very supportive of that and I have been very supportive in the media about the tuna fisheries industry and fishers’ efforts to reduce the impact of their long-line fisheries—I am talking about Australia’s fishers, not other fishers—and to reduce Australia’s impact on albatross and other marine species. Senator Abetz, as I said, has quite a short memory on those issues. I think that he is misquoting the science. The science is very clear. The science on this species and other fish species is very clear, and it shows that humans are endangering tuna and other species and it is time that we took action to reduce our quota.

I outlined a range of measures that this government could be taking additionally to the measures that they are taking, because I do not think the measures that are being taken at the moment are effective, and neither do international organisations such as Humane Society International and World Wildlife Fund. World Wildlife Fund was extremely disappointed about the outcomes of the regional fishing organisations’ meeting held just last month in Kobe. It was extremely disappointed that they did not go far enough and they did not introduce the measures that are needed to start addressing tuna management around the world. To claim that there is now some sort of international framework in place that will ensure sustainable management of tuna requires a very far stretch of the imagination. There were very, very small steps taken, and no significant steps were taken that will ensure tuna management into the future.

I am extremely disappointed that the coalition and the ALP will not be supporting this disallowance motion. I believe that we need to very seriously rethink how we manage tuna stocks in this country and we have to start now before it is too late. It is very late in the piece that the coalition has acknowledged the impact of climate change and the fact that we have to be managing our water better. We are now in a major water crisis that is resulting in a major environmental crisis for the wetlands throughout the Murray-Darling Basin, and it looks as though we are going to have a ‘minute to midnight’ response when it comes to managing our fish species as well, unfortunately. As I said, I am very disappointed that there is no support for this disallowance motion.

Question negatived.