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

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 6110:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 15), after item 2, insert:

2A  At the end of section 212

Add:

     (1A)    Paragraph (1)(r) has effect subject to the following conditions:

             (a)    that a plan of management (the plan) has been determined under section 17 of the Fisheries Management Act 1999 for the recreational fishing of the shortfin mako, longfin mako and porbeagle shark fisheries; and

             (b)    that the plan has been accredited, in writing, by the Minister; and

             (c)    that the recreational fishing referred to in the paragraph is undertaken in accordance with the plan.

      (1B)    Despite anything in the Fisheries Management Act 1999 or any other law, the Minister must not accredit a plan for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(b) unless the Minister is satisfied that the recreational fishing permitted by the plan will not lead to any significant detrimental impact on the overall numbers of shortfin mako sharks, longfin mako sharks and porbeagle sharks.

The Australian Greens also oppose schedule 1, item 8, in the following terms:

(2)    Schedule 1, item 4 (lines 31 and 32), item TO BE OPPOSED.

I will speak to both amendments, as they go together. As I was articulating in my speech in the second reading debate, the Greens are very concerned about the impacts of this bill, particularly as the amendments seek to deal only with part of the Hawke review recommendation on how to deal with these sorts of species listed under appendix II of the convention on migratory species.

As I said in my speech, that recommendation had two parts to it. The government are implementing the first part but not the second part, which is a requirement for management plans in the case of a detrimental impact. So the intent behind the amendment is to fully implement the Hawke review’s recommendation in relation to allowing the taking of migratory species listed under the Bonn convention. The recommendation is that they be allowed to be taken with an appropriate management plan in place, and that is the key here. We are seeking, as I said, to fully implement the aspect of the recommendation which the government claim they are implementing. They conveniently forgot to tell people that they are only implementing the first half of the recommendation, not the second half.

Amendment (1) provides that the new paragraph as referred to in the amendment, which exempts the taking of the mako and porbeagle sharks for recreational fishing from being an offence, is subject to the condition that a plan of management is in place and the recreational fishing is undertaken in accordance with the plan. The plan of management is to be determined under section 17 of the Fisheries Management Act, and this act already has an appropriate framework for developing plans of management for fisheries.

The intent is that the plan would be developed with full consultation with all relevant stakeholders, as happens already. The plan would then need to be accredited by the minister for the environment, and there are similar provisions in the EPBC Act allowing for the minister to accredit fisheries management plans. In other words it would not be up to AFMA; it would be up to the environment minister to accredit the plans. The minister of course could only accredit the plan if the minister is satisfied that recreational fishing permitted by the plan will not lead to any serious detrimental impact on the overall numbers of mako and porbeagle sharks, which is of course fulfilling the second section of the Hawke review recommendation on the requirements for management plans to show that there is no detrimental effect. The consequence of the amendment is that for the recreational fishing of the shark to be legal the fishing must occur in accordance with a management plan which has been accredited by the minister for the environment.

I think there has been some slight misinformation about the fact that we were trying to get AFMA controlling all this fishing. The idea is not to do that. The idea is to use the Fisheries Management Act in order to develop the plan but to hand that over to the minister for the environment. So we are trying not to put too onerous a control over the fisheries and not to have AFMA manage it but  to put in place a recognised process for preparing fishery management plans for a fishery. As I also articulated in my second reading debate speech, contrary to what the government is saying there is no sufficiently reliable data about the population status of these three species—remembering that we are talking about the shortfin and longfin makos and the porbeagle shark and that there was a clear decision under the convention to list the three species globally, not regionally, not because of Mediterranean numbers but because we do not know the population of species globally. As I also articulated, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and the west Pacific commission’s recent plans have indicated some concerns about the status of these three species.

We believe this is an important amendment that further enhances fisheries’ management measures for these species. I was pleased with and I thank the coalition for their support for our amendment on research and data collection programs and the resourcing of those, which I think shows some support for the fact that we need better data collection programs. I thank the coalition for that.

Amendment (2) opposes the provision of the bill exempting recreational fishers who take mako and porbeagle sharks from the requirement to notify the secretary of the take. Notification provisions are important to determine the effect of the amendment. I have already discussed the lack of data and the notification allows for the collection of data about the numbers of sharks being taken. We believe the management plan should, as a process, require the collection of that data. This supports that management plan.

These are two separate amendments. I thought it was preferable to address them at the same time because they work together around the fact that we believe there needs to be better management planning. These amendments could have a significant impact on these shark species. We know they are threatened and vulnerable, depending on which of the three sharks you are talking about. These amendments put a level of management over the take, which is an insurance mechanism to ensure that these species are not pushed to the point where they are severely threatened. The amendments are implementing the recommendations of the Hawke review. In fact, it was one recommendation. It was not even a two-part recommendation. The government has taken the first sentence but not the second sentence and has implemented that. I know that Senator Colbeck said that it is a short-term measure, but my dealings with short-term measures are that they usually end up being long-term measures. I have very severe concerns about (a) the precedent and (b) its not implementing the Hawke report. The government cannot say it is implementing that Hawke report. I ask the chamber to support these amendments. We think they provide a level of necessary management protection that can be afforded to these three species that are vulnerable and threatened globally and regionally.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I make a couple of very quick points in response to some comments that Senator Siewert has just made but also that were made in speeches in the second-reading debate. It is true to say that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Recreational Fishing for Mako and Porbeagle Sharks) Bill 2010 is a result of the listing of sharks under category 2 of IUCN and it is important to note this listing category does allow for continued recreational fishing of these species, as Senator Siewert has said, under a management plan. One thing that is worth stressing at this point is that there are management processes already in place in state fisheries in relation to these sharks. It is not as if we are going to a situation where it is carte blanche, it is open, and there are no management processes in place. There are. In my view, my conversations with recreational fishermen who exceed the requirements of those current management plans—in other words, they are prepared to do more than the management plans demand—demonstrate their responsible approach to this.

I note the comments of the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in his summing up on the second reading that there is a significant impact on the recreational fisher, yet the report that was given to the minister anticipated that the cost on most sectors would be minor. So the government did not even know what it was doing when it put these measures in place in the first place. Through the representations it has received, the government has at last understood what is going on. Like Senator Siewert, I would have preferred to have seen this resolved properly, particularly in accordance with the recommendations of the Hawke review, which would have recognised the difference in Australia’s legislation between category 1 and category 2 listings and the processes that go with that. Unfortunately, the government has made its decision, and we have to recognise that it is within its purview to deal and respond to the Hawke review as a whole. It would be nice to see the response to that. There are a lot of people who are waiting to see that. But in this circumstance there are management processes in place that adequately protect the species, along with the measures that the fishermen themselves take.

Another comment that Senator Siewert made in her speech in the second reading debate was about the distances and interactions of species. There is no evidence to demonstrate that these species migrate even between continents in our region, let alone more broadly. All of the fish on which I have seen the results of tagging and monitoring over a long period of time—441 days in the case of a couple of the fish—effectively confined themselves to the Australian coastline. I support further research, as indicated by our support for the second reading amendment, and I am sure it will be explored further. I know that research has already commenced. There are proposals on the table right now that are already being discussed between the government and recreational fishers to resolve this. I commend the government for taking that action and wholeheartedly support it. I hope that they are encouraged by the motion that we have just passed to provide some reasonable resource to do that.

To finalise my comments, for those reasons and for those that I outlined in my speech in the second reading debate we will not be supporting the amendments from the Greens. We sincerely believe that there are enough procedures in place to manage the process as it is, but that is not to say that we do not support, with the benefit of better scientific information, the development of those management plans in due course under the processes that will prevail through the legislation.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are opposing the amendments. The recently completed independent review of the EPBC Act identified the inflexibility of the legislation when it comes to the listing of species introduced, included in appendix 2 of the convention, and the limited exceptions to offences is a problem that needed to be fixed. While the government will be responding in full to the recommendations of the review, we think it is important to act separately on this matter, because the listing of makos impacts disproportionately on recreational fishers. The government will be working with fishery managers to improve data on mako and porbeagle sharks in Australian waters in order to ensure that we make future decisions about these species based on the best available science. The department will be working with other jurisdictions to collect, collate and analyse mako and porbeagle shark catch data from both the recreational and commercial sectors.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Greens amendment (1) moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question now is that schedule 1, item 4 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.