Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government comes in here seeking to deal with a bill on an urgent basis but does not give any reasons in support of its motion. What this government has done is indicative of the shambolic way that it treats every major policy issue and indeed minor policy issue that comes before it.

Only today a week ago, the science on matters relating to a fishing trawler that is to operate in Australian waters was 'robust' and was to be supported. Indeed, we had Minister Ludwig in this place fully supporting the science. But 24 hours later somehow the science had changed. It was the political science that had changed: the Greens had insisted on this legislation.

And make no mistake: the legislation that was introduced was exactly what the Green-Labor alliance would have wanted to inflict on the Australian people if they had had the opportunity. But, due to the coalition's opposition to that bill, it became apparent that this was such a big and wide a net that it would have put the Margiris's to shame. What they tried to do in casting their big net was to include every recreational fishery, every charter fishery and every commercial fishery. What the legislation said was that if the minister felt 'uncertainty' on social, environment or economic grounds he could shut a fishery for two years. What do you think that did overnight to the value of fishing licences? It absolutely decimated them. What do you think that did to the future of charter fishing in Australia waters? It decimated their value. And, of course, for those reliant on the recreational fishery, it also placed their businesses under great, great uncertainty.

But for the coalition's opposition to this legislation, those factors would not have been aired in the other place. So reduced was this shambolic government that they had to rely on the member for Dobell—the one of fishnets fame as opposed to fishing fame—Mr Craig Thomson, to move an amendment. That is how reduced the ALP-Green alliance has become.

Then they realised they had other problems, and so they had to move even more amendments. Do you know what? This is what this government does with every piece of legislation. Remember how they introduced the carbon tax? It was rock solid; it was going to stay. Now, they have been changing it, haven't they, bit by bit because they would not listen to the coalition.

This bill, which was introduced into the House less than a week ago, all of a sudden has great urgency. It has to be passed as a matter of urgency. I simply ask the question: why—when the two ministers concerned only a week ago were still arguing and advocating that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act was sufficient to look after the interests of our fishing stocks. So what changed? What was the issue that concerns the Labor Party? What it clearly is is a sign of a desperate government seeking to cling to any populist policy to try to regain support within the Australian community.

This legislation sets a very dangerous precedent and the reason that I want to air that precedent is that, if the government can do it to Seafish Tasmania, it can do it to anybody. Let me give you an example: you want to build a house. You approach the local council and say, 'Can I build a house on this block of land?' They say yes, so you go and buy the block of land. You buy all the building materials and then just on the day you are about to dig the first bit of the foundation, the council says, 'Guess what? We've changed the rules: you can no longer build your house.' Having committed your money to a block of land and all the building materials, and just as you were about to really start the project, the council says, 'Sorry; we've shifted the goalposts.'

This is exactly what the government has done to Seafish Tasmania. Indeed, it was no less than the minister for the environment, Mr Burke, who, whilst he was minister for fisheries signed off on the Commonwealth harvest strategy that specifically suggested that there be a trawler of this nature in the Australian waters to economically harvest this particular fishery. It was he who signed off on it. He was on TV over the weekend saying, 'Look, I didn't actually sign off on it.'

I used to be a fisheries minister. I know about the Commonwealth harvest strategy and I know that briefs go across your desk about these matters each and every day. He could have stopped this in 2009 if he had any uncertainty about the social, economic or environmental consequences. In 2009 he did not have any problems. He did not have any problems Monday last week. So when did the uncertainty finally hit him? Having been briefed by his department, having been given all the details, where has this uncertainty been created for this minister?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Q&A.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi interjects: undoubtedly, the uncertainty arose on Q&A. One wonders where. In this debate about this particular fishing venture, I note that we have had a senator whose great intellectual input has been: 'I don't care about the science. I don't care about the economics; I'm just against it.' With great respect, how do you engage in public policy if you say to people, 'I'm not interested in the science. I'm not interested in the economics; I’m just against it'? You cannot really have a rational debate on that score.

And, of course, it was a Greens senator that said that. So when the minister in this Greens-ALP alliance is confronted with a Greens senator saying, 'I don't want to argue the science with you; I don't want to argue the economics with you,' the reason he could not argue is because there was no scientific or economic argument in his quiver to shoot in this debate. He had to say, 'It's the vibe; it was the heart flutters.' It was undoubtedly that which convinced him. Armed with that great intellectual argument he went to the minister, no doubt, and said, 'Please make a change.' As compliant as they are, this Greens-ALP government, they will always do that which the Greens insist upon.

Let us make no mistake: every single person who wants to invest in Australia or who is concerned about making a contribution to the growing wealth of our country will have to think twice under this Greens-ALP alliance because they have a fisheries minister who is signing off on a strategy to which you say, 'That's a good idea; I might adopt that—I'll invest on that basis.' Then that same minister, under a little bit of pressure from the Greens, says, 'Right, I know you've made all these investments; I know you've employed 45 unemployed people; we are now going to change the rules on you.' The reason: 'I feel uncertain about the science,' or 'I feel uncertain about the social implications,' or 'I feel uncertain about the environmental implications.' Excuse me, but should a minister not be required to provide some robust material which tells us why this minister has this uncertainty? Now the minister can just say, 'I'm sorry, I'm uncertain.'

Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for COAG) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Socially uncertain!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Payne, socially uncertain—that is all that is required. On what basis would anybody seek to make an investment in our country with this sort of shambolic government? You saw what they did with pink batts; you saw what they did with cash for clunkers; you saw what they did with solar panels; you saw what they did with green loans; and just when you think, 'Surely they can't have another muck-up of this nature'—oh yes, they can! They had the live cattle export issue, didn't they, where they changed the rules overnight. Instead of just providing holding pens and stun-guns for those particular abattoirs in Indonesia they cancelled the trade overnight and they have a $30 million-liability which the taxpayer will have to fund, not the Greens senators or the Labor ministers that made the change. It is the Australian taxpayer that has to fund the shambolic decisions of this government. Not having learnt from the live cattle export trade we are now having a repeat, yet again, in the fishing sector.

We can argue about whether or not you support the trawler; that is one issue. But there is a fundamental principle here and a fundamental precedent that we need to be very, very careful of. That is the precedent of a government luring somebody to Australia in partnership with an Australian company to harvest a particular fishery—according to everything that is required of them by government—only to change the rules at one minute to midnight just before the net is about to touch the water. That is not the way you do government in this country. This is not the way you administer good public policy—unless, of course, you are in the Greens-ALP alliance.

This has sent shock waves through every business that wants to invest in Australia. It is sending shock waves through Australian businesses that want to reinvest in Australia. Indeed, just recently I was at a mining conference where, on the back of the shambolic mining tax of this government, it was reported that due to Greens-ALP alliance policies on that tax Mozambique has less sovereign risk attached to its mining industry today than Australia. I trust those Greens-ALP senators are proud of that sort of record. That is what they have done: they have trashed our country's reputation.

We as a coalition are putting a stake in the ground here, saying: 'This is where we stand on these issues. It is for people to be able to understand that if we make a promise, if we give somebody an assurance that they can invest if they abide by certain rules and principles, we will allow them to go ahead.' But of course, when you do not have a moral compass, when you do not have a policy compass to guide you, you can go to the people six days before an election and say, 'There will be no carbon tax.' Remember the open hands which show honesty and integrity, and Ms Gillard on TV saying, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'? Well, if you are willing to go back on such a fundamental promise, I suppose we should not be surprised that Ms Gillard and her government and the Green alliance partners pushing it are willing to go back on their promise, on their undertaking, on their assurance on this particular venture: that they should be allowed to fish in Australian waters. They held out the law, they held out the Commonwealth harvest strategy—that what you need is a big freezer vessel. That is what a company, a consortium, did, only to have this government now stop it.

The question is: why do we need to debate this today, immediately? What is the utter urgency here? None has been made out other than they want to stop this particular venture in the circumstances that I have already outlined. That sends, quite rightly, terrible shock waves through the investment community. You might ask: why should we be concerned about the investment community? I will tell you why. The investment community in Australia through this particular venture had employed 45 people to work on that vessel. Today, courtesy of the Green-ALP alliance, they are back on the dole queue in, as it happens, my home state of Tasmania. The only thing that Tasmania is on the leagues table with is the unemployment rate. We saw 100 jobs lost on King Island just recently in an abattoir; we saw 100 or more jobs lost in the fresh vegetable sector. There was a glimmer of hope on the horizon, a new venture and new jobs whilst sustainably harvesting our natural resources, only for it to be struck by this government.

I say especially to the Australian Greens: they now have a history of devastating the Tasmanian economy. I remember they started off with being opposed to a hydro dam and, at the time when they opposed the hydro-dam, do you know what they said on the front page of the local paper? Sure, it was some 30 years ago, but they said: 'A better alternative would be'—wait for it—'a coal-fired power station.' That was none other than that great environmentalist, Bob Brown. Why do the media not throw that back at him as an example from 30 years ago and as an example of the consequences of green policy? I might I add, because of that consequence, Tasmania now imports brown coal fired electricity into Tasmania. It is doing wonders for the economy! After that, they moved onto forestry and they virtually destroyed that, courtesy of a Green-Labor alliance government, not only in Canberra but also in Hobart. Part of the Green campaign is to spike the markets of timber companies in Tasmania who seek to market their products around the world. And do you know what they did through their policy? Ensured that Ta Ann in Tasmania could not sell their regrowth and plantation timber product to the London Olympics. It was boycotted because of the green issues surrounding it. Do you know who backfilled that? The Indonesian timber companies that are dropping rainforests at three million hectares per annum without any proper forestry plan. That is another example of the perverse outcome of green policy: you have regrowth plantation timber being displaced by virgin rainforest timber that will never be replanted in Indonesia.

So you can move on to this particular issue where this particular trawler will be harnessing the fruits of the ocean for a fish which is not very acceptable to the Australian palate but a vital source of fish protein to the people of Africa. That is going to be the destination of this product which will be harvested sustainably, according to world's best practice. Anybody else who wants to partake in this debate, I simply ask them the question, as I continually do about Tasmanian forestry: where do they forestry better than they do it in Tasmania and we will learn. The Greens have never told us who does forestry better than they do it in Tasmania. Why? Because they cannot.

Similarly, in relation to the Commonwealth harvest strategy for fisheries and the setting of our total allowable catches, as conservative as they are, I ask: is there any other country in the world that has such an exacting regime? Indeed, the vessel will have Australian fishery management authority personnel on it. There will be cameras monitoring the net as it is brought up so that anything untoward can be reported immediately. This is what we are talking about: very good, robust science and very good, robust economics, with a good social outcome with this fish product going to the people of Africa who need a cheap source of fish protein. And for cheap political purposes not only are those opposite going to stymie that social good they are also going to stymie the investment climate in Australia, and that is why the coalition is opposed to this motion.

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

I too would like to add a few comments to the motion moved by Senator Collins. Just to follow on from the comments that were just made by my colleague Senator Abetz in respect of green policy and its impact on my home state of Tasmania in particular, I think as we start this discussion that it is very interesting to look at the comments on the Greens website on economic development in my home state of Tasmania. I note the front page of my local paper today says that the North West Coast of Tasmania is losing 50 jobs a week. That is the impact of this disastrous Labor-Greens government in my home state of Tasmania. Tim Morris, the Treasury spokesman for the Greens, talks about de-industrialisation—so code for closing down business. That is what de-industrialisation means. He talks about demographic change as opposed to growth—in other words, they do not want any growth in Tasmania. I would have to say on the back of Senator Abetz's comments that the Greens are doing a pretty good job. There are 50 jobs a week going down the drain on the North West Coast of Tasmania, where I live.

The Greens policies are actually working. They are de-industrialising my region of Tasmania. They are causing demographic change as opposed to growth. In fact, they are shrinking the economy in Australia. No wonder Tasmania is so reliant on revenues from the Commonwealth when the Greens, as cabinet ministers, are being given the imprimatur by the Labor Party—who is so weak in Tasmania that it cannot even fill a cabinet itself—to shrink the economy. That is effectively what is happening in Tasmania. And then, as Senator Abetz said, there is suddenly an urgent issue that the government wants to bring before the parliament today in relation to a change to the EPBC Act. What a complete and utter shambles this process has been right from the start.

I had a briefing with the minister's office last week, after the legislation was introduced.

The minister's office, and Minister Ludwig's office, told us that this was prospective legislation and that it would have no effect on anyone who was currently operating in the industry—that it was all about new entrants to the fishing industry.

On reading the legislation, it was immediately obvious that it applied to everybody in the fishing industry. It did not matter whether you were a recreational fisher, it did not matter whether you were a charter boat operator, it did not matter whether you were a commercial fisher or whether you were involved in the aquaculture sector—everybody in the fishing industry from commercial right through to recreational was impacted by this piece of legislation. I wonder whether the minister had even read it? And if he had, did he comprehend it? Because the effect of the legislation was not as he said in his press conference, and it was not as briefed to the coalition by Minister Ludwig's office and the two respective departments. We were given a very different message to the one that was given publicly.

It comes back to the matter of trust that we have talked about on a number of occasions. Senator Abetz quite rightly reminds us that six days before the last election the Prime Minister said: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead', and then went on to legislate for that. Minister Burke and Minister Ludwig said: 'This will only impact on this one vessel', and yet when the legislation is introduced into the House, it impacts on everybody.

There are a range of perspectives and a range of views around the supertrawler, but this has gone way beyond that. This now comes to a matter of ministerial competence. Quite frankly, this minister, Minister Burke in particular, is incompetent. There is no question about that.

We asked the minister's office to tell us what the minister had done to allay the concerns that he had about the current circumstance, particularly the social uncertainties that he was talking about in his press conference. We were greeted with a very blank look. So to help them out I asked: 'Has the minister spoken to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation?' That is a government and industry funded organisation that conducts research around our fishing industry—around sustainability, around all of the issues of bycatch, and around the issues of marine-mammal interaction which, we are told, is now Minister Burke's major concern. I asked if he had spoken to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation to allay his concerns? I am quite happy to accept that he may have had some concerns. That is quite understandable. But he also has a responsibility to inform himself on the issues around those concerns.

The advice to me was that he had not spoken to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. That is quite astounding. He was the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry between 2007 and 2010. He would be well aware of their expertise, yet made no effort to talk to them.

I then asked if he had spoken to the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania? That institute has some world-renowned experts in the management of this fishery. In fact, one of their specialists had just spent two weeks lecturing at the United Nations FAO Committee on Fisheries about managing these fisheries—an acceptance of Australia's position of knowledge and world's best practice. An American company that is one of the largest seafood purchasers in the world has just contracted the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies to do some research. They have come to the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies and said: 'We recognise your expertise. We know how good you are; your reputation is very strong. Will you do some research for us?' And they have contracted $900,000 worth of research from this organisation.

So did Minister Burke talk to the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies? No. So what did the minister do to inform himself? What did he do to relieve himself of the uncertainties and the concerns he had about marine-mammal interactions—something that he now calls bycatch? No-one else in the industry calls it bycatch, but Minister Burke has redefined the term bycatch from what it actually means—and what the fishing industry means by it—to something else. But what did he do?

He spoke to the department. The only thing that Minister Burke did to allay his concerns was to talk to the department. I think that is a complete failure of ministerial responsibility. It would be quite easy for him as minister to and ring the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and have a conversation. It would be quite easy for him to ring the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies and have a conversation to allay his concerns. He could have rung SARDI in South Australia, another very, very fine organisation that looks after fisheries management in this country. But absolutely no effort was made. Why would he do that? If you do not know then you have a case to run. If you have not made any attempt to inform yourself then you can go out there and say, 'I'm uncertain,' because he was, but he had made absolutely no effort to find out what was going on.

We come back to the legislation that is now so important. After discovering it was all-encompassing—because the opposition found that it was, rather than just doing what the minister portrayed it as when he did a press conference last Tuesday, and it picked up the commercial, the recreational, the charter boat operators and the aquaculture sector who, I have to say, have real cause to be concerned given the Greens attacks on the aquaculture sector in Australia as they do not want to see it expanded and it is part of their rationale around de-industrialisation—what did he do? The first thing was to go to Craig Thomson and give him an amendment which seeks to take out from the bill recreational fishers. Unfortunately the government's lack of understanding of the recreational fishing sector means that they only half did the job, because charter boat operators are regarded as commercial operators and therefore the question was: when is a recreational fisher not a recreational fisher? When they are fishing on a charter boat. They stuffed up the first attempt at amending this bill to take out what they said was not there in the first place.

Then they came back with another amendment to define recreational fishing. It is another process and another demonstration of the failure of this minister and his incompetence in dealing with this matter. Then there is the concern of the broader community, including the recreational fishers who were worried about the first amendment and put out a press release asking why legislation was brought in that included them when the government had said it would not. There was another failure in interacting with the recreational sector. Why anybody would trust this minister, I really do not know. He told them he would not include them, yet he did. They had to put out a press release to say, 'Take us out,' before he reacted.

Then we come to the issue of social uncertainty. What does that actually mean? We asked the minister's office in the briefing what 'social uncertainty' meant, but they could not provide us with a definition. They did not know what it meant. Is social uncertainty something in the minister's mind? But we are here preparing to take away the activity of a business which has done everything that the government asked of it plus some, on the basis of social uncertainty. We still do not have a definition, and are not likely to get one, because it has been removed from the legislation. That is the process the government has undertaken.

Then we have the issues around the rest of the commercial fishing industry and aquaculture, and their existing activities which were also subject to the legislation. All of those issues remain. We have yet another amendment that came into the House of Representative to try and sort that problem out. It sorts out the issues for anyone in an existing activity, but anyone who wants to change their activities—for example, someone who might want to put a new net into the water, a new dolphin excluder onto their net—is now subject to this legislation. Senator Abetz commented about bank managers asking what statutory fishing rights were worth. That uncertainty remains under this legislation. In a demonstration of how bad this legislation is, they then came in with the sunset clause—'We'll kill it off after 12 months'. That's how bad this legislation is, and yet they want to rush it through the chamber today; it is urgent that it be brought on today. There is demonstration of their failure in the development of this legislation and of their failure in the consultation around this legislation from talking to the recreational sector, one of the sectors that had real concerns about this legislation, which said it was not consulted in the development of the bill. Yet now there is a huge rush and it has to be done urgently.

All of the failures of this government throughout this process, many of which have been canvassed in the debate on this bill and previously through the development of the management systems around the fisheries which I am sure will be canvassed during the debate as the bill comes on, have been shown and yet this is still an urgent piece of legislation. That is despite the recognised position of Australia's fisheries management. The other thing that really concerns me about this rush to legislate is that it actually significantly undermines confidence in Australia's fisheries management. Minister Burke appointed the AFMA commission directors; they are his appointments. Michael Egan, the former New South Wales Treasurer, who is chair of AFMA—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wondered where he'd got to.

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

These former treasurers turn up in strange places. Michael Egan was appointed by Minister Burke. He appointed the AFMA commission that is overseeing this entire process.

So is Minister Burke, in his rush to push this legislation through the parliament, expressing no confidence in his appointments on the AFMA commission? Perhaps.

Senator Collins might like to answer that question later on as to whether he was expressing no confidence, because Minister Burke tabled the management plan for the small pelagic fishery in this parliament. That plan incorporates the harbour strategy, which says that a large-scale freezer vessel may very well be the way to deal with this. Minister Burke's denials of his knowledge of or involvement in this process are completely unbelievable. He has absolutely no credibility in this debate, and this debate is now urgent and must be brought on because of his uncertainty, which he has made absolutely no effort to deal with. We now have to suspend debate on all other matters to bring this on.

It also trashes the reputation of our fisheries management system, which is globally benchmarked, as I have said in this place before, as the second best in the world for sustainability behind Germany. I do not think Germany is a huge fishing nation—needless to say, we give them credit for being there at the top of the tree—but we are at No. 2 on sustainability. That is what this argument is all about. Minister Burke, now the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities after presiding over the introduction of all the management systems as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, is now talking about his uncertainty about those systems. I wonder whether Minister Burke has any confidence in his own decisions. That is probably the key question: are Minister Burke's actions now in trying to rush this piece of legislation through the parliament a motion of no-confidence in himself? I think that is probably correct.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It'll get up, I think.

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

I will take your interjection, Senator Fifield. I think Minister Burke's motion of no-confidence in himself will be passed. It was passed in the House of Representatives last week. The best thing this minister could do is resign, because he is a complete and utter failure. He claims no knowledge of decisions that were made during his time as fisheries minister—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's like Sergeant Schultz.

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

I think that is an insult to Sergeant Schultz, Senator Bernardi. I think Minister Burke's activities and actions go way beyond Sergeant Schultz. I think that is an insult to Sergeant Schultz. I have a bit of time for a Sergeant Schultz, Senator Bernardi, much more than I have for the minister.

In fact, at the last election we saw this minister, after three years in the agriculture portfolio, did not even bring down an agriculture policy. A 1½-page statement was all he could manage. What a legacy! A legacy of failure! We often wondered what he did, and he is now wondering what he did, because he does not know. He has no recollection of his own actions, he has no recollection of the work that he did in conjunction with his fisheries department during the time he was in the ministerial chair, and he now wants to rush through this parliament a piece of legislation which is effectively a vote of no-confidence in his own decisions. I do not see why the opposition should support that.

Obviously, the legislation can come on in due course—that is fine—but why should we trash the reputation of the AFMA commissioners that he appointed to administer management systems that he put in place as fisheries minister, and at the same time trash the reputations of our world-leading fisheries management scientists? That is part of the process we are being asked to deal with here today, because it is now urgent. The minister says it is now urgent. I have to say that the only thing I think we can take out of this is that the minister is pushing for, and looks to succeed in passing, a motion of no-confidence in his own actions as fisheries minister.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Collins.

Senator Bernardi interjecting—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Senator Bernardi, I have not gagged any debate on this occasion. I am seeking to make some comments in closing.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After 125 I suppose you need some respite.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not been counting. Far from this being a motion of no confidence—and I remind Senator Abetz, as I interjected at the time—the statement of reasons for urgency was tabled when I gave notice of this motion last Thursday. I notice very little reference was made to the points made in that statement, so let me reiterate some of them.

There is significant community concern about the impact on Commonwealth fisheries of new fishing activities that are of a size and scale greater than have previously occurred in Australian waters. Further, there is not currently a general power available under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to suspend such new, large-scale operations from fishing pending—and I stress 'pending'—further scientific assessment by an expert panel.

An example of such a new, large-scale fishing operation is the FV Abel Tasman, which is about to commence fishing in the small pelagic fishery. Urgent passage of this bill will grant the minister power to suspend declared commercial fishing activities while an independent assessment is undertaken of the potential impacts of the new activity by an expert panel.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.