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

The Greens have four amendments which I propose to move through fairly expediently. However, I do have some general questions to begin with and I understand Senator Whish-Wilson has some as well. I want to ask some general questions around the advice that AFMA received over this particular quota, but because that has raised some other issues I would like to ask questions around those issues too. First off, I would like to ask about the advice that was received by the advisory committee that has been the subject of much discussion. Was that advice accepted holus-bolus by the commission? Was that advice the advice that the commission then made its decision on?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

AFMA is an independent regulatory authority, so is not with us today because we are dealing with an environment bill. I will take your question on notice, but effectively you are asking if the commission makes an independent decision. Depending on which issue you are talking about—if you are talking about a particular event, perhaps you could outline that event, so I can take it on notice and obtain an answer for you. Broadly, the way it works is those two committees provide advice to the commission and then the commission acts independently and makes the decision.

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

Specifically referring to the South East Management Advisory Committee meeting which has been the subject of much discussion and comments by the ombudsman, was that advice followed by the commission? This leads to the open practices of the advisory committee and other advisory committees and about whether other people who have acknowledged a conflict of interest have remained in and participated in meetings. Is this the one and only occasion where this has happened?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, as I have indicated, AFMA is an independent regulator, but it is not here as we are dealing with an environment bill. I can take your question on notice as I do not want to speculate on what is in the individual commissioner's mind when they make decisions about these things. I am not the commissioner, but I will seek to obtain an answer for you.

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

I appreciate that and that you are not the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. We are amending a specific piece of environment legislation but, as is pointed out, in this legislation you and the environment minister make the decisions jointly. I also appreciate AFMA is an independent body. However, I would think that the government has been following this up. If not, why not? I appreciate you have indicated you will take these questions on notice.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you raised two separate matters. One is about issues concerning the ombudsman. That is an ongoing matter and is between the independent regulatory authority and the ombudsman who is investigating that and, as I understand it, has provided an interim report but not a final report on this matter. As that matter is ongoing, I do not intend to canvass it. It is up to the independent regulator to respond to that matter, so I will ask if the regulator wants to provide any additional comment in respect of that issue.

The second question was: what is the department doing? On Friday I requested that the department look at a range of issues that have occurred and commence an investigation under section 44 of the legislation to ensure that all of these matters are looked at. That is ongoing and I do not have a response from that. That is what I am doing to ensure that it is clear.

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

Is that section 44 investigation just about this particular matter or more broadly about how things have been operating in general, separate to the review?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A broader matter. Again there are two parts, but these are different to the earlier two parts. One is an investigation into the procedures and processes that have been followed, because serious questions have been raised and these questions require answers. I think we need to have confidence in that agency as it is an independent regulatory authority. That is why I implemented the investigation, to ensure that we have the answers to those serious questions that have been raised. If you look at the ombudsman's correspondence, it mentions in the last or the penultimate paragraph—I do not have it before me—others matters that were also being looked at. That supports the view that there appear to be, at least on the face of it, serious questions that have been raised and do need a response. That investigation, in cooperation with DAFF, will provide some guidance.

Secondly, the broader review that I announced will look at the regulatory framework. This review will be undertaken by Mr Borthwick over the next three months. That will also provide a broader view of how AFMA can perform its role in a way that meets contemporary outcomes.

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

The time line for that review is three months. Will the review accept submissions? Will those submissions be public? Will there be consultation processes as part of that review? If so, is there an intention to have a wide range of stakeholders involved in those public consultations?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the moment some of the finer detail is being worked through. I would envisage that it would include stakeholders and people would be able to make submissions. It would depend on the way Mr Borthwick wants to conduct the review. I have not yet had an opportunity to speak with him directly, but I will have that conversation with him. Those are the areas I expect to be covered, but he will independently conduct the review and will have a view on those issues as well.

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

Will that review subsequently be made public? I have been asking these questions long enough to know that you will want to consider it first if it is made public, but what is the time line for making it public if, in fact, you will be making it public?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I expect, if you look at the matters I have been involved in in the past, that it will be made public. That would certainly be my first position.

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

Is Mr Borthwick carrying out the review by himself or will there be a panel involved? If so, who?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He will be supported by DAFF. A secretariat will support his work.

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

Will the extended review cover both AFMA and the processes involved with the department, or are you just talking about the processes and framework for AFMA?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be the two legislative acts that broadly make up AFMA.

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

Can I go to the processes of ecological sustainable assessments. This is an environment question: how will this process relate to the process that was gone through in the past in terms of ecological sustainability assessments? Have you considered whether this root-and-branch review will impact on any of those assessments that have been done in the past and any that may be carried out in the future? Are you looking at any of those assessments in terms of some of the failures in the process of the SPF?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be fair, we get into a chicken-and-egg type of arrangement. It would be sensible to allow the review to come forward and report because the interaction between two pieces of legislation would be dependent upon the management plans that AFMA will develop and that Environment would have an input into. That is how I envisage it working. I do not want to second-guess an outcome from the review.

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

If I understand correctly—and I understand your point about doing the first one first—if it shows up issues then is there the potential that we may need to look at the ecological sustainability assessment process?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, it becomes speculative and hypothetical, but I would not rule it out. That is the easiest way of putting it.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the nature of the panel examining declared fishing activity, who will be on the panel, how will they be chosen and what criteria and process will be followed in how they are chosen?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the proposed amendments do not describe the definition of 'expert panel', and provide the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities with the flexibility to establish a panel and appoint the panel members with regard to the expertise required for each particular assessment. The expertise required to conduct an assessment may vary depending on the nature of the particular fishing activity and its potential impacts. For example, there will likely be a combination of assessment methods to determine the nature and scale of potential impacts, and this may require different specialists such as those in fishery modelling or who have done relevant research.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many people on the panel will be needed to form a quorum to make a decision?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the moment I am advised that the draft terms of reference have not been finalised, so some of that technical detail—

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

Talk about rushed!

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no rush. We will get to that shortly.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What will the panel's powers be for commissioning science, and where do you envisage the funding will come from for any future scientific work on a declared fishing activity?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities will fund it, but what you are describing is what happens after a particular event. I think we need the event first; it comes back to a chicken-and-egg issue. If and when the event occurs then those types of issues will be resolved at that time.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How will potential conflicts of interest among panel members be managed?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They will be dealt with in the usual way that conflicts of interest are managed. I do not envisage—perhaps I should not say that. They will be managed in the usual way.

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

I need to jump back to the investigation we were talking about earlier; I apologise for jumping around a bit. We talked about the time line for the review of the fisheries legislation but I neglected to ask you about the time line for the review but not for the investigation. What is the time line for that?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I did not give you an answer in relation to the time line for the investigation. That is a matter for DAFF. I asked them to do the investigation. At this point, we are just scoping out the level of work that is required and I expect they will come back to me shortly with some projections around time lines. I do not expect it to be particularly lengthy, but do not hold me to that either.

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

Not meaning to be pedantic, but are we talking about weeks or months? There is a three-month process for the review of the fisheries legislation.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would envisage a much shorter period. This is an investigation by the department in relation to some procedures and processes that have been undertaken. It may be completed very quickly, on the basis that they can undertake the scoping work, do the work, come back and report in a relatively short period of time. I would envisage it being finished well inside three months. But if that were to change, I would be happy to write to you and explain why.

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

Just so I can be clear, will this also look at issues about how many times people have declared conflicts of interest and the sorts of processes that have occurred around whether or not people have been asked to participate in decision making? Will those things also be covered?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I imagine it would encompass those issues.

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

I am glad you would imagine it, but will it or not?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you go back to the earlier comment, I have asked the department to investigate. I am not going to fetter them in their investigation nor am I going to direct them as to what they should or should not look at more broadly. I expect them to do a competent job, to look at the procedures and processes, particularly around the issues the Ombudsman has raised. I have confidence in the department that they will undertake the work that you have described as part of the assessment of that work—and you would expect them to do that.

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

Do I take it from the comments that you have made that the other matters in the Ombudsman's letter around the other matters that have emerged in the course of our investigation have been communicated to the department and that that is what you are investigating? Or am I making an assumption about a connection there?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I asked on Friday, before the letter from the Ombudsman, for an investigation to be commenced because questions had been raised that I considered were serious questions that required answers. I note that the Ombudsman also raised compliance with section 64C, which goes to the declaration of conflicts of interest and, as I understand it, AFMA have admitted to that. I note at the end of that letter they went to other matters. In asking the department to scope out some of the work, they have also noted that and I am confident that they will include that in the work that they will undertake with AFMA. It is about making sure that the procedures and processes that AFMA adopt are what you would expect.

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

I asked previously about the review being made public. Is it planned that this investigation will be made public?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would want to see what the investigation says first and what actions might be available or what the department recommends. With all of these things, it is usually my predisposition to make them publicly available, provided there are no commercial-in-confidence matters or other matters that might require follow-up. But, by and large, that would be my predisposition.

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

The legislation requires that two ministers agree to the trigger. I am wondering what happens when the ministers disagree.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess that would mean there is no agreement.

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

So does that mean a matter does not get declared?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is how I understand it, but I will take departmental advice on that. If two ministers do not agree then the clause would not operate.

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

So if the environment minister feels that there is an issue and the fisheries minister says that there is not an issue, does that mean the matter does not get declared?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is my reading of it, yes.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the root-and-branch review, we heard in the house recently that the supertrawler has been in planning for some years; the Commonwealth Fisheries Association recently said seven years. Will this review provide the information around the planning for the supertrawler, particularly the participants and the funding? An example might be the Francisco J Neira report in 2011. For example, who instigated that report and who funded that report?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have thought that estimates would provide a valuable opportunity for you to ask the independent regulator, AFMA, yourself. If you ask them to appear at estimates, they will appear and they will be available to answer your questions as they can. On the review, I do not envisage it as an opportunity to ask questions. I think the review is going to undertake a legislative review of the two acts. I am not going to fetter Mr Borthwick. He will work through the terms of reference that have been provided to him and do a competent job.

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

If I may, I have a few questions to ask of the minister. First of all, did Minister Burke table the Commonwealth harvest strategy 2009? Was he provided with a brief when he tabled the strategy? Did that strategy that he had tabled refer to the fact that, in relation to this particular fishery:

… the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels.

If so, how many such vessels, noting the term was in the plural, was the minister contemplating?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Abetz. As you can appreciate, I will take that on notice. I do not have AFMA, as the independent regulator, with me with this evening; this is an environmental bill. But I do understand your interest and I do not want to say that I will not take it on notice and give you an opportunity of asking at estimates. I will undertake to, if not during these proceedings, take it as a question that you have asked and obtain an answer for you.

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

Thank you. In relation to that, can we at least have an assurance that the minister knew what he was doing when he tabled the first draft of the legislation and his second reading speech? Then can you tell us: if he did know what he was doing in tabling the first draft of the bill and his second reading speech, why, 24 hours later, did he have to make so many amendments and so many changes?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly, I am not Minister Burke. I will take it on notice and see what he will provide. It is not something on which I can get into his mind and work out his state of mind as to the procedure he adopted. Nevertheless, I will ask him and see what he provides.

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

Surely there must be departmental officials available who can advise the minister as to what input the department had in relation to the first bill, if I can describe it as such—and, in fact, I can; I understand it was the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill. Who drafted it, on whose instructions and who had input into it? Then, the follow-up question would be, in relation to the second bill, which then changed its name to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill, who had input into that?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Abetz. As I understand it, the amendments were made for the purposes of clarifying the legislation and others were made that I would have to take on notice for Minister Burke.

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

If it was to clarify the legislation, what was in the minister's mind or the department's mind that they did not understand what recreational fishing was and what charter fishing was, as opposed to commercial fishing? Are you really telling us that we had people administering this legislation that did not understand the differences between those three fishing activities?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I think you are asking me to second-guess what might have been in the mind of Minister Burke. I am not able to do that. As I have indicated, I am happy to take it on notice. You can ask me, of course, what may be in my mind but, in terms of representing Minister Burke, I will take it on notice.

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

You are here, Minister, representing—allegedly representing—the minister, and for you to just simply duck all these questions, if I might say, is unacceptable. Did this legislation—either version of it—go to cabinet?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I could answer in a more broad sense, cabinet is in-confidence, and I do not generally talk about matters in cabinet. Legislation does not usually go to cabinet. You would know that, Senator Abetz, I am sure.

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

If that is the usual procedure, why can't the minister tell us whether an unusual procedure was undertaken in relation to this particular legislation?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because it is cabinet and, on that basis, I have been very strict about not revealing the details that go on in cabinet—and I am not about to breach that now.

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

That is absolute nonsense, Minister, and you know it. We cannot ask what cabinet decided, but whether or not something went to cabinet is something that we are entitled to know. But, yet again with this Greens-Labor alliance government, with Independents claiming that we will have transparent and accountable government, clearly that does not apply when the Greens-Labor alliance is in cahoots, trying to get legislation rushed through this place. Minister Burke, as I understand it, and you, Minister, were on record accepting the science in relation to this particular fishery and the Abel Tasman. Can you indicate to us on what date and at what time Minister Burke became uncertain as to the science?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot recall whether Minister Burke has ever said that he has had a problem with the target species. My recollection—and I could not tell you a date; Minister Burke may be able to provide a date—is that for some time Minister Burke has been saying he has environmental concerns about the small pelagic fishery.

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

What process will the minister need to go through to activate the provisions of this bill?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the way the declaration process under the bill works, I am advised that there is a two-stage declaration process under the bill involving both an interim declaration and a final declaration. The interim declaration process facilitates the prohibition of a declared commercial fishing activity while consultation with affected operators occurs over a period of up to two months. The final declaration process imposes a longer term ban for a maximum of two years while an expert assessment can be undertaken of the potential impacts of the fishing activity.

Both declarations require the environment minister and the fisheries minister to agree that there is uncertainty about the environmental impacts of the fishing activity. The environment minister must, in making a final declaration, take into account the comments provided by affected fishing concession holders and can only make a final declaration in relation to the same activity that was the subject of an interim declaration.

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

So to understand this: all the minister has to say is that he—in this case—is uncertain but does not have to avail himself of all the prevailing science and other information that might be available to him? So if his decision were ever challenged all he would ever have to say in an Administrative Appeals Tribunal or in a court of law is, 'I was uncertain; prove otherwise.' No objective analysis is required.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not going to go through the legal requirements that must be met.

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

What? Why not?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because the particular tribunals may take what would be a reasonable test approach. They may look at it in that light. I am certainly not going to argue either case here. All I can say—and I think it is reasonable to say it—is that both declarations require the environment minister and the fisheries minister to agree that there is uncertainty about the environmental impacts of the fishing activity. How that would be viewed would depend on the decision, how it was implemented, the procedural fairness that was provided and of course the circumstances which a tribunal may take into account in deciding to review it in any way.

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

Nothing in life is 100 per cent certain. Therefore, all the ministers have to say is, 'We believe there is uncertainty; you prove otherwise,' and they can stop a commercial fishing activity for up to a period of two years. Is that what this legislation will allow for?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could reiterate what I said. I can only say what the legislation says. You can put your own interpretation on it and run that up the flagpole. I will stick very carefully to what the legislation says and reiterate that I am not going to interpret it here or provide additional comments as to what it may or may not mean in that sense. But it does make it clear to me.

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

Well, what a waste of time this exercise is if, during the committee stage, we cannot find out how the bill will actually be implemented, what its meaning is and what its consequences will be. I would have thought, irrespective of what side of the chamber you sit on, Minister, you would accept that that is the role of the committee stage in a bill so that senators can actually get an understanding of how it will be implemented and any misunderstandings—as senators can be disabused of them so that a full understanding can be achieved. If all we are going to get is, 'Well, read the bill for yourself; that is going to be its interpretation,' I fear that that is not exactly what the committee process was designed for. It was in fact designed to deal with these issues so that there can be clarity as to what is meant by the legislation. But when a minister cannot even explain it, it once again highlights how this legislation has been rushed through. Minister, is there any objective process that the ministers need to go through prior to making the interim declaration?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

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

As a result of which, would it be fair to say that in relation to the particular trawler that we are talking about, a decision has already been made by the ministers and any submissions that may be made by the owners of Seafish Tasmania will simply fall on deaf ears because the judgement has already been made?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That would be completely unfair to say. No decision has been made. The legislation has not passed.

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

Is it only unfair to say that which I have asserted simply because the legislation has not yet passed? Can I say with respect, Minister, that the consequences of legislation—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There were two parts: one, it is unfair and, two, the legislation has not yet passed.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you need the call.

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

I think we are all agreed, Madam Acting Temporary Chair, that the legislation has not passed. If it had passed, guess what? We would not be in the chamber debating it. I am not sure, Minister, that that was a very helpful contribution—but thank you for it, nevertheless. Let us get back to the actual issue as to whether or not Seafish Tasmania's application has been prejudged by the ministers and this legislation is simply designed to ensure that the ministers' decisions, based on uncertainty—whatever that might mean—can be implemented.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, no decision has been made. That is clear.

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

In that case, the headlines in the Tasmanian newspapers should be that the trawler may well still be allowed to fish and that no decision has been made. And, if that is the case, why is it that Labor senators have been out in Tasmania, along with a Greens senator, celebrating the fact that this trawler has now been stopped? I think we have an issue there of integrity and process, but of course with this government that should not surprise. I have one final question before I hand over to Senator Colbeck. Have you received any advice whatsoever in relation to the possibility of compensation in relation to Seafish Tasmania? In answering that, have you actually sought advice?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I think that the question pre-empts the passage of the legislation—

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

You either have or have not sought advice.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation that, I can answer. No, we have not sought advice in relation to that. That is a commercial matter for the operators concerned.

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

How can it be a matter for the commercial operators to determine whether or not you, Minister, have sought advice in relation to the possibility of compensation being payable? That is your decision, wholly in your province. Please answer the question.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two answers. Firstly, this does pre-empt; no decision has been made. Secondly, the department advises that advice has not been sought in relation to compensation.

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

I have a couple of questions to follow on from where Senator Abetz was in relation to the issue of uncertainty. Can the minister advise us who Minister Burke spoke to in order to mitigate the concerns that he had in relation to the fishery and the impacts on the fishery of this proposed venture?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would need a fraction more specificity in relation to the question to understand the context.

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

You have spoken about it this evening in relation to what is required to trigger it. Senator Abetz has asked you some questions about what might trigger an intervention. There are some questions about what action Minister Burke took to, as you say, deal with the uncertainty that he had about interactions—and I think we are talking about marine mammals—in relation to this fishery. That is the rationale that I have heard him give publicly as to why we are passing this legislation. What I want to know is who Minister Burke consulted with to actually inform himself in relation to his uncertainties about those marine mammal interactions—something that I think he calls bycatch.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it would be easier if I were to take that on notice. I cannot stand in the shoes of Minister Burke as to who he consulted with in relation to the matter and nor can I speculate more broadly as to who he may have spoken to. I am happy to get an answer from Minister Burke as to who he has consulted with.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Colbeck. Senator Colbeck, sorry.

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

I will take the promotion, thanks, Chair! Can I ask if Minister Burke has consulted with, say, SARDI, IMAS, the FRDC or perhaps even the CSIRO—who, as I understand it, have a whole-of-ecosystem model that looks at impacts across the ecosystem and can actually model the potential impacts of harvesting many of the marine species in the Australian fishery and also, from that model, determine the flow-on effects from that harvest. Has Minister Burke consulted with any of those organisations, but particularly CSIRO?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, Senator Colbeck, I will take that on notice.

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

I think this is a really important issue, because Senator Abetz asked Minister Ludwig questions about what precedes a declaration. Minister Ludwig has told us that there can be an interim declaration of up to two months, which he says deals with due process and fairness. And then there is the second-stage process to deal with the suspension of up to two years. But if we cannot be confident in this process of the work that Minister Burke has done to deal with his 'uncertainties' through this process, how can we have some confidence as to what he might be required to do as part of a declaration process? In this circumstance he is bringing in legislation. In the next process, if he does not do anything to deal with these uncertainties, he could be making decisions without any core information, and then how is due process, or fair process, dealt with as part of making a declaration?

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

I realise we are just about out of time, but I would like to move my amendments so that they are moved during this debate today. Could I please at least start the process of moving my amendments?

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have got five seconds.

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

I seek leave to move Greens amendment 7282—

Progress reported.

Sitting suspended from 18 : 30 to 19 : 30