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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today relating to the fishing industry.

This is in relation to the Final (Small Pelagic Fishery) Declaration 2012. The Australian Greens have thanked Minister Burke for his declaration and essentially putting the entry of supertrawlers into Australian waters on ice for two years while the scientific work is done on the risks of a supertrawler to Australian Commonwealth fisheries.

We acknowledge the work that has been done by both NGOs and the Australian Labor Party in relation to this, but recently we have been hearing disturbing stories, including an interview that I heard featuring the managers of Seafish Tasmania preparing to bring a smaller but still very large trawler into Australian waters. We looked into this matter and sought some legal advice on the wording in the act in terms of the interpretation. The specific problem we have is the definition of a 'specified vessel' under the act. This means a type of vessel which is greater than 130 metres in total length, has onboard fish processing facilities and has storage capacity for fish or fish products in excess of 2,000 tonnes. It is that last point that we are most concerned about along with the word 'and' in the clause.

The Greens have sought advice on the risks posed by supertrawlers previously when we put through our bill to ban supertrawlers in Australian waters. International advice is that the freezing capacity of boats has been the key risk posed by supertrawlers. Boats with more than 2,000 tonnes capacity can stay out to sea for very long periods of time. Unfortunately, the advice we have received on the specified vessel and the wording in here is that a boat to be banned from fishing in the small pelagic fishery under this act would need to meet all three criteria in order to be banned, so we would like to see the word 'and' replaced with 'or' or have that a lot clearer because, as mentioned, we are seeing action by Seafish Tasmania to try to fish the small pelagic fishery.

While these important scientific studies are occurring, I would also like to say that the root-and-branch review of AFMA will include information on how the quota is allocated and the process that led to that quota allocation to which in this house and other places the Australian Greens have brought considerable attention. In fact, we have always believed that the quota should be disallowed on the basis of its allocation. This is a very important point. It is certainly a matter of public concern to recreational fishing groups and conservationists that I have had discussion with in Tasmania recently. We would certainly like to discuss this with the minister to get clarification on this point and also to seek the possibility of having an amendment to the declaration if there is a potential legal issue here with the wording in the declaration.

I would also like to refer to a comment made by Senator Mason. I point out that, when Senator Mason was talking, he mentioned whether young generations of Australians are happy to take on the costs of a carbon tax. I point out that, of course, a carbon tax is designed to be a cost that reflects the externality and the risks of climate change. I would certainly hope that my children and grandchildren would be prepared to take on the costs of a carbon tax in the sense that those costs also reflect benefits and those benefits should flow to future generations by reducing the risks that we will see from climate change once we bring our emissions down to an acceptable level.

Most market economists around the world have accepted that a market based instrument that puts a price on pollution is what is necessary for production of these polluting substances that go into the atmosphere to be reduced. Yes, it may be seen as a cost, but actually the cost reflects an environmental benefit if it is calculated correctly, so I would hope that my kids and grandkids would be quite happy to take on a carbon tax and see the future benefits that it delivers not just for the environment, ecosystems and all these important things that are necessary for their future but also for the jobs and growth in the Australian economy.

Question agreed to.