Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to continue speaking on the Environment Protection and Biosecurity Conservation Amendment (Making Marine Parks Accountable) Bill 2012. Since I commenced my comments on this bill I have had the opportunity to visit an area in South Australia—Port Lincoln, on the west coast. This area has a huge fishing community. While I was there I met with a wide range of people and industry representatives—working from tuna to abalone to pilchards to rock lobsters. I discussed with them the management of their industries, and it is obviously a very highly regulated industry already. The tuna industry has very, very strict quotas—almost down to the kilogram—on the fish that they are allowed to take. So we certainly have an industry that is highly regulated and highly responsible. These are very serious industries which make an amazing contribution to their community.

The community of Port Lincoln has a huge reliance on the fishing industry, but all the other industries rely on the infrastructure investment that has been made by the fishing industry to allow them to be competitive. The development of the mining industry and the agricultural pursuits on the Eyre Peninsula are very much supported and underpinned by the success of the fishing industry in Port Lincoln.

In discussing the proposal for this particular situation with the industry groups in Port Lincoln, it was very apparent that not one of them could understand why the government sees it as necessary to lock up so much of our oceans—without any scientific evidence whatsoever that our fisheries are under threat. I do not think too many people would disagree that Australia's fisheries are globally benchmarked and recognised as some of the best managed fisheries in the world. It seems to me a total contradiction that we pride ourselves on being great custodians of the seas, with marine protection policies that are recognised as world class, and yet we still feel the need to overlay these policies with another level of unnecessary protection.

The Australia fishing industry have behaved in an environmentally responsible way for years. They deserve to be treated as adults and not as a disposable industry because your partners, the Greens, are hell-bent on destroying all of Australia's food production capacity. As one South Australian fishing industry expert, David Hall, has succinctly put it, 'Marine parks have now become both a hypothetical and an expensive answer to a non-existent problem.' The last thing that the fishing industry wants to do is to destroy the environment that is providing them with a living. Similarly, recreational fishers have a vested interest in protecting their patch. Judy Lynne, of Sunfish Queensland—which represents 35,000 people, many of them recreational fishers—has said that what this does do is to take away the validity of the true value of a green zone, which is there to protect things that are under threat.

It seems that recreational and professional fishers alike are totally unimpressed with Minister Burke's behaviour regarding the operation of marine parks. If an industry as large as the fishing industry feels it cannot engage in a sensible and meaningful discussion with its minister about something that has such huge ramifications for its future, one can only conclude that this is a breakdown in his leadership. He has displayed a complete lack of leadership, because he has not really bothered to inform himself about the facts and the scientific evidence behind this particular issue. In a nutshell, he has failed to engage in proper consultation, he has failed to engage the experts, he has failed to engage the scientists, he has failed to engage the fishing industry, and he has failed to engage the wider community. Only proper and effective consultation will ensure that marine protected areas balance preservation of the environment with economic growth and strong coastal communities.

The coalition is proud of the rigorous assessment it undertook when it was in government in the establishment of 11 marine protected areas along Australia's south-east coast. The coalition believes that the establishment of such areas should not be about politics but about protecting biodiversity and minimising social and economic impact on fishers, businesses and their communities. We will return balance and fairness to marine conservation so that all Australians can have confidence that the best decisions are being made in protecting our marine biodiversity as well as the fishers and the communities that feed so many Australians.

I will quickly emphasise the coalition's position. We support a balanced approach to marine conservation. It was our policy for the 2010 election and we stand by it. The coalition started the process of establishing comprehensive marine bioregional plans, which included the determination of marine protected areas around Australia. To this end the former coalition government engaged in extensive and cooperative consultation. The consultation ensured that an appropriate balance was struck between protecting marine biodiversity and minimising the impacts. The final result was a greater area protected, with less impact on industry.

The Gillard government do not have a great track record of consultation and there is considerable angst amongst fishers regarding the declaration of marine parks, and it appears that their concerns are not being heard.

The consultation process is flawed and, because they have a flawed consultation process, the results are flawed. The coalition is committed to returning balance and fairness to marine conservation. We are also committed to ensuring that our sovereign risk is not totally and utterly accelerated by the perpetuation of this constant changing of the rules as we go along.

The bill to which I speak to today is a reaction to this lack of consultation, a lack of proper research and a lack of respect for the people who have sustainably managed and operated our fisheries around Australia for many years. They are world-recognised, responsible fishermen.

This bill seeks that the proposed new marine protected areas be assessed in accordance with objective, scientific, economic and social evidence. This bill will require the minister to obtain independent scientific advice and not just to rely on the knee-jerk reactions of those hell-bent on destroying any opportunity for Australians to enjoy the fantastic environment in which we live.

This bill will require the minister to obtain genuine community and industry input. It is so important that the input of the community and the industry is put into these bills, because the disengagement of industry in decision making about something that is so totally vital to their industry really does create a situation where we will end up with policies that have absolutely no relevance to the delivery of outcomes for all Australians.

This bill will require the minister to commission an independent social and economic impact assessment before any proclamations can be made. I cannot see how anybody in this place could possibly be questioning the requirement for an independent assessment to be done before we put into place any policies or legislation.

Finally, this bill will put the parliament in charge of the final decisions by making declarations disallowable by the parliament. I certainly support this bill and I believe that everybody in this place should also support it.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to strongly support the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Making Marine Parks Accountable) Bill 2012, proposed by my colleague Senator Colbeck, and to emphasise the fact that any reasonably minded person in this community who values democracy and who values decisions made on good consultation and scientific evidence would also support it. It points exactly to the direction the coalition would go in this area.

The bill requires four particular points to be undertaken: firstly, the commissioning of an independent social and economic impact assessment before any proclamations are made. We currently see an absence of that in the efforts of Minister Burke. Secondly, obtaining independent scientific peer-reviewed advice before making any proclamations. How amazing that would be from this government? Thirdly, establishing independent scientific reference panels and stakeholder advisory groups, suggesting that over time that both of these groups would have an intimate role associated with decision making into the future. Finally, again, because of the dereliction of this minister, the bill will put parliament in charge of the final decision-making proclamations becoming disallowable.

Naturally, the coalition has the high moral ground here because it was under the Howard government that the then Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Minister Hill, introduced the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which is world's best practice and has become the benchmark around the world in this area. Again, it was under a coalition government that the process of establishing marine protected areas around Australia's coastline was commenced.

I go back again to those four points: consultation; scientific peer-reviewed advice; independent scientific reference panels and stakeholder advisory groups; and parliament in charge of the decision making rather than the minister.

Let me reflect, if I may, for a few minutes on each of those four principles. Currently, we are faced with a 30- day consultation period on the management plans proposed by the minister—but not 30 days now because, seven days from today, on 14 February, the consultation period closes. One would have to ask: why the rush? One might also reflect on the fact that, in the middle of probably their busiest fishing season, commercial fishers in fact have to consider management plans not for one bioregion but for more than one and, in fact, in some instances, seven. So there have only been two limited periods for public participation in the development of these management plans. The first was one month, from mid-November to mid-December, and now we have the final seven days. That seven days left is all that is left so that the locking up of 2.3 million square kilometres will be for a 10-year period. I find that to be totally and utterly unacceptable.

When one comes to the question of consultation, it is important to reflect on an opportunity lost by Minister Burke. I now go back to quotes from May 2011, when the media announcements were first put into the public arena regarding community engagement. At that time, the Western Australian fisheries minister, Norman Moore, indicated that whilst he had not seen the documentation and, in fact, neither Minister Burke nor his senior officials had offered Minister Moore the courtesy of consultation he, nevertheless, went ahead and said:

Although I have not yet had the opportunity to study the documents in detail, I remain hopeful that the Commonwealth has taken a balanced and pragmatic approach to proposed marine reserves which minimises the social and economic impact on stakeholders such as the fishing sector.

What an insult that the minister responsible for the greatest degree of coastline around the Australian coast, being the Minister for Fisheries in WA, had not been consulted. But on 19 October 2011, after he had directed his fisheries department to present a submission to Minister Burke he said:

We are still yet to receive any information about the points raised and about the process going forward. This leaves the State Government and WA community uncertain and concerned about the future access to our most precious waters and aquatic resources.

If that is the Labor government's consultation process, and particularly that of Minister Burke, it is little wonder that Senator Colbeck has based his first point in his bill around consultation.

I go to the question of science. We are not dealing at the moment with an innate object; we are dealing with a marine biological entity. We are dealing with a dynamic entity—an incredibly large area. We are the biggest island continent so therefore we have the largest area of waters around our coastline. Fish cannot read. They do not know the lines on Minister Burke's map. Nothing, of course, in the marine environment is permanent. So where is the scientific case that Minister Burke put forward to defend the decisions he is making with regard to tying up 2.3 million hectares of the Australian marine reserve? Unfortunately, it is not there. It is absent. He has treated this community as abjectly as he has treated the wider community in terms of consultation.

I ask as a scientist: where is the scientific monitoring? Where is the evidence of monitoring? Where is the evidence we need for a fixed 10-year period to close up all of this marine area? Where is evidence that monitoring will be undertaken? Where is evidence that we will see the results and—heavens above!—we actually might see some decisions? It is to be hoped by the vast majority of the Australian community that after 14 September this year there will be a government in place that will direct that this appropriate scientific evaluation and monitoring be undertaken. I am sure we will see decision-making made in relation to the progress of science.

I go again to the western rock lobster fishery as an example of management in a dynamic environment. As people will know all around this chamber, that particular fishery has been regarded as an international benchmark. In recent years we saw a steep decline in the number of mature crayfish. Scientific evidence—yes, the scientific evidence!—preceding that indicated, because of the studies undertaken by the Western Australia Department of Fisheries, that we were going to see a rapid decline. I do not think we yet understand the full reasons for that decline, but nevertheless it occurred.

But what happened was that Fisheries Minister Moore took the necessary decisions. He introduced, for example, greater restrictions on fishing limits. He introduced restrictions on pot numbers and he actually introduced a process whereby from the beginning of the season in the middle of November through to Easter of each year the fishermen could decide when they wanted to fish to get up to their quota. That, in fact, has introduced a most interesting economic model, because now the crayfishermen, instead of fishing every day, will choose. 'Is it Christmas? Is it Chinese New Year? When is the best for my business to undertake my fishing activity so that I can retain my quota, so that I can make sure that the fishery itself is preserved?' That is the result of good science. That is what is lacking in Minister Burke's attempts and that is of course what Senator Colbeck wants to see return to this debate.

We have the circumstance of environmental impact associated with the science and, if one talks about protein, fish protein has probably amongst the least adverse environmental impact of any form of protein. When you look, for example, at the amount of water that is needed, and fertiliser, pesticides and antibiotics, we know that in the capture fisheries no pesticides, antibiotics or fertilisers are used. So there are very, very compelling reasons why good science should precede decision-making and, more to the point, that when decisions are put into place we can monitor the effect, whether positively or negatively, and make further management decisions—not a one-size-fits-all, 10-year blocking out of these particular marine protected areas.

I go back again, if I may, before concluding comments in this area, to the Fisheries Minister Moore from Western Australia, in which he sums it up well when he says:

The Federal Government is always saying we should pursue evidence-based policy. In this case, it is just drawing lines on a map without any real regard for environmental outcomes or the long-term impacts on the Western Australian and broader Australian communities and businesses.

He understands it. For the life of me I do not know why the minister or his department do not.

Let me put on record some other quotations, if I may, with regard to the science and the impact of the science. These are quotes from a Dr Ray Hilborn, Professor of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University of Washington, and Dr Bob Carney AM, Emeritus Professor in Fisheries Management here in the University of Canberra. Dr Hilborn says:

When you're not over fishing, marine parks simply reduce the amount of fish yield you can get by locking up areas. And the result is that you're going to have less seafood produced in Australia and you will need to import more from places that are typically much less sustainably managed.

Again from both Hilborn and Carney:

It is difficult to understand … why Australians believe they need to implement additional, alternative restrictions on fishing, such as more fishing closures in MPAs!

As they assert by their paper's title, 'Australian seafood consumers have been misled by prophets of doom and gloom'. These are internationally regarded scientists. I quote yet again:

Australia’s fisheries are amongst the best managed in the world and they are without doubt sustainable.

…   …   …

… Public perception has been distorted, primarily by numerous NGOs and others who benefit from projecting apprehension in seafood consumers.

…   …   …

Australian[s] have been told by health professionals and authorities to eat more seafood, yet the country has a serious and growing shortage of locally produced product and no obvious policies for food security or increasing domestic supply of fish.

All of this leads me, I think, to the most disturbing statistic that we will hear today, and that is that 70 per cent of the fish consumed in this country is imported. In the nation which is the world's largest island continent, we are importing 70 per cent by weight and we are consuming 70 per cent imported fish. This, of course, raises the question: where is it coming from? What is the level of sustainability of the fisheries of the countries from which it is coming? Should we not have some level of responsibility in our region? Clearly there is a demand for fish, and there is an increasing demand, in my view, for us to satisfy that need domestically.

I turn to the question of impact, particularly on the commercial fishery but also on recreational fishers. We are seeing, and we will go on to see, environmental degradation in our region particularly in the marine environments if in fact we continue on the curve we are on—that is, increasing importation of fish. This, of course, also raises the question of the quality and safety for our own consumers of imported fish. Surely we can sustainably manage our own fishery to make sure that we can in the main provide for this need ourselves. All we are doing is arrogantly shifting the problem elsewhere. I understand that more fish are now taken in aquaculture arrangements than in the wild catch, and that is fantastic. That is great, because it could introduce a new industry. So you say, 'Where's the catch?' The simple fact of the matter is that there is an increased catch of the wild fish population to feed the fish that are being grown in the aquaculture environments. Therefore we again have a challenge in this area.

The second commercial impact which I wish to address is that of the debacle engineered last year by Environment Minister Burke, and that was that of the Abel Tasman. I do not want to reflect for long on this particular regrettable situation, except to say that it was when he was agriculture and fisheries minister that Minister Burke not only learned about that vessel but encouraged the proponents of the vessel to bring it into Australian waters. Then, with a different hat on and in a different timeframe, no doubt influenced by minority groups, he reversed the decision. Let us reflect for one minute on what would have been the outcome. First of all, there would not have been one kilogram more fish taken by the Abel Tasman than would have been taken by a number of vessels making up the same tonnage—not one kilogram more. Secondly, the Abel Tasman was to fish in waters that our closer coastal vessels were not accessing. Thirdly, if our own local vessels had been accessing fish in those more remote areas, they did not have the freezer capacity on board for that product to be used for human consumption, in which case it would have gone as protein for pig and other feed. Finally, the environmental oversight of the Abel Tasman would have been vastly greater than for multiple vessels catching the same tonnage.

This creates a sovereign risk yet again for this country. In this case, the environmental minister must have seen the restrictions and the conditions placed upon that company and its vessel and must have been happy with them. Otherwise he would not, as fisheries minister, have encouraged it to come into our waters in the first place. At the same time, he absolutely insulted his own experts in the Fisheries Management Authority—all of whom on that particular board he had appointed himself—by turning around and rejecting the evidence that they brought before him in making his decision.

If ever there needs to be validation for the last of Senator Colbeck's points—that is, the point of taking the final decision making away from the minister and placing it here before the parliament—one need only reflect on those two words 'Abel Tasman'. Minister Burke has abrogated his capacity to make that final decision on behalf of the Australian parliament and the Australian community and that is why a disallowable instrument must come into play so that decisions of this nature can be made by the parliament and not by the minister, unusually influenced as he was.

Remaining for a moment with the commercial impact, the paltry figure of $100 million has been allocated by this government. It is going to require vastly more than $100 million to compensate commercial fishers for the loss they will incur if and when these marine parks are confirmed and locked up for a 10-year period. Estimates are that the future need for seafood in this country will grow by 850,000 to one million tonnes by 2020. I ask the question: where is this going to come from if we continue with the plans we have?

I refer again to the commercial impacts. How significant is it, as we go back and join with the consultation process, that the National Seafood Industry Alliance withdrew from negotiations with the government in November last year, as did the Australian Marine Alliance itself? Organisations representing more than 90 per cent of those involved in this industry had so little faith in this government and in this minister that they withdrew from consultation.

So what is the impact on recreational fishers? One would almost think that there has been an attempt to pit one against the other, because as we know the states and territories have responsibilities out three nautical miles, after which the Commonwealth takes over, and the impact is that, as would always be predicted, commercial fishers are now coming into areas which were the province of recreational fishers. This is deliberately pitting those two groups against each other.

I return to the points made in Senator Colbeck's bill: independent assessment, scientific review, scientific and community involvement and, of course, parliament in charge of the final decision making. I urge all senators to support Senator Colbeck's bill for the very logical reasons I have presented.

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

I rise to make a contribution on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Making Marine Parks Accountable) Bill 2012. I do so in my capacity as a senator, but I should declare that I am also a very keen recreational angler—note 'very keen'; I did not say 'very successful'. But let me assure you, Mr Acting Deputy President Edwards, I am not an unsuccessful fisherman because the fish are not there—there are plenty of fish. I would suggest it is more down to my lack of skill in that particular area. That is why I will take a practical and, I would say, a sensible approach in my contribution to this bill.

My state of South Australia has a reputation of being very productive as a fishing state and also of being very innovative in aquaculture, developing fish farming and fish fattening techniques, which are enhancing the value of the wild catch by commercial fishermen, particularly with tuna and also tried with kingfish. South Australia has also been a pioneer in research into the spawning of tuna. It has not been commercially viable but, nonetheless, it has been a world first with regard to southern bluefin tuna, kingfish, mulloway and other value-added propositions. These are all positive developments for the fishing industry in South Australia.

I believe the commercial fishers in my state and, I am sure, with very few exceptions around the country are great custodians and stewards of the environment. They know that their livelihood is absolutely dependent upon sustainable fishing practices. They know anecdotally, instinctively and through the scientific research they commission what fish stocks are like around the world.

I recall that when we were in government that the overfishing of tuna was the subject of global discussions. The international organisation concerned with that discovered and disclosed that there were nations that were severely overfishing their tuna quota. Accordingly, quite significant quota reductions were made. But I also recall that Senator Abetz, who was the then minister responsible for fisheries, went into bat for the Australian tuna fishers because their husbandry, their fishing practices and their responsibility to adhere to their quota were the best in the world. Accordingly, we received no reduction in the tuna fishing quota for South Australian fishers.

That is an important point to make, because Australian commercial fishers are at the forefront of world best practice. Senator Joyce has often said in discussions on fishing that we take less per hectare than many other nations around the world. We are good custodians and stewards of the environment, seeking a sustainable balance between meeting the needs of our commercial operators to make a dollar and feed as many Australians as they possibly can with the wonderful resource we have available to us, and keeping a balance for the many millions of recreational anglers around Australia. I think angling is the highest participation recreation in the country, and so it should be—it is good clean healthy fun and you can have a feed at the end of it.

That preamble is designed to say that we need balance in our approach to how we manage our fisheries and to marine conservation. We have to balance the needs of our society: our commercial fishers, our recreational anglers, preserving and protecting the marine environment for successive generations as well as allowing fish stocks to rebuild where appropriate. You can do that by not locking up vast areas of fisheries based on spurious grounds but by keeping things in balance, by taking a balanced approach to it. That is something that Senator Colbeck has recognised in introducing this bill, which I commend him for, but it is something that this government completely fails to adopt—and not only in this area but in so many other areas of their policies.

The coalition want to make sure that decisions are being made in the very best interests not only of fishers but also of local communities—who depend not just on the tourism but on the dollars that flow through from the catching, processing and distribution of fish—as well as in the interests of marine biodiversity. The coalition's position is quite clear. We actually started the process of establishing comprehensive marine bioregional plans. This included the determination of marine protected areas around Australia's coastline. And the former government, among the many commendable things it did with respect to fishing, also engaged in an extensive and cooperative consultation process before any marine protected areas were actually declared. That is a very important point to make and I am going to contrast that with the consultation, or lack thereof, by the current government.

The consultation the former government undertook ensured an appropriate balance was struck between protecting marine biodiversity and minimising social and economic impact on fishers, businesses and coastal communities. Ultimately, it was about trying to deliver better outcomes. The final result was a greater area protected, with less impact on industry. It was—to put it in simple parlance—a win-win scenario. Unfortunately, the Gillard government, and the Rudd government before them, do not have an effective track record of win-win scenarios in any aspect of legislation. Importantly, they have a very poor track record of effective consultation.

There is right now considerable angst amongst fishermen regarding the declaration of marine national parks. These concerns, the fishers tell me, are simply not being heard appropriately or adequately by the government. They believe that the consultation process is absolutely flawed, and that means the results that are being delivered are also flawed.

Currently, the environment minister has sole power to approve the adoption of bioregional plans, and the declaration of bioregional plans and the marine protected areas have significant environmental and socioeconomic consequences which must be properly assessed. Through this bill and in our approach to this whole area of management, the coalition is absolutely committed to returning balance and fairness to marine conservation. If you do not get the balance right and it is not fair, it will be a lose-lose situation for everybody.

In one aspect I congratulate Labor: they are continuing to further explore the coalition's policy. But they have failed terribly in adopting a balanced approach to marine protected areas. Labor have failed to engage in appropriate consultation, as I mentioned, with the fishing industry and the wider community. Do not take my word for it; I am sure there have been many quotes from people who share those concerns, and I will get to some in a moment. Many in the communities who directly rely on fishing are directly threatened by Labor's inability to consult on whether a region should be declared a marine protected area.

Unsurprisingly, many recreational and commercial fishers, businesses directly related to the fishing industry, businesses unrelated to the fishing industry who get the spin-off of community benefits that come through with additional resource activity, and communities who rely on fishing have raised substantial concerns about Labor's handling of marine protected areas. Stakeholders in this important industry are raising concerns about the integrity of the consultation being conducted under Minister Burke's guidance. Among the coastal communities there are rumours of politically motivated deals—which will be unsurprising to many who are familiar with Labor's way—of secret maps that some stakeholders get to see but not others—again, unsurprising given Labor's track record—and of marine science being ignored as lines are drawn and redrawn on maps. Again, this is unsurprising when you compare Labor's track record of looking at the science—credible science—and its policy agenda. It is clear to many people in the general community who are involved in the benefits of fishing in this country that Labor has failed miserably.

I regret to say that Labor's Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has taken a hands-off approach. He is like Pontius Pilate: he has washed his hands of it and said, 'I don't want anything to do with it,' failing to ensure that the interests of commercial and recreational fishing sectors are fairly represented. It is as if Minister Ludwig again plays second fiddle to Minister Burke.

Minister Burke, quite simply, has a chequered track record which calls into question whether we can rely on his good judgement or his acceptance of good science in making a good decision. History would suggest that we are right to have our doubts. Most recently, the declared commercial fishing activities amendment to the EPBC Act demonstrated that Minister Burke is prepared to make political decisions and not scientific ones. And after introducing this amendment, there were further amendments needed because he had not properly thought through the position he was putting to the Australian people. It was clearly an example of policy on the run. It forced a backflip by Minister Ludwig, and the declared commercial fishing activities bill showed Tony Burke's desire was more or less to lock up more water

He trashed the reputation of the AFMA Commission even though he appointed every single member of that commission. He was prepared to trash their reputations to further his political agenda. He also trashed the reputation of our world-leading scientific community and of some of the institutions that have done the science on the impact of fishing and, in particular, the amendments I just referred to. In doing so, the government sent a clear message to commercial operators in Australia not just in fishing but also in other businesses. Effectively, it said, 'If you do everything that this government asks of you, and then you do a little bit more to comply with our demands to adhere to our stringent criteria, the red and the green tape, it is simply not enough.' The government will still take away your rights. It will still interfere, notwithstanding that you have complied with every aspect and more of what it has requested of you. The government will damage your business, impact your employees and hurt and harm Australia's international business reputation if it serves its purpose politically.

I ask: how can any business in Australia or considering investing in Australia operate in an environment such as that?

I know myself there are business people that are operating here, and international business people too, who are asking themselves that very question. They have grave doubts and concerns about the risk of investing in this country because of this government and decisions taken by people like Minister Burke. So a more simplistic question is: should Australian fishers trust a man with this shambolic track record? I think it is a rhetorical question and it needs no answer, but let me suggest to the Australian people that the answer is no. Yet currently the environment minister has the sole power to approve the adoption of bioregional plans. These plans for marine protected areas have significant environmental and socioeconomic consequences. I believe it is therefore inappropriate for these declarations to be made without the opportunity for review. I note that these are not disallowed instruments.

The minister has displayed a complete lack of leadership. He has displayed an inability or an unwillingness to inform himself of the fundamental peer reviewed science that supported, noting my reference earlier, the small pelagic fish harvest strategy that he oversaw as fisheries minister. So it begs the question: how can we trust him to have understood the science around marine parks? How can we trust him to have informed himself of the science around marine parks? Once again the question is: who has been consulted? What reputable scientists has he talked to? I think this is another vote by a minister against sound peer reviewed science that supports fisheries management in Australia.

My colleague Senator Back, in his previous contribution, made reference to Dr Ray Hilborn who is a professor of aquatic and fisheries sciences at the University of Washington. He maintains that Australian fisheries are well managed; they are sustainable and do not need further locking up to protect them from overfishing; the existing tools are working. He believes there is no threat to marine conservation; no marine species have gone extinct; closing Australian areas to fisheries will not increase food production from fisheries and will in fact reduce it. Well-managed fisheries are important—I think we all acknowledge that—but they are more environmentally sustainable than most other protein sources, according to Dr Ray Hilborn.

If we close the ocean and take less seafood the environmental cost of the alternatives is much higher than the environmental cost of fishing. In Australia, the US and a number of other countries, stocks are rebuilding and not declining The anecdotal evidence in South Australia would support that point of view. The commercial and recreational anglers who chase tuna are saying they have never seen so many fish as they have seen this year. Australian fish stocks are healthy. It is something that the minister does not seem to want to acknowledge—and I have to wonder.

I gave a speech in this place in 2006 or 2007 in which my concern was the extreme ideological agenda of people like Peter Garrett, who is now a minister and the member for Blaxland, I think, and who I think as Chairman of the Australian Conservation Foundation wanted to completely ban any commercial harvest of bluefin tuna on the basis that they were an endangered species. I warned then the fishers of South Australia and the nation that this was a sort of ideological bent that was going to be brought in if a Labor government crept into power, and it has been strengthened since they have had this alliance with the Greens Party. No longer is there balance; no longer is there a commitment to a sustainable harvest; it is a commitment to saying human needs should be second rung to preserving a declining fish base. But the evidence is not there that the fish stocks are declining—and it is certainly not due to my fishing, let me assure you of that, Mr Deputy President.

The evidence is that Australia has one of the best managed fisheries anywhere in the world particularly in the south-west region where Minister Burke's determinations can significantly damage the economic potential of not only my state but the whole south-west region right through to Western Australia and Shark Bay, which is in WA. That is why I support Senator Colbeck's bill. He is trying to restore some balance, some common sense and some integrity to the decision making, things that this government has woefully overlooked.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Making Marine Parks Accountable) Bill 2012 and do so to very enthusiastically support the outstanding work of my colleague Senator Colbeck in presenting this legislation to the Senate and continuing his relentless pursuit of fairness for Australian fishers and appropriate management of Australia's fisheries that would ensure not just the sustainability of the fish stocks but also the ongoing economic viability and sustainability of the Australian fishing industry and, of course, Australia's recreational fishing sector.

I note that back in 2011 I spoke in the chamber on a bill also moved by Senator Colbeck. That was the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011. Sadly, that legislation proposed by Senator Colbeck was unsuccessful. Had it been successful we might not be here today debating this bill, because that legislation sought to ensure especially that the role of this parliament was paramount, that we ensured parliamentary primacy over ultimate decision making when it comes to the establishment of bioregional plans and marine parks. Sadly, that was rejected. Others in this place voted to say we would rather leave power in the hands of one minister, one person, than have power in the hands of this parliament to be the final arbiter of whether such parks are well designed and appropriate for our future. So Senator Colbeck has come back to this place with a bill not only that deals again with this very important and fundamental issue of parliamentary primacy, but also requires the environment minister to commission an independent, social and economic impact assessment before any proclamations of marine parks are made; to further obtain independent, scientific peer-reviewed advice before making any proclamations; and, importantly, to make this advice publicly available. Further, the bill will require the establishment of independent scientific reference panels and stakeholder advisory groups for each region to ensure that there is rigorous decision making. The bill ultimately will put the parliament in charge of final decision making, allowing proclamations to be disallowable instruments and ensuring in that sense that we actually have the final say in this chamber and the other place over whether these decisions made by the minister are indeed appropriate.

It is unfortunate that this is such an issue of contention because Australia should rightly be proud of the fact that we are very much a world leader in terms of sustainable management of fishing stocks. It is unfortunate that this process has become so controversial throughout the community with the perception held by many that the government is being held captive by extreme groups, environmental groups and those who have an ideological approach to how marine parks should work, rather than the government operating on the best available science and operating in a way that delivers certainty and fairness of outcomes for Australian fishers and the Australian fishing industry.

Australia's fisheries are recognised as some of the best managed in the world. Previous speakers have highlighted evidence that has been given, comments that have been made and research undertaken by academics from around the world—not just by Dr Bob Kearney here at the University of Canberra but also by Dr Ray Hilborn, Professor in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington. Dr Hilborn has said very clearly that Australia's fisheries are amongst the best managed in the world and they are without doubt sustainable. He has made those remarks very clear in public comments on the record about Australia's fishing sector. That is not to say that we cannot strive to do more and do better and to make sure we continue to be at the leading edge of sustainability in our fisheries management practices. We should do that, but that does not mean we should be reacting and behaving in the way it seems the government has of believing somehow that our fisheries stocks are in such danger of depletion that we need to take very radical steps.

Dr Hilborn has highlighted some of the implications of the marine parks proposal. Having highlighted the world-leading management practices of Australia's fisheries, he went on to say:

When you're not over fishing, marine parks simply reduce the amount of fish yield you can get by locking up areas. And the result is that you're going to have less seafood produced in Australia and you will need to import more from places that are typically much less sustainably managed.

Those final words of Dr Hilborn's comments are very important for us to note. The demand for seafood in Australia is going in only one direction, and that is up. That is welcome. We should be wanting and encouraging Australians to eat more seafood with the many health benefits that can potentially come from doing so. The problem we have here is that this Labor government is adopting a proposal that presents real risks to the extent of seafood production in Australia, to the size of the catch that will be undertaken. Therefore, at a time of increased demand for seafood in Australia this government risks enacting policies that will provide for reduced supply of seafood within Australia. That can lead only to increased importation.

We know very well that seafood imported from parts of South-East Asia and elsewhere will be coming from some of the most stressed fisheries in the world. So we will take ourselves from being sustainable to potentially unnecessarily locking up fisheries, and importing seafood from overfished, overstressed fisheries in other parts of the world. That is why the coalition believes it is so very important to bring the fishing communities and the fishing industry with government on this journey and to ensure we actually have marine parks operating in a manner that supports our fishing industry producing at the maximum sustainable capacity not at some arbitrarily determined reduced capacity because it suits those who may lobby the government.

Right throughout this process many concerns have been expressed by industry. They occur right around Australia but, especially with regard to the south-west proposal in Australia, they occur in my home state of South Australia. I look at evidence given to the Senate inquiry that occurred a couple of years ago into this matter from the Abalone Industry Association of South Australia. They said with regard to the process being undertaken to date that:

It is a real slap in the face to the good work done by our Government Fisheries Managers and Industry. We are very uncomfortable with the fact that the final decision of adopting the bioregional plans rests with the Minister for Environment only. We would prefer to have a far more rigorous and robust process through the parliament that doesn't have the potential to be clouded by extreme green views.

The Australian Fishing Trade Association, you would think a key stakeholder genuinely engaged by the government in this debate, tendered evidence in which was said:

To date no briefing regarding the science being used with Bio Regional Planning has been transparently tabled to stake holders. Thus no comment from stake holders has been achieved. This vacuum of information has not been helpful in any understanding of current process, future process or past process. However we are aware a draft map has been produced. Why in the name of transparency during a planning process that a scientific briefing not be available to Stakeholders, Government? Would it not encourage informed debate?

Much has transpired since that time. Some information has been released, and yet it seems that the government has learned nothing from the early criticisms that occurred surrounding the management processes, the engagement and the consultation around these marine parks.

What we see now is a farcical consultation process as to how the management plans for these marine parks will be finalised. We see that only a 30-day consultation period on these management plans was allowed. On 16 December 2012, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities declared 2.3 million square kilometres of marine reserves. There was a brief initial consultation period, but only a brief one, which occurred until 18 December 2012. During this time public comment was sought on the proposal to prepare a draft management plan for each of those regional marine networks and the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve. So, there was a one-month period at the end of last year to comment on the proposal to prepare a draft management plan. Then at the start of this year those draft management plans were released and we had from 14 January to 14 February for stakeholders to comment on these draft management plans After all the years of this process, its long and drawn-out episodes, all the criticisms of the failure of government to effectively consult and engage industry at the outset, we now find ourselves in a situation where it seems to be being unduly and unreasonably rushed. And this haste once again risks shutting out those who would be most impacted by these reforms from having an appropriate say about them.

The coalition is by no means against having appropriate marine bioregional plans. We guided the development of the South-east Regional Marine Plan, which was formalised in 2006. This plan included a network of 14 marine reserves but, importantly, when we undertook that process we ensured that all of the stakeholders—recreational and commercial fishing sectors—were appropriately engaged and consulted. They were taken on a journey to ensure that they supported what was being proposed, and we did not come up with the type of criticism and concern that this government's approach has managed to generate.

If the government is to get this back on track then it should support the bill of Senator Colbeck. That bill will ensure that it does have community support, because it will ensure that the process undertaken is genuinely evidence-based. By having independent social and economic impact assessments before any proclamations are made, you can demonstrate to communities the impact on their local economy. I reflect that this is a very similar debate in that sense to the one that I was so integrally involved in relating to the Murray-Darling Basin. If you are going to undertake activities that have the potential to reduce the productive capacity of certain communities then you should make sure that you have full awareness of the social and economic assessment of reducing that productive capacity before you make the final decision.

Of course there should be an evidence basis of the social and economic impacts, but there should also be an evidence basis of scientific peer-reviewed advice about the actual proclamations so there is confidence that any proclamations of marine reserves will provide for a necessary enhancement of the sustainable management of Australia's fisheries. There should be evidence that it is a justified step. This is not only to enhance their sustainability but it is also needed to ensure that the sustainability of those fisheries is not endangered were it is applied. We should have peer-reviewed evidence which should be publicly released. It should be guided by independent reference panels and stakeholder groups, and it should ultimately be that these plans are potentially disallowable by this parliament. As Senator Colbeck's original bill tried to do and as this bill tries to do, we should uphold the primacy of this place. There is no reason that those around the chamber should not support the potential for these to be disallowable instruments. I urge all senators to reflect on their position on this legislation and give it their support.

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

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired.