Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor stands for the protection of our oceans, we stand for the rights of recreational fishers and we stand for business certainty. Labor has a strong track record of respecting our oceans and all its users and we have a strong track record of basing our decisions on the science. In 2012, a private company sought to introduce a massive supertrawler vessel to Australian waters. The Labor government acted to provide certainty and to ensure the science was in place to support decisions on ocean use. We introduced tough new measures that required proper scientific assessments to be made by an expert panel. That was the responsible thing to do.

Almost two years later, however, our oceans are vulnerable again. The tough powers that Labor introduced have now lapsed. The Abbott government has had almost 12 months in office to do something to address this gap in our laws. They have had time to boost our ocean defences against the threat of new supertrawler vessels. Instead they have done nothing. This private senator's bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2014, has been in the Senate for months and they have not even taken the hint to get on with protecting our oceans. This legislation today does that work for them.

We all remember that, when Labor introduced the tough sanctions against the supertrawler in 2012, the Liberals and Nationals voted against the then government's measures. Thirty-three members of the House of Representatives and the Senate spoke against Labor's measures to stop the supertrawler—all of them Liberals or National Party members. Deep down the Liberals and the Nationals have always supported removing the vital protections of our oceans—that it is in their DNA is unquestionable. As Hobart's Mercury reported on 9 September 2012:

Tasmanian Liberal senator Richard Colbeck told the crowd he supported the super trawler.

That is why this government has not acted to bring back strict protections against supertrawlers. They have been hoping that any new vessel would appear unobtrusively from over the horizon and quietly start fishing in Australian waters without any scientific checks or balances.

Over the last 12 months, the Abbott government has been breaking promises, hurting low- and middle-income earners and being incompetent to boot. The Australian people got their first whiff of the twisted priorities of this government with the announcement of the reintroduction of—would you believe it—knights and dames. That pure farce has now turned into budget pain. All the while, the Labor Party has been working in the national interest. We have been standing up for jobs, we have been supporting a plan for Australia's future and we are standing up for the environment and our oceans.

The Prime Minister is now desperately trying to rewrite history. Despite 33 members of the coalition speaking against Labor's plan to stop the supertrawler, the Prime Minister has tried to spin it—saying that he supported the ban all along. He is the weathervane of Australian politics. Before the election, he voted to let the supertrawler enter Australian waters unchecked. After the election, he has changed his position, just as before the election he hid the worst of his budget cuts and his plans to destroy Australian jobs. Before the election, the Prime Minister voted to keep the supertrawler here. After the election he said:

It was banned with the support of members on this side of the House. It was banned; it will stay banned.

It is worth saying that again. The Prime Minister said:

It was banned with the support of members on this side of the House.

That is what the Prime Minister said—categorically. It is in Hansard: a blatant mistruth, a clearly incorrect statement to the House from the Prime Minister.

The government has had months to act and they have done nothing. Only Labor is concerned with our oceans and the users of our oceans. This bill addresses serious concerns about the science and it addresses serious community concerns. If the Prime Minister, the agriculture minister or the parliamentary secretary were serious about protecting our oceans, they would have acted already. I am not precious; they could have picked up my bill and claimed it as their own and got a real win for Australia's oceans. Instead they have done nothing. If you reflect on that, it really makes you wonder whether or not they just like to sit on their hands and do nothing.

The bill I have introduced will restore the tough powers to the Minister for the Environment to act where new types of fishing operations seek to work in Australian waters and where uncertainty exists about their conduct. The environment minister, in consultation with the fisheries minister, will again be able to declare particular methods of fishing and require a scientific assessment to be undertaken for up to two years. That is the sensible way to progress when new fishing methods are proposed. An expert panel will be constituted and will be able to consider the impacts of any new venture that is declared. This will provide the community, recreational fishers and businesses alike with certainty before these declared ventures operate in Australian waters. There will be a proper process whereby the expert panel can call for submissions, look at the scientific evidence and ensure there is proper consultation with all parties and stakeholders in the debate.

It is very important to ensure certainty for all stakeholders, even those who want to introduce the supertrawler. This legislation will establish certainty of process, certainty of consultation, certainty about the expert panel's findings and certainty about the science. This legislation will enable the community to feel assured that they have a clear understanding of what is occurring—because it is surprises that hurt people. Mind you, this government is an expert at surprises that hurt people. So it is not unsurprising to me to find that a government such as this has ignored the science. It has ignored the opportunity to look at how it can fix this issue and, instead, has sat on its hands and let it lapse. But, ultimately, what I think is more galling about all of this is that the Prime Minister stands up and says, 'It has always been banned; it will continue to be banned', yet that was not what he did when he was called to account. When the vote was had in this place, those opposite supported the supertrawler. They opposed our legislation back then and they continue to fudge where their position is.

This bill will give the coalition a clear opportunity to put their position and explain to the parliament where they sit on this matter. It is very important that the people in Tasmania, the people on the east coast of Australia and those along the South Australian bight understand what the process is for a supertrawler should it come over the horizon again. I think this government breeds uncertainty, because it wants to be able to deal with such a situation when it occurs rather than have a clear process in place. This legislation focuses on addressing uncertainty related to so-called `supertrawler' fishing vessels. Why? Because business requires certainty, the community requires certainty and stakeholders and third parties also require certainty in this debate. People should have the ability to have a say.

In short, this legislation will allow the government of the day to stop new supertrawlers before they come to Australia, just as Labor did when in office. The amendments give the government of the day the power to declare a particular type of fishing activity which has not been used in Australia previously and where some uncertainty exists around it to ensure proper and thorough expert scientific work is conducted. This has been the case in the past when the government moved to declare the activities that were proposed for the supertrawler known as the FV Margiris or, oddly, temporarily, the FV Abel Tasman.

This bill will remove a 12-month sunset provision, bringing the new chapter 5B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act back into effect. By removing division 4 of part 15B, the environment minister's powers to respond to new commercial fishing operations will be restored, as it currently is subject to the sunset clause that is in effect at present. It is sunsetted now. The bill will bring that provision back. This means that there is currently no power under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act for the government to act to declare fishing activities, including supertrawlers. The bill restores the powers still on the statue books—namely the powers to enable the minister for environment (with the agreement of the Commonwealth fisheries minister) to make an interim declaration that a fishing activity is a prohibited 'declared commercial fishing activity' while an expert panel assesses the potential environmental impacts of the activity; to enable the minister for environment (with the agreement of the Commonwealth fisheries minister) to make a final declaration for a period no longer than 24 months, that a fishing activity is a prohibited 'declared commercial fishing activity'; to provide for the establishment of an expert panel in the case of the making of a final declaration and specify the terms of reference of the panel and its reporting date, with a requirement that a copy of the panel report be made publicly available—because on this side of the chamber we support transparency, openness and accountability; to provide for appropriate procedural fairness protections for 'declaration affected persons'; and to create civil penalty and offence provisions for engaging in a declared commercial fishing activity.

These measures are required to address the risk of new and future supertrawlers or other new methods of commercial activity that have not previously been used in Australia. It is a precautionary approach. It will better allow community and environmental groups, together with business, to work with a scientific expert panel to assess the true impacts of new and large-scale fishing operations.

I would add as a note to these amendments that, if passed, it would be prudent for the government to take other actions to improve the management of new and proposed fishing activities. The Department of the Environment and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority should establish protocols to better communicate between these two agencies in the operation of the act. It would be a sensible reform and would be able to be done at the agency level. I am surprised that they have not already undertaken that work. Perhaps we will hear from the coalition that they have already started to do that work—but I would be surprised if they had. This is a coalition that does not act easily or seek easy solutions.

I understand, of course, there is a view that it would be preferable to just ban supertrawlers outright based on their class of vessel. I do not hold this view. The approach I have proposed is a logical, sensible, science based approach that treats each applicant on its merits and on the science. To do otherwise would be anti business and anti science. For that reason, I suspect the Greens party may take a stricter view than I have taken, but I will wait to hear their view on this. Under this bill, where the science goes so too do the decisions of the agencies.

Australia has some of the best managed fisheries in the world. There is, however, a gap in the system in considering the powers of the environment and fisheries ministers to consider new commercial fishing vessels before they arrive and begin to fish. Given the government has failed to act, it is sensible for these powers to be restored. Labor is standing up for the oceans, recreational fishers and local businesses. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to put on the record the government's opposition to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill, proposed by Labor, and the Greens amendments to the bill. Australia boasts a globally benchmarked and recognised fishing industry where policies have been based on scientific research and not the whims of political interest groups. The bill before us does little to stop or ban supertrawlers from applying to operate in Australian fisheries. We believe we need a long-term, more permanent solution to ensure that our fishing industry is sustainable for years to come and that we do not follow the path taken by other nations which has led to unviable, unsustainable fishing industries. The legislation covers only two years, and we want a long-term solution.

What we are seeing from the Labor Party and the Greens is proof of yet another dysfunctional Labor policy that undermines the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. Australia's fishing industry is not to be laughed at—it is a significant contributor to communities and to economic growth, and it is an industry we perform very well in. It extends up to 200 nautical miles out to sea, and Australia's commercial fishing and aquaculture industry is worth over $2 billion annually and employs around 11,600 people—7,300 through direct employment and 4,300 through indirect employment. It is a vital natural resource and one we are committed to maintaining. It is a natural resource that needs to be managed appropriately so it can be enjoyed and used in a sustainable manner. That is what this government is committed to doing.

As Simone Weil said, 'attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be attained only by someone who is detached.' It is this detachment that we believe ensures AFMA is the best body to help us come to terms with the reality of our fishing industry. Consulting with detached independent experts provides us with this sense of reality. We are waiting to consult the expert panel appointed to assess the impacts of the activities covered by the first declaration, and it is due to finalise its report by 22 October 2014. Rather than waiting for that report to come before us to inform further action, if it is required, we are once again hurtling towards ill-informed legislation seeking to fix a problem that does not exist. To inform its assessment the expert panel met with stakeholders in Hobart on 2 May 2014. A panel for the second declaration is yet to be appointed.

We are not being pressured by interest groups like GetUp! to stop supertrawlers—we are looking to a viable and long-term option that has been scientifically proven and assessed. Unlike those opposite, who seek to use scientists for their political gain, we are committed to applying true scientific principles to our decision making in this area, as indeed we do in all areas of environmental interest, so we can keep our fisheries management systems world-class and ensure that fishing can be sustained. Let us face it, most of us are not vegans; most of us are not vegetarians. I would much prefer to go into Coles and Woolworths and IGA, and indeed ALDI on occasion, and purchase seafood which is the product of Australia. When I see 'Product of Australia', I know that seafood is harvested from our oceans in a sustainable manner. When I see 'Product of Vietnam' or 'Product of Thailand' or 'Product of Indonesia' on the seafood that I might be choosing to feed my family and friends, I cannot be confident that that product is being harvested in a sustainable manner that will ensure that generations to come can eat this very healthy food source. So we are not being pressured by interest groups like GetUp!.

The government works closely with AFMA to monitor how fisheries are managed. It is because we have confidence in AFMA that our fishing industry ranks as one of the best in the world—we are committed to getting it right and we are committed to using science to inform our policy decisions. These are the expert scientists, with extensive experience and PhDs in environmental science and management. It is an authority that has developed fishery management arrangements to meet government policies and to ensure fisheries are sustainable—not like in other nations, where the regulators just go and do what they are told to do by the government, this is a live dialogue between government and AFMA about what is the best way to proceed in order to meet government policy objectives for fisheries. AFMA is charged with implementing fisheries management arrangements, monitoring the compliance of commercial fishing, setting research priorities and arranging research related to AFMA managed fisheries. It deters noncompliance in domestic fisheries and deters illegal foreign fishing. It registers commercial fishing entitlements and licenses fishers, develops management policies and regulations and provides technical input to government policies. Aside from Senator Scullion, now that Senator Boswell is no longer with us there is very little fishing expertise in either this chamber or the other chamber. That is why we need to take the advice of bodies like AFMA.

All these points are highlighted in AFMA's extensive and efficient management policies. The management plans that are in place in almost all of our Commonwealth managed fisheries go through a lengthy process of approval. There is a public consultation process in place, a determination by the AFMA commission and, finally, an approval by the fisheries minister. This management plan directly outlines the borders and location of a fishery, what season it can be used, the method of fishing, the level of extraction, bycatch mitigation methods and even the gear that can be used on boats. The process of managing a fishery is extensive, very detailed and often costly. However, we do not doubt its worth, as it is based on sound scientific reasoning and all costs are recovered because of our productive fishing industry.

We are aware of the concern amongst a range of groups, including the rec fishers, about the potential impact of supertrawlers on Australia's marine environment, protected species and local fish stocks, but we are confident that the regulatory framework we have in place—and indeed our commitment to getting it right as a result of looking further into this issue—will result in a policy outcome that gets the balance right. It is possible to examine the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, where operators are only allowed a limited amount of trips and must hold a relevant fishing concession which provides them access to an area in which to fish, a method by which they are allowed to fish, a boat permit and a relevant quota holding for that species. These processes are essential, because the SESSF has an estimated value of production of over $62 million, and we do not want see those viable operators being unable to do what they do well—which is to catch good fish in a way that ensures ongoing sustainability so that we can put it on the table.

The coalition is dedicated to listening to the expert in the AFMA about the best ways to protect our valuable natural resources. In 2007 Minister Abetz, as Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, enacted the Commonwealth harvest strategy, which fisheries like the SESSF must adhere to. The coalition government provided the AFMA with the independence to specify control rules for fishing activity and to monitor and assess the processes involved. The harvest strategy that each fishery must use is based on output controls. This means that we rely on how many fish can be caught sustainably in the area. We rely on the scientific evidence, like the extensive harvest strategies put before us by the fishing industry and the expert scientists, which ensure the best management approach and continued sustainability of Australia's great natural resources.

Despite what the ALP and Greens may say, we want to ensure the sustainability of this industry. We want particular species to be protected and there to be limits on the amount of fish that can be caught. I look to the bycatch reduction policies that are already in place. It is thanks to the coalition that in 2005 the AFMA were put in charge of managing the environmental impacts of fishing, including protected species, and minimising the incentives for discarding certain fish by ensuring that it is factored into the setting of total allowable catch levels. That is something that we did. If you listened to the ALP and Greens, you would think that we wanted a Newfoundlandesque approach to fishing in this nation so that there would be no more cod and Hobart would suddenly be singing the songs that St John's were singing during the 1950s and 1960s as that particular fishing resource was decimated by unsustainable practice. That is not what we want, and that is why for a long period of time various coalition governments have been committed to enacting policies for sustainable fishing practice.

Similarly, we also ensured the AFMA were put in charge of enhancing the monitoring of fishing activity through increased use of vessel monitoring systems, daily reporting, onboard cameras and improved observer coverage. This policy covers fisheries managed by the Commonwealth and represents a significant commitment by the then government and industry to ensure fisheries were managed on an ecologically sustainable basis. We want to ensure that high-risk fish are managed and able to be protected. Abycatch and discard program that the AFMA oversees ensures that all threatened, endangered and protected species are part of an ecological risk assessment which involves heavy consultation with the industry and experts. Even the use of bycatch reduction devices provides high-risk fish with the opportunity to escape in high trawling waters—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Really! The coalition and AFMA are determined to protect this industry. It was a complete lack of strong policies such as these that led to the overfishing in Newfoundland, where 40,000 people lost their jobs. That province in Canada has struggled to find an economic basis for their people. So if you think that you have a drain going on in Tasmania, Senator, have a look at Newfoundland and see the migration that occurred once that once-proud industry fished itself out.

We are committed to ensuring that we get the balance right. I believe we have done that. We are looking after the long term of our fishing industry, and protecting high-risk fish is a major priority. AFMA provides us with long-term strategies for effective fishing. The total allowable catch is determined by a commission established by AFMA. The commission consults those with commercial and recreational fishing knowledge, relevant states and bodies, representatives from the environmental and recreational sector and, most importantly, scientists. Every minute detail of our fishing industry is considered with wide consultation to make the best and most informed decisions possible for the betterment of our fishing industry. The AFMA is an independent body that we as the Commonwealth have confidence in. We allow the employees, who all have lengthy industry experience or environmental science qualifications, to monitor how fishing zones are operating. This ensures that fish are protected and we are provided with a transparent and independent system that has been left to the experts.

What the Labor Party is proposing undermines our fishing system, which is the envy of the world. The sunset clause that Senator Ludwig is presenting detracts all ability from the environment minister to declare any further fishing activities and ensures that he or she must listen to an expert panel. What they fail to recognise is that we already listen to an expert panel of scientists with the best experience to implement these policies. They are proposing to undermine the AFMA and listen to interest groups which have no fishing experience, which do not understand the interplay between industry and the ocean and who are not interested in a sustainable fishing industry. They do not care, and they do not want it to happen.

What they are actually interested in—a little like other groups that the Greens and some in the Labor Party choose to support—are things like the Aussie Farms website. The founder of that particular website has made public his desire to shut down industries that employ hundreds of thousands of Australians who contribute an incredible amount—over 12 per cent—to our GDP. They want those industries closed down. So, we can hide behind this veneer of seeking expert advice and carry on, but the actual intent is to shut industries down that employ Tasmanians, that are actually based on scientific principles and sustainable management practices, that actually provide one of the best food sources to Australians and indeed the world—high in all the good things, low in all the bad things: our fish.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

But no: Senator Whish-Wilson would prefer that we have fish available locally that is sourced from Thailand, that is sourced from Vietnam, that is sourced from Indonesia, that is sourced from an array of fishing practices around the world, that is unsustainable.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Guess what, Senator Whish-Wilson? Fish do not understand the boundaries.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Whish-Wilson, please.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your protection, Chair. So, what we on this side actually want to see is Tasmanians—and indeed fishing families and the industry right around Australia—having a sustainable future and on the mainland, in our supermarkets, access to a sustainable, ecologically sound food source, as opposed to getting it from somewhere else, because, guess what? We are not giving up eating fish.

But I have completely digressed from my contribution. I shall now return. This sunset clause that Senator Ludwig is presenting removes all ability from the environment minister to declare any further fishing activities and ensures that he or she must listen to the expert panel, which we already have—through the AFMA, through the extensive consultation that has been the hallmark of this government in its policy development process and that I am confident continues through our action of government.

The dysfunctional mess that the coalition is trying to clean up can be demonstrated by a colleague of Senator Nash and mine who has since left this place and gone on to what we would call other things in the other place—Barnaby Joyce. He talks about particularly the Greens but also some in the Labor Party being seduced by these activist groups—that it was like the 'X Factor of politics', that it was like 'dial-a-decision', when he talked about another time that the Greens and the ALP were captured by activist groups, and that was the live cattle decision:

It was like the X Factor of politics. It was like Dial-a-Decision and what we have there has been completely and utterly replicated in what we have here. It is Dial-a-Decision, Twitter politics, Facebook friend politics. But it is also a total and utter insanity.

We had been promised, just a month earlier, by Senator Ludwig that such a brand of politics would not affect him:

As Minister for Fisheries, I will not allow the emotive politics of the Greens political party to run fisheries management policy in this country. We will ensure that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority is independent, that it makes independent decisions based on the science through its expert commissioners and on the facts that are presented to them. They will continue to make decisions based on sound judgement to ensure that fisheries are sustainable and meet all the ecological requirements.

What we have before us today is proof of yet another Labor Party dysfunction. I do not understand why we cannot leave this to the experts, to the minister who relies on that advice. Let's end the dysfunctional politics of the Labor-Greens alliance, ensure that knee-jerk reactions are ignored and that interest groups do not have a greater influence than experts. What we are proposing is sound reasoning, detached from emotion.

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

What has become very clear here today and for those millions of rec fishermen across this country and people who care about the ocean is that we are back at zero on supertrawlers. Absolutely nothing has changed. The coalition is happy for supertrawlers to come back to Australian waters. The Labor Party have introduced this bill—a bill that does not stop supertrawlers, does not ban supertrawlers. The bill was introduced by the previous minister, who presided over the arrival of the supertrawler and all the fuss that led to the moratorium. And by the way, Senator McKenzie, all the research work you quoted that has been done came about only because of the Greens and the conservation and rec fishing 'special interests', as you call them, in this country.

We have a long way to go. The Borthwick review came about because of this farce around the supertrawler, and it has not proceeded. This sunset clause was supposed to be in place until the work could be done. You have the hypocrisy, Senator McKenzie, to stand here and lecture me and the Greens about science. You have the hypocrisy to lecture us about not listening to the science.

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

Well, let's talk about the dredging in the Great Barrier Reef. Let's talk about your party full of climate change deniers. Ninety-nine per cent of scientists around the world—

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

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

tell us that we need to take action on global warming. Yet Senator McKenzie's party full of climate change deniers has the audacity, the nerve to lecture the Greens about not listening to scientists. We are the only party that wants to protect the environment in this country. We are the only party that wants to protect the environment.

This bill, if it is passed, will give the environment minister discretion as to whether they will allow supertrawlers to come into this country. This is an environment minister who has allowed dredging in the Great Barrier Reef, who has backflipped and broken promises on the Renewable Energy Target, on a price on carbon, and on his No. 1 darling issue: whaling in the Southern Ocean. Every year Minister Hunt—the same person who will have discretion if this bill gets up—berated and grandstanded against Peter Garrett, around his lack of action on whaling. But what happened when he became the environment minister? He rolled over and had his tummy tickled by the rest of his party room. He did nothing to prevent whaling in the Southern Ocean this summer. So, what is to say that he is going to prevent the arrival of a supertrawler and take action? And, by the way, if he does not, that would be just one of many broken promises from the coalition. I have the quote here from the Prime Minister saying that supertrawlers would be banned, but what Senator McKenzie outlined here today sounded nothing like the coalition were prepared to ban supertrawlers in these waters.

Let us get back to the Labor Party. I sat in this chamber and I debated that more work needed to be done on the science around the Small Pelagic Fishery and the very fishy business of the arrival of this boat, the Margiris, whose name was later changed to Abel Tasmana very fishy business. It was done through campaigning in Tasmania and around the country—and there is absolutely no doubt that the recreational fishing community in this country and the Greens are not common bedfellows, but we were on this campaign, because the number one issue we both felt needed to be addressed was the issue of local depletion. It was the fact that a supertrawler can sit out to sea for long periods of time, follow large schools of small pelagic fish and deplete areas of fish. As far as I know from asking questions at recent estimates, there still has not been a definition of what constitutes local depletion. The Greens have been very clear in our policy on supertrawlers. We do want to see them banned. Two years ago we proposed an amendment that would have banned supertrawlers, with the onus of proof being on the proponents of new supertrawlers to prove that they would not damage the ocean. We want to see a ban on these boats put in place—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Reverse onus of proof!

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

as do millions of Australians, Senator Brandis, through you, Chair. This issue has touched a never like no other environmental issue in recent history in this country. Today it has become very clear, through Senator McKenzie, that the coalition are prepared to let supertrawlers come back into Australian waters.

This bill, if it is passed, gives discretion back to the environment minister. It does not ban supertrawlers, and nor does it stop them. We need to be very clear about that. The reason I raise this issue is that I have seen a number of emails, media releases and even pamphlets mailed in my home state of Tasmania, saying that Labor is banning supertrawlers. Let us be very clear about that—it is not. In fact, based on what Senator Ludwig said earlier, it is doing almost exactly what it did two years ago, when the supertrawler arrived—it is saying, 'We will leave it to the experts. We will leave it to AFMA. We will leave it to the science.' The problem was that scientific work was not done. Even the resource assessment group, the RAG, at AFMA agreed that not enough scientific work had been done. It was not about the quality of the science that had been done. It was the fact that this fishery, which is highly sensitive to ecosystems, had not been studied for 12 years. That work is being done now, thanks to the Greens, thanks to recreational fishers and thanks to the conservation movement. We pushed and pushed to get that work done. Now, we have the two old parties in this chamber claiming that they have got this work done, and that somehow this is a victory. It is not. The work has not been finished, there is still considerable uncertainty in the science to this point. There is still a very real chance that these large fishing vessels, which have depleted oceans all around the world—no-one disputes that—are going to come back to Australian waters, because we will have an environment minister and a government in charge of policy who brought the supertrawler here in the first place and are very happy to look after their mates by bringing new trawlers to Australian waters, boats that Australians do not want. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.