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

I read a very disturbing set of newspaper articles in the Australian press several months ago under the title 'The ocean is broken'. It was an account by a very experienced Australian sailor, Ivan Mcfadyen from Newcastle, who had done a number of sailing trips across the ocean. He retraced his journey from Melbourne to Osaka in Japan—a journey that he had done 28 years before. When he spoke to the Australian media he said that 'the ocean is broken'. He talked about his journey and said

IT was the silence that made this voyage different from all of those before it.

Not the absence of sound, exactly.

The wind still whipped the sails and whistled in the rigging. The waves still sloshed against the fibreglass hull.

…   …   …

What was missing was the cries of the seabirds which, on all previous similar voyages, had surrounded the boat.

He said that over 28 days they had been fishing, as they always did catch the daily food and they caught two fish for the entire trip.

This got me thinking about how bad the state of our oceans is. Then I saw another evocative title only recently and that was a report called, 'The world's oceans are dying'. That is actually something that Paul Watson had said in a letter, which I passed onto the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Paul Watson's appeal to the Japanese Prime Minister not to kill whales in the Southern Ocean. But this is the exact title of a report from the Global Ocean Commission, which is chaired by David Miliband, the leader of the opposition in the UK. It is also championed by John Kerry, who of course we are all very familiar with in US politics.

But the Global Ocean Commission reports on the state of the world's oceans. Sadly, the report was very depressing. They actually said in the report that the ocean is dying. It is dying because of overfishing, it is dying because of marine pollution and it is dying because of the effects of climate change—ocean acidification, changes to winds and changes to currents.

In the context of what is going on around the oceans, which has been recognised internationally—this is a side point but I think it is an important one to make—it seems as though other countries have very high profile ocean champions in their political spheres. I am not sure who fills that gap in Australia. Of course, it should be Greg Hunt given that he is the environment minister. It seems that politicians have taken this very seriously in other countries—as have celebrities. They have stood up in the limelight and said, 'I'm going to champion the cause of protecting the world's oceans.'

I do not think anyone in this country who knows anything about fishing would disagree that we have seen significant problems with the overfishing of our global oceans. One very obvious point is that supertrawlers, huge industrial factory fishing vessels, have been fingered by the same experts—and this is well accepted—for a lot of the destruction and overfishing in the world's oceans. This occurs in not only the territorial zones of different countries but also on the high seas, which are very hard to police. When the world's largest supertrawler, the Margiris, arrived in Australian waters it was no surprise to me and others that it caused significant controversy in this country. When the Veronica, an Irish based supertrawler, came to Australia in 2008 there was a massive campaign right around the country. That supertrawler was banned by individual state parliaments from entering their waters. So when the Margiris arrived here—it was brought here by Tasmanian company Seafish—it was no surprise that it caused similar controversy.

The issues around supertrawlers are well understood. They are able to stay out at sea for potentially months and catch fish and put them in their freezers. Freezing capacity is everything to these industrial scale vessels. That is the reason they can catch so many fish and that is the sole reason recreational fishers in this country have a significant issue with supertrawlers. Environment groups, who worked hand-in-hand with rec fishing groups to stop the supertrawler, had other issues around local depletion and the impacts on ecosystems in areas around the supertrawler and of course issues related to bycatch. The nets these trawlers use are enormous and bycatch is an issue that has been identified by the Australian government as a problem that needs to be fixed in our fisheries—and I will get onto that in a second with one of the recommendations of the Borthwick review.

Local depletion was the key reason that this supertrawler was stopped—nobody could even define what it meant. And there was no science around these vessels going to an area whose ecosystem and ocean life is rich—for example, off Pedra Blanca in Tasmania—and spending months there catching small pelagic fish. And that is what this vessel had come over to do—catch low value small pelagic fish. And when I say 'low value' I mean low economic value. But the environmental and ecosystem value of these fish is enormous. Small pelagic fish like jack mackerel are what larger fish and seals eat. Any impact on these iconic species would be really obvious if their food source disappeared. This was the problem that rec fishers had.

This same fishery in south-east Tasmania that the Abel Tasmanformerly the Margiriscame over to fish went into significant decline 12 years ago where the small pelagic fishery was fished by a number of boats out of Triabunna. There is still debate as to what caused that collapse in the fishery. Some scientists say it was the changing ocean currents; others say it was overfishing. Either way, this fishery has not been fished for nearly a decade. Because of that, off the south-east trawl area or anywhere around this country, stock assessments of the targeted species of this supertrawler have not been done. So there was also no surprise that there was considerable uncertainty around the science. It was not about any lack of quality in the science. One report was done in 2012. From listening to Professor Meeuwig, a very good marine biologist at the University of Western Australia, we now know that fecundity and other parameters that were fed into this model in the study in 2012 were based on fish from the North Sea, not Australian jack mackerel. There was only one report. I do not think there is any disagreement now, in hindsight, that not enough science was done.

The Greens were the only party who stood up in this parliament to try to stop this supertrawler. There were some Labor senators—Senator Bilyk and Senator Singh, who are in the chamber today, and former Senator Thorp—who stood up for the Tasmanian community in relation to this boat. But there were very few voices. This boat was stopped because of an enormous campaign—a spontaneous campaign, a real campaign right around this country—to make sure it could not do any damage to a fishery that was very valuable to the marine ecosystems. This had potential implications right up the food chain—to the tuna that our rec fishermen catch and the salmon—and of course for divers and conservationists with issues around seals and the broader spectrum in the marine ecosystem.

The good thing that has come out of this is that we have now done more science and we have got the Borthwick review into how fisheries are managed in this country—and that is what I want to focus on. From my recent questions at estimates I know that, nearly two years after its report was handed down, none of the recommendations of the Borthwick review has been implemented yet.

I will go through those recommendations very quickly: giving clearer ministerial direction to AFMA by setting out an overarching fisheries management policy framework; changing the objectives in the fisheries acts to reflect more equally the range of commercial and environmental issues to be addressed; reaffirming the primacy of revamped fisheries management plans, with greater analysis of options and consequences; and leveraging off the above measures to accredit a new framework to develop fisheries management plans. One of the key things that review went into, in terms of recasting AFMA's objectives, was to give more equal weighting to ecosystem science rather than fisheries science. The review, in its redrafted objectives, proposed that AFMA be required to have regard to the interests of recreational and Indigenous fishers.

In a nutshell, the Borthwick review said: 'We do fisheries science. We do that well. We are one of the best in the world at our fisheries science. But that is commercial fisheries science. We look at sustainability issues in fisheries—of course, that has environmental implications—but we need a lot more science doneon the impacts on ecosystems of our fisheries plans and fisheries management plans.' That was looking at things like bycatch and local depletion.

What worries me is that this government has said that there will be no more supertrawlers. Apart from the fact that we have seen so many broken promises from this government that I would not hold them to account on the fact that we will not see another supertrawler in this country, what worries me is that this root and branch review, the Borthwick review, has not been implemented yet. In that environment, if we have not changed our approach to fisheries and learnt from the supertrawler campaign that other interests are critical in fisheries management, apart from just the fishing industry itself, then what certainty do we have that we will be able to stop these boats and potentially destructive fisheries' behaviour into the future?

Currently the government has no powers to declare a prohibited fishing vessel and implement a review. The aim of the legislation that is being debated is to remove the sunset clause, which means that the powers of the Minister for Environment to respond to new fishing operations do remain in place. But what this critically means is it gives the current environment minister discretion to declare a prohibited fishing activity and declare another sunset clause. So let us be very clear about this. This does not stop supertrawlers—it may temporarily put them up for review—and it certainly does not ban supertrawlers. It maintains the status quo and means that these boats can still come here and be assessed. But we need to be very clear about that.

The Greens have put up an amendment to ban supertrawlers and vessels with freezing capacity over 2,000 tonnes. That is a globally recognised tonnage of fish that is being looked at by groups right around the world. We consider that we need separate legislation for any size over that. This is a very serious issue and it has not been flushed out in this bill. We would ask that Labor, through Senator Ludwig, who brought this forward, consider a proper amendment that will ban this type of fishing activity in this country once and for all. This is what millions of rec fishermen across this country want. This is what people who are worried that the ocean is broken and is dying want. We want to see this type of destructive fishing activity stopped. We do not need it. We have not had supertrawlers in this country before. We are doing very well, thank you very much. We do not need to see them back. This government needs to hold to its promise that it will not allow supertrawlers back into Australian ports. (Time expired)

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank Senator Ludwig for introducing the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill to the Senate. It has been on the list for quite some time, so I am pleased to be able speak to it today.

In introducing this bill, Senator Ludwig is seeking the parliament's approval for measures to address a threat that faces Australia's oceans and the sustainability of our fisheries for future generations of commercial and recreational fishers. That is the threat of the large factory trawlers fishing in our oceans when little certainty exists about their impact on our marine environment. The Abbott government has done nothing to address this issue or to allay the fears of the thousands of recreational fishers in my home state of Tasmania or the fears of concerned Tasmanians who care about the future preservation of our marine life.

My Labor colleague in the other place the member for Franklin, Julie Collins, received more constituent correspondence on this issue in the lead-up to the last federal election than on any other issue. Literally thousands of voters in Ms Collins's electorate of Franklin in southern Tasmania contacted her to express their concerns about the future preservation of our fisheries for environmental and recreational purposes.

My Tasmanian Labor Senate colleagues and I also received representations from thousands of concerned constituents from across our state who want to see our fisheries sustainably managed for future generations. Without revealing any names, I will just read a few lines from some of the correspondents who have written to me about this issue. This one is from a recreational fisherman: 'As a recreational fisherman, ex-commercial fisherman and marine farm owner-operator, I have an above average awareness of the marine environment from which many seek recreational enjoyment and employment. I have lived, fished and farmed in Tasmania for over 40 years. I am supportive of a permanent ban on supertrawlers in Australian waters for many reasons.' From another constituent, I received this:

Despite its crucial importance for the survival of humanity, marine biodiversity is in ever-greater danger, with the depletion of fisheries among biggest concerns.

According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 70 percent of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted.

The dramatic increase of destructive fishing techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems.

FAO reports that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishermen seek to avoid stricter rules in many places in response to shrinking catches and declining fish stocks.

And I will read one more to you: 'I implore you all to put in a permanent ban on supertrawlers which take unsustainable fish quotas and bycatch which will inevitably lead to the decimation of fish species and harm, if not destroy, entire ecosystems in our oceans. Other countries have already done this—their fishing industries are ruined and may never recover. That is why they are now attempting to fish here. It is not just the fish that we lose—it will impact our corals, our reefs, birds and ultimately our climate when we destroy the links in the food chain. We need to protect our oceans and understand the way they work so we can sustain them into the future. We need to look beyond the short term gains sought by some.' The common themes in these letters and emails included concerns about employment in the fishing industry, concerns about the marine environment, and an observation of the impact that large factory trawlers have had on the fish stocks in other countries.

Many of the constituents who have written to me are recreational fishers who have spoken of the joy they have of fishing with their children or their grandchildren. Indeed, although I am not a fisher, I have a number of family members who love going out with their children or their grandchildren to go fishing. They all talk about how they want to ensure that that joy can continue to be preserved for generations to come, so that their children and grandchildren will also be able to enjoy fishing with their kids.

There are often issues where commercial and recreational fishers are at odds with marine conservationists, but what is unusual about this issue is that it has brought industry, environmentalists and the broader community together. Several of the community groups in these sectors who are opposed to supertrawlers came together to form the Stop the Trawler Alliance. They include Environment Tasmania; Greenpeace; the Tasmanian Conservation Trust; the Tuna Club of Tasmania; the Australian Marine Conservation Society; the Australian Conservation Foundation; Ocean Planet Tasmania; Game Fish Tasmania; the Wilderness Society; Humane Society International; the Surfrider Foundation Australia; the conservation councils of Western Australia, New South Wales and South Australia; the Victorian National Parks Association; and Fishers For Conservation. This alliance of environment and fishing organisations is calling for a permanent legislated ban on supertrawlers, backed in Tasmania by the state branches of the three major political parties—Liberals, Labor and the Greens.

So, in introducing this private senator's bill to this place, I believe that Senator Ludwig and the Labor caucus are on the right side of public sentiment and, hopefully, the right side of history. Senator Ludwig's bill would amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the EPBC Act, to repeal a sunset provision, and to enable the Minister for the Environment to establish an independent expert panel to conduct an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of a declared commercial fishing activity and prohibit the declared commercial fishing activity while the assessment is being undertaken. Basically, this means that any supertrawler that seeks to operate in Australia would be treated in the same manner as the first supertrawler.

The bill would enable the minister, with the agreement of the minister administering the Fisheries Management Act 1991, to declare a commercial fishing activity to be a 'declared commercial fishing activity' on an interim basis if both ministers agree that: there is uncertainty about the environmental impacts of the commercial fishing activity; it is appropriate to consult with fishing concession holders who consider themselves to be detrimentally affected by the making of a final declaration for the same fishing activity; and the declared commercial fishing activity should be prohibited while consultation occurs.

The ministers, by agreement, could also issue a final declaration, declaring the activity to be a 'declared commercial fishing activity' for a period no longer than 24 months if: there is uncertainty about the environmental impacts of the commercial fishing activity; it is appropriate to establish an expert panel to conduct an assessment of the commercial fishing activity; and the declared commercial fishing activity should be prohibited while the expert panel conducts its assessment of the commercial fishing activity. The minister must first make an interim declaration about a commercial fishing activity before issuing a final declaration. To ensure procedural fairness, the minister must consider written submissions from persons affected before making a final declaration.

The bill contains civil penalty and offence provisions to give force to the minister's declarations. The bill also provides for the publication of the expert panel's report and its tabling in parliament.

To understand why this bill is important, I think it helps to examine some of the history of the issues and how we got to the point we are at now. It started with a proposal by Tasmanian company Seafish Tasmania to bring a Dutch vessel named the FV Margirisa 9,500-tonne, 142-metre trawler—to Australia from overseas to fish in an area known as the Small Pelagic Fishery. Seafish Tasmania intended to use the Margiris to catch pelagic fish, such as redbait and jack mackerel, for sale to overseas markets, using her onboard freezing capability to extend the range of their fishing activities into waters that other fishing vessels could not practically reach.

The agency responsible for approving commercial fishing activities in Australia, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, approved Seafish Tasmania's proposal and its 18,000-tonne quota. In August 2012, the Stop the Trawler Alliance delivered a petition with 35,000 signatures—each one written on a paper fish, I might add—to Senator Ludwig in his then role as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

In September 2012, the then environment minister, the member for Watson, Mr Tony Burke, announced on ABC's Q&A that he had imposed tough conditions on the Margiris to deal with the taking of other marine species which should be preserved—a concept known as bycatch. He explained on Q&A that he was not empowered by current legislation to ban the supertrawler. By this time, the Margiris had been reflagged as an Australian vessel and renamed the FV Abel Tasman.

Later that month, Minister Burke introduced legislation to parliament to give him new powers to stop the supertrawler. The bill provided a power whereby the environment and fisheries ministers could declare that a fishing activity could not take place for up to two years while further scientific work was undertaken to assess the impact of that activity. The bill passed both houses of parliament and then Minister Burke issued the interim declaration on 20 September 2012, followed by a final declaration on 24 November.

Then, on 6 February, Minister Burke announced the appointment of a four-member expert panel to assess the environmental impacts of large midwater freezer vessels in the Small Pelagic Fishery under national law. The expert panel comprised people with strong experience and expertise across a range of fisheries management disciplines. The members of the panel are: the chair, Ms Mary Lack, director of fisheries management consulting company Shellack, with 25 years' experience in Australian and international fisheries management and governance; Professor Peter Harrison, who has more than 30 years' experience in marine science research; Associate Professor Simon Goldsworthy, who has been undertaking research in marine biology for more than 20 years; and Dr Cathy Bulman, a senior fisheries biologist with CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research.

The expert panel is due to report to the Minister for the Environment by 22 October 2014. Seafish Tasmania launched a Federal Court bid to have the Commonwealth ban on the supertrawler overturned and lost their appeal on 21 February this year. The FV Abel Tasman left Australian waters on 6 March 2013 and has now resumed her original name of Margiris. The two-year ban on the supertrawler is due to expire in November 2014.

There was good reason to subject Seafish Tasmania's proposal to further scrutiny, as Labor chose to do. There is significant uncertainty around fishing in the small pelagic fishery. We lack accurate and up-to-date estimates of the population or biomass of the species. The latest estimates for the biomass of small pelagic fish are about a decade old. The latest data for jack mackerel was taken as early as 2003. We are unsure about the potential for recovery of the species from localised depletion.

There is also some doubt as to the effectiveness of exclusion devices that are added to large trawler nets to minimise bycatch. It is worth noting that, even if bycatch was not a threat to marine mammals such as dolphins and seals, localised depletion would be. Small pelagic fish are a key species in the food chain and therefore depletion of their biomass could place pressure on species such as bottlenose dolphins, Australian fur seals, sea birds and other fish such as sharks and bluefin tuna. While there are some marine scientists who have defended the sustainability of the supertrawler, others have raised serious doubts.

Professor Jessica Meeuwig, Director of the Centre for Marine Futures at the University of Western Australia, said in an article for The Conversation in August 2012 that the scientific case for introducing a supertrawler into Australian waters was weak. She noted that while pelagic fish tend to be more resilient to exploitation because of high growth rates, short life span and high reproductive output, the species targeted by the supertrawler are typically twice as large, grow 30 per cent more slowly and have maximum life spans 60 per cent longer. She also pointed out that there is increasing evidence that many species are not as mobile as previously thought, which means there is a greater threat of localised depletion.

Dr Susan Lawler, head of the Department of Environment Management and Ecology at La Trobe University, noted that there was a lot of guesswork involved in trying to determine the yields of the fishery sought by the Margiris. Dr Lawler agreed that more research on the issue was a good idea, noting that similar activities had led to the collapse of pelagic fisheries in other countries. It is because of this scientific uncertainty that deep concern has arisen in the community about supertrawlers, concern that is shared by recreational fishers and marine conservation advocates, but extends beyond these communities to the broader Australian community to ordinary Australians who care about our future.

You see, Australia's marine environment is one of our nation's greatest economic, cultural and environmental assets. This is why Labor has worked so hard to defend our marine environment, by establishing the world's largest network of marine parks and taking action on climate change to preserve the Great Barrier Reef. It is also why the issue of supertrawlers has so much potency. That is why Australians, particularly Tasmanians—the residents of Australia's only island state—are so passionate, so vocal and so concerned about this issue.

For those in the community who have concerns, Labor has the runs on the board when it comes to protecting our marine environment from supertrawlers. Let us not forget that those opposite—the Liberal and National parties—opposed Mr Burke's bill in 2012. By contrast, it was Labor that put in place strong protections against supertrawlers in 2012. It was Labor that sought clarity over the very uncertain science before allowing this proposal to go ahead. And it is Labor today, through Senator Ludwig's bill, that is taking action to put protections in place against any other supertrawlers that would seek to operate in Australian waters.

By contrast, the coalition voted against the legislation which allowed the original supertrawler ban and it was the coalition who said, through Senator Colbeck, that they would not rule out allowing the Margiris to return to Australia to fish in Australian waters. It is interesting that Senator Colbeck has been described by recreational fisher and Stop the Trawler Alliance member, Todd Lambert, as being the 'last man standing' in supporting supertrawlers.

Senator Colbeck was even contradicted by the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, who said in the other place—those on the other side should listen very carefully—that the supertrawler was banned and would stay banned, although we know we cannot necessarily rely on the Prime Minister's words. On this side, we are curious as to what the true position of those opposite is on supertrawlers or whether it is yet another case of the coalition saying different things to different audiences.

Today the coalition are being presented with an opportunity, through this bill, to show where they stand on supertrawlers. Do they really stand for the protection of Australia's marine environment? If their record to date on other marine issues is anything to go by, the indication so far would be no. After all, this is the government which sneakily reversed the management plans for the world's largest marine park network. Twenty years of work through governments of both persuasions went into the creation of the Commonwealth Marine Reserve network—20 years of work, started by the Keating government, continuing through the Howard government and ending with the previous Labor government. This Abbott government has managed to unravel that in the blink of an eye and has failed to take serious action to address climate change, has failed to protect our world-class marine environment from the threat of climate change and has failed to protect the Great Barrier Reef, one of the seven natural wonders of the world, which has suffered from coral bleaching because of rising ocean temperatures.

This government pretends to care about business, to care about the economy, yet the Great Barrier Reef was estimated by a recent report to contribute over $5 billion annually to Australia's economy with the creation of 69,000 full-time equivalent jobs. If their record on the marine environment is not bad enough, marine research has taken a hit with 18 research jobs to go at Hobart's Marine and Atmospheric Research Division as a result of the Abbott government's savage cuts to the CSIRO. With their poor record so far on the marine environment, this is the chance for the Abbott government to redeem themselves. It is a chance for them to stand up for recreational fishers, for the sustainability of our fisheries and for the thousands of Australians who care very deeply about preserving our marine ecosystems. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For those listening, this debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2014 highlights Labor's absolute incompetence, hypocrisy and failure to make any decision on anything. It is typical of Labor. The previous speaker said that Mr Burke—on Q&A, mind you; not in the parliament by way of a formal announcement as the then minister—announced that there would be no more supertrawlers in Australia. Senator Bilyk, is that the same Mr Burke who actually encouraged the supertrawler to which you refer to come into Australia a couple years previously? This is what the same Hon. Mr Tony Burke MP, when he was agriculture minister, said in 2009. I quote his words:

There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large-scale factory-freezer vessels.

There we are, the former agriculture minister, Mr Burke, saying to these large-scale freezer vessels, 'Welcome to Australia.' This is the sort of vessel that Senator Bilyk and, I suggest, Senator Whish-Wilson have been talking about. Then the same Mr Tony Burke, not in any formal sense but on a media show—which, I might say, is watched by very few people—said he was going to actually ban the same vessel that he personally had encouraged into Australia. This debate is all about Labor's incompetence, their inability to make any decision but, when they do make decisions, they are completely contradictory.

Again, I wish to contradict Senator Bilyk and I have personal knowledge of this, because it involved me as former fisheries minister. Back in, I think, 2004—I do not have the details in front of me, but they are all available on the public record—there was a suggestion of the Veronica coming into Tasmania. At the time, we had not done the science.

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

Clearly, whenever the truth comes out and it hurts Senator Bilyk, she will do what she can to drown me out in this debate. But it will not stop the facts, Senator Bilyk. The MV Veronica supertrawler was reportedly coming into Australian waters. Back in those days, we had not done the research, we had not done the science. So I as fisheries minister at the time said—and I might add that this was before the vessel came anywhere near Australia—'We should delay this and get the experts, not Senator Bilyk or Senator Whish-Wilson, but scientists who understand fisheries management, fish stock and how fisheries work. We'll get them to have a look at it to see what should or should not happen.' So, prudently, the government of the day said, 'Hold on a sec—we're not saying no, we're not saying yes—but let's do the science. Let's not rely on the Greens political party and Senator Bilyk, who know nothing about fisheries.' They know a lot about political campaigns, most of them completely dishonest, but they know nothing about the science of fisheries—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I think it is—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is your point of order, Senator Bilyk? It is not a thought session.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Belittling another senator in this place.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, Senator Bilyk. Continue, Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. If I say the Greens and the Labor Party are very good at dishonest political campaigns, I will stand by that until the day I die.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Macdonald used my name. He did not say, 'The Labor Party'; he said, 'Senator Bilyk.' I would like him to retract that.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Names of senators have been mentioned around here for as long as the six years that I have been in this place.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk, I am speaking. Please resume your seat. There is no point of order. You have the call, Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Dishonest political campaigns are the hallmark of the Greens political party and, lately, regrettably, the Labor Party and all of those in it. They are good at that, but they are not much good at the science of fisheries. This debate today is about how the Greens and the Labor Party deal with environmental matters. They are incompetent in making decisions.

I want to come back to the point I have just been making. On the wider issue of the management of the environment by the Greens and the Labor Party, can I simply refer the Senate to one of the most disgraceful acts I have ever seen in relation to the environment in recent times. A couple of days ago a deal was struck between Labor and the Greens to block the job-destroying green tape initiative, the one-stop-shop initiative, which, it was indicated, would get the nod by this parliament. But the Greens and the Labor Party went to the Palmer United Party and said, 'If you roll over on this one-stop-shop proposal for sensible environmental management, we will support the Palmer United Party on its disgraceful, dishonest and unconstitutional inquiry into the Queensland government.' There are no high principles involved here, just a matter of bribery using the environmental legislation to give Mr Palmer his opportunity for a vindictive, irrelevant, untruthful and unnecessary inquiry into another government in our nation. This demonstrates the point I have been making. When you leave it to Labor and the Greens to deal with environmental matters, they are not so interested in environmental matters and will trade those sorts of things and, more importantly, jobs—and I will come back to that—just so they can get Mr Palmer's support to stop this one-stop shop inquiry.

The one-stop shop, which was proposed by the Commonwealth government, was initially, I understand, supported by the Palmer United Party. I can well understand why Mr Palmer might have supported it. His Queensland nickel refinery in my home base city of Townsville has been held up in many of its instances for years by duplication of state and federal environmental legislation and by approvals processes and inquiry processes—so it was to be a good idea to have this one-stop shop. But one of Mr Palmer's goals in life is to take whatever political action he can against a government which refuses him what he wants. He thought he could buy any government and get them to do whatever he wanted, but the Queensland government said, 'We are an honest government and we will do this by the rules and we'll do it on the basis of what is right.' Mr Palmer did not like that, and so, since that time, he has conducted this vicious personal, political, dishonest campaign against Campbell Newman. And who is supporting it? The Labor Party and the Greens.

We all know that when Senator Milne was not here, the Greens decided, quite properly, to have an inquiry into the previous Labor government—who, I might say, Senator Whish-Wilson, actually introduced the coal seam gas legislation in Queensland that you are so concerned about. But are we looking at the government that introduced the coal seam gas activities in Queensland? No, of course not, because it is a Labor government—it is a left wing government. It is the sort of thing Senator Whish-Wilson froths at the mouth about when he thinks about another Labor government.

Most people these days understand the absolute dishonesty of the Greens, but for once I thought the Greens had done the right thing. It happened to be a time when their leader, Senator Milne, was—regrettably for her from her personal point of view—not in the chamber. Without their leader, the Greens made a decision that, 'If we are going to have an inquiry into this Queensland government, we will include the previous Queensland government'—the Labor one; the one that actually introduced the coal seam gas legislation which Senator Whish-Wilson is now 'so' concerned about. But did the Greens political party support it when it came up the second time? Oh, no, they had done a deal—because they do not like this one-stop shop. They want to put everything in their power in the way of Australian industry and, more importantly, Australian jobs.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The second motion did include an analysis of the previous government. The senator is misleading the chamber.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Continue, Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take Senator Whish-Wilson's point of order. That is not the way I read it. But, if that is correct, I am sure Senator Whish-Wilson will join with the one representative from the coalition on that committee and when they ask for documents and people from the previous Labor government to be included in that inquiry—when they are summonsed before that inquiry—I will expect Senator Whish-Wilson to support the one coalition member on that committee. And if we seek to bring along the Australian reporter by the name of—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hedley Thomas.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When we seek to bring Hedley Thomas along to give evidence to this inquiry, I am sure—from Senator Whish-Wilson's comment—that Senator Whish-Wilson will again support me. I bet you everything I own that, when it comes up, the Greens will not do that.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They'll flip-flop.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, not flip-flop; they will just take their normal political party approach of dishonesty. They will go with Labor and they will stop anything that looks into the disgraceful previous Queensland government—the one that had a cabinet minister who is now serving time in jail for bribery. Are we going to look into that and all the other people around that?

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

Yes.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are?

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

Yes, we are.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay; there are now three motions that you are going to be able to support us on, Senator Whish-Wilson: an inquiry into—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope that got onto the Hansard.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope it is in the Hansard now. An inquiry into Ms Bligh and all of your corrupt ministers and officials, the Tahitian prince—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

I might even get Senator Whish-Wilson to move the motion at this committee and we will have them along. Senator Whish-Wilson, you have almost made my day. But I am absolutely sure that when it comes down to it—when the chips are on the table—you will back down as you always do, because you will not do anything that in any way brings any accountability to any Labor government.

But I have been distracted from the point I was making. This one-stop shop is not about having a one-stop shop for the sake of having a one-stop shop; it is about jobs in Australia. It is about our fellow Australians who currently are unemployed. You only have to look at the newspapers today and over the last couple of days to see that those who should know are clearly indicating the impact that this dual environmental system has on jobs on Australia. Regrettably, time will not allow me to go through this in any detail, but I will read from the first page of one daily newspaper, which says:

THE nation's largest business groups have accused Clive Palmer and the Greens of risking 70,000 jobs and harming housing affordability with their pact to block environmental approval reforms in return for a Senate inquiry into the Queensland government.

I have said before that I do not fear an inquiry into the Queensland government—in fact, I would almost welcome it. I know the Queensland government—I am a Queenslander. I know what a fabulous job it has done in correcting Labor's mismanagement over the previous 20 or so years. But I would not agree to that inquiry, or to an inquiry into the previous Bligh Labor government, with ministers who are now serving time in jail for bribery, if I knew it was going to cost my fellow Australians—70,000 of them—their jobs. That in itself is a disgrace. It is this Labor Party—allegedly the workers' party, allegedly the party for the poor and the disadvantaged, allegedly the party that sticks up for blue-collar workers—that, because of its rotten deal with the Palmer United Party and with the Greens, will cost 70,000 of my fellow Australians their jobs.

I just cannot understand where the unions are when this is coming to bear. We read all about union corruption—most of us have known about that for a long time. It is all being put on the record now with the royal commission. But there are, I suggest, many unionists who are genuine in their job and genuine in their desire to look after the rights of workers and to get workers the best right they can ever have—the right to have a job. Here is an opportunity for those honest members of the union movement to say, 'We are more interested in jobs for our members rather than a dirty, dodgy deal between the Greens, the Palmer United Party and the Labor Party over an inquiry into Queensland that will go nowhere.' And it will go nowhere. I suspect the High Court might well have something to say about that. We have so many issues before this parliament at the moment, and here are the Greens, the Labor Party and the Palmer United Party sending a number of senators and all the Senate staff and all the Hansard staff on a wild witch hunt around Queensland, taking evidence from any disaffected person who has a grudge and wants to defame someone under parliamentary privilege. That is what this government has come down to.

I return to the subject of the debate. As I have been indicating all along, this is really a debate about the incompetence of the Labor government and its inability to make any decision about anything and its susceptibility to dodgy, dirty deals of the type we have seen lately. As I mentioned earlier, the coalition, when it decides on matters like fish stocks and harvest strategies, relies not on politicians like Senator Bilyk and Senator Whish-Wilson, who frankly know absolutely nothing—we get people who are trained in fisheries science to make the decisions. We are waiting for an expert panel report and we have asked for additional science on fish stocks. We want to build public confidence in the fishery and we will not support Labor's bad legislation. When this legislation came forward last time it was so bad that it needed amendment within hours of introduction. Labor clearly do not understand fisheries or fisheries management. They were so hopeless that their bill banned all recreational charter fishing vessels—that is how good Labor was. That had to be amended almost before the ink had dried.

I repeat that on this issue of fisheries we will make decisions based on science, not on the uninformed drivel and twaddle of Senator Whish-Wilson or Senator Bilyk or anyone else in the Labor Party. We have asked for more data to address criticism regarding the age of the data used to establish fish stocks. We want Australian fisheries to be the best—as they have been. We have a reputation for having the best managed fisheries in the world, bar none. That will continue because we have, under Liberal and National Party governments, placed the decisions we make on science from experts who know what they are talking about. We do not make decisions on the basis of temporary political advantage that the Greens and the Labor Party can organise in their dishonest campaigns on this and many other matters. This bill should be sent where it belongs—the rubbish bin.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports Senator Ludwig's private senator's bill—the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill—because this government cannot or will not take action on this issue of national importance. I remember that the powers that Labor used to stop the first supertrawler were opposed by Tony Abbott and the coalition, and I note that Australia's fisheries are still threatened by this government's inaction on supertrawlers. Despite that, the Prime Minister had the gall to say, when he did not support the original bill proposed when we were in government, that it was banned with the support of members on this side of the house.

Senator Macdonald comes into this place full of vitriol, in his usual aggressive, emotional style of contributing in the Senate. Heaven help anyone listening on the radio or on the internet. It was a complete tirade, although I am not sure that Senator Macdonald was aware of the bill before us. The bill does talk about science—it does talk about the need for more scientific research. The fact that Senator Macdonald is even referring to science for the first time in his life is surprising in itself. Because we know that when it comes to climate change and areas of global warming and the environment—and we are talking about the environment of our oceans in this bill—that Senator Macdonald completely denies any science on the record. He does not want to accept the science. We have heard him through many hours of budget estimates and many times in this place where his contributions have denied the science, yet today he wants to use science as a reason to continue allowing the activities of supertrawlers in our ocean areas.

Australia needs to be able to control the activities of future supertrawlers. Why? Because we need to ensure that our oceans, our recreational fishers and businesses are protected and that they have certainty. The fishing groups, environmental groups and the community at large—thousands upon thousands of them, who Senator Macdonald chooses to ignore—made their objection to this issue very clear. Of course Labor listened to their concerns at that time, but we went further to say that we need to have more scientific review and more research into these issues. That is why there was a two-year ban on supertrawler activity. We know there is a gap in the system when it comes to the powers of the environment and fisheries ministers to consider new commercial fishing vessels before they arrive and begin to fish.

This bill, for the knowledge of Senator Macdonald and those on the other side, will restore those tough powers to the environment minister to act where new types of fishing operations seek to work in Australia and where uncertainty exists about their conduct and their impact. Goodness knows the environment minister needs some new powers, because he certainly has not shown that he has any power in any other part of his environment portfolio. In fact, he has been missing in action when it comes to renewable energy, climate change, threatened and endangered species, marine reserves and basically every single component of his portfolio. This bill actually gives the environment minister a little bit of power, so that he can start to act in his own portfolio. It focuses very much on addressing that uncertainty that is related to so-called supertrawler vessels. It provides for a scientific process to occur for up to two years, providing for an expert panel to consider the impacts of the new venture if it is declared. This will provide the community, recreational fishers and businesses alike with a certainty if these declared activities are to operate in Australian waters.

This is a very sensible, precautionary approach. It will allow community and environment groups, together with business, to work with the scientific experts' panel to assess the true impacts of new and large-scale fishing operations—a very sensible approach as a means of dealing with supertrawlers. These 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 around which some uncertainty exists to ensure proper and thorough expert scientific work is conducted. This very necessary legislation will allow the government to stop new supertrawlers before they come to Australia, as Labor did in office. In government, Labor introduced those strong powers to protect the environment, to respect the rights of recreational fishers and to provide that certainty to business. I note that Senator Whish-Wilson drew upon the work of the Global Ocean Commission, and I think that it is important to recognise its report on the state of the world's oceans in the context of this bill. The state of the world's oceans is significant when we talk about climate change, and that again has an impact on our fishing stocks. However, I was slightly disappointed that, at the recent UN climate change summit, oceans did not feature as significantly as they should have in talking about climate change and its effects on our oceans and on the species living in our oceans.

When Labor introduced these sensible powers in September 2012 to act against new commercial fishing vessels, the amendments were opposed by both the Liberal and National Parties. I have welcomed reports that the New Zealand fishing company, Sealord, has retreated from its plan of sending the 104-metre factory trawler Meridian 1 to my home state of Tasmania's deep-sea fisheries this summer. I think these are positive reports, and very good news for Tasmania's recreational fishing community, local fishing companies and of course the marine environment organisations, as well as the Blue Grenadier fishery. The fish itself has only one known spawning ground off western Tasmania, and its range is predicted to contract due to that region's global warming hotspot—where ocean waters are warming at three times the global average. Again, that is noted in some of the work that the Global Ocean Commission is doing. It has also been reported that Sealord remains determined to send the Meridian1 to Tasmania next summer, where it will equal the record of the biggest—I repeat, the biggest—vessel ever to fish in Australian waters, so I remain concerned that this reprieve will only be temporary. However, if the Prime Minister listens to the rogue parliamentary secretary, Senator Richard Colbeck, who wants the government to revert to its original position in favour of supertrawlers but who clearly is not representing Tasmania—

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: I think Senator Singh is reflecting on her parliamentary colleague Senator Colbeck when she uses the word 'rogue'.

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

I am listening carefully. At this point in time, I do not think there is a point of order, but I remind all senators to observe the standing orders when making their contributions in the chamber.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a number of adjectives from the Macquarie and Oxford dictionaries frequently used in this place that, as colourful as they may seem, are often very appropriate when describing senators on the other side—and on many occasions you use them about us, Senator Back.

In June this year, Senator Colbeck went on the record as a strident cheerleader for factory vessels, despite the promises made in March by his Prime Minister and by Senator Eric Abetz to maintain their government's support for the ban on supertrawlers in Australian waters. Clearly, then, there is division within the coalition on this issue—even amongst Liberal senators from my home state.

Senator Bushby interjecting—

I am not sure what Senator's Bushby's position is—whether he is with Senator Abetz or Senator Colbeck on this issue—but clearly they are all over the place. Some members of the government disagree with Senator Colbeck and say that they support the ban on supertrawlers, but unfortunately their lack of action belies their words.

The government have refused to act to protect our fisheries, stand up for recreational fishers or provide industry with any certainty, so it is up to Labor to act. It does surprise me how the government can ignore the pleas from recreational fishers, the community and environment groups. I am sure the government have heard from thousands of community members and have seen the Facebook pages protesting against these supertrawlers. It is similar, I think, to the way they ignored community protests about their proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act: the 5,000 submissions and the thousands of expressions of concern from the community. They were willing for some time—until it suited them not to—to ignore community wishes on that issue as well.

Overfishing in the North Sea and the South Pacific has been well documented for some time, and it is supertrawlers that have caused that overfishing. I urge senators to watch, if they have not already, a very important documentary by Rupert Murray called The End of the Line. It highlights the devastating effect that overfishing has had on the world's fish populations—the fact that fishing is occurring at an unsustainable rate. A lot of research has demonstrated that trawling is severely damaging fishing stocks. I think this film was the first major documentary to look closely at the impacts of overfishing on the world's oceans. It highlighted that a quarter of the world's fish stocks are being exploited to extinction and that a further half of the world's fish stocks are under significant pressure. It also highlighted that well-known species, such as cod and bluefin tuna, were likely to be extinct by 2048—and once they are gone, they are gone. That is why we need more scientific research before we just open the door and let supertrawlers come into the Bass Strait. We need to recognise what has already occurred in the North Sea and the South Pacific—and probably elsewhere around the world.

That is why we have this bill before us and that is why Labor is urging the government to support it. The current ban is due to expire on 11 November. The pressure is growing on the government to make good the Prime Minister's words and to support Senator Ludwig's bill—to put those strong powers to protect the environment in place before any more supertrawlers come to Australia. The indecision of the Prime Minister is risking a high-value commercial fishery in south-east Australia, a fishery with an estimated gross annual production of $11 million. Given the government has failed to act and given its frightening inability to keep its word—on anything, I have to say—it is sensible for these powers to be restored.

Labor understands that a healthy Australian environment will always be the basis of a growing, well-managed Australian economy, and only Labor will protect our oceans, respect our fisheries and provide certainty to the fishing community, the environment and business. That is why this bill is before us. We know the history; we know the journey. I have related some of the history of what has occurred with supertrawlers in other parts of the world. We do need further research and we do need to invest further in the science before we just allow open slather, before we open the door for supertrawler access to our seas and oceans. It is the right thing to do for our environment, the right thing to do for our fishing community and the right thing to do for business and our economy.

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

Order! The time for this debate has expired.