Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2014. I will go through first broadly what the bill does and also the Greens' proposed amendment, which we will not be supporting either. I will go through some of the reasons why we take a different approach on this issue.

The bill amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to repeal a sunset provision and enable the minister to establish an independent expert panel to conduct an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of a declared commercial fishing activity and to prohibit the declared fishing activity while the assessment is undertaken. On the Greens' proposed amendment, I will quote from Senator Whish-Wilson:

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.

He goes on:

We consider that we need separate legislation for any size over that.

He goes on:

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—

recreational—

fishermen across this country want—

apparently, according to Senator Whish-Wilson.

We do not agree with the Greens and we do not agree with the Labor Party on this issue. The reason the government opposes this bill as well as the amendments is that the amendments will have no effect on the recently expired or current declaration made under the now lapsed legislation. We support commercial, recreational and Indigenous fishers and are committed to the continuation of Australia's well-managed fisheries. The coalition has confidence in the sustainability of Australian fisheries managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. We will make any decisions regarding fisheries management based on the science. We will not be rushed. We will consider the expert panel report in its entirety and make appropriate decisions.

The government is aware of the concern among a range of groups, including recreational fishers, about the potential impact of supertrawlers on Australia's marine environment, protected species and local fish stocks. We intend to build public confidence in the fishery and fisheries management more generally. Commercial fishing has to be both environmentally and economically sustainable.

Agreeing to this bill would mean that the Minister for the Environment could declare any fishing activity at any time, and who knows what a future environment minister might do with that? For instance, he or she, in future, might consider that there is uncertainty associated with small rowboats and declare them, which would then mean that an expert panel would be established to investigate the matter, all at the cost of the taxpayer. Senator Ludwig is only bringing this back now, we believe, to play cheap wedge politics, and the Greens, not surprisingly, are jumping on the bandwagon.

Now I want to go back to Labor's record on this issue and their hypocrisy on this issue. It was Tony Burke, in his role as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who created this issue by inviting these types of vessels as part of his 2009 Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy. I quote:

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

That is from page 2 of the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy, from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority in 2009. Indeed, the former minister proudly trumpeted:

This is the first time a trawler with a storage capacity of 2000 tonne or more is likely to operate in an Australian fishery …

Then, as the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke completely bungled the development and introduction of the declared fishing activities bill in September 2012. This legislation was so bad that it needed amendment within hours of introduction. Labor clearly did not understand fisheries or fisheries management. Their bill initially banned recreational charter vessels. The declared fishing activities amendment was so bad that there was a 12-month sunset clause to kill it off.

As I said earlier, Senator Ludwig is bringing this back now to play cheap politics, notwithstanding that appalling history of mismanagement of this issue by the Labor Party and particularly by the former minister. But we know, in fact, that Senator Ludwig did once stand up for Australian fisheries. I quote from then Minister Ludwig in August 2012, responding to a Greens motion:

This disallowance motion is a message that the Greens political party do not support sustainable catch limits based on science.

Agreed. He continued:

It is a message that says the Greens want fisheries managed by politics, not qualified fisheries managers.

Well, we agree. He continued:

And it says that the Greens do not support the commercial operators who fish in some of the world's best managed fisheries.

He went on:

That message should be well understood, because I have no doubt that the same disregard for the science and management of our commercial fisheries will be extended to the legitimate pursuit of recreational fishing. As minister for fisheries—

this was Senator Ludwig saying this at the time—

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—and, moreover, predicated on the precautionary principle so often espoused by the Greens.

He went on:

Why? Because AFMA will continue to apply sound policy to ensure that we will have sustainable fisheries now and into the future. For those reasons, the government oppose this motion.

That was a reasonably succinct position put by the then minister as to why we should reject these kinds of moves, why we should reject this Greens view of the world, which is not based on science. It is based on their version of cheap politics. It is based on their aversion really to any economic activity using our natural resources.

We know what the Greens are on about, but unfortunately the Labor Party in opposition has moved far closer to the Greens than we would like to see and, I am sure, much closer than many Labor senators would like the Labor Party to be. Many senators, I am sure, would be concerned about the Labor Party pandering to the Greens.

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

That's why they're doing so well in the polls and you're doing so crap.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right. That is an interesting interjection there from Senator Whish-Wilson that the reason the Labor Party have had a spike in the polls is that they have gone closer to the Greens agenda. That is interesting. I wonder what Sam Dastyari might think about that when he is asked about whether or not it is good politics and good policy for the Labor Party to be following the Greens. But there is some truth in what Senator Whish-Wilson says, in that the Labor Party are following the Greens. I think Senator Whish-Wilson and I can agree on that. I think that for the Labor Party, if they do want to be back on the government benches at some point in the future, that is not the best strategy, because a party—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Well, we will all have a different take on that, but Senator Whish-Wilson's position now is half right: the Labor Party are following the Greens, but I would disagree with the idea that the Labor Party following the Greens and moving further to the left on any policy, be it on fisheries management or anything else, is somehow going to be a winning formula, and I am sure that there would be many Labor senators—and I will not name names, but we know who they are—who would be horrified by that prospect.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Labor is much better at getting the politics right than you are—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it is interesting, isn't it? The Labor government were obsessed with the politics. You are right, Senator Lines. You are absolutely right. The Labor Party in government were obsessed with the politics. They were obsessed with opinion polls. And that is one of the reasons they were such a shocking government, such an absolutely shocking government. In the end, their obsession with those things—instead of being good managers, instead of actually looking after the country, instead of showing good leadership—their obsession with those internal matters and their obsession with focus groups and opinion polls did not help them to be a good government and did not help them to maintain the support of the Australian people. So I thank Senator Lines for her contribution. She is absolutely right. They were obsessed with those kinds of things rather than good policy.

Senator Lines interjecting—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

I am very much enjoying this because I enjoy any time we can get political advice from the Greens party, because the Greens party, with their eight per cent of the vote—their eight per cent of the vote that they consistently attract—show just how much they represent mainstream Australia.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Sorry, what was that? I missed that from the eight per cent party. I could not quite hear. But, unlike the Labor Party, we will not take our policy advice or our political advice from the Greens.

That is at the heart of this issue. What Senator Ludwig said when he was in government was right: we should rely on the science; we should not go for cheap politics on this issue; and the way we have managed our fisheries over a long period of time is world's best practice. It is world's best practice. You could look at instances where we have gotten things wrong, of course, but, if you compare our record to that of most nations around the world, we do a great job of maintaining a sustainable industry, of feeding millions of people right around the world through our fisheries and of having the highest environmental standards. Ask yourself. I often think about this when we discuss the issue of fisheries. We saw attempts by the former government to really scale back the amount of fishing that could take place in our waters. You often say to yourself: well, we are still going to be getting fish, but if we are not getting it from Australian waters, if we are not doing it with the best environmental standards here in Australia, we will be getting it from other places that have far lower environmental standards than we do in this country. I think we fundamentally have to ask ourselves the question about what would happen if we were to take the Greens view of the world and part of the Labor Party view of the world and say, 'Look, we're just going to ban it more and more and make it more and more restrictive for commercial fishing.'

We understand the need for balance. We absolutely support recreational fishing and we know that, if you overfish, that is negative in the long term for commercial fishing, it is negative for recreational fishing and it is not sustainable. So we have always taken a scientific approach to this, but you ask yourself: if you ban it more and more, it will happen in other places where there will not be the same kinds of environmental standards. We will not have the jobs in this country that flow from the industry. We will not have the ability to feed not just ourselves but the world, as we should. What will happen is that we will be importing more and more of the stuff, with no real knowledge of the environmental standards that apply in other places. That, to me, is the fundamental when we look at these issues.

Regarding this bill, let us go to the expert panel report. The independent expert scientific panel has completed its assessment of the potential impacts of supertrawlers, boats greater than 130 metres, on our marine environment. The panel focused on assessing the potential impact of supertrawlers on the marine environment and protected species, including seals, dolphins and seabirds, and the potential for localised depletion of target species. The panel provided the Minister for the Environment with a report on its findings in mid-October, which was published on the Department of the Environment's website on 19 November. The report gave a big tick to the existing risk based fisheries management framework used in Australian fisheries management. It is this framework that has resulted in Australia's fisheries being recognised as among the best managed anywhere in the world. This risk based management framework is already in action in the Small Pelagic Fishery. The harvest strategy exceeds internationally recommended standards such as those made by the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force in the report Little Fish, Big Impact. The report also highlighted that there are risks from the proposed fishing operation, as there are with all fishing, be that commercial or recreational. The government believes that scientific evidence must continue to underpin the management of our fisheries.

That sums up our objections here to what is being driven, and is consistently driven, by the Greens—and that is that we will do it in a scientific way, not in an emotive way and not based on whatever scare might be out there at the time. It is based on the best scientific evidence around how we can continue to have a vibrant fishing industry, which we on this side of the parliament certainly want to see. We want to see a commercial fishing industry in this country that is viable, creates jobs, feeds Australians and creates an export market. That is a great thing for Australia. We also want to manage threatened species. We also want to make sure that it is commercially sustainable, which means that overfishing is not only bad for the environment; it is not commercially sustainable in the long term. We also want to see strong Indigenous recreational fishing opportunities.

All of those things do operate in this country. In large part, they operate quite well. We believe in taking a scientific approach, accepting the expert advice, rather than having this ad hoc approach that we are seeing in this kind of legislation. For all of those reasons, the coalition will not be supporting the bill.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2014. The debate about supertrawlers is an ongoing issue of concern, particularly in my home state of Tasmania, but I do know that many senators have received emails on this issue regardless of which state or territory they represent. There is concern throughout Australia about the operation of supertrawlers in our waters.

Only this week, the Mercury newspaper, based in the southern part of Tasmania, reported on the findings of the report from the Expert Panel on a Declared Commercial Fishing Activity, the Final (Small Pelagic Fishery) Declaration 2012. Now that the government has been given the expert panel's report, it must make a decision and end uncertainty for Tasmanian fishers.

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

They have been very silent on that point too, Senator Brown.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely, but that is not something that we would be surprised about, Senator Whish-Wilson. On page 302, the report concludes:

… direct interactions with protected species and localised depletion, as defined by the panel, will occur under the DCFA—

declared commercial fishing activity—

The panel’s assessment has confirmed that there are considerable uncertainties relating to the extent of those impacts and the level of impact that would create adverse environmental outcomes.

As in other fisheries facing similar uncertainties, a precautionary and adaptive, risk-based approach to management of the potential impacts of the DCFA is required.

It is clear that Tasmania's fisheries, including protected species, will be depleted if supertrawlers are allowed to operate. Dolphin and seal numbers may also be affected.

We know that the Final (Small Pelagic Fishery) Declaration 2012 ended at midnight on 18 November this year. The Final (Small Pelagic Fishery) Declaration (No.2) 2013 will end at midnight on 24 April next year. We must act now to protect our environment and our fisheries. The factory fishing boat Meridian 1 has had approval to trawl Tasmanian waters. It will be the largest freezer trawler to fish in Australia. The Meridian 1 is expected to operate for only a few months to catch its quota of blue grenadier.

In Tasmania, news of the return of a large factory freezer trawler a few months ago put the issue of supertrawlers firmly back in the news and raised fears among the fishing industry. I want to refer to an editorial on 6 June in Hobart's Mercury newspaper on this Ukrainian owned trawler. The editorial states:

The operators of these types of trawlers that can stay at sea for long periods of time, catch enormous amounts of fish, and process their catch while at sea would do well to keep the community properly informed. Fear of the unknown brings an instant and predictable reaction.

The Mercury editorial goes on to suggest that the operators of the Meridian 1 should tell the public of their plans. It is possible that this trawler will not pose a possible risk. However, it is obvious that Tasmanian waters are attractive to large trawlers, and I believe we need to be always on our guard. It also is apparent that we need legislative protections against these supertrawlers.

At the heart of this bill is the government's inaction. In the face of the government's failure to act to protect our fisheries, stand up for recreation fishers or provide the community and industry with certainty, Labor is again taking action. Federal Labor is committed to the sustainable management of Australia's marine resources and, when in government, we were strong defenders and managers of our oceans and those who use them.

Australia's fisheries are among the most sustainable and best managed in the world. Labor is committed to ensure that this remains the case. This bill restores a power to the environment and fisheries ministers to declare particular fishing activities that have not previously been used in Australian waters and require up to two years of additional scientific review where uncertainty exists. This will enable the government of the day to review fishing methods and vessels such as supertrawlers that have not been used in Australia before.

When these powers were introduced by Labor, we put in a sunset clause of 12 months to allow a fisheries review to be implemented. To ensure that Australia's waters were adequately protected from the risks associated with the use of supertrawlers, the Labor government amended the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in September 2012 to include these powers. The power was used once by Labor in government to declare a type of fishing activity that matched the specifications of a supertrawler. At the time this picked up the vessel the FV Abel Tasman, which was formerly known as the Margiris. In April 2013, we extended these restrictions, which means that these supertrawlers cannot operate in Australian waters until at least April 2015. At that time we also established an independent expert panel, which I referred to earlier, to provide an objective impact assessment of the environmental impacts of this activity.

The use of supertrawlers in Australian waters has been a long-running issue that has generated passionate debate and high levels of concern within the community around the country. It has seen Tasmanians take to the street in large numbers to protest about supertrawlers. Tasmanians who would not normally attend public meetings have taken part in protest action. It is an issue that a large number of constituents regularly raise with me and many others, I am sure. Concerns have been raised about the bycatch of other fish, birds and marine mammals, particularly dolphins and seals. Communities need confidence that the environmental controls in place are reflective of their expectations. Re-establishing the power of the minister to establish an expert panel that will be able to assess the science is important in ensuring that communities can have this confidence.

Another concern often raised by my constituents in Tasmania, particularly those who are recreational fishers, has been the potential for localised depletion of fishing stock. In fact, Tasmanians were the first to raise their concerns about the impact of supertrawlers in our waters, at rallies and public meetings across the state. That is why I, along with my colleagues—and, I know, many others in the Senate—the member for Franklin, Julie Collins MP, and former Labor senator, Lin Thorp, lobbied the former Labor government to stop the supertrawler FV Abel Tasman from operating in Tasmanian waters in 2012.

Labor listened to the concerns and amended the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to ensure Australia's waters were adequately protected from risks associated with the use of supertrawlers. It was Labor that put a stop to the Abel Tasman, with a ban which turned the supertrawler around before it had started trawling Australia's oceans. However, the threat of other supertrawlers has not gone away and it is up to Labor, again, to take action.

In September 2012 when the powers were originally introduced, the Liberal and National parties opposed the amendments. Then opposition members used every reason under the sun to oppose the bill, but none of those reasons were very convincing. Senator Abetz said it was a 'very dangerous precedent that it sets'. And Senator Scullion stated, 'science of the specific fishery in question didn't require additional reviews'.

In September 2013, when asked whether the new government would lift the ban, Senator Colbeck said that the government would 'consider it, based on the science'. This statement contrasts with Senator Colbeck's previously definitive position on the ban. In September 2012, Senator Colbeck called banning the supertrawler a 'serious embarrassment'. Then in June 2013 he said actions against the trawler were a 'dishonest campaign'.

However, when the now Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, was questioned on March 4 2014 about the supertrawler he said:

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

I welcome those statements and I welcome the support of the Prime Minister, albeit belatedly. I would suggest that the Prime Minister and Senator Abetz, who supported the Prime Minister's statement when asked about it in this place, refresh their memories by reviewing the Hansard records.

For the record I can quote from the Hansard of 6 March 2014, when Senator Abetz said:

The answer the Prime Minister gave was very clear. The supertrawler was banned, it remains banned and, as I understand it, the company involved has no interest in bringing its supertrawler back to Australia.

But then, of course, we know that the Liberal and National parties voted against the ban in both houses of parliament. They did not think that any more science or research was needed and they did not want to stop the supertrawler. We have to be very clear here, because the Prime Minister appears to be rewriting history: they did not want any more science or research and they did not want to stop the supertrawler. The Liberals voted against banning supertrawlers when they were in opposition, and now they are in government they have failed to take any action to protect our environment and our fisheries.

This bill will force the government to choose whether to honour the Prime Minister's own words and the actions of the government when in opposition. This bill will make the government put their money where their mouth is. The government is yet to do even the most basic work required to implement sensible root-and-branch reform of fisheries management, as recommended by the Borthwick review and responded to by Labor in March 2013.

As the government refuses to act to protect our fisheries, stand up for recreational fishers or provide industry with any certainty, it is up to Labor to act. In government Labor supported strong powers to protect the environment, to respect the rights of recreational fishers and to provide certainty to business. Under the bill we consider here today, new supertrawlers will have to face the same tough response faced by the original supertrawler. The amendments give the government of the day the power to declare a particular type of fishing activity prohibited. This declaration will be made where the activity has not been used in Australia and some uncertainty exists around it. The prohibition will allow proper and thorough expert scientific work to be conducted.

The bill restores the powers to enable the environment minister, 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. The bill also restores the power of the environment minister—again 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'. Further to this, the bill provides for the establishment of an expert panel in the case of the making of a final declaration. The bill also specifies the terms of reference of the panel and arrangements for reporting, with a requirement that a copy of the panel report be made publicly available.

The former Labor government has a strong record when it comes to supporting our fisheries and making them healthier, sustainable and more resilient. Labor understands that Australia's fisheries are a valuable natural resource and that we all have a role in ensuring the future of an industry that contributes more than $2 billion to our economy each year. It was the previous Labor government that announced the first major review of Australian fisheries policy and legislation in over 20 years. In fact, it was Senator Ludwig, whose bill we discuss here today, who as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, commissioned an independent review of the policy and legislation governing the Commonwealth's fisheries management system in September 2012. The fisheries management review examined a range of issues to identify any improvements needed to ensure community and industry expectations of the Australian fisheries management regime can be met into the future.

In March last year the previous government released the report Review of Commonwealth fisheries: legislation, policy and management, also known as the Borthwick review. The findings of the review highlighted current management strengths and identified potential improvements to make Commonwealth fisheries more sustainable and to meet industry and community expectations into the future. On releasing the report, then Minister Ludwig stated:

The Borthwick Review concluded that greater transparency, a broader policy framework, and the clarification of objectives and roles could build on what is already a very effective system.

Senator Ludwig also indicated that the government's response to this report was to accept the direction of all 15 recommendations. The Labor government committed to engage with industry, recreational fishers, supply chain participants, environmental organisations, consumers and the general public on how best to implement the findings of the review.

Since coming to government, those opposite have done nothing to act on the findings of this review—nothing. The government is yet to do even the most basic work required to implement sensible root-and-branch reform of fisheries management Those opposite, under the leadership of Mr Abbott, have had over 12 months to do something to stop future supertrawlers and protect our oceans—but they have failed; they have failed to do anything. It should come as no surprise to anyone on this side of the chamber that they have not acted; in fact, it should not come as a surprise to anyone in the community who may be listening to this debate.

We know that those opposite have no interest in protecting our fisheries and oceans. They proved this when they rolled back marine protection around the country. We on this side are proud to have delivered the world's largest marine reserve network. In government we added 2.3 million square kilometres to the system of Commonwealth marine reserves, expanding the overall size of the Commonwealth marine reserve estate to some 3.1 million square kilometres. Under Labor the number of marine reserves expanded from 27 to 60, covering more than a third of Commonwealth waters. However, the Abbott government has scrapped the comprehensive management plans that would have secured the long-term conservation and sustainable use of Australia's precious oceans. It scrapped them without parliamentary scrutiny, against expert scientific advice and in spite of extensive public consultation and the accumulation of more than 20 years of work which began under the Keating government. However, Labor will continue to take action to ensure that we protect Australia's ecosystems and fishing stock.

Our decisions must be based on evidence. As there is uncertainty about the impacts of fishing vessels and the size of super trawlers, it is appropriate that we pass this bill to ensure that appropriate restrictions and assessments are undertaken. We must also act today to ensure that we have viable fishing for tomorrow's generations. The Abbott government have shown no care about our fisheries and our oceans but Labor have. Today I stand by the comments I made when I spoke on the 2012 bill in this place, and I repeat those words: marine environments once wrecked take generations to recover, if they ever do. A precautionary approach is not only good policy but also the only decent option.

As the government refuses to act to protect our oceans and our fisheries, to stand up for recreational fishers or to provide local businesses with any certainty, it is again up to Labor to act. We know that only Labor will ensure that sustainable action is taken for the ongoing health and integrity of Australia's marine areas. I will end with a quote from Senator Ludwig's speech:

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 this bill to the chamber. I urge all senators to support it, and I urge the government senators to support the Prime Minister's statement that super trawlers are banned and will remain banned. This will determine whether you are supporting your Prime Minister—or will you turn your backs on the statements he makes? We know that he tends to shoot from the hip, but it is now up to you to say whether or not you support your Prime Minister's words. (Time expired)

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2014, despite the appeals from Senator Brown on the other side. Her closing remarks, where she tried to illustrate the position of the Prime Minister, were somewhat mischievous. I know that the Prime Minister is a great supporter of commercial and recreational fishing in this country, and we have some of the most well-managed fisheries for recreational and commercial shell and fin fishers in the world.

In speaking against this bill, I am highlighting the fact that this issue continues to be a gross Labor hypocrisy. As a senator for the state of South Australia and a strong supporter of a well-managed fisheries industry, I oppose the cheap wedge politics being peddled by Senator Ludwig. As we know, Senator Ludwig had a very low point in his ministerial career, when in June 2011 he put an overnight ban on the export of live cattle. We are still feeling the reverberations economically and socially of that knee-jerk, ill-considered decision of that time. This again is populist. I suspect that the CEO of GetUp! is often on the phone telling Senator Ludwig that the funding of his next campaign is probably in peril if he does not put this back on the map. I assume Senator Ludwig is a very good industrial union lawyer and I am sure he was in the past, but in matters of primary industries and fishing he gets an 'E'.

Remember the mess Tony Burke created around the Abel Tasman and supertrawlers in the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy? I recall there were four amendments in four days to his declared fishing activities bill. The Labor government response to the Abel Tasmanwhich I have been on and have toured; I will come to that later—which our party opposed at the time, has made us an international laughing stock. It has effectively tarnished the reputations of leading scientific and industry figures who have been acting in the interests of sustainability and good management of our marine natural resources.

But you do not have to take my word for it; you can read articles with headlines such as 'World mocks ban on trawler' by Philip Heyward in the Mercury, or 'Expert labels trawler ban "embarrassing"' on the ABC, or 'Opposition to the Margiris "super trawler" not evidence based' by Bob Kearney in The Conversation. Then-Minister Burke's commercial fishing policy was more shambolic than a set of tangled crab nets, and Senator Ludwig needs to withdraw this bill for fear of getting caught in the same trap. He needs to allow the correct bodies to administer fishing activities in Australia. The issue is much bigger than just the trawler; it is about how we do business in Australia and how we manage a resource in a sustainable and profitable manner.

The Labor-Green approach is dangerous to the fisheries industry, an industry which, I might add, is worth over $2 billion annually. It employs around 11,600 people—7,300 directly and 4,300 indirectly—according to figures of just a few years ago, and we know that the industry has had growth since then.

The coalition government has confidence in the Australian Fisheries Management Authority regarding the management and sustainability of fisheries. Actions taken by AFMA have already led to a reduction in bycatch and sustainable ecosystems. Catch limits based on appropriate biomass percentages mean that the fisheries industry is already appropriately managed without any unnecessary ministerial intervention.

Currently, small pelagic fishery is productive and environmentally stable. In fact during July in my home of Adelaide the Small Pelagic Fisheries Workshop, a technical workshop and stakeholder forum, was hosted by the South Australian Research and Development Institute. The forum determined that Australian fisheries science and management was the world benchmark, with policies and practices for other nations to aspire to. Dr Patrick Hone, Executive Director of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, said at the forum:

A key finding was that the science underpinning Australian fisheries management was robust and that our harvest strategy and rules were clearly precautionary and very much in line with the best practice guidelines put forward by the Lenfest Working Group and the Marine Stewardship Council.

The harvest strategies which Dr Hone speaks of started in 2007 under Minister Abetz as Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation. These strategies outline management actions needed to achieve biological and economic objectives. With the harvest strategies in place and operating uninterrupted, the fishing industry can work with greater confidence and management decisions can be made with transparency and forewarning.

Only this government, not Labor and certainly not the Greens, understands the main factor in commercial fishing management—that the industry be economically viable as well as environmentally sustainable. Removing the sunset clause, as Senator Ludwig is attempting to do, would allow the environment minister to declare any fishing activity, requiring the establishment of an expert panel to investigate each declaration. This is dangerous to the industry and, given our best-in-practice policies, completely unnecessary for the purpose of fisheries management.

The coalition continues to do what it said it would do during the election campaign regarding commercial fishing. Our commitments were to: make decisions based on science; wait for the expert panel report on declared fishing activities before making a decision on the declaration of larger vessels; and seek more data to address criticisms regarding the age of data used to establish fish stocks. Further to that, in late October, Minister Colbeck welcomed the ABARES fishery status reports, which showed that, for the first time in eight years, no Commonwealth managed fisheries were subject to overfishing. In fact, under this coalition government, fisheries stocks are on the improve.

To return now to marine parks and a sensitive matter in my home state, I note worriedly that Labor has introduced 19 marine parks with 80 no-take zones within South Australia. These laws came into effect on 1 October this year and impact commercial and recreational anglers alike. Not only will this affect the enjoyment of our marine areas but it will hurt the fragile economy of our regions. If it were not already obvious that Labor do not understand the science behind fisheries management, it is even more evident that they do not understand their own policy. South Australian Labor spent $1.8 million filming and promoting an awareness campaign for their unwanted marine parks. In these ads, a family is seen crabbing on the Port Noarlunga jetty. If the Labor Party had half a clue, they would have known that the area depicted in that advertisement has already banned crabbing. How ironic and cruel is that?

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

Breaking the law.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To add insult to injury, Senator Back—I note your interest in this matter—the South Australian environment minister, Minister Hunter, proved he was nowhere near being across his brief on ABC breakfast radio on 1 October, the same day as these new laws came into effect, when he could not indicate what sanctions existed in the highly controversial Port Wakefield zone. By contrast, my state Liberal counterparts introduced an amendment bill, which sensibly proposed the reintroduction of access to 12 of those zones. The policy was supported by the commercial and recreational fishing industries and provides a sustainable base from which to fish. Just remember that none of these fishing zones is under any pressure.

The bill was defeated by one vote, the vote cast by the so-called minister for regions, Mr Geoff Brock, the member for Frome. There is a famous YouTube video of the independent member for Frome, Mr Geoff Brock, telling recreational fishers just one month prior to the March state election, 'I'm here to fight for you guys.' What a turncoat he turned out to be. He has sold his independence—he is supposed to be an independent—and his word to his electorate for a shot at the ministry which he now holds, and I think he is yet to realise the damage that he has done to the state, let alone to his career and to all those in the political environment.

South Australian fishing and aquaculture industries are worth $217 million annually and South Australia is a very big employer, with some 6,000 people in the seafood industry. If you look at all those numbers I gave you earlier, South Australia's industry represents a very large percentage of the Australian seafood output. All of this hangs in the balance with the introduction of Labor's unnecessary, overregulating policies. We have confidence in the sustainability of Australian fisheries, currently managed by AFMA and recognised as some of the best practice in the world. To reiterate, policy must be driven by sound scientific advice and not knee-jerk reactions.

I said I would refer to the time when I visited what was then known as the Abel Tasman and went on to become known as the Margiris. Some people call it the supertrawler. I visited this ship—I was invited to go and have a look at it and I did so when it was located in Port Lincoln and subjected to that controversial ban. I took up the invitation and, I must say, that ship and its equipment are world-class. Senator Back, as you well know, to put to sea on an ocean-going global fishing boat you have to be highly technically trained, and the crew were. All of the equipment was first-rate, up-to-the-minute technology. The fisheries that they were to fish are already being fished. These were not extra fish being taken; these fish are already fished by numerous other, smaller boats. Imagine 24—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Oh, and now we hear from the Greens. All of a sudden, we hear from the Greens. They do not want to hear the truth. They just want to perpetuate all their lies. These fish cannot be taken outside of quotas. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, if Senator Whish-Wilson wants to make a contribution to this, he can refute my claim. Are you suggesting that all the fish taken by any supertrawler are illegally taken, outside of a quota? All of these fish are taken within quotas. Imagine 24 small boats being put to sea with 24 crews taking the same fish that one boat would possibly take. The nets have escape hatches. Dolphins and seals can escape and do escape. This myth that all the sea is going to be vacuumed clean of all fish is hysteria peddled by those on the other side, who want to go and live in caves with no power and just wear bearskin rugs.

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

The coalition loves supertrawlers.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, if you are not going to protect me from this barrage of nonsense that is coming from the Greens—

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Senate will come to order!

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an economical way in which to fish. It is an environmentally sensitive way in which to fish. People think that these fish are extra fish. They are not extra fish—they are already being fished. And do you know what? When they are fished by the 24 boats that put to sea, they have not got refrigeration. So that fish—the brown-fleshed fish, the pelagics—all go into a hold and do you know what they are used for? Fertiliser. Do you know what happens to the fish that are caught with these large harvest vessels? They get snap frozen and they are food grade, and they feed the nations of Africa. Mr Acting Deputy President, the Greens and Senator Whish-Wilson over there will not tell you that—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Yes, that's what they turn it into.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, the senator will be heard in silence.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what you have when you put to sea with 24 boats fishing for the same fish. But what happens is that we turn it into food grade—if we were to allow this. We are going to turn it into fish for human consumption. We are going to try to feed the world. We do not want to feed the cats of the world; we do not want to fertilise the gardens of the world. We want to turn this into food grade fish. If you do it on a ship of the likes of the Abel Tasman or the Margiris, because they are big enough and have freezers, you snap freeze it and it is food grade. The Greens would deny the African nations a food source, a protein source. That is okay if you live in the leafy suburbs down there in Tasmania and you drink your lattes and have your sponge cakes on a Saturday morning after a nice pleasant week in the Senate. It is nonsense.

This is not about environmental sustainability. This is about taking fish that is already taken and, quickly and efficiently, turning it into food grade. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will be very interested to hear Senator Whish-Wilson's contribution and to hear how he can refute my claims of this efficient way of gathering.

Senator Ludwig's bill is just another intervention into everybody's lives. It is an absolute irony. In South Australia we have got these protected zones now. And when you question government officials about why they are doing it, they say, 'because they are pristine environments.' What? We are putting in marine parks because they are pristine environments? Do you know why? Because they are well managed already. Recreational fishers and commercial fishers abide by the laws. But no, the dead hand of bureaucracy has to come in and lay itself over the fishing industry. Here we are: once again the Labor Party just wants to pull back all of that and get hold of it again. Just put that uncertainty into it so that the banks will not invest. You can have your livelihood taken—like you did with the live cattle export. You can have your livelihood taken away from you overnight. If you let this bill pass in this place, that is exactly what will happen. You will have another layer of uncertainty. I conclude: I support sustainable fishing industries in South Australia and I do so today by opposing this bill.

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

We have just heard the coalition arguing and denigrating, instead of being able to address the science. They are denigrating the arguments by having a go at people, calling people 'latte sippers'—the usual silly attacks that the coalition make when they cannot actually argue the point. The point here is that super trawlers around the world have actually broken our oceans and broken our fisheries. The reason we are getting better at managing our fisheries now is because we are in fact putting in rules and enforcing them for effective management of our fisheries. When we did not have that, we had our oceans being overfished.

As for this ludicrous argument that we will be feeding Africa, this supertrawler has been in the seas and oceans off Africa and has raped those oceans of fish for fertiliser, the very thing he has just said that we support. That is what they have been doing with supertrawlers—taking away the fish from Africa. Now he is saying that a supertrawler has to fish in our waters so that we can feed Africa when those very same supertrawlers have been taking the fish out of the oceans and depopulating those oceans. That is a ridiculous argument to make, just so he can make people feel sorry for the Africans, when he should be arguing for better regulation of supertrawlers there too, so that African people can feed themselves from their ocean supplies, not have fish stripped out of their oceans and taken elsewhere simply for the superprofits of the supertrawlers. I might add that supertrawlers also get well subsidised and try to access every subsidy they can get around the world.

This legislation is a step, but it would not ban supertrawlers as the ALP would like to suggest, as when they brought in legislation regarding supertrawlers when they were in government. It is fallacious, as is being implied, that this legislation bans supertrawlers. This is why Senator Whish-Wilson proposes an amendment that would ban supertrawlers with a freezer capacity of over 2,000 tonnes. His amendment would actually ban those supertrawlers and strengthen and give backbone to this legislation to achieve what the ALP claim that this legislation does. This legislation was introduced by Senator Ludwig, a former minister for fisheries. The original bill that was brought in by the previous government allowed the minister to declare a prohibited fishing activity, but it had a sunset clause of 12 months.

The aim of the legislation that we are currently debating is to remove that sunset clause, meaning the environment minister's powers to respond to new fishing operations would remain in place. Of course, we are hearing that people want to have another go at letting the supertrawler slip through so it can start fishing in our waters. Currently, the government does not have powers to declare a prohibited fishing vessel and implement a review. As I said, the clauses of this legislation do not ban supertrawlers, and that is why we need to amend the bill—so that we do have the capacity to fight industrial-scale fishing, because that is what it is. This is industrial-scale fishing. There are significant problems with this legislation in that, as I have said, it does not ban the introduction of industrial-scale factory-freezer trawlers, the so-called supertrawlers, into our SPF. Labor's proposed legislation puts the discretionary powers in the hands of the Liberal-National ministers, instead of the people having a say through their representatives in parliament.

In fact, the Greens pointed out this failure to Labor in 2012, while they were in government and were claiming to be dealing with the threat of supertrawlers to our fisheries and ecosystems—because supertrawlers not only threaten our fisheries; they threaten our ecosystems. Yet Labor did not take on board our amendments when we very clearly pointed out the holes in the legislation. While Labor are now trying to fix this failure, it is misleading to say, as they have been claiming to constituents, that they are banning supertrawlers. This legislation clearly does not, unfortunately. They did not do it while they were in government and they are not doing it with this legislation—again, that is why we need the amendments that Senator Whish-Wilson has proposed, which actually do deal with it by banning trawlers with a freezer capacity of over 2,000 tonnes.

All parties at various stages have said that they support a ban on supertrawlers. Well, this is the opportunity to prove it. This is the opportunity to prove that you do actually want to ban supertrawlers, by supporting the amendments that we are putting, which fill that hole in the legislation.

Labor justified the sunset clause at the time by stating that, because the Borthwick inquiry—the so-called root-and-branch inquiry into fisheries legislation processes—was underway, it was appropriate to have a sunset clause. Senator Ludwig at the time quoted Minister Burke as saying in his speech on this bill:

By that time the root-and-branch review of the fisheries management processes should be in place, but we will have this legislation to be able to fill that gap in the interim.

Now we have the Borthwick review, a root-and-branch review, which has made a number of recommendations. The government need to implement these recommendations. They do not seem to have done anything with it. A particularly important point is that the Borthwick review has recommended a new third pillar to the legislation and management of Australia's fisheries, and that is one that directly addresses ecosystem impacts in the fisheries context. They say that for this ecosystem approach with a goal of minimising the impact of fishing effort on ecosystems, the government needs to address the balance between funding for private industry research and research for the public benefit of conserving the common and related ecosystem values. In other words, we need to include that in our legislation, and we do not at the moment and we have not seen a sign from the government of what they are going to do about it. That root-and-branch review showed that we have not quite got things right here. We do need to look at the impact on our ecosystems and at ecosystem science.

With this bill the ALP are trying to make people think that we are banning supertrawlers. As I said, supertrawlers will not be banned by this bill. While the opposition calls this tough legislation, it is not tough enough and it needs toughening up. We have heard a number of people quoting the expert panel review of the processes put in place under the previous legislation, introduced by the ALP when they were in government. I find it fascinating that the government has been quoting that review to justify their opposition to this legislation. It is really quite bizarre.

The review actually vindicates the position that the Greens, recreational fishers, environment groups and the broader Tasmanian community took when the supertrawler first appeared on our horizon a couple of years ago. The report found that, even if protective measures were put in place, the supertrawler would impact on protected species like seals, dolphins and seabirds and would potentially lead to localised depletion of fish stocks. As my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson said recently in response to the release of the expert report, the Greens have long argued that the science on the wider impacts were too uncertain for the minister to make a call on allowing this gigantic floating factory into our waters—in other words, to allow that industrial-scale fishing. We are still a long way from the point where we would be confident that industrial-scale fishing from a supertrawler would not have these impacts. That is one of the reasons that we need to amend the private member's bill before us—because we know that we need to do further work to ensure that industrial-scale fishing is not impacting on our marine ecosystems.

It is time that we acknowledged that supertrawlers are not the way to manage our oceans. The Greens have long been concerned about fisheries management. People from the government will claim that it is because we do not support fishing. That is absolute bunkum. It is simply not true. We want sustainable fisheries management because we want fish in our oceans for the future. Not only are they a critical part of our ecosystem; we know that many communities rely on fishing. But we do not want to see our oceans in a state where whole ecosystems have collapsed and we are no longer able to fish, because fisheries have collapsed.

Australia does have a proud record of good fisheries management—better than most other places in the world—but that does not say that we have it perfect. Quite clearly, the Borthwick review and the expert report show that we have not got it perfect. The Borthwick review shows that we need to change our legislation so that we do incorporate better science on ecosystems. We do need to understand the impact of fisheries better, and we do need to keep ensuring that Commonwealth managed fisheries do not go backwards. It has taken quite a lot of effort to ensure that those fisheries do not go backwards. When I first started working on fisheries management many years ago, the Commonwealth could not claim that some of those Commonwealth fisheries were not going backwards, and it has been a lot of work to get them to the point where they are starting to improve. That is not to say that we should rest on our laurels; that means that we need to keep working to make sure those fisheries are protected.

Supertrawlers have broken our oceans around the planet. We should not be supporting supertrawlers. We support legislation that bans supertrawlers so that we do not have to keep fighting this issue every couple of years. If this private member's bill is not amended along the lines proposed by Senator Whish-Wilson, we will have to keep fighting this issue every couple of years, every time a supertrawler wants to sail over our horizons to start fishing on an industrial scale in our waters. It is simply not appropriate to compare numbers of boats to a supertrawler. A supertrawler can stay out at sea for a very long time. That is why we are proposing the limit of 2,000 tonnes—so that supertrawlers cannot stay out for weeks and weeks depopulating our oceans.

One of my passions is marine protection. There have been decades of work done on the need for better marine protection. The way that the Abbott government essentially got rid of the world's leading marine parks and reserves system in this country, after over a decade of work that did all the science, was disgusting. It did all the science, it did the consultation and it put in place that world-leading system of marine protected areas. We have just had the World Parks Congress in this country, and I am so disappointed that I missed it. It only happens once every 10 years. All the leading experts on nature conservation from around the world come to one place and talk about protected areas, national parks and nature reserves around the world. I was so embarrassed that we no longer had what was, for a short length of time, the world's leading system of marine protected areas, which not only ensured biodiversity protection and ecosystem protection but fishing into the future. The science is there about the roles that marine protected areas play in protecting fish stocks and ensuring that they are there for the future. And what does this Luddite government do? One of their first actions on coming into government was to wipe that system off the face of our maps. They took away the management plans, which essentially means that now all you have is a system of lines on a map. Now the government are spending millions of dollars doing their review, when it is quite clear that the science was done and that the consultation was carried out. Because they are bowing to some of their noisy constituents who want to do whatever they want in the marine environment, they have got rid of those areas.

The support for marine protection in this country is very high. In my home state of Western Australia, surveys show that over 70 per cent of people consistently support marine protection. Those areas need to be restored. The government talks about wasting money and red tape. Well, the government are wasting money in their review of those protected areas. They are simply doing it so that they can find an excuse to wipe out those areas permanently. It is a disgrace, and how the government could show itself at that World Park Congress and pretend it is doing something about marine protection is a complete joke.

This bill needs to be strengthened. Supertrawlers will be yet another impact on our marine environment, a marine environment that is under pressure from overfishing, from extraction, from run-off from land-based sources of pollution and from climate change. We are already seeing the impact of climate change on our marine environment, and, in particular, in some of those colder water temperate marine environments that are getting warmer. This is disturbing the ecosystems around Australia, in particular, in some of the southern areas, with some of the waters warming.

You are seeing, in my home state of Western Australia, marine species turning up much further south than they have ever been before. As I have said in this place before, that means that we need to change the way we are managing our marine environment and managing our fisheries because we are getting species that have not been there before. You are seeing invasive species that have never been seen before. They are taking off and invading marine environments and having an impact there that we have not seen before. That adds to the pressures on our marine environment.

What this government obviously wants now is to enable supertrawlers to come in and add another impact to that marine environment. The science that they were using to justify the supertrawler previously—the Abel Tasman or the Margiris, whichever name you want to call it—was not done on that specific pelagic fishery. It was not done on those species. It was done on jack mackerel, and marine scientists have shown the flaws in that science. The expert panel says that there is a great degree of uncertainty there and that we should be using the precautionary principle. The Borthwick review says that we need a third arm to the research that we do, looking at ecosystem science.

It is time that we took marine protection seriously. We have a short window of time to get this right. We need a series of marine protected areas. Just restore it. The work is done. Just restore those marine parks. Change the legislation so we can have a genuine, quality look at ecosystem science when we are doing fisheries management. Build on our international reputation for good fisheries science. We are some of the world leaders in our fisheries management. We do not want to see that go backwards. We want to keep progressing. It is another area where we can help regionally as we build our scientific marine expertise on the already excellent science that we have got here and the quality of our scientists. It is excellent. We need to build on that, and we can be helping the regions.

I know some of that has been done. But as the climate impacts on our marine environment we need to make sure that we are building that science and also helping regionally because the oceans are that key thing that link us all together. So we need to be making sure that we are getting that right, that we have our science up-to-date and that we have our processes in place that protect and sustain our marine environment. The supertrawlers do not do that. They have broken the oceans elsewhere. We will not stand by and let them break our oceans. We believe this legislation needs to be improved. It needs to genuinely ban supertrawlers because it does not do that. Once this amendment is in place we would be able to support this legislation.

Debate adjourned.