Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I've risen from my sickbed to speak on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Bill because recreational fishing in my electorate is highly important. I apologise if I struggle, but I will do my best. It won't be pretty but we'll give it a go. On this side of the House we welcome this legislation, although I will suggest later in my contribution that the government could go further. More than 85 per cent of Australia's population lives within 50 kilometres of the ocean. Fishing in Australia is a cultural pastime embraced by all Australians. There have been many attempts to quantify the value of recreational fishing and none yet agreed upon. The Australia Institute of Marine Science's December 2016 report contained an analysis of the value of Australia's marine industry. Contained within that report was information that recreational fishing contributed almost $2.2 billion directly to the economy in the 2013-14 years. It also stated that a further $1.5 billion was indirectly contributed to the economy, giving a total value of $3.7 billion. These are significant figures, but they do not take into account the value of repairs, maintenance, marinas and other infrastructure or tourism activity. AIMS do not attribute the value of these sectors between the recreational and commercial sectors. It would be fair to say, though, the conservative $3.7 billion figure demonstrates how big recreational fishing is. Tasmania's peak recreational fishing body, TARFish, is currently in discussions with other bodies in the Commonwealth to finalise an agreed methodology to properly determine the value of recreational fisheries.

The AIMS figures are also interesting when compared to the commercial sector. AIMS state that the value of Australia's recreational fishery in 2013-14 was more than twice the value of Australia's commercial wild fisheries and four times the value of marine based aquaculture. In my state and nationally there continues to be significant growth in aquaculture, but on these figures the commercial sector has some way to go in terms of its economic value. The AIMS data in itself demonstrates a clear need to strengthen the engagement of recreational fishers in Commonwealth legislation and decision-making. In my state and my electorate the recreational fishing sector will welcome this legislation. In some ways it mirrors Labor's national recreational fishing policy that we took to the last federal election.

Recreational fishing is part of Tasmania's social and economic fabric. As an island state, Tasmania actually has a longer coastline than either New South Wales or Victoria. Our inland waters are home to Tasmania's world-class trout fishery. This fishery is estimated to make an economic contribution of around $50 million per annum to Tasmania's economy. It attracts visitors from interstate and overseas who wish to be challenged by some of the best site fishing opportunities for trout in our pristine inland waters, many of which are contained within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

Our marine waters are home to world-class game fishing, a stunning rock lobster fishery and the best inshore flathead fishing in Australia. Catching a feed of flathead is one of the great Tasmanian pastimes, which can be enjoyed all year round. It's been estimated that around 115,000 Tasmanians, or one in four people, enjoy recreational fishing. I remember as a child going to my local port, to the wharf—when you used to be allowed onto the wharf—and fishing for flathead. Nowadays it's a bit hard to do that on our wharves. Still, it's such an important pastime that generations of Tasmanians have enjoyed.

Marine and Safety Tasmania, or MAST, has stated that Tasmania has the highest level of recreational boat ownership of any state or territory in Australia, at one in 17. For the 2016-17 year, over 30,000 boats were registered in Tasmania. It has also been established that 90 per cent of all registered boats are used for recreational fishing. Conservative estimates place the value of Tasmania's recreational fishery in excess of $200 million. Tasmania's Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, IMAS, has just commenced a survey of the Tasmanian population to determine the number of persons who go fishing and their demographic make-up. IMAS previously researched the major drivers of recreational fishing in Tasmania, and it states:

Overall, Tasmanian recreational fishers assigned the highest importance to non-catch related motives – "being outdoors" and "relaxing/unwinding" - followed by catch-related motives – "catching fish for food" and "for enjoyment/sport". Social motives – "spending time with family" and "spending time with friends" - were next in importance.

Given the value of recreational fishing, it is somewhat extraordinary how the fishery has been treated by this government when it comes to the debate over large-scale factory freezer trawlers that operate in Commonwealth waters. The public record states that this government has been and continues to support supertrawlers, initially in the Margiris and then the Geelong Star.

When Labor was in government we stopped the supertrawler, but once the coalition assumed office there was no greater champion of supertrawlers than the former assistant minister from Tasmania, Senator Colbeck. In 2015 Labor tried to ban the Geelong Star but was stopped by the coalition. Labor still holds genuine concerns about the impact of industrial-scale fishing operations in the small pelagic fishery. It is true that the fishery operates under a scientifically assessed quota management system. Equally true is that there have not been sufficient scientific studies to give the wider community confidence that large-scale harvesting of fish stocks from a single area would not have a long-term impact on the overall fishery. Localised depletion is a genuine concern for recreational fishers, particularly those from Tasmania. Tasmania's peak recreational fishing body, TARFish, believes there is a lack of knowledge on the rates of movements of species within the fishery, a lack of knowledge on the time it will take for local populations to recover from industrial-scale fishing and a lack of knowledge on one particular species, the jack mackerel, on the east coast of Tasmania. The jack mackerel is a particularly important species as a source of food for our tuna populations. It is also an important species for the recreational tuna sector.

A real contrast exists between the precautionary approach of this side of the House when it comes to supertrawlers and the approach of the other side. I do welcome that this legislation contains some provisions from the Senate Environment and Communications Committee inquiry into factory freezer trawlers. It may be that another Margiris or Geelong Star could be avoided in the future with a new requirement for AFMA to consider recreational fisheries in its decision-making process, as recommended by the Senate inquiry. Perhaps if this legislation had been in place a few years ago this entire debate could have been prevented.

There is no doubt the coalition has suffered political damage in my state with their blind support of supertrawlers. At the Tasmanian level the Liberal Party's ignorance could never be more stated than by having a passing glance at the actions of the Hodgman government. For a long period they were happy to stay silent and let their federal colleagues do the running. But in an effort to minimise the political damage inflicted by their federal colleagues, and with an election less than 12 months away, the Hodgman government introduced legislation to ban trawling in state waters—a political stunt if there ever were one, because trawling has been banned in Tasmanian waters for decades.

At the commencement of my contribution I mentioned that Labor will be supporting this legislation. I also mention that on this side we believe things could be still done in a way that complements this legislation. At the last election Labor had a policy to establish a national recreational fishing council that would give our recreational fishers a seat at the decision-making table. Chaired by the agriculture, fisheries and forestry minister, the council would include representatives of both recreational fisheries and relevant government departments. The council would tackle issues like small pelagic fisheries management, boating and fishing infrastructure, conservation, access to national marine parks, and other issues of concern to recreational fishers. In effect, this body would have been the national peak body at government level for recreational fishers. It would have given recreational fishers a direct say in management decisions.

Having perused the explanatory memorandum for this legislation, I would be interested in hearing from the opposite side as to whether recreational fishers will have that direct say in future AFMA management decisions. For example, will there be a recreational fisheries representative on AFMA's management advisory committees, or will this legislation just be lip service? I hope one of the government's speakers can clarify this point, as it is very important to Tasmania's recreational fishers.

This legislation is well overdue and I know recreational fishers from my state and electorate will welcome it. The proof, as they say, will ultimately be in its implementation. I look forward to seeing it becoming a reality and to recreational fishers being placed in national fisheries management decision-making.

See this speech in context