Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is indeed an honour and a pleasure for me to stand here in the Federation Chamber to talk about the report Netting the benefits, which is the culmination of a very significant inquiry on fisheries across and around this great nation of ours. The report quite appropriately refers to the fact that production from Australian commercial fisheries and aquaculture is small by comparison with other countries. The economic value of each sector is approximately $1.3 billion and $.9 billion per year respectively. Separately, the economic value of the recreational fishing sector is exceedingly difficult to quantify. It is very important to our great nation, with some estimates placing it between $4 billion and $5 billion annually. The Australian Fishing Trade Association's submission, which was part of the evidence taken in this wonderful report, suggests that the figure could be as high as $10 billion per year through direct expenditure associated with the activity of going fishing. As a recreational fisherman, I can attest to that. One of the great things about our wonderful country is that we as Australians have for decades been able to take our children down to the coast or into our river systems and participate in recreational fishing.

Sadly, some of the problems associated with our freshwater species has been as a result of introduced species such as carp. What we are trying to do scientifically to destroy that incursion of those pests such as carp and other tropical species has been centred around not only getting them out of the system and moving them away from endangering our native species but, more importantly, getting a byproduct from them that has been able to be used to fertilise food in other areas. That is what is happening with the Charlie Carp Fertiliser that uses the carp taken out of our system.

The report talked about the geographic size of Australian waters. It talked about wild fishery production being particularly low. The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation in its contribution to the committee summarised the situation when it said:

Australia's exclusive economic zone is the third-largest in the world, covering one-and-a-third times the area of Australia's land mass. However, the quantum of Australia's commercial wild catch ranks 60th in the world, representing only 0.2 per cent of world tonnage but 2 per cent by value. The size of catch of one species in some countries exceeds that of Australia's total production.

That is a classic example of the responsible way in which Australians, once again in an industry, look towards sustainable yields for harvesting. I do not think in the past that we have been given due credit for that. We certainly have not given due credit for that to the industry itself.

I mentioned this morning one of the classic examples of the industry understanding that its targeting of a particular species—in this case the kingfish, with the kingfish traps—was placing an enormous pressure on that species. To its credit, the government of the day took action on that. To its credit also, the industry complied with what was being asked of it and cut out the kingfish traps. We saw the kingfish species multiply rapidly in a very short period of time. That is indicative of the sensible and cooperative way in which commercial and recreational fishermen have approached a resource that we need to keep for future generations of Australians.

The committee also talked about the aquaculture sector. Australia's aquaculture sector has grown significantly in the past three decades, corresponding with a worldwide trend, noted by the CSIRO in its evidence when it said:

Seafood is a major contributor to global food security with the aquaculture sector continuing to be the fastest-growing animal food producing sector in the world. Aquaculture currently accounts for nearly half (46%) of the world's food fish consumption, compared with 33.8% in 2000.

So there has been a very significant contribution by scientists in the area of aquaculture. I make the point, which I also made earlier today, that there is an enormous potential, given the way in which our scientists have approached that particular part of the fishing industry, for Australia to export that expertise into those countries whose fish stocks are under enormous pressure.

The Tasmanian salmon aquaculture process, for example, is now the most valuable of all Australia's seafood sectors, with a farm gate value of $370 million. It just goes to show you that you do not have to be big to make a significant contribution to your country, as has been proven by the Taswegians. I compliment Tasmanians for that contribution.

The industry is based on a genetically healthy population of founder breeding stocks introduced from Canada in the mid-1960s. It mirrors a TV program that I watched the other night on the harvesting of tuna and the wonderful way in which the industry works to harvest and grow tuna, and supply an export market that is putting very severe demands and pressures on the tuna population around the world. We can also say that on the crustacean side of things, where the West Australians in particular have embarked upon a very serious breeding program for lobster. That has created a very significant export business for the industry there.

I go back to the point in relation to government's propensity to declare marine parks which is very concerning. We all want to protect our biodiversity and we all want to protect the environment, particularly in our oceans because they are under some pressure. But we have to be very, very careful that we do not go into an overkill process and wipe out a very lucrative business and, more importantly, one of the recreational pastimes Australians take for granted. Recreational fishing is a very common activity in Australia with potentially large impacts on the environment and economic activity, and recreational fishers recognise that. It is no coincidence that people like me are recreational fishermen. I practise the catch-and-release process that most recreational fishermen practise—I would say about 99 per cent of them.

During evidence-taking the committee learnt that recreational fishers—I do not like the term 'fishers' although that is the politically correct term we use today; I am a fisherman not a fisher, but unfortunately that is the environment we live in today—were becoming increasingly sophisticated in their approach. I know that because I am one of them. We use modern technology to locate fish and increase our vessel range. This poses a challenge for how recreational fishing is governed, but the technology can also be an opportunity to gather additional information on recreational fishing impacts. For example, fishing groups could encourage individual members to report information using phone applications or website based interfaces to capture data in real-time. That is actually happening in the process of recreational fishermen reporting to the companies that are putting out fishing magazines. It is also a very good source for scientists to tap into.

The recreational fishing industry is governed by a combination of state, territory and national environment legislation. The powers within the Fisheries Management Act have not been used to actively manage recreational fishing in Commonwealth waters to the extent where it is done professionally. That is one of the points that is part of the recommendations in the committee's report. There are also different standards and rules for licensing and data collection arrangements between Australian jurisdictions. Nothing has changed; we saw this in relation to the pest animal report. We go about independently doing things without talking to one another about how our expertise and our experiences can benefit the environment and biodiversity as a whole. Once again we have picked that up in the fishing industry, and I compliment the committee on doing so.

The committee believes that recreational fishing impacts on catches should be better understood and its contribution to the economy more accurately estimated. The last comprehensive national survey of recreational fishing was in the early 2000s. The committee has therefore recommended regular reporting on recreational fishing statistics, which I have alluded to, and this is one among a number of areas of national reporting the committee believes should be addressed, with several related recommendations made throughout this report. I compliment the chair for steering the committee in that direction. It is a very, very important part of protecting our fisheries and he needs to be complimented on that. Separately, COAG should discuss standardising recreational fishing licensing and rules should be agreed within a framework for data collection on recreational fishing activities to assist with national reporting—another very significant and pertinent recommendation by the committee.

In addition the current review of Commonwealth fisheries management legislation should consider whether the Fisheries Management Act needs to be revised to facilitate the Australian governments engaging more readily in regulation and data collection of recreational fishing in Commonwealth waters, a recommendation which precisely mirrors a recommendation we made, once again, in the pest animal report. They should not be put on shelves and left to collect dust like they have been doing for decades now. There is an enormous amount of science; there is an enormous amount of input from all levels of the Australian society into these reports, and this report is no exception. I commend it to the fishing industry; I commend it to Australians who have a genuine desire to protect our biodiversity within our waters, whether that be in the ocean or the inland rivers that cover this great country of ours. I thank the Parliament for the opportunity to say a few words about this particular responsible report: Netting the benefits.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I thank the honourable member for Hume for his good words and his good work in making sure that we got this report together; these things do not happen without a lot of work, a lot of putting-in and a lot of travel. Australia is at the cutting edge of global initiatives to meet the needs of a growing international population. Our nation's effort in developing innovative solutions, particularly in the sphere of sustainable fisheries management, is world renowned. I said that yesterday when tabling the report, and I think it is the highlight of where Australia is and we can certainly assist into the future, making sure that we help feed the world as we go to nine billion people by 2050.

Fish is the biggest traded protein in the world. I know you are probably a beef man, Mr Deputy Speaker, but fish outdoes you, and the ratio probably supports fish into the future. With the Asian century upon us, there will be a lot more fish eaten in our part of the world. Fishing is an activity of catching fish. It is an ancient practice dating back at least 40,000 years. Many species have come and gone depending on the climate and fishing habits of the time, but fish has thoroughly remained a part of our diet and will continue to into the future. There is evidence of the Basque people of Europe travelling across the Atlantic to the banks of Canada—catching those cod and taking them home to Europe from the 16th century. There have been a lot of people moving around the world., fishing for an awfully long time. Of course, we do that in a much more sophisticated way using technology we never used in the past. We need to do that sustainably and we need to do that without destroying the habitats where fish grow, come from and spend some of their life.

Aquaculture and the growing of fish in fish farms can substitute some of that protein; those processes help us meet the needs of the world. There are great opportunities for us to grow that industry in Australia. Indirect employment in the world, I understand, involves about 5 million people in the fishing industry. In 2005 a worldwide per capita of fish captured from wild fisheries was 14.4 kilos with an additional 7.4 kilos harvested from fish farms, a substantial amount of fish coming from different parts and different ways in the world. Australia is a small player globally, but fishing is still a vital part of our economy, and I am sure that if governments take up the recommendations of our report we can grow fishing even more into the future. One of our major recommendations is developing a national regional fishing policy statement for fisheries, aquaculture and recreational fishing which would allow the industry to start setting its goals for regional fishing agreements. There is a need for us to get a national overview of what we want to do with fishing and the fishing industry, and lay down some markers in that space, and then let the stakeholders have input into reaching those goals. I think we need to do that.

We have heard about statistics in fishing. We certainly do not have very good fishing statistics. ABARES have told the committee that this year they had to bring down a national report on the state of fishing in Australia. It will be very good to have that sort of report so that we can build on it. But, of course, in Australia, we need to have states and the Commonwealth working together to build that statistical base on the different species that we fish. We do not have very good statistics about aquaculture, the research that is going on or the investment in aquaculture. It would be better to have some of that as well.

There is also the issue of having the take from recreational fishing. The member for Hume mentioned this. This is becoming a much bigger issue. In Commonwealth waters, there are now very large boats of recreational fishermen that go out fishing—there might be fishing women as well—with a lot of technology on their boats, and there probably is not any record of what that take is being brought back. There may be some regulations within what can be taken but in a lot of times there would not be any records kept or recorded for future opportunities to use that in some scientific way. So we need to do that. How do we do that? Maybe some of the states have licences, therefore giving some income to be able to do some of that science work and to build knowledge in that space. We need to do that in Australia. We need to build on what is the take from recreational fishing. Whether we do that through licensing or other survey ways is up to people to work out, but there is an urgent need to do so.

The complexities of fishing in Australia need to be given some consideration. The committee has recommended that the Productivity Commission should look at this. State fishermen, or fisherwomen, may have state and federal licences; they may have to comply with regulations from both areas; quota is traded and sold; quota sometimes lies dormant for some years without being used. I do not know—and the committee could reach a conclusion on—whether the consumer of fish in Australia pays a price for that or not; whether we have an effective industry or whether we do not. That was one of the recommendations coming in relation to that.

The maritime park area was dealt with by our committee. The evidence we received was mixed, as one would expect. The overall issue was that the evidence we received was not of strong issues proving that you should not have maritime parks, but the committee came down with the proposition that we now need to make sure that we prove their worth. The monitoring and the science that is done over the next 10 years or so should bring us back some reporting on the pluses of having maritime parks—and some of the biggest maritime parks in the world. I am sure there will be a lot of work done in that space. The subject of the supertrawler became an issue while we were doing this report. That was a public debate that took place around Australia. Issues concerning guidelines for fishing and changing those guidelines because of public pressure became a discussion within the committee and we certainly gave consideration to that. However, it came back to things like a precautionary principle and trying to find certainty when you make decisions, which I do not think is possible. For some people, 'precaution' means doing nothing unless you have spent a billion dollars on science to prove that there will be no adverse reaction to what you are doing. It is really about making decisions about risk, and what risk assessment is. I write that down as letting kids climb trees or not letting kids climb trees. Kids climbing trees is probably good for the kids. If they go too high, that is a risk that you probably would not want to let them do—falling from too high would not serve them very well. So we have to make those sorts of judgements. We made recommendations in relation to getting some guidelines on what precaution means and that would be very good for people making decisions into the future.

We need to also make sure that we understand what climate change will do for fishing in Australia. We have some broader science in this area but we do not have a lot of good science on what would happen in some spaces if fish started to move because of current changes. That would certainly have a devastating effect on some communities and on the fishing industry. So we need to have work done in that space and we need to continue to look at that, gaining some preview of the future and what might happen with climate change.

Though we have some of the overall pictures, we certainly do not have them for different regions and issues like that. Our current efforts are not enough. The committee felt that having national reporting of fisheries information would be critical in order to make better decisions about where the fishing industry will go in the future. We need to build that base into the future.

This inquiry has been a good opportunity for us. I really enjoyed working on this committee. We were able to pull a lot of good information together. Because of the complexities of our Federation and the way we govern Australia, we should pull together state and Commonwealth decision makers to drive this forward. I hope that the states and the Commonwealth take up some of these recommendations to give us a direction into the future. There are great opportunities for Australia. Our sciences are so far advanced. We have very good people and good institutions. We just need to coordinate that better, not let it get siloed and make sure we work it in a direction in the interests of the nation. I am confident we can do that and I look forward to that occurring.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this report, Netting the Benefits, by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fishing and Forestry, that the Chair has so eloquently outlined. I give the Chair the tick for that particular heading because it was a hotly contested thing to talk about where we should start with this. Many people right across this country love fishing. I know I love to get out fishing—there is nothing better than a day of frustration when you can sit on the water, come home empty-handed or end up having to stop at the shop and get a steak on the way home! I am sure you, Deputy Speaker, as a keen fisherman probably have had similar experiences where you went home more frustrated than when you started out. The importance of fishing and our fisheries stocks can never be underestimated. The population across the world is growing. We know that fish products are a good source of protein for people. With more and more people eating fish because of the health benefits—and maybe I should eat more—it is important that we protect our fisheries and make sure that we capitalise on the world-class fisheries that we have, and develop our aquaculture because that will be the next phase for the fishing industry. Ocean stocks are being depleted due to a range factors. We have heard about climate change and the effects on weather patterns and water currents, and what that does for fish stocks right across the globe. A lot of the water currents start in the Northern Hemisphere and come all the way down to Tasmania, and with that they bring the recruitment stocks of smaller fish and crustaceans that grow, and that we fish.

In my previous life before the privilege of coming to this place, I worked in the Victorian government and my responsibilities related to fishing and how commercial and recreational fishers work with the resources we have. It is a situation of two goats head-butting, if you like, with competing interests for the resources available. A lot of times there is angst amongst both the recreational and the commercial fishers about where to go. Everyone would agree that we need to protect our fish stocks. We need to make sure that they are available for future generations, but we all like access to our fisheries. In my home state of Victoria, we have some wonderful fisheries: the scallop and tuna fisheries, and of course everyone enjoys a good feed of snapper. They are usually on the run magnificently up through Port Phillip Bay. It is not uncommon even for recreational fishers to get out there or to see a queue of 400 or 500 boats lining up to get out and enjoy a day's catch.

We have to make sure that we have the correct instruments in place to protect fish stocks. Most state waters where a lot of the recreational fishing is done is within the three-kilometre line from shore. Outside of that line are the Commonwealth waters. Unfortunately, fish are not like cattle and sheep in that you cannot put them in a pen. It is very hard to get fish to understand that they may be going from a Commonwealth water into a state water and vice versa. So we need to have guidelines and precautions in place, and we do that by working with the stakeholders, to ensure we have regional policy statements and regional rules in place that look after the fish stocks and that continue to ensure a great pastime for recreational fishers and, importantly, a livelihood for commercial fishers.

I have done a lot of work in the past with Seafood Industry Victoria with the Port Phillip Bay and Westernport Bay netters—all a very great bunch of people. We did not always agree on things and we did have some animated discussions. But we were able to work together to achieve an outcome to keep the resources available for future generations. That is important for them because it is their livelihood. I have always had a personal belief that you must not do something that takes away someone's livelihood, particularly when given that some of the commercial fishermen are second, third and fourth generation. Fishing is their lifeline and that is what they know, and they do it very well. By and large, commercial fishers are very, very cautious in what they do to make sure that bycatch is kept to a minimum. They do that by always improving their gear and their equipment, and always making sure that they do their best to stay within the rules. The rules cause a lot of conjecture, particularly if you look at states that have different size limits and different catch limits. That becomes a problem when you have licensees who run across state borders. For example, a rock lobster could have a five- or 10-millimetre difference in different states. States do that in those waters to make sure they protect their stocks for the future. With depletion of stock through overfishing and climate change, we have to look at the new generation, which is aquaculture.

Our aquaculture industry is very small in comparison to other places around the world. What I can say is that the quality of the product we produce is a hell of a lot better than other countries produce. The quality of things like our wild stock abalone and the blacklip and greenlip abalone are world's best. Nothing compares to those. Nor is there anything that compares to Red Legs lobsters. Anthony, who is a lobster fisherman in Victoria, has been working extremely hard to keep the markets in place in China and Asia where it is a high-dollar product. He and the other people involved in Seafood Industries Victoria have been pushing that along. They are doing the right thing by marketing the product for what it is. It is high quality and you expect to pay a little bit more for it, but you get a better product. That is important in a market where some countries around the world will go for the lowest dollar and try and shift their product as quickly as they can. Their fisheries then become depleted and it is a very short-term outlook for them. Five or 10 years down the track, they have nothing left to fish. Because our products are in clean water and they are of high quality, they should be treated as high quality and the fisheries should get a high dollar for them.

There has been a big shift in the industry over the years, moving from being price takers to price makers.

Opposition member interjecting—

I note what the member opposite said. I do recall a funny time when I went to the Seafood Industry Awards and got steak for dinner. I was pretty unhappy with that, but that is the story of my fishing ability! I missed out on some magnificent, locally-caught swordfish, which was sensational. That was at a time when we were doing some restructuring in the Victorian industry. It was a tough time for the fishermen involved. To their credit, they were always professional. Maria Manias, who looks after the Port Phillip and Westernport Bay fishers, is someone I now count as a friend. We started poles apart, but we got together and worked together. She is very concerned about the future of commercial fisheries. There have been some exceptionally terrible stories of commercial fishers in recent times. They have struggled to make a living, they do not have much of a future and a few of the fishermen took their own life because they saw no way forward. To their families and friends, I extend my greatest sympathies and hope that we can stop that from happening in the future.

We have an opportunity to grow aquaculture, learn from the science and the research, and create more of a product in an area where we have a few controls. By having crustaceans, gastropods and the like growing on land based areas, we have an opportunity to increase the Australian population's intake of fish products, keep our wild stocks for what they are and ensure that they are going to have a long-term future with the challenges that we face ahead.

One of the important things in the list of recommendations that we came to is having to take a national approach. The states, territories and the Commonwealth have to start working together to ensure that we get sustainability in our fisheries to make sure that there is an industry not only for this generation but for the next generation. Some of the recommendations talked about how we need to work together through the Primary Industries Ministerial Council—PIMC, as it is known—to look at R&D in aquaculture and in commercial fisheries to see how we can work together and progress our fishing effort to the betterment of the industry and this country. We have seen a lot of changes in fishing practices over the years. The days of a couple of people on a boat with a few rods hanging out and maybe the odd cold can are long gone for fishers, particularly the professional commercial fishers. Now we have far better netting equipment and far better potting equipment. We also have access to better GPS fish finders and things you can use to specifically target species you are after. With the changes that we have seen over time, bigger boats and more nets, we have seen a lot of impact on fish stocks locally in set areas. This was brought to a head recently with the supertrawler that came in during this inquiry. We had quite a few people, particularly those in the industry, who were very upset about having a boat of that size with a net of that size and the capability of putting some pressure on local stocks in a very short time.

When we looked at it it was found—and Minister Burke and Minister Ludwig went through this—that the science that we rely on so heavily, because it is a science that lets us know where our stocks are, was not the best in the area of fishing when it comes to using a boat of that size and looking at the local impacts. Rightly the government said we need to put a moratorium on this and not allow this to happen while doing the science. We have to get the science right first. That is what we rely on both at the Commonwealth and at the state and territory levels when we talk about fish stocks, size limits, bag limits and these sorts of things. We rely on the science that looks at the climate, the weather and fishing impacts. We need to do that to make sure that we can keep this industry sustainable. If you think of a supertrawler-size boat coming through the bottom half of Victoria in tuna season, that is probably during one of the highest tourism benefits we get in some of the areas around Portland. If such boats came through and took out the tuna stocks, thousands and thousands of people who rely on that season for business, such as accommodation, tackle shops and the like, would see their businesses devastated. Can fish stocks sustain a boat of that size? Who knows. That is the question we cannot answer until we know that the science is right. We have been able to unearth a lot of these issues and start putting the science together.

Many people will not read this report, but they should read it to see how all sides of parliament worked closely to put this report together and get some recommendations out that are going to work. These recommendations are going to benefit our fish stocks from now into the future to make sure that when we develop our aquaculture and grow these things we will have lasting and sustainable fish stocks for both recreational and commercial fishing. It is important that we have our committees work in this bipartisan way to bring outcomes such as those listed in the recommendations in this report. These outcomes will benefit all Australians, so it is the right way to do things. I commend the chair for his great work in putting this together and keeping everything working. (Time expired)

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with a lot of what the member for McEwen said. I heard the member for McEwen talking about fishing in Port Phillip Bay and the great fishing done there. I say to the member for McEwen: you would not know fishing if you fell over it, mate. A friend of mine, Jason Collins, was fishing off the beach in Lucinda, which is just up the road from Townsville. He noticed out of the corner of his eye that there was a family watching him. He had picked up a beautiful winter whiting, put in three hooks and then put it back out there. The husband of the family came up and said, 'You know, mate, I wouldn't mind telling you that we'd have kept that.' And Jason said, 'We don't want that fish, mate. We want what's going to eat that fish.' Thirty-five minutes later he pulled that fish in and it had been sucked dry, gilled and scaled by something that was very, very big, and he did not catch the fish. That is the nature of the recreational fishermen—as the members opposite were saying—they are always prepared to catch the fish out there that is that big.

To get onto the subject of the science behind it. We are very, very lucky in North Queensland that we are surrounded by great scientific organisations. We have the Australian Institute of Marine Science which, although based just south of my electorate, most of what they do comes in through my electorate. If we are talking about the need for science in fishery and the need for science in our oceans, the Australian Institute of Marine Science should be receiving better funding. Under this government, they have received cuts to their operational funding. They have a boat that has been newly commissioned that is sitting at the wharf and cannot be used because the government has cut the operational funding to the Australian Institute of Marine Science. They have not got any extra money for the way the carbon tax will attack the fuel that is being used on the boat. That cuts back the actual science that can be used in what is one of the world's great fisheries.

The role of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, or AIMS, is to work as the honest broker in all things marine. I give you an example, the Montara spill that happened a few years ago. What happened before they drilled there was the Australian Institute of Marine Science were commissioned to do a baseline survey of the entire region. Once the spill happened, they were able to contain the spill and they cleaned up the spill. The Greens groups and everyone were jumping up and down about what was actually going wrong and how it was going to be devastated. The Australian Institute of Marine Science were able to go into the area and do the baseline research again, so that there is no damage. There was no damage to those areas. That is what using scientific research is all about—being able to do those things.

If I was to say anything to this parliament about science it is that across that entire Northwest shelf. If we commissioned the Australian Institute of Marine Science to act as an honest broker and do the proper baseline research there, you would find that before we start doing anything we would have the information that we need before anything happens. That is where the science should go. If we can get that research done before anything happens then you will discover it. I think you will find that companies like Woodside, BHP and Rio Tinto will be very much on the side with that, because no-one wants the bad results any more.

We also have James Cook University, which is a university that has proclaimed for life in the tropical world. If you are talking about fisheries and seaways, you are talking about the tropical realm, because you have places like Vietnam, the Philippines and every place like that where they are severely outfishing their resources. The research that we are doing at James Cook University with the ARC, under the experience and guidance of Dr Terry Hughes, is one of the most published areas of James Cook University. Our marine research out of JCU is second to none worldwide. If we can export that science to places where they can rebuild their fisheries, it would be a great thing for our world. You also have Dr Damian Burrows at JCU who specialises in freshwater research.

Everyone is going on about the north of Australia being the food bowl of the world, and how we need to expand it. But of all the river systems up there, we have actually quantitative baseline research on about 25 per cent of those. Before we start going into the expansion of agriculture, aquaculture, mining, farming and all those things in the north of Australia, we need to get that baseline research to find out what is actually out there. What are the dangers? What things do we risk? Then we can have the proper discussion. Those are the issues that we really have to address, and we have to come to the table with the realisation that we do need to invest in this. Blokes like Damian Burrows and Terry Hughes will be very upfront with you. They are very giving of their time to people like myself who do not—I put this in the nicest possible way for myself—have a science degree, regarding the way that they can explain things to me, the way that they take their time to sit me down and explain what are the risks. Also Mr John Gunn, and before him Dr Ian Poiner, at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, can explain things that way through to you.

We also have the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority based in Townsville. We have the challenges of having Magnetic Island, which is a suburb of Townsville—fully inhabited and one of the most beautiful places in the world—that is inside the marine park precinct. There are massive challenges that we have there. We have ferries coming in and out. There are massive challenges there that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority will always have to deal with. The way that they are able to interact with the general public is a credit to them and the way that the science must go. Dr Russell Reichelt, who was the previous head of the Australian Institute of Marine Science and is now in charge of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. I have heard that just recently he has had his tenure extended. That is a very positive thing, because he is a very pragmatic man and across all the science.

One of the things that we must do, as a nation and as a parliament, is look to lead by example. Senator Bill Heffernan, one of our favourite people and a man known to stick to a point, was sitting in the Parliament House dining room. The fish in the dining room, if you have you ever been to north Queensland, is not that great here. It is labelled as barramundi. He asked the attendant at the time there where the barramundi was from. The attendant said, 'It is from the south coast.' Senator Heffernan said, 'South coast of where?' Senator Heffernan asked the attendant to go get the box. The fish had come from the south coast of Taiwan. We have a real problem when the parliament of Australia cannot even eat Australia fish. The fact that this is being labelled as barramundi in the nation's parliament gives the fish a bad rap. Barramundi is not the greatest fish in the world, but it is a fantastic fish because it keeps in your fridge for an awfully long time. If you Cryopac the fillets, they will last for an awfully long time. They will take on any flavour; they are beautiful fish for that. Mangrove jack, coral trout and those sorts of things are a little bit better eating.

Those are the challenges that we should be facing as a parliament. It should be realised that the greatest protector of all our seas and waterways, especially in north Queensland, is the weather. You will go eight to 10 weeks at a time where you will be not be able to get out the front at all. If it is blowing five to 10 knots, as the member for McEwen was saying before, you have got 400 people trying to get out. You will go out and have a fish. I have a friend of mine who moved up from Sydney; they moved up for the fishing. They got themselves a very good boat, a very big boat. In the 18 months that they have been in Townsville, they have been able to go out and fish eight times. In those times, never once have they achieved a bag limit. Even when you do get out there, if the moon is not right and if the tides are not right, you will not get the run you want. The weather is the biggest protector of everything when it comes to fishing in north Queensland.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority established green zones. They were very unpopular at the time and they were established by the Howard government. More important was the way that they were established. The Howard government went out to the fishers of north Queensland and said, 'We are just doing research out there.' We got everyone to come in and say where they fished. Where they fished was pretty much where the green zones went. You will have fishermen now tell you bluntly until they are blue in the face that they will never, ever share that information with anyone ever again from an official point of view. What north Queenslanders will tell you, though, is that the green zones are successful, that the green zones have been able to get that breeding stock up and the migratory species will move off those reefs.

We have yellow zones. For those people who do not understand what a yellow zone is, it is one line, one hook and one angler. If you have four people on your boat, you are allowed four rods or Alvey reels and four hooks. You can fish as much as you want until you get to the bag limit there, but you cannot do multiple lines. You cannot drag those things there and you have serious bag limits.

The perception that north Queenslanders fight all the time is that we are abusers of our environment. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is about to launch the Sea Country Guardians. No-one understands that North Queenslanders do care about their environment. We are not throwing sticks of gelignite over the bow of the ship or the boat to catch fish. It is the North Queenslanders who set the size and bag limits. You cannot take home a barramundi under 58 centimetres. You cannot take it home over 120 centimetres. The reason for that is we are guided by the science. The barramundi is a hermaphrodite and at 120 centimetres and will change sex to a female. It will drop its eggs once they get to that age where they are over 120 centimetres. That is the key: putting them back at over 120 centimetres. They are also great catching over that. My record is 110 centimetres, but I have been in a boat when we pulled in on that was 134 centimetres. You could almost get your head inside its mouth. It was a massive fish. We put it back in the water and went from there.

The most caught species in North Queensland is the mud crab. It was the Queenslanders who brought in that you cannot catch jennies, you cannot catch the females, because they are the egg layers. In the Northern Territory, you can still eat jennies. They say they are supposed to be very tasty. I have never had one. To get a mud crab you must have a basic size and you do get billed quite severely if you do not do that.

In relation to the Protect Our Coral Sea campaign, I bitterly opposed to the way Minister Burke has run this campaign. The draft plan that has come out. We campaigned very hard in 2010 to say that a vote for Labor was a vote to close down the Coral Sea, and that has been proved correct. Political expediency and the populist politics have gone hand in hand with this campaign. The research by the Pew Foundation saw them in North Queensland for nearly two or three days. They did not speak to anyone from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, they did not speak to anyone of any academic qualification at Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and they spent about an hour and a half with the people of James Cook University. That is what we have based this thing on. I held a fishing forum of the recreational fishing public on this that passed a series of resolutions:

Recreational fishing is a lifestyle issue for north Queensland. It is a right that should be protected.

Science should be the guide to the establishment of a marine reserve off the north coast of Australia. If a marine park is designated—

without using the science—

that decision should be overturned by subsequent government until Australian scientific case for closure can be made.

Artificial reefs should be established in yellow zones.

The resolution even went as far as saying we would not even bother anchoring to protect it even further. The further resolutions state:

A science based review of green zones should be undertaken—

including the recreational and commercial fishermen, to make sure that they are exactly what they are and that we have that quantifiable research from the fishing public. Finally:

Work needs to be done to change the negative perception of North Queensland fishers.

Those are the key issues for us. Those are the issues that Richard Colbeck, the shadow parliamentary secretary for agriculture, fisheries and forestry,has told me that he will work for. Those are the issues that I will continue to fight for. These are the things that we need to do. We should use science in everything we do.

We have a problem with the Murray-Darling Basin because we did not use the science when it was set up in the 1800s. The science was not available. The science is available now. We must use it. We must be prepared to abide by it and we cannot be risking people's lifestyles and people's jobs. Already GetUp!is asking for more closures of the Coral Sea. They are asking for extensions to it. I think that is wrong that they are using those sorts of things and getting people in Sydney and Melbourne to sign up for these campaigns when they have no knowledge of what is actually going on there. I thank the House.

Debate adjourned.