Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to a debate which enables us to shine a spotlight on fishing and the way we sustainably manage a precious resource in this island nation, a debate which enables us to talk about the ecology, ensuring that we get the right balance between the ecological management of the fishing stock, the commercial interests and the recreational interests in fishing in this country. Of course, Deputy Speaker, you would know very well that any time a government, local, state or federal, seeks to regulate in the area of fishing or the use of our oceans it excites the passions of this nation. That is so because Australians love the water and they love their fishing. It was so when the government moved, quite properly, to establish marine parks in this country. At that stage we saw many people entering the debate in defence of recreational fishers, raising, in our view, unfounded concerns about the impact that those marine parks would have on the enjoyment of recreational fishing. It is disappointing that some of those speakers have not come to this debate with the same passion.

I would like to say a few things about the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012. The bill will provide for the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, jointly with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, to declare a fishing activity where there is some uncertainty about the environmental, social or economic impacts of that fishing activity. Once the ministers jointly declare an activity, that activity may be prohibited for a period of up to 24 months. During that period the bill provides for the establishment of an expert panel and for consultation to occur regarding the economic, social or environmental concerns that led to the declaration of that activity. In short, it enables a process for further scientific, economic or social impact studies to be done on the specific activity which has excited the declaration and the concern of the minister and the community.

It is a good process. It has come about because we have discovered, through the recent events surrounding the Margiris, now the Abel Tasman, that there are gaps in the laws, gaps that do not empower the Commonwealth government to appropriately respond to community concern around the ecological impacts of large-scale factory ships such as the Margiris.

It is worth saying a little bit about the Margiris, because it is obvious that the appearance of this ship on our horizon is what has led to this debate before the parliament. It is unprecedented. There is no doubt that we have factory ships, or large-scale trawlers, operating in Australian waters at the moment. That is absolutely true. But there is nothing on the scale of the Margiristhe Abel Tasmanoperating in Australian waters. It is a 140-metre long ship. As some recreational fishermen in my electorate have said to me, it is about 100 times the size of the trawlers we see in Wollongong Harbour and Port Kembla Harbour, trawlers which operate along the coast. So it is a giant. It has nets in excess of 600 metres. Just to put that in some perspective, a net that size would be big enough to more than surround the Sydney Cricket Ground. These are enormous enterprises. Its freezers have a holding capacity of over 6,000 tonnes. That is more than four times the holding capacity of any ship which currently operates in Australian waters.

See this speech in context