Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012. This is a complete and utter joke. I have been trying to keep track of the amendments being rushed in—three lots in three days, with another series of amendments only one hour ago—as this government responds to an online campaign., as it reacts with a knee-jerk and moves away from policy settings because of Twitter, Facebook and emails. This is no longer a debate about sustainable fisheries management, quota management and how commercial fishing operates. This is now a debate about Labor and what it believes.

All was apparently going well until the member for Fremantle decided to introduce a private member's bill. Then Kevin turned up. The dear old member for Griffith decided to support the member for Fremantle, and now we have a farce of the highest order. We now have the live-cattle-trade disaster operating on the water.

Be in no doubt that the coalition supports sustainable fisheries management and sustainable fisheries practices. We stand for sustainability, but it seems like we are the only party that actually has a view on a disciplined approach to the sustainable management of our fish stocks. It seems like we are the only party that stands up for recreational fishers. The government is in a mess on this—a mess that is entirely of its own making. It is a mess that involves leadership of foreign countries as they seek to understand the level of sovereign risk this government has again put into our economy. This is policy on the run. This government is making it up as it goes along. There have been three sets of amendments to legislation that was formed on the back of a Twitter campaign, after years and years of negotiation. If that is not making it up as it goes along, give me another definition. They have spent years formulating a policy position that they have junked, and then they add amendment after amendment on top of that junked position. If that is not making it up as you go along, can someone please tell me what is? I do not believe the Labor government knows what it wants to achieve. It certainly wants to achieve the stopping of the rise of 'St Kevin'. It certainly wants to achieve the appeasement of a narrow-interest set of Greens, whose vote is now collapsing across the country but whose vote is crucial to keeping this government in power. This debate and this farcical series of multiple amendments is not about sustainable fisheries, it is about the government sustaining itself. It is policy on the run.

History is always instructive. It gives us a lesson on where we have come. History in this case frowns deeply upon this government that is making it up as it goes along. Tony Burke, as the minister for fisheries, created this issue, he was the inception of this issue, because he invited this larger type of vessel as part of his 2009 Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy. It was his strategy. It was his invitation. I will quote what he said on the matter, because it is instructive:

That is what he said—it may include large-scale factory freezer vessels, vessels such as the Abel Tasman, which this government is now going into hyperdrive and overdrive to try to stop.

But, then again, Peter Garrett, the member for Kingsford Smith, had it right in 2007 when he famously said, 'Once we get in we'll just change it all.' I do not think even he envisaged the degree of change this hapless and hopeless government would be inflicting on a daily basis and—looking at the series of amendments coming through—on an hourly basis.

On 23 August we had Senator Ludwig, the current minister for fisheries, criticising the Greens for wanting fisheries managed by politics. Minister Ludwig—that famous minister responsible for taking food away from the Indonesians by banning live cattle export, destroying an industry and displacing thousands of workers, including 600 Aboriginal workers on northern stations—promised that emotive politics would not run fisheries management policy. If years of work followed by a Twitter campaign and now rushed bills, three sets of amendments, proposed private members' bills and a government in chaos is not emotive policy, can someone please tell me what is?

The current minister promised no emotive policies. What is more, he supported the ability of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to make independent decisions based on science to ensure the sustainability of Australia's fisheries. Yet here we are debating a Labor bill slapped together on the back of a beer coaster—probably the same beer coaster this hapless minister wrote on to put together the cancelling of the live export trade to take food away from our most important neighbour, Indonesia—a bill that has now had three lots of amendments, some of them rushed in by none other than the member for Dobell, Craig Thomson. There have been multiple amendments.

The minister said 21 days ago that he supported the ability of the authority to make independent decisions based on science to ensure sustainability. Can the government really look the nation in the eye and say the debacle we are debating today of a rushed bill with rushed amendments really lines up with the government's rhetoric of 21 days ago that they would make independent decisions based on science to ensure sustainability? No wonder people are confused. No wonder people are astonished at what this government is doing. No wonder there is enormous uncertainty in the industry. No wonder we are talking, once again, about sovereign risk.

Labor's policy on the run has again created enormous uncertainty in the industry, enormous uncertainty for those who hold licences to fish in Australian waters and enormous uncertainty for those who lease vessels and seek to bring in vessels or seek to partner with Australian industry. Is it not enough, I ask the government, that you have destroyed the live export of cattle? Do you wish to destroy commercial fishing in the same way? Is that your intended aim? Australia's commercial fishing industry cannot now have the confidence to continue to invest in any quota and/or licence because this bill and its farcical amendments will allow anything to be overturned at the whim of the government.

The Dutch Deputy Prime Minister, Maxime Verhagen, even telephoned the hapless Joe Ludwig on Tuesday to ask why Labor wanted to ban the Abel Tasman, a ship brought to Australia through a private joint venture after seven years of negotiations. After seven years of negotiations, three years of ministerial strategic discussions and one or two days of nonsense from the Labor government here we are.

We oppose the legislation, suffice it to say. It gives unlimited power to the minister on the basis of social uncertainties. One of their three amendments actually knocked out the word 'social' and replaced it with 'commercial'. Frankly, who would know with the number of amendments running through on this hapless bill? It presents enormous risk. There is no indication as to what the term 'uncertainty' means and it provides scope for the minister to stop any fishing activity without any substantive case. The minister could simply wake up in the morning and decide he does not feel good about catching small, defenceless fish and that he is going to refer, on a whim, all commercial fishing ventures to get greater scientific input, which will take two years.

I saw students from a school before—Trinity Lutheran College. It is a great school in my electorate. As I was walking back from the area past Queens Terrace Cafe I walked past the Magna Carta signed at Runnymede in 1215. We have one of only a few copies. I read through the opening paragraphs about the rights under law. Next to the Magna Carta is the fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States—the first 10 comprise their bill of rights. The fifth amendment talks about how, before freedom is taken from you, you have the right to appeal to a court of law. The fact is this bill takes freedom away from commercial fishers. They have in good faith invested in equipment and quotas and done all that society has asked of them, and this government can come in on a whim to take it away. I wonder if we were standing in the House of Representatives in the United States of America whether this bill would survive the fifth amendment of the US constitution.

I am not a lawyer. I am a former Army officer and businessman. I live in the real, practical world where this is nonsense. If you tried this on in a business setting, any business relationship would be quickly axed and your services quickly terminated. If I were to take this to the local pub and ask, 'What you think, team? Does this survive the pub test? For the average Australian, the average reasonable man, is it reasonable that a minister could be able to cancel your livelihood on a whim with no appeal because of a social or other commercial issue? Is that reasonable?'

I think the average man or woman would say no. They would question the implied freedom within that and they would say this is big government going completely and utterly absurd.

Our side of politics does not believe in big government. We believe in individual freedom. We believe you should be free to pursue life, liberty and loves. If any of those are taken away then you have the right to the courts. This bill says you have no such right. It gives unlimited power to the minister on the basis of uncertainty. All fishers will be concerned—no question about it—that these powers can be used against them. This is a cloud over the entire fishing industry.

The issue is no longer about this trawler, and frankly it is only large because of the fact that it has factory freezing and processing on board. This is about how we do business in Australia. This issue is about how a government governs, whether it takes a long-term, unemotive, scientific and disciplined approach. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Joe Ludwig, just 21 days ago criticised the Greens. He said the relevant authority would make independent decisions. He said they would be based on science. He said it would be about ensuring sustainability. He said that 21 days ago. Does the man have such a short memory that he cannot remember what he said about providing certainty to an industry?

Every resource based industry should be concerned with this decision. And for what? The concerns held about one vessel fishing in one place to catch a quota of fish. The quota of fish will be caught anyway. This is not about reducing the amount of fish caught; it will be caught. People who hold the quota to catch the fish simply got together to hire a larger vessel to be more productive. The government speaks about a productivity agenda. Here you have it in real life. People holding quotas to catch fish have got together to be more productive and this government, in an act of simply changing its mind after a Twitter campaign, says: 'No, you can't be more productive. You must go back to catching your individual quotas.' The same number of fish will be caught, except this boat, all the science tells us, will have lower bycatch because of a whole range of inspectors, technologies and cameras on board.

The solution could have been to amend the fisheries act to allow for move-on provisions or spatial management that would prevent localised impacts. We would have supported these moves, but no. The minister is saying he cannot do anything. The minister is saying that productivity is off the table. The minister is saying in response to a Twitter campaign, 'No more.' What is next? What is the next Twitter campaign? What is the next harebrained scheme to come along and lead this government to make it up as it goes along? The nation can only wonder.

See this speech in context