Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Well, some things do not change, and that is the member for Mackellar's constant frivolous points of order in this parliament. They may be very amusing for many in the House, including those who sit on the other side. But I was being very relevant, because this bill deals with change, it deals with technological change. This is the government's response to a technological change that not too many people anticipated. It certainly was not part of the Australian conversation only a couple of months ago. I am referring to the arrival of the supertrawler. As I understand it, the Abel Tasman is the second biggest in the world. That is not a subtle change in the way our commercial fishers do their fishing.

I was interested to hear the member for Cunningham earlier today quoting none other than someone who used to sit on the other side, Wilson Tuckey, whom I actually have enormous regard for. He is quite knowledgeable in this area. He made the point that the problem with fishing is just that we have got too smart and too good at it. This has the potential to enormously impact on our marine life and the sustainability of commercial and recreational fishing in this country.

To put this conversation very plainly for those who may be listening at home, let me say that for all of its complexities this is a pretty simple story. New technology has come along allowing a big trawler with huge refrigeration capacity to stay out there in the same waters for a great length of time with huge nets and therefore take enormous volumes of fish. And, of course, such fishing is accompanied by serious risks in terms of the bycatch.

I have heard people criticise us for responding to community concerns, but I think that is why we are here: to respond to community concerns. The government has said 'Let's pause and make sure we understand the science so that we do not make a mistake here.' And these are very high stakes: they are high stakes in terms of our marine environment and in terms of the sustainability of fishing in this country, whether it be commercial or recreational. That is the government's position, and I think it is very reasonable. If in doubt, leave it out. Take a pause and have another look at the science by establishing an expert panel to assist the government in assessing these things.

In contrast, the opposition has decided just to oppose the bill. Why? Because they see some political opportunities in it. When you reflect on it, why would they oppose a pause? Why wouldn't they join with the government in saying, 'There is community concern about this new technology. Let's have a pause and get the science in and have a look at the economic impacts and ensure we have got this decision right.'

No, that is not their modus operandi. Their modus operandi is just to say no and, in doing so, hope to score a political goal or two—very disappointing.

Then there are the Greens. As I understand it, the Greens have a slightly different view than the government: they don't just want to pause and look at the science; they just want to oppose it. They just want to say to the company involved: 'No, you're not going to be able to use this technology, regardless of what the science says.' Why do they say that? Are they seriously arguing that the science is wrong? Or that is should not be reviewed? What are they saying? Why are they arguing that this technology should never be put to use? I suppose the answer is: form. This is the modus operandi of the Greens: oppose everything—forget about economic opportunity, forget about jobs, forget about the other benefits that flow to the community; just say no. Theirs is a zero tolerance approach: if in doubt at all, just don't do it.

This is why, for example, the Greens want to close down the coal mining industry in the Hunter Valley. This is a ridiculous proposition. Coal mining has lived in harmony with agriculture and viticulture in the Hunter Valley for years. There have been pressures and strains—and, again, government needs to be constantly adjusting its regulatory platforms to reflect technological change in the coal mining industry, which is allowing us to mine much more coal much more quickly than we ever could before. That requires a government response. And government is constantly responding to those changes in mining by adjusting its policy setting. There is no better example of that than the EPBC itself, which not that long ago did not exist but, even in its early days, probably did not have an application to mining. So, technology changes and government policy needs to change as a response; and no-one should be surprised by that.

Coal-seam methane is another issue for people like me, representing the community in the Hunter Valley. The government has really taken the same approach: there is concern about the science, there is still some doubt about the impact on water tables et cetera, so we have established an expert scientific committee to ensure that those questions are properly tested. So this idea from the Greens that we should just approach every policy issue, every challenge in the community, by beginning with a big 'no' is just wrong. People have to earn an income to put food on the table, raise their kids, pay school fees et cetera. Imagine the Hunter Valley's economy if we decided to shut down coal mining. The proposition that this should be ruled out forever and a day is almost as ridiculous.

Let us not pretend that these are easy issues; they are not. If you listened to those sitting on the other side, you would think they were. I heard the member for Fadden speak with some passion. He was talking about applying what he called 'the pub test'. He put the proposition that if he took this piece of legislation being proposed by the government into his local pub people would see it for what it is and they would reject it immediately. I find that pretty interesting because, increasingly in my electorate—working class people who toil in the mines, in a manufacturing industry or elsewhere throughout the week—look forward to their weekends, and they say to me, 'You know what my real concern is? I just want to go to work, put food on the table for my family and send the kids to have a good education; and then on the weekend I just want to hunt or fish'—some say 'hunt', some say 'fish', some say both.

There is this growing concern, if not just a perception, in some of my communities, that governments are stopping them from doing these things—stopping them from hunting, stopping them from fishing. I understand some of those sentiments, quite frankly. Today, as we debate this bill, a lot of those people will be out there asking themselves the question, having seen some of the photographs, illustrations and indeed cartoons in the newspapers, whether they are going to continue to have something to fish for if these supertrawlers come into existence in Australian waters. That is the pub test, as far as I am concerned. I have no doubt that, when I go back to my electorate tomorrow, that is what people will be saying to me. They will be saying, 'Gee, we've seen that new fishing vessel. It's huge! No wonder people are concerned. And I think the government were absolutely right to pull it up, to take a pause and to have another look at the science to make sure it's right; because, if it's not right, that's going to have enormous ramifications for those of us who enjoy a bit of recreational fishing.'

Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, I have some sympathy for people like you, who represent people in Tasmania—people like the member for Braddon and others. This must be a very difficult issue down there because this new vessel carries with it some employment opportunities. I want to pay tribute to people like you, the member for Braddon and others, who have led the debate within the party room in this building to ensure that this government gets this balance right. The government could have done three things: it could have just closed its eyes and let it rip, let the vessel do its thing; it could have said, 'No, it's not worth the risk; we don't understand this technology so we're going to legislate to stop this from happening'; or it could have taken the middle ground, as it has done, and said, 'We're not certain about this; there's a lot of community concern out there and it makes sense to take a pause, to get an expert panel in, to ensure we understand the science—not just the immediate impact in terms of the science but the long-term impacts.' And that is what you and your colleagues have been doing inside the building, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not sure that the outcome today is exactly what you were looking for. I will allow you to express that to your constituents. But I would have thought that this will be seen in Tasmania as the sensible thing to do to ensure that we get it right.

Interestingly and coincidentally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a couple of mates holidaying in Tasmania at the moment—one a coal miner, by coincidence, because I have just been talking about coal mining.

I exchanged a text message with one of them today on another matter. So I took the opportunity to say, 'Mate, what are they saying down there in Tasmania about the big trawler?' He said, 'People down here think that the government is doing the right thing.' My friend Mark is having a bit of a holiday down there. He is a good talker—I will not mention his last name without his authorisation—he loves to go into a pub, a service station or news agency and have a yarn. He is a pretty good barometer. If Mark has put the test in Tasmania and got that sort of feedback, then I reckon the government is probably on the right track and I am very confident that that is the case.

So I say to the crossbenchers, who I know are also finding this a difficult issue: come with the government; it makes sense to come with the government. We are not taking either of the two extremes—that is, to say no or yes without qualification—we are taking a pause to make sure that we get this right. On all of these issues I appeal to members to reject the Greens' approach to these things. When we have economic interests sometimes competing with environmental interests, we need to get the balance right and take the sensible approach.

As I said, we have had a range of industries in the Hunter Valley—coalmining, aluminium smelting and power generation—coexisting with agriculture, viticulture and the like. There is no reason we cannot do that in the future if we continue to adjust the regulatory regime to suit changing climate conditions and changing technology, which is exactly what we are trying to do here today in terms of commercial fishing.

See this speech in context