Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was discussing the arrogance of those opposite and of the Liberal Party generally in terms of responding to the facts. We get this constant litany—and it was embedded in each of the contributions of those opposite this morning—that they know better. They always assert that they know better than anybody else. They were wrong on 1 July and they are wrong on this matter.

In place of relentless negativity and with an absence of fact, I think it is pretty important that we get some facts on the record. People in the community who are listening to this debate, people who are interested in fishing, people who care about this matter—there are five million out there—might be interested in getting some facts about the size of this boat.

In fact, the former Margiris, now named fishing vessel Abel Tasman, is the second-largest fishing vessel on the planet. We are not talking here about some small thing that is going ahead into our wonderful marine environment; we are talking about the second-largest vessel on the planet. This is not a situation where we as the government should be rushed in to make decisions about how that vessel should operate in these waters. Of course, we should always be guided by science and good evidence, and the science behind the current quotas is certainly sound. But the problem we currently face with the fishing vessel Abel Tasman is that the science about the long-term effects of a vessel of this size is simply not known to us. The science has not developed to a point where we can in a safe, judicious, informed and careful way determine whether this is a good thing for our local environment. We should be taking this cautious approach to ensure that our fisheries, managers and environmental assessors, who are otherwise doing a wonderful job, have the opportunity to take this matter on board and give it proper consideration.

This legislation does not forever rule out a supertrawler. But we are adding to the means by which it can be assessed, prior to it operating, to ensure that we do not put our marine environment at risk. The Australian people broadly and generally would think that is a very good thing. In contrast, those opposite, with that supreme arrogance that I spoke of earlier, think they know better and they want to press on regardless—regardless of the immediate impacts, regardless of the impacts in a year's time, two years time or 20 years time and regardless of the interests of five million fishers around this country.

We know that this fishing vessel does not actually fit with the rules that we currently have. We know that AFMA are a world leader in the management of our fisheries and we know that they take confident and decisive action when they need to.

But right now it is very clear that they need time to give consideration to the precious natural resources that we have in our fishing stocks. It is incumbent upon this parliament to provide the type of legislation that will enable us as a nation to stay out in front and give proper consideration to all the proposals that involve new technologies and techniques. In 1991, some new, important legislation, the Commonwealth Fisheries Management Act, came into force. Things have changed since 1991. I recall significant change in my life in that period, and certainly technology has overtaken us at an amazing rate. It is important that technology serves the purposes of the community and that we are not rushed ahead of our own interests and what our environment can actually sustain.

In terms of the five million recreational fishers around Australia, I would like to put on the record how critical fisheries have been to the Central Coast. We still have a small but active fishing fleet. On Sunday morning, when I went for a walk around the rock platform at Pearl Beach, in one of the most beautiful parts of my seat, down on the Bouddi Peninsula, I saw active local fishermen checking their lobster pots. We saw a successful catch of six lobsters in one pot. Four went back and two were retained. Our fishermen rely on a healthy, sustained environment for their livelihood. But the people who fish for enjoyment, for sport and recreation, also have quite a prominent presence on the Central Coast, and there are a number of significant local businesses who deal in recreational fishing.

I would like to give a particular plug to the Central Coast Gamefishing Club, based right in the heart of the Central Coast. It started out as many fishing clubs around the country have—with just a couple of mates who had had a single-minded love of the sport for many years. They established a club, and they now have 230 members. They have tournaments and competitions and they really want to make it family friendly. The threat to their recreation is something that should not be taken lightly. The threat to their recreation by the second largest fishing vessel in the world is something this government is taking seriously, and, if amendments to legislation are required to enable a judicious response, that is exactly what we will do.

Unlike those opposite, with their relentlessly carping, negative version of reality, this government is about building Australia, building our capacity and ensuring a balanced response to the challenges that presents. We are a responsible government. Because of that, this legislation seeks not just to ban the boat—which is certainly what we heard the member for Melbourne speak about—but to, in a very judicious way, delay the action of that boat by two years to allow proper scientific, evidence based consideration to be undertaken.

There are a number of amendments before the parliament. They are designed to enable our fisheries managers and environmental assessors the tools that they need to give the proper scrutiny to proposals that we could only characterise as being unprecedented. We know that natural justice and procedural fairness are absolute cornerstones of democracy, and we need to make sure that our fishing concession holders, including people who do have the opportunity to access new technologies and techniques, have access to those, even if it is controversial. What we cannot do is proceed at pace without access to the critical advice that should inform judicious decision making. That is why this government is taking a balanced approach.

If this legislation passes through the House today, delaying a possible entry into our fishing area for two years, we would be able to gather in that period sufficient evidence to reveal whether or not what the fishing vessel Abel Tasman is proposing to do would have a significant impact. If that becomes evident in the collection of evidence, obviously it would need to go to further environmental assessment processes under the EPBC Act, and that is appropriate.

What does this legislation do? There are two stages in the declaration process under this bill, involving both an interim declaration and a final declaration. The first part, the interim declaration, makes it possible to have a prohibition of a declared fishing activity while consultation which affects the operators occurs over a period of up to two months. The final declaration, which is the second declaration process under the bill, imposes a longer term ban, with a maximum of two years, to enable an expert assessment to be undertaken of the potential impacts of the fishing activity. Importantly, they are two different instruments, but both require the environment minister and the fisheries minister to agree on whether there is uncertainty about the environmental, social and economic impacts of fishing activity. What this legislation will require of the environment minister is that, in making their final decision, they take into account the comments provided by the affected fishing concession holders, and they cannot make a final declaration in relation to the same activity that was subject to the interim declaration. This is structured in such a way as to ensure procedural fairness. The obvious objective of that prohibition is to prevent the declared fishing activity from occurring. We need this assessment to be undertaken. As I said before, if the assessment identifies that there is harm then there will be further action.

One of the terms that has been bandied about in this debate is 'bycatch'. I have to confess that I am not a very successful fisherwoman in my own right; however, I do fondly recall many great fishing adventures with my father. Gladly, I had a little more success when he was with us. I remember catching wonderful bream on holidays up at Iluka. People like me, who enjoy fishing from a boat close to the shore or fishing from the seashore, do not have a working knowledge of all the language that is being bandied about in this debate. This term 'bycatch' is very important in the debate. What does it mean? Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch2000 was endorsed by Minister Truss and Minister Hill at the time, and that policy makes it very clear at a broad level that the definition of fisheries bycatch includes lots of things: all material, living and nonliving, which is caught while fishing, except for the target species. The reality is that—I know it might surprise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and anybody who is listening—there can be a little gap between what the policy and legislation might have as its intent and what is actually practised in the field. Very significantly in terms of this word 'bycatch', the term is used differently by different parts of the industry and stakeholders. We need to protect seals, dolphins and seabirds. We need to act with caution and I recommend the passage of this bill to the House.

See this speech in context