Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was seeking the call in the consideration in detail stage of the Tax Laws Amendment (Personal Tax Reduction and Improved Depreciation Arrangements) Bill 2006.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill has already been read a third time. There was no seeking of the call during the consideration in detail stage.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did seek the call.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, member for Hunter. I did not see you seek the call, and the question has been put and the bill has been passed. We have moved on to the next item of business and the Clerk has called on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

(Quorum formed)

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to take this opportunity to make a contribution on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006. What an important piece of legislation it is. It is so important that the government wanted to deny me an opportunity to make a contribution on the Tax Laws Amendment (Personal Tax Reduction and Improved Depreciation Arrangements) Bill 2006 in the consideration in detail stage. What I wanted to say on that bill was how disappointed I was that the Treasurer did not turn up to summarise debate on that bill. Members of the House will recall the Treasurer coming in here to introduce the bill with great fanfare. He was all done up in his regal best.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member’s remarks have nothing to do with the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006, as he well knows. He does not know what is in the bill. He is only speaking because his friend the member for Corio has not turned up to speak.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst I would suggest that there is a reasonable point of order raised, the member for Hunter has only just started his contribution and will be heard in silence. I will be watching his remarks carefully to ensure that they are drawn back to the bill.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not all that relevant. The point is that the member for Corio understood that I would be making a contribution on the previous bill. Somehow or other, I was denied the opportunity to make that contribution. The member for Corio understood I would be and on that basis was not here for the commencement of this debate.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, the member for Hunter is reflecting on the chair now. He is reflecting on your ruling.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no reflection on the chair.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was not making a reflection on the chair. I was reflecting on the way this government runs this chamber. We saw an example of that this morning, when the Manager of Opposition Business was ejected from this place for 24 hours for using the exact same words the Leader of the House had used on a previous occasion—without any action being taken whatsoever.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is my understanding that—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the point of order?

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the Clerk has called on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have the point, yes.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am here and willing to commence that debate, and I do not see why the member should be talking about matters that occurred yesterday.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat. I have the point of order. The member for Hunter will come to the legislation before the chair.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am certainly happy to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course, members of the House on both sides will understand that this bill has monetary implications, budgetary implications. This initiative will need to be funded substantially, and this is my very concern. I am concerned about the future of this government’s revenues. I am concerned about the forecasting capability of this government. The Treasurer was happy to come in here and deliver a budget and happy to come in here and deliver the tax cut bill, but he was not happy to come back in here and sum up on those tax bills, notwithstanding that we had some very important questions to put.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the bill before the House is the Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill. The member for Hunter has not mentioned anything about fisheries legislation at all, and I would also draw—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have the point of order. The minister will resume his seat. The member for Hunter needs to speak to the bill before the House.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to speak to the bill before the House, including its budgetary implications. The point I am about to make is that every commitment this government is now making—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: your ruling has been defied. I point out to the member for Hunter that there is no financial impact in relation to the bill that is before the House, so that really shows the lack of credibility on economic matters that they have got.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. Member for Hunter, I have had a look at the bill. There do not appear to me to be any financial ramifications of this bill. The member will speak to the bill before the House.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, every government initiative has financial ramifications and implications for the budget. My concern—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for Hunter has nothing to say about the bill, I will—

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The explanatory memorandum, under the heading ‘Financial Impact Statement’, says that the proposed amendments to the FMA and TSFA—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will resume his seat. I have the point of order. If the member for Hunter cannot speak to the bill, I will have to sit him down.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, every government initiative has implications for the budget and is dependent upon the integrity of that budget. The point I want to raise is a big question over the forecasting—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hunter cannot canvass the ruling.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

on which this budget is based. Mr Deputy Speaker, you must let me do this. This is appropriate.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hunter cannot canvass the ruling. He will speak to the bill before the House.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a bill with budgetary implications, and this is the issue I want to raise. The government—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hunter will resume his seat.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To manage my own affairs in a busy schedule, I rang the office of the member for Corio—who, as I noted on the speakers list, was to commence this debate—to ask how long he intended to spend. I was advised that he would take his first 30 minutes.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for O’Connor should come to the bill.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But, as a consequence, I am more than willing to help him out with a clear and concise reference to this legislation. In so doing, I refer of course to the explanatory memorandum. The Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006 would amend the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984 to provide for custodial penalties for foreign fishing offences in those parts of Australia’s territorial sea that are within the Australian fishing zone, within the meaning of the FMA, or within any area of Australian jurisdiction, within the meaning of the TSFA. Those, of course, are the abbreviations for those acts I have already mentioned.

In general, the waters that would therefore become subject to the proposed custodial penalties are the waters from three to 12 nautical miles offshore from the Australian mainland or from most islands, including those in the Torres Strait. For the external territories, all waters out to 12 nautical miles will be subject to the proposed custodial penalties. The waters within three nautical miles of the coast or which are internal waters, such as bays, rivers and sounds, are subject to the fisheries jurisdiction of a state or the Northern Territory, which have the power to impose custodial penalties for foreign fishing offences in these waters and in most instances have done so.

Illegal foreign fishing vessel incursions threaten Australia’s sovereign interests, posing threats such as serious quarantine risks, illegal immigration, importation of prohibited goods, depletion of fish stocks, degradation of marine protected areas and targeting of endangered species. (Quorum formed)

Let me continue with the information that the shadow minister would normally provide to the House. The added deterrents of custodial penalties for foreign fishing offences would help to reduce these threats. The bill, if enacted, would further strengthen the measures against illegal foreign fishing announced by the government in the 2006 budget. Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone, the EEZ, which extends generally from 12 to 200 nautical miles offshore, has been excluded from the ambit of the new penalties in order to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which Australia is a party. Article 73 of the convention requires that coastal state penalties for violations of fishery laws and regulations in the EEZ may not include imprisonment in the absence of agreements to the contrary by the states concerned; however, this prohibition does not apply in the territorial sea.

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re just reading from the explanatory memorandum. You’re a former fisheries minister. Can’t you—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Corio!

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is direct from the explanatory memorandum:

It has been longstanding legal practice in Australia not to impose custodial penalties for offences that are subject to strict liability. Accordingly, the Bill would amend the FMA and TSFA on the basis that the new custodial penalties would apply only to fault based indictable offences.

Having read that out on behalf of the shadow minister, I might now revert to the comments I wanted to make about those matters, in which he may even find some grounds for agreement. I have to point out that over many years in the state of Western Australia the financial penalties that the United Nations convention required for these foreign fishing incursions always carried a rider, as they do with other offences in Western Australia—if the fine was not paid, each $50, for example, represented a day in custody. So many people have been given custodial sentences not because of the crime, which is subject to a final penalty, but because of their failure to pay that penalty.

Whilst I support the government—and, hopefully, the more senior officials and people involved—in respect of this outrageous situation, both environmentally and commercially, of the incursion of foreign fishing entities into our traditional waters, I must point out that for the lesser individual, the crewman, this process of incarceration has not worked. I do not want to say this in a critical sense, but the reality is that while you are in an Australian jail you get pocket money and, unfortunately, the pocket money frequently exceeds the wages that some of them would have been paid in their home state. Whilst I guess they do not enjoy the period of incarceration, they are flown home in a charter jet and with quite a bit of money.

I was further confronted with this situation in Darwin where, after arresting the boats, the practice was to tow them into the harbour and to then leave the crew on board. The crew would be onboard in conditions which would be identical to those were they to return to their home port, because many, if not all, did not have accommodation on land in their home port; they continued to live on the vessel. Of course, they were provided with stores—and might have been given significantly more—but there was pressure from certain parties to bring these people ashore and to accommodate them in a much more salubrious way. So I am pleased to say to the House that I think these penalties will be a great deterrent to the senior crew of boats that are there to collect the catches of the smaller vessels and freeze them and treat them. Whilst I think that will be an excellent deterrent, I am encouraged, after questioning the minister. that our more practical responses will be the front line of protection.

My recollection of the former Labor government’s administration in respect of the prevention of these fishing practices was to use Customs assets—vessels worth $10 million, $20 million or $30 million at the point of launching—to arrest and tow cockleboats into Broome or Darwin, which were the most logical places to bring them. I always had grave concerns about bringing those vessels so close to the coastline, but that was the practice of that government, as it was the previous government.

The new policy and a lot of the new funding—and this is only a component of it—will make sure we have the capacity to make arrests and that facilities for the eventual destruction of these vessels are as far away as possible from our mainland. Other vessels, of much lesser value than those that should be making the arrests, should be available for towing and for the application of other parts of the law of the sea, with which this nation must comply. All in all, it is with some pleasure that I support this legislation. I reserve my right to continue my remarks after question time and the MPI, to which I hope the people who are to speak will turn up on time.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.