Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 is a recklessly impulsive bill which allows the government to pull the rug out from under professional and recreational fishermen based on nothing. They do not need evidence; they do not need there to be a problem; they can just do it on a whim.

This bill is not about sustainable fisheries. This bill is not about world's best practice. This bill is not about science. This bill is not about independent advice. This bill is not about good policy. This bill is all about two ministers being rolled by groups who know nothing about the practice or who have no interest in the right outcome. These ministers are beholden only to people who do not care about other Australians.

This bill seeks to greatly expand the powers of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities with regard to overturning fishing activities—not just with supertrawlers but with all fishing. Whether you are fishing for yellowbelly on Leslie Dam outside Warwick, chasing barra in the creeks outside Townsville or going out the front to get a coral trout, you will be at the mercy of this bill. Currently the provisions allow the minister to place restrictions on the operations of a fishing vessel. With these changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation, or EPBC, Act, the minister can effectively ban fishing for up to two years without needing a reason. By adding 'social uncertainty' as a legitimate reason to ban fishing, the minister has given himself unprecedented and unlimited power over every boat around the country as well as within the country, regardless of whether it is a fishing trawler in the middle of the ocean or just a recreational fishing boat in sight of Townsville. Even freshwater anglers are under threat from this bill.

Australia has already seen what the government will do to an industry when they frantically react to external pressures, no matter whether those pressures are informed or not. We are still seeing the financial and social cost of them shutting down the live cattle exports to Indonesia in an instant. It took only a segment of a television program to make them inflict that. We will not support any legislation that gives them even greater powers to do that to other industries. My city of Townsville is a port which deals in foreign exports, so we know firsthand what has happened to that industry.

There is not even a proper indication of what the term 'uncertainty' actually means. It provides scope for the minister to stop any fishing activity without any substantive case. Even the slightest complaint will become enough of a reason for the government to shut down fishing activity. It does not matter if there is no evidence or legitimate concern behind it. How many emails from the Greens and GetUp! are required before it becomes 'social uncertainty' and we start locking out our fishermen? Is there a quantitative number that this government can give us? Is it 500, is it 1,000 or is it 10,000? Just give us the number and we will figure it out.

In question time today, the minister for the environment stated that there were amendments coming to protect the rights of recreational fishers. Well, I think that bells the cat. That he never had any concern for recreational fishers in this country in the first place is the most telling part of the story. He talks a good game but he cannot play. He continues to paper over the cracks with tissue paper. Both he and Minister Ludwig should do the honourable thing and resign. They are clearly not capable of doing the job.

This bill is not about the supertrawler. I have heard the complaints and I understand the concerns that people in Townsville have brought to my attention on this issue. But the facts are that not one extra fish will be caught. The quota has been there for over 20 years. It is just that they could not make a go of it as an industry with the current structure. This trawler is similar to a cane harvester as opposed to cutting cane by hand, or a large header instead of a sickle and hand-stitched bags of grain. We travel by plane now, as opposed to by train, because it is more efficient. That is all this is about, efficiency, and that is what the minister was talking about in 2008, 2009, on 23 August this year and as recently as last Monday.

But the company behind the Abel Tasman has jumped through the hoops put in front of it, and this government knows it. The current minister for the environment used to be the minister for fisheries, and therefore he has known about this and been supportive of it since 2008. He is on the record as supporting this. He knows that not one extra fish will be caught. The catch quota is in place, a quota set by independent professionals to make sure it is sustainable—10 per cent of the fish stock. It has been in place for ages. But the minister knows that. The Abel Tasman operators have agreed to have government monitors on board 24 hours a day. They have underwater video cameras monitoring the nets. But the minister knows that. The trawler operators ticked all the boxes they were asked to tick, only to have the government turn around and change their mind anyway. What kind of business confidence in the Australian government does that inspire? This sends a message all over the world that we will change the rules for no reason at all, even after working together and actively supporting a venture for years. Would you sign up to do a deal in Australia which would take seven years to formalise and spend the money knowing that it could be cancelled the week before you were to start? It beggars belief that someone could do business in that way. Even so, even if you agreed that the supertrawler should be further restricted or even stopped, why should the entire fishing community be punished because of this one issue? It leaves a cloud over the whole industry.

The government like to talk a lot about science but seem to throw it out the window when it comes to protecting fishers' rights. Some of the best marine scientists in the world have been telling the government that this is sustainable, that the precautionary restrictions put in place will ensure that no harm is done, yet their reaction is to ignore the science and not just lock out the supertrawler but also give themselves the power to lock out every angler. After the way they have treated fishermen so far, I certainly would not trust them with that power. This is just following a pattern for the Labor-Greens government. It started with the Coral Sea, with the minister for the environment openly declaring that locking up the Coral Sea had nothing to do with the science. Well, this time they have the science and they are still ignoring it.

Delivering good policy may not always appeal to the people who send in cut-and-paste emails. But delivering good policy and being able to sell it is the reason that ministerial wages have been raised. I know the Leader of the House is fond of the movie The American President, so I will give some advice to these two ministers from that movie. The President says he would take a good policy to the hill and, to get it passed, 'I will go door to door if I have to.' Do you follow? You have had since 2008 to get this right, to get people on board, and you now need to earn your pay. Do your job. At present, these ministers are like the parents of a screaming child who wants a lolly. They know they should not give them the lolly, but they will do anything to get some peace and quiet, so they give the screaming child a treat. And they will continue to hand out treats because they cannot face up to the hard decisions and make the sale. I will paraphrase another source of inspiration for this government, Jerry Seinfeld, in the rental car episode of Seinfeld: 'You see, Labor know how to take a policy position; they just don't know how to hold a policy position.' Anyone can take a position and change it, but it takes an adult to hold the position when they know they are right.

I cannot help but start asking questions about leadership and about what this Labor government actually stands for with a bill like this. I do not want to go over, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' and all the things that have gone through, but I say again that the government has backflipped on absolutely everything. The government does not stand for anything. In 2009, Minister Burke was calling for these types of large fishing trawlers. I quote from the Small pelagic fishery harvest strategy:

… there are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels.

Just three years ago, the minister thought these trawlers were a great thing and was actively inviting them here, working with the stakeholders. Then the government spent two years working on bringing this trawler out, negotiating the conditions for it to be sustainable.

In all that time there was not a worry or a concern about the impact it would have. There was nothing to worry about. They had the science. They wanted this for us. How many emails was it that made this a problem? Was it the Greens or GetUp! that made the minister suddenly become a crusader against his own work? It was probably the same number it took for Minister Ludwig to spontaneously shut down the live export industry. In August, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was slamming the Greens for ignoring the science of commercial fisheries management. To quote:

… I will not allow the emotive politics of the Greens political party to run fisheries management policy in this country. We will ensure that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority is independent, that it makes independent decisions based on the science through its expert commissioners and on the facts that are presented to them.

That sounds like a reasonable statement. It is a pity he cannot back it up. That was only a month ago. It did not take long for him to embrace the so-called 'emotive politics' of his alliance partners.

It is clear that once again this is the Greens leading the way. With just one member elected to the House of Representatives, they are still the ones in charge and running the agenda. What other industries are going to be shut down, for no legitimate reason, in the name of 'social uncertainty'? This government needs to find itself a backbone and start standing up for what it believes in, instead of backflipping every time the Greens jump up and down about something.

In Townsville, this bill is not about the supertrawler; it is about the rights of fishers and the power of the government to take them away. Last month I held a forum in Townsville to discuss the changes to marine protections zones. We had recreational fishers there and we had operators of small fishing trawlers. They do the right thing. They stick to bag limits, if they can even get to them. They throw back anything that is too small. They do not want to see our waters overfished either and still they keep getting punished with more restrictions. The question they were all asking was, 'What's next? What will be next from this government? They cannot be trusted.'

Now we have seen what is next. This government is giving itself more power to lock them out from even more water and it does not even need a reason to justify doing it. Again, we are left wondering what is going to come next from this government for anglers, because every one of them is at risk from this bill. It does not matter where you are fishing. It does not matter if you are a supertrawler or you are just dropping a line for coral trout off Townsville, the government is giving itself the power to, on a hasty impulse, take that away from you. And we have seen too many times just how impulsively they can make changes that affect livelihoods.

We believe in North Queensland that fishing is a right. It is our lifestyle. It is part not just of our industries but of our lifestyle. To go out the front and have a fish, to get down to Crocodile Creek to get yourself a barra, is what life is all about. If the government wants to take that right away for no reason, we are not going to stand for it—nor are the people of North Queensland. I thank the House.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to follow the member next to me, the member for Herbert, as I always do in this House for some odd reason. I permanently live in his shadow metaphorically and literally. Ewen Jones is an eloquent and articulate defender of the rights of fishers in Australia today. It is for that reason I rise to speak to oppose the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012, which is another example of massive government overreach from a government which is addicted to power. Nothing could be a better example than the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities trying to extend the right to prohibit fishing anywhere in Commonwealth waters for two years on the basis of what is in his mind—not on rational scientific inquiry, not on what is best for the environment or human beings, but on any social uncertainty in the minister's head. That standard is what we are asking fishers, recreational and commercial, all around this country to live by.

What does Minister Burke, in his uncertain world, think is socially acceptable? If it is unacceptable to him today to take a bluefin fish in Commonwealth waters, well, that is it—too bad! For two years we will not be able to do that. That is the kind of hideous power which we find in this bill, with the sanction of government applied to it, with penalties of up to seven years, as I understand. That is why I oppose this bad legislation.

Once again, this is an example of a government that really has no coherent policy position. The attempts in question time today by the minister to explain the position were completely and utterly embarrassing and unconvincing. We have seen, as a recent development, the member for Dobell raise a series of amendments trying to do what we have been talking about—save recreational fishers from the unfettered power of the minister, who has been dictated to by a Green agenda. But those amendments do not cover sufficiently recreational fishers and, of course, they make no mention of Australian commercial fishers. There is no mention of the rights of commercial fishers. I stand up here today for commercial fishing in Australia. One of the oldest practices of the human race is to fish to feed itself. Some evolutionary scientists say it is part of the reason we have evolved the way we have—because of our ability to eat fish.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the cleanest.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is one of the cleanest food-producing industries, as the member for Wannon reminds me. Yet we have a government which wants to pander to an extreme Green agenda to say that we should not be fishing, that somehow 'fishing' is a dirty word all of a sudden. Do not just think this is hysteria in the opposition. Let us be clear about this. This position has come about because of a radical campaign by Greenpeace and the Green movement.

I always say, and this is yet another potent example that Ronald Reagan was right about his views on the environmental movement when he said—and the member for Dobell should listen to this—that the only species that the environmental movement does not care about is the human species.

He has a very good point, because 45 people will lose their jobs as a result of this decision by the government today, and that will have flow-on effects. The $15 million for Tasmania is gone. People say we are a wealthy country; but we are not so wealthy that we can afford to turn away $15 million every day in this parliament, and we are not so wealthy that we can afford to put 45 people back on the long-term unemployed queues, which is what this government has done. No number of expos from the minister for child care on government handouts and jobs can save these 45 long-term unemployed workers.

It is a disgrace that the government has taken this stance based not on scientific inquiry or on fact but on pure political expediency on the most embarrassing scale. We have seen that in the words of the minister, Tony Burke, in his strategy in 2009, where he said:

There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels.

He is correct about that—larger scale activity produces greater efficiencies. It is all through our economy; there is nothing wrong with it. Yet we have had a procession of government backbenchers come into this House today and recently to tell us that the scale of fishing is what is worrying them. All of a sudden they are concerned that this should be based on the science. These government backbenchers who claim, because they are reading off their talking points, that they know something about science have no idea about the science. We have some of the best-managed fisheries in the world. I am not standing here today making a claim on a scientific inquiry on the science of fishing. I do not know anything about the science of fishing, and I am prepared to say so. To those government backbenchers who say, 'We should be looking at the science,' I say: we have been looking at the science for years; we have got it; it is here. Just because it occurred to them for the first time today that there should be some science, they say, 'No, we’ve got to pause and look at this for two years.'

This boat was brought here by the Labor government to fish in our waters on the basis of science and on the basis of Australian government agency recommendation—including, I add, that of the honourable Michael Egan, a former Labor treasurer of New South Wales, who was appointed by this minister. That is why the boat is here. But, after all of that, to turn around because of a last-minute campaign and say no to it, after years of scientific proof and endeavour, is a hideous embarrassment. To go further and have the member for Dobell have to somehow try to save the recreational fishing industry but not succeed in his amendments is even more embarrassing. We cannot support a bill which has at its very core unlimited expansion of ministerial power without regard for any recourse or appeal for the ordinary citizen to conduct their ordinary, day-to-day business. There is nothing at all wrong with fishing, commercial or recreational. In fact, it provides a good income and a good living for many people, and it needs to be encouraged.

Under the guise of this legislation, we have this Trojan Horse of an issue being brought into the parliament to increase the power of the minister over all aspects of Commonwealth-water fishing. We have seen today the reaction of the Australian Marine Alliance:

In our view the answer is not to give the department of the environment in Canberra greater control over fisheries management but rather for the fisheries portfolio to secure a competent minister who can effectively fulfil their duties as minister for fisheries.

Amen to the Australian Marine Alliance! They go on:

As an example, if this bill passes, it will give the department of the environment in Canberra the authority to stop recreational anglers all the way down the east coast from fishing for Bluefin tuna in Commonwealth waters.

Do we think that that is hysteria? We know it is not; we know that it is the agenda of the green movement in Australia today to stop that fishing. This minister is so beholden to the Greens that that is now one step closer—and will be much closer if this legislation passes.

Martin Exel, the chair of the Commonwealth Fisheries Association says:

Industry is aware of the desire by the minister to retrospectively change the rules for the small pelagic fishery and block the operations of the Abel Tasman, but this is not the way to do things.

There he is, pointing out that this is not the way to handle something like this—and it sure ain't. He goes on to say:

Responding to community issues over this single boat by damaging all Australian fishing operations, both commercial and recreational, and creating massive uncertainties in the professional fishing industry in Australia is simply not acceptable in our view.

That is the point—the government are damaging Australian interests under the guise of stopping this foreign boat that we are all supposed to be concerned about. I know that a lot of people out there are very concerned about this issue, but they need to look closely at what this government is doing in terms of expanding its powers to limit Australian fishing in Australian interests. That is where, with a close examination, the government's agenda will be exposed. There are many ways that they could have dealt with a potential problem with the Margiristhat is, move-on powers—and all of the people have spoken from the coalition have outlined many of the things that could have been done by a competent and responsible government. Even these industry and professional bodies are using language like, 'Get a competent minister; find a person or a government that can deal with things.'

One of the Labor backbenchers I was listening to—it could have been the member for Corangamite—said, 'This boat just appeared on the horizon, and we had to do something.' What a ridiculous load of absolute rubbish! This boat did not appear on the horizon; they were invited by the minister to come here and fish. They went through every legislative and other requirement to outfit the boat, to get ready to fish. The minister knew all the way through. So did the department and so did the Commonwealth. This boat did not appear on the horizon; what it did appear on was on the political horizon of the government. Never mind the science of fisheries.

There is a good quote on this from Darwin as well. He said 'it's not the strongest of a species that survives, or the most intelligent; it's those of the species most able to adapt to change that survive'. I think the real science of all of this—why we are here today and why we have this excessive government legislation—is quite Darwinian. Basically, Kevin wanted to do over Julia, and Melissa wanted to stop the boat. So Kevin supported Melissa in stopping the boat, to get at Julia. So Joe and Tony, to save Julia, moved to stop the boat to stop Kevin from getting Melissa onside to do over Julia. That is the science of this issue. That is the science that we are basing it on.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to ask the member to refer to members by their appropriate title.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wasn't referring to any members in particular, Madam Deputy Speaker, there.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You used their names.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was just a reference to the science behind this issue. That is what is going on here, and it is quite a disgraceful way to govern.

While that might be a light-hearted point, the serious point in all of this is that Australia is becoming a sovereign risk. People do take notice of this. There is human wreckage from the decision of the government today to put this legislation into the House—human wreckage not just from the job losses, the investment that is now gone and the sovereign risk that other investment bodies will be looking at with Australia but also from the ongoing risk to Australians in undertaking their normal commercial and other activities.

Why would you invest in commercial fishing in Australia today with a minister and a government who are prepared, on a whim—on something called 'social uncertainty' in his legislation—to change his mind? How could you put your hard-earned capital into a fishing venture if you wanted to take a reasonable risk without any standard, objective basis for a decision to be made? And that is what we are talking about.

The provision that the government has put in here—social uncertainty—is absolutely ridiculous. The social uncertainty is coming from the government, and it is coming from the government to investors in the commercial fishing industry, which is very important and which I would like to stand up for. I oppose any provision in legislation that says that the minister's whim ought to dictate what happens in any case, particularly when you use a terms like 'social uncertainty' and you do not even make an attempt to define what the term represents. That is no way to do law; that is no way to do business. You cannot run a business and you cannot run a country on a notion like social uncertainty.

Once again we have seen from this minister and this government the live export trade debacle—the changes, the flip-flopping, the uncertainty created, the loss of half of the contracts. And now we see again the potential for great human wreckage and littering, for enormous destruction of an industry in our country, with no regard for the certainty that we need. There is a chance to come into this chamber and propose good legislation and have it looked at carefully. There is a chance for good quality amendments, like the shadow minister for the environment's amendments, to be considered. We have proposed them to improve the quality of this legislation and reduce the uncertainty.

While I may not be an expert on the science of fishing, I am an expert on the science of politics and I do understand what is going on with this legislation. I think all of Australia understands what is going on. I think people in New South Wales understood what was going on when they abandoned the Greens and the Labor Party at the recent local council elections in New South Wales. They see a government that is creating uncertainty in our economy and our society by proposing laws that massively expand the power of government, with no ethical or justifiable basis to do so, and they instinctively oppose governments that would seek to expand their powers with no legitimacy to do so.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start with some concessions in this debate. Firstly, I think it is easily accepted that this is a highly contentious and emotional debate in relation not only to this big boat but to fishing generally. Recreational and commercial fishing are disputed, contentious areas. There are those who want more fish in the water versus those who want to take more fish out of the water. So I start by making that concession. Also, as someone who got none from my last three fishing trips with my kids, I also concede that big looks bad and that 18,000 tonnes of fish sounds like an awful lot. For those like me who drop a line successfully—or unsuccessfully every now and again—

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell us about the one that got away!

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the one that got away! For those people, the scale of what is being debated today can seem frightening. In making those concessions, I also make a point about where I start and end in this debate. As a former shadow fisheries minister in New South Wales, I was given some very wise advice by a director-general of fisheries. That advice was to take, wherever possible, the fishers' position on most of these issues. It does sound silly at first but it is a safe policy where there is so much emotion and so much contention.

Everyone, including me and my family, want more fish—more fish for biodiversity outcomes and more fish for recreational and commercial fishing purposes. It is the common ground for all. If it is more fish that we want, it is from that perspective that I look at this legislation and the many issues wrapped up in it. I am in absolute awe of what we do not know about on our ocean floors and in our waters. If anyone needs any convincing of this, the book A Short History of Nearly Everything has a chapter on water—I think chapter 18. That is a sales pitch for the fascination for everything we do not know about on our ocean floor. It talks about everything that is still to be discovered. I certainly find that to be a compelling argument.

If we are about having more fish and more sustainable fisheries, this is a surprise piece of legislation before the parliament today. I make the point about surprise for a reason. I do believe in parliamentary processes and in appropriate time being given for legislation for all the right reasons of proper consideration. This has come as a rush job—spat out of the government party room yesterday, turned into legislation yesterday afternoon and now more than likely going to be voted on tonight. That is not the way we should do business, and for nothing other than parliamentary process reasons, there are grounds to lodge a protest vote against this legislation, regardless of how good its contents may be.

I come back to the issue of having more fish and sustainable fishing and to the content of the legislation. There is a bit of a link to the point I just made. It is pretty hard to keep up with who is amending what in this legislation. I understand that we already have a page of government amendments and that there are already Liberal-National Party amendments. I understand that my colleague from Kennedy may move an amendment, that my colleague behind me may be moving amendments and that the Greens may be moving amendments. But, again, if we are going to make a point about getting good policy through considered debate, this is not the way to do business.

For me, as I have said publicly over the last day, I am less convinced by arguments around whether it is an aircraft carrier we have got in our waters or a tinnie; it is about sustainable fisheries management and whether we have got the quota right. With the lack of time available, I have not been able to establish whether it is correct that the quota has increased tenfold, as academics from the University of Western Australia are suggesting, based on the boat coming in. And I have not been able to establish whether fisheries management has established a quota regardless of boat size or whether boat size has led to the establishment of a certain quota allocation. I would like some guidance from the minister, in wrapping up, on that direct point.

I would also like some guidance from the minister about his existing powers. We are establishing, for all the right reasons, a marine park network in Australia that Australia should be proud of. Going back to my previous point about fish, I wish these marine parks were called fish parks because that does bring everyone together. They are about getting more fish for all activities in our waters—both for biodiversity reasons and fishing reasons. That process has gone on since the Howard years. It has gone through the whole social, economic and environmental science process—the consultation process. Those existing powers are a demonstration of the existing powers that can and should be applied in decisions by ministers about whether this big boat is too big or not. I am yet to be convinced. I would like to hear from the minister, when he wraps up this debate, why the existing powers that apply to all the social, economic and environmental processes for the establishment of marine parks in Australia are unavailable in his relationship with AFMA and for decisions around whether a boat of this size is too big and whether or not to issue a quota to it.

I would also like some direction from the minister on whether there are bigger nets in the water right now in Australia and whether some of the mythology that this is the biggest net in Australian fishing history is actually correct. There is confusion and mixed opinions on that. I would like to hear from the minister himself a very clear answer to the question: will this be the biggest net dropped in Australian waters if approved? There is strong advice suggesting it is not and that there are already, under everyone's noses, bigger nets in the water that we do not seem to be that fussed about.

I would also like to hear from the minister about the consequences of the new discretionary powers that are being built in. Regardless of this boat and this circumstance, if we are going to pass sensible laws for future decision making, these are significant discretionary powers that are being built in with a very broad definition—social, economic and environmental. You could not get much broader discretionary powers being built into the process. So I would like to hear from the minister about the scope and the boundaries of his authority in future decision making and why he himself does not see this as an investment or sovereign risk for future investments by those who do want to participate in sustainable fishing practices in Australia.

I accept that there are pitchforks and spear guns out against this big floating boat and that there is a lot of emotion wrapped up in this debate. But if we are looking for sustainable fisheries then it is not pitchforks and spear guns, nor emotion, that will make those decisions. That is why I am an advocate of establishing a Commonwealth marine park network. As I said before, marine parks are essentially fish parks for those who want to do more fishing.

I would also like to take the opportunity to address some of the mythology that is floating around. Again, if I am wrong I would like to be corrected by the minister. These nets, as I understand it, do not touch the ocean floor—they are mid-sea trawling. But I am getting plenty of emails saying we are going to rape and pillage the ocean floor. I think that is completely incorrect. Minister, please correct me if I am wrong. This is a completely different set of circumstances from those on the coast of Africa, as the minister himself indicated on Q&A two weeks ago. There are very strict restrictions around quota management in Australia. There are fisheries officers on board the boats. There are bycatch restrictions in the conditions. There are cameras in the nets themselves. I understand that the company involved is even offering to do some sort of 'move-on strategy' so they are not fishing one location too hard. The difference between what is being promoted as the rape and pillage off the coast of Africa compared to here is apples and oranges. Again, please correct me if I am wrong, Minister.

I would also like to put on record the counterintuitive points about what, on first blush, would look to be problematic for many people. It is thought that a wider range of fishing from a bigger boat is worse. But scientific advice is that a wider range is better. So being allowed to go further offshore implies less bycatch. Most of the seabirds, all the various species that the minister has been referring to, are closer to the shore, so there is actually a greater bycatch problem with smaller vessels working close to shore. Again, please correct me if I am wrong, Minister.

It is counterintuitive, I know, but fishing for a wider range of fish, as I understand it based on marine science, means less damage to biodiversity and fish stocks. As well, the point that 'further out is worse and something to be feared' could lead to 'further out is better because there is less bycatch'.

I understand that the marine science suggests the latter, but I understand the concerns of most people and the perception that fishing further out from a bigger boat in a wider range means it is like a hoover working around the coast of Australia. I do not think that perception is correct, based on the science as far as we know.

I am more than likely not going to support this legislation. It is a bit of a moving feast, because it is happening so quickly and there are so many gaps in my knowledge about what exactly is being done and why it is being done. I do think there are existing powers that could be used to achieve a similar purpose without leaving a trail of unintended consequences resulting from having in legislation total discretion for future ministers. I would be surprised if they themselves would even want to have that discretion when decisions like this emerge in the future. But I am ultimately driven by the science question and the desire to have more fish. Those in the campaign that is trying to knock out quota management in a scientific and process-driven way should be careful about what they wish for, in that it may just do more damage to nature than we would all want. I refer to, and I ask the House to refer to, the public letter from seven of Australia's top fisheries scientists from the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, the CSIRO and the South Australian Research and Development Institute, trying to address many of the misconceptions in the media. That letter indicated on a number of fronts that the catch quota is actually very conservative and that there are a number of reasons why what is being delivered is actually sensible.

I do not like the big boat. It does not look good; it looks bad. But when we go to the safe port of the science and go to the safe port of looking for more fish, I am not sure whether this legislation actually delivers what the community sentiment wants.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I concur with much of what the member for Lyne has just contributed in this debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012. He made a couple of worthwhile points. One of those was that we in this place should be looking to pass sensible, considered laws. How could this bill, on such a difficult and science based topic, possibly be thought sensible and considered when it has been introduced 24 hours after the Labor backbench brought it up in caucus, for some of the reasons that the member for Mitchell outlined in his contribution? The laws cannot possibly be quality. We know that, because the government has already tabled a page of amendments. We know that, because member for Dobell is intending to table some amendments. We know that, because we have amendments. We know that, because nearly every recreational fishing and commercial fishing agency is saying today that this is absurd law. How could this possibly be in the best interests of our country? Or is it simply about covering-over a political problem that the Australian Labor Party has found itself in with its bedfellows the Australian Greens, for whom, we know, no quota is too small when it comes to this debate?

The Australian Greens, the member for Denison and some of those in the Labor Party on the Left want to shut down commercial fishing in Australia. That is the intention, ultimate aim, of what they are trying to do—make no mistake. That is the campaign that GetUp! and some of these raving left-wing groups are trying to pursue in this place. As much as we have heard the two wise men—the two government whips, the members for Hunter and Chifley—sitting in the back corner complaining about the influence of the Australian Greens recently, through newspapers and so forth, we know that what is happening is that this policy is driven purely by the Australian Greens. I suggest that those two in the back corner stop this lunacy before it goes too far.

Madam Deputy Speaker Rishworth, as you know, fishing is a huge and vital part of many of the communities in my electorate. It is economically vital to Kangaroo Island, Victor Harbor, Normanville and the Fleurieu Peninsula. It provides recreation for many thousands of people in my electorate, and, indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will go so far as to say in your electorate and many other electorates in South Australia. It is a very much loved pastime of many of our constituents.

With that in mind, when this boat first appeared I had some concerns about its size and its potential impact on fish stocks. I raised with the shadow minister some issues in that respect. Thankfully, in my electorate I have many people who are very wise when it comes to these matters. First among them is Mr David Hall, who was formerly the director general of fisheries in South Australia and in the Northern Territory. He is a marine scientist by training and he runs the world's largest fish tag business, out of Victor Harbor. So he knows a fair bit about these issues. He certainly knows a bit more than the two wise whips at the back. He certainly knows more than the member for Denison, the member for Melbourne and, I dare say, the minister for the environment. While he might not be able to fish as well as I can he is certainly passionate about it. He and I have been in contact about this issue for some time. Initially, it is fair to say, David had some concerns, as many recreational and commercial fishers in my electorate have, about this boat. I will read what David sent me in an email me this morning, because I think it is instructive to this debate. He wrote:

The issue that I see with this supertrawler is not that the impact of such a wide net on non-target species of wildlife in our Southern Ocean ecosystem are unknown. This can only be found out by conducting trials. Given the boat is here anyway, they should at least enable some experimental trials so they are in a better position to assess it. No government inquiry will come up with the answer. It could well be a trawler of this size is the only economically viable means to harvest the substantial redbait and jack mackerel quota of 18,000 tonnes, and it may even have a lower bycatch than 15 smaller vessels taking the same catch, given the exclusion devices, sophisticated electronics and 24/7 monitored plans.

One thing I can say is that nothing is certain when it comes to catching, managing and assessing the state of our fisheries resource. Adaptive fishery management is a contemporary approach. This involves an understanding based on measuring the impact of fishing in real time and making the necessary fishing effort adjustments.

The opposition to the trawler—and you should note this, Member for Hunter—has nothing to do with economic opportunism and ecological soundness. It is purely a knee-jerk response to the lack of political palatability and social acceptability of a big fishing boat. Nobody complains about small boats taking 40 tonnes per year of more vulnerable pilchards in SA waters, that were not taken 15 years ago by anyone, because they are taken by a dozen or so smaller boats across a whole year. If we enshrine social acceptability—read 'political palatability'—as a key component of the fisheries management formula, we will move towards emotive rather than science based management of our fishery resources and there will be a substantial loss of seafood production. We are seeing the influence of sociological influences now through the marine park program, which has correctly been called a giant confidence trick cooked up by the extreme left groups.

In other words, the bill before the House has nothing to do with appropriate and science based fishery management. It is purely about placating a campaign by the Greens and GetUp! We have in South Australia seen the marine park debacle that the state government has embarked upon—again, based completely outside of science—to the point where my fishermen off Cape Jervis, where the first plan was announced some 18 months ago, are going to lose some 84 per cent of their fishing areas after they told the department two years before in the consultation where their fishing areas were. They took them into their confidence, handed over their marks and then they found in the plan released by the South Australian department of the environment that those very areas were being locked out for fishing. So it is fair to say that recreational fishers and commercial fishers have lost a fair bit of trust in the processes these governments go through, particularly when it is more about the Labor Party at the state level and federal level trying to placate the mad green extreme elements in this country. That is all this bill is designed to do.

Today we have seen the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities move a bill in this place that should frighten anyone who enjoys fishing and anyone who earns a living from fishing. He is trying to hand himself the most extreme powers the parliament has seen when it comes to the environment and fishing. He is trying to hand himself the power to ban fishing activities on a whim. It is not just me asserting that; the Australian Marine Alliance said in a release they put out today:

The more immediate concern is the bill to be debated in parliament today that has been hastily drafted by Minister Burke and that will give the minister for the environment and his department almost unfettered authority over all forms of fishing.

This legislation is not about dealing with the super trawler; it is about dealing with a Greens campaign. It is to give cover for a Greens campaign, to give the minister for the environment more power than he has ever had before and to start the process the member for Melbourne and the member for Denison really want, which is a continued crackdown on commercial and recreational fishing in Australia. That is the ultimate aim of the Greens and their fellow travellers.

This is ironic. It is ironic for the Labor government to stand in this place every day and claim that their carbon tax is all about addressing the science of climate change and that you must listen to the majority of scientists when it comes to climate change when the majority of scientists have a very firm view about Australia's fish stock management. By the way, Australia's fish stock management is the best in the world. Our waters are well stocked with fish and well managed. You do not hear the same endorsement of the majority view of scientists when it comes to fish stock management. In fact, you hear the opposite. We have heard the opposite today and we have seen the opposite with this legislation. It has the complete opposite effect, which is that the government, rather than backing the scientific view, as they would demand people do when it comes to climate change, when it comes to fish management, have decided, 'We don't want the best science; we want to come up with our own power in legislation to override what is good, science based legislation because it is ultimately popular.'

'Top scientist slams the trawler ban' was a heading in the Australian Financial Review today. That scientist was Professor Colin Buxton. The article said:

"It is a sad day for Australia when a green campaign has shut down a fishery which was based on a sound scientific footing," Professor Buxton told The Australian Financial Review. "Anyone who says there is no science behind this quota is talking complete nonsense. There are 50-odd papers out there anybody can read. I understand that is politics but it is a slap in the face for the scientific community."

So let us not have any of this, 'This is about science and protecting fisheries in this country.' It is about politics. It is about ensuring that the Greens and the GetUp! campaign stops flooding electorate offices. I think what should now happen is that recreational fishers and commercial fishers should start there own campaign. Just as they did in South Australia with the marine park network that was not based on science, they should start one on this ill-conceived, rushed law that is not based on any sound scientific footing, where we are chucking out what has been very successful management of Australian fisheries over a very long period of time all for the reason that this boat seems too big. There is no scientific reason, as the member for Lyne just rightly outlined. There is no scientific basis behind it. Within a 24-hour period we are presented with legislation in this parliament which will completely overturn what has been a very successful management of Australian fisheries for a very long time.

I, like the member for Lyne, enjoy going fishing from time to time. I want to see more fish. One great thing about being in Australia is that we have great oceans and well-stocked waters—although sometimes not as well stocked as we would hope. But ultimately this is not about protecting the marine environment; this is about protecting the rear end of the Australian Labor Party. This is about making sure that the GetUp! campaign stops today and that they get back their preferences.

Again, I quote from an authoritative source who said this in recent days in the Australian Senate:

This disallowance motion is a message that the Greens political party do not support sustainable catch limits based on science. It is a message that says the Greens want fisheries managed by politics, not qualified fisheries managers. And it says that the Greens do not support the commercial operators who fish in some of the world's best managed fisheries. That message should be well understood, because I have no doubt that the same disregard for the science and management of our commercial fisheries will be extended to the legitimate pursuit of recreational fishing … I will not allow the emotive politics of the Greens political party to run fisheries management policy in this country. We will ensure that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority is independent, that it makes independent decisions based on the science through its expert commissioners and on the facts that are presented to them. They will continue to make decisions based on sound judgement to ensure that fisheries are sustainable and meet all the ecological requirements—and, moreover, predicated on the precautionary principle so often espoused by the Greens. Why? Because AFMA will continue to apply sound policy to ensure that we will have sustainable fisheries now and into the future.

No coalition member and no-one from the crossbenches made those comments in the Australian Senate; that was Senator Joe Ludwig, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, just two days ago.

So what has happened in the last 48 hours which has made that side lose touch with its convictions on this issue that the minister for fisheries so well outlined? What has happened in the last 48 hours? Well, there has been an email campaign run through social media. It reflects on the current state of the Australian Labor Party that its policy positions can be influenced so quickly and so pathetically within a 48-hour period that its own minister for fisheries can be hung out to dry by an email campaign organised by the Greens and by GetUp!. Who will pay? The Australian fishers will pay—that is who, and for no good purpose, for no good outcome.

This is a policy based on the best scientific research in the world about the best managed fish stocks in the world. Yet GetUp! come along with a campaign that influences the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens come along with a campaign that influences the Australian Labor Party, the member for Denison comes along and does the same, and these people buckle. They should be ashamed. The member for Hunter, the member for Chifley and their fellow travellers are right. If they want to see what the problem with the modern Australian Labor Party is and why you are giving up to the Greens, look no further than the minister for the environment. He is pathetic. This is a pathetic piece of legislation. It cannot be amended into any decent form. It should be opposed at all forms in this House and in the Australian Senate.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Politics is an interesting clash of views and ideas. I sat through the member for Lyne's speech deliberately to hear and listen very carefully to what he said, because unlike many speakers on both sides he had genuine questions that he was seeking answers to and is still seeking answers to, as I understood his speech today. That is a very legitimate point to put.

I think sometimes when we come into this place, because of the way in which the modern media works, we try to dissect our arguments into black and white. There are just two positions that are put and we both argue strenuously that our side is right or their side is wrong. But 99 per cent of the time that is not right; 99 per cent of the time the issues are far more complex than that. There are points of view put by both sides, or all sides, that are worth considering and looking at. I do not think cheap political shots, when the issues are as complex as this, take the arguments any further.

I must say I thought the member for Mitchell was really stretching it when he was talking about the loss of 45 jobs when, this week, we have heard that conservative governments in Queensland and New South Wales are slashing thousands of jobs and that his own party is looking at getting rid of 20,000 public servants. I think trying to politicise it to that level really did not do his side any good service.

I share some of the concerns about this legislation and about the processes involved in this legislation. Before this legislation was spoken about, I had very little knowledge of fisheries. I am not a fisherman. I enjoy eating fish and seafood, but that is about as far as my expertise goes. That does not particularly equip me well for dealing in a very short period of time with these issues. So I had to seek as much advice from other people as I could in looking at the legislation and seeing where we go. Because things are never black and white, there are a variety of views and a variety of ways in which issues can be dealt with.

The minister, in my experience with this piece of legislation, has been most open to discussion, to talk, to questions and also to suggestions as to where the legislation can be improved. There were two particular areas where I had concerns with this legislation. The first was the very broad definition of fishing. The Central Coast is home to both commercial fishermen and most particularly to a wide variety of recreational fishermen. We have a lot of visitors who come for recreational fishing. I raised that issue with the minister and suggested that the definition needed to be changed so that it was quite clear that in this legislation we were talking about commercial fishing activities. In my discussion with the minister I suggested that I would be looking at making amendments to that end, and that is what I intend to do. He subsequently advised me that, on reflection, the amendment that I am proposing probably also needs to be further tightened to include recreational charter vessels, to ensure that they are not caught up in this legislation either.

I am very pleased that the minister was so accommodating when I raised these genuine issues of concern with him. I am pleased that that has happened, because one of the myths that the coalition are putting out about this particular issue, which again I do not think serves their purpose, is that all the concerns about this trawler are from GetUp! and the Greens.

Quite frankly, that is not where my concerns about this came from. They are not the people that I am worried about who have been contacting me. Rather it is the hundreds of thousands of recreational fishermen. They have been contacting me saying they have real concerns about this issue.

So the first issue I wanted to make sure of was that recreational fishermen were excluded in this, so that their role was clear. Like the member for Lyne, I would have liked to have had more time so that I could have met and talked to many of the fisherfolk in my area, who know far more about this issue than I do. But, in the limited time that I had, I did seek some guidance from Scott Levi, who is an ABC journalist on the Central Coast who has a nationwide fishing show called The Big Fish. This is not a show that greenies and those from GetUp! would normally listen to. It is a show that recreational fishermen listen to all the time. I spoke to him about the views of recreational fishermen generally, and particularly those in my area, because he is a local himself. He said there has not been a bigger issue than this—an issue that has caused more concern than this—in the entire time that his show has been running, and recreational fishermen are very, very concerned about it.

I will come to the issue of the science in a minute, but people's views matter. We cannot just dismiss them. We cannot just say, when there are a lot of people who have a particular view and we do not agree with it and we can mount a technical argument why we think they are wrong, that their views do not matter. That is not the way democracy works. That is not the way this parliament should work. And I do not think it is the way we as members should work. We should be listening to their voices. We should be taking on board their concerns. If we have to tell them they are wrong, that may be a legitimate thing, but it is not legitimate to totally dismiss this whole group of people and say they simply do not matter. They do matter. Their views are important. We need to listen to them. We need to see what their concerns are and see if they can be met. Mr Levi's words were: 'There is no other issue that we have covered that has had this level of response.' In my view, that cemented that this is an important issue that people beyond GetUp! and the Greens have concerns about.

Despite some of my concerns with the legislation, there are legitimate reasons why this legislation is here before the parliament. For people to say that they are not legitimate reasons is simply untrue.

The second area of concern I have is an area that many coalition members have raised. They have made some good points about their concerns with the legislation. This concern specifically goes to the section which says that the minister must not make a final declaration unless:

The Minister and the Fisheries Minister agree that there is uncertainty about the environmental, social or economic impacts of the fishing activity …

I share a concern about the very broad definitions that are there. In my view, the legislation needs to be pared back to be about environmental impacts only. Uncertainty in relation to social or economic impacts is far too broad. It lacks the definition and certainty that businesses need. We can all quite clearly understand what 'environmental' means and the environmental tests that the science may place there. My discussions with the minister in relation to this led me to conclude that he is listening to those sorts of submissions. I am hopeful that the government will look at amending the legislation in relation to these points.

Like the member for Lyne, I find there are many amendments in this bill that are sometimes hard to follow, but the minister has been very receptive to talk to anyone about these issues and let them know his views about them. He certainly had a very open mind about the issues that I have concerns with and that many in the coalition have raised concerns about. I think the legislation needs to be amended to be effective to go forward.

The great debate that we have seen here has been a contest about whether the science is in or whether the science is out and whether we can rely on what is there at the moment. Very few of us here are scientists, so we go and seek what scientists have said about the effects that this may have. The more I have read about it, the more uncertain I am as to the certainty of the science. It seems at least uncontested that the science is contested—and by other scientists. There has been work done by a variety of scientists that questions the way in which the quota system is working. There has been work done that says, 'We have not had this type of vessel here before and we are unsure of its effects and we need to look at them.' I paid particular attention to much of what the member for Mayo had to say. I of course ignored his usual political rant, but he read out a letter from one of his constituents who used to work for the fisheries department in South Australia, who, while opposing this legislation, spoke about the need perhaps for a trial. He was suggesting a live trial. Even that suggests that the proponents of the supertrawler are not clear that the science is firmly on their side yet, and that more work needs to be done.

At the end of the day, in terms of this issue, we only have one world, one ocean. We cannot make mistakes with it. If the science is in any way contested then surely we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the oceans. It may be that the science comes in, that these types of trawlers are commonplace and that we can have some confidence that they are operating in an environment that we know is not going to cause irreparable damage to the oceans, but quite clearly that is not the position we are in at the moment. Like many decisions we have to make in this parliament, we make them on balance: what is, on balance, best? At the end of the day, on this matter I think that we have to give the benefit to the oceans. For those reasons, subject to the comments that I made about the amendment and the issues in relation to both social and economic uncertainty in the act, I intend to support the bill.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to the member for Dobell that a week ago there was no concern about the science. There was no confusion about the science on this issue. AFMA reaffirmed the science regarding the operations of the company on Monday. Minister Burke reaffirmed the science last week. Minister Ludwig reaffirmed the quota on 23 August, and Labor voted it in on Monday, 10 September. The quota is not reduced. Minister Burke called for the large factory freezer vessels in October 2009 when he was fisheries minister. So there was no question a week ago. Only a week ago the science was fine. I cannot understand a former minister like Simon Crean not standing up at least in his party room—I do not know whether he stood up in his party room or not—and saying: 'Look, you just can't do this. This is no way to run a country. This is no way to run the biggest business in Australia—to send a message around the world that you can't come in here and invest and do business.' But you do not want to hear from me, because I have some real, personal concerns about this, so I would like to go to somebody else.

Andrew Macintosh, Associate Director of the ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy, writing in Crikey today—I admit that I am a subscriber, and I pay for it myself—wrote this:

One of the tragic things about environmental policy is that it tends to follow the principle of factor sparsity, or what is more generally known as the 80-20 rule—80% is for show, 20% for go. Put another way, 80% of policy is designed to do nothing more than send political signals to the electorate or make voters feel better about themselves. The remaining 20% is actually intended to change environmental outcomes.

There is no better example of the 80% in action than the government’s treatment of the Abel Tasman supertrawler issue.

I am using this piece out of Crikey because it gives a reasonable background of what we are on about here. It goes on:

Since the early 1990s, Commonwealth fisheries policy has largely been based on three simple principles. First, overfishing is addressed by placing caps (or quotas) on how many fish can be taken in each fishery. Second, government policy should encourage the caps to be filled at least cost—

or in the most efficient way—

that is, the fish should be caught in the cheapest way possible to free up resources for other uses. Third, the use of fishing gear is regulated in order to reduce by-catch, or the unintentional capture of non-commercial species.

People like me who have been around in this place since 1990 lived all these issues, especially through those years of the 90s, and that is why I mentioned Simon Crean before. The article continues:

Sitting above the fisheries regime are environmental protection laws. Under federal environmental law, all Commonwealth-managed fisheries are strategically assessed on a rolling basis. These assessments look at the environmental impacts of the management arrangements for each fishery and determine whether they are sustainable. After the completion of the assessment, if the environment minister is satisfied with the arrangements, the fishery is approved for the purpose of export and an exemption is granted to ensure individual fishers do not have to comply with project-based environmental approval requirements.

Despite the noise in the media, the proposed operations of the Abel Tasman tick all the boxes of the fisheries and environmental regime. The fishing will occur within the quota set for the Small Pelagic Fishery. The fisheries management arrangements for this fishery have been strategically assessed by the Environment Department on four occasions: 2003, 2007, 2009 and 2012. Moreover, the introduction of the larger vessel is in keeping with the desire to improve efficiency as it will lower unit costs, and Environment Minister Tony Burke had set stringent bycatch conditions on the operation of the vessel.

This is not to say that the general management arrangements for the Small Pelagics Fishery or any other Commonwealth-managed fishery are sustainable. Several of them are overfished—

the author says—

and subject to serious bycatch and environmental degradation issues (noting that the Small Pelagics Fishery is probably among the better-managed Commonwealth fisheries). However, the operator of the Abel Tasman, Seafish, has done everything—

everything—

according to the book. Its only crime was to run into a government in a tight political spot that is looking to attract votes on the back of a populist environmental campaign.

As if to highlight the absurdity of the situation, the government is rushing through legislation today in order to give it the power to stop the Abel Tasman from fishing pending an environmental assessment, even though it already possesses this power. There are provisions in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that allow Burke to call in the Abel Tasman’s proposed activities and subject them to the project-based environmental assessment and approval process. It is unclear why the government thinks it needs to duplicate these existing powers.

Minister Burke might answer that question. The article continues:

Given the way the process has unfolded, at the very least, Seafish should be offered compensation for its treatment. If it isn’t, the company is justified in asking why its losses are any different from those incurred by the fossil-fuel generators and other emissions-intensive polluters, which have been so grossly overcompensated for the effects of the carbon pricing scheme.

This is important—I might not agree with this, but I have got to read the whole article:

Beyond that, this incident shines a light toward more serious policy questions, particularly the sustainability of the current fisheries management arrangements and efficacy of the Commonwealth’s strategic assessment process.

To date, there has been only one independent analysis of the fisheries strategic assessment process. It found that the strategic assessments rarely led to material changes in fisheries practices and that its environmental achievements were modest. If there is a need for change, it is in the way these assessments are conducted and the level of transparency in environmental and fisheries regulation.

As Seafish has pleaded today, fishers need certainty in the regulatory environment in which they operate. Equally, the community is entitled to ask that its marine resources are effectively and sustainably managed, and that it is provided with the data to make these judgments.

I said I would speak about what other people say. This has been known about for nine months. I will quote again, this time from an AAP article I have here:

Seafish Tasmania director Gerry Geen says his company's failed super-trawler venture has cost it millions, and he is embarrassed for his Dutch business partners.

The 142-metre Abel Tasman is set to be banished from Australian waters for at least two years by federal government legislation—

rushed in today—

while fisheries science is updated.

The decision comes with the boat already in Australia, having made the voyage from the Netherlands, after what Seafish says was years of negotiation with the Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

Asked what the venture had cost Seafish, a furious Mr Geen told ABC Radio in Tasmania: "Millions."

"This has been a long project," he said.

"We brought our Dutch partners over to meet with AFMA eight or nine months ago and we were assured if the vessel was an Australian vessel properly flagged it would be treated the same as every other vessel.

"We've been badly let down on that one."

Mr Geen said Tuesday's announcement by government ministers Tony Burke and Joe Ludwig had left him feeling red-faced.

"I'm responsible for bringing this Dutch company … to Australia on the basis that we had strong rules, we had laws which would be upheld and we had strong fisheries management based on science," he said.

"On that basis they and we have invested millions of dollars to do this venture and I'm bitterly disappointed and embarrassed at what the government has done."

Asked where the decision left Seafish financially, Mr Geen said: "That's something we're going to have to look at."

The company is exploring its options, which reportedly include seeking compensation, but Environment Minister Burke has said the government is on "strong ground" because the vessel had no fish quotas assigned to it.

The ban will mean the loss of 50 jobs, for which Mr Geen said he was "sorry".

I wonder if the minister is sorry.

He did not know when or where the boat would head next.

Mr Geen said he was hopeful of speaking to politicians in a last-ditch bid to stop them supporting the government's legislation.

Here we have a businessperson who has gone outside of Australia and found a model—I do not know a lot about the issues, but I have been told that this ship is environmentally better for the catch itself. It makes sure that the catch is for human consumption and not just belted into cat food. It allows for better protection of species that it does not want to catch. It actually has cameras in the nets and cameras all over the boat. There are a whole lot of conditions put on the boat by the Australian government. The government putting on those conditions suggests they knew it was coming, and they would all have been worked on for a long time before the boat was brought out here. The boat was brought out here in good faith.

The member for Dobell talked about all the people who do have a real concern about the size of this ship and the catch it takes. I absolutely respect those people in the Australian community who have a view about this boat and, at first blush, I had a similar view, being an occasional fisher myself. But when you actually invest some time and effort into seeing what the issues actually are, you can understand why the government brought this out—because there is only one quota and there are only so many fish to be taken and, having that one quota, if you can take those fish in a more efficient manner than you otherwise would have, that is the way you would be best to go about it from a business perspective. If the business did not think this was the best way to go about fulfilling the quota that they own, that the Australian government have given them, in this fishery, they would have said, 'We'll do it with our smaller trawlers here.' They would have found another way to go about it. But the best way to go about it, they felt, was to bring this trawler out, with the freezers in it, to make it a better business opportunity, better for Tasmania and better for those working on the ship. So they brought the ship out here. As the professor said, they ticked all the boxes. They jumped through every environmental hoop, until the government, in a political knee-jerk response said, 'But you can't go ahead and catch the fish that you have been brought out here to catch.' I just do not think you can run a country in that manner, and I do not think you can send the messages that we are sending nationally, locally, and overseas on this issue.

It might surprise you that I am standing up on an issue that could cause damage politically to me and others with people who do not understand my position. But some issues that are about the nation and how we do business are extremely important. This issue is extremely important to the nation and how we do business: how we do business with the people who do business in our country, and how they are able to do business, with confidence and in good faith, with those people that they invited here from another country with the blessing of a government that has just backflipped.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012. Despite lengthy processes to determine the legislative agenda for our nation, yet again, under this government, we see a bill come from nowhere, with no consultation, no discussion, no warning and no science. Many may wonder: what would cause a government to act so rashly—what event of such national significance would cause our federal cabinet, the most senior decision makers in the country, to pause their legislative agenda to urgently rush in new laws?

The answer? GetUp! took out an ad in the Australian and Greenpeace circulated a petition. This is the way policy is made under this government. This is the most blatant example yet of the green tail of the Labor-Greens alliance wagging this dog of a government.

This is history repeating itself. As the shadow minister said this morning, this is live exports on steroids. This government is developing a unique precedent for rash decisions based on questionable substance. Rather than learning from its mistakes, this government again shows a total lack of process in its decision making. Repeated examples of policy on the run continue to demonstrate that this government has lost its way. The greatest shame in this is the subsequent embarrassment for us all, with the rest of the world increasingly considering us a nation with sovereign risk.

This bill has been rushed into this place in an attempt to appease green groups such as Greenpeace and GetUp!, groups who argue very effectively from the heart. They take up issues which, on the surface, appear wholesome and can therefore drive the passions of people and get them to act—to write a letter, send an email or sign a petition. However, action at government level must be based on a consistent approach to well-thought-out policy development and implementation. This bill highlights this government's abject failure, by any reckoning, to achieve this goal.

The arrival of the Margiris has sparked an important debate on sustainable fishing practices. We manage a system with quotas and checking mechanisms to ensure the highest standards. We invite investment into our country as long as our transparent established rules are strictly followed, and we threaten strong sanctions if there is any deviation from these rules. Large investment requires long-term planned strategies. Companies like the one that runs the Margiris spend years assessing the guidelines, applying for permits and implementing changes to their practices to ensure compliance.

In this case, company directors flew from Holland to Australia nine months ago to meet with government department officials to ensure they could meet all our requirements. They would even have read the minister's words from his 2009 Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy:

There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels.

Based on this government giving them the tick of approval, the company chose to invest time and money in a process that would create jobs in Australia. But, at 11.59 pm, after the company had jumped every hurdle and complied with every law, the government changed the rules.

Such changes damage relationships and hurt investment. This was perfectly summed up by Seafish Tasmania director Gerry Geen, who this morning said he was:

… absolutely astonished that this could actually happen in Australia, bitterly disappointed. It feels like a third world country reaction to me. I think this is just unbelievable.

This truly is a repeat of the live cattle debacle, in which total chaos was created by a knee-jerk reaction of this government to a TV show, resulting in an important export industry being brought to its knees.

It even appeared during the briefing session yesterday, as with the live exports announcement, that Minister Burke had not consulted with anyone with specialist knowledge over his concerns regarding the operation of the Margirisnot with the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, not with the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, not even with individual specialist scientists. All he had had was a discussion with his department.

His concern is now about the size of the ship and the potential for the bycatch of protected species. Bycatch is a risk with every fishing vessel. The difference with the Margiris was that, with the extent of government controls being imposed and media scrutiny faced, it would have been required to have more independent observers and analysis of its catch than any other vessel. The arrival of the Margiris was not going to change the total fish catch quotas. The same number of fish will be taken out of our oceans, but now this will likely be done by a larger number of smaller vessels facing less scrutiny over their fishing practices and their bycatch. In other words, as with the live exports debacle, this announcement to placate green groups will likely result in a worse environmental outcome.

This parliament knows that the coalition supports sustainable fisheries management and sustainable fisheries practices. We oppose this legislation, which gives unlimited power to the minister on the basis of so-called social uncertainty and which creates a sovereign risk. There is no indication what the term 'uncertainty' means, providing scope for the minister to stop any fishing activity without a substantive case. All fishers should be concerned. These powers could be used against any of them and, indeed, could easily be extended to further reduce access to any natural resource. One problem should not create a bigger problem for an entire fishing community. This is policy on the run.

Only this afternoon, after the coalition had exposed the flaws in the bill, the member for Dobell put forward an amendment trying to preclude recreational fishers. The amendment, however, fails in this objective. The amendment will not help charter boat operators, who are an important part of the recreational fishing sector but are classified as commercial operations. This is a sure sign of a panicked government—relying on their fallen comrade to try to save this dodgy legislation. What other bandaid solutions are going to be implemented by this government?

This issue is no longer about the trawler; it is about how we do business in Australia. Already 50 job losses have been announced as a direct result of this decision, and I am sure that every resource based industry is watching closely, with great concern about this legislation and the government's approach to making policy. The decision today creates sovereign risk issues for existing fishers who hold licences to fish in Australian waters. Australia's commercial fishing industry will not have the confidence to continue to invest if any quota and/or licence can be overturned at the whim of the government.

The decision today makes a mockery of the whole Australian Fisheries Management Authority process which the government relies on for its scientific advice.

This is another backflip of Olympic proportions. Just a few weeks ago, Minister Ludwig said in response to a Greens' motion that was trying to stop the Margiris:

This disallowance motion is a message that the Greens political party do not support sustainable catch limits based on science. It is a message that says the Greens want fisheries managed by politics, not qualified fisheries managers. And it says that the Greens do not support the commercial operators who fish in some of the world's best managed fisheries. That message should be well understood, because I have no doubt that the same disregard for the science and management of our commercial fisheries will be extended to the legitimate pursuit of recreational fishing.

As minister for fisheries, I will not allow the emotive politics of the Greens political party to run fisheries management policy in this country. We will ensure that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority is independent, that it makes independent decisions based on the science through its expert commissioners and on the facts that are presented to them. They will continue to make decisions based on sound judgement to ensure that fisheries are sustainable and meet all the ecological requirements—and, moreover, predicated on the precautionary principle so often espoused by the Greens. Why? Because AFMA will continue to apply sound policy to ensure that we will have sustainable fisheries now and into the future. For those reasons, the government oppose this motion.

Yet here we are debating legislation that is just another tool for the Greens and environmental groups to use to campaign against our fishing industry.

Minister Burke's concerns were based on the capacity of the vessel to fish in one place for a considerable time. The solution to that problem could have been to amend the Fisheries Act to allow for 'move-on' provisions or spatial management that would prevent localised impacts. The coalition would have supported those moves. Minister Burke is saying, 'If you don't know everything, do nothing.' He is not trying to find a way to make it work; he has been desperately looking for some way to lock up more water. He has trashed the reputation of the AFMA Commission—and he appointed every member of that commission! He has also trashed the reputations of our world-leading scientific community and institutions that have performed the science to develop the existing best practice. This government has demonstrated that, if you do everything asked of you, and then some, it is not enough; it will shaft you, your business and your employees. How can any business operate in an environment such as that? This government now operates on the basis that if a minister is 'uncertain' then nothing should happen. Worse still, this minister did not take steps to find the answers to the things he was uncertain about; he just shut the business down. What message does this give to our researchers and innovators? 'Don't explore. Your science means nothing.'

I would like to conclude with a quote from the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who wrote on this issue in the Advocate just last month:

Sometimes you've got to stick with what you believe is right when popular opinion might not agree. …

You have faith in your institutions and you demand they be accountable, but if through anecdotal or sheer populist sentiment you push your institutions aside, what hope have you got?

The Australian people expect and deserve a consistent, well-thought-out approach to government. Yet again we see that this government has failed to deliver on that most basic of expectations.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am yet another coalition contributor to a debate on a bill that we think is a fundamental threat to the sovereign risk confidence that we hold in Australia, and it is no better exemplified than by this last-minute decision by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities , who for a long time has had all the evidence in his hands to solve the Margiris issue. Instead, he has made a last-minute decision that we think compromises confidence in the way Australia makes important economic decisions.

As the member for the Queensland seat of Bowman I come from a fishing region. In fact, a great proportion of Brisbane and South-East Queensland fishers with registered fishing vehicles use my electorate to access Moreton Bay, the most densely recreationally fished area on the Australian coastline. So I have a connection to a series of anti-Labor fishing campaigns dating back to when I first came into politics, in 2004. I know what fishers want. Predominantly, they want sustainable fisheries. Predominantly, they do not want interference from government. Predominantly, they know that, with bag limits, size limits, common sense and support from fisheries officials, we can have sustainable fisheries right around the Australian coast and we can continue to have a wonderful pastime that every Australian can enjoy affordably. So I care about fishing and I have been plenty of campaigns to secure their rights.

This episode with the Margiris in the southern oceans of Australia sets us on a completely new path. This is the way Australia considers and respects the role of commercial fishing! The Margiris has been not so much courted as negotiated down to Australia since 2009 under the current government, and there are plenty of quotes from the environment minister on that matter that are already on the record. What we are seeing today, with this panicked backflip from federal Labor, is a classic example of leaving the bride at the altar. On the way to the wedding, you abandon the vessel—and those who own and run her—for political expediency. And this has been a long time coming.

Environment Minister Burke has courted this vessel every step of the way, on the one hand not only encouraging but also clearing the way legislatively for larger-scale freezer vessels in Australian waters while on the other hand—speaking out of the other side of his mouth—sending a populist message to GetUp! and green dominated groups, their blogs and campaigns, to stop this vessel. Ultimately, these two false messages had to intersect, and that happened this week. It was this week that the environment minister, for all his bluff, for all his feigned compassion for the environment, finally chickened out and abandoned the vessel, leaving the Australian people to pay the bill through legal action with, potentially, enormous costs.

AFMA is a respected and expert body, led by no less than a respected former Labor individual. To reject the evidence that has been coming from that body is tantamount to saying we do not need expert bodies at all. Nobody said that you must take the advice of an expert body, but what is the point of a minister who continues to take the information from this body and fails to ask the key questions that could be the basis of a refusal, only to make a panicked, public-campaign-driven decision to tell this vessel to go away, to tell it to turn around and go home? It is not based on science. As one of the few former scientists in this chamber, I am always looking for evidence based approaches.

There is plenty of evidence. The claim by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities that we do not have the evidence is a sham. The idea that you can simply say to a vessel, 'Go away for two years, don't do any fishing and in the meantime we'll get evidence about the impact of a large-scale freezer vessel,' is patently ridiculous. The only way you get the evidence is to invite the vessel down under very strict supervision and monitoring, allow them to fish and then collect the evidence. This is akin to saying, 'We have a brand-new medicine but we're not going to use it for two years until we get more evidence.'

There is no such thing as animal studies in fishing. You either fish or you do not. If you want evidence on large-scale freezer vessels, you allow them to fish, you monitor them carefully and you make a decision as you go. I want to apologise—on behalf of this side of the chamber and on behalf of Australians who expect to have a minister with a bit of rigor, some guts and a bit of foresight, a minister who is able to avoid panicked decisions like those we have seen this week—to Dr James Findlay, who is the CEO of AFMA, Mr Richard Stevens, Mr Ian Cartwright, Dr John Glaister, Ms Jennifer Goddard, Ms Elizabeth Montano, Ms Denise North and Professor Keith Sainsbury. You have given your time to provide this country with the expert evidence we need to make a decision, doing it as recently as last week, and your minister has abandoned you.

The minister does not have to take the advice of every expert committee—I am not saying that. What I am saying is that, if this minister has a problem, he should stop speaking out of one side of his mouth about having a concern while not actually listening to the evidence. There are a number elements to this. There is, of course, a global issue here about the way Australia is regarded as a trustworthy broker of sea fishing in the international community. That has been severely damaged today. As commentators in the public domain have said, we are like a Third World country.

Below that global element is the political. If you squeeze this Gillard Labor government with a bit of public pressure and then stand back, you can see what pops out. You just never know what is going to happen with this government. You can worry as much as you want about the borders but you have no idea what will come out until you exert a bit of pressure and then watch them panic and respond to the public pressure. This is a classic example where you want a minister to hold firm. The Tasmanian member on the other side of the chamber said just that—stand firm in the face of public opinion because you know, while many of your constituents may not agree, that it is fundamentally right.

How many times has it been said? The quota will not change. We simply have a boat with larger displacement, a longer beam and a greater depth doing the fishing. It is not more dangerous just because the ship is longer or deeper or has a greater displacement. That has been completely abandoned by this minister, who is frightened of nothing less than the size of the craft. There is mid-level trawling to minimise by-product. We know that barracuda and spotted wahoo are the two most likely by-products. There are very careful excluders for sea lions and dolphins. There is camera monitoring of what this vessel does and there is monitoring on board. That is about as much as you can ask for if you are serious about collecting the evidence.

Finally, you have the community expectation. To everyone in my electorate and to the many people who live in coalition electorates—because Labor electorates have given up on this lot—who are concerned about a great big ship coming over the horizon and destroying the environment, I want to say that not a single extra fish will be taken. The quota will be the same. With this vessel departing, the monitoring will be poorer, and there will be more fishermen doing it less efficiently, more dangerously and at greater cost. But what has this government and this minister done? They have simply turned the vessel around and exposed this great country and its taxpayers to paying for potential costs in the courts. They have abandoned Australian people and left them to pay the bill. It is a familiar story—the government cannot make a decision for itself and we end up paying the price down the line.

What we have here is an attack on sovereign risk, an attack on common sense and an attack on the science. There is nothing more that Australians can ask for than a science-based approach to fishing. Everywhere around our coastline we want monitoring to make sure that marine zones are sustainable. Everywhere around the coast we want to make sure that fishermen can engage in the long loved and enjoyed activity of fishing. We have worked so hard to make sure that a large-scale freezer vessel can work its trade in our waters. All of this evidence has been collected, considered, evaluated and presented, only to have the minister chicken out at the last minute.

There is a word for acts like this by the minister but it cannot be repeated in this chamber. There is a word for ministers who make a hasty, panicked decision—it is simply a big Gillard government backflip. And haven't we seen plenty of those. I do not need to venture into those areas. They are legion. You can travel in any part of the world and people will say, 'You have that Gillard government, which promised one thing before an election and something completely contrary happened after.' That will be the political obituary of the Gillard administration. That will be what they will be remembered for.

When it comes to the environment, to something that every Australian should and does care about, we have seen a government and a minister who have made a significant misstep and a significant miscalculation. It is a Labor government that got populist at just the time when Australia did not need it. This will not be forgotten quickly. Those on the other side should not think that there is a quick, cheap vote in stopping this large-scale freezer vessel at the last possible moment without giving it a fair and reasonable chance to minimise its own damages and expenses. There was no science that needed to be collected in the last few weeks; there was just a tough decision that needed to be made. It was a tough decision that never came from this minister as he faffed around in his environmental office, talked to his staffers and pretended to consult, with nothing actually ever happening.

But you know what? Ultimately we reached that Churchillian moment of consequences. Eventually, there was one message to the Greens and GetUp! and another one to industry, and they just could not pull it together; it just became too hard for this minister.

The minister has abandoned our global reputation. Minister Burke has abandoned politically those who have trusted that Labor would do the right thing, by balancing environment and industry for a sustainable fishery. They have abandoned that, with this ridiculous EPBCA amendment calling on social concerns, whatever that means. Whatever that ridiculous phrase means, it means that he wants an out. But that is what he will not have, because we will stop this amendment.

Debate interrupted.