Tom Venning (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in this chamber to speak in strong, unwavering support of the fishing communities of Port Lincoln and the broader regional fishing communities of Australia and to address the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026. Unlike everyone from the government on the other side of this chamber, I will not just boringly read out the sanitised talking points you are endlessly repeating. The people who elected me, the people whose livelihoods are directly impacted by the legislation we debate in this room, deserve far better than bureaucratic echoes. They deserve honest representation and they deserve a measured, realistic critique of what this legislation actually means for their futures.

Let me say clearly at the very outset that this parliament should absolutely support sustainable oceans and biodiversity. The high seas belong to no single nation, and governing them demands exactly the kind of international cooperation that this treaty represents. But let me be equally clear, true sustainability is never achieved by sidelining the very people who have been carefully managing these marine resources for generations. There is a growing concern radiating from Port Lincoln, and it stems from the fact that, increasingly, decisions are being made about the industry rather than with the industry. I want to make a point here, one that highlights a strange and persistent hypocrisy in our national policy. It is the simple fact that everyone in this place treats the oceans profoundly differently to the land. When a farmer harvests the land, works the soil and produces food for this nation, they are rightfully championed as heroes of food security. We celebrate them. Yet, when our fishers head into the oceans and harvest the sea, providing that exact same service of feeding our nation, they are treated with suspicion. They are treated not as stewards but as environmental risks and poachers to be mitigated and managed. It is a double standard that is deeply offensive to the thousands of Australians in this industry.

Port Lincoln, Ceduna, Streaky Bay, Whyalla, Wallaroo and Edithburgh—they are not just picturesque coastal towns; they are also huge economic powerhouses for my community. Port Lincoln is Australia's undisputed seafood capital. It is home to the largest commercial fishing fleet in the entire Southern Hemisphere. We are talking about a town of about 14,000 people, and its seafood sector supports thousands of direct jobs and exponentially more in flow-on industries. I'm talking about boatbuilders, transport operators, maintenance crews and processing workers. The list goes on.

The southern-bluefin-tuna industry alone is worth around $120 million annually to the region. It forms a critical pillar of the broader regional economy. This is not just a seasonal hobby or a fading legacy industry; it is a modern, highly sophisticated and globally competitive export sector. It supplies a premium product to demanding international markets, particularly Japan and increasingly across the broader Asia region. This is an industry that has survived by evolving, innovating and adapting to every challenge thrown its way, and so many challenges have been faced by the seafood industry.

Here is the critical point that this government is fundamentally failing to grasp. Australia's seafood industry is already one of the most strictly regulated and undeniably sustainable seafood industries in the entire world. As Seafood Industry Australia consistently and accurately highlights, our commercial fisheries operate under robust, science based quotas. They operate under strict monitoring regimes and binding international agreements. This is not a rogue sector that needs to be forcefully brought into line by bureaucrats from this place who have never caught a bream, let alone a bluefin. This is a sector that is already leading the world in stewardship, and yet, despite this world-class performance, we continue to see layer upon layer of new regulation arbitrarily added. I hear it directly from the operators on the ground and on the water. In parts of the tuna industry, it feels as though there are now as many or even perhaps more people regulating the industry from Canberra than there are boats working out on the water. The situation is utterly ridiculous. The feeling within the industry is crystal clear. They are being overregulated, completely overburdened and woefully under consulted, and it needs to change.

This matters deeply because there are severe real-world consequences when ideological policy gets too far ahead of practical reality. If we overreach with regulation, we risk pushing hardworking Australian operators—the ones who actually follow the rules—straight out of global markets. We risk replacing Australian seafood with dubious imports from countries with far fewer environmental and labour standards. We already import 64 per cent of the seafood that we eat—64 per cent!—yet we have the best seafood in the entire world. Ultimately, we risk hollowing out proud regional communities, like Port Lincoln, that completely depend on this industry to survive and thrive.

Let us be honest about the severe pressures facing this sector right now. I have to strongly question the timing of this bill and the broader regulatory push in the face of the current fuel crisis crippling our operators. Right now, skyrocketing input costs—particularly diesel fuel—are forcing some operators to make the heartbreaking decision to cut their trips simply to stay financially viable. And, right now, because of the harmful algal bloom in the coastal waters along South Australia, boats are needing to travel twice as far to catch their quotas—twice as far when the fuel is twice as expensive. It is a double whammy.

Margins are incredibly tight. Business confidence is fragile. The absolute last thing this industry needs in this precise moment is additional regulatory uncertainty imposed from above without genuine, respectful engagement. What the region needs is practical and tangible support not more red tape. They need infrastructure that keeps them safe and helps them operate efficiently. That is exactly why I'm pushing for Doppler radar on the lower Eyre peninsula, supported by a massive petition from the local community.

A Doppler radar would provide critical real-time weather data to keep our fishers, farmers and community safe. This is the kind of practical investment the government should be focused on. Instead, we are here debating international treaties that threaten to tie our most productive industries in further knots. Seafood Industry Australia has been exceptionally clear on this matter. They fully support strong, decisive action against illegal and unregulated fishing. They support long-term sustainability, but they also desperately call for practical, workable frameworks developed in genuine partnership with the industry itself. That is the key word—'partnership'—because the people of Port Lincoln are not environmental vandals; they are the true stewards of the oceans. Their livelihoods depend on it. Their families depend on it. Their entire futures depend on it.

This brings me to the specific mechanisms being championed in the wake of this bill. We hear a lot about marine parks, but let's be honest with the Australian public. Marine parks have a fun name, a very friendly name. It sounds like a place you can take your kids on a Sunday afternoon, but we need to remember, and we need to call them exactly what they are. They are exclusion zones. They are lock-ups. Ironically, so many of these spatial closures have been transferred out to regional zones, conveniently placed far away from our metropolitan communities. Go figure! The city voters get the warm, fuzzy feeling of saving the ocean while the regional workers lose their livelihoods. It is a disgrace. My deep concern is that this treaty could very easily become a trojan horse for further domestic closures. What we must avoid at all costs is giving away our adjacent waters to the world to create massive, unprecedented marine protected areas between Australia and New Zealand, ultimately closing off our future food bowl to satisfy international optics.

We must ask ourselves what is truly happening in this chamber today. The minister has confirmed that his government is currently reviewing 44 Australian marine parks. We have seen the Greens use this bill as a convenient platform to call for a complete end to salmon fishing in Tasmania, the end of krill fishing and the aggressive expansion of no-take zones right across our domestic waters. This is no longer just a bill about high seas. It is the opening act of a radical domestic ocean closure agenda carefully dressed in the polite language of international obligation.

We already import a staggering 64 per cent of seafood that Australians eat. Let that sink in. It is upsetting to think that nearly two-thirds of our seafood comes from overseas. We do not import this because we lack the ocean. We have the third-largest exclusive economic zone in the world. We do not import it because we lack the scientific capability. We import it because a decade of poor decisions has treated Australian fishers as a problem to be managed rather than a vital sovereign food capability to be supported. This relentless, creeping regulation has systematically hollowed out the productive capacity of a sector worth billions to our GDP. Reducing access to well-managed Australian fisheries without addressing this massive reliance on imports simply risks outsourcing our environmental footprint to nations that do not care about sustainability. It does not improve the global environment; it merely shifts the guilt offshore.

If we are to implement the obligations under the BBNJ agreement concerning marine genetic resources, area-based management tools and environmental impact assessments, we must ensure that our domestic fisheries management is recognised and accredited within these broader environmental frameworks rather than duplicated. This was a clear recommendation from the Samuel review, and it must be heeded. We do not need cumulative regulatory burdens unintentionally constraining a sector that is essential to Australia's food security and regional resilience. I have spoken to the industry. I have read the drafts and the concerns of the people on the ground. Having consulted with experts like Daniel Casement, John Isle and Claire Webber, who understand the intricate realities of this industry better than anyone sitting in a department here in Canberra, I know that the industry is seeking certainty, consistency and basic recognition, not the continual layering of new rules over already well-managed world-class systems.

Protecting the high seas and feeding Australia are not competing objectives. We need this government, in the exact same breath as it passes this bill, to firmly commit to a domestic ocean governance framework that finally gives food production the exact same standing it currently gives conservation. My message to the government is incredibly simple: if this bill is to succeed, which it will—if it is to genuinely protect biodiversity while strengthening Australia's position globally—then the commercial fishing industry must be at the table from the very start, not as a token afterthought, not as a box-ticking consultation exercise, but as a respected, genuine partner, because, when you actually work with the industry, you get better policy, you get vastly better environmental outcomes and you get a much stronger, more resilient Australia.

I will hold this government to the absolute letter of this bill. This legislation is about the high seas. It is about areas beyond national jurisdiction. It must not be weaponised to lock up our local waters. I'm demanding that not a single additional hectare of Australian fishing ground be closed without a comprehensive, independent food security assessment. I'm demanding that no ground is closed without genuine consultation and I demand that no ground is closed without proper compensation for the operators whose businesses are destroyed by the stroke of a pen.

Let's protect our oceans but also let's back Port Lincoln. Let's passionately back Australian seafood. Let's support the families navigating tight margins and crippling fuel costs. And let's make absolutely sure that, in trying to lead the world with marine biodiversity, we do not accidentally or intentionally undermine the most sustainable, economically vital and proudly regional industries we already possess. We are watching closely, the regions are watching, Port Lincoln is watching, and we will not let this industry be quietly regulated out of existence.

Sam Lim (Tangney, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of my first careers was as a dolphin trainer. Dolphins can sense everything about you. If you are angry, they will swim away. If you are happy, calm, grounded, they all want to be with you. They are so intelligent. One of the many lessons I learned from that job, which I still say was the best job in my whole life, is a lesson that I bring with me into this House to express my support for this bill. As the park was closing down, I took the four dolphins into the wild ocean myself. I lived on a boat for a few weeks as the dolphins gradually got used to the ocean life. A few wild dolphins soon came and joined them, and they would go all out to play. Sometimes my old friends would come back to the boat and poke out their noses and say 'hello'. Eventually it was time to go, so I jumped into the ocean one final time and said goodbye to all of them. It was a very sad moment for me, but of course dolphins belong out in the wild.

Australia has a long history of taking care of our ocean, of protecting Australia's marine biodiversity, and od ensuring sustainable management of fisheries is a priority for our government. You can see this through the decision we have taken to triple the size of Macquarie Island Marine Park and to quadruple the size of the Heard and McDonald Island marine parks. More than half of Australia's ocean is now protected in marine parks. We are working towards having 30 per cent of our ocean protected in a highly protected area by 2030. Generations of future Australians will be able to continue to enjoy our coastal ecosystem.

Australia is a global leader in marine protection. We are actively working and partnering with other countries to better protect more of our world's oceans. Around 60 per cent of the global ocean is beyond national jurisdiction, but currently only around one per cent is protected. Australia is a founding signatory of this High Seas Biodiversity Treaty. The treaty established an international legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This treaty will work together with the international and regional rules and framework that already exist to protect the ocean. It will play a critical role in achieving a shared global goal of protecting 30 per cent of the world's marine area by 2030. By ratifying the treaty, Australia will become party to the treaty. This will allow Australia to participate in the management of the ocean beyond our marine time boundary so we can protect the ocean's health and make sure that global rules align with our national interests.

Australia's marine industries, for example, fishery and tourism, need a clean and healthy ocean. It is important that we have sustainable development.

I want to share a final lesson from my friends the dolphins. Dolphins do not breathe automatically. Their breathing is consciously controlled. So, when dolphins sleep, only one half of the brain can sleep at a time. Dolphins have to make a choice to come to the surface to breathe. They choose to breathe and live. This lesson to me at that time was that our choices matter. We have a responsibility to make good choices not only for today but for future generations. So ratifying the high seas biodiversity treaty demonstrates Australia's commitment to international law and our commitment to better protecting our ocean and its marine life for future generations. I'm pleased to support this bill.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 is domestic legislation that Australia needs to finally ratify the high seas treaty, which is now in force internationally. The bill establishes three core things: a regime for marine genetic resources, a framework for recognising and managing protected or specially managed areas of the high seas, and an environmental impact assessment regime for certain activities that may damage the marine environment. It is the world's first legally binding agreement to protect marine life in international waters, and it is a historic moment for international ocean conservation efforts.

After nearly two decades of negotiations, the high seas treaty will govern almost two-thirds of the planet's ocean ecosystems, which are under threat from overfishing, commercial shipping and pollution. The treaty helps protect the parts of the ocean that no one country owns, where there haven't been enough proper rules, and it makes it easier to create protected ocean areas and harder for people and nations to damage marine life without checks. It also means countries have to think more carefully about the harm their activities could cause before they go ahead. This matters so much. Currently, areas of national jurisdiction cover nearly half the planet. So this is a huge share of the ocean, yet governance has lagged far behind the science and far behind the scale of the threat to those areas. The treaty was designed to change that. So the bill is necessary now—and I welcome it—to ratify and domestically implement the rules that were agreed to within the high seas treaty.

Of course, I represent Warringah in this place, and we are so intrinsically tied to the oceans. A healthy ocean is not just some abstract concept; it shapes our local beaches, our marine life, our community, recreation and the character of the place. It is absolutely the heart and soul of so many communities around Australia and, in particular, the Warringah community. We all care deeply about nature, coastline, health and biodiversity. Every time I visit a school and they come and tell me about what they worry about, they worry about our oceans, about marine life and about plastics. The ocean is a really big part of their environment and their wellbeing. We know ocean systems are connected, so stronger protection offshore, far away from Australia, far away on that horizon, will help the overall resilience of marine ecosystems much closer to home. If you live by the coast, you have a stake in ocean stewardship beyond your own postcode.

The chronology is that Australia signed the high seas treaty in September 2023 and the treaty entered into force on 17 January 2026. This bill is the overdue domestic step needed for Australia to ratify the treaty and become a party with full legal effect. Australia helped negotiate this framework over many years under governments of different stripes, but we have been slower than we could have been in finishing the domestic job. It's also part of a wider failure, I would argue, in environmental governance. For decades, the law has been much better at slicing the ocean into jurisdictions than actually protecting the living systems that connect them. On 8 August 2025, along with other crossbench MPs, I wrote to Minister Murray Watt, encouraging him to ratify the treaty.

When it comes to our oceans, delay is not a pause button. It's a permission slip for continued degradation, and that's why action is so important. Only a tiny proportion of international waters until now has been protected, and that is the problem. The whole rationale of the treaty is to finally create a legal pathway for large-scale high seas protected areas and other area based management tools. Prior to the treaty, only one per cent of international waters were protected.

The government could take inspiration from how the international treaty is designed, as it includes mechanisms that should have been adopted in Australia's own environmental protection laws years ago—for example, the recognition of cumulative impacts. The treaty and the bill matter because they stop decision-makers looking at one activity in isolation, as if it exists in a neat little bubble. Instead, the environmental impact assessment process is meant to look at the combined and incremental harm caused by different activities together, including past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities.

I would argue that this should be embedded in our domestic environmental laws as well, because of that cumulative impact—nothing happens in a vacuum. It's a much more realistic way to assess harm in the oceans, because ecosystems are usually damaged by layers of pressure piling up, not just by one dramatic event or one action. An example of why assessing cumulative impacts is so important is ocean acidification, caused by the ocean absorbing more carbon dioxide, which gradually changes ocean chemistry and makes it harder for many marine organisms and ecosystems to cope. You can't point specifically at one particular project when you talk about ocean acidification, but the cumulative impact is what is driving the problem.

Of course, the definition of 'cumulative impacts' used in this bill expressly includes the consequences of climate change, because we know the oceans are such a massive part of balancing out our global climate. That's why cumulative impacts are so important.

I think ratifying this treaty is really important—first, because we will gain influence where decisions are made. The treaty's first COP is expected within a year of entry into force. If we want influence over the high seas, protected areas and rules, then we need to be at the table as a signatory.

Second, environmental degradation can't just continue as the default setting. It means destructive fishing, shipping, pollution and worsening climate pressures, which don't ultimately respect any kind of national or political borders. We know those impacts are global.

Third, we gain economically and socially, especially because we are a maritime nation. We are ultimately an island continent surrounded by oceans. So the health of the oceans means the health of Australia. The health of the high seas is linked to Australian industries like tourism and fisheries—the ocean upstream effect. Ocean systems underpin climate and ecological stability. The ocean produces roughly half of the Earth's oxygen, largely through oceanic plankton, and absorbs more than 90 per cent of the excess heat trapped by human caused climate change. So much of our way of life depends on a healthy ocean, yet, still so little focus is given to it.

What this bill will do is ratify the high seas treaty. It embeds a precautionary approach requirement for ministerial decision-making, recognising that lack of full scientific certainty is not a reason to delay protective action. It creates a notification based regime for marine genetic resources and digital sequence information. It operationalises high seas area based management tools via 'specially managed areas' and 'special management plans' aligned to COP decisions with a clear 120-day deadline for Australia to make the domestic instrument after a COP decision. It establishes environmental impact assessments for activities under Australian control where impacts are potentially serious, including a threshold that triggers referral. I understand the Senate's amendments will make a material difference. They explicitly reference 'marine protected areas' in key definitional and operative provisions while also lifting corporate civil penalty settings.

The high seas are not someone else's problem but are a problem of all of us. It's a living system that shapes our coasts, our weather, our fisheries and our future. This bill is a chance to move from signature to stewardship, to bring international commitments into Australian law with real enforcement, real transparency and real ambition. There is now a clear mandate to pass the bill, fund it and use it to protect our oceans.

Of course, in talking about the oceans I have to commend the work of Jas Chambers and the Ocean Decade team, who are continually raising the issues of the care of our oceans and the balance between all the different uses—the balance between conservation and marine life but also healthy fisheries and all the other industrial uses, including offshore gas and shipping. There are a lot of different uses that are supported by the oceans. I think the oceans will ultimately have a lot of the solutions we need for climate change and for keeping our way of life, but we have to first embed into law that we want to protect them.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 17:30 to 17:56