Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

It is pleasing to at last be able to debate the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Recreational Fishing for Mako and Porbeagle Sharks) Bill 2010 because the government indicated to the recreational fishing sector back in January that this was going to be a priority for them. I can assure the government that there are a lot of recreational fishers around the coastline and in the cities of Australia who are very keen to see this matter finally resolved. I note that the government have, through some of their representatives, been trying to blame the opposition for the delay in this legislation coming forward. I would like to put that completely to rest at the outset. The opposition have been only too happy to debate the legislation as soon as possible. We have been aware of concerns relating to the decision that the government took to ban the taking of mako and porbeagle sharks, which was based on a decision made in Rome in 2008 under an international convention to list these migratory species as endangered. On that decision making process and what has occurred since then, I think it is important to put on the record that this decision was made at that international forum with the agreement of the Australian government and that it was based on information and data from the Northern Hemisphere and the Mediterranean.

It is of significant concern that the Australian government would support such a decision. I might add that that decision did have the support of some of the states, including unfortunately my home state of Tasmania—though some of the states were much more reticent about the decision when the consultation occurred in the lead-up to that meeting in Rome in 2008. The really disturbing thing is that, although the states were consulted and were part of the decision-making process that the government undertook, those who were impacted by this decision unfortunately were not consulted. When you look at the delegation that went to Rome to make the decision, you will find that the delegation had at their side representatives from the Humane Society International. I recognise that they have an interest in this issue and they obviously had made representations to the government on this issue.

What really disturbs me is that, particularly on the part of Minister Garrett, decisions are made following consultation with environmental groups but not with other stakeholders who are part of the overall process. We have seen Minister Garrett do this on a number of occasions. He put an emergency listing over the Coral Sea after consultation with the Pew foundation but with nobody else. He put an emergency listing over a region of north-west Tasmania after consultation with a small group in that region but with nobody else. And, of course, consultation over this decision concerning the fishing of mako and porbeagle sharks was made with the Humane Society International at the government’s side and nobody else.

The really concerning element is that there is no evidence to suggest that these species are actually endangered in Australian waters. I recognise that some will say that that is because there is a lack of data in relation to these species. I think those who make these claims also demonstrate that they are very remote from people who interact with sharks, particularly makos and porbeagles, on a regular basis. I have had the opportunity to talk to a lot of people involved particularly in recreational fishing for mako sharks and they tell me there is no shortage of those sharks in Australian waters, and in fact it is not difficult to find them. The numbers recorded from the various recreational fishing competitions and from information held by the New South Wales fisheries department clearly demonstrate that there is a large number of these fish in Australian waters, and that needs to be considered as part of this process. I am not saying that there should not be some more research. I note the Greens have a motion seeking further research in relation to makos and porbeagles. I indicate at this stage in proceedings that the opposition will be supporting that motion in relation to further funding for research.

There seems to be a lack of recognition of the fact that there is already a lot of work being done in relation to these particular species. I think that again demonstrates that those who are opposing this are not necessarily close enough to those who are interacting with the sharks. In fact it is quite clear that the recreational fishing sector—and the commercial fishing sector for that matter—plays a very significant role in data collection and research into these particular species. A very strong tag and release program is conducted particularly by game fishing clubs around the country and, as I said before, that data is held in New South Wales through the fisheries department.

The commercial fishers and also some of the recreational fishers have been involved in a program of catching and releasing mako sharks that are tagged for satellite tracking. There are four sharks currently swimming around the Australian coastline—quite happily, I presume—that have been tagged for a period of between 200 and 450 days. There were six sharks, but the tags have dropped off some of those, although they are designed to stay there for about 12 months. Scrappy, who is a juvenile shortfin mako that was tagged and released on 30 March 2009, is currently off the mid-Western Australian coast. He has been mooching around the Great Australian Bight for some period of time and he is currently heading up the Western Australian coast.