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

I make a couple of very quick points in response to some comments that Senator Siewert has just made but also that were made in speeches in the second-reading debate. It is true to say that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Recreational Fishing for Mako and Porbeagle Sharks) Bill 2010 is a result of the listing of sharks under category 2 of IUCN and it is important to note this listing category does allow for continued recreational fishing of these species, as Senator Siewert has said, under a management plan. One thing that is worth stressing at this point is that there are management processes already in place in state fisheries in relation to these sharks. It is not as if we are going to a situation where it is carte blanche, it is open, and there are no management processes in place. There are. In my view, my conversations with recreational fishermen who exceed the requirements of those current management plans—in other words, they are prepared to do more than the management plans demand—demonstrate their responsible approach to this.

I note the comments of the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in his summing up on the second reading that there is a significant impact on the recreational fisher, yet the report that was given to the minister anticipated that the cost on most sectors would be minor. So the government did not even know what it was doing when it put these measures in place in the first place. Through the representations it has received, the government has at last understood what is going on. Like Senator Siewert, I would have preferred to have seen this resolved properly, particularly in accordance with the recommendations of the Hawke review, which would have recognised the difference in Australia’s legislation between category 1 and category 2 listings and the processes that go with that. Unfortunately, the government has made its decision, and we have to recognise that it is within its purview to deal and respond to the Hawke review as a whole. It would be nice to see the response to that. There are a lot of people who are waiting to see that. But in this circumstance there are management processes in place that adequately protect the species, along with the measures that the fishermen themselves take.

Another comment that Senator Siewert made in her speech in the second reading debate was about the distances and interactions of species. There is no evidence to demonstrate that these species migrate even between continents in our region, let alone more broadly. All of the fish on which I have seen the results of tagging and monitoring over a long period of time—441 days in the case of a couple of the fish—effectively confined themselves to the Australian coastline. I support further research, as indicated by our support for the second reading amendment, and I am sure it will be explored further. I know that research has already commenced. There are proposals on the table right now that are already being discussed between the government and recreational fishers to resolve this. I commend the government for taking that action and wholeheartedly support it. I hope that they are encouraged by the motion that we have just passed to provide some reasonable resource to do that.

To finalise my comments, for those reasons and for those that I outlined in my speech in the second reading debate we will not be supporting the amendments from the Greens. We sincerely believe that there are enough procedures in place to manage the process as it is, but that is not to say that we do not support, with the benefit of better scientific information, the development of those management plans in due course under the processes that will prevail through the legislation.