Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Labor stands for the protection of our oceans, we stand for the rights of recreational fishers and we stand for business certainty. Labor has a strong track record of respecting our oceans and all its users and we have a strong track record of basing our decisions on the science. In 2012, a private company sought to introduce a massive supertrawler vessel to Australian waters. The Labor government acted to provide certainty and to ensure the science was in place to support decisions on ocean use. We introduced tough new measures that required proper scientific assessments to be made by an expert panel. That was the responsible thing to do.

Almost two years later, however, our oceans are vulnerable again. The tough powers that Labor introduced have now lapsed. The Abbott government has had almost 12 months in office to do something to address this gap in our laws. They have had time to boost our ocean defences against the threat of new supertrawler vessels. Instead they have done nothing. This private senator's bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2014, has been in the Senate for months and they have not even taken the hint to get on with protecting our oceans. This legislation today does that work for them.

We all remember that, when Labor introduced the tough sanctions against the supertrawler in 2012, the Liberals and Nationals voted against the then government's measures. Thirty-three members of the House of Representatives and the Senate spoke against Labor's measures to stop the supertrawler—all of them Liberals or National Party members. Deep down the Liberals and the Nationals have always supported removing the vital protections of our oceans—that it is in their DNA is unquestionable. As Hobart's Mercury reported on 9 September 2012:

Tasmanian Liberal senator Richard Colbeck told the crowd he supported the super trawler.

That is why this government has not acted to bring back strict protections against supertrawlers. They have been hoping that any new vessel would appear unobtrusively from over the horizon and quietly start fishing in Australian waters without any scientific checks or balances.

Over the last 12 months, the Abbott government has been breaking promises, hurting low- and middle-income earners and being incompetent to boot. The Australian people got their first whiff of the twisted priorities of this government with the announcement of the reintroduction of—would you believe it—knights and dames. That pure farce has now turned into budget pain. All the while, the Labor Party has been working in the national interest. We have been standing up for jobs, we have been supporting a plan for Australia's future and we are standing up for the environment and our oceans.

The Prime Minister is now desperately trying to rewrite history. Despite 33 members of the coalition speaking against Labor's plan to stop the supertrawler, the Prime Minister has tried to spin it—saying that he supported the ban all along. He is the weathervane of Australian politics. Before the election, he voted to let the supertrawler enter Australian waters unchecked. After the election, he has changed his position, just as before the election he hid the worst of his budget cuts and his plans to destroy Australian jobs. Before the election, the Prime Minister voted to keep the supertrawler here. After the election he said:

It was banned with the support of members on this side of the House. It was banned; it will stay banned.

It is worth saying that again. The Prime Minister said:

It was banned with the support of members on this side of the House.

That is what the Prime Minister said—categorically. It is in Hansard: a blatant mistruth, a clearly incorrect statement to the House from the Prime Minister.

The government has had months to act and they have done nothing. Only Labor is concerned with our oceans and the users of our oceans. This bill addresses serious concerns about the science and it addresses serious community concerns. If the Prime Minister, the agriculture minister or the parliamentary secretary were serious about protecting our oceans, they would have acted already. I am not precious; they could have picked up my bill and claimed it as their own and got a real win for Australia's oceans. Instead they have done nothing. If you reflect on that, it really makes you wonder whether or not they just like to sit on their hands and do nothing.

The bill I have introduced will restore the tough powers to the Minister for the Environment to act where new types of fishing operations seek to work in Australian waters and where uncertainty exists about their conduct. The environment minister, in consultation with the fisheries minister, will again be able to declare particular methods of fishing and require a scientific assessment to be undertaken for up to two years. That is the sensible way to progress when new fishing methods are proposed. An expert panel will be constituted and will be able to consider the impacts of any new venture that is declared. This will provide the community, recreational fishers and businesses alike with certainty before these declared ventures operate in Australian waters. There will be a proper process whereby the expert panel can call for submissions, look at the scientific evidence and ensure there is proper consultation with all parties and stakeholders in the debate.

It is very important to ensure certainty for all stakeholders, even those who want to introduce the supertrawler. This legislation will establish certainty of process, certainty of consultation, certainty about the expert panel's findings and certainty about the science. This legislation will enable the community to feel assured that they have a clear understanding of what is occurring—because it is surprises that hurt people. Mind you, this government is an expert at surprises that hurt people. So it is not unsurprising to me to find that a government such as this has ignored the science. It has ignored the opportunity to look at how it can fix this issue and, instead, has sat on its hands and let it lapse. But, ultimately, what I think is more galling about all of this is that the Prime Minister stands up and says, 'It has always been banned; it will continue to be banned', yet that was not what he did when he was called to account. When the vote was had in this place, those opposite supported the supertrawler. They opposed our legislation back then and they continue to fudge where their position is.

This bill will give the coalition a clear opportunity to put their position and explain to the parliament where they sit on this matter. It is very important that the people in Tasmania, the people on the east coast of Australia and those along the South Australian bight understand what the process is for a supertrawler should it come over the horizon again. I think this government breeds uncertainty, because it wants to be able to deal with such a situation when it occurs rather than have a clear process in place. This legislation focuses on addressing uncertainty related to so-called `supertrawler' fishing vessels. Why? Because business requires certainty, the community requires certainty and stakeholders and third parties also require certainty in this debate. People should have the ability to have a say.

In short, this legislation will allow the government of the day to stop new supertrawlers before they come to Australia, just as Labor did when in office. The amendments give the government of the day the power to declare a particular type of fishing activity which has not been used in Australia previously and where some uncertainty exists around it to ensure proper and thorough expert scientific work is conducted. This has been the case in the past when the government moved to declare the activities that were proposed for the supertrawler known as the FV Margiris or, oddly, temporarily, the FV Abel Tasman.

This bill will remove a 12-month sunset provision, bringing the new chapter 5B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act back into effect. By removing division 4 of part 15B, the environment minister's powers to respond to new commercial fishing operations will be restored, as it currently is subject to the sunset clause that is in effect at present. It is sunsetted now. The bill will bring that provision back. This means that there is currently no power under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act for the government to act to declare fishing activities, including supertrawlers. The bill restores the powers still on the statue books—namely the powers to enable the minister for environment (with the agreement of the Commonwealth fisheries minister) to make an interim declaration that a fishing activity is a prohibited 'declared commercial fishing activity' while an expert panel assesses the potential environmental impacts of the activity; to enable the minister for environment (with the agreement of the Commonwealth fisheries minister) to make a final declaration for a period no longer than 24 months, that a fishing activity is a prohibited 'declared commercial fishing activity'; to provide for the establishment of an expert panel in the case of the making of a final declaration and specify the terms of reference of the panel and its reporting date, with a requirement that a copy of the panel report be made publicly available—because on this side of the chamber we support transparency, openness and accountability; to provide for appropriate procedural fairness protections for 'declaration affected persons'; and to create civil penalty and offence provisions for engaging in a declared commercial fishing activity.

These measures are required to address the risk of new and future supertrawlers or other new methods of commercial activity that have not previously been used in Australia. It is a precautionary approach. It will better allow community and environmental groups, together with business, to work with a scientific expert panel to assess the true impacts of new and large-scale fishing operations.

I would add as a note to these amendments that, if passed, it would be prudent for the government to take other actions to improve the management of new and proposed fishing activities. The Department of the Environment and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority should establish protocols to better communicate between these two agencies in the operation of the act. It would be a sensible reform and would be able to be done at the agency level. I am surprised that they have not already undertaken that work. Perhaps we will hear from the coalition that they have already started to do that work—but I would be surprised if they had. This is a coalition that does not act easily or seek easy solutions.

I understand, of course, there is a view that it would be preferable to just ban supertrawlers outright based on their class of vessel. I do not hold this view. The approach I have proposed is a logical, sensible, science based approach that treats each applicant on its merits and on the science. To do otherwise would be anti business and anti science. For that reason, I suspect the Greens party may take a stricter view than I have taken, but I will wait to hear their view on this. Under this bill, where the science goes so too do the decisions of the agencies.

Australia has some of the best managed fisheries in the world. There is, however, a gap in the system in considering the powers of the environment and fisheries ministers to consider new commercial fishing vessels before they arrive and begin to fish. Given the government has failed to act, it is sensible for these powers to be restored. Labor is standing up for the oceans, recreational fishers and local businesses. I commend the bill to the Senate.