Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to put on the record the government's opposition to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill, proposed by Labor, and the Greens amendments to the bill. Australia boasts a globally benchmarked and recognised fishing industry where policies have been based on scientific research and not the whims of political interest groups. The bill before us does little to stop or ban supertrawlers from applying to operate in Australian fisheries. We believe we need a long-term, more permanent solution to ensure that our fishing industry is sustainable for years to come and that we do not follow the path taken by other nations which has led to unviable, unsustainable fishing industries. The legislation covers only two years, and we want a long-term solution.

What we are seeing from the Labor Party and the Greens is proof of yet another dysfunctional Labor policy that undermines the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. Australia's fishing industry is not to be laughed at—it is a significant contributor to communities and to economic growth, and it is an industry we perform very well in. It extends up to 200 nautical miles out to sea, and Australia's commercial fishing and aquaculture industry is worth over $2 billion annually and employs around 11,600 people—7,300 through direct employment and 4,300 through indirect employment. It is a vital natural resource and one we are committed to maintaining. It is a natural resource that needs to be managed appropriately so it can be enjoyed and used in a sustainable manner. That is what this government is committed to doing.

As Simone Weil said, 'attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be attained only by someone who is detached.' It is this detachment that we believe ensures AFMA is the best body to help us come to terms with the reality of our fishing industry. Consulting with detached independent experts provides us with this sense of reality. We are waiting to consult the expert panel appointed to assess the impacts of the activities covered by the first declaration, and it is due to finalise its report by 22 October 2014. Rather than waiting for that report to come before us to inform further action, if it is required, we are once again hurtling towards ill-informed legislation seeking to fix a problem that does not exist. To inform its assessment the expert panel met with stakeholders in Hobart on 2 May 2014. A panel for the second declaration is yet to be appointed.

We are not being pressured by interest groups like GetUp! to stop supertrawlers—we are looking to a viable and long-term option that has been scientifically proven and assessed. Unlike those opposite, who seek to use scientists for their political gain, we are committed to applying true scientific principles to our decision making in this area, as indeed we do in all areas of environmental interest, so we can keep our fisheries management systems world-class and ensure that fishing can be sustained. Let us face it, most of us are not vegans; most of us are not vegetarians. I would much prefer to go into Coles and Woolworths and IGA, and indeed ALDI on occasion, and purchase seafood which is the product of Australia. When I see 'Product of Australia', I know that seafood is harvested from our oceans in a sustainable manner. When I see 'Product of Vietnam' or 'Product of Thailand' or 'Product of Indonesia' on the seafood that I might be choosing to feed my family and friends, I cannot be confident that that product is being harvested in a sustainable manner that will ensure that generations to come can eat this very healthy food source. So we are not being pressured by interest groups like GetUp!.

The government works closely with AFMA to monitor how fisheries are managed. It is because we have confidence in AFMA that our fishing industry ranks as one of the best in the world—we are committed to getting it right and we are committed to using science to inform our policy decisions. These are the expert scientists, with extensive experience and PhDs in environmental science and management. It is an authority that has developed fishery management arrangements to meet government policies and to ensure fisheries are sustainable—not like in other nations, where the regulators just go and do what they are told to do by the government, this is a live dialogue between government and AFMA about what is the best way to proceed in order to meet government policy objectives for fisheries. AFMA is charged with implementing fisheries management arrangements, monitoring the compliance of commercial fishing, setting research priorities and arranging research related to AFMA managed fisheries. It deters noncompliance in domestic fisheries and deters illegal foreign fishing. It registers commercial fishing entitlements and licenses fishers, develops management policies and regulations and provides technical input to government policies. Aside from Senator Scullion, now that Senator Boswell is no longer with us there is very little fishing expertise in either this chamber or the other chamber. That is why we need to take the advice of bodies like AFMA.

All these points are highlighted in AFMA's extensive and efficient management policies. The management plans that are in place in almost all of our Commonwealth managed fisheries go through a lengthy process of approval. There is a public consultation process in place, a determination by the AFMA commission and, finally, an approval by the fisheries minister. This management plan directly outlines the borders and location of a fishery, what season it can be used, the method of fishing, the level of extraction, bycatch mitigation methods and even the gear that can be used on boats. The process of managing a fishery is extensive, very detailed and often costly. However, we do not doubt its worth, as it is based on sound scientific reasoning and all costs are recovered because of our productive fishing industry.

We are aware of the concern amongst a range of groups, including the rec fishers, about the potential impact of supertrawlers on Australia's marine environment, protected species and local fish stocks, but we are confident that the regulatory framework we have in place—and indeed our commitment to getting it right as a result of looking further into this issue—will result in a policy outcome that gets the balance right. It is possible to examine the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, where operators are only allowed a limited amount of trips and must hold a relevant fishing concession which provides them access to an area in which to fish, a method by which they are allowed to fish, a boat permit and a relevant quota holding for that species. These processes are essential, because the SESSF has an estimated value of production of over $62 million, and we do not want see those viable operators being unable to do what they do well—which is to catch good fish in a way that ensures ongoing sustainability so that we can put it on the table.

The coalition is dedicated to listening to the expert in the AFMA about the best ways to protect our valuable natural resources. In 2007 Minister Abetz, as Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, enacted the Commonwealth harvest strategy, which fisheries like the SESSF must adhere to. The coalition government provided the AFMA with the independence to specify control rules for fishing activity and to monitor and assess the processes involved. The harvest strategy that each fishery must use is based on output controls. This means that we rely on how many fish can be caught sustainably in the area. We rely on the scientific evidence, like the extensive harvest strategies put before us by the fishing industry and the expert scientists, which ensure the best management approach and continued sustainability of Australia's great natural resources.

Despite what the ALP and Greens may say, we want to ensure the sustainability of this industry. We want particular species to be protected and there to be limits on the amount of fish that can be caught. I look to the bycatch reduction policies that are already in place. It is thanks to the coalition that in 2005 the AFMA were put in charge of managing the environmental impacts of fishing, including protected species, and minimising the incentives for discarding certain fish by ensuring that it is factored into the setting of total allowable catch levels. That is something that we did. If you listened to the ALP and Greens, you would think that we wanted a Newfoundlandesque approach to fishing in this nation so that there would be no more cod and Hobart would suddenly be singing the songs that St John's were singing during the 1950s and 1960s as that particular fishing resource was decimated by unsustainable practice. That is not what we want, and that is why for a long period of time various coalition governments have been committed to enacting policies for sustainable fishing practice.

Similarly, we also ensured the AFMA were put in charge of enhancing the monitoring of fishing activity through increased use of vessel monitoring systems, daily reporting, onboard cameras and improved observer coverage. This policy covers fisheries managed by the Commonwealth and represents a significant commitment by the then government and industry to ensure fisheries were managed on an ecologically sustainable basis. We want to ensure that high-risk fish are managed and able to be protected. Abycatch and discard program that the AFMA oversees ensures that all threatened, endangered and protected species are part of an ecological risk assessment which involves heavy consultation with the industry and experts. Even the use of bycatch reduction devices provides high-risk fish with the opportunity to escape in high trawling waters—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Really! The coalition and AFMA are determined to protect this industry. It was a complete lack of strong policies such as these that led to the overfishing in Newfoundland, where 40,000 people lost their jobs. That province in Canada has struggled to find an economic basis for their people. So if you think that you have a drain going on in Tasmania, Senator, have a look at Newfoundland and see the migration that occurred once that once-proud industry fished itself out.

We are committed to ensuring that we get the balance right. I believe we have done that. We are looking after the long term of our fishing industry, and protecting high-risk fish is a major priority. AFMA provides us with long-term strategies for effective fishing. The total allowable catch is determined by a commission established by AFMA. The commission consults those with commercial and recreational fishing knowledge, relevant states and bodies, representatives from the environmental and recreational sector and, most importantly, scientists. Every minute detail of our fishing industry is considered with wide consultation to make the best and most informed decisions possible for the betterment of our fishing industry. The AFMA is an independent body that we as the Commonwealth have confidence in. We allow the employees, who all have lengthy industry experience or environmental science qualifications, to monitor how fishing zones are operating. This ensures that fish are protected and we are provided with a transparent and independent system that has been left to the experts.

What the Labor Party is proposing undermines our fishing system, which is the envy of the world. The sunset clause that Senator Ludwig is presenting detracts all ability from the environment minister to declare any further fishing activities and ensures that he or she must listen to an expert panel. What they fail to recognise is that we already listen to an expert panel of scientists with the best experience to implement these policies. They are proposing to undermine the AFMA and listen to interest groups which have no fishing experience, which do not understand the interplay between industry and the ocean and who are not interested in a sustainable fishing industry. They do not care, and they do not want it to happen.

What they are actually interested in—a little like other groups that the Greens and some in the Labor Party choose to support—are things like the Aussie Farms website. The founder of that particular website has made public his desire to shut down industries that employ hundreds of thousands of Australians who contribute an incredible amount—over 12 per cent—to our GDP. They want those industries closed down. So, we can hide behind this veneer of seeking expert advice and carry on, but the actual intent is to shut industries down that employ Tasmanians, that are actually based on scientific principles and sustainable management practices, that actually provide one of the best food sources to Australians and indeed the world—high in all the good things, low in all the bad things: our fish.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

But no: Senator Whish-Wilson would prefer that we have fish available locally that is sourced from Thailand, that is sourced from Vietnam, that is sourced from Indonesia, that is sourced from an array of fishing practices around the world, that is unsustainable.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

Guess what, Senator Whish-Wilson? Fish do not understand the boundaries.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—