Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two pieces of legislation before the chamber, the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 and the Fisheries Levy Amendment Bill 2007. We will be supporting these bills, not because we have a view that this government has a great record in the management of fisheries—in fact, we believe that this government has the worst record in the mismanagement of fisheries of any Australian government. This was confirmed in the recent Bureau of Rural Science Fishery Status Reports 2005, which concluded that the number of fisheries classified as overfished or subject to overfishing rose from four when this government took office in 1997 to 24 in 2005. In November 2005 this record of mismanagement culminated in the government announcing the latest restructure of Commonwealth managed fisheries in Australia’s history, with $150 million allocated to buy back commercial fishing licences and a further $70 million in complementary assistance.

The former minister, Senator Ian Macdonald, was sacked due to incompetence, and the government was forced to impose a raft of tough new policy measures on fishery management agencies, particularly AFMA. Soon after, the government flagged a major restructure of AFMA, and the package of changes announced is the government’s legislative response to the policy announcements made back in 2005 and subsequently in part. At the same time, the government has presided over major failings in fisheries compliance and enforcement, in relation to both domestic fishery and illegal foreign fishing vessels. Frankly, the government took its eye off the growing problem of illegal foreign fishing in Australia’s north and south, forcing it into a panicky policy response and throwing hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars into an illegal foreign fishing crackdown. However, at the same time the government has allowed significant underspending in domestic compliance. All this while there was a growing and dramatic increase in the number of overfished fish species.

This record of mismanagement has angered Australia’s fishing industry and has generated unprecedented concern in the community about the status of Australia’s fisheries, resources and oceans. Many fishermen feel vilified and victimised by harsh government policy, which has been developed and implemented in an atmosphere of crisis and panic due to a decade of mismanagement. This government has run out of ideas for assisting the local seafood industry and it is not interested in addressing the unfair playing field for local seafood producers.

There are eight major failings of this government, but one failing that ought to be highlighted is the campaign being run about dodgy prawns. This horrifies the Australian industry, but Minister Abetz is completely incapable of convincing his ministerial colleague Mr Downer that the very poisonous campaign that is being run on the television and in the print media is damaging the Australian prawn industry. Indeed, it is clear that the Department of Foreign Affairs well knew that the campaign would attract interest to the problems that might be occasioned by eating a prawn and would well have known that, whilst the stated intention was to do with consuming seafood overseas and the need for health insurance, the spin-off for the Australian industry was palpable. That is the view of the industry. So that is another shot in the eye for the industry from this government.

This is a government that has failed to protect Australia’s seafood industry from exotic diseases, and one only has to refer officials from Biosecurity Australia being reported as saying that disease such as white spot virus could devastate Australia’s prawn industry. In November last year, Minister Abetz promised a crackdown on the importation of uncooked prawns, but there has been no action—nothing has happened. We are nearly halfway through the year and the government still allows diseased imported prawns to enter Australia. This represents another direct threat to the disease-free status of the $450 million Australian prawn industry.

The government has an appalling record on seafood labelling. Every hard-working seafood producer in Australia knows the story: importers are allowed to bring in seafood from farms in Asia, these are on-sold as premium products by some unscrupulous retailers and in many cases cheap imports are falsely labelled as a premium local Australian product. The government was alerted to this emerging problem in the late 90s and has done nothing about it. Only recently has it moved to introduce country-of-origin labelling on imported seafood products, and the government only acted after it was embarrassed by a massive public campaign by the seafood industry. The government has also failed to respond to the longstanding concerns of local seafood producers about the lack of a level playing field with imported products. The Australian industry is required to meet some of the highest standards in the world for food safety quarantine and environmental protection, and these requirements impose significant costs on the local industry. Most local producers are happy to meet them; however, no such requirement exists for imported seafood products. Seafood importers are not required to meet the same benchmarks as those imposed on our local industries, and this creates a very unfair trading environment where Australian law imposes a significant cost on local producers yet allows a vast amount of imported product which does not meet the same standards as domestic producers. Frankly, it is a large part of the reason why the balance of trade in seafood products has been steadily growing in favour of imports and why these seafood imports can arrive in Australia at such a low cost.

The government, as I said, has failed to manage fish stocks. As I outlined earlier, the government recognised its own inadequate management of Commonwealth fisheries back in December 2005 when the then minister, Senator Ian Macdonald, announced a $220 million package called Securing our Fishing Future. At the time he said:

The Australian Government has made it very clear that it wishes AFMA to accelerate its current programs to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, and to take a more strategic approach to setting catch limits in future. The message from the Australian Government is clear: overfishing in Commonwealth fisheries is unacceptable and if you think you can’t operate in that environment you should consider applying for the buyout.

Put this into context: this announcement was an admission by the government that it had failed to prevent overfishing. It was a panicked response to a serious situation where the very survival of some of Australia’s most important fish species was at threat, as was the survival of the fishing businesses that depended on them. Earlier this year, the Bureau of Rural Sciences released its Fishery Status Reports 2005. That is an important paper. It shows that 24 of 83 species assessed are classified as ‘overfished’ and/or ‘subject to overfishing’. This is up from four when the Howard government was elected. Of the remaining species, 40 are classified as ‘uncertain’. This means that almost half of the surveyed stocks might be overfished but the government does not know because it has not gathered enough information. Of the remaining species identified only 19 are classified as ‘not overfished’.

The $220 million buyout package is the government’s attempt to fix the mess that has been created on its watch. Fishing families and onshore businesses have been badly impacted by the government’s poor fisheries management. According to the recent budget papers, nearly $27 million of the fisheries restructure package remained unspent this financial year and has been rolled over into the coming financial year.

In terms of illegal fishing, I am still waiting for the minister to correct the record from an answer he gave, because I have asked many questions about this in estimates—indeed, 61 in the February round, I think. I asked the minister in the last estimates to explain why the government had reduced its fisheries enforcement spending in the face of worrying statistics about an increase in the occurrence of breaches of fishery law under current inspections. The minister said:

Look, there are undoubtedly a whole host of reasons AFMA have indicated to you. I have not heard any complaints from the fishing sector that AFMA have been too soft or not pursuing investigations or prosecutions with sufficient rigour.

I will say this: despite the 15.6 per cent increase in the number of offences detected, the government underspent the enforcement budget every year since 2002. What does that say about a commitment to monitoring the industry?

It is certainly the case that there has been a lot of comment about illegal foreign fishing. The government has of late thrown resources towards that. The jury is still out as to whether the reduction is due to the fact that some of the species fished are so overfished that some fishermen are not coming and others are moving closer to the Australian coast to catch fish, in particular the sharks that are being targeted in northern Australian waters.

The opposition really does think that it is time for the government to accept responsibility for its failures. We support the legislative measures that this bill takes in relation to the Torres Strait fishery and the joint protected zone. We did receive some indications, when the legislation was introduced, that some measures were not satisfactory to the communities from the Torres Strait because of their desire to have more control over the fishery in their waters. Those concerns have apparently been addressed in recent times, because we have been advised by the Torres Strait fishery representatives that they are happy for this legislation to pass in the form in which it has been presented to the parliament.

There was a matter that I think has been referred to in the most recent Scrutiny of Bills Committee report. That report, I believe, deals with a problem in terms of the standard of proof required for the prosecution of certain offences. I think we need a very short committee stage to have an explanation from the minister as to how this scheme will work, given that, at the time the Senate committee looked at this matter, we were not made aware of the problems that were arising in the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I think we need to have something on the record here about that.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate Senator Ian Macdonald’s speech on these bills.

Leave granted.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

I wanted to say a few words about this Bill and the Associated Bill and to commend its passage to the Senate.

I thank the other parties in the Senate for allowing me to incorporate this speech because of my absence from Parliament on the day that it is being debated.

The Bill covers a number of areas of Fisheries Management which I am very pleased to see eventually get to Parliament to become law. All of these particular initiatives are needed to allow Australia to continue to demonstrate world leadership in Fisheries Management and enforcement.

All of the various elements of the Bill have been under consideration for a number of years and I am pleased to have played a part in initiating these amendments during my time as the Minister for Fisheries.

Whilst the broad thrust has been determined for some time, I congratulate the Minister, Senator Abetz, on putting the finishing touches to the Legislation and in guiding the Bill through the Government’s Legislative processes and in successfully completing the wide consultation that is needed to fine tune Legislation that is brought before the House.

This Amendment Bill firstly deals with some governance arrangements necessary in view of the Government’s decision to establish the Australian Fisheries Management Authority as a Commission on 1st July 2008. The Bill allows Director’s terms to be extended to allow Directors of AFMA to be appointed for up to 9 months at a time without going through the selection process with a view to ensuring a smooth changeover from an Authority to the Commission.

In passing I might mention that prior to my leaving the role as Minister, I had not been convinced that changing the Authority to a Commission served any particular purpose or was useful in Fisheries Management but obviously in the past 18 months it has become clear that the new arrangement would best serve the management of Australia’s fisheries. Without changing my personal opinion, I accept the Government’s view that this is necessary and accordingly support the variation.

This Bill contains as well amendments to the Fisheries Management Act making it easier to prosecute foreign fishing boats operating illegally within Australia’s 12 nautical mile territorial sea.

The Explanatory Memorandum and the Second Reading Speech give the reasons for this.

Suffice it for me to say that I strongly support the strict liability element of the Bill which will enable the Authorities to better prosecute those who commit offences against Australian Laws.

The new provisions relating to forfeiture are I think appropriate and have been brought about by a number of difficulties experienced by the prosecuting authorities in recent years.

The Legislation as amended is very tough and Australia should make no apologies for having some of the toughest Fishing Legislation in the world. We are serious about maintaining our fish stocks in a sustainable way and offenders should have all the legal technicalities and niceties that they sometimes use to avoid conviction taken away from them.

The successful conclusion of the prosecutions against the Taruman should not obviate the necessity to make rules on forfeiture stricter. The difficulties the Government went through in relation to prosecutions of both the Volga and the Viassa also require that amendments are passed to tilt the balance in favour of maintaining our laws.

Over the four years of my term as Fisheries Minister, I had a very close association with the Torres Strait people and the fishing industry in the Torres Strait.

The amendments in this Bill are the result of painstaking negotiations over many years with the Torres Strait people and the Torres Strait Regional Authority facilitated by the Protected Zone Joint Authority of which the Commonwealth Minister, the Queensland Minister and the Chair of the Torres Strait Regional Authority are the members.

The amendments will lead to better administration of fisheries in the Torres Strait but more importantly will place the Torres Strait people in a position where they can become productively and profitably involved in the fisheries industries in the Strait.

Commercial fishing is the primary source of non-Government economic activity in the Torres Strait and it is essential that the Australian Government works with the Torres Strait Islanders to properly manage these fisheries in a sustainable way into the future.

Finally the Bill in Schedule 4 deals with Amendments to the Surveillance Devices Act in a way that ensures that new offences can be effectively investigated and prosecuted using surveillance devices thereby overcoming current impediments to prosecuting the new offences.

Overall the amendments to the Fisheries Management Act do increase the ability of Australian Authorities to better manage and enforce our Fisheries Management regimes particularly in respect to foreign boats operating in Australian waters.

These amendments place additional onus on Masters and owners of foreign boats to demonstrate that they are operating lawfully and also increase the

ability of the Commonwealth to confiscate offenders vessels and contents of those vessels.

In relation to the Torres Strait, these reforms will, I believe, lead to a better management of the fisheries and brings to fruition difficult, but in the end I believe wise, negotiations that will achieve better outcomes for the fisheries and people of the Torres Strait.

Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate the speech of Senator Sterle for these bills.

Leave granted.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

Mr President, Senator O’Brien has outlined in great detail Labor’s position on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill 2007.

As a Senator from Western Australia, which has a vast coastline, subject to encroachment from illegal fishers, I rise to make just a few brief comments on this Bill.

As part of my parliamentary duties I have been in close contact with key stakeholders in the Australian fishing industry.

They have included, representatives of the Australian commercial fishing sector, members of remote Indigenous fishing communities who rely on fishing for their economic sustainability—like the community of One Arm Point and Government officials engaged in monitoring and managing fishing stocks and border control matters.

These contacts have given me insight into the damaging impact on Australian fisheries from the peril that is foreign illegal fishing.

This Bill primarily focuses on amending the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984 to ensure that Torres Strait fisheries can be managed consistent with contemporary Australian Government fisheries policy.

The Bill also includes extensive technical and other amendments to the Fisheries Management Act 1991, the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 (FAA) and the Surveillance Devices Act 2004.

The amendments to these later Acts will of course apply to the management of foreign illegal fishing and border control measures along Western Australia’s coastline.

As an initial comment it strikes me as rather odd that it has taken so long for these amendments to be made to Australia’s obviously defective fisheries and border control laws.

The problem of foreign illegal fishing and the control of Australia’s northern coastline is not a new issue. The tardiness of the Howard Government’s action is just another sign that the northern parts of Australia often get scant attention from the CBD centric Leadership.

So, here we go again. We are dealing with a problem not only after the horse has bolted but when it is well and truly out of the paddock.

Prosecuting authorities are encountering significant hurdles to achieve successful prosecution of illegal foreign fishers found in Australian waters.

Further, existing legislation often puts in doubt the legal position in regard to the confiscation of fishing equipment found on illegal foreign fishing vessels in Australian waters.

It has therefore been necessary for some time to bring forward extensive amendments to fisheries and border control legislation yet the Howard Government have dragged their feet.

Federal Labor inquired extensively into the issue of illegal foreign fishing in 2006 and publicly released a report addressing the key issues.

The consensus within the fishing industry at that time was that the Howard Government had failed their industry and in a majority of cases, family businesses were being destroyed by illegal foreign fishing.

Throughout the country, the industry told Labor that it had tried for many years to play its part in the containment of illegal fishing by regularly reporting sightings of illegal boats, but the lack of feedback or action by the Howard Government had left the industry feeling that the authorities no longer cared.

The industry also raised the impossibility of managing a fishery in a sustainable way when the size of the illegal catch is unknown and control over the illegal catch is non-existent.

While there appears to have been a lull in foreign illegal fishing apprehensions since a run of them last year, this problem has not gone away.

We know that there continues to be a ramping up of the sophistication of foreign illegal fishing operations world-wide.

In the vicinity of Western Australia for example, there is still concern among legitimate commercial fishers about illegal fishing activities in the area known as the MOU box.

The MOU box relates to an undertaking entered into in 1974 between Australia and Indonesia to permit Indonesian traditional fisherman access to a box shaped area in the locality of the Ashmore Islands, Scott Reef and Browse Reed within Australia’s exclusive economic zone.

The current concerns are that not only have foreign illegal fisherman been encroaching into the MOU box using sophisticated fishing equipment but they are also using the MOU box to make forays into the adjoining Australian fisheries zone.

This activity is contributing to the decimation of the important shark fishery in Australian waters off the far North West of Western Australia.

There continues to be a large shortfall in the Government’s response to foreign illegal fishing and border control in Northern Australia.

Labor’s believes that a successful approach to halting illegal fishing requires a national strategy which is built around a high level of co-operation between all levels of Government, agencies and stakeholders.

Now we will hear from those across the chamber that this is not true, “we’ve done this” and “we’ve done that”.

Mr President, it’s all smoke and mirrors.

At Senate Estimates hearings in May this year Senator O’Brien, questioned Senator Abetz on why the Government had reduced it’s fisheries enforcement spending.

At the same time as there had been a 16% reduction in spending on domestic fisheries enforcement, the AFMA reported that the number of “overfished” fisheries was on the rise.

Senator Abetz responded and I quote:

“Look, there undoubtedly are a whole host of reasons as AFMA have indicated…I haven’t heard any complaints from the fishing sector that AFMA were being too soft or not pursuing investigations or prosecutions with sufficient rigour…”

I wonder whether the State Ministers for fisheries would have the same off-hand view about the AFMA’s statistics on the state of Australia’s declining fish stocks due to overfishing?

Somehow I don’t think they would.

I suspect Senator Abetz hasn’t heard any complaints because he has simply chosen not to listen.

This sounds like the Howard Government has lapsed back into its complacent attitude about the state of the Australian fishing industry that has been a trade mark for 11 years.

Because of the Howard Government’s ongoing neglect of the relationship between the different jurisdictional fishing authorities—they have severely hampered the effectiveness of Australia’s efforts.

This Bill provides for greater capacity for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) to collect information.

The amendments also provide for regulations to be made to cover the details of the sharing of information collected by AFMA.

However, the AFMA will have delegation in respect to who it is willing to share this information with.

There is no indication at this stage that the AFMA intends to enter into formal undertakings with state fisheries authorities for mutual exchange of vital information on illegal fisheries and fisheries management. And without this, many of the existing problems will not be addressed properly.

The Western Australian Minister for Fisheries, has advised me that albeit that the wider collection of information by the AFMA is welcomed, he has serious concern about the state’s access to this information.

The fear is, and I suspect other states will have similar misgivings, that the security classification placed on this information by the AFMA and the manner in which the decisions are made about the dissemination of the information may preclude it being available to other jurisdictions.

Mr President, I would like to make some comment on the Government’s plan to establish the AFMA as a commission, which is not part of this Bill but is nonetheless relevant to this debate.

Mr President, I am concerned that with the establishment of a fisheries commission this could lead to increased separation between the state and commonwealth jurisdictions in respect of fisheries management, which would be a step backwards.

I would therefore be very appreciative if the Minister could, as part of this debate, give an assurance that the creation of the commission will in fact improve communications.

Mr President, the management of fisheries in this country is the responsibility of both State and Federal Governments.

This responsibility can only be effectively met however, if there is untrammelled co-operation between all jurisdictions.

These are uncertain times for the sustainability of our fishing stocks and fishing industry, and it is crucial that foreign fishers who illegally enter Australian waters be caught.

Thank you.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank those senators who have incorporated their speeches, because those who are listening might be interested to know that we have a very heavy schedule of legislation to get through still today. Therefore, those senators’ cooperation in that regard is particularly appreciated, especially wearing my hat as Manager of Government Business in the Senate. So thank you for that.

The fishing industry is one of Australia’s most valuable rural industries, with a value of over $2 billion per annum, of which approximately $1.5 billion is exported. The Australian government is committed to ensuring the sustainable management of these resources into the future and these bills form an important step in furthering this goal. The passage of the bills will ensure that the Australian government is equipped with modern fisheries management tools and more robust enforcement, compliance and administrative systems to secure sustainable fisheries for future generations.

The main reforms being implemented introduce modern fisheries management measures in the Torres Strait fisheries. This will better position Australia to meet its rights and obligations under the Torres Strait treaty with Papua New Guinea. The bills are the product of extensive consultation with industry and Torres Strait communities. As Parliamentary Secretary Ley informed the House of Representatives when she introduced the bills, commercial fishing is a key economic activity for Torres Strait communities. This legislation will facilitate the resolution of longstanding concerns held by Torres Strait Islanders about resource allocation in the Torres Strait Protected Zone fisheries. It will enable the PZJA to establish management plans under which all parties have a clear understanding of their access rights.

Provisions of this legislation affecting the Torres Strait Protected Zone fisheries were drafted after an extensive process of consultation with all of those with an interest in the Torres Strait Protected Zone fisheries. This included the provision of comprehensive information to Torres Strait islanders, especially those who hold a licence to fish for commercial purposes and their representatives on the Community Fishers Group, Torres Strait native title prescribed bodies corporate, including relevant entities in the northern Cape York area, and non-Indigenous commercial fishers and their representatives.

These bills were developed after considerable consultation and input from the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and I want to thank my Queensland counterpart, Mr Mulherin. The Queensland department administers various aspects of the Torres Strait Fisheries Act on behalf of the Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority. The Queensland minister is a member of the PZJA and, as chairman of the PZJA, I value the relationship with Queensland and the Torres Strait Regional Authority. I am grateful for the cooperative relationship that exists between Queensland and the Australian government on matters that affect the Torres Strait Protected Zone fisheries and for the considerable input Queensland has made in ensuring these bills will meet management requirements into the future.

My counterpart, Senator O’Brien, has raised a whole host of questions and issues that I will not seek to engage in completely. Suffice it to say, I invite Senator O’Brien to look at the latest Bureau of Rural Sciences report when it comes out in about a month’s time. All I will say on the issue of overfishing is: watch this space. We have been dealing with it very carefully. In relation to the rolling over of the funds of the Securing our Fishing Future package, that was an unprecedented $220 million package sought by industry, developed with industry, rolled out for industry and fully supported by industry. The rollover of funds was at the request of industry. Senator O’Brien seeks to criticise us for doing that. That is a criticism that I am more than willing to wear and I am more than willing to circulate that criticism of the government to the industry sector because they will be very pleased to know that we have in fact acted on their requests.

On the issue of overfishing, I will mention only one example because I know the time constraints that are on us. If this government is to be criticised for overfishing, Senator O’Brien might like to explain why, in one single year under the previous Labor government, 62,658 tonnes of orange roughy were removed from the oceans, which is more than the totality of orange roughy fished in the 10 to 11 years of the Howard government. That was at a time when the minister had direct control and we did not have an Australian Fisheries Management Authority. I think it is very unwise of Senator O’Brien to seek to make cheap political point when the facts are so stacked against the way the previous Labor government administered fisheries. We now have a ministerial direction as a result of the good work of my colleague and predecessor, who has incorporated a speech, Senator Ian Macdonald. He did a fantastic job—

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then why did he get sacked?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in getting the $220 million together for industry as well. I want to take this opportunity to salute Senator Macdonald’s contribution and to completely reject the sort of comments that are made by Senator O’Brien. I commend the bills to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.