Senate debates

Wednesday, 13 March 2013

Bills

Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012; Second Reading

11:55 am

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

Before I start talking on the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012, I find it disappointing that, after debating a piece of legislation that was supported across the chamber with some technical changes, we did not see the minister for agriculture dealing with the final stages of the last piece of legislation.

Photo of Sean EdwardsSean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

He does not care.

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

I think that actually sums up to a T the discussion and issues that were put on the table by members of the coalition during the debate this morning on that agricultural bill. It is really a disappointment that the minister did not seen fit to be in the chamber to deal with that piece of legislation. It was not making major changes—I do understand that—but, given the very little that has been done to agriculture during the last two terms of the parliament, it would have been nice to see the minister available to look after the piece of legislation that he has responsibility for instead of having one of his colleagues do it.

Senator Farrell interjecting

While recognising the good parliamentary secretary's understanding and commitment to agriculture and fishing—as we talked about the other night—it is disappointing that the minister was not here to be able to deal with his own piece of legislation.

In respect of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012, again, we are talking about a piece of legislation that makes some important changes to the Fisheries Administration Act, particularly around the management of e-monitoring. I am aware and the coalition is aware that trials of this technology have been underutilisation for a period of time and they do have the capacity to reduce costs to the industry by replacing observers while providing a high level of coverage across the fishery. As the coalition indicated under last piece of legislation, one of the concerns we have had is additional costs applied to agriculture, fisheries and forestry in the last two terms of government through things like the carbon tax and about ensuring that we provide some measures that can reduce costs in some way. In the circumstance where observer coverage is required—and there are a number of fisheries where, for good reasons, the Commonwealth does require full observer coverage—a mechanism that provides the capacity to reduce those costs where observers currently cost quite a bit more than $1,000 per day to the industry is welcomed. This piece of legislation is supported by the opposition. Just as we have concerns with the management of agriculture and forestry more broadly, we have concerns about the management of fisheries. The amendment to the Fisheries Act also deals with some definitions around the closures of part of a fishery and relates to directions on how those might now be defined. It also deals with levies and liabilities of corporations and other principles. The opposition welcomes these but we expressed concerns about the government's management of fisheries—and of agriculture more broadly—in the last piece of legislation.

I mentioned the significant increase in levies and fees in the trawl fishery in my contribution earlier today where the cost of a licence in the South East Trawl Fishery went from something like $7,000 to $14,000 and a whole heap of players moved out. The opposition at that time moved a disallowance motion to try to bring the attention of the government to the fact that there was a level of concern. After negotiations with the government, we withdrew that motion but then there was a complete change in the way that the levies were structured—I think probably in a better way but without consultation with the industry. That seems to be a benchmark of the current government: lack of consultation.

I talked earlier today about the impact of the carbon tax. Talking to participants in the fishery in South Australia recently, there are huge concerns about the impacts of the carbon tax on the cost of refrigerant. Of course that refrigerant is a vital part of them getting their product to market as a fresh and premium quality product. They are genuinely and understandably concerned about the impact of the carbon tax on refrigeration for their industry. It is a vital part of their industry. They are dealing with a product that will deteriorate very quickly if it is not managed properly, and the additional costs imposed on the industry through the carbon tax on the cost of refrigerants is considerable.

I turn to the subject of the management of fisheries more broadly touched on by some of my colleagues. We have seen in the last six months one of the most disgraceful examples of how not to manage a fishery, and that was done through the management of the freezer trawler, the Abel Tasman. The cost of refrigeration and recharging that vessel is very significant. That whole venture was about harvesting the fishery sustainably but then managing the harvested product by freezing it immediately so that it would be in premium condition for a food-grade product rather than a fishmeal product.

Rather than maintaining a situation where they managed the fishery based on the science, we now have fisheries management by GetUp! in Australia. We know that GetUp! is effectively a lobbying arm of the Greens—they are now campaigning in the ACT for their former director Simon Sheikh even though they promised that they were an independent organisation and would not be engaging in that. They are now engaged in lobbying directly for the Greens, and so the Greens' influence on the Labor Party and their management decisions around fisheries, forestry and agriculture are becoming more and more apparent.

Over a period of years, this government, having followed on with the development of our fisheries management system from the very good work started by my colleague Senator Ian Macdonald and then Senator Abetz by putting in place a world-class system of fisheries management, have completely capitulated to fisheries management by GetUp! Forget the science. Forget everything else: they just don't want the boat. That is what the argument has come down to, regardless of the fact that a harvest strategy has been put in place for the entire Australian fishery—and individual harvest strategies for a number of fisheries, including the small pelagics. They take into account all of the needs of the different elements of the food chain—large animals, large fish species, predator types—and then set a very, very conservative by global standards quota to access the fishery. Yet this government does not have what it takes to stick to that scientific process. It has to put in special legislation. It costs the business hundreds of thousands of dollars—$10,000 a day to have the vessel tied up doing nothing—and then they wonder why people start talking about things like sovereign risk.

I have spoken to people who have said, 'We are reconsidering our investment in the fishery here in Australia, particularly in Tasmania, because of that decision.' They are concerned that the government, having spent years developing a science based strategy for the management of a fishery, could then make a political decision to completely change the rules and say, 'We're now stepping back. We're reconsidering our decision-making process.'

I spoke to a fisheries manager from New Zealand last week. They are concerned about the impact of that decision-making process on their fishery in New Zealand. That is the scale of the debacle that this government has wrought on the fishing industry in Australia. We are globally recognised as having one of the best managed fisheries in the world—No. 2 for sustainability behind Germany; top three, four or five in nearly every other category—and yet there is concern amongst fisheries managers, not only in Australia but also in other countries, because of the win that this government gave to organisations such as Greenpeace—an organisation which is happy to break into the CSIRO and destroy property—that they are now utilising that as a tool against the industry in other jurisdictions. That is how poorly this government has managed Australia's fisheries

Then of course we go to the marine parks process, where the consultation has effectively been a show and tell and this minister has capitulated any support for the industry to the former minister, Tony Burke. There has been nobody in this government who has been prepared to stand up for the users of the resource in this marine parks process. In fact, it has been used as a political tool without access to the science, and we know that for a fact because that has been admitted. It has been admitted by Minister Burke when he has been talking to recreational user groups and commercial user groups, and by the department. I was in Brisbane on the day of the meeting. I asked if I could have access just to listen; I did not need to say anything and did not want to say anything. The fishing industry representatives asked for the science on which these marine parks were to be based. They were told there was none. Tony Burke will come out with a pile of books saying, 'Here is the science.'. There is none. It could be anything in that pile of books that Tony Burke hands up in display of what the science says. The reality is that Minister Burke has made a series of political decisions: lock up the Coral Sea, reduce the number of marine park areas out of New South Wales because that is where the worst politics are. He thinks he can get away with a bit more in the south-west, so he will make larger marine parks over there. One of the only places where there was any real modification through the final management plan process was out of Mr Katter's seat, where they traded votes against the Abel Tasman for some modifications to the management plans.

We will do everything to make sure that there is a decent process in place. We will do everything within our power to make sure that there is a decent process; that there is proper consultation and you do not have a lot of different sectors played off against each other; that there is somebody within government who is prepared to stick up for fishing sectors within Australia that are globally recognised as responsibly accessing the fishery. We will ensure that that occurs, not the show and tell consultation process where Minister Burke and his department went out and said, 'Here are the maps, this is what is going to happen.' When the zones were declared—and the consultation period followed the declaration of the zones—it was not about whether they might change, it was not about improving that process; it was about whether they happened or not. We all know that the answer from Minister Burke's perspective was that they were going to happen. But where was Minister Ludwig in all this?

It is a bit like the Abel Tasman situation, where you have one of the most eminent marine scientists on the planet come to Tasmania and say, 'You are a global laughing stock from that decision.' Professor Ray Hilborn is the scientist who led the global fish stocks process, so when Boris Worm came out and said the oceans would be devoid of fish by 2047, which the environmental groups all jumped on and started campaigning on, Ray Hilborn went to Boris Worm and said, 'I disagree with your hypothesis. Why don't we conduct a project to review it?' They agreed to do that and along with 23 or 24 marine scientists from across the spectrum they did a global project which actually put the true picture on the table. There is someone who is prepared to provide real leadership in fisheries and fisheries management. That is why he is one of the most respected fisheries scientists on the planet. When he comes to Australia and says, 'You are a global laughing stock because of your decision around the Abel Tasman because of politics over science,' I think we ought to be taking notice of it.

You have also got the minister who has committed the southern bluefin tuna industry to a new process of counting fish as they go into their nets, a stereo video. The industry do not have a problem with that, but the problem is that the technology is not mature and it is not automated. It actually diminishes their capacity to properly manage their fishery. Why would a minister agree to something that took an industry backwards? Why not do the work to get the technology up to speed and provide what the systems they are using now already do for stocking densities within the pens? Why not have that work done before you impose it on the industry? Yet that is what this minister has done.

Then there is the minister's non-appointment of the FRDC board. It is not the first time that has happened. Previously the Grains Research and Development Corporation, one of a larger research and development corporations, was left without a board. Twelve months later the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation is also left without a board. When will the minister do something that is of positive benefit to the industry? Why aren't there changes being brought forward by the minister to the PIERD Act, for example, where for a change the industry has got themselves together about what they want to do on marketing. The prawn industry, for example, has a brilliant proposal for marketing. You have the wild prawn fishery and the aquaculture sector of the prawn fishery come together wanting to market Australian prawns. That is not possible under the PIERD Act as it stands. Why isn't the minister doing something to help the industry help themselves? It is not a big deal. They have done the work and it is sitting there ready to go. Yet there is no support from the minister, as there has been no support from the minister in a whole range of other areas in his portfolio. He stepped back and allowed others to take the lead, to take over his portfolio. It is a huge disappointment that the minister is not providing the leadership that this industry desperately needs, particularly in the critical areas around fisheries management. I await with interest the review that is being conducted of Fisheries Management Australia. I think that is an important move although it does come out of the complete debacle of the freezer trawler episode. But it would be nice to see that progressed. I acknowledge the minister asking that the opposition be consulted as part of that process. I appreciate that. That was a positive from my perspective. We certainly do appreciate that but I would like to see the results of it. Let's help the industry move ahead with its own marketing through the PIERD Act. Let's do some of those positive things that we can do for the industry. Let's support that. Having said that, the opposition will be supporting the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012.

12:15 pm

Photo of Rachel SiewertRachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

The Greens will also be supporting the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2012, particularly because we think this is an improvement on the way that observing and monitoring will be undertaken. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out when this legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives:

E-monitoring can include cameras, global positioning systems and sensors and can generate a range of visual and non-visual information for monitoring fishing and related activities.

Of course the issue around the monitoring is that it needs to be used—and it needs to be used for better fisheries management. Unless we see the information that is generated and requested from the fishers being taken up by AFMA, and then effectively used to improve fisheries management and to monitor what is going on—we can have all the monitoring in the world—it could be an investment that does not actually generate better fisheries management.

I talk specifically about the need to use information that is obtained and where monitoring is in place. For example, an issue that I have been following very closely is sea lion deaths. In my home state of Western Australia, conditions are a bit different to those that apply in South Australian fisheries. We have the Western Australian Southern Demersal Gillnet and Longline Fishery. This fishery was given renewed export permission last year by the federal government and conditions were imposed on that fishery. Likewise, conditions were imposed on that fishery previously and the Western Australian government did not implement them. One of those conditions involved monitoring and observing.

We know from experience in South Australia that, when observers were put in place and monitoring was undertaken, they suddenly discovered that there had been 374 sea lion deaths and 56 dolphins killed as a result of the use of gillnets. When these are used in the fishery in Western Australia those same conditions are not imposed and observers have not been put in place. So we actually do not know what impact that fishery is having on sea lions and dolphins. I believe this is critically important, because there are only around 12,000 Australian sea lions left in the world. I hope that, with this bill going through, there will be an added incentive for the Western Australian government to require those fishers to use e-monitoring.

I would also like to point out that the 2007 research paper on the benefits and costs of e-monitoring did point out the benefits of e-monitoring and the differences between observers and e-monitoring. They pointed out that e-monitoring 'may be more useful for documenting TEP interactions, especially with large marine mammals such as porpoises or seals, than for documenting catch.' They also pointed out that:

    and—

      They also pointed out that some of the problems with observer monitoring included:

        The paper also referred to observer bias. It pointed out that, because some of these difficulties are in place, it is difficult to circumvent observer bias and that e-monitoring 'can provide better unbiased data, regardless of cost, than can observer programs unless the observer program has 100 per cent coverage'. The researchers go on to say that 'observer data is not pure and can contain errors' and 'physical limitations, such as bed space, can act as a constraint' for putting observers on vessels. Also, as has been pointed out by Senator Colbeck and in other information, e-monitoring is much more cost effective.

        We think this bill is worthy of support and we do support it. But, as I said, it is very important that we make sure we use the information that is obtained and that important fisheries, that can have an impact on such things as Australian sea lions and dolphins, do have e-monitoring in place. This is particularly important so that we can develop better fisheries management—which takes me to the issue of the Borthwick review.

        In answer to questions in estimates in February the department and the minister confirmed that the Borthwick review had been completed and was currently with the minister. That was in the second week of February, and the minister had received it sometime before that. That was a month ago, and I am wondering when that review is going to be released. I know that there are a lot of people who are deeply interested in seeing that review and seeing the government's response. So I ask the government when that report is going to be publicly released and whether it is a correct understanding that, when that is released, the minister's response will be released at the same time. It is particularly important that we look at fisheries management, as I alluded to in my contribution to the bill we have just discussed, in the context of ecosystem-based management, in which marine protected areas play an essential role. Senator Colbeck talked about the need for science and about ignoring science, and I ask the question that I have asked in this place many times: how much more science do people need to understand that marine protected areas and reserves play a key role in fisheries management and in the protection of ecosystems? There is science to show that, but they care not to take it into account. You could look at not only the science but also video monitoring and e-monitoring. Hopefully, this will help convince people into the future that reserves play a key role in ecosystem-based management and that we need to ensure that our areas of high marine biodiversity and value are protected into the future.

        Speakers also referred to the lack of science in these new marine parks under the very thorough bioregional planning process that has been undertaken. Over a decade and a half some fishers have been complaining in my home state of Western Australia that they would not be investing in increasing their fishing capacity on the south coast because marine protected areas down there were going to significantly impact on fishing capability. People further up on the west coast have said similar sorts of things when they have not even looked at the maps properly. They do not take into account the significant changes in fishing regimes or fishing regulations that have had to be brought in on the west coast of Western Australia because areas close to Perth have been overfished. They do not bear that in mind. I have not heard them talk about the need to ensure that the marine science is up to date with the marine heatwave we have been suffering off Western Australia. I have not heard them complain loudly about the fact that we need to significantly increase our surveillance of marine invasive species—because, with the increasing warming of the water around Perth, that is a potential risk, and there has already been one outbreak at Garden Island. Where is their response to ensuring that we have sufficient flexibility in our fisheries management to cope with the marine heatwave and the fact that we may have to change our management practices? We will be seeing species there that we have not had before, and we will see the disappearance of other species.

        Just before our rock lobster industry started crashing, just before we had a major decline in that industry, just before we had a major impact from the marine heatwave, it was claimed that the industry had world's best management practice. That is where we need to be investing in our attention and our resources in marine research and marine science. We need to use the science in a way that ensures that we really do have the world's best practice in marine management. It is no good to sit back on our laurels and say, 'Australia has the best fisheries management practice in the world.' That does not mean a jot if our fisheries are still not being properly managed. If the baseline is poor it does not mean that we should be sitting back on our laurels and saying, 'No, we shouldn't be changing our fisheries management practices because we have the best in the world.' It does not mean that we should not be improving it. It does not mean that we should keep our practices static in the face of climate change, which we know is already having an impact on our marine environment. We are already seeing the effects off the west coast of my home state of Western Australia, for example. This nonsense of saying, 'We've got world's best practice so we don't need to change,' is, as I said, nonsense. We need to be constantly updating our fisheries management practices. We need to be making sure that they are the best that we can have into the future in the face of constantly changing marine environment as a result of the impacts of climate change and warming waters.

        We do not know what the likelihood is of having more extreme heating events in Western Australia across our unique environment. We do not know how often we are going to have these extreme events. We do not know where they are going to impact. We know that, globally, there are wellings that are being influenced by climate change. We know that is having an impact on fish species and fish populations. Globally, we know that we have fisheries that have been overfished. Australia and Western Australia are, I agree, some of the best-managed fisheries in the world, but that is not an excuse to do nothing. That is not an excuse to say, 'We're getting it right; we don't need to improve.' We have already seen in Western Australia the impact just one extreme event can have on our fisheries, our fish species and our ecosystems.

        We support this bill. We think e-monitoring is going to be an effective and useful tool. But it is only effective as to how what it finds is incorporated into management responses. We will be watching the implementation of e-monitoring very carefully, and we urge the government to engage in further discussions with Western Australia fisheries around the temperate demersal gillnet fisheries in Western Australia to ensure that those fishers are required to carry out the same practices as the South Australian fishers are. Given that we know the management practices there were having adverse impacts on Australian sea lions and dolphins, I do not believe there is any reason to think that we may not be having impacts on sea lions and dolphins in the gillnet fisheries in Western Australia. Because that condition around observers was not implemented, we do not know. There were claims in South Australia that the fishery was not having an impact on sea lions and dolphins—until they looked. When they looked, they found 372 sea lions and 56 dolphins had been affected. This is why monitoring is so essential in fisheries management. The Greens will be supporting this bill.

        12:30 pm

        Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | | Hansard source

        Seventy-two per cent of seafood products that Australians consume are imported from overseas. That will continue to be the case while we have a minister for fisheries who has no interest in the Australian industry and no interest in the science around the fisheries.

        I just heard from the Greens political party senator, a typical harbinger of doom for our country, and I cannot avoid the opportunity of talking about global warming. I think the UK Met Office has said there has been no warming for 17 years now, so the rhetoric is now 'climate change', and I see it is now a 'marine heatwave' we are talking about.

        Photo of Rachel SiewertRachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

        Go and talk to WA.

        Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | | Hansard source

        Senator, it is all the difficulties of a change in the climate. I just want to make it clear, as I always do, that of course I believe in climate change. I read the stories about the fish fossils that are found in the middle of Australia, in the middle of the desert. I am also conscious of the fact that the centre of Australia was once a rainforest. I also know that the world was once covered in ice. So of course the climate is changing, and that is something I have always acknowledged.

        My concern on Ms Gillard's broken promise on carbon tax is that Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of carbon in this world. I do not know whether it was man's emission of carbon back in the dinosaur's time that caused the climate change then. I always concede I do not have the scientific knowledge to make a view on that. But what I do know is that, even if carbon is the cause of climate change, even if the people who say that man's emission is the cause of it, even if they are 100 per cent correct, Australia is taxing itself with the largest tax in the world for the less than 1.4 per cent of carbon emissions which we emit. Even under the Labor Party projections of the carbon tax, carbon emissions are still going to go up, so why are we doing this in advance—

        Photo of Mark FurnerMark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

        Senator Macdonald, I have been listening to you patiently for three minutes and I have not heard you mention the bill before us, dealing with fisheries. I ask you to come back to that bill, please.

        Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | | Hansard source

        This is a debate, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I am responding to some of the things that the previous speaker mentioned, without interruption from the chair, I might add.

        Photo of Penny WongPenny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | | Hansard source

        You have to respect the chair, Senator Macdonald.

        Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | | Hansard source

        Senator Wong is telling people to respect the chair. What a joke. You should have a look at question time, Senator Wong, and see how disrespectful you personally continue to be.

        Photo of Penny WongPenny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | | Hansard source

        You are such a charming individual.

        Photo of Ian MacdonaldIan Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | | Hansard source

        The point I am making—and I know it is a sensitive point for the failed climate change minister, Senator Wong, for me to talk about climate change and her complete failure in the ministry and her complete failure at Copenhagen. But I want to make the point in response to Senator Siewert: why does Australia penalise itself and the fishing industry and every other industry for no gain? Senator Siewert talks about the 'marine heatwave' and all the difficulties there

        She did not, of course, mention that there have been new coral reefs forming in Western Australia as the southern waters get a little warmer. I acknowledge that is a question of colder waters getting warmer, and so new coral reefs are growing, but what the Greens and the Labor Party never understand is that this is going to happen. The climate will continue to change. What we have to deal with is climate adaptation. We should be spending money researching how we deal with, how we adapt to, whatever change happens in the climate—as it certainly will, and as it has done since time immemorial.

        I notice Senator Siewert also spoke about the Western Australian rock lobster industry and said there were claims that it was world's best and now it is not. Senator Siewert knows as well as I do that that fishery was certified by the Marine Stewardship Council as being properly run—and the Marine Stewardship Council, as we all know, is a WWF sponsored organisation. Senator Siewert in those days thought that was pretty good. Now it is not the world's best fishery, according to Senator Siewert.

        Senator Colbeck in his address—a contribution to the debate that I would urge all interested parties to read and reread—went through the whole gamut of fisheries in relation to this legislation. As Senator Colbeck quite rightly said, this is legislation we support because it will help the way we can assess the strength and health of the fisheries. But the problem with the Labor government is that they make decisions on our fisheries not based on science, not based on this data, but on the basis that Ms Gillard needs the Greens in order for her to stay as Prime Minister. The Greens rattle the can; Ms Gillard says, 'Whatever you say, whether it is backed by science or not, I will do it provided you continue to keep me for a few more months in the job I am desperate to keep, and that is the job of Prime Minister.' So we have marine bioregional plans. And Senator Siewert from the Greens political party suggests: 'Labor are good, Greens are good, for having marine bioregional plans. Liberals are bad because they challenge some of the decisions that are made.'

        Senator Siewert never acknowledges, of course, that bioregional plans were an initiative of the Howard government under its world-first oceans policy. The first marine bioregional plan we had in Australia's south-east—I am proud to say it happened while I was fisheries minister—was a plan on which there was full consultation with all the stakeholders. We came to a resolution on that plan that 85 per cent of the people were 85 per cent happy about. It was not a bad outcome. The fishing industry was able to continue to employ Australians, we were able to continue to eat Australian produced fish and a lot of areas were set aside for conservation.

        Contrast that process with this farce of a consultation process that the Labor Party and the Greens have embarked upon. It is absolutely farcical. Labor only consulted with the Greens and the Pew organisation, that American environmental group that came into being on the back of oil money from some American oil barons who wanted to salve their consciences. The Pew foundation wanted this; the Greens jumped when they were told by Pew to do this; and then Ms Gillard, wanting to retain her office as Prime Minister, also jumped. So we have had this farce of a consultation process.

        The prawning industry, one of the few continuingly successful industries in the Gulf of Carpentaria, was at risk of destruction through the marine bioregional plan. I, Senator Colbeck, many in the industry and all the stakeholders in the Gulf of Carpentaria have pleaded and petitioned for a better outcome for that plan. I just hope that Mr Burke will, at last, at least take notice of the submissions that Senator Colbeck and the industry have made on that marine bioregional plan so that we can not only have good conservation outcomes but also protect and sustain what is a very sustainable industry that, as I said, is one of the few that continues to operate in Australia.

        To come back to what I said at the beginning, the difficulty for Australians eating locally produced fish is that there is no confidence these days in the fishing industry because of what investors see as a sovereign risk problem within Australia at the moment. Mr Acting Deputy President Furner, you will remember that Mr Burke, when he was the fisheries minister, actually encouraged fishermen in Tasmania to bring in a supertrawler. He did that because the science at the time—and the science currently, I might say—said that was a good way to harvest the fish. Lo and behold, with some of the ructions in the Labor Party, time moves on and Mr Burke is no longer fisheries minister but becomes environment minister. Having encouraged Australian and some foreign investors to put money into this supertrawler as fisheries minister, Mr Burke as environment minister then stops that boat from operating. And you wonder why there is no confidence in investment in the Australian fishing industry! Why did Mr Burke do that? Because Ms Gillard likes her current temporary job as Prime Minister, the Greens said they would do awful things if the supertrawler was allowed in—again, the populist politics of the Greens without any consideration of the economics or investment implications of their action—and the trawler was banned.

        We have a fisheries minister who in this legislation is doing something positive. It is probably the only positive thing I can recall the government doing with fisheries legislation. But, contrary to that, there is green tape and red tape that is shutting down the Australian industry and making it necessary for Australians, if they want to eat seafood, to import 72 per cent of what we consume.

        I move on to another aspect of fisheries legislation which I thought the Greens might have mentioned but, alas, they have not. That is, that we have in Australian waters the Patagonian toothfish, a quite rare but, if it is managed properly, a sustainable fish that is very valuable. Some years ago there were pirates who knew the value of the fish and who came in from all over the world to take Australia's Patagonian toothfish. I am pleased to say the Howard government by very firm action acquired a vessel to go down into the Southern Ocean and capture, arrest or chase away those pirate vessels from all over the world. We cleaned out those pirate vessels in the Southern Ocean. Now we find that the Labor government has no interest in that anymore. The vessel that was acquired for that is up running a taxi service for illegal arrivals in the north-west of Australia. It was supposed to be helping the French protect the Southern Ocean from pirates but is no longer working there. When you ask the Labor government about this it says, 'Oh, but the French are there, and we put Australian officers on French vessels.' Yes, we do—but how long is this one-sided approach going to last? How long are the French going to say, 'We'll keep taking your guys around, but we never expect you to reciprocate by putting our people on your vessels'? That is what is wrong with Labor's approach to fisheries management and, I might say, to border protection as well.

        Debate interrupted.