Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on large capacity fishing vessels, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

My colleague Senator Whish-Wilson will be speaking to it since he was involved in that one.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Environment and Communications References Committee's report Factory freezer trawlers in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery. First of all, I would like to acknowledge those who made submissions to this inquiry, those who gave vital evidence at the hearings, and the secretariat staff for their assistance throughout the hearings in putting together this report.

Together with Senator Brown, I moved the reference to establish this inquiry last year after the arrival of the supertrawler, Geelong Star, in Australian waters. I thank the Senate for agreeing to resume this inquiry after it lapsed at the dissolution of the last parliament. We sought this inquiry as there was a clear need for further examination of the science and the potential impacts of supertrawlers as well as a clear need to revisit and reassess what the most appropriate regulatory and compliance arrangements are.

In proposing this inquiry, we listened to the ongoing concerns about the operations of supertrawlers from the Tasmanian community and across the country. It was disappointing that the Liberal and National parties opposed the inquiry. Time and again, this Liberal National government shows a disturbing pattern of trying to shut down legitimate inquiries and dodging scrutiny. The community deserves to have confidence that the federal parliament is open and transparent, and blocking inquiries is not the way to achieve this.

I welcome the news overnight that the Geelong Star has departed Australian waters. However, a certain mystery about its departure remains. Key questions that the Turnbull government—through the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Deputy Prime Minister Joyce—must answer are: has the Geelong Star left for good? What are you going to do if it or another supertrawler returns? First, will Minister Joyce acknowledge the widespread community concern about the operation of supertrawlers in the Small Pelagic Fishery? Second, will Minister Joyce use this period without an operational supertrawler to strengthen regulations and management of large-capacity factory trawlers in the Small Pelagic Fishery or will the minister continue to be lost at sea on the supertrawler and continue to oppose all efforts by Labor and others to improve regulation and management of supertrawlers?

Labor remains committed to preventing the operation of all large-capacity factory trawlers in Australian waters until a thorough assessment against the most up-to-date science can verify that operations will not undermine small pelagic fisheries and recreational fishing spots. In government, Labor ensured appropriate consideration was given to the impact of large-capacity factory trawlers on Australia's fisheries by amending the EPBC Act. Our amendment guaranteed Australia's waters were adequately protected from risks associated with the use of large-capacity factory trawlers.

In September 2012, the then Labor government used these powers to ban the operation of the FV Margiris while an assessment of its impact was undertaken. We established an independent expert panel to provide an objective judgement of the environmental impacts of this trawling activity. This ban applied to vessels of similar size and capacity to the original large-capacity factory trawler only, and it included vessels that received or processed fish, not just trawler vessels. The ban was opposed by the Liberal and National coalition when in opposition. A sunset clause in the original amendments enacted in 2012 means that no further bans can be placed on new large-capacity factory trawlers hoping to fish Australian waters. To ensure that further bans are possible, Labor introduced legislation into the Senate in early 2014 to remove the sunset clause. Under our plan, all future large-capacity factory trawlers could be thoroughly assessed using the most up-to-date science, thereby protecting our oceans and our recreational fishing spots.

The Abbott and Turnbull Liberal-National coalition governments have continued to refuse to work with us on this important issue. This is not about locking up an industry to destroy Australian jobs, as those opposite would have people believe. Very few Australian jobs were created by the operations of the GeelongStar. In evidence to the committee, the operator stated that the main officers on the vessel, such as the captain, are Europeans who hold subclass 457 visas—remarkable! Today, in my office, I met with members of the Australian Maritime Officers Union who told me there are many qualified, experienced Australian officers who are 'on the beach', as they say. That basically means 'unemployed'. Perhaps the GeelongStar operator should have looked to Australia first for its main officers.

Of course, there is also the impact on recreational fishers, and I acknowledge the contributions of many, many recreational fishers in holding the government to account. There are environmental issues associated with bycatch and localised depletion that were obviously too much for the GeelongStar to overcome. So bon voyage, GeelongStar, and do not come back.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee inquiry into factory-freezer trawlers, which I attended as a Greens representative. The Greens have campaigned consistently since 2012 against the arrival and operation of large factory-freezer vessels, often known as supertrawlers, in Australian waters. We have always opposed them; we have been consistent in our position. The key reason for that is the threat that they pose to marine life, especially to marine mammals, and we believe that there is uncertainty in the science. We have never questioned the quality of the science that has been done, but we have questioned the quantity of the science that has been done.

The Small Pelagic Fishery that has been targeted by these large freezer vessels has had problems in the past. It went into decline off Tasmania and south-eastern Australia 12 years ago. Some scientists even say it collapsed. Then, suddenly, although the fishery had not been accessed for 10 years and no data had been collected, we had a robust viable fishery able to be accessed by some of the largest factory-freezer vessels in the world. The Greens have always been concerned about the specific acute impacts, called localised depletion, on the species that live off the small pelagic fish, such as seals, dolphins, penguins and a number of finfish—which, of course, is the reason that rec fishers in this country have been so outspoken in their opposition to these large factory-freezer vessels.

I note that the coalition senators have put in a dissenting report to this Senate committee report. I will express my thoughts on this. It is disappointing that they have put in a dissenting report. This is a very well-written report. It is a long report that includes a lot of information, including scientific information. It acknowledges the scientists that have contributed to this debate, it acknowledges the Fisheries Management Authority and, while it clearly points out issues with their management of the Small Pelagic Fishery, it also acknowledges that Australian fisheries are the best managed fisheries in the world. But that does not make them perfect by any means.

This supertrawler, the GeelongStarwhich is somewhere off Cape Town at the moment—has, I understand, changed from an Australian-flagged to a foreign-flagged vessel. I also understand that it is not coming back and that the reason it left was a commercial decision. They did not see any long-term future for them here, accessing the Small Pelagic Fishery in Australian waters. The key question is: why not? We know from the data that we have been provided that they have not met anywhere near their quota catch—their allowable catch. In other words, they have not been able to find the fish. You may have been able to mount an argument 12 months ago that the dolphin exclusion regulations put on the boat precluded it from operating in certain parts of the ocean—you could argue that. But that regulation was lifted some time ago. The clear fact is that this boat has not caught the fish that it set out to catch, and I question whether it has been able to find the fish. This is a very important issue to me, because I have raised issues around uncertainty in the assessments of the stock and where those stocks are. If this boat has not been able to find the fish, it clearly suggests that maybe we did not get it right.

This boat has gone off to other places to fish on the basis that the regulations in this country were too severe. They have lobbied to have regulations removed—we know that for a fact. They had the night fishing ban removed, they have lobbied to have the second AFMA observer removed from the boat and they have lobbied to have the exclusion zones for dolphins removed. They clearly see Australian fisheries as being too highly regulated for them. They have not been able to find the fish.

I also question their markets in Africa, where they are selling the fish. For those of us in this chamber who understand economics, the decision this boat operator and the shareholders who own the company made was to come to Australia to access and exploit the Small Pelagic Fishery and to sell these fish to Africa. I question whether their markets in Africa are sustainable. I would like to see the data on what kind of price they were getting for their fish and what kind of volumes they were selling there. I understand that market is not highly profitable and that there have been issues with that. That is another question that is hanging over this.

To those who have come out and said that some kind of populist movement in this country has killed the supertrawler, this is a decision made by the operators of this vessel that they did not feel they were making enough money in Australia and they have gone to fish elsewhere. We need to get to the bottom of that if we are to truly understand why. I think it is really important—whether AFMA do it now, and we can get more stats from the company—that we actually get that information to add to this piece of work that we have here from the Senate, which is a long piece of work and very balanced.

The key recommendation is that the government ban large factory freezer midwater trawlers from operating in the Small Pelagic Fishery. I note that coalition senators, on the first page of their dissenting report, disagree with that recommendation. They spend nearly two pages talking about input controls, which are where things that limit your fishing effort, such as the size of your boat, are not a basis for fishing regulation. Well, here is the point: the coalition banned supertrawlers, boats over 130 metres—a clear input control. We want to take this a step further, and the Senate has agreed that we need to ban all large factory freezer vessels operating in the Small Pelagic Fishery. The government could never explain to stakeholders, when they sat down with them, why and on what basis they were prepared to ban boats over 130 metres and not boats of 100 metres that have smaller factory freezers. It did not make sense.

The government cannot make the point in this dissenting report and publicly that they do not believe the Senate or any future government should ban factory freezer vessels, when they have done exactly the same thing themselves. If they are claiming there is no scientific basis for a ban on factory freezer vessels and if this is all about efficiency and they do not believe in the precautionary principle, they do not believe there is any uncertainty in these fisheries at all and they do not believe that any harm is being done to the marine environment, then why ban boats that are bigger and more efficient? I say to Senator Back that I do not think that even a 100-metre boat was efficient. The boat could not make any money. It has gone. They could not exploit this fishery in the way they expected. I question whether they were able to find fish stocks. I know someone fairly learned who said they needed to spend more time being able to find the fish stocks, but what company is going to tie up their money keeping an asset in another country when there are other fisheries they can go off and plunder? It seems that that is what they have done.

I would support Senator Urquhart's final comments—good riddance; I do not want to see any factory freezer vessels back in this country. This is the biggest environmental campaign I have seen in my time in the Senate. It is not just environmental campaigners; it is also recreational fishing groups who feel their voice has not been heard. They do not feel they have had a say in the management of this fishery. Believe me, while environmental campaigners have stood side by side with the recreational fishing groups on this issue, we do tend to have some very robust discussions on other issues, and we do not believe they are perfect by any means. Sometimes their catch can be unsustainable as well, and we have always had that open conversation with them. But in this instance they were asking for their voice to be heard. They target the finfish. They all spend a lot of money on their boats. It is a big part of their life. It is a great joy to them to go out and catch fish, and this boat posed a risk and a threat to them that they felt was never properly assessed. Over the years there have been a number of attempts by government to negotiate with them, such as on exclusion zones for this trawler; they have also failed. There have been attempts to incorporate stakeholder feedback in this fishery that have not been successful.

If you go on the principle that there is no problem with this kind of thing unless any harm is being done—in other words, no harm done, no problem—and if someone wants to spend the money, let them go fish, let them exploit this fishery, I would argue as a Green and as someone who deeply loves the ocean that killing nine dolphins in your first two weeks of operation is doing harm. Fifty seals of different varieties have been caught by this boat in the last 12 months, as well as numerous albatrosses and all sorts of bycatch, including a whale shark. So you cannot argue that this is not doing any harm. There is uncertainty in the science, as you would expect for a fishery as complex as this. The precautionary principle should be adopted. I wholeheartedly endorse the Senate's recommendations in this report for a ban on these vessels. I would like to see that properly regulated and properly enforced in legislation.

Question agreed to.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on the access by children to internet pornography, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I will not be speaking to this report, because, again, the inquiry was a bit before my time. But I understand some other speakers will now address the report.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Waters for presenting the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee in her capacity as chair of the committee. By way of history, this inquiry into the access by children to internet pornography came before the Senate in the 44th Parliament, co-sponsored by then Senator Joe Bullock from Western Australia and me at the request of interested parties, particularly concerned parent groups. With the lapsing of the 44th Parliament, the matter was then raised with the committee in the 45th Parliament.

I thank the committee for its indulgence in allowing this report to proceed. Several significant submissions had been put to the committee by concerned people around Australia. Committee members accepted the view that, although time did not permit the committee to have hearings around Australia, it would be logical that the secretariat be directed to prepare a report based on those submissions. I thank the chair, Senator Waters and, as an original mover of the motion, I particularly thank the secretariat of this committee for the excellent work they undertook in preparing the report that is before us today.

The issue of access to pornography by children, particularly online pornography, is of deep concern and interest to all of us, whether you are simply a community member or whether you are a parent or, indeed—in your case, Acting Deputy President Gallacher, and mine now—a grandparent. Of course, there are state and federal matters to be considered, and the recommendations to which I will refer in a moment pick up the joint responsibility of federal and state entities in protecting children against the vicious and heinous crimes associated with pornography as they affect children—state jurisdictions, federal jurisdictions.

Many of us in this parliament, be it in the other place or in the Senate, have a deep interest and concern, particularly as it relates to the ignorance of parents and of children. To support that I will simply make the comment of my colleague the member for Forrest, Ms Nola Marino, who for some years now has been conducting seminars in schools with the concurrence of teachers, administrators, parents and children. She will go through, usually supported by local police personnel, and I cannot count the number of times Ms Marino has said to me that either on the day after or within days of such seminars parents or the children themselves will say that they did not realise they were being groomed for sex as a result of the activities that have been undertaken by these terrible people.

So, perhaps I can go to the four recommendations that came out of this inquiry. Again, I want to record our appreciation to those who put in submissions, upon which the secretariat and the committee drew heavily in preparing the report and its recommendations. The first is:

The committee recommends that the Australian government commission dedicated research into the exposure of Australian children and young people to online pornography and other pornographic material.

And I will go immediately to the second recommendation before I comment on them, which is:

Following completion of the research referred to in recommendation 1, the committee recommends that the Australian government commission an expert panel to make recommendations to the government regarding possible policy measures. The panel should include experts in a range of relevant fields, including child protection, children's online safety, education, law enforcement and trends in internet usage.

It is not often in this place that the very suggestion that a report might be tabled seems to prompt the government of the day. Only this afternoon we had the announcement through Minister Cash of the government appointing a new eSafety Commissioner, Ms Julie Inman Grant, and the announcement of the fact that the office will be renamed the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, reflecting the fact that the role will be extended to take on responsibility for online safety issues affecting adults as well as children, without in any way diminishing the importance of the role and the focus on children and bringing into that whole space the issue of cyberbullying material, which we know is targeting and is harmful to the Australian child. That will remain the focus of this commissioner's role.

In supporting that, I will quote from a release of the Law Council of Australia today in which the council is welcoming the announcement by the government of new initiatives to tackle, in their words, 'the 21st century scourge'—in this case of revenge pornography—and it has the support of the legal sector. That release goes on to make further comment about that. So, it is wonderful that we are focusing in several fora to do this.

I will go to the third of the four recommendations. As I mentioned earlier, it relates to drawing the states and territories into the report and its recommendations. Recommendation 3 is:

The committee recommends that state and territory governments consider the adequacy of:

The committee heard in evidence, through submissions, of the heinous circumstance of a child perpetrating sexual activities upon another child in a location in which children were being protected, only then to learn, upon investigation, that the child had seen the pornography that they were now practising on the victim child in the company of their father whilst the father and the child were watching pornographic material. Where have we got to in this space, in this country, when an adult—a parent—sits their vulnerable child down to watch pornography as part of some social interaction? And then to see the circumstance where that child—with no understanding at all, of course, as we all know, about the actions they are taking—plays out those fantasies on another child. So, those who do not think this issue is real need to reflect very carefully on that instance that was presented to us in a submission.

The final recommendation probably comes from the sort of ignorance that somebody like myself has in this space, because we obviously did not grow up in the internet age, the electronic age. It is one that we join, it is one that we go into and visit, whereas we know that children and young people of today do not visit the internet; it is of them. Recommendation 4 is:

The committee recommends that the Australian government consider the adequacy of the information available to parents, guardians and teachers on how to keep children safe online, including whether existing resources such as the Office of the eSafety Commissioner's iParent website can be promoted more effectively.

The thought behind this recommendation is that if parents, grandparents, carers or those with responsibility for children have a concern, to whom or where do they turn to get the tools to keep safe the child or children under their care?

I commend the report again to the Senate. In conclusion I just wish to reference our very good friend and colleague Ms Jo Lindgren, who, through the 44th Parliament, was Senator Jo Lindgren. She rang me in advance of the decision being made for the committee to progress and said, 'Chris, I've gone back into the classroom since I've returned from the Senate, and you would not believe the level of pornography in playgrounds, in classrooms, and you would not believe the level of language to which children have stooped, very often in total ignorance of the words they're using.' Jo Lindgren's appeal to me was, 'Please, whatever you can do, get the committee to proceed towards a report.' Again, I thank the chair, Senator Waters, and I commend the report to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Debate adjourned.