12.9.12 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (17:26): It is a privilege to follow the member next to me, the member for Herbert, as I always do in this House for some odd reason. I permanently live in his shadow metaphorically and literally. Ewen Jones is an eloquent and articulate defender of the rights of fishers in Australia today. It is for that reason I rise to speak to oppose the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Fishing Activities) Bill 2012, which is another example of massive government overreach from a government which is addicted to power. Nothing could be a better example than the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities trying to extend the right to prohibit fishing anywhere in Commonwealth waters for two years on the basis of what is in his mind—not on rational scientific inquiry, not on what is best for the environment or human beings, but on any social uncertainty in the minister's head. That standard is what we are asking fishers, recreational and commercial, all around this country to live by.
What does Minister Burke, in his uncertain world, think is socially acceptable? If it is unacceptable to him today to take a bluefin fish in Commonwealth waters, well, that is it—too bad! For two years we will not be able to do that. That is the kind of hideous power which we find in this bill, with the sanction of government applied to it, with penalties of up to seven years, as I understand. That is why I oppose this bad legislation.
Once again, this is an example of a government that really has no coherent policy position. The attempts in question time today by the minister to explain the position were completely and utterly embarrassing and unconvincing. We have seen, as a recent development, the member for Dobell raise a series of amendments trying to do what we have been talking about—save recreational fishers from the unfettered power of the minister, who has been dictated to by a Green agenda. But those amendments do not cover sufficiently recreational fishers and, of course, they make no mention of Australian commercial fishers. There is no mention of the rights of commercial fishers. I stand up here today for commercial fishing in Australia. One of the oldest practices of the human race is to fish to feed itself. Some evolutionary scientists say it is part of the reason we have evolved the way we have—because of our ability to eat fish.
Mr Tehan: It is the cleanest.
Mr HAWKE: It is one of the cleanest food-producing industries, as the member for Wannon reminds me. Yet we have a government which wants to pander to an extreme Green agenda to say that we should not be fishing, that somehow 'fishing' is a dirty word all of a sudden. Do not just think this is hysteria in the opposition. Let us be clear about this. This position has come about because of a radical campaign by Greenpeace and the Green movement.
I always say, and this is yet another potent example that Ronald Reagan was right about his views on the environmental movement when he said—and the member for Dobell should listen to this—that the only species that the environmental movement does not care about is the human species.
He has a very good point, because 45 people will lose their jobs as a result of this decision by the government today, and that will have flow-on effects. The $15 million for Tasmania is gone. People say we are a wealthy country; but we are not so wealthy that we can afford to turn away $15 million every day in this parliament, and we are not so wealthy that we can afford to put 45 people back on the long-term unemployed queues, which is what this government has done. No number of expos from the minister for child care on government handouts and jobs can save these 45 long-term unemployed workers.
It is a disgrace that the government has taken this stance based not on scientific inquiry or on fact but on pure political expediency on the most embarrassing scale. We have seen that in the words of the minister, Tony Burke, in his strategy in 2009, where he said:
There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels.
He is correct about that—larger scale activity produces greater efficiencies. It is all through our economy; there is nothing wrong with it. Yet we have had a procession of government backbenchers come into this House today and recently to tell us that the scale of fishing is what is worrying them. All of a sudden they are concerned that this should be based on the science. These government backbenchers who claim, because they are reading off their talking points, that they know something about science have no idea about the science. We have some of the best-managed fisheries in the world. I am not standing here today making a claim on a scientific inquiry on the science of fishing. I do not know anything about the science of fishing, and I am prepared to say so. To those government backbenchers who say, 'We should be looking at the science,' I say: we have been looking at the science for years; we have got it; it is here. Just because it occurred to them for the first time today that there should be some science, they say, 'No, we’ve got to pause and look at this for two years.'
This boat was brought here by the Labor government to fish in our waters on the basis of science and on the basis of Australian government agency recommendation—including, I add, that of the honourable Michael Egan, a former Labor treasurer of New South Wales, who was appointed by this minister. That is why the boat is here. But, after all of that, to turn around because of a last-minute campaign and say no to it, after years of scientific proof and endeavour, is a hideous embarrassment. To go further and have the member for Dobell have to somehow try to save the recreational fishing industry but not succeed in his amendments is even more embarrassing. We cannot support a bill which has at its very core unlimited expansion of ministerial power without regard for any recourse or appeal for the ordinary citizen to conduct their ordinary, day-to-day business. There is nothing at all wrong with fishing, commercial or recreational. In fact, it provides a good income and a good living for many people, and it needs to be encouraged.
Under the guise of this legislation, we have this Trojan Horse of an issue being brought into the parliament to increase the power of the minister over all aspects of Commonwealth-water fishing. We have seen today the reaction of the Australian Marine Alliance:
In our view the answer is not to give the department of the environment in Canberra greater control over fisheries management but rather for the fisheries portfolio to secure a competent minister who can effectively fulfil their duties as minister for fisheries.
Amen to the Australian Marine Alliance! They go on:
As an example, if this bill passes, it will give the department of the environment in Canberra the authority to stop recreational anglers all the way down the east coast from fishing for Bluefin tuna in Commonwealth waters.
Do we think that that is hysteria? We know it is not; we know that it is the agenda of the green movement in Australia today to stop that fishing. This minister is so beholden to the Greens that that is now one step closer—and will be much closer if this legislation passes.
Martin Exel, the chair of the Commonwealth Fisheries Association says:
Industry is aware of the desire by the minister to retrospectively change the rules for the small pelagic fishery and block the operations of the Abel Tasman, but this is not the way to do things.
There he is, pointing out that this is not the way to handle something like this—and it sure ain't. He goes on to say:
Responding to community issues over this single boat by damaging all Australian fishing operations, both commercial and recreational, and creating massive uncertainties in the professional fishing industry in Australia is simply not acceptable in our view.
That is the point—the government are damaging Australian interests under the guise of stopping this foreign boat that we are all supposed to be concerned about. I know that a lot of people out there are very concerned about this issue, but they need to look closely at what this government is doing in terms of expanding its powers to limit Australian fishing in Australian interests. That is where, with a close examination, the government's agenda will be exposed. There are many ways that they could have dealt with a potential problem with the Margiris—that is, move-on powers—and all of the people have spoken from the coalition have outlined many of the things that could have been done by a competent and responsible government. Even these industry and professional bodies are using language like, 'Get a competent minister; find a person or a government that can deal with things.'
One of the Labor backbenchers I was listening to—it could have been the member for Corangamite—said, 'This boat just appeared on the horizon, and we had to do something.' What a ridiculous load of absolute rubbish! This boat did not appear on the horizon; they were invited by the minister to come here and fish. They went through every legislative and other requirement to outfit the boat, to get ready to fish. The minister knew all the way through. So did the department and so did the Commonwealth. This boat did not appear on the horizon; what it did appear on was on the political horizon of the government. Never mind the science of fisheries.
There is a good quote on this from Darwin as well. He said 'it's not the strongest of a species that survives, or the most intelligent; it's those of the species most able to adapt to change that survive'. I think the real science of all of this—why we are here today and why we have this excessive government legislation—is quite Darwinian. Basically, Kevin wanted to do over Julia, and Melissa wanted to stop the boat. So Kevin supported Melissa in stopping the boat, to get at Julia. So Joe and Tony, to save Julia, moved to stop the boat to stop Kevin from getting Melissa onside to do over Julia. That is the science of this issue. That is the science that we are basing it on.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Rishworth ): I am going to ask the member to refer to members by their appropriate title.
Mr HAWKE: I wasn't referring to any members in particular, Madam Deputy Speaker, there.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You used their names.
Mr HAWKE: That was just a reference to the science behind this issue. That is what is going on here, and it is quite a disgraceful way to govern.
While that might be a light-hearted point, the serious point in all of this is that Australia is becoming a sovereign risk. People do take notice of this. There is human wreckage from the decision of the government today to put this legislation into the House—human wreckage not just from the job losses, the investment that is now gone and the sovereign risk that other investment bodies will be looking at with Australia but also from the ongoing risk to Australians in undertaking their normal commercial and other activities.
Why would you invest in commercial fishing in Australia today with a minister and a government who are prepared, on a whim—on something called 'social uncertainty' in his legislation—to change his mind? How could you put your hard-earned capital into a fishing venture if you wanted to take a reasonable risk without any standard, objective basis for a decision to be made? And that is what we are talking about.
The provision that the government has put in here—social uncertainty—is absolutely ridiculous. The social uncertainty is coming from the government, and it is coming from the government to investors in the commercial fishing industry, which is very important and which I would like to stand up for. I oppose any provision in legislation that says that the minister's whim ought to dictate what happens in any case, particularly when you use a terms like 'social uncertainty' and you do not even make an attempt to define what the term represents. That is no way to do law; that is no way to do business. You cannot run a business and you cannot run a country on a notion like social uncertainty.
Once again we have seen from this minister and this government the live export trade debacle—the changes, the flip-flopping, the uncertainty created, the loss of half of the contracts. And now we see again the potential for great human wreckage and littering, for enormous destruction of an industry in our country, with no regard for the certainty that we need. There is a chance to come into this chamber and propose good legislation and have it looked at carefully. There is a chance for good quality amendments, like the shadow minister for the environment's amendments, to be considered. We have proposed them to improve the quality of this legislation and reduce the uncertainty.
While I may not be an expert on the science of fishing, I am an expert on the science of politics and I do understand what is going on with this legislation. I think all of Australia understands what is going on. I think people in New South Wales understood what was going on when they abandoned the Greens and the Labor Party at the recent local council elections in New South Wales. They see a government that is creating uncertainty in our economy and our society by proposing laws that massively expand the power of government, with no ethical or justifiable basis to do so, and they instinctively oppose governments that would seek to expand their powers with no legitimacy to do so.