HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-09-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FISHING SUPER TRAWLER

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (11:43): I move:

That this house—

(a) notes—

(i) the significant concerns of the South Australian community, commercial and recreational fishing groups, and conservation groups about the presence of the FV Margiris in our region and the proposal for it to operate in the South Australian Small Pelagic Fishery;

(ii) the importance of the Small Pelagic Fishery to the South Australian fishing industry and the marine ecosystem;

(iii) the potential risks that this immense trawler would have on threatened, protected and endangered marine species and potential impacts on fish species that are commercially important to our state;

(iv) the potentially devastating effects that this super trawler may have on the South Australian sardine industry which makes a significant contribution to our state's economy; and

(b) opposes the proposed operation of the super trawler in the Small Pelagic Fishery; and

(c) strongly urges the federal minister to reject the application for the FV Margiris to operate in the Small Pelagic Fishery.

As I am sure all members are aware, earlier this month the super-sized fishing trawler, the Margiris, now called the Abel Tasman, sailed into our state waters and into a sea of controversy. The arrival of this massive trawler understandably generated significant public interest and concern among fishers, conservation groups and the broader community. There is widespread concern about the trawler and its potential impact on local fisheries, marine mammals and marine ecosystems.

South Australians are passionate about the environment, both on land and in the sea, and they are passionate about their fishing. They want to ensure that our marine environment is protected and our fisheries are sustainable. In recent weeks I have been contacted by many of my constituents who have expressed their outrage on this issue and I know many other members have also been contacted by concerned constituents. It has been good during the past couple of weeks since I gave notice that I was introducing this motion to hear people from all sides say that they are quite concerned about the trawler.

I am hoping to keep my comments brief today so that we can hear from as many people as possible from all sides of the house and get that feedback so that we can take the speeches and the motion from here and pass it on to our federal colleagues so that they are aware of the feeling here in South Australia about this super trawler.

I understand the trawler was seeking to operate under a commonwealth fishing permit in the small pelagic fishery, which extends from just above the Queensland/New South Wales border right across southern Australian to north of Perth. The fishery is in commonwealth waters, which is typically around three nautical miles out from land. The size of the vessel is astonishing. It is 143 metres in length, and I am told it has a cargo capacity of more than 6,000 tonnes of fish. This would be the largest fishing vessel ever to operate in Australian waters and I am told it is the second largest ever built.

Given the sheer size of this ship, there has been significant concern raised about the risks to some of South Australia's unique marine life. Waters adjacent to South Australia are home to many threatened, endangered and protected marine species. The operations of this vessel could put at risk some of our iconic marine species, including the Australian sea lion, southern right whale, New Zealand fur seal, Australian fur seal and the bottlenose dolphin. We must do all we can to prevent these important species from being impacted.

I am told there is also a risk of localised overfishing, which could in turn impact the local food chain. The targeted fish—jack and blue mackerel and redbait—are food for a range of marine life, including seals, dolphins, sea birds and southern bluefin tuna. The possible loss of these targeted species from the food chain in an area could potentially have serious local impacts on marine life. I understand the sardine industry is particularly worried about the potentially devastating impact this super trawler could have on their industry. The Small Pelagic Fishery overlaps important sardine fishing grounds, and the industry believes there is a very real risk of significant quantities of sardine by-catch.

I was very pleased when, earlier this month, the Minister for Environment and Conservation announced that the state government had written to the federal fisheries minister asking for him to intervene and ensure this vessel does not operate in Australian waters. Since that time, as members would be aware, the federal environment minister introduced legislation that will effectively defer any decision on approval for this fishing activity until a scientific assessment is undertaken. I understand that this legislation passed the commonwealth parliament yesterday. We are very pleased the commonwealth has taken action to stop this trawler from operating at least in the short term.

It is absolutely imperative that all the potential impacts are better understood before any final decisions are made. However, while we welcome the action taken by the commonwealth as a positive step forward, we must ensure that the concerns of the South Australian community are represented in this debate, and it is clear that South Australians do not want this giant trawler operating anywhere near South Australia.

For those who have travelled, particularly to Europe, it is interesting to see what has happened to their traditional fishing grounds and how many of them have been decimated. I was at a private lunch in London a couple of years ago when South Australian kingfish from around the Port Lincoln area was served up to a select group of people, including the food and wine writer from TheSunday Times and the chief food and wine buyer from Harrods. They were trying kingfish cooked six or seven different ways, and it was all about promoting the clean, green fish that we have on offer from here in South Australia.

People who live near where they traditionally were able to get fish know that those fish are not there any more because people have overfished those regions for the past several decades. They are looking to places like South Australia where we fish in a sustainable way and we look after our fishing grounds. What we do not want to see is a repeat of what happened in Europe happening here. We all need to stand together as one to protect not only what is a vital industry for South Australia that puts millions and millions of dollars into the state economy each year but also the fish breeding grounds of all sorts of species.

As we have heard, the sardine industry is really concerned because when you take those sardines out—and even though it is a by-product of the catch—when you throw them back in they do not survive. It is all very well to say, 'We didn't intend to catch those sardines; we are going to put them back and they will swim away.' They will not: they will die.

I am looking forward to hearing other contributions from people today, and hopefully we can wrap this up in fairly short time so we can send a message to our federal counterparts to show the sort of passion South Australians have for our environment and for our fishing industry. The government maintains that the application for the super trawler to operate in the Small Pelagic Fishery should be rejected, and I urge all members to support this motion.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:50): I wish to speak to this motion regarding the FV Margiris or the Abel Tasman, as it has been rebadged. This vessel has been rebadged in commonwealth waters as the FV Abel Tasman and is operated by Seafish Tasmania, a joint venture between Seafish Tasmania and Seafish Tasmania Pelagic, and is committed to long-term sustainable fishing in Australian waters. One point has remained constant throughout the super trawler debate: the Abel Tasman would only fish in commonwealth waters, those waters being outside the three-mile state limits, thus making it a commonwealth issue and not a state issue and, to spell that out, not a South Australian Labor government issue.

The operator of the FV Abel Tasman has met every requirement, abided by existing rules and complied with regulations. As one political commentator states, 'Its only crime was to run into a government in a tight political spot that is looking to attract votes on the back of a populist environmental campaign.' This can be said of the federal and current South Australian Labor governments. The knee-jerk reaction by the federal government has put Australia's reputation as a stable investment country at risk, adding to a growing list of decisions that have penalised investors. As another commentator reports:

Investors already spooked by abrupt decisions and reversals on mining taxes, the carbon tax and live cattle exports now have one more reason to worry about sovereign risk—governments changing the rules after the money has been committed.

The reaction by the federal government has also drawn a lot of criticism, sighting the influence of the Greens.

The Liberal opposition acknowledges and supports sustainable fisheries management and sustainable fisheries practices, and in particular the South Australian commercial and recreational fishing industries. We recognise that the development of the fishing industry in South Australia and a commercial fishery needs to be based on a sound marine science platform. As a result of the federal government's inconsistent approach to policy we have seen 50 employees lose their jobs at Seafish Tasmania, and lose a considerable amount of money as a result of the introduction of the two-year ban on fishing while science is explored. Seafish Tasmania confirmed that it will be looking at compensation, which is expected to be in the tens of millions of dollars.

The state Labor government is happy to use science as an excuse where it sees fit, not having done so when implementing its marine parks policy and also in the debate on the River Murray. The federal Labor government has overreacted and backflipped on policy. The Liberal opposition believes the federal Labor government has not shown respect to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the CSIRO.

Some facts about the Small Pelagic Fishery: the Abel Tasman is targeting small pelagic fish—redbait, jack mackerel and blue mackerel—and has an 18,000-tonne quota already, which has been transferred from other vessels. No boat size limits apply in the Small Pelagic Fishery or in any fishery managed solely by the commonwealth. The Small Pelagic Fishery is managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority under a statutory management plan. The total allowable catch for each species and each zone of a fishery is set annually by AFMA in accordance with the Small Pelagic Fishery harvest strategy, a strategy that was signed off on by the Hon. Tony Burke when minister for agriculture, food and fisheries in 2008 and revised in 2009.

The harvest strategy policy was developed as a direct response to a ministerial direction calling for AFMA to take a science-based approach to setting total allowable catches and effort in commonwealth fisheries. The harvest strategy is based on sound science and recognises the ecologically importance of the species and is precautionary. The harvest strategy requires that research is undertaken into the stock biomass, a fishery-independent stock assessment technique known as the daily egg production method. The objective of the Small Pelagic Fishery harvest strategy was:

The sustainable and profitable utilisation of the small pelagic fishery in perpetuity through the implementation of a harvest strategy that maintains key commercial stocks at ecologically sustainable levels and, within this context, maximises the net economic returns to the Australian community.

The SPF harvest strategy is similar to approaches successfully applied in other large fisheries for small pelagic species, for example, the South Australian sardine fishery, and has been developed to account for key fishery-specific attributes, such as:

recent catches are limited by economic constraints and are considered by the SPF Resource Assessment Group to be below the maximum sustainable level and there is potential for sustainable expansion of the fishery;

SPF species are an important food source for many threatened, endangered and protected species and other species and it is therefore important that the SPF harvest strategy takes into account the ecosystem role of these species; and

small pelagic species are caught in high volumes and have low unit value. Additionally, there are high capital costs associated with the large-scale catching units and specific processing infrastructure required. As a result, fishing operators need to have a heightened efficiency.

But, most importantly, as a result of aiming to achieve this objective, minister Burke signed off on a point that welcomes mid-water trawlers such as the Abel Tasman to fish commonwealth waters for small pelagic fish. I quote from the AFMA guidelines: 'There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels.'

Commonwealth and South Australian fisheries policy has been well-managed with quotas in place to address overfishing in each fishery. However, quotas have been continually cut by state and commonwealth governments, making commercial fishing in certain fisheries unviable. To make it viable to fish, many quotas have been consolidated into one licence and, as long as the rules do not allow overfishing in any one area, this is seen as a sensible approach to fishing. In the same way that other industries increase size to cut costs and maximise efficiency, so is it sensible that the fishing industry is headed that way.

It is argued it should be encouraged that these quotas be filled with the least amount of cost in order to free up resources for other uses. The proposed operations of the Abel Tasman have met all requirements of Australian fisheries policy and the federal environmental protection laws. A strict quota has been set for the Small Pelagic Fishery and the fisheries management arrangements for the fishery have been strategically assessed by the federal environment department on several occasions, most recently in 2012. Quotas are in place in order to manage fisheries and to avoid undesirable flow-on effects of those fisheries on the food web and ecosystem.

Seafish Tasmania has had ranging quotas from 15,000 tonne to 26,000 tonne over the past 12 years, with 18,000 tonne considerably conservative in the scheme of things. The quota assigned to Seafish Tasmania was based on science performed by SARDI—our own scientists—and the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania and reviewed by the CSIRO.

The result was a joint report by several marine scientists confirming that the Small Pelagic Fishery is sustainable and that the quotas set are conservative. There is a strong scientific basis and understanding of what is required of fishery management to protect the food web and broader ecosystem, and dependent fish, bird and marine mammal populations in particular, when conducting a fishery that targets the forage fish in that ecosystem. These requirements include that management be more conservative where there is a more scientific uncertainty about the forage fish or the food web. The harvest strategy for SPF was borrowed heavily from experience gained in the South Australian sardine industry.

Localised depletion is where fishing reduces the abundance of fish in a local area and for a period of time. Several scientists, including representatives from SARDI, CSIRO and the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, give confidence that food web impacts of the SPF on predators and the SPF species themselves, including through localised depletion, are unlikely.

Under the well-managed guidance of AFMA and PIRSA—and I say PIRSA, not DEWNR—fishing gear is regulated heavily to reduce bycatch and this is no different for the Abel Tasman. AFMA has committed to 100 per cent observer coverage to monitor bycatch and other aspects of fishery operations for the factory trawler.

There has been extensive research and sampling conducted on mid-water trawlers such as the Abel Tasman by the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies of the University of Tasmania researchers and AFMA observers, with many reports finding that mid-water trawl operations had minimal levels of catch of non-target species.

Stringent bycatch conditions have also been set under the well-managed guidance of AFMA. Fishing gear is regulated heavily to reduce bycatch. AFMA must be informed of all catch landed and verifies this information. If operators are found to have caught more than their quota, strict penalties apply. Small Pelagic Fishery operators must hold quota to cover bycatch of species that are subject to quota management in other commonwealth fisheries.

We do, however, recognise the concern outlined by industries such as the South Australian Sardine Industry Association that there can often be, and I quote from Paul Watson, the executive officer of South Australian sardines, 'a capacity for mistaken identity of species.' Mid-water trawl operations in the Small Pelagic Fishery include ongoing and effective observer coverage to monitor such interactions with seals and dolphins along with strategies that reduce capture and mortality rates.

Voluntary avoidance measures are in effect. The measures are simple: move-on rules that stop fishing and move the vessel to a different location if dolphins are sighted. In addition, SPF vessels are required to use a seal-exclusion device. Voluntary ongoing measures and monitoring assesses excluder devices and manages the ongoing risk of marine mammal interaction and capture. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority also has a dedicated team of enforcement officers and a range of enforcement powers. I note that the federal government has set this ship on its way. We do not oppose the motion.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:00): I certainly support this motion. If we allow this type of fishing to happen in our federal waters, it will make a complete mockery of both the state and federal marine parks. I have always said that it is not marine parks we should be looking at but that we should be looking at the major threats to our marine environment, and I believe that a ship such as this is an extreme threat to our whole marine environment. It will threaten the biomass and the entire food chain of our marine species, which then will make it much harder for both amateur and professional fishermen of all species to make a living. I am certainly against it.

A trawler such as this will turn our seabed basically into a desert. If somebody was doing something like that on the land, they would be thrown in gaol tomorrow, so I am certainly against trawlers such as this operating in any of our waters. You have only to look at what has happened overseas where these types of activities have happened: it has put their whole fishing industries at threat or they have collapsed. In many of these countries, you cannot get any decent type of fish to eat because of past practices with ships such as this. I commend the motion.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide) (12:02): I rise to speak in favour of the motion from the member for Mawson on the Abel Tasman trawler. There are two reasons that people have raised serious concerns about this trawler. The first is the real danger that the trawler will damage our sardine fishery. This fishery is highly important to our economy and particularly for some of the local economies of our regional fishing towns. Any risk to that fishery must be avoided.

The second reason is that the industrial scale of this vessel, whose dimensions have been described so well by the member for Mawson, is highly concerning for small and medium-sized fishing operations. The local fishing community in South Australia is made up of small and medium-sized operations of fishing companies, including many family operations. Quite rightly, these communities are concerned about the impact on their ability to compete when such a massive ship, and potentially the first of many should it be allowed to come here, comes into their area of operation.

What these reasons add up to is a legitimate disquiet about the impact of changing the way in which we fish in such a significant way, and we have a right to question this. We do not have to be acquiescent about massive changes, and we can choose what happens in our waters. I support the motion.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:03): I rise to make a contribution today on this motion from the member for Mawson. It is particularly important to my electorate, given that the fishing vessel Margiris is currently tied up at the wharf in Port Lincoln and has been for some weeks. My information is that, as of this morning, it is still there. Unfortunately, through events beyond the control of the boat and the company itself, it has nowhere to go at this point in time.

I have said on occasion in this place that Eyre Peninsula and the West Coast of South Australia supply about 70 per cent of this state's seafood. The fishing industry is well established, has been long established, and it is a very important part of our regional economy in that part of the world. There has been discussion about the vessel Margiris since its arrival some weeks ago. I have to say that it was not altogether an unexpected arrival, given that the application for quota has been in the process for some two years. It was a federal allocation of some 17,800 tonnes out of the Small Pelagic Fishery. That quota was awarded to what is now known as the Abel Tasman, and they had every intention of fishing that quota.

The first the vast majority of the population of South Australia knew about the arrival of this ship was when it steamed into the harbour at Port Lincoln (Boston Bay) to take on fuel and supplies and television crews from Adelaide arrived to film Greenpeace bobbing around in their rubber dingy. They were, of course, dwarfed by this fishing vessel, which I understand is the second largest of its type in the world, although I have to add that this fishing vessel was in turn dwarfed by the grain carriers which were also loading in Port Lincoln.

There has been a mixed response amongst the local population and amongst the local fisheries in Port Lincoln. It has already been mentioned today that the sardine industry have their concerns. I have had many conversations with their executive officer. I am going to read from a media release they put out a couple of weeks ago. I quote:

The sardine industry is fully supportive of continued development of Commercial Fisheries in Australia. [We have] no issues with the science behind the allocation setting process for the FV MARGIRIS...

Mr Paul Watson, their executive officer, states:

All fisheries must be based on sound science including the Sardine Fishery and to be honest, management decisions should never be persuaded by public perception.

An interesting quote, I think. He goes on to say:

Unfortunately though, what we have here is a situation where an operation such as the FV MARGIRIS will be targeting a species of similar behaviour and size such as red bait, and it is Industry’s view that it will be difficult to differentiate between the two.

Therein lies the problem. The problem is around bycatch, and we recognise that. In fact, bycatch is an issue in any fishery. The tuna industry, on the other hand, has been less critical and even supportive of the operation of this vessel, given that they too were once a fledging industry and understand that the development of a new sector needs to evolve based on sound science and the latest technology.

Much good science has gone into this. It has been mentioned that SARDI, the CSIRO and the Institute for Marine and Antarctic studies have all had input into the allocation of this quota, which was a viable quota up until yesterday when the federal government decided not to allow this vessel to fish. The essence of well-managed fisheries is good science. We say often and we say proudly in this place that South Australia has well-managed fisheries. We are recognised around the world for that, and we can be genuinely proud of that as a state. I do believe that we have done our very best, particularly in the last 30 years, to manage our fisheries to a sustainable level.

So, we are not opposing this motion, member for Mawson, even though as a local member representing a strong fishing community I have some reservations about some of the framework of the motion; we are not opposing it. I am very conscious that we need in this state to foster a productive landscape, but I also concede that that landscape has to be managed effectively, efficiently and sustainably. So, with those few words I will thank the house for its indulgence.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:08): I called in and saw the ship last week at the wharf in Port Lincoln, and it certainly is huge and the equipment is quite fantastic. It is loaded with the very latest in fish handling and detecting machinery, and everything else. It is a large vessel, of course, costing a lot of money. I certainly appreciate why this bill has been brought to the house by the member for Mawson, but I am concerned that this issue has been hijacked, so to speak, by the environmental people of the world, and it has become extremely emotive. I am sure that whatever we did, whatever we say, would not matter because public opinion out there says that this boat should not be allowed to fish. Like true politicians, we all fall over like little leaves and say, yes, we will go along with public opinion. I am not about to be one to go against that, but I do express my concern that really this boat was given every licence to come here with the expectation to fish.

I wonder who will now pay the compensation, because there is no doubt that it will be due and payable. The cost of bringing the ship here from where it came from—I think it was Ireland or Wales or somewhere—would be huge, and then they were not able to fish. I think there will be a compensation bill, but I hope that is for the federal government and nothing to do with the South Australian government. I can certainly appreciate the public opinion out there. We hear the argument about the size of the net, which is four times the size of an ordinary net—

Mr Griffiths: It's 200 metres.

Mr VENNING: It is 200 metres across, and an ordinary net is 50, so it is four times the size.

Mr Griffiths: And it's 600 metres long.

Mr VENNING: It is 600 metres long, so I can see the problem with a net that size. It could certainly cause a lot of damage, whereas with a small net I believe the bycatch could probably swim around and out of that. I would have some concern about anything trying to swim around a big net that size. So we do bow to public opinion here. I am not one who normally does that, but it would be foolish to do anything else at this moment. However, it is sad to see that the issue has been hijacked. I do not oppose the motion, and I commend the member for Mawson, who brought it here.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:11): I welcome the debate on this issue, and commend the member for Mawson for bringing it to the house. These are the sorts of issues that we should debate in this place; it is not the only issue of course, but it is an important one.

I think there are several points here. I think we have to be very careful that we do not, in effect, end up raping the whole of the fish stocks around Australia. It has happened in other parts of the world, and we should learn from what has happened elsewhere. Earlier this year—and this was on a privately funded deviation into Cornwall—at the fishing village East Looe I had a look at some of the statistics there, and for many years they were taking out something like 120 million fish per annum. No wonder there are not many fish left in those waters.

There are a couple of aspects to this issue, and one is the size of the vessel. Clearly, people could get around that issue by having three smaller vessels, or a number of smaller vessels, which would end up catching the same amount. What you need is proper management and proper science on which the catch is based or authorised. I am not sure that in this instance the process was as thorough as it should have been; I do not know, I am not in a position to know, but I think it is important that the process of determining the catch be scientifically based and thoroughly done. I am sure that is what will happen from now on.

I think it is unfortunate for a company to invest a lot of money to bring a vessel here and then find that, in effect, the rules have changed. If you want people to invest or be involved in your economy you have to have consistent policies and practices that give certainty to people investing. That is one of the reasons no-one invests in baseload power stations, because they are not sure what the future holds. So while I am not shedding tears, I do have some sympathy for the owners of this vessel for bringing it here and then finding that they cannot use it.

I do not believe it was the appropriate size of vessel to be used here, or elsewhere. I heard someone say that the fish of the catch could be feeding the people of Africa; I think that is a bit of a long bow. I believe most of the small fish they are targeting would have been used in the tuna and other industries. That highlights another point. We do not use the potential of our sardine fishery as we could and should. Sardines are very good for you—they are hard to fit in those tins, but they are a good fish, good for the ticker—and we have a very significant supply of sardines here. In Fremantle, Western Australia, they were canning some of theirs, and we could do a lot more in terms of making a value-added industry here, and I would like to see that happen.

In summary, I think this was a process that was not well handled at the federal level. The government has now bowed to public opinion because people were outraged that a vessel of this size could be deployed here but, as I said earlier, what you will find now is that they will use probably three or four smaller vessels which will have an aggregate catch which is probably somewhat similar.

What we need is science. To the credit of the prawn fishing industry in both gulfs here, they now have a sustainable industry that will keep them, their children, grandchildren and others in employment well into the future, as well as supplying prawns on a sensible, scientific basis. The same thing has happened in Western Australia with their lobster industry. As a result of proper controls, the rock lobster fishers in that state say that they are better off than they have ever been. They basically have a guaranteed supply because the industry is properly regulated, properly managed and, by having protected zones, they are now getting bigger rock lobster and more money for it.

I think the member for Mawson has undertaken a community service here by bringing this issue for debate. It is a pity that we did not know this development was going to happen before the vessel set sail for Australia. It would have been probably better for us to have the debate much earlier rather than now. We know that the federal government has put the stopper on it, but they need to go back to base one and look at the science involved in this whole industry.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (12:16): I, too, support this motion. I want to express my concerns. I think the motion does that quite ably but I am particularly interested in the third point in paragraph (a):

the potential risks that this immense trawler would have on threatened, protected and endangered marine species and potential impacts on fish species that are commercially important to our state;

I feel very strongly about that particular point, and I commend the member for Mawson for bringing this to the house, and I am pleased that it appears that the whole of this house supports the motion.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (12:17): I want to thank everyone who spoke today and the cross-chamber support that the motion has received. I think this is when parliament is at its best, when people can bring in here concerns from our local communities and the wider community. I agree with the member for Fisher that perhaps it would have been better had we known about this vessel before it set sail, and a lot of angst could have been avoided for the owners of this ship and the people who have contracted it to come here. Sometimes communities do not know what is happening until things are further progressed than other people would have liked.

What we cannot do is not respond to that community sentiment and those community concerns simply because people could point and say, 'This has been in the planning process for two years.' In general, the South Australian public became aware of this over the last six to eight weeks, and I think it is our duty as local members to represent the people in our local constituencies and bring their concerns in here. As I mentioned at the outset, I will be passing this motion and all the comments made in here on to our federal counterparts, the federal Minister for Fisheries, as well as the federal Minister for Environment.

I would like to pick up on a couple of points from the member for Hammond. He did not say, 'We support the bill,' he said, 'We don't oppose this bill.' I notice that he also did not oppose super trawlers. He said that it was a knee-jerk reaction from the Greens. I have to say that there are a lot of people out there who are not Greens' supporters who are concerned about this ship. I point to people in the fishing industry as well as from the conservation area, who have very real concerns about this.

People say that the science has been done on this, but the science was done on the cane toad, too, when we decided as a country to bring that in to look after the cane beetle. So, science does not always get it right and, if the public has concerns about it, it is our duty to bring it in here, have the discussion and then pass those concerns on to the people who can make the decisions, and in this case it is the federal Minister for Environment along with his colleague the federal Minister for Fisheries.

It was also mentioned that 50 jobs are involved. Yes, people had been hired to go and operate this trawler and go out and fish on the super trawler, but think of the millions of fish that could have been caught by this, and think of the hundreds and thousands of jobs that could have been lost in the fishing industry into the future had the federal government not intervened and if this super trawler was allowed to go out and decimate our fishing stocks.

We need to look at the future. We do have a proud history of sustainable management of our fisheries and we need to be ever vigilant and keep an eye on that into the future, because damage done to that not only means the loss of our fishing grounds, it can also mean the loss of our international reputation as a haven for clean, green food. With that, I put the motion to the house.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT