Mr PERRETT (Gympie—LNP) (6.22 pm):
I rise to speak to the Fisheries (Sustainable Fisheries Strategy) Amendment Bill 2018. This bill seeks to modernise Queensland’s Fisheries Act 1994 by implementing the Sustainable Fisheries Strategy, which was released in June last year. An examination of this legislation has resulted in five recommendations from the committee and a statement of reservation from the non-government members of the committee. These members raised concerns in relation to the committee’s final report, specifically regarding the vessel monitoring system, powers of entry and the absence of a regulatory impact statement. I will address those issues in my contribution to this debate.
In part, this bill goes some way to bringing in the reforms that the industry needs. However, as is
usual with this Labor government, it has overreached in some matters and simply does not do enough
in others. That is why I will move a number of commonsense and practical amendments that will deliver
the intent of this bill. I will outline in more detail these amendments during the consideration in detail
stage and I hope they will receive bipartisan support. I table the amendments and explanatory notes
circulated in my name.
Tabled paper: Fisheries (Sustainable Fisheries Strategy) Amendment Bill 2018, amendments to be moved by Mr Tony Perrett MP [268].
Tabled paper: Fisheries (Sustainable Fisheries Strategy) Amendment Bill 2018, explanatory notes to Mr Tony Perrett’s amendments [269].
It is no secret that, over the past 20 years, the Queensland commercial fishing industry has been
declining. Under the watch of successive Labor governments, which have been in government for the
past 17 years of those 20 years, it has been neglected and overlooked. In recognition of that neglect,
in 2014 the former LNP government commissioned the MRAG report, an independent review of our
fisheries. We were going to get the balance right in our fishing sector.
Years of political and ideologically driven policy by those Labor governments has seen
Queensland’s once proud commercial fishing industry become a mere shadow of what it once was. It
has struggled to survive through years of neglect by Labor governments, which have diminished the
industry. For years, the Labor Party has overseen an agenda that has not supported the hundreds of
family commercial fishery businesses that support our state with some of the finest catch in the world.
Instead of working with them and modernising our important commercial fishing industry, Labor
continues to tie up the industry in bureaucratic and administratively burdensome red and green tape.
We on this side represent those commercial fishers and the communities they support. We know how
important it is to support our fishers. We know that it is important for them and their families and their
industry to get the balance right between them, the environment and the recreational fishing industry. I
was pleased that some aspects of this bill are consistent with the recommendations made by the
independent review of our fisheries commissioned by the former LNP government in 2014.
The fishing industry regards this bill as just the latest in a series of government decisions forcing
it out of business. The fishing industry sees this bill as yet another attack by this government on the
little man—on small business. It sees this government as a government that panders to elites—
a government that panders to environmental activists, big business and big unions. The fishing industry
regards this bill as a government attempt to force our small commercial fishing operators out of
business.
This bill aims to modernise the objectives of the Fisheries Act 1994 to recognise the interests of
key stakeholder groups; to clarify the decision-making process and establish harvest strategies to guide
decisions; to strengthen the compliance powers and penalties to address serious fisheries offences
such as black marketing; and remove redundant provisions. The most controversial part of this bill is
where it looks to provide stronger compliance powers and penalties for serious offences such as
seafood black marketing. It is clearly an activity on which the industry is seeking action. In fact, more
than 90 per cent of respondents to the review supported the adoption of stronger compliance powers
and penalties to address serious fisheries offences. Although black market activity clearly undermines
law-abiding fishers and their businesses, there is no consensus position on any specific course of
action.
That lack of consensus is found in other aspects of this bill. The proposed vessel monitoring
system compliance requirements have created much angst and concern in the fishing industry. This bill
requires that vessel tracking equipment is required to be fitted to all licensed commercial and charter
boats by 2020. The rollout of the VMS trackers has been nothing short of a farce. There are numerous
very public examples of faulty VMS responders, shonky government authorised suppliers and general
mismanagement from the department that have marred the rollout of VMS. Safety concerns around the
logistical appropriateness of VMS trackers has completely undermined the rollout and needs to be
reviewed.
Fishermen are not permitted to go out and fish—earn a living—while their VMS is broken or not
in operation. That is crippling small business fisheries along the coast owing to the botched rollout and
faulty devices. It is simply not good enough that Labor is tying up our fishers with more red and green
tape while it cannot even properly roll out its own laws. It speaks volumes for the contempt the
government has for our seafood industry. We need a proper review into what has happened with the
VMS rollout to warrant so many commercial fishers being sent faulty responders and having such poor
service from a government authorised provider. It is time to conduct a full review into this botched rollout
and consider delaying the rollout of VMS until we get to the bottom of this mess.
The fishing industry remains concerned that there has been no provision for the adequate
protection of fishers’ intellectual property. This is the knowledge of fishers that has been gained over
years of working and knowing their environment. It is about fishers knowing the ideal spot, the right time
to fish, the right place to make a catch. At the heart of fishing is knowing when to go out and where to
go. Commercial fishers consider that their intellectual property is often worth more than the state issued
licence. This intellectual property is often built up over years of fisheries experience and has a high
commercial value. Therefore, like any business interest this should be valued and protected.
There is significant concern that the penalties associated with protecting this information are
inadequate. There is concern that those penalties for illegal distribution and misuse of this knowledge
are not reflective of the seriousness of the act and are inadequate. The penalties for misusing or sharing
this information unlawfully should attract the same significant penalties as commercial fishers would
receive for breaching VMS compliance. Compliance seems to be more important to this government
than the actual protection of the intellectual rights of hardworking fishers. It is typical of a government
that is addicted to bureaucratic red tape and regulations rather than the protection of the interests of
the fishers. For example, the maximum penalty for illegally disclosing vessel tracking data is 50 penalty
units or $6,527.50 in fines. Yet commercial fishers guilty of breaching VMS compliance face maximum
penalties of 1,000 penalty units or $130,550. They are completely out of proportion to each other.
Queensland’s commercial fishing industry is justifiably concerned that the data and information
collected through VMS could be illegally passed on to activists and environmental groups. We are
seeing it happen already to farmers who are being targeted by Aussie Farms’ website. It will not stop
there. They know that these zealots and activists possess the long-term goal of completely shutting
down elements of Queensland’s commercial fisheries industry. The committee attempted to address
these concerns in recommendation 3 which looks at increasing penalties for misusing VMS information.
However, while the LNP agrees with the intent of the recommendation, we are concerned that this intent
may be lost through any prospective government amendments. This is why there is a need to extend
the same maximum potential penalty that applies to commercial fishers to public servants who may use
the VMS information in an unauthorised way. This is about recognising the seriousness of undermining
the intellectual rights and property of fishers.
Recommendation 5 from the committee seeks to provide a review of the VMS program after 18
months. It is important that any review is not just lip-service. That is why we need to outline specifically
the elements that this review should include. It is important to ensure that a review provide the
necessary findings for a proper assessment of the program.
The LNP believes that these minimum requirements would be the estimated costs of industry to
implement the vessel monitoring system; the estimated cost of government from the implementation of
the vessel monitoring system; the number of penalties issued under section 80(3) and the number of
penalty units levied; whether any confidential information from the vessel monitoring system has been
disclosed or used without authorisation and the penalty units levied for these breaches; and how the
data from the vessel monitoring system has been used to improve fisheries management.
As I mentioned earlier, successfully combating black market activity in seafood is important to
ensure the long-term viability of this industry. Everyone in the industry knows this. In an effort to combat
black market activities, the bill will introduce a new offence of engaging in trafficking activity for priority
fish. The maximum penalty for the offence will vary depending on whether the trafficking relates to a
commercial quantity. If the trafficking relates to a commercial quantity, the maximum penalty will be
3,000 penalty units or $391,650 or three years imprisonment. Otherwise it will be 1,000 penalty units or
$130,550.
Stakeholders raised concern that five times the recreational limit or weight equivalent was not
adequate especially given the varying values associated with certain types of priority fish. The concern
here is what constitutes a commercial quantity. While recommendation 2 from the committee called for
a review of the definition of a commercial quantity regarding priority fish, it does not go far enough. It
asks for a threshold that is significantly lower than the five times the recreational limit or weight
equivalent. The issue needs absolute certainty and clarity to address industry concerns. That is why
the LNP will move amendments to ensure that the quantity that constitutes a commercial quantity should
be reduced from five to two times the recreational limit or weight equivalent.
At the core of the LNP’s beliefs and values is an abiding belief in individual freedoms and property
rights. Labor’s core beliefs are big government and big bureaucracy which override the activities of the
individual and commercial enterprises. It is why it does not understand small business, contractors,
small proprietors and everyday mums and dads who want government out of their lives so they can get
on with working hard and providing for their families and their future. It is disturbing that this Labor
government continually passes laws that contravene the principles of individual freedoms and property
rights by enabling unreasonable powers of entry and investigation. None of this is new. We have seen
this before. Last year’s draconian and regressive vegetation management laws eroded the rights of
property owners and individuals against the misappropriation of bureaucratic power with a warrant. In
fact, this fisheries bill will be the ninth bill before the House in the past two years that impedes on
Queenslanders’ rights.
The Queensland Law Society raised significant concerns regarding the powers it grants
inspectors to enter a place, including a boat or vehicle, without a warrant or consent or a reasonable
notice period. It said—
In our opinion, the drafting could be corrected to protect an individual’s rights by ensuring that entry powers are subject to consent, a warrant, a reasonable notice period or, at the very least, a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been or is being committed and that entry without a warrant, consent or notice is necessary to prevent evidence from being destroyed. We urge the committee to recommend these changes to the drafters of this bill. We also call on all parliamentary committees to robustly review these types of provisions where they appear in bills and to provide strong recommendations to the relevant department that such provisions should not infringe upon fundamental legal rights.
That is why we support the Law Society’s view to remove the power of inspectors to enter
premises without a warrant. We need to restrict the new entry powers for fisheries inspectors to enter
premises used for trade or commerce or vehicles to having the consent of the owner, a five-day notice
period or having a warrant. There should be no entry rights to premises used for trade or commerce or
vehicles without the owner’s consent, a reasonable notice period or a warrant. I cannot stress too much
our opposition to laws that trample individual rights, that sanction unjustifiable intrusion or laws that give
inspectors unreasonable and excessive powers. We saw that with the vegetation management laws
and we see this happen again under the watch of the same minister. These powers breach fundamental
legislative principles. We will always fight against the destructive and insidious legislative and
bureaucratic creep in this state which is giving more power and less oversight to bureaucrats than our
police officers. The only people to benefit from this are governments that cut corners, governments that
do not respect the rights of citizens to fair administrative and due diligence processes.
The lack of a regulatory impact statement from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries into
the impact of the bill fails any test of good governance. It shows that the government is interested in
nothing more than paying lip-service to the impact on everyday, hardworking families, workers and
businesses that operate in seafood industries. In yet another piece of legislation under the current
minister’s watch, the government has failed to consider the overall economic and social impact of its
laws on industries and communities. This is about proper due diligence which is yet again being
bypassed, just as it was with the vegetation management laws. This should be a major red flag for
anyone interested in responsible and good governance.
Why does this government not want to get a full appreciation of the economic impact of this bill?
What is it hiding? The absence of a statement shows that this legislation is driven by crass politics and
ideological blinkers rather than quality data and evidence. The trend by this lazy, incompetent Labor
government of only half baking its legislative agenda has to stop. Our fisheries deserve better. The
workers and families in the industry deserve better. Regional Queenslanders deserve better.
The bill proposes a new offence for being in an exclusion zone for shark control without
permission. The department has advised that there has been interference with some of the apparatus.
As this is a bill about the fishing industry, it raises an unfair implication on fishers. The debate at the
end of last year after a number of shark attacks showed the ridiculous opposition of environmental
activists to control measures. They want them removed. The report notes—
The Labour Environment Action Network Queensland…argued that the exclusion zone ‘further decreases public transparency of the Shark Control Program (SCP) especially for independent community based observers who are currently the only ones providing independent oversight.’
Similar views were expressed in the joint submission from the World Wildlife Fund, the Humane
Society International, the Australian Marine Conservation Society and the submission of Sea Shepherd
Australia. Those conservationists and green activists have a dangerous and unsafe agenda. The
government is negligent in its responsibility when it panders to them.
What we are proposing provides an opportunity to address the bill’s inadequacies. The
amendments strengthen the protections for commercial fishermen against the misuse of VMS
technology. They address the committee’s findings regarding VMS penalties and review, as well as
redefining commercial quantities. They restore balance to the powers of entry and investigation. They
halt this unhealthy and legally dubious addiction to eroding individual rights. These proposals deserve
bipartisan support because they are sensible, practical and constructive. They support our commercial
fishing industry. I urge the government to support our amendments.