Mr TUCKEY (1:48 PM) —To manage my own affairs in a busy schedule, I rang the office of the member for Corio—who, as I noted on the speakers list, was to commence this debate—to ask how long he intended to spend. I was advised that he would take his first 30 minutes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member for O’Connor should come to the bill.

Mr TUCKEY —But, as a consequence, I am more than willing to help him out with a clear and concise reference to this legislation. In so doing, I refer of course to the explanatory memorandum. The Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fishing Offences) Bill 2006 would amend the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984 to provide for custodial penalties for foreign fishing offences in those parts of Australia’s territorial sea that are within the Australian fishing zone, within the meaning of the FMA, or within any area of Australian jurisdiction, within the meaning of the TSFA. Those, of course, are the abbreviations for those acts I have already mentioned.

In general, the waters that would therefore become subject to the proposed custodial penalties are the waters from three to 12 nautical miles offshore from the Australian mainland or from most islands, including those in the Torres Strait. For the external territories, all waters out to 12 nautical miles will be subject to the proposed custodial penalties. The waters within three nautical miles of the coast or which are internal waters, such as bays, rivers and sounds, are subject to the fisheries jurisdiction of a state or the Northern Territory, which have the power to impose custodial penalties for foreign fishing offences in these waters and in most instances have done so.

Illegal foreign fishing vessel incursions threaten Australia’s sovereign interests, posing threats such as serious quarantine risks, illegal immigration, importation of prohibited goods, depletion of fish stocks, degradation of marine protected areas and targeting of endangered species. (Quorum formed)

Let me continue with the information that the shadow minister would normally provide to the House. The added deterrents of custodial penalties for foreign fishing offences would help to reduce these threats. The bill, if enacted, would further strengthen the measures against illegal foreign fishing announced by the government in the 2006 budget. Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone, the EEZ, which extends generally from 12 to 200 nautical miles offshore, has been excluded from the ambit of the new penalties in order to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which Australia is a party. Article 73 of the convention requires that coastal state penalties for violations of fishery laws and regulations in the EEZ may not include imprisonment in the absence of agreements to the contrary by the states concerned; however, this prohibition does not apply in the territorial sea.

Mr Gavan O’Connor —You’re just reading from the explanatory memorandum. You’re a former fisheries minister. Can’t you—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—Order! The member for Corio!

Mr TUCKEY —This is direct from the explanatory memorandum:

Having read that out on behalf of the shadow minister, I might now revert to the comments I wanted to make about those matters, in which he may even find some grounds for agreement. I have to point out that over many years in the state of Western Australia the financial penalties that the United Nations convention required for these foreign fishing incursions always carried a rider, as they do with other offences in Western Australia—if the fine was not paid, each $50, for example, represented a day in custody. So many people have been given custodial sentences not because of the crime, which is subject to a final penalty, but because of their failure to pay that penalty.

Whilst I support the government—and, hopefully, the more senior officials and people involved—in respect of this outrageous situation, both environmentally and commercially, of the incursion of foreign fishing entities into our traditional waters, I must point out that for the lesser individual, the crewman, this process of incarceration has not worked. I do not want to say this in a critical sense, but the reality is that while you are in an Australian jail you get pocket money and, unfortunately, the pocket money frequently exceeds the wages that some of them would have been paid in their home state. Whilst I guess they do not enjoy the period of incarceration, they are flown home in a charter jet and with quite a bit of money.

I was further confronted with this situation in Darwin where, after arresting the boats, the practice was to tow them into the harbour and to then leave the crew on board. The crew would be onboard in conditions which would be identical to those were they to return to their home port, because many, if not all, did not have accommodation on land in their home port; they continued to live on the vessel. Of course, they were provided with stores—and might have been given significantly more—but there was pressure from certain parties to bring these people ashore and to accommodate them in a much more salubrious way. So I am pleased to say to the House that I think these penalties will be a great deterrent to the senior crew of boats that are there to collect the catches of the smaller vessels and freeze them and treat them. Whilst I think that will be an excellent deterrent, I am encouraged, after questioning the minister. that our more practical responses will be the front line of protection.

My recollection of the former Labor government’s administration in respect of the prevention of these fishing practices was to use Customs assets—vessels worth $10 million, $20 million or $30 million at the point of launching—to arrest and tow cockleboats into Broome or Darwin, which were the most logical places to bring them. I always had grave concerns about bringing those vessels so close to the coastline, but that was the practice of that government, as it was the previous government.

The new policy and a lot of the new funding—and this is only a component of it—will make sure we have the capacity to make arrests and that facilities for the eventual destruction of these vessels are as far away as possible from our mainland. Other vessels, of much lesser value than those that should be making the arrests, should be available for towing and for the application of other parts of the law of the sea, with which this nation must comply. All in all, it is with some pleasure that I support this legislation. I reserve my right to continue my remarks after question time and the MPI, to which I hope the people who are to speak will turn up on time.

The SPEAKER —Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.