Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Veterans' Affairs) (6:46 PM) —I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 enacts two significant government policy decisions. The bill completes the abolition of the compulsory export promotion levies on the Australian prawn industry. Until this year, the industry paid two compulsory export promotion levies: the prawn boat levy and the prawn export charge. The levies funded prawn promotion activities through the Australian Prawn Promotion Association—the APPA—and cost prawn operators an average of $800 per year.

The previous government imposed the levies in 1995, through the Prawn Boat Levy Act 1995, the Prawn Export Charge Act 1995 and the Prawn Export Promotion Act 1995. In December 1996, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer, was contacted by a group of prawn operators who said that they strongly opposed paying the compulsory levies and charges. Senator Parer considered their arguments against the background of the government's view that compulsory primary industry levies should only be imposed on an industry if the levies have substantial industry support, and there is significant market failure.

Senator Parer decided to hold a plebiscite of the industry, which was conducted by an independent consultant, Coopers and Lybrand. The packages included a `yes' case and a `no' case, prepared by the supporters and opponents, respectively, of compulsory levies. The count of the ballot papers was observed by industry scrutineers.

The plebiscite showed that 85 per cent of the operators that voted opposed the levy and the charge. The response rate, 67 per cent, was extremely high. The plebiscite was not, of course, binding, and Senator Parer carefully considered its results, as well as the outcome of discussions with the APPA and representations from prawn operators and exporters. Senator Parer subsequently announced that the prawn boat levy and the prawn export charge would be abolished from 1 January 1998.

The government partially implemented the decision by making regulations that set the prawn export charge to zero from 1 January 1998. It was not possible to abolish the prawn boat levy by regulation due to technical legal difficulties associated with the definition of a `levy period' in the Prawn Boat Levy Act. Accordingly, the bill defines the final levy period under the act as the period from 1 July 1997 to 31 December 1997.

The bill repeals the Prawn Export Charge Act, the Prawn Boat Levy Act and the Prawn Export Promotion Act. However, the repeal will not take effect until 2001, to ensure that outstanding levies and charges can be recovered. The bill also provides that the three acts, regulations made under the acts and any agreements made under the acts will continue to apply after their repeal in respect of any levies imposed before the repeal.

I stress that the bill does not abolish the Australian Prawn Promotion Association, which will continue operating with the voluntary support of the prawn industry. The APPA will continue to have access to the $115,000 in accumulated levies held by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.

The government enthusiastically supports industries promoting their products overseas. However, it is not willing to use the coercive powers of the state to force prawn operators to pay compulsory promotional levies against their wishes.

The second part of the bill amends the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to prohibit commercial fishing operators from taking black marlin and blue marlin in the Australian fishing zone. The bill includes three specific exemptions from the ban: holders of scientific permits; charter fishing operators; and recreational fishers.

The bill imposes a penalty of 125 penalty units—that is, $13,750—for a breach of the prohibition and also provides a defence to a prosecution if, upon becoming aware of the taking of the fish, the person immediately takes steps to return the fish to its natural environment. Black and blue marlin are prized by game fishers, but are also caught by commercial fishing operators.

In the 1996 election campaign, the government promised that we would impose a mandatory ban on the taking of black and blue marlin by commercial operators if the existing voluntary ban proved to be ineffective. A small number of commercial operators have ignored the voluntary ban; accordingly, we have decided to impose the ban by law.

The government's decision is in line with the recommendations of the recent House of Representatives inquiry into fisheries management, and is supported by the commercial fishing industry, charter fishing operators and recreational fishers. It has been argued that the prohibition should be extended to cover striped marlin, or maybe broadbill swordfish. The government believes that the bill represents an honourable and reasonable compromise between the interests of commercial fishers on the one hand and recreational and charter fishers on the other. We would strongly oppose any attempt to extend the ban to cover additional species, and would, if necessary, withdraw schedule 1 of the bill rather than allow it to impose unnecessary restrictions on the fishing industry. I commend the bill to honourable members and present the explanatory memorandum.