Mr O'KEEFE (6:53 PM) —I indicate to the House that the opposition is supportive of the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . We do not propose any amendments to it nor any arguments really against the action being taken by the government. I do express, though, some disappointment at the decision taken by the industry and, quite frankly, I do not blame the minister for the decision he has taken. It is true that the levy was imposed on the industry by the former Labor government. It was imposed with the very clear wish of assisting this industry to get into serious export development and export marketing. The industry has benefited substantially from having a compulsory levy that has helped its operators become focused on those export markets and it has done that with considerable success.

However, apparently on coming to office the government received a lot of submissions from operators in the industry who felt that they were not getting the benefit of the levy nor seeing for themselves the benefit of these activities in export marketing. I cannot at all quibble with the fact that there was a plebiscite of the industry and that a substantial majority voted in favour of scrapping the levies. I also note that they were given both a yes and a no case, so it is not for me to say that they were unwise in taking that decision.

I do make the point, having had business experience before coming into parliament, that in very difficult times when you face a downturn in business—and clearly there is a substantial downturn in demand from Asia across the whole agriculture and resources section—the last thing you do is cut back your marketing effort. This is, in effect, what this decision represents in this industry.

Operators in the industry should understand that this is not a compulsory levy. They do not have to be paying to be in the export marketing game but, for heaven's sake, as business proprietors owning assets in an industry that I predict will be fighting for its share of a very tight market for the next decade, I would be saying to those participants that they will need a strong export presence as they go on.

Likewise, we have no difficulty at all with the step taken by the government to now actually mandate the ban on the taking of the marlin. That was a commitment made to the fishing industry prior to the election by the now Prime Minister (Mr Howard). It has taken 2½ years to get around to implementing it. We indicated from the outset that, if the voluntary bans were not effective, stronger protection of these fish needed to be put in place. So, again, we do move with this legislation cooperatively.

The minister in his contribution touched upon one area, though, that suggests a huge difference between us. He mentioned that the operators in the prawn industry would be contributing to and have access to the work done by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. What he did not mention though was that the government has actually passed through here and the other place legislation giving effect to a budget cut of $3.6 million in the funding available for fisheries research and development. Universally across the industry, that is regarded as not just a difficult decision; it is regarded as an appalling decision.

The fishing industry around Australia, both commercial and recreational, is well aware that we do have serious problems in working through sustainability for the industry. Almost all species are under pressure. The House of Representatives standing committee report focused on this, too, quite correctly, and drew attention to the significant problem of the by-catch. Every one of those problems was raised and dot pointed by the House of Representatives standing committee which said that the answer lay in additional research and development so that we could better develop our management strategies and better position our sustainability arguments.

What is the response of the government? It is to cut the funding for the R&D corporation by $3.6 million and to give as an excuse in the parliament that this was hollow log money—that the FRDC in fact had money that was not really being used. The minister has been given all the information dollar by dollar, case by case, with all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed. He has been given specific evidence that every dollar of this FRDC money was actually forward committed to R&D projects and was participating in some $30 million odd worth of forward research and development in this industry. Now, the FRDC simply cannot meet those obligations.

When the Senate committee further looked at this matter, while the legislation was under consideration in that place, two of the Labor senators, Senator Forshaw and Senator O'Brien, issued a dissenting report to the Senate committee's findings, drawing attention to the fact that the government was endorsing the report of the House of Representatives committee which recommended increased research and highlighted a number of serious management problems in the Australian fisheries, all of which could be answered only by strongly focused and specific research. On the other hand, the FRDC was having $3.6 million—a substantial component of its research budget—taken away. Nothing has changed. We still have a serious problem in the fisheries industry. Yes, the prawn area has been given relief from the compulsory export marketing levy but no answers at all have been given in terms of R&D to support this essential research.

As an aside, I saw a press article last week by the industry calling for more action on the part of the navy down in southern waters where we have apprehended poachers around Macquarie and Heard islands. We have all commended the navy in doing that work, but we are now finding that there are more ships down there and there is more work to be done. Everyone is telling us that we have to put in the research.

I received reports this week that off the waters of Western Australia there is now virtually a continuous taxi fleet of boats from the north, taking the chance, poaching in Australian waters and putting at risk the sustainability of the fish stocks in the area. That report not only was calling for intervention on the part of the minister to do more to stop these poaching boats but also was calling for some further research to demonstrate how much of a sustainability problem we have there.

Right around the coast of Australia, the 3½ million people who are engaged in recreational fishing are all telling us that their favourite fishing spots now do not have any fish in them and asking what we are going to do about it. The commercial fishing industry people, everywhere you go, are saying, `We have serious sustainability problems, and all these quotas and restrictions are working, or are not working, and we do not have enough research to tell us.' And here is the government, with its own House of Representatives standing committee report reinforcing that anecdotal advice to the hilt, pulling $3.6 million out of the R&D budget.

I make those comments as an aside. As I indicated, we are supportive of the legislation relating to the export levy and the ban on the marlin taking, but the minister's reference to the opportunity to work with the FRDC has to be tempered with a very clear dose of reality: the government has taken this appalling decision to cut the funding of the FRDC and place further at risk the issue of sustainable management of fishing resources in Australian waters.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bob Baldwin) adjourned.