Ms GAMBARO (12:33 PM) —I too rise today to speak to the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 . It is of particular interest to me and many of my constituents. It is a bill that goes to the very heart of one of the biggest industries in my electorate of Petrie, which is the fishing industry, and, more importantly, the prawn processing industry. The Redcliffe Peninsula relies heavily on Moreton Bay for tourism, industry and recreational pursuits. Fishing is considered one of the largest leisure pastimes in this area. Within the Redcliffe region are very famous restaurants, such as Morgans Seafood Restaurant, conference centres, retail fish markets and major prawn processing establishments.

The commercial harvest is valued at $1.7 billion a year according to the economic and social benefits of recreational and traditional fishing. More than $1.3 billion of the seafood industry by-catch is exported. The challenge for the industry is to provide a product that is dependable and meets the needs of clients in an environment that is becoming more and more competitive. There are 800,000 Queensland recreational anglers who are part of 3.5 million anglers Australia-wide.

Without a doubt, the seafood industry is a major contributor to the economy and to jobs around the whole of Australia but particularly in my area. It is with some personal interest that I speak on this bill. My family has been involved in the seafood industry over a period of 45 years. We started in a small way in retailing, and we now wholesale and export. I thank the member for Leichhardt (Mr Entsch) for his very kind comments about the seafood industry and my family's involvement. I notice that he also has a deep involvement in creatures of the sea, being crocodiles. He is legendary for his work in that industry as well.

There has been a great deal of media attention recently on fish and chips. I bring to the House's attention the fact that fish and chips is an honourable profession. I agree with the member for Leichhardt that it is a profession that is passed down from generation to generation. With that, there is no doubt that there are people who have worked in the industry for four or five generations and will continue to do so. Many of those people are in my electorate of Petrie. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer) really deserves to be congratulated for his handling of this issue, which will give every prawn processor a democratic say on what needs to be done in the industry.

This bill was drafted after many months of consultation. For the record, until recently the prawn industry paid two compulsory export promotion levies: the prawn boat levy and the prawn export charge. The levies fund the activities of the Australian Prawn Promotion Association, or APPA, and raised about $400,000 in 1996-97. The purpose of those levies was to basically promote prawns within our export markets. The industry was never consulted about these levies. They were imposed on the seafood industry under the Labor government in 1995. Many in the industry complained to me and the minister that there was a lack of consultation before those levies were imposed, and they complained about the ensuing demand that the levies placed on their business.

There are 3,000 people who work in the seafood industry in Queensland. On behalf of the local prawn processors in my region, and Queensland, I made representations to the minister in early 1997 regarding concerns about the compulsory nature of these levies. Some of the prawn processors that I met with told me that they were paying in excess of $70,000 a year to the Prawn Promotion Agency, which is a huge impost on any business.

I was able to host a forum where local processors had the opportunity to voice their concerns in an open manner to the minister. I was very pleased with the openness of that forum and the minister's ability to listen to the group and to take back their concerns. He is to be congratulated on his consultative nature.

They strongly oppose paying these levies. The government's view in the past was that any levies imposed on any industry should occur when there was industry support, or if there had been market failure. Clearly, neither of those things existed in this particular case. Prawns, as the member for Leichhardt said, are not a difficult product to promote. I can guarantee that if I put a plate of prawns in front of the House here today none of you would need any urging or promoting to partake of them. Similarly, our export markets have always been very strong and have remained very high in the current climate.

The minister decided to hold a plebiscite, designed to give all prawn processors an opportunity to see whether the levies were supported by the whole industry, and the ballot would then determine the future of the compulsory levy for overseas promotion. There was a `Yes' case prepared and a `No' case prepared. Considerable work and detail was put into those opposing cases, and each side was given a fair opportunity to put forward their respective cases. It was done in a fair, democratic and open manner. A Queensland accounting firm was asked to oversee the project, which took place in the form of a postal vote. The result of the plebiscite was that 85 per cent of the prawn processors opposed the levy. There was a response rate of 67 per cent. Indeed, it was a very strong and formidable result, particularly with that sort of a response rate.

The previous government enforced these levies on the prawn processing industry. I am pleased to be part of a government which consulted with the industry to determine the need for such a levy. We have now rectified the situation. This consultation should have occurred when the idea of a levy was first mentioned.

I have been criticised by the management of APPA about this decision. I have been accused of all sorts of things, including the fact that I have self-interest in this because of my family's involvement in the seafood industry. For the House's record, I would like to state publicly that my family is not involved in the export of prawns at the moment. My self-interest relates solely to my Queensland processors. And that reminds me of another thing that I have been accused of. I have been accused of acting only for Queensland processors. If I act on behalf of the Queensland prawn processors, that is a good thing. That is what I am in this House for, and I will continue to lobby on their behalf.

The bill, in effect, allows for the decision of the industry as a whole to be given legislative effect. It repeals the Prawn Export Charge Act, the Prawn Boat Levy Act and the Prawn Export Promotion Act. However, it must be stressed that this bill does not abolish the Australian Prawn Promotion Agency. It still operates with voluntary support.

As I have mentioned, prawns do not need promoting. It has been a very welcome relief for many of the prawn processors that the action taken has been taken. The fact is that every kilogram of sea caught prawns is sold. So why do we need to have an agency that promotes prawns? In fact, major exporters themselves have been marketing and promoting prawns as part of their normal routine. Other industries, such as beef and wool, support independent organisations who then provide promotion, particularly where there is a strong competitive market in the South-East Asian region. However, the export demand for sea caught prawns continues to be strong, particularly in markets like Japan, Singapore and other Asian nations.

One particular processing company which contacted me said that their annual export of sea caught prawns, of which the majority is re-processed through their factory, is in excess of 1,000 tonnes. They said, `We don't have a marketing problem. Whatever is caught in a calendar year is sold within that year, and it is very rare to see any of it carried over into the new year.'

Prawns are exported to many countries from Australia. We have banana and tiger prawns going to Japan and China. King prawns are exported to markets such as Europe, South Africa and Taiwan. Endeavour prawns go to New Zealand and Hong Kong. Harvested or aquaculture prawns are very popular in Thailand and India.

According to industry sources, and to people like Global Seafood's General Manager Jacki Lien, our greatest threats in the industry are export levies, exchange rates and the growth of aquaculture prawns, which is certainly a threat. Also, we face threats from prawns imported from Asia, particularly with the practices that occurred under the previous Labor government when they were allowed to import prawns into this country in 1.7- and 1.8-kilogram lots, whereas our own exporters have to export in two-kilogram lots. I know we will look at these particular practices as well in the future.

Nobody disputes that it is a tough market at the moment, particularly in Asia and Japan, but the market is holding up. It is also a very speculative market, particularly with the current exchange rates. But we are better off at the moment because of our dollar. Were our dollar at the rate it was a year ago, the industry's situation would probably be a lot worse, so the falling dollar has helped prawn exporters.

Catches in the industry have been erratic. In particular, banana prawns from the Gulf have been very erratic. The season, which started on 1 April this year, has been a very disappointing one. Southern Ocean prawns have been abundant, and they have been exported to Europe. The catch of those particular prawns in South Australia occurs every year from March to June, and it starts again in November.

The member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) last night was very supportive of this bill and mentioned that neither he nor the Labor opposition would oppose any aspects of the bill or implement any amendments. For that, he needs to be congratulated. He also acknowledged that the levy was imposed by the former Labor government to assist the industry, to ensure that it did not get into serious export development problems and also to promote the marketing and export development process.

He went on to say that the industry had benefited from the compulsory levy. I beg to differ on that particular point. The export industry has always been highly competitive. It has been export driven, it has been market focused and many of the processors engaged in very aggressive promotion campaigns of their own. So in fact they were double-dipping. Not only did they provide their own promotions and export driven drives but they also had to contribute to APPA.

The member for Burke also agreed with the government that, when it came to looking at the huge number of submissions we received, we had no choice other than to have a plebiscite and take the appropriate action, which we did. The member for Burke also mentioned that it is not very good marketing sense to reduce your marketing efforts when there is a downturn in demand. I agree with him wholeheartedly on that point. As a former marketer, I believe that you really need to increase your marketing efforts. A lot of these prawn processors continue to market as aggressively now as they did in the past, and will continue to do so.

I know that APPA met with many of the prawn processors earlier this year, and there is still scope for many of them to voluntarily contribute to APPA's operations, and they can continue to do so. But it is voluntary, and that is what it should have been from the start. There is no doubt that it is a competitive market and, as the member for Burke stated last night, it will be a very tight market. I agree with him on that. I think that any export market, not just prawns, is going to be tough and tight at the moment. I know that we need to be more competitive. We need to be more market driven and more focused, particularly in the global economy.

I would like to now turn to some of the other issues mentioned last night by the member for Burke, including funding to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and, particularly, their cut of $3.6 million. I acknowledge that this government had to cut that funding, but it is a one-off situation. We came to government faced with a budget deficit, and we were also faced with a terrible situation with the South-East Trawl Fishery, which was managed by the previous government. The government had no choice but to cut down on funding to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation because a huge situation had arisen as a result of the South-East Fishery. The minister had to offer a bailout to a lot of the people involved in the industry. Some $2.3 million had to be given to 18 operators who suffered financial losses as a result of Labor's mismanagement of the South-East Fishery.

Since 1992 the fishery had been managed by a system of output controls called `individual transferable quotas'. The previous Labor government completely botched the quota system and did nothing to fix the mistakes. So we came to power during a period of great wrangling, litigation and uncertainty. To his credit, the minister appointed a small working group of people to look at the adjustment options for the fisheries. That working group recommended that the operators be given $129,800 each, and the worst affected operators were offered $352,000.

These schemes cost money. Out of that money, some had to be cut from other areas. The total buy-out of the South-East Fishery was $4.4 million. There is some money available—$2.4 million, I believe—that can be offered to other adjustment programs. But the government had absolutely no choice in this. We had to fix up the previous government's mistakes. It was an absolutely atrocious situation—all because it was poorly handled from the start and the quotas were botched up. The operators felt absolutely deceived and discouraged by what happened, and it was unseemly.

Since 1992 there have been eight internal or public reviews into various aspects of the South-East Fishery. That fishery is the major supplier of fish to the Melbourne and Sydney markets. There was absolutely nothing the minister could do. At that time, the minister who handled the introduction of the quota system was Simon Crean. As far back as 1991, the industry urged him to delay introducing the system. They said, `Don't hurry, don't do it in haste, there is a lot of uncertainty involved; take your time.' But he proceeded anyway, and this was the disastrous mess we found ourselves with.

When Mr Crean introduced the quota system, as early as six weeks after the plan took effect it started to collapse. He then had to write to the AFMA chairman and ask him to review the situation. We speak about cuts to the FRDC, but what was occurring with the South-East Fishery meant that the money had to come from somewhere. I would like to reiterate that the minister must be congratulated for the steps he has taken in putting together a working group of independent people who determined that the processes and quotas be adjusted. He is to be commended for that.

I would like to touch on one other aspect of the bill today, and that is the decision in relation to the blue marlin and black marlin. It is in line with a House of Representatives report, also given to the government, that there be a ban on the take and possession of billfish, except broadbill fish. The report also recommended that there be a total ban on the take and possession of blue marlin and black marlin. It asked for a ban to be applied from the signing of the next bilateral agreement with Japan on 1 January 1996. It also covered things like the recreational sector and the development, arrangement and possession of marlin by recreational fishermen. We do have an obligation to ensure that our fish stocks are sustainable. We as a government have an obligation to ensure that the industry flourishes and that all of those who partake in the industry, whether they are recreational or commercial fishermen, have a collective responsibility.

Blue and black marlin are of little value to commercial fishermen and therefore are not a targeted species for the commercial sector. It is important that we manage the resources of our oceans. I would like to compliment the minister on the action he has taken with this particular legislation, particularly for the prawn processing levy he has introduced and the steps he has taken to ensure that the industry is sustainable and that the catching of marlin is reviewed very carefully. I commend the bill to the House.

The minister has provided the industry with an opportunity. He has listened to the industry; he has been consultative and provided an opportunity for the industry to partake in the democratic process. I am glad that the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 took into account the prawn processing levy issues as well as the marlin issues. (Time expired)