Senator MURPHY (4:12 PM) —It is of particular concern to me that the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 will remove $3.6 million, as my colleague Senator O'Brien has just been saying, because it is of fundamental importance to this country. We have an exclusive economic zone, in terms of water, that is twice the size of the land mass of this country. If we are to maximise the real benefits that we can get from such an exclusive economic zone in terms of fisheries management—and in other terms, but in this case fisheries management—then we must not decrease expenditure but increase expenditure.

I understand CSIRO has assessed the resources to be potentially in the order of $30 billion. In my state—likewise in Senator O'Brien's state—aquaculture, fishing and fisheries are very important businesses. If we are to make those businesses grow, then we must not be cutting back on research endeavours. The efforts that go into research must be increased rather than decreased. Our state government, as you, Mr Deputy President Watson, would know, has taken away from the Launceston university and broken up the aquaculture centre which was at the forefront in providing leading-edge technology in many areas of aquaculture. We have lost some very valuable resources as a result of a reduction in expenditure on research.

It is not good enough for the Commonwealth to walk away from its commitment to funding. The explanatory memorandum to this bill states:

The saving is made possible because the Corporation's—

that is, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation's—

sound financial management has left it with substantial reserves.

That may well be the case, but I suggest to the government and the minister that, if that is the case, then maybe they are not making enough endeavour to conduct a greater effort in research and development in the area of fisheries.

We know that, in terms of the supply and demand for fish as a food source, demand is going to far outstrip the capacity to supply, particularly from the natural fish stocks of the world's oceans. We know that in our own exclusive economic zone in the Southern Ocean—a matter which I raised with the minister in a question just yesterday—not only are we finding ourselves with little or no research in that area, in understanding the resources that may be available, but also we do not have a capacity to even protect those resources. As we know, the government, through the navy, has now arrested three vessels—as I said, I asked a question about one of them, the Aliza Glacial—and the government intends, or I think it intended, to apply some penalties with regard to the illegal fishing that was conducted. But I think it is highly likely, in respect of one vessel at least, that we are not going to have any capacity to apply any penalties because that vessel will be removed from our control, thus removing any real capacity we have to apply fines to the ship's master and officers. That is essentially the only capacity we have.

I am quite surprised by the fact that the government had not taken steps to at least stop that sort of practice prior to this point in time, given that it knew that particular vessel did have a financial commitment to a third party in another country and that the government was well aware of the admiralty rules that apply insofar as these matters go. This has not been addressed by the government or, indeed, by the minister: whether or not the government is going to take any steps to ensure that will not be the case in the future.

I congratulated the government at the time on its effort to capture those vessels, as it should. But it is important to note, whether we are talking about research and development or about the protection of resources that belong to this country, that cuts in expenditure, no matter where they go, have to be considered very seriously. It is not just the case in the area of aquaculture. General research is important, given that the CSIRO, the Fisheries Research Development Corporation and other bodies have identified that we know so little about the oceans that we have a legitimate control over.

Little or no research is conducted into recreational fishing and the degree of pressure that recreational fishing applies on various fisheries, whether they be freshwater or saltwater ones. The federal government is the biggest collector of tax that is provided through the activities of recreational fishermen—probably in the area of a billion dollars—and yet the government cannot even find it within itself to give a commitment to funding for the recreational fishing body that has, in essence, been the one body that has been responsible for coordinating mostly voluntary research. I know the minister himself took a step not so long ago towards the protection of two fish species—namely, striped and black marlin—and I congratulate the government for taking that step.

Senator O'Chee —Blue and black marlin.

Senator MURPHY —Sorry, blue and black marlin. It should have been for the lot, quite frankly, Senator O'Chee. I congratulated the minister for taking that step but it was taken only on the basis of research effort provided primarily through recreational fishermen.

Senator Parer —What about the game fishermen?

Senator MURPHY —Game fishermen do come within my definition of recreational fishermen. `Game fishermen' really relates to the type of fishing, Minister.

But the government will not provide a mere $70,000 to the peak organisation for recreational fishermen. Seventy thousand dollars was cut from the peak recreational fishing body—that is just not acceptable. Yet the minister and the government were only too pleased to actually launch a recreational fishing guide on etiquette and environmental management, again developed, albeit with some assistance from Commonwealth funding, by a recreational fishing body.

This is from a government at a federal level. The states also have some responsibility, but it is not good enough for the Commonwealth to say, `Look, that is a state matter. It is their responsibility.' Yes, I agree it is in part their responsibility, but the Commonwealth, by and large, collects the greatest share of tax generated from the activities of recreational fishermen—as I said, some $900 million or maybe a billion dollars. Yet the Commonwealth would put substantially less—in this case we do not even put $70,000 into the peak body—than $5 million into overall research as it relates to recreational fishing.

Of course, as was pointed out by Senator O'Brien, we are proposing amendments to ensure that the $3.612 million—which is really a drop in the ocean—does remain with the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. Of that amount, $1.5 million is to go into the adjustment program for the South-East Fishery, but it is a drop in the ocean with regard to what we really need.

If our country is to meet not just a part of the demand for fish as a source of food that is required in our part of the world but also other demands, we will need to double our efforts. We should be doubling our efforts because, at the end of the day, the growth in this industry is where employment can really be generated. The fishing industry is generally a large employer because it is pretty much a hands-on industry, and that is why we need to double those efforts. We should not, at any stage, be considering reducing expenditure in the area of research and development. If we do not increase that effort, all we are going to see is our natural fish resources being over fished and, in many instances, being wiped out.

I notice, Minister, that the Japanese have failed to agree to our latest efforts with regard to the maintenance of what is, in my view, a way too high catch limit on southern bluefin tuna. We are now going to see further pressure placed on that fish stock, with the Japanese saying that they intend to proceed with the taking of an additional 1,400 tonnes over the agreed quota that they have, which is around 6,065 tonnes. That is another reason why we need to increase the scientific and research effort. I think, Minister, that you are sympathetic to that and I hope that you will double your efforts. I know Senator O'Chee has a partial interest in recreational fishing. I hope that you will double your efforts to try to make sure that we do maintain reasonable expenditure.

If you look at the United States, for instance, two per cent of all of the tax revenue raised from recreational fishing—when it goes to tackle, boats and motors that are sold—is hypothecated directly back into research and development of the fishery. In New Zealand they take a different approach again. Those countries are progressing, improving and increasing the capacity of their fisheries. They will benefit from that. Indeed, they are already benefiting from that. The management techniques that are being employed are going to be crucial to the future of fisheries management. It is totally unacceptable—and I know the general public would find it totally unacceptable—to see reductions in expenditure on research and development in areas that are so critical to the future of this country and so critical to the development of an industry that could play such an important role in the employment of Australians and the maintenance of our quality of life.