Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (17:19): I rise to speak on the Department of the Environment's report of the expert panel on a declared commercial fishing activity: final (small pelagic fishery) declaration 2012. One of the first things I did as a new senator was seek a meeting with the Australian Fisheries Management Authority after I had been approached by a number of fishermen and environment groups about the arrival of a very famous large floating industrial factory fishing vessel—at that stage called the Margiris—a supertrawler that had been dogged by controversy for years all around the world, especially off West Africa. It was flagged in shady places and very little was known about its management or ownership. I asked AFMA this question: 'Did the proponents of the supertrawler seek to have the quota for the small pelagic fishery doubled in this country?' Coincidentally, around the arrival of the supertrawler, the government had doubled the quota from 10,000 tonnes to 20,000 tonnes. I was told at that meeting that that had nothing to do with it. It was laughed off. Senator Colbeck was also at this meeting. Then about a month later we found out through a freedom-of-information request that, indeed, a letter had been written by Seafish directly to AFMA asking them to double the quota so they could bring a supertrawler to this country. That may have been a coincidence, but it was enough to raise red flags with me and get me very concerned and make me want to look into a lot more detail about this. I was hoping the report we have in front of us today would be the end of this journey that I have been on on the supertrawler campaign with Senator Siewert, the Greens and literally millions of Australians. This report shows very clearly that the scientific work assessing the risks that the unprecedented arrival of a large floating factory vessel like the Margiris, later flagged as the Abel Tasman, showed that it was too risky. Considerable uncertainty existed in this fishery. We said this. Contrary to what you said in your speech in here the other day, Acting Deputy President Edwards, the fishery they were targeting, the small pelagic fishery off Tasmania, had been totally underutilised for a decade. It had been in collapse prior to that. There are disputes as to whether that was due to ocean current temperatures or overfishing. Nevertheless, it had been in collapse. There had not been fish for 10 years and it had not been studied. One desktop report was published around the arrival of the supertrawler saying it was safe for it to go fishing. Blind Freddy could see that there had been no data collection and there had been no fishing evidence to even provide adaptive fisheries management around the arrival of an unprecedented supertrawler into this country's waters. So a big campaign started to get this supertrawler stopped, to get it banned, so that we could do some scientific work around the potential risks and the potential uncertainties. It is very clear from this report that: … the panel considered that historical data on direct interactions with protected species or the absence of data that showed any adverse impacts on these species from localised depletion by historical fishing, did not necessarily inform the likely nature and extent of potential direct or indirect impacts … on protected species or the Commonwealth marine environment. The report then goes on to summarise: The panel considered that localised depletion caused by the DCFA has the potential to have adverse impacts on CPF species and that under the current monitoring regime it is unlikely that such impacts would be detected. The conclusion of the report said that, even if mitigation measures were put in place: … the panel considers that direct interactions with protected species and localised depletion— of fish stocks, the whole reason the recreational fishermen ran their campaign— as defined by the panel, will occur under the DCFA. The panel’s assessment has confirmed that there are considerable uncertainties relating to the extent of those impacts and the level of impact that would create adverse environmental outcomes. As in other fisheries facing similar uncertainties, a precautionary and adaptive, risk-based approach … is required. The Greens—along with other stakeholders in this country, including millions of recreational fishing groups as well as people who care about the ocean—have a very strong view that these boats should be banned, that we should not have them in this country and that the onus of proof should be on future proponents to overturn that ban, because no work has been done and evidence only exists at this point for uncertainties. Given how precious our ocean and ecosystems are—not just for human consumption but also in terms of broader impacts on ecosystems, especially around protected species and seals and dolphins—it is important that we listen to what the Australian public are saying, that we listen to what the scientists are saying in this report, that we acknowledge the uncertainties, that we acknowledge the campaign and the role of the Greens in this country, and that we have these supertrawlers banned. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.