Anne Ruston voted very strongly against increasing fishing restrictions

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson (Tas), which means the motion passed. Motions like these don't make any legal changes on their own but can be politically influential as they represent the will of the Senate.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the East Coast Inshore Fin-Fish Fishery (ECIFFF) is Queensland's largest fishery, running adjacent to the entire east coast,

(ii) the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's most recent Outlook Report (2014) identifies the management of the ECIFFF by the Queensland Government as a risk to the reef's ecosystem and heritage values, particularly through the taking of predators, and the bycatching of endangered wildlife, such as snubfin dolphins and dugongs,

(iii) the Queensland Government's Sustainable Fisheries Strategy 2017-2027 outlines its commitment to the reform of fisheries management,

(iv) the Minister for the Environment is considering the ecological sustainability of the ECIFFF for export approval,

(v) scalloped hammerhead sharks were recently listed as Conservation Dependent, following advice from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), but are still being taken from the ECIFFF, and

(vi) the TSSC recommended that scalloped hammerhead sharks be landed with fins attached, as is the case in Commonwealth, South Australian, New South Wales, Victorian and Tasmanian managed fisheries; and

(b) calls on the Minister for the Environment to ensure that strong, time-bound conditions are attached to the accreditation of the ECIFFF for export approval, including:

(i) a requirement to ensure an independent observer and monitoring program is implemented,

(ii) analysis of high conservation values to snubfin dolphins and dugongs, and implementation of area closures to reduce bycatch following the principles of adaptive management (noting that work is ongoing in regard to real-time tracking of dolphins and dugongs in an effort to reduce bycatch), and

(iii) a requirement for scalloped hammerhead sharks to be landed with fins attached.

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson (Tas), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the damage caused to the Macquarie Harbour World Heritage Area, including the threat to the endangered Maugean Skate, as a result of the overstocking of salmon farms in the harbour,

(ii) the proceedings brought by Huon Aquaculture in the Federal Court and the Tasmanian Supreme Court against the Tasmanian Government for failing to properly regulate salmon farming by Tassal in Macquarie Harbour,

(iii) that the Commonwealth is investigating whether conditions imposed as part of the 2012 expansion of salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour have been breached,

(iv) the decision of the Hodgman Government to grant permission to Tassal to establish an 800 000 fish salmon farm in Okehampton Bay on Tasmania's pristine east coast, and

(v) concerns from a wide cross-section of the community over the proposed Okehampton Bay salmon farm, including the concerns expressed by around 1 000 people who attended FloatMo in Hobart on 18 June 2017; and

(b) calls on the Hodgman Government to withdraw permission for a salmon farm in Okehampton Bay given the record of atrocious mismanagement and poor regulation of Tasmania's aquaculture industry.

The majority disagreed that the Government should ban super trawlers from Australian waters. Super trawlers include ships like the Abel Tasman, which was known as the FV Margiris.

Background to motion

Back in November 2012, the Labor Government imposed a two-year ban on super trawlers in response to opposition to the Abel Tasman. This temporary ban has now ended and a further temporary ban will end in April 2015.

In November this year, two Tasmanians travelled to Canberra to deliver a petition signed by 30,000 people that asked the Federal Government to permanently ban super trawlers. This motion takes up this request for a permanent ban.

Read more about the debate surrounding super trawlers and their impact on the sustainability of fisheries in this Background Briefing.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the report of the expert panel on a declared commercial fishing activity, Final (Small Pelagic Fishery) Declaration 2012, has been released,

(ii) the report found a super trawler would negatively impact on protected species such as seals, dolphins and sea birds, and

(iii) the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Abbott) on 4 March 2014 that 'the super trawler is banned from Australian waters…it was banned with the support of members on this side of the House. It was banned; it will stay banned'; and

(b) calls on the Government to introduce legislation banning super trawlers from Australian waters.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a third time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the bill is now passed in the Senate and, since it has already passed in the House of Representatives, it will now become law.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced "to establish an independent expert panel to conduct an assessment into the potential environmental, social and economic impacts of a declared commercial fishing activity and to prohibit the declared commercial fishing activity while the assessment is undertaken".(Read more about the bill, including the text of the bill and its explanatory memoranda, here. )

It was introduced following the controversial arrival of the super trawler FV Margiris into Australian waters. Opponents to the trawler argue that its presence "will cause localised overfishing and could drive away bluefin tuna".(Read more about the arguments against the super trawler here. ) Supporters disagree, saying the trawler's quota is sustainable.(As above. ) Environment Minister Tony Burke position was there "there was significant uncertainty regarding the impact of such a large fishing vessel on the marine environment",(Read more in the bills digest.) hence the need for an assessment into the potential impacts.

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through to become law here. ) This means that the majority agreed with the main idea of the bill.

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced "to establish an independent expert panel to conduct an assessment into the potential environmental, social and economic impacts of a declared commercial fishing activity and to prohibit the declared commercial fishing activity while the assessment is undertaken".(Read more about the bill, including the text of the bill and its explanatory memoranda, here. )

It was introduced following the controversial arrival of the super trawler FV Margiris into Australian waters. Opponents to the trawler argue that its presence "will cause localised overfishing and could drive away bluefin tuna".(Read more about the arguments against the super trawler here. ) Supporters disagree, saying the trawler's quota is sustainable.(As above. ) Environment Minister Tony Burke position was there "there was significant uncertainty regarding the impact of such a large fishing vessel on the marine environment",(Read more in the bills digest.) hence the need for an assessment into the potential impacts.

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, which means that it was rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate calls on the Government to ban all super trawlers from Australian waters.(Super trawlers include fishing boats such as the FV Margiris, later called the Abel Tasman. )

This motion was made in response to the arrival the super trawler named FV Margiris into Australian waters. Opponents to the trawler argue that its presence "will cause localised overfishing and could drive away bluefin tuna".(Read more about the arguments against the super trawler here. ) Supporters disagree, saying the trawler's quota is sustainable.(As above.) Due to these disparate views on the effect of super trawlers on fish populations, senators in favour of the policy "For developing and enforcing fishing restrictions" could have voted either way (i.e. either 'aye' or 'no'), depending on their views on this issue.