Page 3437 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 17 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
are yabbies in private waters but there are also air-breathing water animals that can become trapped in them.
Unfortunately, prohibiting the use of these traps is not enough. The traps are still available to buy for only a few dollars. The fact that an item that is prohibited for use is still allowed to be sold is misleading for people. I can see how customers could assume that the product is allowed; otherwise why would the store be selling it? Unfortunately, this is a quirk of our federation, in that the ACT cannot ban the sale of items that are legal to sell in other states. It is a freedom of interstate trade issue and it is set out in the Mutual Recognition Act, which, of course, stems from the Constitution.
In the past I have written to the manager of the BCF stores in Canberra—BCF is probably Australia’s major fishing gear retailer—and asked that they voluntarily stop selling opera house traps. Because we cannot easily prevent the sale of these traps in Canberra, it is important to explore what other measures we can take. This is where point-of-sale signs come in. We have taken the same steps in relation to the sale of eggs, and free-range eggs in particular, in Canberra stores.
The bill contains an amendment requiring retailers to display a sign to inform customers that, even though the traps are for sale, they may not be used in the ACT. This may in fact encourage ACT stores to voluntarily stop selling the traps, which I think would be a good outcome.
I note that Minister Gentleman is also exploring further options to raise awareness about the ban, including introducing a yabby trap swap program. There is also further work to be done at the COAG level. In fact, with ministerial agreement, we should be able to ban the traps from sale completely. I would like to acknowledge the good work done by Minister Gentleman in making these amendments and in exploring further options for improving the efficacy of the legislation.
I also support the other updates to the Fisheries Act which are proposed in this bill. It allows the declaration of critical habitat areas, which should enable better protection of native fish and their habitats from threats such as introduced species. The bill will also allow for guidelines to regulate aquaculture in the ACT.
While we support the creation of guidelines, I note that the Greens are closely interested in how aquaculture will be regulated and in what form it will be permitted. Some forms of aquaculture can actually be quite an environmentally destructive activity, and can be done intensively, creating waste products and various other problems in the natural environment. The fishing of smaller species, lower down the food chain, to provide food on a large scale has, in parts of the world, had a significantly detrimental impact on the local species supply as a result of that industry. Obviously, we would have problems with those sorts of consequences that can flow from intensive aquaculture practices.
On the other hand aquaculture in some forms can contribute to food security and help to avoid some of the problems associated with fishing in the ocean, such as overfishing and the depletion of species. This underlines that the guidelines that will
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video