Mr. Patrick Murphy:

I would like to respond to Senator Nash. In regard to share fishermen, before the scheme was implemented these people were employed in the same way and treated in the same way as the other share fishermen on the boat, such that they got a share in the percentage of the catch. They were treated no better or no worse than other people. The point I was making was that in introducing this scheme the work they had chosen to sign up was changed.

On the issue of trafficking, I am not long in my position and as such I am playing catch up. As I said earlier to Senator Gavan, I am not aware of the figures he mentioned. I have never seen them and so it would be unfair of me to comment. I apologise if I misheard the Senator and quoted 13 instead of 19. As far as I am aware, as shown in the case of Ms McIntyre's father's challenge in the courts, fishermen worked through an agent from the country who paid fees to bring the workers in, and the workers agreed terms and conditions with the person who brought them into the country. This is deemed to be trafficking.

There could be a misconception by the general public that fishermen went over, smuggled guys in crates and boxes and brought them into the country. That was not the case. The fishermen of this country operated in the only system that was available to them at the time. When it was found out that this system was not correct, we negotiated and tried to get to work with the task force. As I stated, there was only one meeting I was aware of where industry was actually involved in the setting up of this. As my colleague here has pointed out in the letters, every time we saw there was a problem there, we initiated contact with the Departments as asked to, to see if it could be rectified. We believe that we are definitely trying to represent the best interests of every fisherman in this country, regardless of what people deem as colour, creed or where they come from. We try to treat everybody equally, yet the Senator said that he believes that no industry is immune to wrong-doers within the industry. We have not said that. We have not claimed that there have not been wrong-doers. As Mr. O'Donnell has clarified, when we come across something like that, we too insist - that is why we have said "united" here - that any information that points to it should be brought to the relevant authorities and we will comply.