AQUACULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 March 2012.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (11:22): I rise to support the second reading of this bill on behalf of Family First. In doing so I acknowledge the significant work of my colleague, the Hon. Dennis Hood MLC, as chair of the Select Committee into Marine Parks, as well as other members of the select committee, which covered the use of our coastal waters and issues more so affecting recreational fishers than industrial fishermen per se. There are crossovers on the issue, but I am making the contribution today on this particular bill. If it is the minister's intention to go right through with this bill today, then I query whether or not the minister will write to us with answers to questions taken on notice.

As the Hon. John Dawkins MLC said, I want to acknowledge that it was the previous government that first created the Aquaculture Act, one of the only states in Australia, if not the world, with such legislation. I note the Caribbean countries and the Arab nation of Oman, for instance, are only just now catching on; there might be an opportunity to export our intellectual property there. However, the challenge that also arises is possible competition into the future.

Priorities in the government's speech were about a clean, green food industry. I have said to the minister responsible, minister Gail Gago, that we are pleased to see that, but it is important that we now deliver on that priority. It stands to reason that, with a growing world population, whilst our task on the land is to produce more food to feed that population, the Japanese have shown how society can live off a larger proportion of a fish diet. Basically, there is far more ocean than land from which aquaculture and wild catch can support the world's food needs into the future.

There are also issues that need to be addressed between the mining and the aquaculture and fishing industries, such as the Sheep Hill project at Port Spencer, up the gulf from Port Lincoln. On southern bluefin tuna, I am pleased to be told in the briefing that the quota is being improved after drastic cuts by the commission for conservation of southern bluefin tuna. We were very concerned about those cuts. We know those cuts had to be worn by Australia, and particularly South Australia, when other countries did not.

Back in October 2009, I was critical of both the state and federal governments for not doing more to address those cuts and the inequity there. I am pleased to congratulate the minister today, though, because I am told that the industry and the department have worked to show the evidentiary reasons why the quota cut was unfair, and we are reportedly some way towards getting back to the quota we once had. Well done to the minister and the government on that occasion.

I put on the public record some questions for the minister. How low was the quota? I have been told that we fell back about 1,250 tonnes. Where is it now? Again I am told we are back up to about 600 tonnes or, to put it another way, up to 32 per cent over two years—roughly speaking, 16 per cent per annum. It is not as high as 25 per cent where it was, but the work continues to get us back up there. The other question is: what level is the government hoping to get it back to? Is it back to 1,250 or 25 per cent? If the minister is proceeding with this bill now, it would be appreciated if she could advise us in writing of that.

I am commending here not only the government but the industry and the CSIRO for their innovative research that is helping to develop new ways of tracking fish stock numbers. There are still a lot of issues that need to be addressed regarding the aquaculture industry and tuna on the Lower Eyre Peninsula. The 'adopt a beach' program that aquaculture companies have taken on is to be commended. I saw it reported a couple of weeks ago that, for the Lower Eyre Peninsula, the aquaculture companies commit to at least four cleanups annually of debris that can wash ashore from aquaculture ventures along 155 kilometres of coastline.

The more natural form of poaching, if you like, by fur seals is a controversial issue being explored in the context of the little penguin survival debate and the question of the fur seal recovery in the post sealing era. Seals are now having an impact that some are trying to quantify both in environmental terms and in dollar terms.

In relation to abalone, Victoria is currently reviewing its abalone wild catch quota. I wonder whether there is a review of that quota being looked at here or what has been done. Is the government looking to follow the Victorian model, and will this affect the abalone aquaculture industry as opposed to the recreational wild catch of abalone?

In relation to aquaculture in the River Murray and the Lower Lakes, we have been talking recently about the Murray-Darling Basin proposal and I ask the minister, given past reports of perch and yabbies, what aquaculture is currently operating in the lakes and the Murray generally, what economic value does it bring to the state economy and does the river's health relate to the success or otherwise of those ventures?

There was some activity around the change of government into inland aquaculture with estimates that the industry stood to grow to $2.5 billion by 2010 with South Australia meant to yield $1 billion of that. I believe that for some time the government has supported that initiative. I ask the minister again, when she has been able to do her research on this, to advise in writing what became of that. Is that still a prospect for the future and, if so, to what extent does a guarantee of a healthy river in the Murray-Darling Basin plan relate to that prospect?

In relation to marine parks and aquaculture zones, I have been told that the aquaculture areas are not by and large infringed upon by the marine parks, although the aquaculture zones do to an extent cross into habitat protection zones, so I ask the minister if that is correct and to advise the council where the proposed parks infringe into aquaculture zones or, in percentage terms, how much those infringements occur.

I have also been told that we are only utilising approximately 5 to 10 per cent of our aquaculture zones commercially at the moment. Is that correct, and what scope does the government believe there is for further aquaculture ventures in dollar terms in the future? Whilst we are talking about the ocean, I remind the minister that the minister did not agree to table the scientific data in answer to my question about shark behaviour in relation to cage diving.

I am keeping an eye on the Neptune Island Conservation Park and the shark diving issue because it is an important industry in which all operators, I believe, do care about the sharks. They have to, as it is their livelihood, and I hope the government can take a science-based approach where licensees are allowed to continue operating with restrictions that match the science, not a 3.4 per cent real-terms reduction.

If there is such a scientific concern, we do not know; we are not being shown the science. I ask the minister, as we talk about the fishing industry, the aquaculture industry and oceans and gulfs generally: is the government working between fisheries and tourism on this issue? In conclusion, we have had no negative representation on this Aquaculture (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, so Family First will be supporting this bill as put to the chamber by the government.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (11:31): This bill is probably the most significant review of this legislation, certainly in the time that I have been in the parliament, and I think it is useful for members to reflect a little on how we have actually got to the stage where we are now. Back when I was working as an environmental advocate and an environmental lawyer, the regulation around aquaculture was poor, and that is putting it generously; it was, in fact, dreadful. As I have said in this place on a number of occasions, it was racked with conflict of interest, and the ability of agencies to properly regulate this emerging industry was, in my view, completely lacking.

The Liberal government, I think it might have been, of the time, of course has never acknowledged the central role played by the Conservation Council of South Australia in creating the environment for this act to be brought into effect. When I say 'creating the environment', the Conservation Council, to its credit, tried very hard in discussions with government to try to get better regulation but to no avail. It took a number of court cases where the courts have thrown out aquaculture approvals on the basis that they infringed various regulations and the Development Act itself and also infringed the proper principles of good government.

It was only as a result of a number of cases that the government saw that this industry was not going away. In fact, if anything, it was going to grow and therefore it needed to be properly regulated. The most fundamental reason why it needs to be properly regulated is that, apart from land-based aquaculture, which is in tanks, dams and ponds, the vast bulk of this industry is in the commons. This industry is conducted in water and over land that is not owned by the operators: it is owned by the people of South Australia and, therefore, it is incumbent on us to make sure we have a good regulatory regime in place.

I think my record in challenging aquaculture developments was 10-0 at one stage, before this act came into effect. Of course, the main impetus was the cases that the Conservation Council brought against the Louth Bay southern bluefin tuna feedlots. As is now well known—it is part of environmental law folklore—having succeeded in defeating those applications in the longest environmental trial in South Australia's history, the government waited approximately one week before changing the law by regulation to make sure that no-one ever again would have the right to challenge tuna feedlots in that area of Port Lincoln. It was an appalling response to what, I think, had been very reasonable action on the part of the Conservation Council.

We now have an Aquaculture Act and it has within it a number of very laudable and worthwhile principles. Principles of ecological sustainability are enshrined in the legislation and they are written into the various plans and policy documents that are part of this regime; whether or not those high and lofty principles are being implemented in practice is still a matter for some debate. Whilst I think the industry and its regulation has improved, I think there is still a lot more room for improvement.

The regime for sea aquaculture is one of licensing and leasing areas of the commons for what is effectively exclusive industrial activity, and that I think means that it is beholden to the decision-makers under this regime to make sure that the public interest is paramount. That public interest involves both the economic development of this state and also the environmental protection of this state. That is why I found it quite remarkable that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire talked just now about the idea of marine parks infringing on aquaculture areas when surely the starting point for any natural resource allocation decision would be: which areas do we need to conserve? And, having made that decision, which areas might then be available for sustainable economic use?

In my view, the government has got this completely the wrong way around. What we have had over the last several years is the government facilitating the industry's acquisition of more and more areas of the sea for their activities well ahead of the government's program of declaration of marine parks. Put crudely, the system that we have adopted here in South Australia is that the industry gets to choose the areas of the sea that it wants for its activities, and conservation will get what is left. I do not think it is overstating it to put it as bluntly as that.

In fact, we know that undertakings have been given by the government to the aquaculture industry that marine parks will not infringe on their activities. We still see, even today, that applications are being lodged for aquaculture development inside marine parks whilst we still have not worked out which parts of those marine parks should be in the no-take sanctuary zones.

In fact, I attended a hearing of the Development Assessment Commission just across the road last year where I made that point: that the Development Assessment Commission should not be approving new aquaculture ventures inside marine parks until the marine parks have been settled. Whilst the outer boundaries might have been settled, we all know that that is not the main game. The main game is the zoning within those parks.

If the area where aquaculture was being proposed was going to be in a sanctuary zone, it is certainly not going to be now. What we have here is industry effectively dictating to government where the high conservation value areas should go.

I am still disappointed that the Aquaculture Act regime does not provide for sufficient public notification and appeal rights. In fact, when the system was established, it continued to rely on notification and appeal rights under the Development Act primarily. As I have said, through regulation, the government has wound back those rights so that members of the public—the owners of the resource—now have no right to be notified about aquaculture applications under the Development Act or to appeal against development approvals that people might believe are unsustainable.

I think that this system, whilst it does seek to enshrine some ecological sustainability principles, still misses the point that we are talking about the commons and we are talking about providing exclusive industrial access to the commons.

The Hon. Robert Brokenshire made mention of southern bluefin tuna and his delight in seeing the quota lifted, and I share his concern that the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna had a very difficult job in determining quotas when we know that almost every other nation out there was cheating. We know that the Japanese were cheating, we know that the South Koreans and others were cheating on their quota, and we also know that there were some fairly dodgy statistics being kept, even by our Australian operators.

The reason why this quota was put in place was not some arbitrary, capricious attempt by the world community to stand in the way of a valuable industry: it was that these fish—southern bluefin tuna—were, in fact, the only ocean-going fish on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Red List of Critically Endangered Species.

The definition of 'critically endangered species' is 'in danger of going extinct in the wild in the immediate future'. That is a remarkable thing. We are talking about a species whose bio-mass has declined by some 90 to 95 per cent in the few short decades I have been on this planet. It has been absolutely devastated globally. So, an international convention to protect that species was crucial.

So, I do not share other members' delight that the quota has now been raised. I think there is still uncertainty in relation to the status of the species globally and, in fact, I will put a question on notice for the minister, if she can provide an answer: is southern bluefin tuna still regarded by the world conservation union (the IUCN) as critically endangered? Will the minister also answer the question: what other states and territories have listed southern bluefin tuna as an endangered species? We have certainly have not listed it here in South Australia, as we make too much money from it. That is the test of endangeredness in this state; if we make money from it you do not list it as endangered.

The industry has also had to respond, albeit quite slowly, to mounting community pressure about the pollution and the waste they cause along the South Australian coastline. I have certainly been contacted by people down on Lower Eyre Peninsula who are sick and tired of the plastic wrapping that comes around the frozen pilchard blocks that come in, the plastic strapping, the ropes, the nets and all the other plastic detritus that can clearly be sheeted home to the tuna feed lot operations and their feeding regime.

That rubbish washes up on the beaches. Yes, it is good that the industry has now adopted beaches and decided to go out there every so often and clean up some of their mess, but really what we are talking about here is an industry that is conducted out of sight—it is off-shore and out of sight, and rubbish going over the side for some operators is still the norm rather than the exception.

We also have a situation where the government has shown that it is completely reluctant to revisit previous aquaculture decisions, even though they have been shown to have been poor decisions. A classic example would be the abalone farm over by Elliston, which not once but twice has completely disintegrated in the common and predictable storms along that part of the coast. As a result of the disintegration we have had plastic pots, ropes and nets washing up on conservation parks and on islands and also implicated in the death of local wildlife. So, we still have a long way to go in learning how to manage the commons for all uses—conservation as well as for commercial production.

I want to pose another question of the minister, and that relates to the use of this legislation for managing activities for which it was never intended. Members would be aware that there was some controversy down on Kangaroo Island where the operators of the Swim with the Tuna operation out of Port Lincoln wanted to move to Kangaroo Island.

The regulation of that activity is under the Aquaculture Act, yet when that act was written it was never with a view to someone having, effectively, a tourist operation with lower densities of fish and not growing those fish for commercial consumption, growing them in fact for tourist consumption.

My question of the minister is: how adequate is this regime, which is designed for the commercial production of fish using aquaculture methods, and how appropriate is this legislation for managing tourist operations in our offshore areas? With those brief remarks I look forward to the committee stage of this bill and look forward to the minister answering those questions I put on the record.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (11:44): I understand there are no further contributions, so I would like to thank honourable members for their second reading contributions and the support they have indicated for the bill. The bill is obviously a piece of legislation that attempts to provide very important enhancements to the act. It is about underpinning the sustainable development of the South Australian aquaculture industry. The enhancements are about ensuring the continued sustainability of the aquaculture industry in South Australia into the future.

Obviously, this is an industry that is very important, it makes a significant economic contribution, it makes a very important social contribution, particularly to regional communities, and has significant environmental implications as well. A number of questions were asked during the second reading stage and I would request the indulgence of the chamber to give me the opportunity to answer those during the committee stage. I commend the bill to members.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: There were a number of questions asked through the second reading stage, most of those I will have to take on notice and bring back a response, I do not have those details here at my fingertips at the moment but work is being done on those. There was a question about the adequacy of the legislation to facilitate tourism. I have been advised that, fundamentally, this bill is about managing the farming operations of aquaculture, it does not go to tourism. Quite clearly, there are obvious connections between a thriving aquaculture industry in an area and tourism opportunities to develop around that in terms of the enhancement of food and wine and other activities.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I might, if the committee pleases, just pursue that a little bit more, because the minister has an adviser present. I agree with her that this legislation is about farming, yet when the proponents of the Swim with the Tuna Kangaroo Island came with their proposals, it was going to be assessed under the Aquaculture Act. They were going to have to get a lease and a licence under the Aquaculture Act. If the minister is agreeing that this is not necessarily the best regime for that activity, I guess my question is, what else do we have? How else can we regulate this sort of marine tourism that has as its basis some, if not a lot of captured fish, in pens or cages or however else held?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have in fact been advised that the answer I gave previously was not quite accurate. I have since been advised that farming for the purposes of tourism is captured by this act, as long as it is farming, and that where tourism is a trade or business the Aquaculture Act has specific referrals to the EPA Act, such as checking conditions for licence.

I am informed that the other matters that you addressed are dealt with in the definitions. One is in the act itself, where the definition of aquaculture is farming of aquatic organisms for the purposes of trade or business or research, but does not include an activity declared by regulation not to be aquaculture. In the current bill, farming of aquatic organisms means an organised rearing process involving propagation or regular stocking or feeding of the organisms, or protection of organisms from predators, or other similar intervention in the organism's natural life cycles.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer and I think that her correction is right; that technically these activities are covered, which is why the Primary Industries website had the notification for the lease and the licence for this operation. I will not raise this as a question now, but I will just make the point that I think it is the wrong tool for what we are really talking about. The department, the agency, the system that is set up to regulate aquaculture for production purposes, I think is not suitable for managing the range of impacts for tourism operations, but I will leave it there.

I know the minister said that she was not able to answer some questions but I am sure that, with the advice she has, she will know the answer to one of the questions I raise which is about the most valuable aquaculture species in this state—southern bluefin tuna. Is the minister able to say whether southern bluefin tuna is still listed as critically endangered by the World Conservation Union, otherwise known as the IUCN?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As I advised earlier, we do not have the answer to those questions. We are checking and, hopefully, we will be able to confirm that shortly.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I recognise that the minister does have some difficulty in answering questions that have been posed just today. However, in my second reading speech on 15 March I posed a couple of questions about licence lease fees and also the clean-up of discarded sites. I wonder whether the minister has responses to those questions.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The Hon. John Dawkins did raise some issues in relation to concerns raised by recreational fishers about aquaculture waste. I direct the honourable member to the Agriculture Regulations 2005 made under this act. There is currently a duty for all aquaculture licensees to clean up their waste. These regulations will be the subject of separate consultation as part of the regulation review.

I also note that the state government, together with the local Port Lincoln aquaculture industry, has launched a new beach clean-up program aimed at minimising the impact of debris on the coastal environment. The Adopt a Beach program will see 155 kilometres of coastline in the lower Spencer Gulf divided into 13 sites, with local aquaculture companies adopting a stretch of beach and committing to undertaking a minimum of four beach clean-ups a year.

Aquaculture fees are also determined each year as part of the cost recovery process. Aquaculture fees are set with an activity-based approach or a user pays system, where industry sectors that utilise government services are responsible for recovering the costs of those services. The fees are made under regulation and, as such, are not part of the bill amendments.

In relation to the rehabilitation of unused aquaculture sites, the bill allows greater and more flexible arrangements for the minister to take action where aquaculture sites are unused. For example, the bill incorporates the power for the minister to cancel a lease where the site remains undeveloped. In addition, and as the honourable member alluded to, the bill clarifies that the Aquaculture Resource Management Fund can be used to hold and pay out moneys collected for lease rehabilitation.

While these amendments support a government-held rehabilitation fund they do not seek to mandate such a fund for all aquaculture sectors. Where the obligations of the minister under the act are fully catered for by the industry-held rehabilitation funds, there would be no reason to duplicate those efforts. I have been advised that the southern bluefin tuna is still categorised as being endangered.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I thank the minister for that. First, I would like to clarify the latter part of that answer: am I right in saying that, where a sector of the aquaculture industry has its own voluntary fund for clean-up of sites, the proposed fund coming into this bill will not duplicate that effort?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that that is so, if it meets a requirement under the lease for rehabilitation and if the minister is, in fact, satisfied that it does so.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I thank the minister and reiterate that I think some sectors of the industry have a very good track record at looking after their own, and they do have the expertise to clean it up better than almost anyone else in the sector. I did not clearly hear the start of the minister's answer, and I apologise for that, but did the minister respond to my request in my second reading speech for some detail on the increase in licence lease fees?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the setting of the fees is in fact not part of this bill. It is not dealt with by this bill; it is in fact dealt with through a regulatory process that requires industry consultation. Obviously, in the past we have moved to a much more activity-based approach and, as part of that activity-based approach, to a cost-recovery approach. There is a lot of detail available and we are happy to make that information available to you.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I would be very grateful to have that detail provided to me. The basis of my question was some information that was provided to me. It was a little bit out of date, and I admit that, but I would be grateful if the officers could provide me with that in writing in the near future.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We are happy to do so.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I mentioned, in my brief second reading contribution, the undertakings that the minister has apparently given to the aquaculture industry that marine parks and aquaculture operations will be able to coexist. Can the minister outline the nature of those undertakings, on whose behalf they were made and the effect of those undertakings?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am happy to take the question on notice to bring back a more detailed response, but I just want to take this opportunity to note that the zoning around marine parks has not yet been finalised. We continue to engage with the industry stakeholders, including aquaculture, to work through their issues and those discussions are ongoing.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 43 passed.

Clause 44.

The CHAIR: I have to point out to the committee that clause 44, being a money clause, is in erased type. Standing order 298 provides that no questions shall be put in committee upon any such clause. The message transmitting the bill to the House of Assembly is required to indicate that this clause is deemed necessary to the bill.

Remaining clauses (45 to 53), schedule and title passed.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (12:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.