Motions

South Australian Shellfish Quality Assurance Program

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T.A. Franks:

That there be laid upon the table of this council, by the Leader of the Government within 21 days of the passing of this resolution, all documents produced or dated from 1 January 2025 regarding testing related to the SA Shellfish Quality Assurance Program along with any additional data generated in response to 2025 calls or contact with the Fishwatch hotline, including marine and non-marine species deaths and including any related plankton counts and water quality assessments at locations of fish kills.

(Continued from 4 June 2025.)

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:51): I rise to speak in support of the motion and thank the mover for bringing it to this place. This has now been the subject of some discussion in this place. I have asked questions; other members have asked questions; there are motions on the Notice Paper. There is a level of concern in the community and also a level of angst. I understand specifically the level of angst on the part of the government in particular and industry when it comes to issues to do with trade and investment and the fear that discussions around the algal bloom outbreak may impact on our seafood industry. By the same token, we have to counter that against the issues that are being raised, mainly publicly, with respect to this issue.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Yes, I noted that—mainly publicly by a lot of frustrated people who I suppose are trying to deal with this on the ground. We have seen a lot of commentary by scientists, by people who are eminent in their field, talking about this. I understand that this is one of those things that we cannot control, but there are certainly things that we can do to understand it and to allay many of those concerns.

The last thing we want to be doing in this place—and I know that when it comes to oysters in particular we are concerned about the impacts of discussions in this place and in public about that particular industry. We are concerned about what that might do to investment or sales in our state, because it is only 5 per cent of the industry that is subject to quarantine and closures at the moment. The reality is that there is 5 per cent of the market that has been effectively shutdown due to quarantine reasons, and they need to be also heard in these discussions loud and clear. Having your business shut with no end in sight and not knowing what is going to come for the next week, month, two months—how long this thing is going to last for—does not provide them with any level of certainty at all.

I am glad that the minister, I think, came round to this idea that we do not have to wait for associations to contact us in order to engage in discussions with people who are impacted. When 95 per cent of an industry is not impacted it might not be something they put on the radar of the minister, but that does not mean we do not go in to check on the other 5 per cent to ensure that they are coping okay, and we have heard publicly that they are not.

I have read from day one the headlines around this issue with a lot of concern, and of course there are concerns from both sides. There are concerns that everyone is going to stop eating seafood and everyone is going to stop consuming fish because of misinformation. I do not think that this motion or anything else in here is intended to feed that misinformation; in fact, I think it is quite the opposite.

However, by the same token, there are genuine concerns about how we actually reach the people who need to be reached. For instance, it should not take the RACGP lobbying the health department to get the appropriate health advice that GPs need to be able to pass on to patients who have been impacted by the algal bloom. We know it is not just that there are quarantine measures in place. We know that there are physical attributes to this as well. We know that there are financial attributes as well for those people who have been impacted.

The long and short of it is that we do not know. We were hoping with this weather that things will improve, but it is a slow burn, and in the meantime it is there and we need to deal with it. I think the headline that I have grasped onto the most is the bushfire headline that we have seen, that it is out of sight and out of mind for most of us because it is happening underwater. It is actually quite scary. It is something that we need to get our heads around and be able to respond to appropriately without putting the fear of life into people in the community and thinking that it is in every region. We know it is contained but we know it is an issue that we need to address.

Given the time, I am not going to speak long on this motion. I understand that I have lots to say about the algal bloom but I am not going to do it today. Given one of the issues that has been raised, I am going to seek to amend the motion. I think we have had some collaborative discussions amongst ourselves in terms of what we are actually trying to get in terms of the data sets that we want, without necessarily creeping into areas that are commercially sensitive—not necessarily commercially confidential but sensitive in nature.

We know that in this particular space it is actually industry that funds the science that goes into this. It is an arrangement between government and industry, and there are good reasons why some of that information may be commercially sensitive, from a seafood and fishing industry perspective, and we need to measure that against the need to have an appropriate data set. It is on that basis that I am actually seeking to insert the reference specifically to plankton counts, because that is really what we want to be able to identify here.

The PRESIDENT: That is what you are moving, the Hon. Ms Bonaros.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I can move the amendment now. I move to amend the motion as follows:

After 'all documents' insert 'referencing plankton counts' and

After '1 January 2025' leave out 'regarding testing'

I think there is consensus amongst all of us. As I said, the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Minister for Primary Industries and I have had those discussions and we think that meets the objective of what the mover is trying to achieve without getting into, for want of a better term, murky waters in relation to the information that we actually do disclose. I have moved that amendment and when we have more time to talk about algal bloom, I will talk about algal bloom.

Sitting suspended from 17:59 to 19:46.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (19:46): The South Australian Shellfish Quality Assurance Program is a joint government-industry funded program that monitors water quality in shellfish harvesting areas around the state, including oysters, mussels, cockles and scallops. Established in 1994 as a joint initiative between PIRSA and shellfish industries, it has a longstanding history of providing public health protection by way of a range of regular water and shellfish testing, further enhancing South Australia's reputation for clean, high-quality and safe seafood.

Shellfish growers operate right across our state's vast coastline, separated in growing areas that include Central Yorke, Coffin Bay, Coobowie, Denial Bay, Franklin Harbour, Haslam, Louth Bay, Nepean Bay, Port Lincoln, Smoky Bay, Stansbury, Streaky Bay, the Coorong, and Venus Bay. As such, testing covers an extensive area where shellfish growing and harvesting activities occur.

At anytime, there may be a number of closures in place for various reasons. Often these are precautionary and only last a short period of time. Closures in relation to SASQAP (South Australian Shellfish Quality Assurance Program) testing are not unusual for shellfish growers and harvesters and are an important safeguard in ensuring high-quality safe produce.

In the interest of transparency, information on all growing areas' current status, I am advised, is regularly updated and available on PIRSA's website. There has been ongoing communication with industry and regular updates provided to the public and the media about the algal bloom and its impacts. PIRSA has been providing the South Australian Research Development Institute (SARDI) harmful algal bloom situation updates to the commercial fisheries and aquaculture sectors, as well as RecFish since April.

These updates, I am advised, along with other information about the algal bloom, are also made publicly available every week on the PIRSA website. There are also regular updates posted on the DEW website with a long list of frequently asked questions. South Australian and federal scientific agencies, academics and other experts have worked hard over recent months to identify and determine the cause of the Karenia mikimotoi algal bloom, providing regular updates to the public, to industry and to the opposition. SA Water undertakes routine water quality testing across several South Australian sites and water quality alerts are available at the SA Health website.

One of the challenges in releasing algal counts without interpretation is it is only one part of an explanation as to why a shellfish harvesting area may be closed or indeed opened. It is why, to date, algal count data from the South Australian Shellfish Quality Assurance Program, a joint state government and shellfish industry program, has not been released generally to the public. All accredited producers, which includes producers in the closed areas, are receiving a weekly update of areas closed due to brevetoxins, I am advised, which includes any changes to phytoplankton (algae) levels from the previous week.

At the start of this month, SARDI hosted an algal bloom workshop, bringing together more than 80 marine and environmental experts from around Australia to discuss the impacts of the unprecedented algal bloom. The Harmful Algal Bloom Sites Forum was held at the SA Aquatic Sciences Centre in West Beach on 3 June. To assist in preparing for future incidents, participants reviewed the latest scientific findings, shared operational insights, identified knowledge gaps and suggested priority actions for ongoing and future research and monitoring. This will assist to understand the broad impacts of the current algal bloom and mitigate and manage future events for the marine ecosystem, coastal industries and public health.

The government is able to supply information on Fishwatch hotline calls regarding marine and non-marine species deaths from the timeline specified in the motion, I am advised. Often, the Fishwatch hotline receives multiple calls on the same or similar incidents, such as fish kills. There may not be information related to plankton counts and water quality assessments at all locations of fish kills as referred to in the honourable member's motion; however, I am advised that PIRSA will work to supply the information on the reports from the public made to the Fishwatch hotline.

Accordingly, the government will be supporting the amendment proposed by the Hon. Connie Bonaros, and thanks her for bringing it forward. We look forward to a speedy conclusion to this debate.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (19:51): I rise today to speak in support of this motion—indeed, in support of the amended motion that it now is—which calls for the production of documents referencing plankton counts related to South Australia's Shellfish Quality Assurance Program, along with additional data concerning reports to Fishwatch of marine and non-marine species deaths, plankton counts and water quality assessments. This is not a political stunt: this is a pretty straightforward call for transparency, something that should not be controversial in any modern democracy.

Over the past seven months, South Australians, particularly in coastal communities, have witnessed some troubling scenes—unexplained fish deaths, shellfish mortality events and recurring algal blooms—and these patterns are not isolated nor have they been insignificant. They point to a broader pattern that has prompted concerns from fishers, aquaculture operators, conservation groups, scientists and, indeed, from the general public alike. That is why the opposition has repeatedly called for an independent inquiry into those widespread fish and shellfish deaths and the algal bloom. We believe such an investigation is necessary to properly assess the cause, evaluate the government's response and rebuild public confidence.

An inquiry would allow for rigorous arm's-length scrutiny of the science, the response mechanisms and the sufficiency of the current environmental protections, and would also ensure the concerns of affected communities that at this point in time continue to be left in the dark. The public has a right to understand the state of our waters, and commercial fishers and the aquaculture industry have a right to know if the ecosystems that they depend on are under threat.

This motion simply seeks to release testing data and reports from the start of 2025 that pertain to plankton counts, as well as any follow-up investigations triggered by calls to the Fishwatch hotline, including those related to marine and non-marine species deaths. It also covers data on plankton counts and water quality at known fish kill locations. It is not about finger pointing, it is simply about facts. We need to understand what is being collected, what the government knows and what assessments have been made. This will allow the parliament and the public to draw informed conclusions and hold government agencies to account, where appropriate. Our coastal ecosystems are too important to be treated with indifference and our seafood industry too valuable to be put at risk by complacency. I commend the motion to the council.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (19:54): I thank those who have made a contribution tonight: the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, the Hon. Ian Hunter and the Hon. Connie Bonaros. I note that the Hon. Connie Bonaros has moved an amendment, which restricts the information with regard to the SA Shellfish Quality Assurance Program to that referencing plankton counts. Certainly I am open to that and supportive of that amendment—it was a compromise reached between the opposition, the government, myself and the Hon. Connie Bonaros earlier today in a discussion, understanding the sensitivities around commercial protections for those in the industry.

The intent of this motion tonight is pretty much what the Hon. Nicola Centofanti just said: to assess what has been collected, what we know and then to inform what we can do from the broadest possible scope. I do know that there has been frustration, for example, from GPs, who did not have access to public health information in a way that they would have preferred earlier on as we address what is somewhat of an unprecedented issue with the current toxic algal bloom and the impact that it is having right across South Australia's shores.

I note and remind members of this council as well that this is not something, in calling for this information, that is out of the ordinary in other jurisdictions. I refer members of the council to the Tasmanian Biotoxin News, which comes out every week. I look at the summary of results for the week commencing Monday 26 March 2025, published by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania as part of the Shellfish Market Access Program. In that, it notes that:

Boomer Bay, Maria Zone, Little Taylors Bay, and Adventure Bay PST levels have been above the regulatory limit of 0.8 mg/kg in recent weeks (see results in red below). Based on the toxin profiles and available phytoplankton data, we believe that all these exceedances have been caused by Gymnodinium catenatum blooms.

Very helpfully, those amounts that do exceed the limits are in red in this document. This comes out every week in Tasmania. Similar documents come out in New South Wales; similar documents come out right across the world. The thing is, when you create a system where information is released more regularly, hopefully that will lead to a situation where conspiracy theories do not abound and good science is able to be practised, particularly because good science by its very nature should not be secretive, and that is the point of this motion. I commend it to the council.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.