HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-09-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FISHING SUPER TRAWLER

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars:

That this Council:

1. notes the significant concerns of the South Australian community, commercial and recreational fishing groups and conservation groups about the presence of the FV Margiris in our region and the proposal for it to operate in the South Australian Small Pelagic Fishery;

2. notes the importance of the Small Pelagic Fishery to the South Australian fishing industry and the marine ecosystem;

3. notes the potential risks that this immense trawler would have on threatened, protected and endangered marine species and potential impacts on fish species that are commercially important to our state;

4. notes the potentially devastating effects that this super trawler may have on the South Australian sardine industry which makes a significant contribution to our South Australian economy;

5. opposes the proposed operation of the super trawler in the Small Pelagic Fishery; and

6. strongly urges the federal minister to reject the application for the FV Margiris to operate in the Small Pelagic Fishery.

(Continued from 5 September 2012.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:42): I rise to speak to the motion of the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars and make some comments on behalf of the opposition. The FV Margiris has been rebadged in commonwealth waters as the FV Abel Tasman and is operated by Seafish Tasmania, a joint venture between Seafish Tasmania and Seafish Tasmania Pelagic, and is committed to long-term sustainable fishing in Australian waters.

One point has remained constant throughout the super trawler debate: the Abel Tasman would only fish in commonwealth waters, those being waters outside the three mile state limits, thus making this a commonwealth issue, not a state issue. To spell that out: it is not a South Australian Labor government issue either. The operator of the FV Abel Tasman has met every requirement, abided by existing rules and complied with regulations. As one political commentator states:

Its only crime was to run into a government in a tight political spot that is looking to attract votes on the back of a populist environmental campaign.

This can be said of the federal and current state Labor government. The kneejerk reaction of the federal government has put Australia's reputation as a stable investment country at risk, adding to a growing list of decisions which have penalised investors. As another commentator reports:

Investors, already spooked by abrupt decisions and reversals on mining taxes, the carbon tax and live cattle exports, now have one more reason to worry about sovereign risk—governments changing the rules after the money's been committed.

The reaction by the federal government has also drawn a lot of criticism, citing the influence of the Greens. The Liberal opposition acknowledges and supports sustainable fisheries management and sustainable fisheries practices, and in particular the South Australian commercial fishing industry. We recognise the development of the fishing industry in South Australia, and commercial fishery needs to be based on a sound marine science platform.

As a result of the federal government's inconsistent approach to policy, as we have seen, 50 employees will lose their jobs, Seafish Tasmania loses a considerable amount of money as a result of the introduction of the two-year ban on fishing whilst the science is explored, and Seafish Tasmania confirmed it will be looking at compensation which will be expected to be in the tens of millions of dollars.

The state Labor government is happy to use science as an excuse where it fits, not having done so when implementing its marine parks policy and also in the debate on the River Murray. The federal Labor government has overreacted and backflipped on policy. The Liberal opposition believes the federal Labor government has not shown respect to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the CSIRO.

I put on the record some facts about the small pelagic fishery. The Abel Tasman is targeting small pelagic fish, such as redbait, jack mackerel and blue mackerel. No boat size limits apply in the small pelagic fishery or in any fishery managed solely by the commonwealth. The small pelagic fishery is managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) under a statutory management plan.

The total allowable catch (TAC) for each species in each zone of a fishery is set annually by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority in accordance with the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy—a strategy, incidentally, signed off by the Hon. Tony Burke, when he was minister for agriculture, food and fisheries in 2008, and revised in 2009.

The harvest strategy policy was developed as a direct response to a ministerial direction calling for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to take a science-based approach to setting total allowable catch and effort in commonwealth fisheries. The harvest strategy is based on sound science and recognises the ecological importance of the species and is precautionary.

The harvest strategy requires that research is undertaken into the stock biomass, a fishery-independent stock assessment technique, known as the daily egg production method. The objective of the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy was:

The sustainable and profitable utilisation of the small pelagic fishery in perpetuity through the implementation of a harvest strategy that maintains key commercial stocks at ecologically sustainable levels and, within this context, maximises the net economic returns to the Australian community.

The Small Pelagic Fish Harvest Strategy is similar to approaches successfully applied in other large fisheries for small pelagic species (for example, in the South Australian sardine fishery) and has been developed to account for key fishery specific attributes such as:

Recent catches are limited by economic constraints and are considered by the Small Pelagic Fish Resource Assessment Group to be below the maximum sustainable level, and there is potential for sustainable expansion of the fishery.

Small pelagic fish species are an important food source for many threatened, endangered and protected species and other species and it is therefore important that the Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy takes into account the ecosystem role of the species.

Small pelagic species are caught in high volumes and have a low unit value. Additionally, there are high capital costs associated with large-scale catching units and the specific processing infrastructure required. As a result, fishing operators need to have a heightened efficiency.

Most importantly, as a result of aiming to achieve this objective, minister Burke signed off on a point that welcomes mid-water trawlers such as the Abel Tasman to fish in commonwealth waters for small pelagic fish:

There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels.

I make a couple of points about quotas and by-catch. Commonwealth and South Australian fisheries policies have been well managed with quotas in place to address overfishing of each fishery. I think South Australia has an excellent record of managing a whole range of fisheries in a quota-based system. However, quotas have continually been cut by state and commonwealth governments, making commercial fisheries and certain fisheries unviable.

To make it viable to fish, many quotas have been consolidated into one licence and, as long as the rules do not allow overfishing in any one area, this is seen as a sensible approach to fishing. In the same way that other industries increase size to cut costs and maximise efficiency, it is sensible that the fishing industry is headed this way. It is argued that it should be encouraged that these quotas be filled at the least cost in order to free up resources for other uses.

The proposed operations of the Abel Tasman have met all the requirements of Australian fisheries policy and federal environmental protection laws. A strict quota has been set for the small pelagic fishery and the fisheries management arrangements for this fishery have been strategically assessed by the federal environment department on several occasions, most recently in 2012. Quotas are in place in order to manage fisheries to avoid undesirable flow-on effects of these fisheries on the food web and ecosystem.

Seafish Tasmania has had ranging quotas from 15,000 tonnes to 26,000 tonnes over the past 12 years, with 18,000 tonnes being considerably conservative in the scheme of things. The quota assigned to Seafish Tasmania was based on science performed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) and the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania, and was reviewed by the CSIRO. As a result, a joint report by several marine scientists confirmed that the small pelagic fishery is sustainable and that the quotas set are conservative.

There is a strong scientific basis and understanding of what is required of fishery management to protect the food web and the broader ecosystem—and dependant fish, bird and marine mammal populations in particular—when conducting a fishery that targets the forage fish in that ecosystem. These requirements include that management be more conservative where there is more scientific uncertainty about the forage fish in the food web. The harvest strategy for the small pelagic fishery was borrowed heavily from the experience gained in the South Australian sardine industry.

Localised depletion is where fishing reduces the abundance of fish in a local area for a period of time. Several scientists, including representatives from SARDI, CSIRO and the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania, give confidence that the food web impacts of the small pelagic fishery on predators and the small pelagic fishery species themselves, including localised depletion, are unlikely.

There has been some discussion about fish by-catch. Under the well-managed guidance of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and PIRSA—and I say PIRSA, not the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources—fishing gear is regulated heavily to reduce by-catch, and this is no different for the Abel Tasman. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority has committed to 100 per cent observer coverage to monitor the by-catch and other aspects of the fishery operations for the factory trawler.

There has been extensive research and sampling conducted on midwater trawlers such as the Abel Tasman by Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies researchers and Australian Fisheries Management Authority observers, with many reports finding that midwater trawl operations had minimal impact levels of catch of non-target species. Stringent by-catch conditions have also been set under the well-managed guidance of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. Fishing gear is regulated heavily to reduce by-catch.

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority must be informed of all catch landed and verifies this information. If operators are found to have caught more than their quota, a strict penalty applies. In the small pelagic fishery, operators must hold quota to cover by-catch of species that are subject to quota management in other commonwealth fisheries. However, we do recognise the concern outlined by industries such as the South Australian Sardine Industry Association that there can often be 'a capacity for mistaken identity of species', which is a quote from Paul Watson, the executive officer of the SA Sardine Industry Association.

The issue of marine mammal by-catch has also been in the media. Midwater trawl operations in the small pelagic fishery include ongoing and effective observer coverage to monitor such interactions with seals and dolphins, along with strategies that reduce capture and mortality rates. Voluntary avoidance measures are in effect. The measures are simple: 'move on' rules that stop fishing and move the vessel to a different location if dolphins are sighted. In addition, the small pelagic fishery vessels are required to use a seal exclusion device. Voluntary ongoing measures and monitoring assesses excluder devices and manages the ongoing risk of marine mammal interactions and capture. The Australian Fisheries Management Authority has a dedicated team of enforcement officers and, significantly, quite a broad range of enforcement powers.

I think those comments lay down the facts of what is happening in that particular fishery. I indicate that the opposition will not be opposing this motion, but place on the record those comments.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (17:54): I thank the Hon. David Ridgway for his comments. I am somewhat disappointed at the Liberal Party's position, as I think—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: We're not opposing it.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: You may not be voting against it, but you certainly opposed the actions of the federal government, which I think are in the interests of South Australia and the South Australian fishing environment. Many South Australians have raised their concern about the Abel Tasman, formerly the FV Margiris, seeking to operate in Australia's small pelagic fishery. This marine pelagic environment is the largest aquatic habitat on earth.

The 142-metre trawling and processing ship is reported to be 600 metres long, with nets operating nearly 200 by 100 metres in size, and the primary target would be jack mackerel, blue mackerel and redbait in the small pelagic fishery. Recently the Minister for Environment and Sustainability informed the House of Assembly about not only the public concern but also the need to preserve this state's reputation for its premium clean and green food industry.

This fish factory, which has sought to operate under commonwealth fishing permits in commonwealth waters adjacent to South Australia, could have had serious consequences for our marine mammals and sardine fishery. The state government has taken a stand against the arrival of this super trawler and wrote to the federal minister for fisheries to explain the concerns held by the public and the community, to urge the federal minister not to allow the Abel Tasman to fish in the small pelagic fishery. Thankfully, this has seen the commonwealth government respond and introduce legislation which will suspend the trawler's licence for two years in commonwealth waters. I commend the commonwealth government for its response to these concerns. Apparently, the Senate passed the legislation earlier today. This government is proud that it has a record for its commitment to marine conservation. We are well recognised nationally and internationally for our biodiversity. This government recently took further steps in marine conservation through the release of a draft marine parks zone. This is yet another important initiative for the habitat protection and bioconservation of marine environments.

The South Australian community wants certainty around the protection of its maritime environment, and although we applaud the federal government for its recent decision we hope that all sides of politics agree that there is no place for the super trawler in Australian waters. Finally, I put on record a letter from the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, the Hon. Gail Gago, to the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, which corrects an assertion made by the federal minister, and states:

Dear Senator Ludwig,

The South Australian Government is pleased that the Commonwealth government has recently introduced legislation to Federal Parliament that will suspend the Abel Tasman (formerly Margiris FV) from fishing in Australian waters for two years. I note that the legislation has now passed the House of Representatives.

Given the levels of public interest and concern amongst fishers, conservation groups and the broader community expressed about the operation of the Abel Tasman in the small pelagic fishery, the decision by the Commonwealth Government and Minister Burke to review the science is commendable.

In your recent correspondence you asserted that the State Government had the ability to prevent access to ports through the use of their ports powers. I can advise that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure has sought legal advice about this matter and there is no power through which the State can prevent a vessel from accessing this State's ports, except in cases of emergency where the action is taken to avoid or minimise danger to human life or damage to property. In addition there is no appropriate head of power in South Australian legislation that will allow the state to make regulations to prevent the vessel from accessing this state's ports.

I will conclude on that.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT