The Commonwealth Ombudsman has written to me outlining his findings in response to my complaint that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) erred when setting the quota relevant to the super trawler Margiris.
The Ombudsman found that AFMA did not follow the law when the South East Management Advisory Committee finalised its recommendation for the quota relevant to the super trawler.
In particular the Ombudsman found that one of the members of that committee had a financial conflict of interest but was allowed to remain in, and contribute to, discussions about the quota.
As a direct result of the Ombudsman’s investigation AFMA has undertaken remedial and corrective steps to address the substantive issues arising from my complaint.
The Ombudsman has also forwarded material to the Federal Government’s review of fisheries legislation.
Seafish Tasmania has responded by attacking the Ombudsman which is clearly a case of attacking the messenger who found very serious problems with fisheries management in Australia.
Seafish claims the Ombudsman ``had completed the investigation and found nothing to report’’. In fact the Ombudsman’s letter to me of 18 December 2012 outlining the results of the inquiry runs to four pages and includes the findings ``processes relating to a scheduled meeting of the South East Management Advisory Committee (SEMAC) on 26 March 2012 were not in accordance with legislative requirement’’ and that the ``conflicted SPFRAG [Small Pelagic Fishery Resource Assessment Group] members did not seek approval to remain at, and participate in, group deliberations after declaring the conflict [of interest]’’.
In other words my complaint to the Ombudsman that AFMA did not follow proper process when it set the quota relevant to the Margiris has been upheld.
Seafish claims I didn’t release the letter because it didn’t suit my ``agenda’’. In fact I decided not to release the letter during the Christmas/New Year holiday period because it was simply too important a document to bury during the holiday period and subsequent bushfire emergency. Moreover I did hand the letter to the Mercury newspaper this morning, well before Seafish issued its media release.
Seafish notes the Ombudsman’s report (which it claims to have not seen) offers no comment on Director Gerry Geen or Seafish itself. But in fact Mr Geen is well known as being the relevant member of SEMAC and SPFRAG.
Seafish claims my comments last year about the Ombudsman investigating ``other matters’’ was some kind of beat up. But in fact it was the Ombudsman who referred to other matters being under investigation and the Ombudsman’s letter to me does in fact address other issues, and in particular the conflict of interest and communications difficulties associated with the SPFRAG.
Seafish Tasmania claims there is now no question mark over the quota relevant to the Margiris. But in fact all the Ombudsman says is that ``it does not necessarily follow that errors in the SEMAC process operate to invalidate the TAC [Total Allowable Catch]’’ and goes on to note the review of fisheries legislation which is still ongoing.
That there were at least very serious problems within AFMA is beyond question for all, it seems, other than Seafish Tasmania. The Federal Government has already identified the need for a roots and branch review of fisheries legislation and the Ombudsman’s letter to me lists 11 AFMA actions as a result of my complaint.
Download the Ombudsman’s findings:
2012-300213_s12_Notice_Mr_Wilkie.docx_.pdf
• AFMA CEO Dr James Findlay responds ...
AFMA CEO Dr James Findlay today said that independent MP Andrew Wilkie’s interpretation of the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s findings was selective and misleading.
“When Mr Wilkie first brought the administrative error from the South East Management Advisory Committee meeting to AFMA’s attention we immediately and publically conceded the error and took immediate action to prevent any repeat”, Dr Findlay said.
“However, as clearly outlined in the Ombudsman’s report to Mr Wilkie, it is the independent AFMA Commission that sets the catch limits and not the advisory committee.
“AFMA has always maintained that the catch limits set by the independent AFMA Commission were lawful and unaffected by the error within the meeting procedures followed by one of its advisory groups.
The Ombudsman’s report does not support Mr Wilkie’s contrary view.
“Mr Wilkie’s further claims that the Ombudsman’s findings mean there are ‘very serious problems with fisheries management in Australia’ are not in any way supported by the Ombudsman’s findings.”
“Moreover, it is disappointing that Mr Wilkie has today sought to claim responsibility for actions taken by AFMA that have nothing to do with the Ombudsman’s investigation and actually pre-date Mr Wilkie’s complaint.”
• ABC Online: Bid to use super trawler as giant freezer:
Seafish Tasmania’s Joe Pirrello is stressing the ship will not fish and it is not an attempt to sidestep the Minister’s ruling.
“The Abel Tasman will not put a net in the water. This is not an attempt to circumvent the Minister’s declaration,” he said in a statement.
“This is our response to the Minister’s approval of existing fishing techniques and operations.
“It means jobs for at least 50 Australians and existing Australian boats, existing technology and boats that have previously operated in this fishery.”
Seafish Tasmania says there is support from the industry.
“The smaller operators cannot fish economically to supply export markets,” Mr Pirrello said.
Show Comments
Comments (0)
Well done, Andrew Wilkie.
You’d have my vote purely on your sense of justice and tenacity ensuring it, but I’m in a distant electorate.
As for Tasmania’s useless Liberal and Labor parties, they were content to sit back and allow corporate immorality and bureaucratic corruption prevail so one greedy enterprise could destroy Tasmania’s pelagic fishery and set a precedent.
Andrew Wilkie is “overclaiming” justification for himself and “underdeclaring” the sensible meaning of the Ombudsman’s “it does not necessarily follow…”
Fraud!
I think AFMA and Seafish Tasmania are putting-on a brave face knowing people power shut down their operation. Where is Australia’s Minister for Fisheries in this? Ludwig seems to be on permanent holiday. With Ministers like Ludwig the ALP with definitely lose government this year.
Good work Andrew. Your interpretation of the ombudsman’s report is reasonable, Geen’s is distorted and self-serving, while Findlay is clearly on the back foot, defending hard. There’s onbviously something badly wrong with thsis whole business, and thank God Andrew you are doing something about it.
I have it on the highest Tasmanian legal authority that even the most blatant conflict of interest in a decision- maker is no disqualification for the job.
It should be noted, however, that Tas is very much an island in this respect.
John Hayward
No 3, Karl, we have a Minister for Fisheries do we?
The saga is not over with Seafish Tasmania now placing a proposition with AFMA that the Margiris be used as a mother ship.
We have until the 28th January to get in comments.
In my opinion the proposal that Gerry Geen is now suggesting is not much different to the original proposition of trawling with the Margiris. He will use a smaller trawler/s to provide fish for the freezer trawler Margiris. It will mean that a smaller trawler can continue to trawl without the need to off load catch at a Port or to replenish supplies. Not far from the original proposition of using the Margiris to trawl. Its just down right arrogant of AFMA to allow this to be considered when a two year moratorium has been declared. The issues of localised depletion, impacts on seal and bird colonies, very old “science”, by catch, impact on local communities and all the other matters discussed have not been answered. Write a letter to:
The Small Pelagic Fishery Manager
Australian Fisheries Management Authority
Box 7051
Canberra Business Centre
CANBERRA ACT 2610
Or contact politicians by email, especially Minister Burke. Its probably no use to contact Joe Ludwig as he has been an apologist for AFMA continuously.
Dispute means mackerel is no longer catch of the day
Comments (342)
Matt McGrath By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent, BBC News
The Marine Conservation Society (MCS) has downgraded mackerel from its list of fish suitable to eat.
The society says that international arguments about quotas mean it is no longer a sustainable choice.
It says that mackerel should now be eaten only occasionally and consumers should instead eat herrings or sardines.
But UK fishermen say the downgrading is premature and could be counterproductive.
Mackerel has become increasingly popular in recent years, thanks in part to greater awareness of the health benefits associated with eating oily fish. It has also been endorsed by several celebrity chefs.
But as the interest in the species has increased, the fish itself has been on the move. Once found mainly in the north east Atlantic, in recent years the fish have tended to head north west towards Iceland and the Faroe Isles following their prey of squid and crustaceans.
Because it is found in greater quantities in their waters, the Icelandic and Faroese fishing industries have unilaterally decided to vastly increase the amount of the species that they catch.
This has upset Scottish fishermen for whom mackerel is a critical stock, with £164m landed in 2011. The EU and Norway are also involved in the dispute over quotas which so far has proved intractable in negotiations.
The impasse has spurred the Marine Conservation Society into action. It has now removed mackerel from its “fish to eat” list.
“At the moment, the stock biomass according to the scientific data is above the levels that is recommended, however the number of fish being removed is above the target and too high,” MCS fisheries officer Bernadette Clarke told BBC News.
Read the rest ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21119899
If by any chance this proposal to use the Magiris purely as a mother ship has potential to reduce by-catch, aquatic mammal and avian deaths, while saving fuel and making the practice more efficient then it should be considered.
However, the issue of quotas, and what the catch is used for (human food or pellets for fish farms) remains and there appears to be no information on whether or how this has been resolved. Otherwise its just another example of a tarted up pig.
Why can the fishing industry not get its head around the idea that the less you take in one hit, the more there is for later for longer?
Greed perhaps? Surely not?