Labor’s Kelvin Thompson told Parliament during debate on his party’s plan to turn back the big boat that he had been informed by the Maritime Union of Australia that Margiris is crewed by 45 Croatian nationals.
The only jobs for Australians were to be in processing the catch.
The vote on Labor’s plan to stop ‘Abel Tasman’ is ongoing …
• For breaking news use the TT NEWS Dropdown menu (top nav bar).
• SENATOR THE HON RICHARD COLBECK
Senator for Tasmania
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation, Industry and Science
M E D I A R E L E A S E
September 12, 2012
Another day, another bungling Government overreaction
Another day. Another problem. Another bungling Government overreaction.
Such has been Tony Burke’s response to the FV Margiris trawler.
What the Government is proposing is fisheries management by greens scare campaign. What the Coalition is
proposing is a stand for good Government.
The legislation tabled yesterday makes any fishing activity where there is “social uncertainty” subject to a
declaration by the minister, which can shut down that activity for up to two years.
During the Coalition’s briefing yesterday, it became apparent that Environment Minister Tony Burke did so without
consulting anyone with specialist knowledge over his concerns.
Not the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC), not the Institute of Marine and Antarctic
Studies (IMAS), not even individual specialist scientists. He had just had a discussion with his department.
It is telling that the harvest strategy for the fishery, which Mr Burke signed off on twice when he was Fisheries
Minister stated:
There are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale
factory freezer vessels.”
(Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Page 2)
http://www.afma.gov.au/managing‐our‐fisheries/fisheries‐a‐to‐z‐index/small‐pelagic‐fishery/publications/small‐pelagicfishery‐
harvest‐strategy/
His claims that a vessel such as this was not contemplated by the Government just do not stack up – Mr Burke in
signing off on the harvest strategy invited it here.
It also is worth noting the entire AFMA Commission, which has been managing this on behalf of the Government,
was appointed by Mr Burke – he has now effectively said he has no confidence in his own appointees and
processes he put in place.
This legislation is just another tool granted to the Greens by this Government to campaign against fishing in
Australia. It they can make enough noise and create enough “social uncertainty”, an activity can be prohibited for
two years at the stroke of a Minister’s pen. That’s a Government making it up as it goes along.
It undermines the certainty of statutory fishing rights and threatens recreational fishers alike – there is no
discrimination.
At a time when innovation and invention are needed to drive sustainable fisheries into the future, this measure
could instead cripple the industry.
• COMMONWEALTH FISHERIES ASSOCIATION PRESS RELEASE
Big Boat Bill “way too broad”
12 September 2012
The Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) today called for sanity and balance in the debate over the proposed new Bill from The Hon. Minister Tony Burke to create “Declared fishing activities” under the Environment Act.
Martin Exel, Chair of CFA stated that “Industry is aware of the desire by the Minister to retrospectively change the rules for the small pelagic fishery, and block the operations of the Abel Tasman, but this is clearly not the way to do things.”
• Denison Independent Andrew Wilkie urges the cross-bench to support legislation to prevent a super trawler from fishing in Australian waters and flags he will support an amendment to ban super trawlers permanently.
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (12:21): The federal government’s decision to stop the supertrawler operating in Australian waters for up to two years is, I believe, a very significant and a very positive development. I applaud the government and the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities in particular for finally acting in this matter. The case against the supertrawler is, in my opinion, overwhelming. For a start, there are doubts over the science.
Can I say upfront that I have enormous respect for the Australian scientific community and for the work that it does and I am very mindful of the fact that, in my electorate, I have a disproportionate number of marine scientists and fisheries experts—in fact, one of the highest populations of such people, pro rata, of any city in the country. But the fact is that the views in the scientific community are divided; there is not a clear consensus one way or another in this matter. For example, in Tasmania, our own Dr Andrew Wadsley has done some very good work picking apart the science behind the quota and has found many errors. Further afield, Professor Jessica Meeuwig, who is a research professor at the University of Western Australia, has had this to say:
But we are largely ignorant about the effective population structure of these species. Of the four species considered for exploitation, the population structure of blue mackerel is uncertain, and jack mackerel and redbait are believed to have eastern and western subpopulations. No dedicated population studies have been conducted on redbait nor is any information available for Peruvian jack mackerel. Moreover, little is reported about adult movements of any of these species except that larger jack mackerel are found in deeper waters.
That is one opinion from a very highly regarded Western Australian professor. I will quote again, this time from a friend of mine from Hobart, John Biggs. In an online blog comment this morning, he wrote:
Science’s role is to provide the information on which policy can be made, its role is not to create policy. Policymakers certainly need to take the science into account, which means they are satisfied it is fully up to date … But policymakers also need to take into account a range of other factors, including the opinions of the public who elected them. Science may tell us what can happen but that does not mean to say it should happen. And in any case, the science here is focused on a specific species, not the whole ecosystem, is out of date and statistically wrong according to Dr Wadsley and others.
There are also doubts, in my opinion, over the effectiveness of the government’s safeguards and, in particular, the promise of an observer onboard the supertrawler Margiris, because, to save money, the government is moving to replace fishing observers with electronic monitoring through the Fisheries Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1), which passed this House in August and is now before the Senate. The government variously described the conditions it had imposed on the Margiris as ‘tough’, ‘stringent’ and ‘best practice’ but the reality is that the key condition of an onboard observer was nothing more than a facade. In introducing the bill, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Sid Sidebottom, told parliament:
Trials and cost-benefit analyses have shown that the more data that is required for a fishery, the cheaper it will become to use e-monitoring systems, rather than observers.
There are also doubts about the risk of localised stock depletion. This is one of the most important reasons that a single large vessel is much more problematic than a number of smaller boats filling the same quota. I suggest it is self-evident that one very large vessel with one very large net going into a relatively small fishery will have a disproportionate effect compared to a smaller number of vessels probably operating across a broader area by comparison.
Another problem with the supertrawler Margiris—and I will call it Margiris because I think renaming it Abel Tasman was downright offensive, particularly to the Tasmanian community—was that it had no social licence. Very few Tasmanians in particular wanted the vessel. That is not at all surprising, considering there are well over 100,000 recreational fishers—men, women and children—in Tasmania in a population of only half a million. I understand that elsewhere in Australia there are similar levels of concern with supertrawlers. This is very important. We in this House should represent our communities. It is too easy to simply say, ‘Some government agency at arm’s length knows more and we will disregard the view of the community.’ That is not our job and we should not do that; it should only be done in extreme circumstances. It should not have been done in this case.
There has also been the problem of the misconduct by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority when setting the quota relevant to the Margiris. I refer here to AFMA advisory committees. The outcomes of the February meeting of the resource assessment group were not accurately recorded and concerns by at least two members of the group were not communicated up the chain to the management advisory committee. We know that because the concerns of at least two members of that committee are now on the public record. Their concerns went to what is called the South East Management Advisory Committee. We know that at its meeting in March—the key meeting when the recommendation for the quota relevant to the supertrawler Margiris was finalised—the committee did not comply with the Fisheries Administration Act. We know that the proponent for the supertrawler, Mr Gerry Geen of Seafish Tasmania, a man with a direct conflict of interest, remained in that meeting—which in my opinion was entirely improper, but it was allowable as long as the committee had explicitly given him approval to remain in the meeting, and they had not. When I challenged the CEO of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority about this, remarkably the CEO said that AFMA does not take its act literally—that, in fact, it has developed in-house workaround arrangements because it has difficulties with the act.
I have taken these concerns to the ombudsman, and I am pleased that the ombudsman feels there is enough substance to my concerns about the conduct of AFMA that it is currently investigating the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, in particular its conduct regarding the setting of the quota relevant to the supertrawler Margiris.
Finally, there is also a question mark over the big picture and the fact that AFMA blocked the supertrawler Veronica in 2005 with the support of the Howard government. In fact, at about the same time, the proponents for the supertrawler Margiris commenced their work. ‘So what?’ you might ask, Mr Deputy Speaker. Well, the proponent for the Margiris, Mr Gerry Geen, was on at least one of the AFMA advisory committees in 2005 when AFMA blocked the Veronica. If that does not raise serious questions about the conduct of AFMA and whether a supertrawler should operate in Australian waters then I do not know what will.
I am not saying that Mr Geen has done anything wrong in these matters. In fact, I am genuinely concerned that Mr Geen has been allowed to do a lot of work, spend a lot of money and give employees a lot of hope when his expectations really should have been cut short long ago by either the Howard government, the Rudd government or, much earlier, the Gillard government. No, my issue here is with fisheries management in Australia and the fact that far too many people with direct conflicts of interest are allowed to occupy positions on key advisory bodies. Remember that Mr Geen, from Seafish Tasmania, the proponent for the supertrawler Margiris, was heavily involved with AFMA when a competitor vessel, the Veronica, was stopped, and he was again heavily involved more recently when the quota relevant to the Margiris was set. Surely, this is entirely improper of AFMA and should not be allowed to continue.
I urge the government to turn yesterday’s announcement into law as quickly as possible—and I urge my crossbench colleagues to support the government. I also urge the government to ensure that this two-year assessment process which has been identified is done effectively and is absolutely beyond question. And given all the uncertainty over the setting of the quota for the supertrawler Margiris I also urge the government to revoke that quota and not allow any other vessel to fish it in the interim. Regrettably, I would also add that, while the government’s announcement yesterday is to be applauded, I think it could have gone much further. Ultimately I will be supporting an amendment I expect to be moved by the member for Melbourne which would seek to ban supertrawlers permanently.
I would like to quote from a Greenpeace fact sheet on some of the issues we need to consider about toughening up the government’s bill and banning supertrawlers permanently. The supertrawler Margiris is 142 metres long, twice the size of any vessel that has fished Australian seas previously. It is six times longer than the average Australian fishing vessel. It can process—and this is a typical supertrawler—up to 250 tonnes of fish a day and store 6,200 tonnes of fish before it has to return to port. This is fishing on an industrial scale never before seen in Australia—nor should it be. Fishing on such a scale has an enormous bycatch that kills a large number of very precious animals. For example, in the past 15 years, bycatch from the 20 supertrawlers fishing off West Africa has killed an estimated 1,500 critically endangered turtles, more than 18,000 giant rays and more than 60,000 sharks. And not only are they destroying these precious animals, they are destroying jobs. Supertrawlers are inherently machinery intensive and personnel light. They are a job killer, not a job creator. They have done enormous damage around the world where they have been allowed to operate. For example, they collapsed the South Pacific fishery. I am still quoting from the Greenpeace fact sheet here. ‘Scientists said there were so many jack mackerel in the South Pacific that the fishery was impossible to overfish. But supertrawlers, including the Margiris, fished so much that in 2006 the Pacific fishery collapsed to 10 per cent of healthy stocks. Fisheries managers are calling for fishing to be cut by half, with some scientists arguing for a five-year total ban in that fishery.’ They have also effectively wiped out West Africa’s commercial fish stock. ‘Since supertrawlers, including the Margiris, started fishing off the west coast of Africa, most commercial fish stocks have become fully exploited or overexploited.’ In other words, there are effectively no more fish for commercial fishing—and that is what supertrawlers have done in recent years in other parts of the world.
Frankly, it should be up to the proponents of such vessels to prove to us that they are environmentally and economically sensible, rather than the current situation where it is up to the government to prove that such vessels are inappropriate. I believe that if we were to amend the government’s bill and ban supertrawlers permanently it would put the onus on any future proponent of a supertrawler to make a strong enough case to convince a future government to change the law. It should not be up to us to work out how to say no. The onus has to be reversed. It should be up to the proponents of supertrawlers to convince us in the future that they have changed their ways and things are better. It should be up to a future proponent of a supertrawler, if they want to have one operate in Australian waters, to persuade a future government to change the law to allow it.
I will wind it up there. I will finish by saying that yesterday’s news was great news for a great many Australians, certainly for the overwhelming majority of Tasmanians that I am aware of. I applaud the government for doing it and I call on my crossbench colleagues to understand that the government’s bill should be applauded. And the issue of science is a fair point, but remember that there is uncertainty even within the scientific community.
• Gerry Geen, SMH: ‘All we want is to fish within the rules’
12 September 2012 – 4:05PM
Gerry Geen
OPINION
The federal government’s decision to legislate to give it power to selectively stop the Abel Tasman from fishing is a reaction to the controversy and anxiety stirred up by environmentalists.
Much was said by the Environment Minister, Tony Burke, about public opinion but this was strongly influenced by a sophisticated campaign of misinformation.
All of the claims made about the impact of the Abel Tasman on fish stocks and the wider ecosystem are nonsense and have been dismissed by Australian fisheries scientists and by the government regulator, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA).
It is extraordinary that the environmentalists and the government simply dismiss the science that determined the catch limit and throw into question the credibility of the fisheries manager, the AFMA. One politician has gone as far as to question the honesty of AFMA.
The fact is that Seafish Tasmania has met every rule, regulation and request made of us.
The intervention at one minute to midnight in the process sends an awful message to potential investors in Australia to be very afraid.
Changing the rules after a business has committed years of time and money into a project is a big risk for investors.
Dashing the hopes of 45 people employed in regional Devonport where jobs are hard to come by is just cruel.
Read the rest here:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/all-we-want-is-to-fish-within-the-rules-20120912-25s9l.html
• SWAKOPMUND MATTERS (14 – 2012)
Text of letter sent on 12 September 2012 by Swakopmund Matters to the Australian organisers of Stop The Super Trawler
TRIUMPH FOR AUSTRALIA IN PROTECTING ITS OCEANS FROM FOREIGN ACTIVITY:
BUT WHAT ABOUT NAMIBIA – ANY SUPPORT FROM AUSTRALIANS?
Your major protest action had been successful in forcing the Australian Government to prohibit a super foreign trawler in Australian waters until science and consultation could demonstrate it would not damage Australia’s marine life and fisheries.
Namibians were keen observers of your continuous and relentless efforts to protect Australia’s oceans. That battle was acknowledged and understood. It was Australians’ right to do so as vehemently as possible. And by way of actions they deemed appropriate and effective. The Stop the Super Trawler Alliance made up of over 13 fishing and environment groups was successful in establishing an important principle. We congratulate all of you on this fine and major achievement.
In the hour of glory and victory we in Namibia wish all the signatories of the petition to pause for a moment and contemplate the applicability of that principle in the case of Namibia when two Australian companies plan to undertake phosphates mining in Namibian coastal waters.
Australians were justifiably and extremely concerned about a foreign company (read foreign trawler) wanting to operate in their seas. We Namibians are likewise just as much concerned about foreign companies (read two Australian companies and owners of the Sandpiper project to mine marine phosphate) wanting to operate in Namibian seas. Thus, if Australians do not want foreign activity in their seas, Namibians equally want no foreign activity in their seas. Australians want to protect theirs. Namibians want to protect theirs.
This principle must be applied both ways. If not, why not? It is a fact that can’t be wished away.
No blind eye may be turned to this fact – even if it is an inconvenient one. Supporters of this protest action must be made aware of it and realise that it cuts both ways. No one in Australia should find it difficult to understand and appreciate it.
To hide behind the argument that the Sandpiper company is actually Namibian and thus not a concern for Australians, is to deny the ownership of Sandpiper being 85% controlled by two Australian companies. Or is Sandpiper being used as a convenient Trojan horse?
You may not have seen the Open Letter we sent to your Prime Minister on 18 June 2012. A copy is attached for your attention.
We trust that we will see understanding and receive support when Namibians want this principle applied.
Namibians count on Australians being fair. Consequently, we look forward to their encouragement when Namibians equally want to keep their ocean free from activities which will be highly detrimental to its entire marine ecosystem and destructive of its fishing industry.
Yours sincerely
(Signed)
Swakopmund, Namibia
(For Swakopmund Matters the environment of the Namibian coastline and its ocean matters)
*Swakopmund Matters started out last year because of the concern for all the negative effects a planned Industrial Complex north of Swakopmund would have on its environment and the inhabitants. Apart from its land-based facilities, this project wants to mine phosphates off the coast of Namibia. That in addition to three others also planning such marine activities.
Swakopmund Matters has become a voice informing the concerned public as well as the interested and affected parties to raise awareness of the potential damage these projects could cause to the environment, especially the marine ecosystems and their rich fishery resource.
The threat that marine phosphate mining poses is not only a concern for the residents of Swakopmund and surrounding towns, but for all Namibians and many international institutions and citizens.
Encourage your family, friends and contacts to send their e-mail addresses to the following e-mail address so that a comprehensive mailing list can be maintained and all those can be reached and kept informed about the environment of the Namibian coastline and its ocean:
[email protected]
and
[email protected]
Swakopmund Matters
(For Swakopmund Matters the environment of the Namibian coastline and its ocean matters)
12 September 2012
• Examiner: Ludwig rejected whistleblower warnings on trawler approval
TWO disaffected members of the fisheries management committee that paved the way for the super trawler Margiris to come to Australia wrote to the Fisheries Minister, Joe Ludwig, in June pleading that he investigate approval processes to make sure fish stocks were protected.
Senator Ludwig replied in July, writing that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority had advised him the Margiris’s allowable catch had been ”based on research” and declined to hold an inquiry.
The revelations came as the government was poised to pass by a razor margin its legislation to ban the super trawler for up to two years.
Announcing on Tuesday the ban and a review of fisheries management, Senator Ludwig said AFMA advised him about negotiations over catch approvals only ”when the issue becomes relevant to me for consideration. So that’s only just come to the surface … about the same time the vessel appeared.”
But at least two months before the Margiris arrived in Australia in late August, two members of AFMA’s ”small pelagic fishery resource assessment group” wrote to Senator Ludwig raising ”serious questions about irregularities and conflicts of interest … in AFMA processes”.
In letters dated June 19 and June 25, they asked for an investigation of AFMA’s decision to double the allowable catch of jack mackerel so ”the management issues surrounding this fishery” could be resolved before a super trawler operated in Australian waters and so ”fish stocks can be protected.”
Jon Bryan, the conservation member of the committee, and Graham Pike, the recreational fishing representative, raised concerns about the science behind that decision, and also allegations of conflict of interest because Gerry Geen, the director of the trawler operator Seafish Tasmania also sat on the approval committee.
”The management issues surrounding this fishery need to be resolved before any approval of large scale industrial fishing … to prevent catastrophic mackerel stock collapses,” they wrote.
But Senator Ludwig told the Herald yesterday the fisheries review he announced on Tuesday would only ”go to issues of management and administration” and to his own decision-making powers, but would not change scientific assessments. ”There has been no problem with the science in this instance, there is no deficiency in that regard … AFMA continues to have my confidence for the way it manages and assesses fisheries,” he said.
See your ad here
Terms of reference will be released within days. Senator Ludwig said Mr Geen had declared his interest at the management committee as required.
• Rebecca Hubbard, Marine Coordinator, Environment Tasmania, Tooni Mahto, Marine Campaigner, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Tim Nicol, Marine Coordinator, Conservation Council of Western Australia: Super Trawler Bill Will Protect Fisheries & Increase Science
The Stop the Trawler Alliance is urging Federal MPs and Senators to support the Government’s proposed amendment to the EPBC Act to increase the science available to the Small Pelagic Fishery, reduce threats to our marine life and address public concerns about the super trawler.
“There are very serious gaps in the science of the Small Pelagic Fishery because of a lack of resources to do the work, and the proposed Bill provides time and space for this work to be done, without allowing the world’s second largest super trawler to threaten these fisheries,” said Rebecca Hubbard, Environment Tasmania’s Marine Coordinator.
“Increasing scientific certainty can only be a good thing for scientists, the public, recreational and commercial fishers and fisheries managers,” said Tooni Mahto, Australian Marine Conservation Society’s Marine campaigner. “With additional information to hand, we can ensure we are fully protecting threatened marine wildlife from the impacts of fishing, and ensure the sustainability of our fisheries into the future.”
“There have been serious flaws identified in the process and science around the quota, and opposition from fishers, state Governments, environmentalists and tens of thousands of Australians. The fish are our responsibility as Australians and we urge Parliament to act on our behalf and stop the super trawler”, said Tim Nicol, Conservation Council of Western Australia’s Marine Coordinator.
• Download Briefing: Outstanding Questions on Super Trawler and Small Pelagic Fishery Science:
Briefing_Paper_Super_trawler_and_science_12sep2012.pdf
• Australian: Dutch demand answers …
• Listen: Interview with Christine Milne on ABC Radio National Breakfast
13 September 2012
Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Christine Milne was interviewed on ABC Radio National Breakfast on the super trawler, asylum seekers, government spending, Greens proposals to raise revenue, energy efficiency and Kevin Rudd
Please follow link for audio of the interview
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/super-trawler-update/4258598
• The No Super Trawlers Rally is still on!
The Bill to stop the super trawler has yet to pass the Parliament
11am Saturday 15 Sept
Parliament House Lawns Hobart
Speakers include:
Neil Nobby Clarke Tuna Club
Rebecca Hubbard Environment Tasmania
Paul (Basil) O’Halloran MP Greens, Braddon
The Hon Julie Collins MP ALP, Franklin
Dr Jonathan Neville retired scientist and author
The federal government has announced a legislative amendment to the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act in order to halt super trawlers fishing in Australian waters until further science is conducted. They will also conduct a review of fisheries management law.
Step out in support of No Super Trawlers this Saturday and help send a clear message to the Australian Parliament that we require sound, contemporary science applied to our fisheries management in Australia. We do want fishing for generations to come, and we don’t want added threats to our protected species.
Now is the time to remain united and vigilant for sustainable fisheries in Australia.
• SENATOR THE HON RICHARD COLBECK
Senator for Tasmania
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation, Industry and Science
M E D I A R E L E A S E
Greens the guilty party
“The extreme and outlandish claims by Greens leader Nick McKim, saying the loss of 45
Tasmanian fishing jobs was the company’s fault, is another example of Greens spin having no
regard for the truth,” Senator Richard Colbeck said.
“But for the Green-inspired last-minute change to the rules, 45 Tasmanians would be off the
unemployment list.
“Thanks to the Greens, they are back on the dole queue.”
“This is the human face and consequence of Green extremism.”
