COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Proof Committee Hansard
HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES,
FISHERIES AND FORESTRY
Role of science for the future of fisheries and aquaculture
(Public)
TUESDAY, 31 JULY 2012
TOWNSVILLE
CONDITIONS OF DISTRIBUTION
This is an uncorrected proof of evidence taken before the committee.
It is made available under the condition that it is recognised as such.
BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
[PROOF COPY]
INTERNET
Hansard transcripts of public hearings are made available on the
internet when authorised by the committee.
The internet address is:
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard
To search the parliamentary database, go to:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Members in attendance: Mr Adams, Mr Christensen, Mr Lyons.
Terms of Reference for the Inquiry:
To inquire into and report on:
The role of science for the future of fisheries and aquaculture, and in particular:
a) the relationship between scientific knowledge of fish species, ecosystems, biodiversity and fish stock sustainability;
b) fishery management and biosecurity, including but not limited to:
 the calculation and monitoring of stock size, sustainable yield and bycatch, as well as related data collection
 the effects of climate change, especially relating to species dispersion, stock levels and impacts on fishing communities
 pest and disease management and mitigation
 minimising risks to the natural environment and human health
 cooperation among Australian governments on the above
c) research, development and applied science of aquaculture, including:
 transitioning from wild fisheries to aquaculture in individual species
 improving sustainability and lifecycle management practices and outcomes
 pest and disease management and mitigation
d) governance arrangements relating to fisheries and aquaculture, including the implications for sustainability and industry
development;
e) current initiatives and responses to the above matters by state, territory and Australian governments;
f) any other related matter.
WITNESSES
DICK, Mr Alistair John, General Manager, Pacific Reef Fisheries; and President, Australian Prawn
Farmers Association ............................................................................................................................................ 9
ENGLISH, Ms Susan, Manager, Government Business, Australian Institute of Marine Science ................... 1
HALL, Dr Michael Robert, Principal Research Scientist, Australian Institute of Marine Science ................. 1
KINGSFORD, Professor Michael John, Head of School, School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James
Cook University ................................................................................................................................................. 19
LYNNE, Mrs Judith Valerie, Executive Officer, Sunfish Queensland ............................................................. 14
SIMPFENDORFER, Associate Professor Colin Ashley, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences and
Director, Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture......................................................... 19
STARCK, Dr Walter, Private capacity ................................................................................................................ 27
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 1
ENGLISH, Ms Susan, Manager, Government Business, Australian Institute of Marine Science
HALL, Dr Michael Robert, Principal Research Scientist, Australian Institute of Marine Science
Committee met at 10:03
CHAIR (Hon. DGH Adams): I declare open this public hearing of the House of Representatives Standing
Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry for its inquiry into the role of science for the future
of fisheries and aquaculture. Today the committee will hear from representatives of the Australian Institute of
Marine Science, the Australian Prawn Farmers Association, Sunfish Queensland, James Cook University and
Agri-Science Queensland. The committee will also hear from Dr Walter Starck, who is appearing in a private
capacity. Welcome to our inquiry. Thank you very much for your submissions. As you would have read in our
terms of reference, we are trying to enhance Australia's position going forward. Hopefully, we can pool all our
information and evidence together and build some decent recommendations for the future.
I call the representatives of the Australian Institute of Marine Science. Although the committee does not
require you to give evidence under oath, I should advise you that this hearing is a formal proceeding of the
parliament and warrants the same respect as proceedings of the House. Giving false or misleading evidence is a
serious matter and may be regarded as a contempt of parliament. Do you have any comments on the capacity in
which you appear?
Ms English: I am representing Mr John Gunn, CEO of AIMS, who, unfortunately, could not be here today.
He will, however, get to meet with you tomorrow.
Dr Hall: I am the principal research scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. I presently oversee
the research effort of one of the key research areas, which is tropical aquaculture.
CHAIR: It is good to have you with us. We have received your submission as No. 20. You probably have
some introductory remarks, then we will have some questions.
Ms English: Briefly, just to introduce the organisation, the Australian Institute of Marine Science is
Australia's tropical marine research agency. It is a Commonwealth statutory authority and conducts research
across Northern Australia, from bases in Townsville, Perth and Darwin. Since it was established in 1972 it has
grown to approximately 200 staff and this capacity is enhanced through an effective collaboration network, an
active program of student supervision and co-supervision with various universities nationally.
We are known internationally for the quality of our research into tropical marine environments and their living
aquatic resources and we maintain a strong commitment to linking science with users. This is reflected in the
AIMS's submission, which is to generate and transfer knowledge to support the sustainable use and protection of
the marine environment through innovative, world-class scientific and technological research. To do this, AIMS
pursues strategic basic and applied research into marine systems, from microbes to whole of ecosystems,
including fundamental knowledge about the processes that sustain them. It monitors the condition and trends in
the marine environment and it develops enabling technology across a broad spectrum, from molecular sciences to
ocean technologies. This includes technologies to support mass propagation of healthy larvae, a key to
domestication of wild stocks for application in aquaculture and experimental science.
I offer those as introductory remarks and will hand over to Dr Hall, who is primarily responsible for putting
together the submission you have.
Dr Hall: You have submission No. 20. There is an introductory letter there and then there is appendix 1,
which addresses some of the terms of reference that we felt we had expertise in to make comment on. We did not
make comment on all the terms of reference because we do not believe we have the expertise to do so. Many of
the other people to whom you are speaking to during this inquiry do have that knowledge. Finally, there is
appendix 2, which has more background information plus publications and scientific literature, which has been
peer reviewed, as evidence of some of the statements made in the submission.
CHAIR: Wild fisheries are driven by capital, boats, quota, crew and all the other things used in fisheries.
Aquaculture is certainly driven by science and then capital. Getting the mixture together for growth is one of the
issues that we are looking at. Your submission covers a lot of those issues in relation to the need for food—fish is
a food—and how we fit into the world, the Asian century and all those things very well. With respect to the
prospects for growth and the necessary action to get aquaculture further advanced, how are we going to do that?
Resources would be one thing and then more science et cetera, but you might like to enhance that statement for
us.
Dr Hall: Historically, the world depended on supplying that food by wild harvesting, basically, and I think
that is one of the mindsets that need to be changed, in that it should be viewed from the point of view that it is a
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 2
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
food production area. It is part of the food economy and it is part of supplying food. Historically that has been
done by wild catch, but there is more than sufficient evidence for the last half century that, with the
industrialisation of harvesting technologies for the wild catch, wild populations cannot replenish themselves at a
fast enough pace to keep up with the demand for seafood around the world, not only among the human population
in general but, more importantly, among the middle classes. The rise of the middle classes is the biggest rise that
will be taking place over the next couple of decades, especially in the Asian cultures, and they consume three
times as much seafood as Western societies do. So there will be a huge demand compared to what the demand is
today. Today's demand will look like nothing within the next 10 to 20 years, because the demand is going to be
rapidly increasing. It is quite clear that the wild populations cannot supply that, so it has to come from
aquaculture. That needs to come either from aquaculture developed domestically or from sourcing it from
overseas markets.
As you pointed out—I think some of you have had letters saying this—seafood is the biggest traded food
commodity in the world, so the question for food security for Australia is that we will be competing in an
international market if we depend on securing that from outside. Can Australia compete against billions when we
are a country of only 22 million? So a lot of our focus may not be so much on the production but on the
technology associated with production. Potentially, via intellectual property or even our patents, we can protect
that. So, if the production is not done in this country for various reasons such as labour costs and that production
shifts overseas, at least Australia is in the game of aquaculture by developing technologies that are essential for
that production, whether in Australia or overseas.
CHAIR: Do we have a competitive advantage in some ways at the top end? We grow some fish at the top end
of the market in aquaculture. I think you were just mentioning the knowledge that we gain from that. Is that our
natural advantage—our skill base and our knowledge base?
Dr Hall: I think so. Australia has a very good history and world standing in the quality of the science that we
throw at developing technology. I think we probably need to throw more money at developing the technology.
Before coming to this organisation I worked in Germany for many years, and that country does focus a lot on
technology per se rather than just science. I think Australia should be focusing quite a bit on science investment
and technology development. On the technology side, yes, we are very good at it. The salmon industry is a good
example of a very efficient industry, up at world class, competing against the big boys like those in Norway and
Chile. The work that I came to Australia to do at the beginning was in domestication of the black tiger prawn, and
that has been commented on in previous inquiries here. We are at world class for that species of prawn, and that
was using the expertise and skills of Australian researchers. We and they did a very good job at doing that.
CHAIR: There are two things. One is that you think there should be more engineering as well. This has come
up in other evidence we have received: that we should be doing the science of engineering and there is a mix there
that we are probably not doing as well as we could. We need more knowledge in that field as well. I will give you
another question as well before I let my colleagues start. On this thing about feeding the world, there is also the
issue that our technology can be packaged in an aid program to assist small communities in other parts of the
world to also grow their own food, their own species et cetera. Have you ever given any thought to that?
Dr Hall: To answer your first question, about using engineering or whatever, one of the big issues for
aquaculture is the use of the water for growing the marine or freshwater animals. There is a lot of environmental
pressure on that, with aspects of what you do with the water when you are done with it, so there is a lot of
engineering required for the recirculation technology. Tomorrow, for example, those who visit AIMS will see that
we invest quite a bit in the engineering side of things to produce water that is basically disease and pathogen free
so that, as long as we stock the facility with disease-free animals, we can keep out the diseases and pathogens that
otherwise come in with the incoming sea water. It is the same thing with the discharge side of things and how you
process that water to a point that you can reuse it, so it is almost getting to the same quality you need to reuse
human sewage water and bring it back into the household for use domestically. There is quite a bit of processing
that has to be done and there is quite a bit of engineering that has been done.
On the second question, about feeding the world, Australia basically focuses on the high-value end—it depends
upon what your margins are but certainly the very high-value things. The production costs might be quite high, so
it comes down to margins, as a business economic model, but Australia historically has focused mainly on the
high-value ones and not the low-value ones, for, let us say, feeding the world, in the case of finfish—carp and
tilapia and the like. But there are programs in Australia, driven mainly through ACIAR—I cannot quite remember
what it stands for—
Ms English: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 3
Dr Hall: There is quite a bit of aquaculture involved in that program. We have never been heavily involved in
that, but we have been involved—looking at the impacts of sea cage culture in Indonesia in comparison with the
sea cage culture here in Australia, which at that time was in the Hinchinbrook Channel as well as a farm up off
the Northern Territory. So there was an ACIAR thing, exchanging information about the impact of sea cages on
the local environment. We have been doing some other work up there on prawn farms in Vietnam. The local
university here, JCU, has a person that does quite a bit of work on black pearl oysters around the Pacific nation
countries that have limited economic development opportunities, and he is looking at trying to develop the local
industry for producing black pearls.
So we are not involved heavily in feeding the world within this country, but we certainly use some of that
technological know-how and put that overseas. That does come with some conflict with the aquaculture or
fisheries sector here, because they, especially the exporters, can see that as a threat to their industry, especially in
the prawn sector. It is very good domestically. It is trying to develop an export thing, but it really cannot compete
on price with the vast production overseas. They sometimes seem to get upset about that sort of thing, but that is a
question for the Australian Prawn Farmers Association, which I think you are speaking to after us.
CHAIR: We probably will not be looking at salmon or oysters or something but at other local fishes that are
quite able to grow.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I want to refer to a couple of things in the submission by the CEO of AIMS to preface
my questions. I note that Mr Gunn mentioned that 70 per cent of our existing seafood demand is being met
through imports and that we have got one of the most sustainably managed wild fishery stocks in the world. I am
particularly interested by one of the responses to our terms of reference here, where it basically states that seafood
supplied through wild catch fisheries in our EEZ is not capable of meeting the seafood demand of 22 million—
and that is obvious from the statistic that I just quoted about 70 per cent imports. He says that the production
volume has been decreasing and that further investment in the management of wild fisheries will reduce the
uncertainty and risk but will not increase that supply. Finally, I note the graphs in appendix 2 of your submission,
and the chart that highlights the production of the economic zone, the EEZ, and the production of the coastline. It
is almost alarming to look at that and think, 'Are we underselling ourselves?' I note the statement underneath that
chart, which says that, by 2025, import requirements will be more than three times the entire wild catch in
Australia, and that will increase to four times by almost 2050. Looking at all that information that AIMS has
supplied us, are we underselling ourselves? Could we increase wild catch production sustainably in Australia?
Dr Hall: It is unlikely. That graph you speak to about production as a ratio EEZ to coastline, for things to
grow you need nutrients. It is all about physics and energy flow. To have things growing you need some sort of
energy input. If it is plants or whatever, you need sunlight plus nutrients. If it is animals, they need other animals
to feed upon. It just so happens that we do have some of the most productive systems in the world, such as the
Great Barrier Reef, but that productivity, if you like, is in other marine biodiversity that is not used as seafood.
But from the point of seafood we have very poor nutrient waters around our coastline, very similar to our
landmass. The coastal waters just aren't capable of producing the type of marine organisms that have historically
been captured for seafood purposes. So we have very productive waters in the tropical zone, especially around the
Great Barrier Reef, but it is not in a form that is harvestable as a seafood item.
We need to shift to farming. We could not feed 22 million people in this country by bush tucker; we just
couldn't do it. But there has been this historical attitude of 'We have collected them from the sea before and we
can always do so in the future'. When I was born the first factory ship was put to sea and the population of the
world was about 2.8 billion. We are now pushing seven billion and natural populations just cannot do that.
Australia will always have a supply of its seafood by the wild catch, there were no buts about that. One of the
questions, though, about investment in the wild catch is that it has historically been done by what is called
maximum sustainable yield but there is also a lot of natural variability. One year if you doing maximum
sustainable yield, the next year is lower, an El Niño event, for example, and there is lower productivity. You
might be overharvesting in that year. Fisheries are wild things and it always needs investment. The question is
whether that investment is worth it for stability. The argument might be that you lower the yield you are taking
from the wild so that you are never approaching maximum sustainable yield, so no matter what natural variations
are going on in the environment you are not potentially overfishing that stock. You can put your investment into
aquaculture if you want the production, which is what we definitely need.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Following on from that answer, you mentioned that the tropics is probably better in
terms of wild catch but because we want biodiversity or whatever we are not pursuing the production that is
possible. I am probably putting words in your mouth, but I am wanting to know whether it is the priority we are
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 4
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
putting on the biodiversity that is hampering wild catch production and whether that wild catch production,
particularly in the north here, could be increased and still be sustainable by global measures.
Dr Hall: It is unlikely. ABARES are the ones responsible for keeping the catch harvest statistics in the wild
fishery in Australia since the early 1990s. If you look at the figures, and one of the graphs is in there, you can see
that even before managing wild fisheries from the ecosystem approach, and the ecosystem management approach
came in the mid-1990s, the wild harvest fishery has been flat and is decreasing. It is not possible to harvest that
wild stock much more intensely than it presently is and it is certainly not capable of increasing the harvest
intensity to meet present demand in this country, let alone potential for export. Again this is a food economy we
are talking about. We also made a submission to the inquiry for the National Food Plan and that also points out,
talking about the food economy, not only supplying our need, which might be more efficiently supplied from
overseas, that we cannot do from the wild harvest, we have to do it by moving towards a farming sector.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: On the issue of aquaculture, I see a theme throughout your submission that there is not
enough focus or investment in science surrounding aquaculture. Would you like to make some comments about
that?
Dr Hall: There is one of the research development corporations, the FRDC, which has responsibility—again,
it has that F-word, fisheries. Like I said, there needs to be a focus: it should be the seafood research development
corporation. It should get away from this idea of always relying on wild harvest, because increasingly around the
world more of the seafood supply is being met by farming practices. The portfolio for the FRDC is so large—all
the way from Indigenous issues, through value adding, to international marketing—and it is paid on a levy basis,
so it obviously has a responsibility to its stakeholders who are paying the levy. They have focused more on the
traditional, historical suppliers of seafood in this country, whereas the future is really in developing new sectors.
They do not have a big enough funding base. AIM has been funding aquaculture for 20 years at a small level. My
personal opinion, although I would say this from aquaculture point of view, is that of the marine science research
portfolio in Australia aquaculture is a very small proportion of that. A pretty hefty proportion of that is
environmental and ecosystems studies. In my view, if we are worrying about the EEZ producing seafood for the
country there needs to be more focus or investment in aquaculture, because it is very small in real terms. The
other RDCs, research development corporations, are focusing just on wool, wine, wheat, pork or poultry, where
the FRDC is seafood, which is extremely diverse and covers all aspects of fisheries, aquaculture, marketing,
Indigenous use, recreational fishing—it is just too big a portfolio to focus on the production side of seafood
supply.
Ms English: I think the take-home message is that the wild fisheries are close to their limit in production,
although there may be new resources found. It is not our area of expertise, but there is a lot of work looking at
that. The fact that we need ongoing effort to maintain those yields into the future means that you are not going to
get the increased production that we need to feed local demand. Then you get to the issue of how you can fill that.
Aquaculture is an option, but the problem that aquaculture has faced nationally is that it is a small, emerging
industry and the mechanisms for getting that to the next stage have not been big enough to push it through. We
need a step change in approach if we are going to go for aquaculture.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: What mechanisms do you think are needed, or need to be boosted I suppose?
Ms English: Dr Hall has just mentioned the issue of the research and development corporations. If we rely on
a levy process from an industry smaller industries will always struggle.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I note that you have said that in your submission.
Ms English: If aquaculture is going to get an injection of funds to really see if it can increase production as
required then it needs something that is very focused. It would have to be something new; I do not think there is
anything there now. It needs to focus on the whole delivery model. It needs to include things from engineering:
whether water quality; cage infrastructure, if that is going to be it; post-processing of water effluent from the
farms if that is required, is there a way of treating it, can we use mangroves to filter that out so there isn't an
impact. We need to understand the ecosystem impacts: if there are impacts, what are they and how do you
manage them?
You need to address the species—new species opportunities and how you keep them in captivity. You need to
address toxins—if there are toxins and how you deal with that. You need to address seafood quality—and there
have been CRCs for that. All that needs to be brought together.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I suppose you are saying that there probably needs to be more government investment
in that. Your submission indicates this huge need for increased imports because of the forecast population growth
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 5
to four times the amount we currently use by 2020. Do you think that extra investment can be justified in terms of
the need for greater food security?
Ms English: I think Mike will speak to that probably better than me. It will be hard to guarantee future
markets when it is not there in the current markets. It is going to be harder for us to source product because there
is going to be a demand in the countries that are currently producing it locally.
CHAIR: Mike, you might like to comment on that. The former aquaculture cooperative research centre was
successful. Are there any models that we can take from that?
Dr Hall: Potentially. If look overseas amongst developed countries—the United Kingdom, Norway, Japan,
South Korea and Taiwan—you will find they have entire research institutes that are just devoted aquaculture.
Australia is trying to address that by making virtual research centres. Presently there is this National Primary
Industries Research Development and Extension Framework that is trying to form geographical hubs rather than
the business that used to rely on some state agencies, some university agencies and then some federal agencies
such as the CSIRO and AIMS. There are always problems there. Different organisations operate differently. So
there are cultural problems and you spend quite a bit of your effort just dealing with cultural issues, and thinking
that if it was more integrated and just focused on aquaculture, you would get a better bang for your buck for
investment on that side. At the moment it is quite diverse.
If it goes to this regional hub, and I think this has been quoted by other people, and you are looking at the
northern parts, the south-east and the south-west that crosses state borders. Rather than having states competing
against each other and in some ways duplicating their investment, it would be better to have a national effort.
Again it is about the seafood supply. It should be a national thing. Again, I come back to wheat, sheep or beef, or
whatever: you are not so much worried about the states producing it because it is a national issue.
CHAIR: We got some very good evidence in Western Australia where they have tried aquaculture with a few
fish that have not worked, but they are having good success in other areas. Your submission talks about research
development and applied science for aquaculture and transitioning from wild fisheries to aquaculture in individual
species. I think AIMS have done a lot of work on the tropical rock lobster and that seems to be going well. You
comment on domestication of some fast growing species, especially tropical fish—and I guess that all depends on
what you feed them. When we look at that from a land based farming perspective and what we have
domesticated, those figures are quite interesting. You have evidently thought about it. We have domesticated
sheep, cattle and pigs, but there are all these other animals that have not suited domestication. And there is wheat
and other plant products.
Dr Hall: In animal production and also horticulture there is an extremely limited number of terrestrial animals
and a very limited number of terrestrial plants that have been domesticated, and they are probably responsible for
90-plus per cent of the world's food supply. Seafood is different. It is quite diverse, especially in the Asian
countries. If you look in a shop, say, in France or Spain, there is a large diversity of seafood items. In other
countries, including Australia, for example, salmon is a very major product. It is a market thing as well. In
Australia, many people are happy with salmon. In fact, many people are happy at fish and chip shops buying the
imported tilapia carp and such. This is not only a threat to Australia from the point of view that we need to import
so much from overseas; our technology can be applied to things like salmon and bluefin tuna. There is effort
there. There is effort in the tropical rock lobster. There should be an effort, potentially, in eels. Those really highdemand, high-value things which really have some of the most difficult biological challenges in farming today,
because their life histories are complex and it needs to be a closed life history. As it is, the most efficient way of
producing animal protein is through fish, mollusc or shellfish. That is far more efficient than terrestrially based
protein. Countries are looking for growth opportunities economically and in food production. Yes, beef is going
to be a great thing to export to China, but they are consuming three times more seafood than red meat and chicken
et cetera. There are huge opportunities for Australia for aquaculture production not only necessarily to replace the
imports, because the public is happy eating—
CHAIR: That is the market.
Dr Hall: Yes, that is a market thing.
CHAIR: That is people's choice.
Dr Hall: There is a huge potential for wealth creation and in an export industry. That is being addressed, I
think, a little bit in the National Food Plan. They do mention fisheries a few times but hardly ever elsewhere in
that plan.
CHAIR: We have some policy holes, I think, in Australia in relation to this. We are going to try to address
some of that.
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 6
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Mr LYONS: Is the science around stocks—the numbers, I guess; the fish in the ocean and the quotas that are
issued and so on—accurate and timely or is it out-of-date and does there need to be work in that?
Dr Hall: I am not really in a position to comment too much on the fisheries management model. Fishery
management has been around for decades. It is based on models because you are trying to predict population size
for an organism you cannot really see all count very easily. You have to have a lot of computer models and a lot
of estimates about how much sustainable yield can be done. So there is always going to be unknowns there
because you cannot 100 per cent accurately measure the population that can be harvested. The other one is natural
variation. We have seen recently with changes in El Niño, La Nina and global warming that natural populations
are always going up and down. If you are trying to maximise it from an economic model to have maximum
sustainable yield, in some years you overshoot that. There is always going to be uncertainty in that. We have
moved away from hunter gathering harvesting to feed the world. We have to go to a farming method. The wild
stuff will always be there providing some aspect of that seafood but the future has to be out of developing
farming.
Mr LYONS: You made an interesting comment about poor nutrients in the ocean. We have a huge coastline. I
would think that the nutrients would vary around the coast. Would that be the case?
Dr Hall: There are two forms of nutrients in the marine environment. One is terrestrial run-off. Even if man is
not there manipulating the land, there are a lot of nutrients coming down rivers feeding estuaries and that is why
estuaries are the most productive ecosystems in the world as far as biological production is concerned. Then you
have the issue, though, with farming practices. Some of that river run-off is producing too much nutrients, if you
like, for some of the organisms in the marine environment. Other ones are saying, 'This is great!' and are
booming. Other ones are not. A good example is the Great Barrier Reef. You are trying to protect reef organisms
and a lot of those reef organisms cannot take higher nutrient levels, whereas other animals can.
The other form of nutrient—because everything takes place in what we call the photic zone where the sun can
penetrate in the first couple of hundred metres of the earth's waters—is a upwelling. So 99.9 per cent of the
volume of the oceans is very deep water and that erupts and comes up to the surface and when that does it comes
up with a lot of nutrients. Historically that takes place off Chile, it takes place off Namibia and it takes place off
the north-east areas of America on the Grand Banks. Those are the most massively efficient productive fisheries
in the world—many of them being over harvested, because the technology is so superefficient we can harvest all
that. In Australia there are only a few places. There is some upwelling of the west coast of Australia, there are
some upwelling in the Great Barrier Reef area at certain months of the year, and there is some upwelling
elsewhere around the country. But as a continent Australia, unfortunately, does not have the upwelling activity.
As you know, on the west coast there are very few rivers running off. On this side their running off naturally
would produce a very active production in the marine environment, but it is almost too productive, if you like. It
is putting too many nutrients in. It is disturbing the natural system, and that is what the great debate is about.
Mr LYONS: You have an interest in prawns, obviously. Australia has not had a new prawn farm for 13 years,
according to some evidence we have received. Does that mean prawn farming expansion is at its limit?
Dr Hall: The Australian Prawn Farmers Association, I think, are up next. I am sure they will have some very
strong views on that, so I am going to leave most of that for them to comment on. There is potential. But overseas
there is another species of prawn farm called Penaeus vannamei. That is from South America. Asian countries
have no qualms about bringing in foreign animals. We talk about salmon in Australia, but in fact it is actually
Atlantic salmon. It is a foreign species. A lot of species that are the best ones for farm production within
Australian waters are not necessarily native. So this Penaeus vannamei—which is what they call a white prawn; it
is a bit like a banana prawn—is produced so efficiently that Australian farmers producing in this country,
although they are, again, very efficient in this country, really cannot compete. So they can land those prawns in
Australia in the Sydney dockside for a cheaper price than the production cost in Australia. So they are up against
big international pressure. They do have, as far as I am aware, a very good domestic market.
Mr LYONS: They could be farming the wrong prawns.
Ms English: No.
Dr Hall: There are other prawns that are more efficiently farmed. There is a niche market for the black tiger
prawn, which is the main one in Australia. Asia used to do the black tiger prawns. Very few countries are now left
doing black tiger prawns because the value and the vast production is in a different species.
Mr LYONS: Taking barramundi out, which tropical fish has the most potential, would you think, for being
farmed?
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 7
Dr Hall: Barramundi we do not do. We just concentrate on shellfish or crustaceans, if you like, at AIMS. But
JCU certainly does some work on barramundi, and some other organisations. Barramundi is certainly a very good
candidate for the tropical aspects. There are some of the freshwater species, also. If you look at aquaculture
production around the world, the majority of aquaculture production is actually out of the freshwater
environment.
CHAIR: So tropical freshwater fish?
Dr Hall: Yes. The Queensland government probably can comment on that more than we can, because we are a
marine organisation. There is what they call cobia, which is very fast growing. There is a thing called mahi mahi
or dolphinfish. Those are all tropical species that have good potential. You go to various meetings and some
people will say, 'This species has fantastic potential,' and you will get someone else who will stand up and say,
'No, it doesn't because of this.' So you never quite know where you stand. But those are the sorts of key species.
Coral trout, of course, has a niche market in South-East Asia. There is quite a number out there. There are two
things at the market side. There is feeding the world, if you like, with cheap, high-quality protein. And there is
that really upper-end, middle-class, high-value group.
Mr LYONS: How should regulation be changed to drive expansion of production?
Ms English: We are a research organisation. It would be hard for us to comment on the regulation side of it. If
there are any impediments, they are felt by the industry. The industry is speaking to you directly, and they would
be more appropriate to answer that question.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I note that AIMS does acknowledge there is a need to review the regulation.
Ms English: I think everything should be put on the table if we are serious about increasing production from
aquaculture.
CHAIR: Are biosecurity systems science based enough? Is it up to where it should be, do you think?
Dr Hall: Do you mean what we are importing?
CHAIR: Yes.
Dr Hall: When you look at what our imports are being scanned for typically as antibiotics residue. Although
with international trade regulations, quite often it is the responsibility of the person importing into the country to
check it. There are some concerns about some of the water quality that fish are grown in overseas. It is
questionable certainly by Australian standards, and there probably needs to be more scanning for some of these
other compounds that are not scanned for presently as far as health things for Australia. Biosecurity wise, there is
a lot of science in there, but if we import a lot of fresh, uncooked product, you run a risk of something coming in.
It is up to others—Biosecurity Australia, for example—to calculate that risk.
CHAIR: Maybe it is time we did some of that work again.
Dr Hall: It would be of value when you said about regulations on aquaculture for someone to do a
comparative study on how much regulation there is, let's say, to set up a vineyard, a wheatfield or a sugarcane
field. It would interesting if that comparison were done to find out why there are differences. There might be very
good reasons but it would be nice to know because you will probably hear from the next group that they will be
saying it is overregulated but they have to explain that themselves.
Ms English: Regulations are industry specific, and the industry understands their impediments. It is like the
offshore oil and gas industry. There was a very big review done to work out what the impediments were for them.
I think there were probably some prices in that review for what some people thought might come up to what
ultimately was found in the review.
CHAIR: Sometimes we find new avenues where we can reduce costs by doing things differently and in better
ways and still get results in a regulatory and a production sense. That is what we always need to do.
Ms English: I think this dialogue would be helped by having the different parties sitting down and talking
about those things that will assist going forward.
Mr LYONS: Last night coming up I counted 21 ships off a port somewhere down south—I do not know
where. What sort of work is being done to prevent diseases being imported along those lines?
Dr Hall: Our organisation has not historically done—this is with ballast water; the discharge of that? There is
quite a bit—
Mr LYONS: Starfish in Tasmania and a few other things that have not been too good.
Dr Hall: It is a global problem with the increase in shipping around the world and the rapid transit times for
ships turning around. The likelihood of having something in your ballast water that can survive that transit and
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 8
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
then be pumped out is increasingly a problem, so there are exotic species appearing in everyone's waters because
of shipping back and forth. A lot of people have been looking at it, but it is this business of ballast water. It is a
huge volume of water that the ship's company wants to pump off or pump in quickly and it is about finding what
we talked about earlier: that engineering solution. It needs an engineering solution because you need to shift huge
volumes of water in a short time and you have to come up with a technology that can sterilise or zap any animals
so you do not pump it. Other than that, you might be introducing larval form or microscopic forms, which is
probably how most get in through ballast water. Some marine larval forms can live in the water column for
months, so the ship only takes two weeks to get from A to B. It could go out in the ballast water, unless there is a
very efficient technique. There are proper techniques. Again, it is making shipping accept the costs associated
with processing that ballast water. There is some way to go yet, but it is a global problem. If things are being
shipped around the world frequently, the risk increases.
CHAIR: Thanks very much for your time. We have gone over a little. If there is anything else we need to
follow up on, we will give you a ring or send you an email. We are looking forward to seeing you tomorrow.
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 9
DICK, Mr Alistair John, General Manager, Pacific Reef Fisheries; and President, Australian Prawn
Farmers Association
[10:50]
CHAIR: The committee does not require you to give evidence under oath but I should advise you this hearing
is a formal proceeding of the parliament and warrants the same respect as proceedings of the House. Giving false
or misleading evidence is a serious matter and may be regarded as a contempt of parliament. Would you like to
make some introductory remarks before we proceed to questions?
Mr Dick: I have been involved in the industry for a long time. Our prawn farming industry in Australia has
been going for about 26 years. As it turns out, there are about 26 prawn farms in Australia from northern New
South Wales all the way through to Mossman in the north. But, as I said in my submission, largely due to
government regulation, we have not seen any new prawn farms in 13 years. We have a regulatory regime in this
country that does not apply to any other industries in Australia nor any other aquaculture ventures anywhere in the
world. We believe the association's research partners, FRDC and the CRC, and AIMS for that matter, have done
significant amounts of work in environmental performance.
Contrary to the science, our industry has gone nowhere. As I heard during the previous evidence, we have a
massive coastline, saltwater as one of the country's largest resources yet here we are in Australia importing about
74 per cent of our seafood. The markets are strong so the demand is there. Our major two supermarket chains in
Australia, Coles and Woolies, buy huge quantities of Australian farmed prawns. They want to buy more of our
product, but we cannot produce enough. There is a huge opportunity there which, clearly, at the moment, is going
begging.
The acts that apply to aquaculture, the EPBC Act in particular, are conservation acts. There is no act that
facilitates aquaculture in any way, shape or form.
CHAIR: In Queensland.
Mr Dick: We have to go through the state and federal processes. For instance, for our Guthalungra
aquaculture facility we went through the state, which took about eight years, and about the same to go through the
EPBC Act. It is significant because no aquaculture venture in Queensland has ever made it through the EPBC Act
and that is an appalling statistic. That is something we need to do something about if we want to see this industry
get anywhere.
I think I sent this with my submission. This is what I really wanted Nigel Preston here for today. The science
speaks for itself. A few very strong points to say about aquaculture or prawn farming is that production value is
higher than for any other agriculture industry in Australia per unit area. We are looking at marginal coastal land,
which there is an abundance of around Australia, and that land can be turned into more productive land than,
potentially, a feedlot outside of Brisbane or Sydney.
CHAIR: That is an interesting point in your submission. There is a feeling in some ranks in Australia that
prawn farming should not exist and we should not be farming prawns in Australia. I think that came through in
your submission somewhere.
Mr Dick: I suppose you do get that feeling after a while—the length of the process and the number of
government departments we have had to do with. Now we are with GBRMPA, getting another permit. You would
have to say that some of the people in those departments have a clear anti-aquaculture agenda.
CHAIR: I think this is occurring in relation to zero net nutrient and suspended sediments in discharge from
the farms. That is a new regulation that is being imposed on the industry?
Mr Dick: It is. That was pretty much an ad hoc approach. The work that was done by the FRDC and the first
CRC on environmental performance of prawn farms came up with a set of guidelines that were all agreed to by
the state and federal governments. Somewhere along the line, I think going through EPBC, another set of
precautionary principles applied in relation to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Another report done by David
McKinnon and Lindsay Trott from AIMS was sent in to SOPAC and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority, but the science was largely ignored and they reverted back to the zero net discharge. In response to that
we brought in the pre-eminent world expert on water quality from the United States, Professor Claude Boyd. He
attended a meeting in Brisbane with both state and federal people present and he could not understand what all the
fuss was about. He said, 'You people already have the highest environmental compliance in the world. What are
they talking about? It's unheard of.'
CHAIR: What do you understand 'precautionary principle' to mean and how it has been imposed?
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 10
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Mr Dick: There is someone who will not believe the science, so they will revert back to no impact. Any
impact is some impact, so we cannot allow anything to occur, but the science that we have seen in relation to a
number of existing prawn farms says that, by definition, environmental impacts say that if you cease that
operation within a relatively short time—we are talking about weeks at the most—you can no longer measure the
impact of those farms. By definition, that is a very low environmental impact activity. That is what we have seen
in the Hinchinbrook Channel and three other farms that were studied in the studies by AIMS and CSIRO. It is
difficult to justify.
CHAIR: So the precautionary principle is being used in its ultimate term—if you cannot prove that you are
not going to change anything, then you cannot do it. Even if you spend $500 million on the science, you still
cannot do anything because it then says, 'If you do that, you might change something by half a per cent or
whatever.' Is that your understanding?
Mr Dick: That is our understanding, yes. We think that is pretty unfair. The reason that applies to us in
comparison to other industries is that we hold these things called ERAs, environmental licences in other words,
but a lot of people do not realise that—and George has visited our farm, and I explained this to him—we are in a
cane-farming area and for at least five months of every year our intake water quality is much poorer than what we
discharge from our farm.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Yes, I saw that.
Mr Dick: That goes for a lot of farms in farming areas because the people that are adjacent to our properties
do not hold ERAs and we do, so we essentially get pinned for their activities.
CHAIR: You actually clean the water as it goes through your farm. What does ERA stand for?
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Environmentally relevant activity.
Mr Dick: That is right.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: It is a Queensland government term.
Mr Dick: That is right. It is a licence from the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource
Management.
Mr LYONS: What did the science say about discharge? You said that the science was ignored to go to the
precautionary principle. What did the science say?
Mr Dick: There are a whole heap of reports. The ones AIMS did, David McKinnon, Lindsay Trott, Michele
Burford and some others, for the Guthalungra thing, reviewed the environmental management plans and said the
risk of any environmental harm was very low and that the discharge levels applied for to the state should be
accepted by the Commonwealth, essentially. When that went through, we got an ad hoc result, as I said, of a zero
net discharge. The concern about that as well is that zero net is the difference between what we are allowed to
discharge and zero. So we are doing a lot of work to get as close to zero as we can, but to get to zero we have to
purchase offsets. To purchase offsets, we have to go to another farm in the same catchment and tell them, 'We're
going to buy your land and you have to stop producing what you're producing so we can use your offsets to pick
up this last, very small bit of nutrient or suspended solid going into the marine park.'
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Does that process of reducing your managed discharge, getting as close to zero as
possible, mean the enterprise is still viable?
Mr Dick: It does, and the model for that has been used at our existing farm. We already operate the second
largest farm in Australia, down in the Burdekin. We have been doing some work, which some of you may be
aware of, with a company based at James Cook University, MDB Energy. That work is looking at algae scrubbing
systems. We have hooked that on to our existing farm and they are actually selling that as a product in Japan, so it
is value-adding to our operation. But the existing technology comes from lots of other industrial processes, such
as settlement ponds, because what we produce essentially is sediment, and we produce nitrogen and phosphorus.
Nitrogen and phosphorus are plant foods, and suspended solids can be settled out of water. So long as the water
velocity is low enough, a lot of that will settle out. That is the way most people work their systems.
CHAIR: Can you utilise the phosphorus in some way?
Mr Dick: Yes. I heard the lady who is sitting next to me—I did not catch her name, I am sorry—
CHAIR: Ms Sue English.
Mr Dick: I heard Ms English talk about mangroves. We do have a constructed mangrove wetland at our farm
in Ayr. It is about 30 hectares in size. It was built in collaboration with the state government and it is quite
efficient. Those mangroves have been there for about 12 years now.
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 11
CHAIR: That is an experimental process. Is it still going? Is the science still being written?
Mr Dick: As part of our environmental management plan, each year we have a third-party company come in.
We do all of the lab testing ourselves on-site—it goes away to an accredited lab—but the people who come in
yearly do a survey of different points outside the farm and they also monitor those mangroves. So those reports
include the health of the mangroves.
CHAIR: So that is third-party accreditation?
Mr Dick: Yes.
CHAIR: Very good.
Mr LYONS: I am just amazed by how quickly the ocean returns to normal. Certainly, the chair and I are
aware that in Burnie, where there was significant industry, they had orange water for decades. Within a matter of
months of those industries closing, the water returned to what is normal for Bass Strait.
Mr Dick: One thing about growing crustaceans is that they are very sensitive organisms, so we need very high
water quality—and they can be subjected to all sorts of things that are going on in the catchment. For instance,
last week I had to type a letter to the local council about their spraying mozzies in our lagoon, upstream from our
farm, because insecticides also kill prawns. So anything that goes on in your catchment has a potential effect on
your operations. This is the other side of the equation that largely has not been considered, if at all, in many cases.
CHAIR: It is like spraying pastures, which has an effect on bees that might be pollinating those pastures. You
mentioned state and federal regulation. Would a harmonising of those be of help to your industry? You obviously
deal with quite a diverse range of agencies; would it be better if you dealt with just one agency from the point of
view of compliance and meeting the standards expected of you?
Mr Dick: In Queensland, our primary compliance agency is DERM.
CHAIR: And DERM is?
Mr Dick: The Department of Environment and Resource Management.
CHAIR: Okay. So is that an environmental—
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Like the department of natural resources.
Mr Dick: Yes, it has changed, I think.
CHAIR: That is an environmental agency?
Mr Dick: It is our environmental compliance agency. They do an annual audit on-site. But the duplication
probably happens more at the federal level. That is because GBRMPA are a referral agency to SEWPaC, and they
have different acts. So you are essentially going through two conservation acts, and neither of them is conducive
to a business enterprise.
CHAIR: No. So, if the state body were at the same standard as the federal body, there should be an
agreement—and we do this in some areas—that one agency does that regulatory work and that is accepted by the
other government body. That is what we are trying to do in many areas.
Mr Dick: This is the strange thing, because all the existing farms that currently have licences are also
auditable under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, but at the moment the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority is quite happy to accept the audit powers of the department of environment. So why it does not apply to
new ventures, when existing ventures have been monitored that way, is a bit of a concern.
CHAIR: Did you put anything in to the Hawke review, the review of the EPBC Act?
Mr Dick: No. I wish I had.
CHAIR: Okay. I know that imported prawns compete with your product, although I think your product is
probably at the top end of the market—hence, as you said, people seem to want to buy it—and you presumably
get enough return for the business model. But you have, in your submission, questioned the biosecurity system,
and that, I think, is based on how many reviews there are now and the extent to which products are looked at
when they are coming in.
Mr Dick: The frequency of testing is a concern. Our association was involved when submissions were put
forward for the import risk assessment. There were some concerns. I have done some study of prawn diseases in
the United States. Some of the things in that report were, as far as I am concerned, quite flawed, because there
were certainly some precedents set for a very nasty virus called white spot syndrome, which is not killed by
freezing prawns. There had already been one case in South America where green prawns were processed at a
plant and seagulls picked up the prawn heads from the dump and dropped them at a nearby prawn farm. This
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 12
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
caused an outbreak of white spot disease in Central America. So the precedent was already set. Again, the science
behind that was largely ignored during the import risk assessment.
Mr LYONS: Have you noticed a change in your water temperatures over the 26 years? You would obviously
monitor all of that.
Mr Dick: We do. Just going back a little bit, I think one of the great things that our industry has done is
collect a 3.4c per kilo R&D levy. I think the number I put in my submission was bit low. Someone told me the
other day that it was about—
Mr LYONS: 0.3 to point something.
Mr Dick: Yes. They raised about $11 million. This year they funded a CSIRO climate predictability study,
which has just come out and which will be presented at our conference tomorrow. I will not say there have been
increased water temperatures that are noticeable but there have certainly been some very strong seasonal
influences to do with El Nino and La Nina. We use that data to manage our stocking times and whatever. We are
in the middle of stocking our farm right now and are using some of the predictability tools developed by the
CSIRO.
Mr LYONS: We heard evidence in Western Australia that there were some tropical fish moving south. In
Tasmania there was some information on water temperature that said the temperature was getting a bit higher. It
is not huge but it makes a difference to the types of fish there. I wonder what effect that has on your industry—but
you have not really noticed any change in temperature.
Mr Dick: It is quite surprising in relation to growing prawns. They are a very tropical species. Townsville is
marginal for a winter crop. So we can only stock at the end of July into August. If we stock in May-June it is too
cold for prawns. I cannot say that any sort of climate change in the short term is a good thing but it certainly does
not affect our viability in that way.
CHAIR: What is the temperature range for prawns through the region here?
Mr Dick: The optimal temperature range for prawns is 26 to 32 degrees. At the moment our water
temperatures are about 20 degrees; so it is a little bit cold.
CHAIR: They do not grow quite as fast.
Mr Dick: That is right.
CHAIR: But they are okay; they are happy.
Mr Dick: The reason we have to stock at this time is that it is a business, and Christmastime is our major cash
flow time. We need to produce for Christmas for our cash flow.
CHAIR: Even in Tasmania.
Mr Dick: Yes.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: For 13 years a prawn farm has not been established in Australia. Is yours the last one?
Mr Dick: Yes; Guthalungra, down near Bowen.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Is there a direct correlation, in your opinion, between the environmental controls and
the fact that we have not had a new prawn farm established in that time?
Mr Dick: Absolutely. I think this is through a real clear lack of policy guidelines; it is just a maze at the
moment.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: If you were able to provide some recommendations—and I know there are some in the
submission from Pacific Reef Fisheries—what would be the top three things that could be done to address that
regulation and boost productivity in prawn farming?
Mr Dick: I think combining the regulatory framework for GBRMPA and SEWPaC would be one, definitely.
That is a killer at the moment. Having the federal agencies accept the reporting and water quality guidelines of the
state, as is currently the case for operational arms, is another thing. As they have done in New South Wales and
South Australia, an act of parliament to facilitate new ventures going through would help.
One thing that has not been done for some time is a geographical information survey—in other words, overlays
to identify which areas are suitable and which are not suitable for aquaculture based on the triple bottom line—
social, environmental and economic profiling of different areas. There is that side of it as well, and I think that is
what they have done very well in South Australia. Probably in the last few years South Australia has been the
standout performer in getting their act together and getting a clear run on approvals. That is how they achieved it,
so we are trying to use some of the lessons learnt in South Australia.
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 13
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I have one more question in regard to conflict with other industries. I know that there
have been allegations, probably unproven, about whether there has been an impact on sugar cane farms in the
Burdekin. There have certainly been allegations that it could have been from the establishment of the prawn farm.
How do you think we can balance that conflict that may happen between aquaculture and existing agricultural
industries where you are going to establish prawn farms? A lot of it will be on the Queensland coastline, where
you have sugar and bananas. Do you see it as a problem? What does the research that you have commissioned
from Pacific Reef determine in terms of the impact on agriculture around you?
Mr Dick: That was subject to court proceedings, but the offshoot of it was that our expert said that that area
was always an intertidal area. But, as I said, the short end of the story is to properly identify sites in the first place
so you do not create any conflict. That is the short answer. If you needed to operate in a cane farming area in the
future, for instance, there might need to be some sort of buffer zone. I am not saying that there is an impact, but
even if it is a perceived one you do not want to spend your time or your money in court.
A lot of what we are talking about with aquaculture is public opinion driving the policy agenda. FRDC for the
first time this year realised that they cannot spend all their money on science anymore. If they do not educate
people in Australia about what is going on with fisheries and aquaculture, then they cannot get the political will to
move forward on some of this stuff. I think that is very important.
CHAIR: I was going to go to the social licence and how the association or the industry is addressing that. I
guess you have just indicated that they are going to put money aside to endeavour to do that. If at Christmas time
people are eating their prawns, they might like to know that it is a sustainable industry. It might counter some of
the other things we hear about the industry. What are your views on that and what direction are you going in?
Mr Dick: Industries always have to do a better job of that. Today in Cairns we launch our national prawn
marketing strategy, which is a combined strategy between aquaculture and wild caught. It is the first time that this
has happened in Australia. The realisation is that we are not actually competing against each other. The demand
for Australian prawns far outstrips supply. So what are we fighting amongst each other for? We need to promote
our prawns as the best in the world. That is one example.
To drive public opinion I think we need to do a lot more in advertising. As you might know, George, there has
been a change to the way the FRDC dollar can be spent. It can actually now be spent on marketing and
promotions and not purely on science any more. At our conference in the next couple of days back on the agenda
will be the collection of a promotions levy—because to do anything like that it obviously costs money.
CHAIR: We would be interested if you could send us your joint market strategy and any of the other stuff that
you think might be relevant coming out of your conference.
Mr Dick: Certainly.
CHAIR: I would like to thank you, Alistair, for your submission—and please take that message back to the
association.
Mr Dick: Thank you very much.
CHAIR: Thank you also for your time today. I am sorry that the other guy was not able to be with us, but that
is how it flows. I guess you are now off to your conference—so have a good conference.
Mr Dick: Thank you very much and good luck today.
CHAIR: Thank you.
Proceedings suspended from 11:21 to 11:43
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 14
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
LYNNE, Mrs Judith Valerie, Executive Officer, Sunfish Queensland
CHAIR: I call the next witness. Welcome. Although the committee does not require you to give evidence
under oath, I should advise you that this hearing is a formal proceeding of the parliament and warrants the same
respect as proceedings of the House. Giving false or misleading evidence is a serious matter and may be regarded
as a contempt of the parliament.
Mrs Lynne: I thank the chair and the members for allowing me to speak today. Sunfish Queensland is the
peak body representing recreational fishing in Queensland.
CHAIR: We have your submission, which is very good, and have numbered it 25. Thank you very much for
that; please thank your association. I invite you to make some introductory remarks and then we will have some
questions.
Mrs Lynne: We currently represent all of the major fishing organisations within the state, so we cover all
breadths of the recreational fishing industry, from freshwater to game fish, from sports fish to fishing clubs and
just general members of the community through our branch structure. When we come up with an opinion, it is
usually from a very wide base. In addition to what was in our submission, I would like to give a little bit of
background information regarding how we are relating within the science.
We are finding that recently the phrase 'according to science' has been bandied around quite heavily. Once
upon a time scientists would undertake research in their chosen fields and then publish outcomes. These outcomes
would then be debated and then after that governments would base their decisions on that reviewed science. These
days, sadly, it seems to work the other way around. Governments start to move in a direction. Then they put
feelers out for research with very specific terms of reference. Because of funding limitations, that therefore results
in science being tailored to outcomes that the government has provided funding for.
In the last 10 years or so we have had a fabric where there has been a very extreme green overtone in all layers
of not just government but the community as well, where previously we had very little thought for sustainability
and biodiversity. There was a very strong swing towards rectifying that. We believe we have probably swung too
far and it is now time to bring the balance back a little bit. When you have scientists tailored around outcomes,
you find that that is not really good for science and ultimately it is not good for the fisheries.
An example of this is the Coral Sea marine park closures that we are about to see. We have a wild tuna fishery
out there that is virtually untapped and is about to be closed off forever. We are not sure what all the science and
the reviews done were based around protecting, but there were a lot of things put out and some of it is just ground
structure. There was nothing in that investigation to look at what may be impacted that is not currently there. The
EEZ in that portion borders the South Pacific tuna fishery.
Australians do not currently have a huge market in tuna. Overseas it is enormous. Because it is not currently a
huge Australian market, there has not been a necessity for the commercial fishing industry to venture there. They
have concentrated on where they have lower overheads in the inshore markets. Because that industry have not
developed out there yet, they did not have a voice to take to the SEWPaC table so were not heard, and now that
fishery will be closed forever. The international market for tuna, even though it is not a popular Australian table
fish, is quite enormous, and I think it is something that we are going to regret down the track.
Generally, after listening to the talks this morning on aquaculture, the recreational sector strongly supports an
improvement in the current development of aquaculture. From our industry perspective, we feel that there is a
huge hole in the production of table fish. An investigation into where the fish that are currently in seafood outlets
and in supermarket chains in the south-east corner come from shows that most of that is imported. Locally caught
fish is actually going to the overseas market, where they get a better price for it. It is not going to the Queensland
table.
The mums and dads at the Queensland table are being fed by the recreational sector—not in a black market
sense, but the same way as if you have an orange tree in your backyard. You get more oranges than you can eat,
so you give them to your granddaughter, nephews or whoever. It is the same thing with fish. Average people
cannot afford to go into a supermarket and eat good quality fish, which they should be eating at least twice a week
for the health benefits. It is out of their budget. The recreational sector is the one that is filling that gap for the
lucky ones who can do it for themselves or who have a family member that can do it for them. I think aquaculture
would be a great way to support that. The position Sunfish takes is that we are not adverse to the development of
aquaculture. We would also like to see the commercial sector developed more offshore rather than inshore.
Similar to the aquaculture industry, the recreational fishing industry is perceived as being a small industry. As
such, we also do not have anything within regulation to support our development. Fisheries are tacked on as being
the little part of DAFF all the time in and, even then, it is the commercial sector that receives all the interest. The
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 15
dollar value on the recreational sector seems to be dismissed purely because people do not take into account all
the add-ons that the recreational sector provides such as the tourism market and all those additional bits.
Similarly, it is very hard then to also get science to support our position given that, in particular, FRDC is very
heavily focussed on support from other agencies.
In the last few years we had one of our major table fish up here, the yellow bream, showing some deformities.
We put projects up to FRDC that were strongly opposed by Fisheries Queensland. We struggle to get the research
through. This is a major table fish for us. The most recent evidence is showing that it is holding at eight per cent
of the catch. That is significant in any terms but, because we do not have the weight, we are not able to get the
support. The science dollar is being spent elsewhere.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: On what basis would the opposition be to you by Fisheries Queensland?
Mrs Lynne: Fisheries Queensland has always had a very strong commercial focus. Initially the industry
thought it was damage by fishing nets. We thought it was damage by fishing nets. The early science was looking
at whether there were environmental issues on the embryonic growth and whether it was very small chemical
residues that were causing it. We are now finding that, as we have gone into the research, we are almost going
back to the net issue because some of the damage on the scales is showing that it is not happening embryonically;
it is happening part way through the fish's growth. But we cannot get the dollars out there to find out what is
causing this. It also makes them very difficult to sell. They can only sell the damaged ones taken commercially as
fillets. People will not buy them with a big ding out of their back.
CHAIR: There are now 75,000 rec fisher boats registered in Western Australia, and the size of the boats is
pretty big. They go to sea, really, and fish out there. How much science do we have to tell us how much fish has
been taken by the rec sector so that we can make policy decisions? Does your organisation have a policy in that
area or what are your views in that area?
Mrs Lynne: That is something that as an industry we know we struggle in. We are unable to get funding or
financial support to create any kind of data collection. We rely heavily on the limited data collection that
government provides. The issue nationally is that there are some state based licensing systems. They are not all
the same.
CHAIR: They are different species.
Mrs Lynne: Some do it species-wise; some do it as total fish; some do not collect any data at all. To be
honest, this is one case where we believe that the Commonwealth should have an overarching guideline that says
we require data collection and therefore require the states to have some form of licencing system to provide that
level of data collection. We know it is an issue. We cannot see any way around it other than some form of
reporting.
CHAIR: What does the association think about the licensing situation?
Mrs Lynne: Our association has a policy that, when the government is ready for a licence, we are ready to sit
and negotiate with them. We recently, in the last couple of weeks, provided a document to Fisheries Queensland
and the minister to say what our guidelines were for a licence. Based on research from other states. We went to
them and asked not 'How do you it?' but, 'If you were to do it again, what would you do differently?' Our initial
discussions were that there was nothing on our list that raised any red flags within government, but the current
government chose not to move forward with it.
CHAIR: Thank you for that.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Thank you very much for being here and for the submission that you guys have made. I
have a couple of questions from it. One in particular regards what you said about governance arrangements. You
talk about the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority being one of the bodies in this part of the world that
regulates the recreational fishing sector. You posed some concerns or issues regarding the zoning. Can you
elaborate on those concerns and what your potential solution may be from the organisation's point of view?
Mrs Lynne: What began with both the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park zoning and Moreton Bay Marine Park
zoning plan was that there was a lot of information and a lot of people sat down and said, 'Tell us where you catch
your fish, where you go, and we'll do our best to not impact you.' As a result, the areas that were made green and
closed were the best fishing areas that people provided them, which created a history of a lot of mistrust. It
becomes very difficult to sit down and negotiate openly.
We have had this flow on to the Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. A perfect example is the one in the
Coral Sea where we have a huge green area. From our perspective, a green zone should be an area that needs
protecting, either for its high biodiversity value or for its importance as a fish nursery. What we have now is large
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 16
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
areas that have been painted green that really do not fulfil that any longer. That in essence diminishes the value of
the true green areas. What we are finding now is that the stakeholders' stewardship is being diminished. Once
upon a time there were fish habitat areas and reserves and everybody in the community knew the value that they
had and the reason they were there. They were very conscious of it and looked after them extremely well. We
now have areas that appear to have just been painted on a map only to make percentages and they have lost their
value. People are not as concerned about looking after them. If they see somebody in a green zone, they will
think, 'It's not me. I'll look the other way.' Previously, when it was an important area, they would be the first ones
on the phone to say, 'Look, we've got somebody in that nursery area. Can you get a compliance officer out here?'
We are finding that the value of them is being diminished significantly. We are getting a lot of conflicting science
out there. People are now going into the areas and there will be two reefs and one has been made green. We know
that the original reason it was made green was that it was probably the most productive reef in the area. The
science is now coming in and saying, 'Look, that green reef has the most fish, the biggest fish, so therefore the
closure has worked.' All the closure has done is reinforce what we already knew: that was already the most
productive reef.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: In relation to the green zones—this is where the science could come in, I suppose—the
current view is that they are there and they will always be there. There is probably an alternate point of view that
perhaps Sunfish agrees with that they should be reviewed on a scientific basis to see whether there is a necessity
to keep them there, whether they should be rotated or whether they should be minimised, or perhaps let go for a
couple of years and then brought back in. What would Sunfish's view be on that?
Mrs Lynne: They need to be adaptive. I think it is more looking at the management plan. We know that it is
almost virtually impossible once the lines are on the map to withdraw them because their GPS coordinates are
legislated and so on, but they need to be adaptive. I heard talk earlier about the changing water temperatures and
climate change. It means that you have a green zone here for the current conditions but, as climate change
happens and the temperature rises, what was meant to be protected has moved and is no longer there. So the
system needs to be able to adapt.
We strongly believe in looking at the conditions within those particular green zones. If there is a reason that
recreational fishers should not be in there, fine; we are more than happy to support that and we would promote
that out there within our community. But, if there is a green area there where the recreational sector is having no
impact, let them in there—even if you do it on a trial basis and then review it, so that it can be an area where they
do not anchor, it is catch and release only or they use gear limitations of one rod with one hook. You would
probably find that you would get a lot more support within the recreational sector.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: With the marine park proposal obviously there are a few areas that Sunfish would have
a concern about, such as Marion Reef and Shark Reef—
Mrs Lynne: Yes.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: and what potentially would happen there because that is where the game fishermen
obviously—which are the high end of the recreational fishing market. From what you have just said—and what I
have just said there—how consulted does your organisation feel in these processes? I know that there are some
comments in your submission that you feel that you are not invited to the table of a lot of government bodies and
you would like to be. You particularly mention that you would like to be having greater involvement with the
stock assessment processes. Can you give us an overview of that and whether there is an equivalent body that
perhaps should sit on boards or be involved in decision making?
Mrs Lynne: You would probably be aware of the new Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation, the
national body.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Yes.
Mrs Lynne: There are a lot of very well-informed people on that association. I think what is not being taken
into account at the moment is the value of those voices. What we find at both the national level—because I sit on
that as well—and the state level is that we are consulted but we are not part of a collaboration. So what happens is
that we will be brought to the table, we will be asked our opinion and then they will say, 'Thank you very much;
you have given your opinion,' and away they go and stay on the same track. It is not influencing outcome. They
are not actually listening and taking on board the opinions of the community.
Two years ago the government took a position where they believed that snapper stocks were in trouble in
Queensland. They based that on a very, very small bit of information out of the Gold Coast. As most people
would know, the Gold Coast has now become a huge sand bowl. There is no structure there; it is just clear water
and a sandy bottom. The fish have left; the snapper have gone. There is no structure there to keep them. So,
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 17
because the snapper were gone, it was decided that the snapper fishery was in trouble. There was a lot of
consultation. All the consultation came back with the same answer, 'Snapper catches are great; the fishery is doing
fine; apart from the Gold Coast, we are getting snapper in places we have never got them before.' There was
absolutely no notice taken of it. It got to the point where we actually had to move the general community and the
minister suddenly realised that the information he had been getting from the department was not accurate. It took
the minister to say, 'Hang on a minute; we need to put a halt to this and find out what is really happening.' The
problem is that, yes, we are being consulted, but there is no collaboration involved.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Sunfish employs a scientific officer, I see.
Mrs Lynne: He is a volunteer; he is not employed.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: But your involvement then could extend into, perhaps, scientific processes that the
government is looking at.
Mrs Lynne: Absolutely. He is a fisheries biologist.
Mr LYONS: How many recreational fishing boats are there in Queensland?
Mrs Lynne: I am not sure. It is a significant number. I do not have the data on me at present.
Mr LYONS: You say there are 45,000 members in your—
Mrs Lynne: Yes. You would be talking in excess of 100,000 recreational fishers; I would be going closer to a
quarter of a million.
Mr LYONS: They would have to be registered, so I guess you can get it from the Queensland government.
Mrs Lynne: Yes. The Department of Transport and Main Roads has that data.
Mr LYONS: In Western Australia they are looking at a phone app that gives you a map. You put your fish on
it and take it home. The problem they are obviously aware of is that they do not know what the recreational fish
take is, and you obviously have no idea according to your evidence. Is there an answer or solution to that?
Mrs Lynne: The only answer is some form of record keeping. I am a little reluctant about phone apps.
Perhaps over there it works. In Queensland it will not work. Near Brisbane, in the south-east corner of
Queensland, near the major metropolis in the state, I can get halfway across Moreton Bay and I have no phone
signal whatsoever. On Moreton Island, a huge island straight out from Brisbane, there are three points where you
can get phone reception. So a phone app is very difficult to work with. It is a great idea and would probably be
great in inland streams, but it does not work very well here. But there are so many opportunities in the current
regime for data collection.
A lot of Sunfish's time is spent in angler education. We believe the best way is to teach kids the right way from
the start. Kids love phone apps. They love being able to get online and log their catches. To develop that, I think,
is paramount. Like every other industry, the recreational sector will have some rebels. We have taken the position
that we are educating as many as we can, but our best value is to let them grow through the system and
concentrate on the kids coming through. We are finding that now the number of kids fishing is starting to
rebound. We had a period for probably the last 10 or 15 years when the number of kids fishing was decreasing. A
lot of that was based on a lot of the other opportunities that they had and the breakdown of the family unit. We are
now finding that they are going back to recreational fishing, and these guys are the best ambassadors. If you get
them doing best management practice and fishing sustainably, that is going to take it right through the
community.
Mr LYONS: I was interested in your comment about the snapper, because I grew up on the Tamar River in
Tasmania and never caught snapper, but now there are quite a few snapper caught in the Tamar, which is a bit
amazing. Maybe we have your Queensland snapper!
Mrs Lynne: There are plenty out there. They are catching snapper in the Brisbane River now.
CHAIR: Have you and the organisation thought about citizen science? Do you know that term?
Mrs Lynne: Yes.
CHAIR: That is what Geoff just mentioned, where fishermen and fishing people catch fish which they are not
familiar with or which are not normally in their region and have an application of some sort that they can go
through.
Mrs Lynne: Yes.
CHAIR: Young people, as you identified, can do that a lot better than some of us older people. So you have
discussed that and your organisation supports that?
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 18
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Mrs Lynne: Yes. We also have data collection within those realms. We do have some data collection. We
have really good records of catches that range over 40 or 50 years from club catches. Sadly, the Suntag program,
where we have had great tagging and movement of fish data, has just had its funding cancelled this week by the
current government. So there is a lot of good community data collection out there.
Mr LYONS: Was that state funding?
Mrs Lynne: It was, yes.
CHAIR: We have taken some evidence that it is getting that data into a form that all sorts of people and our
science community can use. Is that in any form—like a digital form that people can call up?
Mrs Lynne: Not at present, no.
CHAIR: But, if an institution or university was funded to do that, that might be a very good project for right
around the country?
Mrs Lynne: It would be, yes. In Queensland in particular, it would need a really good education program,
given that previously any effort at data collection has been based around creating green zones.
CHAIR: No, I meant the data that you already have that you were talking about. That data is sitting in a
system that needs to be documented—
Mrs Lynne: It is in several places. As well as the fishing club organisations, the Game Fishing Association
and the Sportfishing Association also have great data.
CHAIR: So do you think it would be possible to bring that data together in digital form, if there were funding
available?
Mrs Lynne: Yes, absolutely. And it is the sort of thing that could then be added onto.
CHAIR: Yes, it becomes a database for everybody.
Mrs Lynne: Yes.
CHAIR: Terrific.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I have got a total here. The number that Geoff was looking at was 241,118 boat
registrations in Queensland as of 31 May.
Mrs Lynne: I thought so. I knew it was roughly that because in Queensland we pay $18 per vessel,
supposedly to go to the enhancement of recreational fishing.
CHAIR: And that all comes to your organisation?
Mrs Lynne: We get nothing. At the moment I am fighting tooth and nail to get $220,000 so that we can run
our angler education program. It is a struggle. And that is half the battle: everybody knows that that is collected
for recreational fishing and it is just not coming back to us.
CHAIR: Looking at recreational fishing from a national perspective, do you meet with other state
representatives and get the federal policy positions?
Mrs Lynne: Absolutely. We have a meeting in Canberra next week. We do a lot of phone hook-ups given that
we have such extreme distances between us. We are also looking at your new supertrawler with a national
position from Tasmania.
CHAIR: Okay. Yes, the supertrawler. But it is about the fish. Let us stay focused on the fish and the
harvesting of the fish—whether we are going to do that right and whether it is 20 boats or one.
Mrs Lynne: As long as the data is there and we can get the support from AFMA.
CHAIR: That is right. Thank you very much for your evidence and for your submission. Please take our best
wishes back to your organisation and thank them very much for the work they have done.
Mrs Lynne: And thank you for your time.
CHAIR: It is a pleasure.
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 19
KINGSFORD, Professor Michael John, Head of School, School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James
Cook University
SIMPFENDORFER, Associate Professor Colin Ashley, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences and
Director, Centre for Sustainable Tropical Fisheries and Aquaculture
[12:15]
CHAIR: Although the committee does not require you to give evidence under oath I should advise you that
this hearing is a formal proceedings of the parliament and warrants the same respect as proceedings of the House.
Giving false or misleading evidence is a serious matter and may be regarded as a contempt of the parliament. The
committee has your submission. Thank you very much for that. We have numbered it 28. You may wish to make
some introductory remarks and then we will probably have a few questions.
Prof. Kingsford: We had a wee bit of a chat beforehand and we thought it might be useful if I give a bit of a
preamble to the submission and then pass over to Colin. Then we will open it up for questions.
CHAIR: That is fine.
Prof. Kingsford: I think you are probably all acutely aware of JCU's reputation in fisheries, science and
aquaculture. Currently we have an ERA 5 status for fisheries, which is the top ranked ERA rating for publications
in that area. So we have some credibility in that area for sure, and in environmental science and ecology, which is
closely related, because fish live in habitats.
Also, we are ranked in the top two institutions in the world for tropical aquaculture. So we have a lot of
expertise to bring to the table for the help of the state and at the federal level. I guess all of us are aware that our
marine territories are greater than the area of the land. We have some considerable responsibility to carry out
research in that area. Probably, Australia wide there is a broad recognition that excellence in research is required
to deliver the type of information we need to manage fisheries. Certainly we see ourselves as being keenly
involved in that area. That involves all of the areas that you have listed in terms of your queries for this review—
stock size, for example, and marine protected areas, as mentioned before.
And may I draw your attention to a recent publication that came out from JCU in Current Biology, which
showed that 50 per cent of the fish going into blue zones was coming from 28 per cent of the area which are the
green zones. That is a very beautiful bit of science from the southern Great Barrier Reef, where individual fish
were tagged through the mother, and the youngsters arrived in the green zone. So many of the concerns that we
had before are actually being addressed with good science as opposed to legends of old.
Mr LYONS: Are you saying that the fish are coming out of the—
CHAIR: Can we just wait a minute until he is finished. We might be interested in that research paper. Is it a
paper?
Prof. Kingsford: Absolutely. We could provide you with that. That is not a problem. I will just flag some of
the other areas. Obviously there are big issues like biosecurity and introduced animals. Those are some of the
other areas that we get involved in, and just about all aspects of fisheries are of some concern. Probably one of the
biggest issues which we suspect you will flag heavily in the review is the importance of data as opposed to just
relying on existing data. This is ongoing. The bottom line is that Australia is young, and we have to recognise the
importance of long-term data sets. If you compare Australia to many other parts of the world, although we have
very effective scientists the number of long-term databases is very small.
Compare us to a place like Canada. For their fisheries every year they have the same old vessels with the same
gear that go out every year and monitor their fisheries on the Georges Bank and various shelves in and around
Canada. We have nothing like that. We have good science where there are one-off surveys. There is good science
where there are one-off descriptions of demography, like age and growth of fish, but we never follow it through
with ongoing research in that area. I think that, independent of party, it would be really good to see a commitment
from Australia to sustain priority long-term monitoring in those types of areas.
Another area that we may want to pursue is opportunities in aquaculture, which is a big issue that potentially
has the ability to save some existing stocks—not just by exploiting wild stocks but by looking at aquaculture
opportunities. JCU has some very good examples of that, where we are talking not only about traditional fish but
about carbon sequestration, which addresses other issues that Australia is having to deal with. If you mix it up you
can raise fish, raise algae and sequester carbon all at the same time, and reduce nutrients to the Great Barrier Reef.
I think ongoing research for sustainable aquaculture is a key area that Australia is excellent in, and we need to
pursue that for a whole range of priority issues on the Australian agenda. Another key area of discussion is the
nature of agencies and research groups in Australia, including federal fisheries agencies, state fisheries,
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 20
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
environmental organisations like SEWPaC that are heavily involved in this space and various other providers
such as universities. We think a great model that may be worth exploring in more detail is that of TAFI, the
Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, where organisations of that type get together and identify the
fisheries priorities for that area. The consultation is wide with the scientists, the managers and the stakeholders.
Those groups agree on what should be done for Tasmania and then they effectively put out contracts to carry out
that type of work. All states in Australia and the federal government would benefit greatly from looking in more
detail at promoting models like the TAFI model. Essentially, you have a limited number of scientists and
managers in Australia. You want to maximise the interaction between them and maximise the opportunities for
collaborative research. One of the areas that we are exploring here is co-location of various groups on campus.
That is a precedent that has been set in other parts of the world as well. If you wish to bring on board scientists
from CSIRO, universities, DAFF and other groups on campus or through some co-location, essentially there is the
tyranny of geography. If you are not all in a similar place you just do not talk to each other. Similarly, managers
do not talk to their researchers if they are in different locations. Certainly, when I was in New South Wales for a
decade and a half, often you would find the managers were separated from the scientists. They may not
necessarily think that is the ideal, but, clearly, if they are co-located it makes a big difference. I will pass over to
my colleague because the example of our new centre in sustainable fisheries and aquaculture is an initiative where
we are trying to achieve these types of things.
Prof. Simpfendorfer: I want to briefly say a few words about the new centre, which has brought together a
whole range of different parts of the university. Irrespective of faculty, school or whatever, we have identified
researchers who are working in the fisheries and aquaculture space and have now, virtually at least, co-located
them, trying to integrate what we do. So we are trying to grow our research not by bringing in new people but by
developing greater collaboration. That has extended now: within the university we are now working also to bring
in people from other agencies. The Queensland tropical agri and aqua sciences initiative is a collaboration
between JCU and QDAFF—I guess it is QDAFF these days. We have co-located staff from DAFF on campus
who are working with us so that we can get our information back through to the management agencies so much
more effectively. Like the TAFI model, we are finding that to be a really effective way of making sure that there
is good science going into management locally as well as more globally.
Our aims with the centre include research excellence, and Mike has talked about JCU's reputation in terms of
fisheries science both in wild fisheries and in aquaculture. We are also strongly focusing on impact so that our
research has impact in terms of changes in management and improvements in management. Also there is research
training. We need to maintain the capabilities of new students at both the undergraduate and the postgraduate
level. The centre has over 100 PhD students within it who have been trained in a whole range of fisheries and
aquaculture areas. You can see the great strength of bringing together teams of people within universities. They
traditionally may have been working very separately, but, by bringing people together, we have been able to
really harness that energy and make that grow.
CHAIR: Regarding benchmarking data, we could do a lot more with documentation of the data we have in a
form that can be used more readily. You may have heard the earlier discussion with Sunfish in the rec fishing
area. Is there Australian fisheries data that is not collated for easy access through state agencies and that sort of
thing?
Prof. Kingsford: There are different types of data. There is fisheries dependent and there is fisheries
independent data. Obviously, the dependent data is collected by the fisheries themselves. It is very useful in terms
of finding out what fisheries are collecting but, because fishermen go to where they want to catch the fish, it does
not necessarily tell you everything about the stock. That is why you actually need fisheries independent data as
well.
I draw on a very good example: an initiative in New South Wales. They had surveys that were carried out, I
think, 20 years apart. They have only done it twice. In that 20-year change they pretty much lost all their sharks
and rays. This is something that Australia needs to know: you are actually having a fundamental change in
biodiversity, a fundamental change in the loss of key organisms and that is from two surveys.
Mr LYONS: Where did we the lose sharks and rays from?
Prof. Kingsford: Basically from trawling.
Prof. Simpfendorfer: It is not just New South Wales; it is also down the whole east coast, from the New
South Wales-Queensland border. Two or three species of gulper sharks and a number of red skate species have
basically disappeared from that part of the country. In fact, gulper sharks are currently up with SEWPaC for
potential listing under the EPBC threatened species legislation.
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 21
CHAIR: Some of the ray flaps are sold as shark at times?
Prof. Kingsford: For fish and chips.
CHAIR: In Western Australia we received some evidence that, every two years, the state authority there
produce a report, State of the fisheries in the region. Do you think if we could bring that together around the
country it would be a good idea?
Prof. Kingsford: The state of fishing is already critical—it is really important information, but I think it is the
acknowledgement that you do not just want environmental assessments on what has happened; you want to be
progressing the game. So the fisheries is one part of it, but we should consider something independent of the
fishery as well. As a recommendation we strongly advise that that be pursued in Australia. At the end of the day,
people blame fisheries for not having the right data. Sometimes it is not addressing all the questions that Australia
needs to address. For example, you can change fishing effort. You might be capturing lobsters one year and
gemfish the next, so lobsters will drop off while you catch gemfish. It does not tell you how the stock changes.
CHAIR: Let us go to another question that I am trying to get some evidence on. In relation to our wild
fisheries we seem to have a very complex process in the way that we fish in Australia—it has grown up
historically. We have a lot of licences, we have people borrowing, buying quota, sharing quota and whatever with
people who do not fish but who have quotas. We have all sorts of boats and all sorts of gear. How efficient is this?
There seems to be some evidence that says we are not fishing very efficiently in Australia and probably the
consumers are the ones who pay for that and that we could do things a lot better and differently—for example, the
consumer to have cheaper fish.
Prof. Simpfendorfer: Having had a fair bit of experience in advising fisheries management over a couple of
decades I think we have been through a process where we have become much more efficient than we used to be.
Historically, fisheries got open access and I think we have gone down the road of limited access and reductions in
fishing effort and the number of fishing vessels. That has obviously driven a lot of efficiency gains within the
industry. Is there space for more? Probably yes. In some fisheries in particular, for example, there are still over
400 vessels licensed in the East Coast Inshore Fin Fishery along the Queensland coast. A lot of them are very
small-scale operators, compared to some of the great Australian trawling fisheries where you have two or three
vessels.
Mr LYONS: Do those Queensland boats all have quotas?
Prof. Simpfendorfer: They do not operate under a quota system. There is an overall TAC but no individual
quotas are allocated in that fishery.
Prof. Kingsford: Can I flag one of the most successful fisheries in the country, the abalone fishery, which has
been very successful in terms of quotas and having sustainable stock but it did not remove the risk of being
attacked by a parasite. That fishery has already struggled from a natural phenomenon so, even with the best
management in the world, you can—
CHAIR: (Indistinct)
Prof. Simpfendorfer: That is where the monitoring comes in. The monitoring of that stock clearly showed
what happened, unless you put managers in a position to deal with it.
CHAIR: That is where aquaculture can come in and where we can do a lot more.
Prof. Kingsford: Correct.
CHAIR: I have just come back from Korea and Japan and I saw so many abalone in supermarkets. I guess
they were farmed abalone, but they certainly produce them by the tonne.
Prof. Kingsford: The corollary to that story is that the fishers in Victoria, New South Wales and South
Australia are unaware of biosecurity issues. The proper quarantining of abalone to rear them without getting the
disease was an issue, so that is where better science and informing the stakeholders how to respond to something
like that is very useful to protect stocks in that type of event.
CHAIR: We might go to aquaculture shortly.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I have some questions on wild catch fisheries. You have stated in your submission that
we are managed to very high standards, particularly on a global scale. You said that there was a lack of public
awareness of the disparity between imported and domestic standards of regulatory regimes. Is there more
education that needs to be done in that sphere to educate people on the difference? Is that what you are getting at
with that comment?
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 22
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Prof. Simpfendorfer: The comment came about partly because I think there is a fairly good awareness now
among consumers of the difference between imported and domestic seafood, but the awareness that needs to be
raised is more about the fact that cheaper imported fish are produced at an environmental cost that we do not see
in domestic production. So, while it is cheaper to the consumer, from an environment perspective it is produced at
a greater cost. I guess it is like fair trade coffee in a way.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Putting aquaculture to one side, I asked AIMS earlier whether there was capability to
increase our wild catch production in any area and they said they did not think so. But, if we are not able to go
into aquaculture quickly, wild catch production would be easier to expand if the government would allow it by
pulling back on some of the controls they have around it. Surely from a global perspective there would be a
greater environmental benefit in allowing more production from our wild catch at a moderate level than in seeing
continued imports, which you have identified yourself have a much greater and more harmful impact on the
environment than Australian fisheries do. Do you think there is capacity in that respect for increased wild catch
production?
Prof. Kingsford: I think there has to be a recognition of the nature of Australia. Despite our land mass and
waters, we are actually fairly poorly in nutrients. We have a very narrow continental shelf. If you had to look at
two things that explain our fisheries, one is upwelling—like the great upwelling off Peru—and the other one is
continental shelf area. We have a very narrow continental shelf along the coast of places like New South Wales. It
is 20 to 30 kilometres wide. We have a bit of continental shelf off Bass Strait. We have some off the North West
Shelf and a little bit of upwelling off Albany. At the end of the day, we are a fisheries-poor nation and probably
about half our catch is crustaceans and things, which is really unusual on a worldwide basis. It is normally 95 per
cent cod, herring or something like that.
So I think there has to be a recognition that what Australia has we have to be very careful of to sustain it. If you
are looking at massive growth, I would strongly suggest looking at aquaculture at on-land facilities that meet
some of our carbon sequestration issues and some of our protein shortage issues. You do it with environmentally
sound practices where you make sure there is zero emission of nutrient rich water. We have a reasonable area of
land. If you talk to the aquaculture guys, they would probably say we are overly tight in our legislation
concerning aquaculture.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: We certainly heard that from the Prawn Farmers Association, who we had here earlier
today. You have identified something which they said in different words, where you say there is:
… a clear disjunction between potential to farm new species and regulations restricting aquaculture growth, often based on
precautionary principles and lack of scientific data.
You go on to say that that 'significantly impedes the growth of established industries'. Do you believe there needs
to be a major review then of the environmental regulations that we have got and whether the outcomes that the
current regime has are based in science, in terms of what could potentially be not harmful to the environment, and
do you think we need to overhaul some of these regulations?
Prof. Kingsford: You are going to have a great opportunity this afternoon because the head of aquaculture in
my school, Associate Professor Dean Jerry, is going to give you a tour and you can ask lots of different questions
about aquaculture. I would strongly suggest that our perception of aquaculture is based on historical views.
Prof. Simpfendorfer: And from overseas as well.
Prof. Kingsford: And often overseas environmental degradation. We are way ahead of the game now
compared to 20 years ago. You will see that when you go to the site at JCU. We now have things like different
types of algae that we can use to sequester the nutrients, which are a major source of pollution. There is now the
opportunity to harvest the algae as novel products for Australia. And there is now the opportunity to grow that
type of algae in mixed polyculture, which addresses carbon sequestration. I would suggest to you there are a
whole range of innovative new industries that are available through aquaculture as well as its addressing the
increased demand for protein for Australia. Rather than buying Nile perch from South-East Asia, where there is
very little environmental consideration for how they are raised—or, for that matter, the prawn industry over
there—we could actually focus very carefully on developing that area in Australia.
CHAIR: Are we moving away from antibiotics in aquaculture?
Prof. Kingsford: Yes. The aquaculture problem has been a pollution one. Certainly GBRMPA has been very
concerned about any suggestion of aquaculture around here, for the reason of its putting nutrients on the reef. The
truth of the matter is that, if you look at local initiatives now—in collaboration with JCU, I have to say—they can
actually get it down to zero. The water quality going out is sometimes better than that going in, to be honest, by
the time they have actually treated it.
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 23
CHAIR: We have heard that.
Prof. Kingsford: At the end of the day, science should dictate changes in policy.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Your last statement there probably answered this for me, but the Prawn Farmers
Association this morning told us there has not been a single approval of a new prawn farm in 13 years—or an
approval that can be met. The last one was for the farm they have got down there at Ayr, I understand. I asked the
representative from the prawn farmers whether or not there was a clear link between the environmental controls
that are put in place for the industry and the fact that there has not been a new prawn farm established, and the
answer from his point of view was definitely yes. He went on to detail how the company that he works for had
commissioned an array of different scientific work from top people—AIMS; I am not sure if you guys were
included; someone from overseas; I forget the fellow's name, but he was an eminent biologist—
CHAIR: A biologist from America.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Yes. It seemed to just be all dismissed on the basis of the precautionary principle: 'We
do not want any risk at all and therefore we want no discharge.' That clearly will not work and will not be
conducive to new investment.
Prof. Kingsford: I think it is modifying the definition of what are appropriate environmental levels. I think all
of us concur that that we do not want to endanger the Great Barrier Reef but, as long as you set conditions for the
condition of the water that is released into local waters, it is crazy if that is less than what comes out of the
Burdekin plume, for example, just as a result of normal processes. I think you can actually adjust it to suit.
Prof. Simpfendorfer: From a science perspective, science can provide the answers about what is right and
what is wrong, and I think the science needs to inform those things rather than just 'no'. The precautionary
principle basically says: 'Unless you have good data, do not do anything.' But, if you have got the data, then you
should not still be using the precautionary approach.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I suppose I am asking you to speculate here. If the data is on the table and it says there
is not going to be a significant risk or impact, and yet this precautionary principle is put in place which says that
there is still no zero discharge, why is there a disconnect between what should be viewed as reputable science
informing the government on what the manageable risk could be and the policy decision of government?
Prof. Kingsford: We are talking about multiple agencies again. If you have a whole range of agencies
involved along the lines of the taking model again, here is the problem: who are the major stakeholders involved
in this; who are the end users? You need to go through the whole process. I would have to say that, in a state that
is concerned about employment, innovation and the availability of protein to Australians, all of those areas can be
addressed to some extent. The plant you will see this afternoon has 54 people employed. Employment-wise and
innovation-wise, a whole range of opportunities can come from that type of stuff. I think that would be a sensible
recommendation.
Mr LYONS: I am interested to know how you determine fish numbers. How do you guys go about
determining fish numbers, stocks for quotas and that sort of thing?
Prof. Kingsford: It depends on the type of fish. I still have to get to your spillover question. If you look at
coral trout populations, for example, they are largely reef bound. One of our leading researchers, Garry Russ, has
been heavily involved in zoning around here. A lot of the data that you have seen in terms of green zones having
more fish as a result of rezoning has been from data from JCU. The fish are relatively neutral, in terms of their
response to divers. Some are even slightly diver positive, where they come towards you. At the end of the day,
you can get very detailed estimates of numbers of fish per unit area, and if you know the length of the fish you
can convert that to weight.
If I could be so bold as to explain the spillover thing that we were talking about before—
Mr LYONS: That was my next question.
Prof. Kingsford: The nature of that data—this is done at Yeppoon—is in collaboration with fishers. Sunfish
type collaborators are involved in this as well. Lots of stripies and coral trout were caught in green zones and
outside of them. They were all genetically identified, as you would if you were in CSI. They could recognise
where the individual babies came from. So they knew where the adults were, they collected all the babies in the
area from green zones and blue zones and they found that, in the area that they were looking at, the green zones
only accounted for 28 per cent of the area, so it was a small part of the area, but they contributed more than 50 per
cent of the babies that were found in the blue zones.
Mr LYONS: What distance from the green zones?
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 24
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Prof. Kingsford: We are talking, on a scale of kilometres, for tens of kilometres. The point is that one of the
old adages of green zones has been the assumption of spillover. Quite rightly, you could ask, 'What evidence is
there of that?' because it has been largely by legend. This is demonstrable proof which has been refereed by
scientists in different parts of the world, so it is not, as was said, pretty much a bunch of hippies coming up with
an eco-argument on this. It is based on really good science. It is quite clear that you can see that the blue zones are
doing better as a result of having green zones nearby.
Mr LYONS: There is a bit of science on that in New Zealand, I think. I read that somewhere.
Prof. Kingsford: Yes. I am quite happy to send that paper to you.
Mr LYONS: That would be good.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: When the fish are tagged in the green zone, how do you know that they did not just
swim there from a blue zone?
Prof. Kingsford: First of all, they are tagged, so you can actually recognise them. They have repeat captures
of these guys and they also have biomass in the individual reserves, so you actually know before you start that
there are lots and lots of fish in the green zones compared to the blue zones. They have estimates of density,
estimates of site affiliations from physical tags, so you can tell where they came from, and they have the genetic
markers of each adult and each baby that turned up a year or two later. In fact, they had three cohorts over three
years that they looked at and in each case a lot more youngsters were coming from adults that were resident in the
blue zone in the first place. Because they are individually tagged, they would not have come from—
Mr CHRISTENSEN: That is interesting.
Mr LYONS: To try and encourage aquaculture, what do we need to do from a science point of view?
Prof. Kingsford: I think, first of all, support science in that area. As you will see this afternoon, good science
is coming up with real solutions for Australia on a whole range of fronts, and it is really exciting. It is at an
international level, so a lot of people are very interested—so interested, in fact, that we have the Singaporean
government keen for JC to be engaged over there to help them with their aquaculture type issues. So it is
internationally renowned. So I think funding the science and looking at the environmental issues are huge ones.
Prof. Simpfendorfer: And I think the third part of that is getting scientists partnering with industry people.
JCU, again, work very hard with those linkages to make sure that science and industry are working together to
really provide the answers to what the industry guys need to really move things forward. I think that is an
important part of those links as well.
Mr LYONS: With the link, there has obviously been a bit of a breakdown between the industry and the
science. There have been no new prawn farms for 13 years. There is great demand for prawns. How do we
actually bring the two together? What do governments do to encourage that?
Prof. Kingsford: There are things like ARC linkage grants, for example. There are those types of initiatives
where you actually say, 'Here's a source of funding that will only be provided to individuals that collaborate with
industry.' That is very effective. You asked about examples of where the collaborations are. Some of the prawn
farmers have put up experimental ponds for us as a part of that collaboration to look at ways of reducing nutrients.
There is absolutely active collaboration now, but the funding that joins different levels of these organisations is
what makes the difference.
If I could also make a pitch for training, Australia needs to be involved in any initiative that involves young,
smart people to get into an area that Australia holds very valuable—fisheries and aquaculture, for example.
Supporting postgraduate research is highly cost-effective. It helps you address some of the questions that we are
talking about today. If they are collocated and working with senior scientists, you are ensuring sustainable
practices for Australia in the future.
CHAIR: In your submission you talk about the management of fisheries, biological information, social needs,
and the interaction between biological resources and society in its infancy, which is good stuff. You talk there
about the need to have training of practitioners for the social research of fisheries et cetera. Can you elaborate a
bit on that, because I think that is a pretty significant area.
Prof. Simpfendorfer: By way of example, I was at a meeting with the Fisheries Research and Development
Corporation last week in Melbourne. We were talking about national priorities and, basically, major hubs of
research. One of the real areas that they are going to find as a great weakness in Australia is the social aspect of
fisheries and aquaculture. I think it is an area that we have traditionally overlooked because there has been this
historical paradigm that fisheries management is based on understanding the biology of animals and once you
know the biology you work a few things out, you work out how many you have got, and that is how much you
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 25
can catch. But the reality is that people catch fish. We are not managing the fish themselves; we are managing the
people. So understanding people's attitudes, behaviours and those sorts of things helps us understand much better
how management can be put into practice in a much more effective way. We have a number of people at JCU
who are very involved in that social aspect. There is a growing awareness of that, but I think we are really behind
the eight ball in terms of capacity in Australia. We just do not have that ability to get into that in a big way.
The other limiting factor there is that management agencies, because we have had this historical paradigm, do
not have the people to push forward those parts of management. I think that is an area that we really need to see
growth in, starting with training so that we can get the people with experience out there and into the work force.
CHAIR: The person heading up the salmon industry in Tasmania was the agricultural woman of the year, and
she has gone overseas with her money to have a look at how they do it in Norway and Scotland, and the
interactions between the communities and the fish farms, which is lacking a lot.
Prof. Simpfendorfer: It is particularly so in aquaculture. In fisheries we have some capacity; in aquaculture
there is almost no capacity in that area. I think that is where we are really lagging.
CHAIR: How can we turn some of this knowledge into aid programs to assist the Third World in developing
aquaculture in a small way to be sustainable?
Prof. Kingsford: The biggest one for us is the Coral Triangle Initiative, a collaboration between six key
countries—Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Indonesia; that whole area. At the end of the day, in our view
Australia needs to be a little more proactive in how we are going to deal with aid in that area because US aid is
pouring in there. Australia is beautifully positioned to assist with this and be a good regional partner with
Indonesia, East Timor and the rest of them. Foreign policywise we have a desire to work in that area, but we need
to be a little more proactive in helping in training, in research and certainly in some of the social science that
Colin was flagging. We have done it very, very effectively in places like the Philippines with some of the tagging,
showing babies are coming back to their own reef. The locals have taken that on board. For the end users to really
take that on board is fantastic. It has even been flagged with Sunfish, as we heard before.
There are real opportunities for the government to think about innovative ways of involving industry. For us
there are two very good examples. Firstly, with the program that we talked about at Yeppoon, the local fishers
helped us catch the fish. They absolutely loved it and they understood what was going on. Secondly, there are a
lot of rare species—for example, the Queensland groper, which is relatively rare—and it is very hard for one
senior scientist and postgrad to go out and catch enough to make any sense. Those sorts of collaborations are
very, very effective—the resource of getting hold of fish that have been caught by the fishery that we can use for
data on ageing and working out what is going on with these species is very important.
CHAIR: Real citizen science stuff.
Prof. Kingsford: Absolutely.
Prof. Simpfendorfer: It is obviously an area that we know is growing. It is about doing citizen science
effectively rather than just for the sake of it.
CHAIR: Just on getting the data, there is wreck fishing but we do not seem to have much data on it. It seems
to be growing in Western Australia, where there are 886,000 boats are registered and some of them are very large.
They go to sea and fish, and they have a lot of equipment on them. Up here, Geoff just got the figure of
240,000—is that right?
Mr LYONS: A quarter of a million.
CHAIR: A quarter of a million boats. That is a lot of boats and a lot of people fishing, and we do not have
very much data on it. I see in your submission where you rightly point out some endangered species that
Indigenous people have access to—turtle and dugong. Legitimately they can fish for them, but we need to know
that that is sustainable. How do you see the solution to getting this data?
Prof. Simpfendorfer: Recreational fishing is a tricky one because there are so many people involved at so
many different levels. You have the very mad kingfishermen who catch a lot of fish, but the vast majority of
recreational fishers probably catch one or two if they are lucky. How do you capture representative information
from such a large group of people? The historic way we have done it is through phone surveys largely.
Queensland has just completed a phone survey. The information is very coarse. One of the challenges we have is
how to identify recreational fishers to get the data from them. New South Wales have obviously gone the route of
a recreational licence fee, so they know the community and can identify them, and obviously access data much
more efficiently. Calling a representative portion of Queensland just to find out if they have fished and where they
caught fish and how many they caught is a very expensive process. Having been part of those sorts of surveys, the
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 26
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
data are difficult to disentangle from a whole range of factors. Also, we have the grey nomads who come to
Queensland and they are here at the moment. There is no way to survey them at all through that phone survey
approach. We have a lot of challenges that we are still trying to meet in terms of recreational fishing data.
Prof. Kingsford: But it would be fair to say that the commercial sector gets most concerned that the
recreational sector is not concerned enough. If you are looking at the impact on the local fauna, you actually need
to consider both parties. There are plenty of studies that have been done in Australia that show that the impact of
rec fishers can be as great if not greater than the commercial in some confined spaces. The bottom line is that for
a balanced view of what is happening, we need to have decent data.
CHAIR: So that is where our challenge is, and also the biodiversity, I guess—the impact on the biodiversity.
Prof. Simpfendorfer: Correct. Absolutely.
CHAIR: So the object is to find ways of getting that data. Geoff asked the lady from Sunfish about how in
Western Australia they have come up with a phone application where you can catch your fish, put it on a map, tell
the size and whatever from the map and then tick it through, because fishermen do not like filling out forms and
surveys as such. Nothing like that has been tried here that you know of?
Prof. Simpfendorfer: Not that I am aware of, no.
Prof. Kingsford: But I do know of records. In New Zealand, for example, with the snapper tagging they had a
$28,000 fish out there. No-one knew what the tag number was, but there are quite innovative ways you can
engage local fishers to be involved in it. I was going to flag the Indigenous aspect very briefly. We have Professor
Helene Marsh working at JCU. She has been very effective in engaging with Torres Strait Islanders in terms of
the dugong issue.
CHAIR: They are a big fishing community.
Prof. Kingsford: Absolutely. There are quite high mortality rates of dugongs close to some islands, whereas it
will be lower further away where you cannot get a small boat. But I think Helene is a very good example of
engaging with the community, making them feel part of the research, helping them understand what is happening
to their local dugong population and empowering them to help them make the decisions. I think that is the key to
it. If you try to police it without engaging the local community, you are lost straightaway. That is a very good
example of some success.
Prof. Simpfendorfer: I think it shows the importance of, again, the social aspects of fisheries and engaging
the fishing communities in the whole process, which is so important.
CHAIR: Which we have discovered in endgame management—certainly in my region, with engaging the
clubs.
Mr LYONS: Rec fishers are engaged in Tasmania at the moment in relation to a trawler.
CHAIR: Yes. With aquaculture, I guess we really need to know what our competitive advantage is. Is it that
we have good science, good knowledge and a pretty good skill base? This morning we discussed the fact—and I
think it has come to us in some evidence—that we lack a bit of work in engineering as well. Engineering in
aquaculture is pretty significant and important, so I really value your comments in that area.
Prof. Kingsford: I think you will find it fascinating this afternoon, because one of the areas of harvest, for
example, is microalgae for sequestration and also treating water. A real challenge with that is how you harvest
something that is less than half a millimetre in size, so you get into engineering-type issues. But those are good
jobs for engineers and it is great innovation for Australia. If I had to name one thing that Australia has a real
advantage in, it is innovation and really good science. That is why our guys at JCU do consulting-type work all
over the Pacific and as far as Norway. We are in demand for that.
CHAIR: Islands usually throw up innovation, I find. It is a matter of surviving. The smaller the island, the
more innovative or invasive you have to be. Thanks very much for your submission. We look forward to our visit
this afternoon, and we thank you for your time. We might follow up as we go on. If there is anything else, we
might send you an email or two.
Prof. Kingsford: I will email that PDF file.
Proceedings suspended from 12:58 to 13:27
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 27
STARCK, Dr Walter, Private capacity
CHAIR: I welcome you to the committees hearing today. Although the committee does not require you to
give evidence under oath, I should advise you that this hearing is a formal proceeding of the parliament and
warrants the same respect as proceedings of the House. Giving false or misleading evidence is a serious matter
and may be regarded as a contempt of parliament.
Dr Starck: While I am appearing as an individual representing no organisation, I have some 50 or 60 years of
worldwide experience in marine biology and fisheries.
CHAIR: Thank you and thank you for your paper. I now invite you to make some introductory remarks
before we moved to questions.
Dr Starck: The paper pretty well covers the broad spectrum of what I want to do. If I may I will take 10 or 15
minutes to give a brief summary of the situation with our fisheries.
CHAIR: That is fine.
Dr Starck: Australia has the third-largest exclusive economic zone in the world. It is only a little bit more
than the two largest. The largest is the US. The second largest, surprisingly enough, is France. The reason is
because France has many island territories, like French Polynesia, and unlike most other countries those are
considered an integral part of France. Most of them, in fact, are part of the department of Paris. As a result, when
you draw a 200-mile limit around every speck of land in French Polynesia, you cover an awful lot of ocean. But
that is what it mostly is—simply empty, open ocean but with abyssal depths, and about the only resource there is
tuna fish. So, in terms of continental shelf area, Australia would have the second largest in the world, after the
US. On a per capita basis, of course, we would have vastly more than anyone else.
As for the fisheries harvest rate of our EEZ, if you take the total catch and divide it by the number of square
kilometres, it comes out to about 30 kilograms per square kilometre per year, or about 0.3 of a kilogram per
hectare. This is a very low rate. The average rate around the world for EEZ fisheries is around 1,000 kilograms
per year, so our harvest is very, very low. When I began to point this out a few years back—because that fact had
just been ignored—the response or justification was, 'Well, our primary productivity is very low; we live in this
mysterious black hole in oceanic productivity.' That was the claim. But there is no evidence for that at all. In fact,
primary productivity is constantly monitored by satellite because they are looking at the wavelengths of light that
are absorbed by chlorophyll. They can monitor that by satellite and get an index of the amount of phytoplankton
in the water and the amount of productivity going on. As our productivity is pretty similar to that of mid-latitude
and low-latitude areas around the world, there is simply no scientific evidence at all that we have unusually low
productivity.
Now, if we did have such unusually low productivity, because there would be far fewer fish living in our
waters the catch rate would be much lower—the rate you get per hour when you fish with a line or drag a trawl or
whatever. Yet, if you look at our catch rates, you see they actually reflect the fact that our fisheries are
underfished: the catch rates are high. The only way you could possibly explain that, if you have low productivity,
would be to presume that, as soon as you put your net in the water, fish come from miles around to jump in it,
which is nonsense. The fact is we have large, underexploited resources.
To give you an example, the harvest rate for the Great Barrier Reef, the total commercial catch of line fish on
the reef, is limited to 3,061 tonnes. The way they came up that magical figure was that, in the last year or so that
they had fishing open on the reef—it was 1996 or 1997—that happened to be the catch for that year. So they
decided that was as much as we could possibly sustain. That comes out to about nine kilograms per square
kilometre over the area of reef and lagoon on the Great Barrier Reef.
There is an organisation called the World Resources Institute, based in Washington DC, and every few years
they do a global report on the status of coral reefs. They call on experts in different countries all over the world to
compile the information. In the introduction to their latest report, which came out in 2010, they said—talking
about how valuable reef fisheries were to local areas in underdeveloped countries—that well-managed reefs can
sustain an annual harvest rate of 15,000 kilograms per square kilometre per year. But we are taking nine
kilograms and saying it is overfished or under threat of overfishing! It is not even vaguely credible. Those two
figures alone tell you a lot.
But you do not need a computer and a PhD to confirm that there is very little fishing going on in the Barrier
Reef. You can hop on a Qantas flight—three or four times a day, there is a flight from Townsville up to Cairns—
and, when they fly up the coast, they fly off the coast, probably at about 8,000 or 10,000 feet, so not very high.
You have a beautiful panoramic view out over the Coral Sea. It is a high-wing Fokker aircraft, so you have an
unobstructed view. I have made that flight many times; some of you have probably made it. As you go along, you
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 28
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
look out and you see reef after reef—you will probably pass 12 or 15 reefs that you can clearly see on the way up
there—and the normal thing is you will not see a boat on any one of those reefs. The one time I saw a boat, it was
a sailboat, not a fishing boat.
As I say, you do not need a PhD and a computer to figure out that, if there are no boats, there is no fishing. We
have a very low level of fishing. I had my own 150-tonne research vessel and a home base on the Daintree River.
For 10 years, I went out to a reef to the north-east on the outer barrier. In those days, it was on the charts as a
scape reef, but they renamed it as Rachel Carson Reef, in honour of Rachel Carson. We spent four to six weeks a
year on that reef for 10 years, with several separate trips of 10 days to two weeks at a time. In that 10 years, I only
ever saw one fishing boat on the reef. It was a little recreational boat that came into the lagoon for a couple of
hours one day and then left. Our total time on the reef would have amounted to three, four or five months—a fair
bit of time—but in that whole time there was never anyone fishing there, and yet there was good fishing there. We
would go out any time we wanted to catch fish to eat. There were plenty of fish—we were diving all the time, so
we were fully aware of it. It was not like it was a bad place to fish; it is just a typical example. I have made
several trips to the top of the reef in recent years, all the way up to the Torres Strait, and normally on those trips
you do not see a fishing boat. There are vast numbers of reefs that are not even fished at all.
The low level of fishing is reflected in the fact that we import roughly 70 per cent of the seafood that we
consume domestically. All of that comes from other countries which have far more pressure on their fishing
resources than we do. In fact, our biggest supplier, which supplies 25 per cent of our imports, is Thailand. It has
about one-twentieth of the area of EEZ that we have and produces about 10 times the total catch.
This is unfortunate in more ways than simply economics. In recent years, there have been a number of largescale epidemiological studies and demographic studies looking at the health benefits of seafood. They fall into
three broad categories, which are quite strong. There are improvements to cardiovascular and lung function.
People who eat a lot of seafood generally have much lower incidence of heart disease. There are a whole range of
disorders that are related to immune problems, and they seem to benefit substantially from a high seafood diet.
This includes everything from diabetes to kidney diseases and various muscular disorders, all of which seem to
have an immunological component that is stimulated by seafood, which is high in omega-3 fatty acids. But
probably the most important benefit is disorders and conditions related to neurological functioning and
development. Populations who consume large amounts of seafood maintain their mental abilities into older age
much better. A very interesting study that was done in the UK looked at women who ate seafood three times a
week versus those who consumed less. There was a 10 point IQ difference in their children. This was a largescale study—something like 15,000 participants—so statistically it looks valid. If we apply these sorts of statistics
to our own health situation and assume the same kinds of improvements with increased seafood consumption, we
could save billions of dollars a year in health care, not to mention the hugely improved quality of life for millions
of people. So there is more than just dollars and cents involved in seafood. Since we have such a large potential
resource, we really should be making better use of it.
When you talk about Australian fisheries and go to the websites of the various fishery management
organisations, both sate and Commonwealth, you will often see claims about cutting-edge technology and leading
scientific management and so forth. There are all these claims about how wonderful our management is. Firstly,
these claims are always made by the people they apply to. They are not something that has been awarded from
somewhere else or been recognised elsewhere; they are self-awarded. When you start looking at our management,
what you find is that our cost of management per unit of product produced is the highest in the world, and it is
also the most restrictive. Our fishing industry is in the process of dying not because the resource is declining but
because there are no younger fishermen coming into it and the fishermen simply cannot cope with the red tape
and requirements that are being piled on them. If you have management which costs more and more every year
and delivers less and less in terms of production and profitability, you have got a problem with your management.
It is a contradiction of the very concept of management. So we really do have a management problem.
Among the claims of management of course is expertise. When it comes to the oceans the reality is that we do
not know that much. There are no experts. Some of us may know enough to recognise our own ignorance but that
is about it. Back in the seventies and eighties there was an expansion of marine science, with a lot of new basic
research taking place. We were beginning to learn quite a lot of new information about the oceans and what was
going on out there, but with the constraints on budgets and always the competition for limited government
funding, researchers discovered that if they had a problem which they could refer to, they had lot better chance of
getting funding. So everything began to shift over to the claim that there was some kind of environmental
problem that we needed to look at. Today basic research has virtually ceased. Every thing now being done in the
oceans, with few exceptions, is aimed at addressing some kind of hypothetical problem. You can be assured that,
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 29
once money is allocated to study a problem, the one thing they are never going to find is that there was not one.
So you have got this self-perpetuating system. When a problem hangs around for a few years—none of these
problems are ever really pinned down or solved—they sort of wear out and people lose interest in them and then a
new one arises. Whether it is crown-of-thorns starfish, climate change, ocean acidification, over-fishing or land
run-off, one of these problems is always coming up. But if you go out in the ocean and try to find it, it is pretty
hard to find any evidence of them.
Most of our management today is based on theories and models done by remote control, by people in airconditioned offices in Canberra, Brisbane or wherever; it is not done out on the reef or out in the ocean where you
look directly at the resource. These theories and models have become more and more detached from reality, and
one of the most popular tools now is this computer modelling. The wonderful thing about computer models is that
they can be adjusted to give you any kind of result you want. Nobody is ever going to examine that model,
because the models are all claimed to be proprietary and kept secret, so nobody can examine it and you just have
to take their word on faith that the model expresses what they say.
There is a very interesting quote I came across just yesterday by Alfred North Whitehead, who was a famous
British mathematician and philosopher. He had this to say many years ago; he is dead now, but he said:
There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been
made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.
That is what the models amount to. They do complicated calculations and then claim that they represent nature,
which in most cases they do not. They are simply estimates plugged into a mathematical model and it would be
sheer chance if they came up with a representation of what actually exists out there in the ocean.
There are two other biases in management that have entered with the rise of environmentalism. One is the
precautionary principle and the other is sustainability. Those are the two buzzwords that they always love to use.
If you look back and find the origin of the precautionary principle and how it was originally defined, it was the
idea that if there is an apparent risk of severe, extensive or irreparable damage to some aspect of the environment
that you should not hold back on trying to rectify just because you do not have absolute scientific proof. But what
has happened is that is has sort of morphed into the idea that if there is any hypothetical objection then you cannot
do anything until you can prove that there is no problem.
If you have been a student of logic 101 at university, one of the first things you will have learned is that there is
no proof for a negative; you cannot prove a negative. So you can never prove that something hypothetical might
not be a problem. This has become a major stumbling block. The other thing is that the precautionary principle in
itself is a bit of an oxymoron in that if you follow it through logically it also precludes itself. Everything you do
has some has some potential for risk, including the measures that you take as precautionary things. So you cannot
do anything. You cannot get out of bed in the morning because of what might happen, but if you stay in bed that
might cause you to eventually have a heart attack, so either way you cannot do anything. It has sort of become a
nonsense principle and yet it is even written into the enabling legislation for things like AFMA and so forth.
The other thing is this buzzword of sustainability. You really have to define what you mean by sustainability. If
you want to define it strictly, it is a no-brainer—that is, if you do not use something, it remains sustainable. If we
limited our agricultural land for the whole country to 20 hectares, that would be sustainable. We could restrict our
cattle herds to 10 animals. That would be sustainable. What they are not looking at is sustainability at all, and
these are the supposed managers of things like fisheries and agriculture. They are not looking at the sustainability
industry itself. You also have to have a certain level of access to a resource and utilisation of it to have a
sustainable industry, and we are squeezing our primary producers. If you look over the past 30 years or so, our
fishing fleet today is about a quarter of the size of what it was. Twenty five to 30 years ago there were something
like a quarter of a million people living on family farms. Today, it is down to about 50,000. If you look at the
declining profitability in fisheries and farming over the last 10 years or so, the trajectory comes to about zero
around 2017, so we have got a serious problem that we have to deal with.
CHAIR: I would like to come to some questions.
Dr Starck: Okay, I am open to your questions.
CHAIR: Thanks very much. What is the scientific foundation for the marine protected areas? What is the
basis of what those marine protected areas have been established on?
Dr Starck: They are claiming they are needed to maintain biodiversity—that is another one of those
buzzwords—and sustainability. Biodiversity simply means the number of different species that live in an area. To
start with, there has never been an instance documented anywhere in the world, ever, of a fishery exterminating a
marine fish or invertebrate. It has not happened. On land, yes, there are lots of examples of animals and plants that
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 30
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
have become extinct. But in the sea it has not happened. Populations are so diverse and their reproductive
capacity so large that it simply has not happened. So there is really no evidence of a decline in biodiversity in
Australian waters, yet we keep creating more and more of these marine protected areas.
There are a couple of risks there. One of them is that up to 12 miles off the coast we have an absolute sovereign
right. We can do whatever we want there. But from 12 miles out to 200 miles the rights that we have are through
the Law of the Sea Treaty—that is, the exclusive use of bottom resources and fisheries. There is also in that treaty
a requirement that the nation which is claiming the exclusive use has an obligation to use that resource. If they do
not, there is a provision for other nations to petition for access to it. We have vast areas of our shelf that we have
now put into these marine protected zones, roughly a third of our area, and I do not really believe that you can
legitimately under the Law of the Sea Treaty consider stopping all use of the resource as a use. This opens the
door for the Asian fishing companies to petition through the world court for access to our northern waters because
we are really not using them.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: One of the things that I took from your opening statement was a criticism of the current
management processes and the science that underpins it—that you believe that it should be ground based or, more
appropriately, sea based.
Dr Starck: I think it needs to be more empirically based on actual catches and what is going on. The other
thing is that the industry itself must have a stronger voice You simply cannot have the entire thing managed
unilaterally by people sitting in offices. The input of the people who are on the ground or on the water, actually
out there dealing with the resource, is very important. They need to have not just consultation; they need to be
part of the management. They need to have a voice in management. This system we have now of stakeholder
consultation is just a charade, because we are taking people who have their whole lives invested in something—
their livelihood, all of their experience, all of their money; everything—and we are putting them on an equal basis
with people who come along and say, 'Wait a minute; I am concerned about the Coral Sea. I have never been
there. I do not know anything about it, but I am concerned about it. Therefore, I am a stakeholder.' The greens are
given equal status as stakeholders as is given to the people who are making their living from the resource. Yet
they have nothing invested and bring no special knowledge or expertise to the table.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I asked AIMS this morning, and also James Cook University representatives, the
following question, although I am going to add a bit more. Do you think there is room for expansion in terms of
our wild-catch productivity? The response that we have had from previous organisations is no, due to a number of
factors—
Mr LYONS: Nutrients.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: The lack of nutrients in the water and also—
Dr Starck: There is no evidence for that productivity issue that you mentioned.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Yet those claims have been made here twice today by two different organisations.
Dr Starck: But they have not offered you any evidence. I can show you the evidence, the satellite monitoring.
You cannot have the primary productivity happening without the nutrients. So they are a direct reflection of the
nutrients, and we do not have impoverished water. Yes, it is not as rich as, say, areas where you have upwelling
like off the western coast of South America or West Africa, but those are unique in the world. These are pretty
much typical. Our waters like the waters around Thailand, and yet they are harvesting from their waters 20 times
the amount that we are.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: What size is the area they are harvesting it from compared to our harvesting area?
Dr Starck: Sorry—they are harvesting 10 times as much. Their area is one-twentieth the size of ours.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: So the answer to the question is, yes, there is capacity for increased—
Dr Starck: In terms of room for expansion, let me give you two examples where there is clear-cut evidence.
Back in the fifties and sixties, the Japanese longliners had a fishing ground for yellowfin tuna in the Coral Sea.
They were harvesting about 30,000 tonnes a year. It was one of their best fishing grounds for that fish. Today we
have one small operator up in Cairns. He has three boats and he is limited to a catch of about 900 tonnes a year.
Our total tuna harvest, for all Australian waters, is about 15,000 tonnes a year. That is not because that is all you
can catch; it is because it is all you are allowed to catch.
Papua New Guinea, about 10 years ago, decided to open up their waters to tuna fishing by licensing the Asian
fishing companies. Papua New Guinea waters are now producing about three-quarters of a million, 150,000
tonnes, a year, of tuna fish. Their EEZ is less than one-third of the size of ours; it is immediately adjacent to our
Coral Sea area. That tuna is all going to the Asian fishing companies. Most of it is canned in Thailand, the biggest
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 31
canners of tuna in the world. They are beginning to can a lot now in Papua New Guinea rather than ship it to
Thailand, but the Thai companies put their plants there. If you go to the supermarket and look at where the cans of
tuna fish on the shelf come from, you will see they are canned in Thailand. We are importing $165 million a year
in canned tuna fish from Thailand because we will not let our fishermen catch it. Those fish are migratory and
they swim right through our waters and into Papua New Guinea waters. So all we are doing is saving them for the
Asians to catch and sell back to us. Then we are taking that non-renewable source that we are not using, buying it
back by selling off a non-renewable resource, our minerals—and we call that sustainable management.
Mr LYONS: My question is about nutrients. You say that some satellite takes a photo and the chlorophyll in
the ocean determines the base, I guess, for the—
Dr Starck: The amount of chlorophyll reflects the amount of phytoplankton, and the amount of phytoplankton
reflects the amount of nutrients.
Mr LYONS: And you are saying that there is just as much in Australian waters as in other comparable
latitudes—
Dr Starck: Yes. In fact, ours are a little higher than the average for, say, Japanese waters.
Mr LYONS: Have you got somewhere we can check that?
Dr Starck: Yes, there are websites devoted to this. There is a website that has all of the productivity data.
Mr LYONS: Is there some sort of scientific paper that I can use to check that out?
Dr Starck: Yes, there are such publications. First of all, these websites are maintained by NASA and NOAA,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US. So they contain high-quality scientific data.
Mr LYONS: Your evidence here is somewhat different from that of the other—
Dr Starck: Absolutely, but they are offering you an opinion; they are not offering you any evidence. They are
simply saying, 'No, our productivity is low.' I ask: compared to what, and what is your evidence for that? I am
saying it is not low, for two reasons. Firstly, the data do not show that. Secondly, our catch rates do not reflect
that. If we had so few fish in our waters, when you pulled a trawl for an hour, it would come up with one-tenth of
the amount of fish that we are getting. You cannot catch the fish if they are not there.
Mr LYONS: Is there some evidence of that as well—papers that I can read?
Dr Starck: There is abundant evidence of that. I will give you an example—this is the other example I was
going to give. On the North West Shelf there is a huge shelf that extends way out there, with very strong tidal
currents and lots of nutrient upturn. This is reflected in the satellite measurements as an area of higher nutrients.
Back in around 1982 or 1983 the EEZ thing was put in. At that point, Australia licensed the Japanese to continue
to fish in the Coral Sea for a while and also for the Taiwanese companies to fish the North West Shelf. We only
continued that for a few years and then we turned it off, but during that period of time, for four or five years or
whatever, there were 50 Taiwanese pair trawlers operating on the North West Shelf. These pair trawlers are 35metre vessels, pretty good sized boats, and two of them pull the giant trawl—one on each side of it. The trawls are
100 metres across; they are big nets. They trawled for 25,000 hours in total over that period of years, so they got a
big sample of what is there. It is not just trivial data.
Their fishery biologists made estimates from those catches. I have a copy of the report they published in the
Acta Oceanographica Taiwanica. It is an oceanographic journal published in Taiwan. It is peer reviewed and it is
a top-quality journal. The biologists estimated that the area of shelf that they were fishing could yield a
sustainable annual catch of 250,000 tonnes. That is what the total catch for all Australian fisheries is today. They
made that estimate based on that material. At present, a small trap fishery is the only thing fishing that shelf area.
There are seven boats in the fishery, restricted to a catch of fewer than 1,000 tonnes a year. Yet the Taiwanese say
250,000 tonnes could be taken.
I figured out that, with the number of boats, the number of traps and the number of days fishing, it would take
them about 200 years just to fish the area once—assuming that if you put a trap down it catches everything from a
one-hectare area. We know that is not the case because I put video cameras down on the traps, at depths of 100
metres, and cameras above the traps looking down on them to see not only what went in them but what was
around them, and I saw that 10 times as many fish came around the traps as went into the traps. So they are not
even catching a tenth of what they are fishing, and they are fishing less than one per cent of the area each year.
There is a huge fishery right there that is not being touched, so it is absolute nonsense for people to say that
there is no room to expand our fisheries. If that was true then why is AFFA bringing in a supertrawler right
now—it is on its way here—to trawl all around the coasts of the southern part of Australia, from south-east New
South Wales right around to Western Australia? They are doing that because they want to see what is actually out
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Page 32
House of Representatives
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
there. We do not even know. There is another reason, of course: they think there are some large resources that we
are not touching.
AFFA is in trouble because all of the fisheries they are managing, they have managed virtually out of
existence. So in order to justify their own continued existence they have to open some new fisheries. It is pretty
hard for them to say, 'Wait a minute; we overmanaged all these.' So they are trying to find a new one. But if there
was nothing else out there they would not be bringing in a super trawler to do the trawling.
Mr LYONS: That boat is a private fishing boat.
Dr Starck: But it has been licensed to come in for this experimental purpose.
Mr LYONS: I do not think it has been licensed yet to come in. It has just been registered as an Australian
boat. It has not been licensed to come in and trawl. It still has an application to come—
Dr Starck: You mean they are sending a vessel half way around the world and yet they do not have
permission to fish here?
Mr LYONS: Yes.
Dr Starck: Who is doing that?
Mr LYONS: They own an 18,000-tonne quota—
Dr Starck: Yes, that is what I understood.
Mr LYONS: but they have not actually got approval to use that type of boat.
Dr Starck: Not to open the fishery, but they can catch the 18,000 tonnes a year—
Mr LYONS: Absolutely; yes.
Dr Starck: for a period of time, while they find out what is there. I think it is a good thing what they are
doing. I think we need to find out.
Mr LYONS: Do we?
Dr Starck: Yes, because otherwise we do not know what is there. Certainly one vessel is not going to overfish
a fishery that is not even fished. All you have to do is figure out the size of the net and the speed at which they
tow it. They are not going to even touch one per cent of the area, so there is no risk involved. If we can get
someone to come out here and do that on their dime while we get the information I think it is a great opportunity.
Now, if it turns out that there is not a significant resource then that is valuable information because we do not
have to waste any more time and money on it, but if it turns out that there is a substantial resource that is not
being touched then we can think about how we manage this so that we can utilise it.
Mr LYONS: In terms of this particular boat—or that method of fishing—concerns have been raised about
what happens with the bycatch. It has an 80-metre net and—
Dr Starck: In Thailand, for example, they do not have bycatch. Everything that comes in in the net is utilised.
That is really what you should do. When you throw it back it is dead anyway. It gets recycled pretty quickly but if
you bring it in, because you have already spent the time and trouble and expense to catch it, you can utilise it. One
of the main uses they have in Thailand for all of their fish scraps and all their so-called bycatch—it is not really
bycatch—is for fish meal. The fish meal then goes into the pelletised food that is used for animal husbandry and
prawn farming. They raise over one million tones of prawns a year in their aquaculture.
We have a pretty valuable aquaculture industry in Australia with the salmon. It got started before all the
regulations could stop it, and it has turned out to be successful. It is producing—this is the last figure I heard—
somewhere around 16,000 or 18,000 tonnes a year. It may be a little above that now, but that is about five times
as much as the whole Great Barrier Reef produces, and that comes from a couple of bays. The key is that you
have to have pelletised, formulated food. The important element in that food is the fish meal; that is the high
protein. So if you simply took all of that bycatch and turned it into fish meal you could then turn it into a very
high-quality product through aquaculture.
CHAIR: Thank you very much, mate, for your paper and your submission to us. We appreciate that. The
Florida Keys must have been an interesting place to grow up.
Dr Starck: Yes, it was.
CHAIR: My stepson has been working at Fort Lauderdale on some super-yachts and I think he gets fuel down
on key 2. There is a fuel depot down that way.
Dr Starck: There are a couple of places—a number of marinas and stuff.
CHAIR: Big stuff. Thanks very much.
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
House of Representatives
Page 33
Dr Starck: I have a few copies of the study of mine. I do not know whether you have already printed it out.
CHAIR: We have printed it out. Everyone has got it. Thank you very much.
Dr Starck: Thank you.
Resolved (on motion by Mr Lyons):
That this committee authorises publication, including publication on the parliamentary database, of the transcript of the
evidence given before it at public hearing this day.
Committee adjourned at 14:11
AGRICULTURE, RESOURCES, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE