5.1
As outlined in Chapter 1 of this report, aquaculture in Australia is governed through a wide range of legislation and regulatory frameworks, largely at a state and territory level. A consistent theme throughout this inquiry was the need to ensure that these frameworks are fit for purpose and support the future growth of the industry, while still providing the necessary checks and balances for a safe and sustainable sector.
5.2
Many witnesses and submitters described to the Committee how complex, inconsistent and overlapping regulation had affected the ability of the aquaculture industry to start new ventures, expand businesses or undertake research and development in emerging sectors and technologies. There are also concerns that, in such a fast-growing sector, there is a risk of the regulatory environment lagging behind the pace of industry development.
5.3
These issues about regulation in aquaculture are long-standing and are well understood by the Commonwealth, state and Northern Territory governments. The response of governments to these and other concerns raised through this inquiry underpin much of the National Aquaculture Strategy, designed to support the ongoing growth of the sector.
5.4
This chapter outlines a range of issues raised about the regulatory frameworks and policy for aquaculture in Australia and proposes solutions to better support innovation, mitigate risks, and invest in long-term growth of the sector.
Regulation for a growing industry
5.5
Most regulatory concerns raised during the inquiry were not unique to any one region of Australia and were shared by operators and industry groups across the spectrum of aquaculture activities, but there were also a small number of more state-specific issues. These concerns, and some of the steps already place to address them, are outlined below.
Delays, duplication and inconsistencies in regulatory processes
5.6
The Committee heard that a major point of frustration for many aquaculture operators in Australia is the length of time taken to complete the regulatory processes required for essential permits, licenses and leases needed to conduct operations, as well as applications for new or expanded facilities.
5.7
Ridley Corporation submitted that, in order to allow the industry to grow, there needs to be consistent regulation of applications, with clear timeframes for processing and approval:
A clear process, and commitment to assessment in specified timeframes for both expansions and new farm submissions, would assist industry in the planning and pre-investment necessary to scale up the supply chain to match increased production.
5.8
In many jurisdictions, there is often duplication in application assessments for new aquaculture developments between state departments and agencies, particularly where these agencies have overlapping responsibilities for permitting different aspects of the land and/or water use. Some states have adopted approaches to try to reduce the delays caused by this duplication.
5.9
In South Australia, work is underway to reduce duplication of development approvals and assessments between state government departments, with a greater focus on establishing the South Australian Department of Primary Industries and Regions as a ‘one-stop-shop’ for all aquaculture administration in the state.
5.10
The Queensland Government has also undertaken work to streamline some approval processes and reduce red tape, with Fisheries Queensland offering an advice service for aquaculture licensing and approvals and coordinating much of the development application process in the state. A 2011 Conservation Agreement between the state and the Commonwealth also streamlines the regulatory process for applications for aquaculture activities in the Great Sandy region, allowing those applicants to forgo a separate environmental application and assessment under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
5.11
In the Northern Territory, there is an interest in adopting a similar one-stop-shop model to South Australia. However, as the Northern Territory Seafood Council explained to the Committee, the size of the aquaculture industry in the territory to date has not warranted the costs in making the changes to necessary to streamline regulatory processes.
5.12
In Tasmania, salmon growers also advocated for the introduction of a more efficient, one-stop-shop or coordinator for salmon regulation. But this might be problematic for major salmon companies in Tasmania which have vertically integrated businesses working across farming, production, packing and sales. Such a model would likely need to encompass not only state aquaculture regulations but also local and Commonwealth government regulation of other aspects of the production chain.
5.13
Inconsistencies in regulatory frameworks between jurisdictions also pose challenges to operators who work across multiple states. The Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania submitted that:
Ensuring state-by-state consistency as well as simplicity and clarity in leasing and licensing processes is likely to lower the administrative burden for companies seeking to operate across state jurisdictions.
5.14
The National Aquaculture Strategy, in its discussion of regulatory frameworks, likewise highlights that variations in approaches to regulating licenses, leases and environmental requirements between jurisdictions can affect operators’ ability to expand or invest in new ventures. To address this issue, it includes an action item for all jurisdictions, through the Aquaculture Committee of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, to ‘continue to discuss an approach to aquaculture regulation with the aim of promoting best regulation and planning practice nationally’.
Use of designated aquaculture zones
5.15
Evidence provided to this inquiry suggested that much of the regulatory burden currently faced by the aquaculture industry could be reduced through the increased use of aquaculture zones. These are areas identified and designated by state governments, through marine spatial planning activities and industry consultation, specifically for the purpose of aquaculture production. Approval processes for any activities conducted in those zones could be streamlined.
5.16
Greater use of spatial planning and related policies to encourage activities in identified aquaculture zones was highlighted by the Productivity Commission in 2016 as the one key improvement which could be made to the regulatory environment for aquaculture. Furthermore, the National Aquaculture Strategy already includes an action for jurisdictions, in consultation with industry, to investigate potential areas for designated aquaculture zones and establish streamlined approval processes for new aquaculture development in these areas.
5.17
The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) outlined that there are already aquaculture zones in place in several jurisdictions, including:
South Australia, which has ten designated aquaculture development areas, each with requirements for which species can be grown and how much of a particular type of aquaculture development can occur within the zone boundaries, and has recently called for developments across other growing areas
Tasmania, which has 14 Marine Farming Development Plans setting out areas for aquaculture, specifying the types of marine farming for the area and containing management controls developed to mitigate and manage potential impacts of farming
Queensland, which has six land-based aquaculture development areas and another under further consideration, intended to promote a sustainable aquaculture industry
Western Australia, which has three aquaculture development areas: the Kimberley, for marine fish; the Mid-West for marine finfish; and Albany for marine shellfish such as edible oysters and mussels.
5.18
Seafood Industry Australia (SIA) expressed the view that these zones, particularly in South Australia and Western Australia:
… have proved beneficial in streamlining consultation with all stakeholders and extending through to the environmental and planning approvals process. Increased efficiency in securing approvals decreases the perceived risk as assessed by financial institutions when assessing an aquaculture operation’s application for capital funding.
5.19
The Northern Territory Seafood Council noted in its submission that the Northern Territory Government has yet to develop any dedicated aquaculture zones, but there is opportunity to do so through the development of new Sustainable Development Precincts. The council emphasised that any aquaculture zones should be accompanied by clear and streamlined approval processes:
It is important that defined processes and criteria are established, along with defined time frames to provide certainty and attract investment from industry in new or expanded ventures.
5.20
The Australian Barramundi Farmers Association warned the Committee that designated aquaculture zones will make little difference to supporting industry growth if they are not adequately supported by these kinds of streamlined paths for approval and or located within optimal growing zones for relevant species.
5.21
Designated aquaculture zones may also assist to address community concerns about new developments. Submitters from Tasmania expressed the view that some concerns about the environmental impact of salmon aquaculture in that state could be addressed through further and improved marine spatial planning and identification of appropriate sites for future farming. The Tasmania Independent Science Council (TISC) submitted that:
Marine spatial planning (MSP), if it has been done as a precursor, provides an effective and comprehensive tool to evaluating aquaculture sites in coastal waters … it also provides a justifiable and evidence-based mechanism for the local community and the wider population.
Aquaculture in Commonwealth Waters
5.22
As discussed in Chapter 2, there is significant opportunity for Australian aquaculture to expand into offshore operations in the coming years. However, as aquaculture to date has been conducted onshore and in coastal waters where regulation is a matter for states and territories, the current framework does not yet provide an avenue for these new operations to occur in Commonwealth waters.
5.23
Submitters stressed the importance of having a clear regulatory framework in place to underpin research, development, and expansion of the aquaculture industry into Commonwealth waters, and that this would reduce uncertainty and risk for stakeholders wishing to invest in offshore operations.
5.24
The Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre (Blue Economy CRC) and the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania both submitted that the immediate challenges of regulating offshore aquaculture could be addressed by using the framework provided in the Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS), a series of complementary Commonwealth and state legislation which establishes who has jurisdiction over what activities in Australian waters.
5.25
Under the OCS, states and territories are largely responsible for regulating activities and developments in waters up to three nautical miles from the coast, while the Commonwealth is responsible beyond that point and to the edge of the Economic Exclusion Zone at 200 nautical miles. The OCS includes arrangements between states and the Commonwealth to allow certain marine activities in Commonwealth waters, such as mining and fisheries, to be regulated by the nearby state or territory.
5.26
Blue Economy CRC is leading work to create a framework for establishing new agreed arrangements for ‘Blue Economy’ aquaculture zones in Commonwealth waters under the OCS. These zones:
… could provide ‘investment ready’ platforms with strategic environmental approvals and management policies already in place, allowing both commercial and R&D activities to be initiated more seamlessly and with less need for lengthy, complex and expensive approval processes.
5.27
On 27 September 2021, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was announced between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments to allow for a trial by Blue Economy CRC to examine the economic, environmental and operational feasibility of offshore aquaculture, consistent with both the National Aquaculture Strategy and the Tasmanian Government’s 10-year Salmon Plan. Under this MOU, both governments will, as a priority, amend relevant legislation to enable aquaculture research in Commonwealth waters, adjoining Tasmanian State waters, to be managed under existing Tasmanian fisheries and aquaculture legislation.
5.28
The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) informed the Committee that there is still a range of work to be done around establishing regulatory frameworks for aquaculture in Commonwealth waters, including ensuring that placement of activities doesn’t impact on other relevant industries such as fishing, oil and gas, all of which is part of the purpose of this Tasmanian trial.
Access to veterinary medicines
5.29
Another general regulatory issue raised through the inquiry was in relation to access to agricultural and veterinary chemicals (agvet chemicals) for use in aquaculture activities.
5.30
Several submitters noted that, under the current regulatory scheme, there are few registered agvet chemicals available for use in aquaculture and the currently regulatory processes are inefficient and unsuited for small industries such as aquaculture which use only low volumes of chemicals.
5.31
The current frameworks for registration and management of agvet chemicals are managed through the National Registration Scheme for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, in collaboration with state, territory and other Commonwealth government agencies. The Commonwealth Government recently commissioned a review of this regulatory framework to ensure that it is contemporary and fit for purpose. The final report of that review was released in July 2021, making a range of recommendations for changes to the regulatory framework to streamline and improve access to safe and effective products for minor Australian industries, such as aquaculture.
5.32
Submitters to the current inquiry supported these recommendations which would improve access to agvet chemicals for aquaculture, and a Government Response to the review is expected in due course.
5.33
The DAWE also informed the Committee that the Commonwealth Government had invested over $11 million in Rural Research and Development Corporations, including $300,000 for the FRDC, specifically for improving national access to minor use agvet chemicals as well as products to treat infections and parasites in aquaculture species.
State-specific regulatory concerns
5.34
The Committee also received evidence of some state-specific regulatory concerns from witnesses and submitters.
Environmental requirements in Queensland
5.35
Several groups with aquaculture interests in Queensland raised concerns that the current environmental framework in that state unfairly penalises aquaculture operators through sediment and nutrient emission standards, particularly in the Great Barrier Reef catchment area.
5.36
The Queensland Government submitted that the ‘no residual release’ standard for activities in reef catchments, in place from 1 July 2021, is intended to ensure that new developments in the region do not undo progress on reef water quality targets, noting that:
Poor water quality as a result of catchment run-off is the major cause of the current poor state of many of the coastal and marine ecosystems of the Reef.
5.37
However, Mainstream Aquaculture told the committee that the new standards which aquaculture operators are required to meet:
… do not appear to be science based and are applied without a comprehensive understanding of aquaculture practices and impacts. … Meanwhile, large non-point source polluters such as cropping and pastoral operators are not regulated in the same manner. This situation has restricted the growth of aquaculture and promoted the expansion of higher polluting industries in far north Queensland.
5.38
Ridley Corporation and the Australian Prawn Farmers Association, among others, noted that there have been over 40 independent peer reviewed papers to date finding that aquaculture has no impact on the reef and that output of aquaculture farms is assimilated into the environment and does not negatively impact the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
5.39
The Australian Barramundi Farmers Association also explained that, at certain times of the year, discharge from barramundi can be of demonstratively better quality than the intake water used for the ponds:
Therefore, our members have argued that the net load in intake water should be deducted from the net load released in the receiving environment. To do otherwise is to penalise our members for environmental services.
5.40
For these reasons, industry groups have called for the environmental regulation in Queensland to be reviewed to allow nutrient and sediment loads to be based on residual nutrients after assimilation into the receiving environment.
Regulatory frameworks for aquaculture in Tasmania
5.41
There are long-standing concerns about the regulatory framework in Tasmania for aquaculture development planning, approval and monitoring, particularly relating to the salmon sector.
5.42
The Committee received several submissions from community and environmental groups which argued that the Tasmanian regulatory framework for aquaculture is insufficiently transparent, appears to be discretionary and subject to undue influence from industry, is poorly enforced by government, and requires significant overhaul. NWTAS for Clean Oceans reported that, based on what information is available to community groups such as theirs, it appears that:
… current environmental monitoring, interpretation, and planning of regulatory mechanisms is ad hoc and designed to suit the industry. This is leading a cynical public to believe there is political interference in the salmon industry in Tasmania.
5.43
The Tasmanian Alliance for Marine Protection and Neighbours of Fish Farming also submitted that, while the salmon industry claims to be meeting regulatory standards, ongoing issues such as mortalities, marine debris and marine life impact suggest that either there are problems with the enforcement of regulations by government, or the regulations themselves are inadequate to address these risks.
5.44
Academics and research groups raised similar concerns, expressing opinions that significant work needs to be undertaken to improve the broader governance of aquaculture in Tasmania and increase transparency and accountability around decision-making, especially for decisions relating to new marine farm developments and environmental approvals. For example, the Australia Institute told the Committee that:
The current legislative regime lacks clear and specific criteria to guide decisions regarding salmon farm expansion. … There is no objective guidance for determining whether [environmental] impacts are acceptable, what level of scientific certainty is required, and the extent to which economic or social issues are to be considered. The result is that decision-making is discretionary and lacking transparency and accountability.
5.45
The TISC shared this view, recommending in its submission that a ‘truly independent regulator with transparent processes’ be established to ‘create a sustainable industry and restore social license’.
5.46
In September 2021, the Tasmanian Government announced that a new
10-year Salmon Plan, designed to support a sustainable salmon industry, will begin on 1 January 2023. Under this plan, the Tasmanian Government has committed to continuous improvement in regulation and transparency, and to adopting a new model of independent regulation. As part of this, the Environment Protection Authority – the agency responsible for assessing the environmental impacts of new developments and conducting environmental monitoring in the state – was formally separated from the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania into a stand-alone independent authority as of 1 December 2021.
5.47
Consultation on the draft 10-year Salmon Plan and its commitments is due to occur over the coming months with the final plan expected to be released in the final quarter of 2022, ahead of the January 2023 commencement date.
Checking in with the National Aquaculture Strategy
5.48
As outlined in Chapter 1, the National Aquaculture Strategy includes eight priority areas aimed at supporting the growth of a strong, competitive, resilient, profitable, and ecologically sustainable aquaculture industry. Each of the priority areas include actions with clear statements of intent from the Commonwealth, state and Northern Territory governments to address barriers, realise opportunities and achieve the goal of industry growth to a value $2 billion per year by 2027.
5.49
The Committee heard that many of the opportunities and barriers for the expansion of the Australian aquaculture sector raised in evidence across the current inquiry are identified in these priorities. The strategy was developed following in-depth consultation with industry, operators and representatives from all jurisdictions and was designed to reflect the current status and needs of the sector.
5.50
Dr Patrick Hone from the FRDC told the committee:
… the national aquaculture strategy, which we all worked very hard on, really has a great blueprint already. It already has the big elements around biosecurity and all the things that we need to do. The question is: how do we make sure that that aquaculture strategy is delivered?
5.51
Some industry groups expressed a view that, despite clear actions set out in the strategy, there have not been any noticeable changes since its launch. The Tasmanian Salmonid Growers Association submitted that it:
… would like to see a reset of this plan, with yearly reporting, assigned accountability and better coordination with Governments and industry alike.
5.52
Both the FRDC and SIA recommended that a body be established to take responsibility and manage the implementation of the National Aquaculture Strategy, working with governments and industry to achieve its goals. Seafood Industry Australia suggested that this function could be established as a dedicated team within the DAWE:
A core team must be established, resourced and tasked to drive this strategy to achieve national aquaculture industry development goals. … this body should combine a balance of expertise and knowledge, and operate as a meaningful collaboration to actively progress the National Aquaculture Strategy through to 2027 together with addressing key recommendations from this inquiry.
Committee comment
5.53
There is enormous potential to grow Australia’s aquaculture industry, both through the expansion of existing operations and the development of entirely new sectors, such as offshore aquaculture. However, if the regulatory framework for aquaculture does not keep pace with changes in the industry and presents an ongoing barrier to operators, there is a risk that this growth could be stifled.
5.54
The Committee understands the importance of ensuring the regulatory frameworks for aquaculture do not create unnecessary delays or duplication in processes for applicants seeking to expand or develop their aquaculture operations, as such delays can impact on the ability of operators to secure investments and meet the demands of the supply chain.
5.55
There appears to be great support for ‘one-stop-shop’ models of regulation, where operators interact with a single coordinator or agency in managing applications and approvals for aquaculture operations.
5.56
While the Committee is heartened by the National Aquaculture Strategy’s commitment for jurisdictions to continue to discuss best regulation and planning practice through the Aquaculture Committee of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, more still can be done by states and the Northern Territory to reduce the regulatory burden faced by operators.
5.57
The Committee is pleased to see commitment from Commonwealth, state and Northern Territory governments under the National Aquaculture Strategy to work together to continue to support the growth of Australia’s aquaculture sector across a range of priority areas.
5.58
However, the Committee is concerned by the feedback from stakeholders that progress against the actions for these priorities has been hard to measure and that there has been a lack of coordination to ensure that the aims of the strategy are being met.
5.59
There appears to be a role for a body to be established to lead the ongoing implementation of the strategy, and the Committee is of the view that such a function could be performed within the DAWEt.
5.60
The Committee shares the view held by several submitters that many of the issues relating to regulatory barriers for new aquaculture developments could be addressed through the identification of further designated aquaculture zones across the country.
5.61
Aquaculture zones, where identified through proper research and consultation, provide an opportunity for jurisdictions to designate areas as specifically suited to aquaculture and provide streamlined approval processes to operators wishing to conduct specific aquaculture activities within the zones.
5.62
The Committee notes that the investigation of potential areas for aquaculture zones is an action of the National Aquaculture Strategy, however it is not clear from the evidence available in this inquiry what progress has been made to meet that action to date.
5.63
There is great potential for growth of Australia’s aquaculture sector in deep, offshore waters. However, for this potential to be realised, appropriate regulatory frameworks need to be put in place for aquaculture research, development, and operations to be managed in Commonwealth waters.
5.64
The Committee is pleased to see the recent MOU between the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments to support a trial of offshore aquaculture in the Commonwealth waters adjoining Tasmania’s coastal waters.
5.65
This trial will not only provide an avenue for the critical research and development work required to establish offshore aquaculture in Australia, but will also act as a first step to creating a model of regulation for these activities under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement.
5.66
The Committee hopes that this Tasmanian trial of offshore aquaculture will the first of many such arrangements around the country.
5.67
As aquaculture is largely regulated by state legislation, it is unsurprising that some of the issues raised during this inquiry were specific to individual states.
5.68
The Committee recognises the concerns held by aquaculture operators in Queensland about the current environmental regulations relating to farm emissions. While it is clear that the intention of the Queensland Government is to protect the water quality of the reef, there is clearly frustration among industry that the requirements introduced this year do not reflect science evidence about waste from aquaculture developments.
5.69
Given the evidence presented to this inquiry, the Committee is of the view that these environmental regulations should be reviewed to ensure that an appropriate balance is being struck and that aquaculture operators are not being unfairly targeted by the requirements.
5.70
The Committee also recognises the concerns raised by stakeholders in Tasmania about a lack of transparency and independence within the aquaculture regulatory framework in that state, particularly in relation to salmon farming. It is pleased to see that the Tasmanian Government has taken steps to address some of these concerns through the announcement of a new 10-year Salmon Plan and the separation of the Environment Protection Authority into an independent entity.
5.71
The Committee hopes that these steps, along with priority actions for regulation and public perception under the National Aquaculture Strategy, will go some way to improving the community perception of the salmon industry and aquaculture more broadly in Tasmania.
5.72
With 2022 marking the half-way point between the publication of the National Aquaculture Strategy in 2017 and its 2027 goal, there is now the perfect opportunity to assess the progress made in the first five years of implementation, with a view to setting targets to be met in the next five years.
5.73
The Committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, through the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, support state and Northern Territory government agencies to reduce duplication and streamline regulatory approval processes for aquaculture operations through the introduction of ‘one-stop-shop’ models of regulation management.
5.74
The Committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation provide greater assistance to state and Northern Territory governments, in conjunction with industry, to identify and establish further designated aquaculture zones. These zones should be:
identified using scientific evidence and spatial planning to establish their suitability for aquaculture
supported by streamlined regulatory approval processes for operators.
5.75
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government, in conjunction with state and Northern Territory governments, investigate further opportunities for expanding arrangements under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement to allow for aquaculture activities in Commonwealth waters.
5.76
The Committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority work with the Queensland Government to ensure that the current regulatory framework for industry nutrient and sediment emissions in the Great Barrier Reef catchment area reflects latest evidence about the outputs of aquaculture farms and is not unfairly impeding the aquaculture industry’s growth.
5.77
The Committee recommends that a specialist aquaculture unit is established within the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment to support the ongoing implementation of the National Aquaculture Strategy.
5.78
The Committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment conduct a review of the priorities of the National Aquaculture Strategy to provide an update on progress in the five years since its implementation and ensure that its aims are being met.
Rick Wilson MP
Chair
8 February 2022