Coalition Senators' Additional Comments
1.1Coalition Senators are pleased to be able to broadly support the content of the committee’s report.
1.2This inquiry was conducted in a genuinely cooperative, multipartisan spirit, and we were happy to be able to work in a collegial fashion with our parliamentary colleagues in exploring the issues and potential solutions that arose.
1.3We were also struck by the unanimity of the views of the overwhelming majority of the stakeholders that lodged submissions to the inquiry and attended the hearings. We should add that we sincerely appreciated the efforts of all of the individuals and organisations that established the Centro Task Force and convened the National Centrostephanus Workshop in early 2023 in order to specifically help inform the work of the inquiry.
1.4In short, there is widespread agreement about the challenges, and the best responses to them, in dealing with the spread along the Great Southern Reef of climate-related marine invasive species, particularly long spined sea urchins (Centrostephanus rodgersii).
1.5We also think it is important, however, to make some more pointed observations in relation to the potential implementation of these recommendations.
1.6As stakeholders consistently told us during the course of this inquiry, the attainment of the best and the most meaningful outcomes in this area will hinge (more than anything else) on genuine direction and leadership. Ideally, in the views of most stakeholders, this should be provided by Australia’s national government—and it should be underpinned by well-meaning and well-resourced cooperation with the State Governments of New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania.
1.7In turn, that prompts us to make a number of comments in relation to the current Federal Government.
1.8It does not please us (especially at the end of such an apolitical inquiry) to have to say that the optimal outcomes in this field will only be achieved if there is a very substantial change of culture within the Albanese Government.
1.9Over the past 18 months, Australia’s fishing and broader marine industries have been exposed to a perfect storm of pressures. These have included the spread of marine seismic surveys, carbon storage, bans on different kinds of fishing and netting, and offshore wind farms.
1.10Yet these difficulties have been exacerbated by a lack of support, will and leadership from the two most relevant Federal Ministers, the Environment Minister, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator the Hon Murray Watt. Repeatedly, the views of key figures (including highly experienced and knowledgeable fishers) are being ignored in funding decisions, law changes, and policy development and implementation.
1.11This has been exemplified in a variety of ways. Foremost among them have been the government’s failure to seriously consult (let alone to act upon the views of) people with longstanding, practical, professional experience on matters such as the expansion of marine parks and the imposition of new quotas and bans on certain forms of fishing.
1.12At a Senate Estimates hearing of 24 October 2023, we were especially shocked to hear Senator Watt repeatedly imply that it was not his job to concern himself with issues like the devastation currently being inflicted on the commercial fishing industry as a result of gillnet bans in Queensland. In short, he asserted that his involvement (or even the involvement of his Department) would be a misallocation of resources, as he believed that it was predominantly a state concern.[1]
1.13Ms Plibersek has also apparently failed to even reply at all to requests for basic meetings on these issues.
1.14Given that background, our hopes are not high that these two Ministers will want to play an especially proactive role in relation to the issues spanned by this inquiry. We would nevertheless urge the full Albanese Ministry to take these matters seriously, and to step in and provide the leadership that is now demanded.
1.15In the first instance, and as is outlined among the report’s recommendations, the government could specifically begin this work by immediately injecting new funding into Centro control. This could be followed by the broadening of the Commonwealth’s existing framework for dealing with invasive marine pests, and by the formation and/or continuation of task forces and other advisory groups.[2]
1.16Within the Coalition, we are not wedded to a particular view of how these advisory positions and bodies should be configured—and respect the fact that different witnesses to the inquiry had varying views of what might work best in this sense. Complementing the general support for the idea of the creation of advisory bodies, for instance, some organisations were attracted to the prospect of the appointment of individual industry representatives or envoys.
1.17In our view, each of these ideas deserves serious consideration.
1.18Alternatively, if the Albanese Government remains averse to assuming responsibility, then they might be well advised to adopt a solution presented by Nature Conservancy Australia:
It may not necessarily be Federal Government that is the leader; it may be Federal Government working in partnership with the lead agency to provide that oversight and coordination. It needs somebody that has the experience and the opportunity to bring those partnerships together.[3]
1.19Equally, the Federal Government may want to take up the option of devolving or delegating the leadership role to one of the state governments.
1.20Whoever does end up assuming that role, though, they need to ensure that funding, advice and activity is well coordinated and organised across the multiple jurisdictions. Similarly, and as Sea Urchin Harvest stated in its submission, various benefits would be likely to be derived from more extensive data collection—including through a reef baseline survey and a sea urchin biomass survey.[4]
1.21To date, arguably the greatest impediment to success in the limiting of the spread and proliferation of marine invasive species has been that quite differing approaches have been used in the various states.
1.22This was a point best articulated by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC), who remarked that ‘all relevant stakeholders and jurisdictions will need to collaborate so that actions are more effective and not done in isolation’. The FRDC added that sea urchin removal must be undertaken in a form that promotes the harvesting for the roe market while also facilitating targeted culling in areas that would not otherwise be commercially viable—and therefore suitably balances ecosystem restoration and commercial fishing objectives in the process.[5]
1.23In Tasmania, there has been significant investment through the State Government and the abalone industry—but, in New South Wales and Victoria, this has been lacking. There have likewise been too many regulatory barriers in existence.
1.24Among a range of consequences, this lack of funding and regulatory pressure has also led to a lack of viability for the harvesting of urchins in particular areas. A number of submissions to the inquiry—such as from the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council, Tasmanian Commercial Divers’ Association, Tasmanian Abalone Council and Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fishermen’s Association—noted that strategic harvesting, inclusive of scientific monitoring, by commercial divers is actually the only long term, cost effective and realistic control strategy for the Centro urchin problem in certain regions, including on the east coast of Tasmania. Those groups added that these activities will only continue to occur where there is certainty of harvestable product.[6]
1.25As Hayes Seafoods indicated in its submission, it follows that there are also several complex challenges around quotas and licences that need to be carefully contemplated.[7]
1.26Importantly, though, many of the likely preconditions to success are already in place. In large part, this is because there is now a sufficiently long and detailed history of work on Centro control in Australia as to have crystallised the forms of action that are typically the most effective (and ineffective).
1.27Above all else, Australia also now vitally possesses a critical mass of expertise in this field at both an individual and organisational level.
1.28A number of those experts participated in this inquiry, and we were privileged to tap into their knowledge and insights. It should be added that their contributions to identifying and charting a course forward have already proved invaluable over many years. This has been especially true in Tasmania, where the relevant funding and programs (most notably the Abalone Industry Reinvestment Fund) have provided models for others to follow and have stimulated a range of significant accomplishments.
1.29In essence, their dedication and hard work has shown us that there are myriad opportunities in this field to simultaneously deliver positive environmental and economic outcomes.
1.30It is vital that these opportunities are now grasped.
1.31Indeed, as politicians, we owe that end result to each of the contributors to this inquiry—and, more broadly, to all Australians.
Senator Hollie Hughes
Member
Senator the Hon Jonathon Duniam
Footnotes
[1]See the discussion on this matter at Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Estimates Committee Hansard, 24 October 2023, pp. 64–66.
[2]As canvassed by the committee at the hearing of 3 February 2023, Committee Hansard, 3February2023, throughout but see in particular pp. 52–56.
[3]Dr Fiona Valesini, Director, Oceans Program (Australia), Nature Conservancy Australia, Committee Hansard, 3 February 2023, p. 50.
[4]Sea Urchin Harvest, Submission 15, p. 4.
[5]Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Submission 36, p. 12.
[6]Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council, Tasmanian Commercial Divers’ Association, Tasmanian Abalone Council and Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fishermen’s Association, Submission 39, pp. 5–6.
[7]Hayes Seafoods Pty Ltd, Submission 2, p. 1.
Senate
House of Representatives
Get informed
Bills
Committees
Get involved
Visit Parliament
Website features
Parliamentary Departments