Name Christopher Wells

Name Christopher Wells

Submission

The idea or notion that Tasmanian legislation be used to research, regulate or plan for aquaculture

in Commonwealth Waters is so ludicrous that if it was not Government talking to Government the

proponents would be laughed out of the room. For over thirty years Tasmanian planning and

regulation of aquaculture has been so poorly managed that problems of environmental degradation

caused by the industry have been covered up hidden and denied by the government as regulator.

The government and the EPA has failed to manage effluent from hatcheries in rivers. It has failed in

site selection. It has failed in setting stocking densities. This government is criminally incompetent

and negligent in the extreme. I note that there will be no net increase in lease areas. When inshore

leases are closed who will pay for remediation? When will closures of inshore leases commence?

This proposal is a surrogate for action. Nothing substantial will come of it.

Name Ian Cartwright

Submission

I strongly support the draft amendment as an enabling provision in the Act, to facilitate research on

offshore aquaculture. I consider there needs to be greater attention to the issues of transparency

(towards all stakeholders and the community at large), consultation (with affected stakeholders) and

environmental protection. Some of these issues will be no doubt dealt with via other Act provisions

and in the detail associated with permits and their use. However, section 15A(2) a appears to require

consultation only with the Director of the EPA. Suggest amending and broadening unless covered

elsewhere in the Act. Public display of permit applications would be a good way of ensuring

transparency, lest we fall into the trap that has led to the current furore surrounding salmon

aquaculture. Keeping one's head down and hoping no one will object or notice (or care) is a high-risk

approach in this instance.

Name Tasmanian Alliance for Marine Protection

Submission

The Tasmanian Alliance for Marine Protection is a non-government organisation that represents

communities and professional organisations across Tasmania that are watchdogs over the open-net

feedlot salmon industry. The submission raises a number of issues that are not addressed in the

draft legislation. It is attached

TASMANIAN ALLIANCE for www.tamp.org.au MARINE PROTECTION [email protected] Co-Chairs: Peter George & Mark Bishop Phone:

1 of 3

November 1, 2021

Re: Living Marine Resources Management Amendment (Aquaculture Research) Bill 2021,

\The Tasmanian Government is seeking public comment on a draft Bill, the Living Marine

Resources Management Amendment (Aquaculture Research) Bill 2021, which seeks to ensure the

legislative framework required in Tasmania to enable aquaculture research in Commonwealth

waters. This is part of the Government’s proposed ten year plan for the industry.

To contribute to this process, the Tasmanian Alliance for Marine Protection (TAMP) and its

affiliated members wish to make the following comments.

1. Only two weeks has been allowed for submissions. This is a very short time to research a

Bill covering both Federal and State responsibilities and which may set important new

precedents. In addition, the supporting notes state the research project would be "fixed-

term, limited-scale activities”. Without any indication of the nature and duration of these

proposed activities it is difficult to assess whether the Bill can meet the Government’s

stated strategic objectives.

2. The Bill follows a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two governments

intended “to enable and facilitate marine aquaculture”. While we understand that the Bill

is only facilitative, this appears, in the light of the Government’s stated emphasis on

innovation and world-best practice, to be short sighted. For finfish farming, leading

research elsewhere in the world is on fully self-contained, land-based aquaculture,

increasingly recognised as best practice. In contrast, changes in floating pen feedlot

farming designed to move further offshore can at best be seen as marginally incremental

and far from innovative.

3. Under the proposed bill the Minister would only be obliged to “consult” the Director of the

Tasmanian Environment Protection Authority on conditions. There is no obligation for

public notification, environmental assessment or public comment, and no indication that

the Minister is under any obligation to adopt any recommendations of the EPA Director.

Further, the research project would be approved under the Animal Welfare Act. S 33 of the

Act allows an applicant to apply to the Magistrates Court for a review if the Minister


2 of 3

rejects a licence, cancels a licence or imposes an unwelcome condition. There are no

appeal rights for the public.


3 of 3

4. The Bill formalises the devolution of Commonwealth regulatory responsibilities without

fixing all that is wrong with how Tasmanian law is presently regulating the environmental

and social impacts of finfish farming. In his publication Toxic, Richard Flanagan presents a

rigorously researched and well-documented analysis of the many failings of current and

previous Tasmanian Governments to monitor and regulate the finfish industry effectively.

None of the facts he lists have been challenged by the industry. The Bill does not propose

any significant change in the current seriously-flawed regulatory situation.

In conclusion, TAMP submits that the Bill does little to engender public confidence in the

Government’s intentions for the future of the finfish industry. It lacks specificity and definition,

maintains the dominance of the Minister over the so-called independent EPA, and does little to

foster genuine innovation.

TAMP would be pleased to provide further input as part of this consultative process. Please do not

hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully

Peter George

Co-Chair, Tasmanian Alliance for Marine Protection

Name Commonwealth Fisheries Association

Submission

It is difficult to provide comment on the suitability of the amendments without a clear policy around

managing the competing interests of existing and potential new users of the marine domain. A

policy that outlines how competing interests will be managed, including the provision of exclusivity

of access to one sector over others (including the need to compensate) is urgently required. Without

understanding this, a complete assessment of the feasibility of offshore aquaculture cannot be

undertaken.

Further clarity around the process of consultation would also be helpful. It appears through the

supporting documentation that the Tasmanian Government is responsible for the permitting

aspects, yet the Australian Government has been tasked with conducting the consultation to identify

the suitable areas. A clearer consultation and decision-making framework would be much

appreciated.

The CFA are available and interested in providing any further assistance around this aspect of

aquaculture in Commonwealth waters.

Name Tassal Group

Submission - see next page

3 November 2021

DPIPWE

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Consultation Paper – aquaculture

research in Commonwealth waters.

We support the establishment of a world leading R&D framework for deep blue/blue water


We further understand this is an important component of the Tasmanian Government’s

intention to reset the salmon industry.

Our operating footprint includes the world’s wildest site – West of Wedge, Strom Bay,

Tasmania – which has given us an insight into farming offshore and addressing key factors

such as marine debris, wildlife interactions, welfare, bathing and also keeping our workforce

safe in challenging conditions.

We further participate in the Blue Economy CRC’s project to unlock blue economy zones

beyond Tasmanian waters, where we are part of a world leading team that is exploring

integrated sea-range farms that include renewable energy generation as well as salmon

and seaweed production – in Commonwealth waters.

We believe these integrated types of farms will drive climate and circularity outcomes and

would be the first deep blue/deep water farms on the planet.

2 | P a g e

With regards to the Consultation Paper, we make the following observations:

1. The key definition of marine farming is too constricted and fails to expressly include

technologies and infrastructure, including renewable energy technology.

Propose amending the definition of “marine farming” in section 3 of the principal Act as

follows:

marine farming includes:

a) the farming, culturing, enhancement or breeding of fish in the marine environment;

b) technologies and infrastructure that are ancillary to the farming, culturing,

enhancement or breeding of fish in the marine environment; and

c) technologies, infrastructure and facilities which may facilitate the farming, culturing,

enhancement or breeding of fish in the marine environment, including renewable

energy technologies and facilities,

d) for trade, business or research.

2. The permit regime should expressly provide for “multiple-use research” that includes

combined aquaculture and renewable energy facilities, as outlined in page 12 of the

Consultation Paper.

3. The proposed permit system may not include exclusive access arrangements over an

area. However, exclusivity is likely a desirable and necessary condition to the conduct of

research under a permit, for example, for biosecurity reasons and to ensure the

robustness and integrity of IP and research outcomes. On page 10 of the Consultation

Paper, reference is made to 143 of the principal Act where the Minister may declare

restrictions on entry to a research area. However, that appears to apply to areas in

State waters. Consideration should be given to extending the Minister’s powers to

research areas conducted under permits in relation the proposed scheme or under a

section 161 arrangements.

4. The permit system should include options to provide greater certainty of tenure and

commercial access post the research permit period to an area of water by the body

undertaking the research (or its nominee) in which approved activities have been

undertaken.

3 | P a g e

5. The permit to conduct “marine aquaculture research activities” should expressly permit

ancillary commercial returns for the limited circumstances described on page 10 of the

Consultation Paper, being the recouping of research costs by the sale of fish.

6. Reference is made to the requirement that “research activity could only be conducted

with Animal Ethics Committee approval”.

To the extent that such approval may be required, regard ought to be had to current

and contemporary research and farming practices, to ensure a practical approach that

facilitates improved research and commercial outcomes.

Today, we are as passionate and proud of the role aquaculture offers Australia’s and our

world’s food systems as we were 35 years ago when we started salmon farming in

Tasmanian waters.

As population increases, wild harvest stocks decrease, and farming land is restricted,

aquaculture provides a source of renewable protein farmed through practices that mimic

nature.

Sustainable aquaculture means that we can offer healthy seafood produced with a low

biodiversity footprint, low carbon footprint, and low waste footprint that is driven through

waste circularity and contemporary carbon positive investment.

Our industry also delivers the benefits of high-performance sustainable innovation, research

and development (R&D) and change practices.

It means we can continue to supply healthy seafood in response to increasing demand,

while safeguarding jobs and supporting local suppliers.

In closing, we are confident this work will further underpin the role of Tasmanians in a world

class aquaculture industry, producing healthy food for millions of Australians, drawing on

renewable energy all while providing highly skilled jobs in a well-regulated, innovative,

sustainable Tasmanian industry.

Angela Williamson

Senior Manager, Responsible Business

Name Tasmanian Salmonid Growers Association


Tasmanian Salmonid Growers Association Ltd.

ABN 27 009 590 729

83 Salamanca Place, Battery Point, TAS, 7004 Tel: 03 6240 4828

4 November 2021

Ian Dutton

Director

Marine Resources

DPIPWE

Dear Ian

The TSGA welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Consultation paper - Living Marine

Resources Management Amendment (Aquaculture Research) Bill 2021.

This Bill provides an important step in the realisation of the National Aquaculture Strategy and

optimization of Australia’s blue economy.

There have been many calls to move further offshore and we applaud the State and

Commonwealth’s vision and commitment to work towards sustainably managed


We acknowledge that going further offshore requires more R & D and innovation and needs

an appropriate regulatory system that safeguards the environment, maintains welfare of our

stocks, while keeping people operating in these waters safe.

The Tasmanian salmon industry is world leading when it comes to operating in high energy

sites, however it is also driven by continuous improvement and actions to further reduce the

climate footprint. That’s why partnerships, like the Blue Economy CRC, play a critical role to

play in exploring aquaculture in deeper and more high energy waters responsibly.

Providing a sustainable and robust regulatory setting for finfish, seaweed and renewable

energy in commonwealth waters will provide certainty to the full supply chain of Tasmanian

aquaculture businesses from plastics, to transport to IT.

Aquaculture remains one of the most eco-efficient forms of protein production. More than

50% of seafood eaten worldwide comes from aquaculture. The planet is 70% ocean, which

means that sustainable aquaculture offers significant contribution to sustainable food

systems. This is an industry Tasmania is proud of.

TSGA further supports the sentiment within our member submissions and would be happy to

provide any further detail you might require.

Yours sincerely

Julian Amos

Facilitator

Tasmanian Salmonid Growers Association

Name Bob Brown Foundation


Bob Brown Foundation Submission: Draft Living Marine Resources Management Amendment (Aquaculture Research) Bill 2021

We welcome the opportunity to write a submission on the above proposed draft bill. The Tasmanian government proposes amendments to the Living Marine Resources Act 1995 that would create a regulatory framework for them to manage and approve lease applications for aquaculture research in Commonwealth waters. We would like to make the following comments on the draft bill:

Federal government must remain regulator for Commonwealth waters The Tasmanian government seeks to gain control over Commonwealth waters for the purpose of aquaculture research into the potential for establishing enormous offshore salmon feedlots around Tasmania’s coasts. This is extremely problematic given the Tasmanian government’s history of unequivocally backing the salmon industry and having a clear vested interest in this development. With the issues of the current State governance and oversight of the aquaculture industry, it is untenable that they would be given control of commonwealth waters until these issues are solved.

UTAS Professor of Environmental Law, Jan McDonald said when interviewed by the Examiner (23.10.21) that “arrangements in the past had drawn opposition from parties who felt it was improper for governments with an invested interest to be handed oversight control.”

"It's fair to say that for decades, those who advocate for strong environmental protections feel that where state interests are concerned, the state is not the one best placed to consider wider public interest considerations, because they have potential conflicts in relation to the economic benefits or the employment benefits," she said.

The draft bill states that the Minister (for Primary Industries) will have ultimate control over permits and would only be required to “consult” the head of the EPA on the conditions necessary for a research project to go ahead in Commonwealth waters.

This proposal also indicates the deterioration of Commonwealth regulatory responsibilities, without fixing all that is wrong with how Tasmanian law is presently regulating the environmental and social impacts of salmon farming. Details of these current regulatory problems can be found in the Environmental Defender’s Office (EDO)’s submission to the Upper House Fin-fish inquiry in the references below.

Recommendations: Regulation of activity within Commonwealth waters should remain under Federal government regulation. And any commercial research should be overseen by a truly independent regulatory body.

More Public Waters Seized The consultation paper states that the Minister would have the power to establish an Offshore Aquaculture Research Area and restrict members of the public including fishers from accessing this area. This amounts to a Sea Grab of more public waters. Recommendation: We recommend that commercial research should not mean restrictions are placed on Australians accessing their public waters. Commercial Gain While Researching:

We have concerns that the following statement may be open to exploitation for commercial interests during the research phase: “Permits for scientific research generally include conditions that prevent the sale or transfer of product for commercial purposes. However, while the primary purpose is not commercial financial returns, the sale of ‘fish’ and/or intellectual property that may be derived from the permitted research activity may be used to offset costs incurred by the proponent in undertaking research activities.” Recommendation: Limits should be set on both biomass and commercial gains to be made by companies or individuals under-taking aquaculture research.

Appropriate stakeholder consultation

The government says it expects any business applying for a permit to conduct “appropriate stakeholder consultation”. Under the existing legislation, the minister is required only to consult “relevant fishing bodies” before granting a permit. This is open to interpretation and misuse. The government is able to select whomever they deem to be “appropriate”.

There are also no appeal rights for the public with regards to licenses.

Recommendations: A clear and varied stakeholder list must be decided upon prior. This must include community groups, community members, commercial groups, recreational groups and environmental organisations. Consultation must mean numerous interactions in which feedback is incorporated, not simply ‘informing’. Appeal rights to licenses must be instated.

Offshore Aquaculture Not The Solution Offshore salmon farming is not the economically and environmentally sound solution to food security issues that it is being touted to be. In fact, scientists are increasingly debunking this myth. Belton et al. (2020) states that “Increasing demand further has the potential to cause unsustainable levels of exploitation of some fish stocks and to

Name Christopher Wells

Documents

Transcript of Name Christopher Wells