Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 13July 2012:

(1) Does the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) have an industry strategy to deal with localised depletion within fisheries; if so, can details be provided; if not, what attempts has AFMA made to address this issue.

(2) Does AFMA have any modelling to show the length of time it takes for small pelagic fish to repopulate an area following localised depletion: if so, can a copy of that modelling be provided; if not, what data is AFMA relying on to ensure recovery from localised depletion events.

(3) Is there a spatial management plan for the small pelagic fishery to ensure localised depletion events cannot occur; if so, can a copy of the plan be provided; if not, how will the fishery be managed to guard against localised depletions.

(4) How would any new or adjusted spatial management plans or spatial management conditions be arrived at, by whom, and how would they be funded.

(5) Given that modelling indicates that Tier 2 level exploitation rates may pose a greater threat to fish stocks than Tier 1 levels, even though Tier 1 levels of exploitation may be at a higher rate, and given that Tier 2 levels do not require ongoing validation by the daily egg production method (DEPM) assessments of fish stocks, what is the justification for not requiring ongoing DEPM assessments for Tier 2 levels to ensure stocks are protected.

(6) Have assessments been done on the fishing induced mortality of lanternfish or on the related ecosystem based impacts; if so, can copies of those assessments be provided; if not, on what data is AFMA relying to determine the impact of activities on lanternfish or related ecosystem based impacts and can a copy of that data be provided.

(7) Why was the harvest strategy general meta-rule used to increase jack mackerel (east) recommended biological catch from 5 000 tonnes to 10 600 tonnes when the research meta-rule presents a better fit within the harvest strategy for such a situation.

(8) Is it true that the review of the SPF Harvest Strategy is many months, if not a year, overdue and that if completed it would better consider issues critical to this debate such as localised depletion and the sustainability of Australian fish stocks.

(9) Do any safeguards and protocols exist within the AFMA Small Pelagic Fishery Total Allowable Catch setting process to remove any conflicts of interest regarding financial advantage; if so, what are they and when were they last reviewed.

(10) What effort has been undertaken to test the ability of Seal Exclusion Devices (SEDs) to work on a trawler the size of the FV Margiris, given the net size, shape, and construction materials to be used.

(11) Given that Seafish Tasmania has only used SEDs on trawlers approximately one-third the size of the FV Margiris, what evidence is there to support the view that SEDs will lessen or eradicate mammalian by-catch.

(12) Is there potential for SEDs to act as a method of removing dead mammalian by-catch before such occurrences can be observed and recorded.

(13) Does any standing AFMA policy block public access, transparency, or scrutiny of any compliance data that would be collected on a single 'super trawler' like the FV Margiris.