Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
CHAPTER 3
Fishing Industry
3.1 Australia's tuna and billfish industries
have a gross value of production of around $110 million.1
Japan is the dominant market for sashimi southern bluefin tuna which the
Committee was told is insatiable.2 Indonesia,
Taiwan, Korea and China are major competitors in Australia's key yellowfin/bigeye
markets.3
3.2 In 1992 a major part of the Australian
tuna industry was in receivership or under bank control but now operates
as high value added industry.4 Australia has
a quota of 5 206 tonnes of SBT but only operate within the EEZ.
3.3 The Committee was told that:
| the Australian long-line fishery is weather limited, smaller boats
fishing for fresh fish. It is physically a different fishery to the
Japanese fishery which is large scale, freezer, long-line vessels.5
|
3.4 ATBOA told the Committee that Australia
has tried to develop a long-line fishing industry but seven or eight ventures
have gone bankrupt and the one remaining has had one profitable year in
three.6 There is one large vessel operating
from Western Australia.7 It was pointed out
that:
- Australians have difficulty getting crews and there is no guarantee
that they are going to make wages;
- Vessels cost $9 million to purchase and $14 000 a day to operate;
and
- the cost of the frozen product has halved in the last five years.8
3.5 The Australian long-line boats, with
the exception of one operating out of Fremantle, stay out three to four
days and airfreight fresh chilled fish to Japan.9
3.6 ATBOA believes that it will be a long
time before Australians will invest in frozen tuna vessels.10
Further, from the point of view of Australian workplace and industrial
occupational health and safety requirements, Australia may need to revise
the nature of operations carried out on frozen tuna long-line vessels.11
3.7 DPIE consults annually with the Australian
fishing industry through the management advisory committees (MAC), to
determine if further restrictions need to be placed on Japanese access
where the Australian industry has developed its operations.12
These additional restrictions can apply to areas of operations and impose
catch limitations on the Japanese fleet.13
The information obtained from industry groups can then be coupled with
the expertise of fishery managers to contribute to the decisions made
in relation to Australia's negotiating position.
3.8 The quantity of SBT taken by the Japanese
is substantial if Joint Venture vessels are included in the equation (Figure
5). However, the Committee was told that the presence of the Japanese
in the EEZ has not been an impediment to the Australian fishing industry
moving into large-scale freezer long-line vessels.14
3.9 There are areas of the EEZ that are
unexploited by small, weather limited boats of the Australian fishing
fleet.15 The albacore in the Tasman Sea were
given as an example of unexploited resources.16
The Western Australian Government believes there are five fish stocks
that are not exploited to a high level such as yellowfin and fat-tailed
tuna.17
Figure 5 Number of Southern Bluefin Tuna caught by the Japanese vessels
within the AFZ by AFZ year (Bureau of Resource Sciences 25 October 1996)
3.10 The presence of the Japanese fleet
in the EEZ has been of considerable benefit to the Australian tuna industry.
There has been co-operative research and development funding for tuna
fisheries' stock assessments and industry projects such as the tuna farms
at Port Lincoln.18 The comment was made that
the Australian fishermen use Japanese fishing reports to locate fish and
when the Japanese vessels left Australian waters last October, the catch
rates of the Australian fleet dropped.19
3.11 The Japanese have been progressively
excluded from areas where there is competition, gear conflict or the Australian
fleet has developed the capacity to operate in the area.20
The CSIRO found that Australian and Japanese fleets utilise the same stocks
of southern bluefin and yellowfin tuna.
3.12 There is interaction between Japanese
and domestic fishing operations in the EEZ, and there is little doubt
that this has some impact on domestic operations. Tagging studies on SBT,
for example, show a rapid interchange of fish between the domestic and
Japanese fishing operations off eastern Tasmania, as a result of fish
movement, even though the fishing operations are separated spatially by
many miles.21
Technological benefits
3.13 The Committee was told that the ability
of the Japanese to locate fish is the most significant technological difference
between the Japanese and the Australians.22
This is largely attributable to the experience of the Japanese fishing
masters.23
3.14 In relation to fishing in Australia's
northern zones, the Committee was told that the Japanese have not changed
their technology in 20 years, apart from improving the material the gear
is made of.24 The methods being used by the
Australian fleet in northern waters are said to be more efficient, have
better catch rates, are cheaper to operate and need less people.25
3.15 In southern waters, however, the
Japanese will continue to have the major effort and the major impact because
the fish are not catchable by Australian fishermen.26
| The weather conditions in those areas, the distance from ports,
makes it almost impossible for a western style of operation to succeed
in those waters. The conditions are just too bad at the time that
the fish are there, for most of the time.27
|
Joint Venture
3.16 There was a substantial Joint Venture
with Japanese vessels catching the Australian quota for the Australian
industry.28 It is estimated that the Joint
Venture in 1993 contributed $5.8 million to the Australian economy.29
The Joint Venture vessels were allowed restricted quotas for SBT and limits
on the bigeye and yellowfin tunas taken.30
3.17 The Australian input was the provision
of quota. The benefit for Australia was the technology transfer from the
Japanese and the injection of capital which enabled the Australian industry
to recover and build its value adding capacity.31
3.18 The other aims of the Joint Venture
included taking the pressure off the SBT stock in the high seas, reducing
the catch of small SBT, reducing the volume of fresh SBT on the Japanese
market and assisting the Australian industry recovery.32
3.19 The Committee was told that the reason
for the cessation of Joint Venture was commercial.33
It was suggested that it:
| was used in this situation as a lever by the Japanese industry over
the Australian industry to create difficulties and therefore engender
support for an increase in quota.34 |
3.20 ATBOA told the Committee that:
| The Joint Venture is temporarily suspended for technical reasons
i.e. until we can find a solution to the problem of being able to
measure tonnage in a hold without unloading, and compare catch records.
We expect it to resume in later 1997.35
|
3.21 Since the cessation of the Joint
Venture, Australian fishing vessels now catch about 4500 tonnes.36
The ATBOA believe that the Joint Venture may resume at the end of 1997.
Exclusion Zones
3.22 During the Inquiry there were a number
of requests for the exclusion of the Japanese vessels from specific areas.
ATBOA believes that:
| the Japanese accept the theory that there will be Australianisation
of the fishery over time, whether it be through commercial exploitation
by Australians, or by expansion of the charter of recreational fisheries.37
|
(a) Commercial Fishing Industry
(i) Queensland
3.23 In the Western and Central Pacific
Ocean there does not appear to be evidence of serious stock depletion
for yellowfin or skipjack tunas although the effects on stock recruitment
are uncertain.38 Concern was also expressed
about the lack of knowledge in relation to bigeye stocks but albacore
stock showed considerable improvements.39
3.24 It was suggested that limitations
on Japanese long-line activity in the north east region would be beneficial
to local industries. However, if the Japanese ceased to utilise the fishery
north of 34 degrees, the Australian fishing industry would take five to
six years to fully exploit this resource which would be worth about $25
million.40
(ii) Western Australia
3.25 The Japanese fleet on the west coast
is primarily targeting yellowfin tuna.41 The
Japanese fleet operated 14 long-line vessels over a two month period off
Port Hedland in an area not frequented by SBT.42
The substantial tonnages of yellowfin tuna taken in the north west are
from areas of high water temperature and subsequently have relatively
low market value.43
3.26 The Committee is concerned that attempts
to exclude the Japanese fleet from areas in Western Australia may deter
the use of port facilities at Fremantle. The SBT adjacent to the Western
Australian coast are mostly juveniles so there are economic benefits in
fishing for larger fish off Tasmania and South Australia. It would therefore
be more convenient to undertake bunkering activities in Hobart. SBT are
not a major resource on the Western Australian coastline with 265 kilograms
being caught by the Japanese fleet in 1993 and 98 kilograms in 1994.44
Those vessels targeting species other than southern bluefin may continue
to operate off Western Australia.45
3.27 In Western Australia, fishermen in
the scallop and rock lobster fisheries are looking at economies of scale
by having larger boats which also suit tuna fishing activities.46
The scaling down of Japanese activities in the area may also assist this
industry's adjustment process.
(iii) Tasmania
3.28 The Committee was told that there
is wide ranging support in Tasmania for an extension to an exclusion zone
of 50 nautical miles.47 It was pointed out
that the better fish come in to feed off the continental shelf and fat
fish are worth the most money.48 Good sashimi
fish are caught below 500 fathoms and this line is about 12 nautical miles
off Tasmania. To the south, however, the continental shelf extends to
30 nautical miles so sashimi fish are not present in any quantity within
the 12 nautical mile zone.49
3.29 The Committee was told that the Tasmanian
fishermen who have entered the long-line fishing industry have done very
well and that there was a 'lot more potential' for local fishermen.50
Mr Green pointed out that he caught 20 fish averaging 100 kilograms with
one weighing 200 kilograms about 50 nautical miles from the coast thereby
demonstrating the value of this to the local fisherman.51
3.30 The Japanese vessels often fish a
lot further south and east but do come in on occasions.52
The proximity of the fish to the Tasmanian coast depends on the presence
of bait inshore, the climatic conditions and the amount of fresh water
and factors such as El Nino.53 There is a
seasonal component and in some seasons the fish will be further offshore.54
3.31 The Tasmanian Government supports
the view that a 50 nautical mile exclusion zone would be beneficial to
the local fishing industry although concerned that this may impact adversely
on the number of Japanese fishing vessels visiting the port.55
The general opinion of the witnesses appearing before the Committee in
Hobart was that there would be no significant negative economic impact.56
3.32 The Premier pointed out that a small
extension at this stage would only inconvenience the Japanese fleet marginally
but may address the issue of gear conflict.57
It was suggested, however, that an incremental increase to 50 nautical
miles was not appropriate because fishing must be done outside the 500
fathom line.58
3.33 One Tasmanian fisherman told the
Committee that tuna fishing is only a fledgling industry without the capacity
to push the Japanese out to 50 nautical miles.59
ATBOA also argued that:
- there are only two Tasmanian boats making a sustained effort and both
lease their quota from the ATBOA;
- there are only 10 Japanese boats in Tasmanian waters for two months;
and
- the Southern Tuna Management Advisory Committee recommended an exclusion
zone of 15 nautical miles with a more detailed assessment to be conducted
during 1996/97.60
3.34 The 12 nautical mile zone has persisted
because the Tasmanian fishing industry could not previously utilise this
resource.61 It was pointed out to the Committee
that most of the 30 tonnes of quotas for SBT owned by Tasmanians is currently
leased to the fish farming projects in Port Lincoln.62
3.35 The view was given that the requested
extension to 50 nautical miles would only assist those fishing for SBT.63
Some small Tasmanian operators have applied unsuccessfully for funding
assistance from the Tasmanian Government and the Tasmanian Development
Authority because they were unable to purchase the required SBT quotas.64
3.36 It is also anticipated that quotas
will apply to Tasmanian cray fishermen in the next year and they will
be looking to another fishery.65 In Tasmania
these boats are suitable for SBT fishing if they can lease tuna quota
which would result in increased local effort.66
It was suggested that the gearing up time would be two years if there
was the incentive of the 50 nautical mile buffer zone.67
It was argued, however, that excluding the Japanese from the zone would
assist in the development of the Australian fleet to utilise this area.68
3.37 Some gear conflict between Australian
and Japanese vessels off the coast of Tasmania occurred as a result of
the different types of gear used.69 The Australian
gear is much lighter than the Japanese gear.70
There has been a precedent in the separation of Japanese and Australian
operations in the east coast yellowfin tunas to avoid gear conflict.71
3.38 The Committee was told that there
would be an advantage to have a system which enabled the recognition of
other gear in the water.72 Problems can arise
because there is no communication between the Japanese and the Australian
boats.73 There is not usually someone on board
Japanese vessels who can speak English.74
3.39 AFMA will follow up any reports of
gear conflict immediately because they do not want the Japanese fleet
creating difficulties for the domestic vessels.75
Notwithstanding this concern, the Committee believes that if the subsidiary
agreements do not extend the exclusion zone to 50 nautical miles then
there must be an attempt by Australian negotiators to develop a set of
procedures which would prevent the gear conflict that is occurring in
Tasmanian waters.
3.40 This would protect gear on both the
Japanese fleet, which has had problems resulting from the interactions
with Australian trawlers, and the Australian long-line vessels whose lines
are lighter than those used by the Japanese. Radio beacons are used by
Australian fishermen to locate their own lines. The Committee was told
that the radio beacons currently used could only be used if the Australian
boats can communicate with the Japanese boats.76
3.41 The Committee believes that the problems
with gear conflict may increase if the Joint Venture project recommences
at the end of 1997 as this could significantly increase in the number
of Japanese vessels operating in the area.
|
Recommendation 7
The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the
Commonwealth Government undertakes discussions with the Government
of Japan to resolve the communication difficulties between the two
fleets.
|
3.42 Joint Venture vessels are of more
concern to Tasmanian fishermen than the bilateral vessels.77
There are 10 vessels operating in Tasmanian waters under the Subsidiary
Agreement for 45 - 60 days catching 400 tonnes of SBT.78
The Committee was cautioned, however, that there would be limited benefit
in extending the exclusion zone to 50 nautical miles if this only applied
to boats using the bilateral arrangements if joint venturers were permitted
to work in the 12 to 50 nautical mile zone.79
The Committee is concerned that given the small number of Japanese boats
operating in the area and for a limited time, that without adequate restrictions,
an increase in the size of the exclusion zone would be of more benefit
to the Joint Venture vessels than the local fishermen.
3.43 Further, there is already a significant
presence of domestic vessels from other states. Last year there were about
14 interstate boats from Port Lincoln, Eden and others, as well as the
local boats operating off Tasmania.80 It was
suggested that at the peak of the season there may be more than 20 Australian
boats floating long-lines.81
3.44 The difficulty is that most of the
fish occur within the 50 nautical miles zone off Tasmania.82
There was a strong reaction from the Japanese negotiators when it was
suggested that there be an extension of the exclusion zone to 15 or 20
nautical miles.83 The Japanese negotiators
have suggested that an exclusion zone to 50 nautical miles would be unacceptable.84
3.45 The Committee appreciates that a
balance must be struck between being seen to exclude foreign vessels from
particular areas before the domestic industry can fully utilise those
resources and allowing the fish stock to increase in those areas to provide
an incentive for the domestic industry to invest the capital to expand
into those areas.
3.46 On balance the Committee believes
that the best outcome is for the Commonwealth Government to establish
a 50 nautical mile exclusion zone as a matter of national consistency.
|
Recommendation 8
The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the
Commonwealth Government create, as a matter of national consistency,
an exclusion zone for the Bilateral and Joint Venture Japanese long-line
fishing vessels around Tasmania of 50 nautical miles.
|
(b) Recreational and game fishing
3.47 There are significant numbers of
marlin caught by bilateral vessels including some very large fish. This
is detrimental to the recreational fishing sector because the attraction
to the game fishing industry is maximum numbers of large fish.85
Under the subsidiary agreements, the Japanese long-line vessels caught
between 1991 and 1994 off the eastern coast, an annual average reported
catch of 378 black marlin, 502 blue marlin, 3118 striped marlin and 7635
broadbill swordfish although it is estimated that another 30 per cent
were released.86 The total marlin catch for
the decade preceding this was substantially higher (Figure 6).
Figure 6 Number of marlin caught by Japanese vessels within the AFZ
by AFZ year
(Bureau of Resource Sciences, 25 October 1996)
3.48 Striped marlin fetch high prices
on the sashimi market in Japan.87 The percentage
of striped marlin landed alive is 40 per cent but the retention is almost
100 per cent.88 Joint vessels are not excluded
from targeting striped marlin.89 The point
was made that striped marlin are difficult to distinguish from other marlin
particularly in the water.90 The Committee
was told that:
| this difficulty in identification has triggered an increasing take
of blue and black marlin despite the "Gentlemen's agreement"
by commercial and Japanese to return to the sea the blue and black
marlin.91 |
3.49 The CSIRO Division of Fisheries point
out that broadbill swordfish have a life history which makes them very
vulnerable to overfishing.92 There are a substantial
number of swordfish caught by Japanese long-line vessels each year (Figure
7). Swordfish are prized in the United States as steaks.93
The percentage of broadbill swordfish landed alive is 32 per cent with
a retention rate of almost 100 per cent.94
Broadbill swordfish are slow maturing and its balance has been disturbed
in most fisheries.95
3.50 Mr Rowley expressed his concern that
broadbill swordfish are nominated as a target species in the agreement
and this is a potential growth area for the domestic industry on the east
coast.96 He also points out that broadbill
swordfish have been subjected to overfishing in most other fisheries.97
3.51 The Committee does not believe that
in relation to bycatch the conditions placed on the Joint Venture vessels
should be less than those required under the bilateral agreements.
Figure 7 Number of sailfish/swordfish caught by Japanese vessels in
the AFZ by AFZ year (Bureau of Resource Sciences 25 October 1996)
(i) East Coast fishery
3.52 The Queensland recreational and game
fishing industry has significant economic value.98
The Committee was told that the game fishing industry off Queensland and
New South Wales is worth $200 million.99 The
access fee has in part been used for major recreational and charter operation
studies on the east and west coasts.100 In
particular the CSIRO is looking at the marlin off Cairns and the interaction
between commercial fisher and charter boats.101
3.53 Off Queensland the long-line vessels
target yellowfin whereas black marlin are caught incidentally.102
In the Coral Sea there are 13 small domestic long-line vessels and 55
large Japanese long-line vessels which have a potential impact on the
number of marlin available for recreational fishing.103
3.54 The Billfish Assessment Group Report
for the Eastern TUNAMAC considered that the assessments of the status
of the billfish stocks are compromised by the absence of comprehensive
catch and effort data.104 The lack of information
from the recreational sector inhibits the capacity to evaluate potential
fishery interaction problems.105 The available
data suggests that there has been no decline in the local abundance within
the eastern AFZ with the possible exception of black marlin although the
status of regional billfish stocks is less certain. 106
3.55 The Billfish Assessment Group found
that:
| Direct evidence of an interaction between the recreational and commercial
fleets fishing within the eastern AFZ exists through the recapture
of tagged billfish, though previous spatial closures imposed on the
Japanese fleet off north-eastern Queensland do not appear to have
been accompanied by increases in strike rates within the recreational
sectors in this region. Whether or not recent increases in domestic
long-line activity have resulted in decreased recruitment in recent
years remains unknown.107 |
3.56 Only 5 per cent of the total black
marlin catch for the western Pacific is caught in the EEZ.108
The CSIRO believes that the total elimination of the black marlin catch
in the EEZ would have little effect on the global black marlin stock.109
3.57 The Queensland Government believes
there is a developing perception among international game fishermen that
the North Queensland fishery is no longer productive.110
It is the perceived localised stock depletion due to the presence of the
Japanese in the EEZ that is of major concern to the Queensland Government.111
3.58 The catch rates for black marlin
off the eastern coast since 1980 has declined by 20 per cent.112
Technological advances in recreational fishing have placed greater pressures
on fish stock in strong biomass fisheries but in Australian waters there
has been an alarming trend to lower CPUE.113
3.59 Managing the stocks to ensure they
are sustainable ignores the importance of size composition to the game
fishing industry.114 Under the Commonwealth
Fisheries Management Act 1991, the objectives are conservation
and optimum utilisation and that:
| providing the conservation objective is satisfied, the optimum utilisation
objective is limited to maximising the economic returns of the commercial
fishing sector. |
3.60 In Queensland under the Offshore
Constitutional Settlement arrangements, the East Coast Tuna and Billfish
Fishery comes under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.115
The Queensland Government pointed out that:
|
as a result of a legal opinion on the interpretation of the objectives
of Commonwealth fisheries legislation, AFMA considers that it has
no power to manage tuna and marlin resources in a way which takes
into account the needs of the recreational and game fishing industry,
regardless of the economic benefits that the industry generates.
... the Commonwealth does not consider game fishing to be an industry
and thus does not accord it appropriate importance when determining
management arrangements for the fishery and in particular access
arrangements under the Australia/Japan Tuna Long-line Agreement.
The result of this situation is that, under the current arrangements
and philosophies, economic benefits to Australia, and particularly
to North Queensland, from this valuable fishery are unlikely to
ever reach their full potential.116
|
|
Recommendation 9
The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the
Commonwealth Government undertake a review of the Fisheries
Management Act 1991 to determine if amendments are necessary
to facilitate the management of all Australian fisheries to enable
the recreational and game fishing industry to be treated as a commercial
activity with particular reference to achieving optimum utilisation
of the resource.
|
|
Recommendation 10
The Joint Standing Committee on treaties recommends that the
Commonwealth Government undertakes a full assessment of the relative
values of the recreational, game and long-line fisheries and their
compatibility as a basis for determining the most appropriate management
arrangements for the fishery and the degree of access to be allocated
to each sector.
|
(ii) West Coast fishery
3.61 The Western Australian Government
believes that sports fishing is the most appropriate, valuable and sustainable
use of these resources.117 The West Australian
Government believes that the greatest multiplier benefit for their domestic
economy is through billfish, sharks and yellowfin tuna.118
Based on the 1992 figures the recreational fishing industry was worth
$400 million and the commercial fisheries between $900 million and $1.2
billion to Western Australia when the multiplier effects were taken into
account.119
3.62 The Western Australian Government
believes that the charter boat fishing industry may require a higher density
fish stocks than commercial operators and accordingly would like to see
additional exclusion zones around Dampier archipelago, Broome and Ningaloo
Marine Park. These areas are peak development areas for charter fishing
in Western Australia but other areas such as Rottnest, Abrolhos Islands,
Kalbarri and Carnarvon are also developing sport fisheries.121
The Western Australian Government's preferred position is for the phasing
out of the Japanese long-line vessels to enable the development of the
domestic fisheries.122
3.63 The Western Australian Government
believes there is considerable economic benefit in developing a charter
fishery which would not significantly impact on the resource.123
High strike rates are needed to attract international tourists. It was
suggested that a domestically based recreational fishery could have a
negative economic impact because fishing gear is imported even though
money is being channelled through the region.124
3.64 The recreational fishing sector in
Western Australia has a substantial offshore boating fleet and the quality
of fishing is fundamental to the development of this industry.125
The Western Australian Government believes that Japanese long-liners take
sufficient billfish to impact on the local stocks to a level where recreational
fishing is seriously compromised. 126 Japanese
long-line activity off the west coast has caught 26 565 marlin from
1984 to 1990.127
3.65 The game fishing sector is accessing
the same stocks as long-line vessels. 128
It was pointed out that in 1988 and 1989, of the four marlin caught by
recreational fishers, two had long-line hooks in their jaws.129
The point was made that the Japanese fleet was restricted to 20 vessels
operating north of 34 degrees south on the west coast and 50 nautical
miles to limit gear conflict with the increasing number of recreational
fishers.130 The value of the game fishing
industry would increase if there was a perception that there were recreational
fisheries.131
3.66 Marlin are bycatch of the yellowfin
tuna caught in the pre-breeding aggregation on the north west coast. It
was suggested that a seasonal zone closure from 1 January to 31 March
in this area between 22 and 16 degrees south would protect the pre-breeding
aggregation of yellowfin tuna and eliminate the high marlin bycatch.132
3.67 The recreational fishermen in Western
Australia have access to accurate individual club and organisational records
going back to the early 1950 that the scientists do not have.133
There are over 400 000 recreational anglers in Western Australia.134
The Committee would like to see all of this information made available
for collation and research analysis.
3.68 The Western Australian recreational
fishers favour the Japanese presence because they provide the only State
based historical data.135 Local fleets under
private and commercial secrecy arrangements, do not have to reveal their
activities and AFMA is three years behind in collecting tuna reports from
Western Australian long-line vessels.136
3.69 Concern was expressed with the wording
of the subsidiary agreements in relation to:
|
permit those vessels to take within the Zone all species of tuna
and broadbill swordfish, together with all species of finfish including
billfish and oceanic sharks which are incidentally caught.
|
3.70 Mr Stagles considered that the recreational
fishing sector of Western Australia would prefer a nominated range of
tuna species with a sustained level of harvesting and an exclusion for
marlin.137 Recreational fishermen believe
that incidental bycatch should be returned to the sea dead or alive and
that methods should be investigated to minimise the bycatch of billfish.138
3.71 Although it is appreciated that part
of the access fee relates to the billfish catch it was suggested that
this would be far less than the potential economic benefits from the international
game fishers who would be attracted to areas with high catch rates.139
3.72 The Queensland Government is concerned
that:
|
Following its legal opinion on optimum utilisation, AFMA lifted
a total ban on the retention of all billfish taken off the area
off Cairns. The total ban was replaced with a seasonal ban on black
marlin only during the September to January spawning season, for
resource conservation reasons.
This means that the commercial fishers, both Australian and Japanese,
may now retain all billfish they catch and use them for commercial
purposes, except for black marlin during the spawning season.140
|
3.73 Under the Subsidiary Agreement the
Japanese vessels may retain marlin which are dead at the time of retrieval
which means that they can quite properly have marlin on board. It was
suggested that this negates the effectiveness of the voluntary release
arrangement with Japan unless an Australian observer is on board at all
times.141
3.74 The Queensland Government believes
that:
|
Most Australian boats observe a voluntary code of conduct requiring
the release of all marlin regardless of whether they are dead or
alive when the long-line is retrieved.142
|
3.75 The Committee was also told that
the code of practice requires the release of blue or black marlin if they
are alive but the 'compliance level on local long-line operators has been
terrible'.143 It was argued that if all marlin
are cut free then a percentage of them will survive.144
Research can be done by using sonic tags to monitor their movement but
this is an expensive exercise.145
|
Recommendation 11
The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the
Commonwealth Government require all Japanese vessels fishing in
the Exclusive Economic Zone to cut free all marlin (alive or dead)
without removal from the ocean.
|
3.76 TRAFFIC Oceania point out that the
subsidiary agreements go beyond Australian policy in fisheries management.146
With greater Australianisation, there will be greater reliance on the
domestic fleet in relation to conservation issues. The Committee believes
that the Government should also consider the same restrictions being placed
on Australian vessels.
3.77 Further, given the potential of the
Australian long-line fishing industry to develop the capacity to utilise
the tuna resources in the EEZ, research should be done to find methods
to eliminate the bycatch of marlin. These measures could then also be
applied to Japanese fishing vessels working in the EEZ.
|
Recommendation 12
The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that the
Commonwealth Government undertakes a review of the existing
tuna fishing technology to determine if modifications could be made
to reduce the bycatch of non-target species.
|
3.78 Concerns were raised in relation
to the limited contribution of the recreational fishing industry to research
and good management and contribute to the well being of the industry.147
The point was made that recreational fishermen were linked to the charter
boat owners which is a commercial industry and the biggest users of marlin.148
(iii) Tasmania
3.79 The Tasmanian Game Fishing Association
and Tuna Club of Tasmania support the increase of the exclusion zone to
50 nautical miles.149 Most recreational fishers
in Tasmania do not go out 25 to 30 nautical miles from a safety point
of view.150 However, it was suggested that
the charter industry would have the potential to expand if the 50 nautical
mile limit was introduced.
Mechanism for advice on potential exclusion zones
3.80 The Tuna Management Advisory Committees
are relevant to the subsidiary agreements because DPIE uses these committees
to gain advice on industry needs in terms of restrictions to be placed
on the Japanese vessels or exclusion zones and catch limits in some areas.
3.81 The Committee was told that globally
there is a trend towards the inclusion of all user groups in the management
of fisheries.151 The recreational fishing
sector which has 10 000 members of clubs throughout Australia is now represented
on the western and eastern TUNAMAC, but on the southern TUNAMAC the recreational
representative has permanent observer status only.152
The Game Fishing Association of Australia considers that this disadvantages
them because they must contribute to the expense of having a representative
present yet their input need not be accepted.153
3.82 Under the Fisheries Management
Act 1991 the maximum number of members of the MACs is nine but AFMA
has addressed the problem of having all interested parties by adding observers
as corporate members.154 When a position
has become available, AFMA has moved to incorporate other groups other
than industry as members.155
3.83 AFMA considers that the composition
of an independent chairman, an AFMA member and seven other members was
appropriate to facilitate the necessary skills mix.156
A review in the context of possible legislative amendments in 1995 concluded
that the status quo was most appropriate.157
Further, it was pointed out that on the Western TUNAMAC there were conservation
and recreational members and only three industry members.158
3.84 The Committee is aware that some
limitations have already been placed on Japanese fishing vessels in areas
utilised by the recreational fishermen and that a number of studies are
being conducted to determine the extent to which the long-line vessels
are having an impact on the stocks of interest to sports fishermen. The
Committee believes that it is appropriate to await the outcomes of this
research.
Footnotes
[1] Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Submission
No. 33, p. S 175
[2] Young, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 78; Chaffey,
Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 151; Rowley, Transcript, 16 September
1996, p. 230
[3] Tuna Boat Owners Association of Australia Inc, Submission
No. 44, p. S 322
[4] Ibid, p. S 322
[5] Harwood, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 15
[6] Jeffriess, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 356
[7] Romaro, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p. 308
[8] Pike, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 356; Puglisi,
Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 356
[9] Chaffey, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 151
[10] Tuna Boat Owners Association of Australia Inc,
Submission No. 44, p. S 328
[11] Martin, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p. 330
[12] Harwood, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 6-7
[13] Ibid, p. 6
[14] Ibid, p. 15
[15] Caton, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 17
[16] Young, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 76
[17] Millington, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p.
256
[18]Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Supplementary
Submission No. 33.1, p. S 408
[19] Pike, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 359
[20] Harwood, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 18
[21] CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Submission No. 10,
p. S 32
[22] Exel, Transcript, 10 October 1996, p. 414
[23] Millington, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p.
249
[24] Rowley, Transcript, 16 September 1996, p. 221
[25] Ibid, p. 221
[26] Ibid, p. 221, 226
[27] Ibid, p. 221
[28] Harwood, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 20
[29] Marine Agencies of Tasmania, Submission No. 27,
p. S 131
[30] Ward P (1996) Japanese Long-lining in Eastern
Australian Waters 1962 -1990. Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra, p.
21
[31] Tuna Boat Owners Association of Australia Inc,
Submission No. 44, p. S 323
[32] Ibid, p. S 336
[33] Caton, Transcript, 10 October 1996, p. 415
[34] Exel, Transcript, 10 October 1996, p. 415
[35] Tuna Boat Owners Association of Australia Inc,
Submission No. 44, p. S 337
[36] Caton, Transcript, 29 August 1996, p. 17
[37] Jeffriess, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 347
[38] Ninth Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish
(1996) Status of Tuna Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean
Working Paper 3, 22-23 July 1996, Noumea, New Caledonia, pp. 13-14
[39] Ibid, p. 14
[40] Rowley, Transcript, 16 September 1996, p. 228
[41] Stagles, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p. 294
[42] Ibid, p. 296
[43] West Australian Game Fishing Association, Submission
No. 6, p. S 18
[44] Stagles, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p. 293
[45] Millington, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p.
249
[46] Ibid, p. 245
[47] Horton, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 145;
submission No. 32, p. S 162; Chaffey, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p.
146
[48] Chaffey, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 150
[49] Ibid, p. 151, 157
[50] Morrison, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 142
[51] Green, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 155
[52] Chaffey, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 150
[53] van den Hoff, Transcript, 5 September 1996, pp.
115, 118
[54] Horton, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 158
[55] Tasmanian Government, Supplementary Submission
No. 39.1, p. S 447
[56] Morgan, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p., 107;
Pratt, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 124; Morrison, Transcript, 5 September
1996, p. 140
[57] Tasmanian Government, Supplementary Submission
No. 39.1, p. S 448
[58] Chaffey, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 163
[59] Green, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 155
[60] Tuna Boat Owners Association of Australia Inc,
Submission No. 44, p. S 332
[61] Green, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 159
[62] Jeffriess, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 357
[63] Chaffey, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 165
[64] Exel, Transcript, 10 October 1996, p. 405
[65] Buchanen, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 168
[66] Lister, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 168
[67] Buchanen, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 169
[68] Horton, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 160
[69] Pratt, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 132; Chaffey,
Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 146; Lister, Transcript, 5 September
1996, p. 146
[70] Pratt, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 133
[71] Young, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 89
[72] Chaffey, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 164
[73] Lister, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 162;
Shelton, Submission No. 19, p. S 95
[74] Kruimink, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 177
[75] Exel, Transcript, 10 October 1996, p. 401-402
[76] Chaffey, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 164
[77] Green, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 144
[78] Green, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 144
[79] Green, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 147
[80] Chaffey, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 156
[81] Lister, Transcript, 5 September 1996, p. 162
[82] Exel, Transcript, 10 October 1996, p. 400
[83] Harwood, Transcript, 10 October 1996, p. 401
[84] Harwood, Transcript, 10 October 1996, p. 404
[85] Premier of Queensland, Submission No. 41, p. S
250
[86] Billfish Assessment Group (1996) Synopsis on the
Billfish Stocks and
[87] Billfish Assessment Group (1996) Synopsis on the Billfish
Stocks and Fisheries within the Eastern AFZ, September 1996, p. 6
[88] Ibid, p. 5
[89] West Australian Game Fishing Association, Submission
No. 6, p. S 19
[90] Goadby, Submission No. 7, p. S 24
[91] Ibid, p. S 24
[92] CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Indian Ocean Tuna
Commission Inquiry, Submission No. 6, p. S 25
[93] Billfish Assessment Group (1996) Synopsis on the
Billfish Stocks and Fisheries within the Eastern AFZ, September 1996,
p. 6
[94] Ibid, p. 6
[95] Rowley, Transcript, 16 September 1996, p. 231
[96] Fortuna Fishing Pty Ltd, Submission No. 5, p.
S 12
[97] Ibid, p. S 12
[98] Premier of Queensland, Submission No. 41, p. S249
[99] Stone, Transcript, 27 September, p. 367
[100] Tuna Boat Owners Association of Australia Inc,
Submission No. 44, p. S 329
[101] Ibid, p. S 329
[102] Premier of Queensland, Submission No. 41, p.
S 249
[103] Ibid, p. S 249
[104] Billfish Assessment Group (1996) Synopsis on
the Billfish Stocks and Fisheries within the Eastern AFZ, Billfish Assessment
Group for Eastern TUNAMAC September 1996, p. 8
[105] Ibid, p. 7
[106] Ibid, p. 8
[107] Ibid, p. 8-9
[108] Australian Marine Sciences Association, Submission
No. 37, p. S 222
[109] CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Submission No.
10, p. S 31
[110] Premier of Queensland, Submission No. 41, p.
S 250
[111] Ibid, p. S 250
[112] Billfish Assessment Group (1996) Synopsis on
the Billfish Stocks and Fisheries within the Eastern AFZ, September 1996,
p. 8
[113] The Game Fishing Association of Australia, Submission
No. 30, p. S 157
[114] Premier of Queensland, Submission No. 41, p.
S 250
[115] Ibid, p. S249
[116] Premier of Queensland, Submission No. 41, p.
S249
[117] Western Australian Government, Supplementary
Submission No. 28.1, p. S 385
[118] Millington, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p.
239
[119] Ibid, p. 239
[120] Ibid, p. 238
[121] Ibid, p. 244- 245
[122] Western Australian Government, Supplementary
Submission No. 28.1, p. S 386
[123] Millington, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p.
237-238
[124] Ibid, p. 246
[125] Western Australian Government, Supplementary
Submission No. 28.1, p. S 384
[126] Ibid, p. S 385
[127] West Australian Game Fishing Association, Submission
No. 6, p. S 17
[128] Stagles, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p. 294-5
[129] West Australian Recreational & Sportsfishing
Council et al, Submission No. 6.1, p. S 257
[130] Ibid, p. S 256
[131] Stone, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 368
[132] West Australian Game Fishing Association, Submission
No. 6, p. S 20
[133] Stagles, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p. 292
[134] Ibid, p. 295
[135] Ibid, p. 294
[136] Ibid, p. 304
[137] Ibid, p. 302
[138] RECFISH Australia, Submission No. 35, p. S 209;
West Australian Game Fishing Association, Submission No. 6, p. S 20
[139] RECFISH Australia, Submission No. 35, p. S 209
[140] Premier of Queensland, Submission No. 41, p.
S 251
[141] Premier of Queensland, Submission No. 41, p.
S 252; West Australian Recreational & Sportsfishing Council et al, Submission
No. 6 1, p. S 258
[142] Premier of Queensland, Submission No. 41, p.
S251
[143] Stagles, Transcript, 26 September 1996, p. 295
[144] Ibid, p. 300
[145] Ibid, p. 300
[146] Sant, Transcript, 9 September 1996, p. 183
[147] Puglisi, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 353
[148] Valcic, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 354
[149] van den Hoff, Transcript, 5 September 1996,
p. 112
[150] Ibid, p. 115
[151] Stone, Transcript, 27 September 1996, p. 368
[152] Ibid, p. 369
[153] Ibid, p. 369
[154] Meere, Transcript, 10 October 1996, p. 411
[155] Ibid, p. 412
[156] Ibid, p. 412
[157] Ibid, p. 412
[158] Ibid, p. 413
Back to top