Aquaculture

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 9 November 2000

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 2000 Spring Sitting Index Browse by Subject Search all Democrats material About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The Deputy Premier, Minister for Primary Industries and Resources, and Minister for Regional Development has provided the following information-

1. The farmed seafood industry, and indeed the seafood industry as a whole, has been proactive in working to translate the principles of ecologically sustainable development into " grass roots" action. The industry has been assisted in these endeavours by the provision of training in the principles of environmental management and ecologically sustainable development through a number of training providers. These training providers include Spencer Institute of TAFE, Seafood Training Australia, Australian Maritime College, Australian Fisheries Academy, Seafood Training SA and Flinders University. Seafood Training Australia, in particular, offers flexible training targeted specifically at existing industry participants.

2. The training undertaken by individual tuna farmers is rightfully each person's private concern. The Fisheries Act 1982 prohibits the disclosure of private information relating to individual licence holders. However, I note that a number of tuna farmers employ qualified marine biologists to assist in the management of their farming operations.

The government has worked closely with tuna farmers to facilitate the adoption of ecologically sustainable practices by the sector. I am pleased to advise the honourable member that this has resulted in at least one tuna farmer progressing towards environmental quality assurance accreditation under the ISO14000 standard.

4. I note that the Environment Protection Authority provided advice to the Development Assessment Commission in relation to the tuna farming approvals that were subject to the recent case before the Environment, Resources and Development Court. This advice related to the ecological sustainability of the developments and was provided under the referral provisions of the Development Act 1993. The Environment, Resources and Development Court considered that advice and officers of the Environment Protection Agency provided evidence to the Court in those proceedings.

In addition to responsibilities for environment protection under the Environment Protection Act 1993, the Environment Protection Authority is responsible for promoting the pursuit of ecologically sustainable development by the government, private sector and public and conducting education in relation to environmental protection, restoration and enhancement. This role is general and is not specifically limited to any particular form of development.

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: The Deputy Premier, Minister for Primary Industries and Resources, and Minister for Regional Development has provided the following information-

In responding to the honourable member's question I will give some historical context to my comments.

In March 1999, the Development Assessment Commission (the DAC) granted development consent for the establishment of six tuna farms in the waters adjacent to Louth Bay in Spencer Gulf (the development).

The decision was appealed by the Conservation Council in the Environment, Resources and Development Court ( the ERD Court) on the grounds that the development was not ecologically sustainable. During the appeal the DAC argued that it was appropriate to manage the development under an adaptive management regime to ensure ecological sustainability. It was further argued that the appropriate adaptive management regime can be achieved through conditions of a fish farming licence issued pursuant to the Fisheries Act 1982. The ERD Court agreed that an "adaptive management approach, implemented by way of licence conditions?is one means by which the development could proceed in an ecologically sustainable manner". However, the ERD Court ruled that the fish farming licence could not guarantee the ecological sustainability of the development. This point was not argued during the hearing and neither the Conservation Council nor the DAC had the opportunity to put their respective cases. In reaching that decision the ERD Court ruled that "it was not necessary for us to consider the nature of the conditions which might be imposed by the Minister upon a section 53 [fish farming] licence".

The Supreme Court of South Australia reviewed the matter on appeal and in August 2000, set aside the ERD Court's decision. In setting aside the decision the Supreme Court ruled that the ERD Court erred in its interpretation of fish farming licensing powers under the Fisheries Act. That is, the Fisheries Act could provide appropriate powers to ensure the ecological sustainability of the development. Since the Supreme Court assessed the law associated with the decision rather than the merit of the development the matter was remitted to the ERD Court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's findings.

In remitting the matter to the ERD Court the Supreme Court recommended that the most practical course would be to consider the terms and conditions of the relevant fish farming licence and then to determine whether development consent should be granted. This was the approach supported by the government since the ERD Court had not considered the conditions that could be imposed on a fish farming licence and whether those conditions could ensure ecological sustainability. However, the Conservation Council argued that the ERD Court should not hear further evidence and should simply refuse development consent. As we know this was the course the ERD Court elected to take.

The ERD Court was clearly at liberty to determine the appropriate course for the matter before it. Nonetheless, I am frustrated that the developments were rejected not because they could not be managed in an ecologically sustainable manner but because the Court had not had the opportunity to consider how ecological sustainability could be ensured.

In the interview referred to by the honourable member I reiterated the government's commitment to managing the aquaculture industry in an ecologically sustainable manner. I also indicated that I was annoyed that the legal system is being used to frustrate development and job creation in rural areas. The tuna farming industry has created more than 1 600 jobs on Eyre Peninsula. This significant contribution to South Australia's rural economy is being put at risk not because the industry is not ecologically sustainable, the Supreme Court has already ruled that it could be managed sustainably, but because the ERD Court has not considered how the industry will be managed sustainably.

The Conservation Council effectively argued that the Court should not have the opportunity to consider whether the development was ecologically sustainable despite "not being against sustainable aquaculture development". I believe that a recent headline in the Conservation Councils Briefs of October 2000 "Tuna on the run-CCSA wins" is disappointing considering that all parties should be working together to achieve outcomes that are sustainable and in the best interests of the state.

1. I believe that my comments were justified, but were certainly not directed personally at Mr Marchant, and until Mr Gilfillan's question I was unaware of his involvement in the Court cases. Mr Gilfillan in his question quotes me as accusing Mr Marchant of certain things. These are the words of Mr Gilfillan, not me, and do not reflect any view that I have held of Mr Marchant.

2. Mr Marchant was invited to join the government's community reference group on aquaculture as a representative of South Australia's conservation interests. His input into identifying those issues of concern to conservation groups has been welcome.