THE COMPANY OF MASTER MARINERS OF AUSTRALIA DINNER

_{27 July, 2006}

Sign Up for free e-mail updates!

Well, thanks very much Eugene for that very generous welcome.

I should emphasise that although I am, as you mention, like you and your other guest speaker a lawyer, I always make the point that I was a small town country lawyer as opposed to the big city wealthy city lawyers!

But it is a real pleasure for me to be with you tonight and in the company of Master Mariners.  As a kid, many, many years ago, I always had a real excitement for those ‘who go down to the sea in ships’ and it is a real pleasure for me today to be in your company, in the company of those people who are not only Master Mariners capable of driving huge ships around the world but of people who are, as well as sea captains, also padres, judges and prosecutors as well, marriage celebrants, law enforcement officers, hospitality managers and even I suggest, at times, great chefs or menu consultants.

Australia has a Fishing Zone of some 8,148,250 square kilometres, an area greater than the land mass of Australia at 7,692,030 square kilometres.  This Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) covers the area from the shoreline out to the exclusive economic zone of Australia.  That is 200 nautical miles out.  The fisheries in the area from the shoreline to 3 nautical miles are usually managed by the State or Territory Government and from 3 nautical miles out to 200 nautical miles are the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government.

Under an arrangement called “the Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS)” the Commonwealth does however manage highly migratory species like tuna and tuna like species wherever they occur in the Australian Fisheries Zone.  This is done by arrangement with the State and Territories and similarly some fisheries extending beyond the 3 nautical mile line are run by various State or Territory Fisheries Agencies by arrangement with the Commonwealth.

Some Fisheries, are run by joint Fisheries agencies comprising both State or Territory and Commonwealth agencies.  In the case of the Arafura Sea Fishery for example although the Managing Board is a joint one consisting of the Commonwealth and State Fisheries Ministers, the actual work is performed by the Northern Territory Fisheries Agency. 

For Commonwealth Fisheries, fisheries management work is undertaken by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) which is an independent statutory authority answerable to the Australian Fisheries Minister.  Its independent board is currently chaired by former Tasmanian Premier the Honourable Tony Rundle, now a Queensland resident.

The Commonwealth’s most valuable fisheries are the Southern Bluefish Tuna fishery based off Port Lincoln in South Australia and the Northern Prawn Fishery in the Gulf of Carpentaria.  The Southern Bluefish Tuna and Northern Prawn Fishery have a net economic value to Australia of over $200m and $70m respectively.

Australia’s most valuable fisheries are controlled by the State Governments and comprise inshore fisheries generally speaking including rock lobster fisheries and abalone fisheries.  These have a net value of $408m and $219m to Australia.

The Commonwealth Government also manages the Torres Strait Fisheries under the auspices of what is called the Protected Zone Joint Authority (PZJA) which is an authority chaired by the Commonwealth Minister and comprising the Fisheries Minister from Queensland and the Chairman of the Torres Strait Regional Authority.

The PZJA looks after reasonably valuable fisheries including the Torres Strait Prawn Fishery, the Torres Rock Lobster Fishery and a Torres finfish Fishery.  Management of these fisheries includes not only making regulations but enforcing those regulations to ensure that the fisheries are sustainably managed.

Sustainable Management is essential not only for the future of the Fishing Industry but as well for the retention of Australia’s unique marine biodiversity around the coast of Australia.

The Australian Government under a 1998 Policy introduced the World’s first Oceans Policy and included in that was a commitment to create Marine National Parks to preserve the unique marine eco systems around the Australian coast.

The biggest Marine Park is, of course, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park about which you would have heard a lot of talk in recent times with the increase of the ‘no-take’ areas of the Marine Park from about 5% of its area to over 33% of the area.  This new Marine Park will cost the Commonwealth in excess of $100 million in compensation and structural adjustments.

Recently some other Marine Parks were implemented in the south-east of Australia’s waters, around Victoria and Tasmania.

As well as the Australian Fishing Zone around the Australian mainland, Australia has by virtue of its ownership of Norfolk, Christmas and Cocos Island and also Heard and McDonald Islands in the southern ocean down in Antarctica a 200 nautical mile EEZ and consequently AFZ in those areas.

It is in the Australian Fishing Zone around Heard and McDonald Islands that Australia has for years run an ongoing battle with well resourced, financed and managed pirate conglomerates.

Because of the dangerous seas in the areas around Heard and McDonald Islands it has been very difficult over the times for the Australian Navy or Customs to properly patrol those areas.  The most valuable fish in the Heard and McDonald Island (HIMI) area is of course the well known patagonian toothfish, a fish which because of its particular quality brings a premium price particularly in Japan and North America.

The responsibility of managing fisheries brings with it the responsibility to properly protect and enforce management arrangements in Australia’s waters.

Our inability to properly protect our waters of the southern ocean, which was evidenced by the three week chase across the southern ocean by the Southern Supporter of the “Viasa” clearly indicated that Australia’s fight against the pirates was a tough one to win.

As a result of that particular incident the Australian Government has acquired the Oceanic ‘Viking’, a 100metre ocean going vessel armed with twin 50 calibre machine guns to patrol those waters.

Since that boat has been in existence we have, touch wood, cleaned up the pirating of the Patagonian toothfish in Australian fishing zones.

It has been a major victory for the Australian Government.

Unfortunately we haven’t been quite as successful in the fight against organised criminal gangs who rape the seas, in the court case against the Viarsa. After having been retried for a second time when the jury failed to agree in the first instance, the second jury would not convict the owners of the Viarsa because of lack of appropriate evidence.

As a result of international piracy on the high seas a number of likeminded countries with a commitment to conservation of the high seas and proper management, formed the Ministerially Lead High Seas Taskforce which after three years and some very detailed and well researched work provide a template for responsible countries to push forward in the fight against illegal fishing on the high seas.

Recommendations of the Taskforce included:

• To establish a set of guidelines for flag state performance in the control of fishing vessels

• To develop a global information system on high seas fishing vessels

• To commit resources to an international monitoring, control and surveillance network

This fight continues and Australia has played a leading role in the fight.

Generally speaking enforcement of rules in the Australian fishing zone is self regulated, with many Australian fishing vessels required to carry vessel monitoring systems (VMS) and all required to account very precisely for their catches.

In Commonwealth waters most fish species are caught under licences which provide for quotas or individual allocations.

The Management authority determines a total allowable catch (TAC) and then that total allowance catch is then allocated to individual licence holders with an individual transferable quota.

Not a lot is done to physically enforce compliance with the management of commonwealth fisheries because, as I have mentioned, that is more or less self regulatory,

In the fisheries managed for state authorities – generally the inshore fisheries there is more enforcement work but it often targets weekend recreational fishers as well as some commercial fishermen.

Many of you would have over the years, plied the waters in the north of Australia perhaps servicing various mining posts or pearling operations in the north west.

You would be well aware as are most Australians of the enormous problem we have had for decades with Indonesian fishermen encroaching into what is now the Australian Fishing Zone.

There is a long history of this illegal fishing by Indonesians.  Of course going back 10,000 years fishermen from what are now the Indonesian Archipelago did travel far and wide following beche-de-mer, trochus and  other species.

With the recent advent of relatively artificial sea boundaries like the EEZ  following UN arrangements on exclusive economic zones, many of the traditional fishing grounds of Indonesia became part of Australia’s waters.

Because Indonesian village fishermen continued to fish areas which they claim have always been theirs and should be Indonesian territory the Australian and Indonesian governments in 1974 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which allowed Indonesian fishermen to fish in a “certain box” and not contravene Australia’s fishing laws.

Over the years the traditional fishermen have been replaced by highly organised fishermen using the most modern equipment and as a result the “MOU box” as it is called has now become practically a marine desert.

It has been of great concern to Australian Environmental and Fisheries Management Authorities for some years but dealings with the area have been, of diplomatic necessity  very, very delicate.

What is worse, the existence of Indonesian fishermen in the MOU Box has resulted in Indonesian fishermen pursuing, beyond the box boundaries,  fish stocks as they come and go.  The result has been that Indonesian fishermen fish well outside the box in the north-west but have also encroached into Australia’s waters in the Torres Strait and in the Gulf of Carpentaria and elsewhere around the north-eastern and north-western parts of Australia.

This has been a major challenge for the Australian Government.

Five years ago very little resources were put into this fight against illegal Indonesian fishermen but in recent years we have substantially increased the money going into the fight. This has included substantial additional expenditure in recent Commonwealth Budgets totalling $91.4m and $88m over half a billion dollars ($91.4m and $88m in 2005-6; $389m in 2006-7, a massive increase in Australia’s deterrent activities.

Many of Australia’s 14 naval patrol boats and 7 customs patrol vessels constantly patrol in the north for fisheries and other offences.  However, in spite of this massive presence and the increase in funding, we have still not been able to stem the tide of Indonesian fishermen.  For example, the number of sightings between 2004 and 2005 increased by over 4000. from 8108 to just over 13,000.

I pay particular tribute to the men and women of the Royal Australian Navy and the Customs Marine Service together with AFMA, the Northern Defence HQ and Coast watch who together provide a very efficient and effective border protection operation in the north.

Some of our resources are dedicated to Operation Relex – the anti-people smuggling operation in force for several years now.

But the fisheries protection work is again a significant part of the work of these Federal Government Agencies.

New money in the last budget will allow for :

• Increased intelligence support in the fight against illegal fishing
• Upgrading processing facilities in Broome, establishment of facilities in Gove and Weipa and modifications to the Torres Strait facility
• A long range rapid response helicopter to deal with vessel landings
• Enhanced charting of the Torres Strait and northern GBRMP
• Establishment of a dedicated patrol vessel in the GBRMP

I think it is essential though that the Government looks at a different form of patrol craft.  The existing Armidale class patrol vessels are excellent for ‘at sea’ work and the Bay class customs vessels are adequate for the job.  They are now armed as well.

However I believe there is a need for a smaller vessel that can be used inshore and in amongst the coral reefs that abound in the Torres Strait and inshore regions.

As well, the problem of incursions by Indonesian fishermen is one that I believe will never be won unless we have the active support of the Indonesian Government.

Prior to Christmas last year, in my capacity as the Fisheries Minister, I visited Jakarta and had meetings with the Indonesian Foreign Minister Waranto and the Fisheries Minister Freddie Numberi.

We discussed generally the involvement of the Indonesian Government in land based investigations into the organisation and financial support for illegal fishing and the sale of product caught illegally through Indonesia and on to markets in Asia.

As well as that we discussed joint patrols along the border.

These are matters which are being pursued by the Australian and Indonesian Governments and at the recent Ministerial Forum which reaffirmed our commitment to expanding co-operation and co-ordination on fisheries surveillance activities, pursuing co-operative naval activities where possible, conducting information campaigns amongst Indonesian villages and enhancing surveillance capabilities.

As Master Mariners, many of you would appreciate the vastness of the oceans which Australia controls.

You will also be well aware of the difficulty in ‘at sea’ boardings of other vessels particularly when those other vessels are, to say the least, unco-operative.  You will also be aware of the difficulty in tracking and approaching small fast vessels.  You, more than most, will also appreciate the vunerability to extremists of Australia’s off shore oil rigs.

The law for control of activities on the High Seas is far from useful.  Sure Nations have control over their own flagged vessels, but there is little the responsible world community can do to regulate the activities of vessels flying “Flag of convenience“ flags.

Various International Conventions mainly in the fishing area have attempted to regulate fishing activities on the high seas in areas regulated by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations.

Some of this in Australia’s sphere of influence include:

- CCAMCR
- CCSBT
- WCPFC
- IOTC
- SIOFC
- The South Pacific Fisheries Organisation

But again, control in these areas is limited to vessels flying the flags of signatory nations to these conventions.

For FOC vessels whose flag state exercises little or no control, the rules mean nothing.

The UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) requires there to be a “direct link” between the Flag State and the vessel flying its flag, but for most FOC activities this required link is not there.

What can be done?

I have been urging a stronger action by the UN on these FOC States and also reform of UNCLOS particularly as it relates to jailing of offenders.

Some progress was achieved earlier this year in the Review of UNCLOS but more needs to be done if we are to save the fish species of the world for future generations.

I urge you as a group of respected people with a real interest and understanding of the high seas to work towards a better regime that will allow for the protection of the unique and often threatened biodiversity we have in the seas and to try to work with Governments and your worldwide organisations for some form of system that will allow better regulation to protect and manage the high seas.

Again, thank you for allowing me to be with you tonight.  It has been a real pleasure for me.  Please let me know if there is any way that I may be able to assist you and your colleagues in your endeavours in the future.

More Speeches