1

Banksia Room – Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens

Meeting opened: 10:00 AM

Attendance:

Ian Cartwright (Chair)

Dean Lisson (Industry)

Matt Bradshaw (DPIPWE)

Darvin Hansen (Industry)

Joey McKibben (Industry)

Craig Mundy (IMAS)

Jon Bryan (Tasmanian Conservation Trust)

Steve Crocker (Industry)

Mal Budd (DPIPWE)

Jillian Freeman (Industry)

Paul Richardson (Industry)

Bill Grierson (Tas. Police)

Alan Gray (Industry)

Greg Ryan (DPIPWE)

1. Chair’s opening remarks

The Chair welcomed the Committee to the second AbFAC meeting for the year and pointed

out that there were some significant issues to be addressed during the meeting including the

‘three year rule’ as part of the harvest strategy. He also informed the Committee that the

Tasmanian abalone industry was being well represented by IMAS at the ACA forums with in

excess of 75% of comments initiating from the IMAS representative.

2. Apologies

Allen Hansen and Julian Harrington were apologies.

3. Pecuniary interest

The Department advised that the position acceptance and pecuniary interests records for the

members were up to date with one exception but that it would be completed by the conclusion

of the meeting. There were no amendments to the pecuniary interests previously provided.

4. Adoption of the agenda

Other business;

18.1 North east boundary

Abalone Fishery Advisory Committee – AbFAC

Meeting Number 92, 26 July 2019

2

18.2 GPS depth logger held by Stanley Police.

5. Minutes of the previous meeting

The member representing the Tasmanian Conservation Trust pointed out the following

correction. “ The TCT stated that IMAS had identified an “evidence based solution”

with the appropriate management of rock lobster but there are currently too few rock lobster to

address the issue.”

This has now been changed to read:

“The TCT stated that there was no “evidence based solution” to the centrostephanus urchin

barren problem and that there were currently too few rock lobster to address the issue”.

6. Action items arising from previous meeting

Action 1: All members to sign the acceptance to AbFAC form and to fill in and sign the

pecuniary interest form and return both to the Department ASAP.

Completed.

Action 2. The Department to progress the legislative arrangements for the Little Musselroe

landing site.

In draft amendments currently out for consultation, with the period for comments ending 28

July.

Action 3. The Department to formally respond to the TACL to advise it of its position in relation

to overcatch and royalty provisions.

It was agreed that complexities associated with proposed changes were not warranted and that

these issues would not be progressed at this time.

Action 4: The Department to write to the TACL to advise it on its position of e-mailing the

royalty invoices and increasing the credit limit.

The Department advised industry members that the credit card payment limit had been

increased to $20K. However, this means it will not always be possible to pay invoices relating

to royalties with a single credit card as accounts regularly exceed the $20 K limit.

On another point, the Department informed members that changes to the Personal Information

and Privacy arrangements now allows contact details for license holders to be disclosed to

approved fishing bodies. The TACL thanked the Department for its efforts in achieving the

changes.

Action 5. Police to advise the TACL of the safeguards in place regarding compliance and

biosecurity arrangements for the Spirit of Tasmania.

The Police responded to the FAC with a written response advising that although some random

checks of the Spirit are carried out, regular inspections of the ship and passengers for illegal

possession of items was totally impractical. The only time that inspections could be effective

would be those where the Police were responding to specific information. The Committee was

told that over the past four years, only three such reports of possible illegal activity had been

received. Members of the FAC then asked about the effectiveness of “sniffer” dogs. The

Police advised that the while dogs could be effective, they were expensive to train and needed

frequent breaks. Covering such a large area would take a single dog days to search or require

a number of dogs for faster coverage, which would be prohibitively expensive. FAC members

3

noted that the police welcomed reports of suspected illegal activities, including those associated

with the ‘Spirit’.

Action 6. The Police to advise the Committee on developments relating to the Fish Watch

arrangements.

The Police reminded the Committee that there were some ongoing issues with the Fish Watch

service but said that the problem was still being addressed and that calls which should be

directed elsewhere were being diverted allowing Police to respond to illegal activity in a more

timely manner.

Action 7. The Department and the Police to investigate options which may result in the

application of demerit points to infringement offences or restrictions on issuing infringement

notices and to respond to the TACL in writing.

The Department advised that the digital transitional project would not serve as a means of

legislative reform realting to the re-make the provisions for infringement notices as they relate

to demerit points. It was also pointed out that if demerit points were applied to infringements,

offenders would be much more likely to challenge notices resulting in more court cases, delays

and increasing costs. It was said that allocating demerit points for an infringement notice may

work contrary to the purpose of having infringement notices under the LMRMA

Industry members were concerned about repeat offenders being dealt with too leniently and

that quota holders are not being made aware of the identity of offending operators.

The police responded that it is at the discretion of the Police as to whether an offence warrants

an infringement notice or if the case should be addressed through the courts. If at a later date,

the Police are made aware that someone is a serial offender, they always have the option of

withdrawing a caution or infringement notice and progressing the case through the court.

When asked about “name and shame” of offenders receiving infringement notices.Police

informed the Commitee that if a case goes through the courts it becomes a public record and

the person can be publicly identified. If an infringement notice is given, the law states that it

is not a matter of public record and the recipient’s name cannot be made public without the

person’s permission to publish.

Action 8. The TACL to write a proposal to address the distribution of fishing effort/catch along

the central west for the next FRAG.

The TACL advised that there was little support from members for the central western zone to

be re-introduced. Although favouring the re-introduction of the zone, the Department was

prepared to accept the TACL’s position and then put forward that the Committee consider the

alternate proposal of setting catch for what was the central zone based on the average catch of

the previous three years This would need to be calculated and reset annually and the cap would

need to be less than the MCDA figure. The Committee was in agreement with the Department

that a rolling three year average would most likely act as an incentive for divers to take more

fish from the area and supported the proposal. IMAS added that the arrangement would need

to be paired with the facility to cater for over run.

It was agreed that a cap of 55 tonnes for blocks 6D, 7 and 8, that being the average take for

those blocks over the previous three years, should be put to the FRAG for 2020.

4

It was then pointed out that the MCDA indicates that a cap of 90 tonnes would be appropriate

for those blocks but all were in agreement that extenuating circumstances such as access to

the area, heat waves and rough weather patterns made such a high catch an unrealistic cap. In

addition, allocating catches that were knowingly not going to be taken from an area meant

that the catch would simply be transferred to other areas within the Zone, which could

compromise sustainability.

However, all acknowledged that any deviation from the MCDA needed to be supported by a

strong case, even if the adjustment was a more conservative approach. The Committee

recognized that developing an accepted MCDA had been a long and challenging task and that

it would prove to be an invaluable tool under most circumstances.

It was suggested that the upcoming workshop proposed by the TACL to be held in

conjunction with the Department including the Director of Marine Resources, would provide

a suitable forum for reviewing MCDA settings. The TACL agreed that it would prepare a

draft agenda for the workshop with some focus on the MCDA and circumstances, including

meta rules, which would provide guidance on acceptable deviations.

Action 1: The TACL to prepare a draft agenda for the workshop with the Director of

Marine Resources with some focus on MCDA settings.

Action 9: IMAS to prepare a short paper on the benefits and shortfalls of plates research.

IMAS advised that it would put together a comprehensive package on the uses of settlement

plates including costings, providing the answers to “whys” and “whats” (answers and support

to stock assessments) that plates may provide. It will presented at the FRAG and the FAC.

Action 2: IMAS to produce a comprehensive package on the value and uses of

settlement plates to be presented at the next FRAG and FAC.

Action 10. TACL to make safety recommendations in its code of conduct to help minimize the

shark threat.

The TACL advised that it had written to divers highlighting the positive actions taken by a

diver when he encountered a great white. These interactions are increasing both in the state

and Australia-wide. It also mentioned that the TACL had been in discussions with the CSIRO

and expressed interest in being involved in a project that uses a beacon to detect tagged

sharks in the vicinity. The beacon costs around $15K but has the potential to identify trends

in shark behavior/locations over the seasons.

7. Compliance /Police Report

The Police informed members that even though they had been heavily involved in a number of

rescue operations in Tasmania’s snow regions over recent months they were still able to log up

over 7,500 hours on patrols, undertake 145 inspections of retail premises including 92

processors facilities and perform 190 inspections of commercial operations at sea.

The Committee was also told that the tender process for the replacement of the Dauntless had

recently closed but a decision was still a long way off.

5

The TACL then reported that a diver who had forgotten his logger had gone to Stanley Police

to ask for the reserve unit. The diver was advised that he could not be given the spare logger

unless he had one to exchange. The Police representative on the Committee offered to inform

his colleagues of the accepted policy for the spare loggers.

Action 3: The Police to advise its officers on the policy for the use of spare loggers.

Members from the TACL stated that there was additional motivation to introduce changes to

the recreational abalone fishing rules with the increasing number of tourist and organized

tourist groups taking interest in abalone. It was said that there were two types of recreational

fishers; the local divers and the international/interstate divers and the industry members on the

Committee were concerned that the Minister may be receiving contradictory or misleading

reports from the various sectors.

Industry members on the Committee then asked the Police if they considered the number of

tourists fishing to be a concern. The Police acknowledged that there was a problem with the

number of visitors who had licenses, pointing out the trend for “pseudo” recreational divers

was increasing. The Police went on to explain that there were situations where there may be a

number of tourists with a recreational abalone license with each license holder dressed in

wetsuits but it seemed apparent that only one or two of the license holders were actually diving

for the abalone. The Police supported the proposed changes to recreational abalone rules.

The Chair then welcomed the Manager of the Recreational Fishery who had arrived to discuss

the proposed changes to the abalone recreational fishery rules

Industry members stated that there was confusion about the message that it was no longer

necessary to measure abalone on the bottom. The Department pointed out that divers are

currently required to measure every fish but the Department has also been advised that divers

do not currently measure fish that are obviously over the size limit and policing the requirement

was not possible. It reminded members that the Department is obligated not to have rules that

it cannot or does not intend to enforce. The proposed rule relating to the minimum size states

that the diver must not be possession of undersize fish at any time and once the fish is placed

in the catch bag, the fish is deemed to have been taken and in the divers possession. If inspected

upon surfacing with undersized fish in possession, a diver would have committed an offence

This effectively means that if a diver has any doubt as to whether a fish is over the minimum

size he should measure it before placing it in the catch bag. It was also pointed out that no

more abalone is permitted to be taken until the undersize fish had been returned to its habitat.

Members asked the Department if there were any means of “tightening” the recreational licence

application process such as removing the “online application” option or the requirement of

providing identification prior to a license being issued. The Departmental Manager of Fisheries

Compliance and Licensing advised the section leader, recreational fisheries is currently

considering changes to the fishing certificate.

The Committee then offered support for the recreational changes and pointed out that the

impetus for the change had actually come from RecFAC.

The TACL advised that it had already written to the Minister advising him of its support for

the changes and the Committee recognized the support from the Police which was mentioned

earlier. IMAS was then asked to provide its position regarding the recreational ablalone fishery

changes to which it responded that it favoured the proposals arguing that recreational fishers

6

are not dissuaded from fishing low CPUE areas in the same way as commercial fishers, because

diving is all part of the enjoyable experience for recreational divers and they have no pressure

to fill quota or be profitable.

It also pointed out that most of the recreational effort is on the east coast where the entire

commercial cap is only 10 tonnes. It was said that the intense effort in the small area from the

recreational fishers could result in localised depletion as the 2% recreational take is

disproportionally focused in the high-risk eastern area.

It also added that in the event that all recreational fishers keep to the size and catch limits

recreational fishing in depleted areas could still be a serious concern because the size limit

alone will not protect the population if every size fish is constantly fished down.

IMAS then offered to produce a paper arguing its support for the proposed changes in the

recreational abalone fishery. (Note: this document has been attached to these minutes).

The Committee was then informed that over 500 submissions had been received on the

proposed changes with only five coming from the commercial sector. The TACL reported that

it had been contacted by the Minister’s advisor and that it was concerned that the Minister may

be receiving misleading information. The TACL made it clear that its members were prepared

to discuss the issues with the Minister personally.

The Committee was concerned when it learned that the submissions period closed over the

weekend and asked if an extension would be appropriate to allow the FAC to make a

representation. It was reminded that the FACs had the opportunity to comment after the

submission period had concluded.

The member for the Tasmanian Conservation Trust stated that he believed the whole process

for the proposed changes to the recreational rules had been rushed without adequate

consultation with TARFish or RecFAC.

Members on the Committee congratulated the Department on the consultation paper

acknowledging that it was well written but added that the views of IMAS and the Police

expressed at this meeting were significant, and that would have been very useful if they had

been included in that information paper.

The Recreational Fisheries Manager agreed that the information was valuable adding that

people also need to be made aware of the efforts already made by the commercial fishery such

as the 70% cut to quota on the east coast it had taken over recent years. He also informed the

Committee that the recreational licensing year placed strict timing restraints on the process.

He added that while all legislative requirements regarding rule changes and consultation had

been met, he still needed to drive the process to a deadline to enable any changes to be

incorporated in the recreational fisheries guide which had a deadline in mid September.

He also pointed out the significant change in demographics with a much stronger Chinese

influence throughout the Tasmanian community has required more focus on education,

particularly in relation to terminology such as “possession limits”. He also made the point that

it was likely that abalone’s popularity amongst the Tasmanian community is likely to increase

as the Asian influence extends over time.

Industry members on the FAC asked the Chair to include in his summary to the Minister that

they were prepared to meet with the Minister to discuss the recreational abalone fishery rules.

7

Action 4. The Chair to include in his summary to the Minister that industry

representatives on AbFAC were prepared to meet with him regarding the recreational

abalone fishery rules.

The Chair then itemized the specific points in the review for members to address.

1. Bag limit reduction from 10 to 5 – Supported;

2. Possession limit reduction from 20 to 10 - General support although some believed

possession and bag limit should be the same;

3. Boat limit of 15 - Supported, however it was also put forward that a residential address

limit of 15 should also be introduced;

4. Non holder of a recreational abalone license possession reduced from 5 to 2 –

Supported;

5. License holders shuck 1 abalone/day on a vessel – Generally supported -some queried

the need for/value of this rule.

6. Fishing license minimum age of 10 years. If a person under the age of 10 is in

possession of abalone, it is deemed to be in the possession of the adult. – Supported;

7. Definition of a gauge – Supported;

8. No requirement to measure. underwater (but must not be in possession of undersize

fish) – Supported;

9. Knife or iron 20 mm width– Not supported as is Definition needs to exclude the tip;

10. Daylight take only – Supported;

11. Change to the north area boundary – Supported;

12. Stanley, Smithton and Woolnorth landing sites added into the legislation –

Supported;

13. Relink of license holders and supervisors reinstated to allow special penalty units to

be applied as was previously the case – Supported.

The Department then informed members that Debbie Edwards had left Fisheries with her place

being filled by Angela Iles. It then went on to tell members that there were significant changes

in the offing for licensing with the digital transitional program expected to streamline a number

of operations. The Department would also soon have the capability of reviewing the current

offences across all fisheries.

The representative for the processors then raised the issue of weigh sheets and the possible

duplication with the receipt at premises documentation. It was suggested that changing the

name of the processors weigh sheet might address the legal requirements.

The Department agreed to look at the possible duplication issues with the weigh sheet and to

respond to the processor representative prior to the next FAC meeting.

Action 5: The Department to look at the possible duplication issues with the weigh sheet

and to respond to the processor representative prior to the next FAC meeting.

9. North East Blacklip and King Island Greenlip.

The Department advised that the north east was 2.7 tonnes off the cap and asked the Committee

for its views on the timing of a closure. Industry members commented that the fish were in

very good condition and a small overrun should not be an issue.

8

Greenlip was said to be a different story with Perkins Bay virtually collapsing and there was

little understanding on why this was happening. There was general consensus that the fishery

needed to take this year’s TAC with the least damage possible but it was looking at a big

reduction in TAC in 2020. The Department was asked to close the north Eastern area of King

Island.

In the NW, the Department advised that block 6 and 29 were just under the cap. Industry

advised that the area was fishing quite well so they were happy for it to run to its cap with the

exception of block 6 which was to be closed as soon as possible.

The Department then reminded the FAC that if blocks other block 6 remain open until the cap

is reached, there was no guarantee that mother boats would not work the area which could lead

to an undesirable overrun.

Action 6. The Department to close block 6 to the take of blacklip and NE King Island to

the take of greenlip as soon as possible.

10. Protocol for closing and reopening research areas The Committee fully supported the need for a clear re-opening policy and methodology to be

put in place with the introduction of any new closure of a research area. It was noted that there

was also a need to ensure that closed areas were monitored adequately to determine the extent

to which rebuilding was occurring.

11. Recreational and Commercial Fishery Review. Completed under the Police/Compliance Report.

12. Centrostephanus

The Committee was advised that around 540 tonnes of Centrostephanus had been taken so far

this licensing year and that the main processor intended to continue harvesting for some time

yet. This was considered to be a significant achievement.

13. Update on west and upper west coast size limits The Department advised that the size limit from Wild Wave River to Albatross Island would

be increasing to 132 mm as at 1 January 2020. It also advised that the western area at 145 mm

was doing well.

14. Proposal for size limits for the state to based on the ‘three year rule’.

The FAC was very supportive of the size limit proposal and keen to progress it as quickly as

possible. The Department and IMAS had distributed a hand out on the three year rule to the

Committee and the Chair requested members to look at the key table on page 5 showing the

target for size limits by block. IMAS and the Committee were confident in the information

that was presented but IMAS stated it would be quite prepared to sample further sites in

valuable abalone areas if others considered it was warranted.

IMAS also explained to the Committee that a new tagging method recently adopted appeared

to stress the fish less so the data captured earlier was likely to be on the precautionary side as

additional stress would tend to detract from growth.

9

The Department told the Committee that the Actaeons would not be singled out for a different

size limit.

The Boundary for Block 31 was of concern to some members so the divers’ representative on

the Committee asked to meet with the Police, IMAS and the Department to discuss the issue.

Action 7: The Divers’ representative to meet with the Police, IMAS and the Department

to discuss the block 31 boundary.

The Department noticed the number of incremental increases in size limits and varied timelines

pointing out that the more steps involved and the more inconsistencies in timelines the more

work and confusion there will be and at an increased cost. The Department determined that it

would re-assess the timelines to achieve greater consistency.

Action 8: The Department to re-assess timelines for the introduction of size limits to

achieve greater consistency and reduce complexity.

15. Central West

Addressed earlier

16. IMAS Report IMAS reported that there had been slow progress on the fishery assessment.

As mentioned earlier, the adoption of a less invasive type of tag was resulting the tagged fish

growing at a rate of 2.5mm/yr faster than had been expected at this time of year.

There had also been further progress in the project reviewing the impacts of weather, waves

and water temperature on catch rates as distinct from those driven by changes in stock size..

IMAS also advised that resource constraints has meant that field work would have to be

confined to areas south of Cape Pillar .

It was also reported that GPS loggers were very close to being ready for use. Some trials had

already been run and revealed only minor “hiccups” which have, for the most part, been

addressed.

17. Processor Petition

The TACL told the Committee that a couple of processors believed that the TACL did not

represent their interests and would be asking the Minister to revoke the compulsory levy. The

representative on the FAC advised that he and the other processors had been sent a letter to

muster support for the revocation of the levy through a petition which 9 processors had signed.

Industry members on the FAC responded by acknowledging the high standard of work

undertaken by the processor representative on behalf of all abalone processors. It was stated

that the amount of processing issues dealt with at various forums including Board, FAC and

the FRAG meetings was significant. Members added that processors had ample opportunity

to present any issues they may have at no less than 14 meetings throughout the year but it was

noted that only 4 processors tended to turn up to any meetings . One of the members

10

commented that only 6 of the 24 processors licensed for abalone were actually active so

disgruntled processors could always remove abalone from their license.

Modifying the MCDA

IMAS began by informing members that South Aust, Western Aust and Tas abalone fisheries

have all recently begun working under the same principles for setting catch limits and are still

learning to optimize the operation. It went on to say that it is apparent that for an area with a

reasonably consistent catch rate, the model works well. If however, an area has undergone

some drastic changes reducing the catch by 60% or more, the current harvest strategy

settings/parameters would not respond in a way that would result in acceptable stock

rebuilding. It was said that the current MCDA settings were more tuned to maintaining an

already sustainable fishery rather than rebuilding from a severely depleted condition.

The Committee agreed with IMAS that to help minimize drastic changes, there should be a

meta rule in place so that TACs can only increase/decrease at manageable increments.

It was also said that knowing that there are some circumstances where the MCDA may not be

the most appropriate tool means that on occasions other methods should be introduced. It was

stressed that it was most important that if the MCDA is not adhered to, that the reasons for

adopting a different approach be carefully documented with a strong case for not accepting the

position indicated by MCDA. IMAS considered that the bottom 25% of catch rates over the

previous 25 years was the trigger point to look at approaches other than the current MCDA.

IMAS offered to prepare a paper for the next FRAG and FAC providing the case to support a

more precautionary catch for blocks 6, 7 and 8 than that indicated by the MCDA.

Action 9. IMAS to prepare the case to have a more precautionary cap for blocks 6, 7 and

8 than is indicated by the MCDA to be presented at the FRAG and FAC.

It was then suggested that consideration should not be given to any catch increase in the eastern

zone for at least 4 years. The outside of Bruny Island was singled out as a cause for concern

in particular. The idea of closing the eastern zone for next year was also raised but others

pointed out there was no point in closure if recovery is not being monitored. It was proposed

that commercial abalone divers could be paid to undertake regular surveys and for the

reopening policy to be developed with the closure. Industry members stated that if it is closed

for commercial abalone divers it must be closed to the recreational sector as well.

The Department said it would be happy to set the cap at 10 tonnes again provided there was

structured fishing and some others on the Committee agreed that given the stock was so

depleted in the area between north of Cape Pillar to Bicheno area should be closed altogether

to allow for rebuilding.

11

Actions Arising from AbFAC Meeting No. 92 – 26 July 2019

Action Responsible Member Task Progress

1 TACL to prepare a draft agenda for the workshop with the Director of Marine Resources with some focus on

MCDA settings.

2 IMAS to produce a comprehensive package on the value and uses of settlement plates to be presented at the

next FRAG and FAC.

3 The Police to advise its officers on the policy for the use of spare loggers.

4 The Chair to include in his summary to the Minister that industry representatives on AbFAC were prepared to

meet with him regarding the recreational abalone fishery rules.

5 The Department to look at the possible duplication issues with the weigh sheet and to respond to the processor

representative prior to the next FAC meeting.

6 The Department to close block 6 to the take of blacklip and NE King Island to the take of greenlip as soon as possible.

7 Divers’rep, IMAS, Police

and Department

The Divers’ representative to meet with the Police, IMAS and the Department to discuss the block 31

boundary .

8 The Department to re-assess timelines for the introduction of size limits to achieve greater consistency and reduce

complexity. .

9 IMAS to prepare the case to have a more precautionary cap for blocks 6, 7 and 8 than is indicated by the

MCDA to be presented at the FRAG and FAC.

12