Living Marine Resources Management Amendment

Call for Adjournment

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, I rise to speak on this bill with some awkwardness.  As the chair of the finfish inquiry, which is yet to report to this place, I and other members of that committee are placed in a difficult situation in engaging with this bill.  While the subject matter of this bill and the terms of reference of the inquiry do not directly correlate, they can be seen to be connected and have direct relevance to each other. 

Because of this, I sought advice on how to proceed with this bill to ensure that I will not put the work of the committee in jeopardy or compromise its integrity or value.  I appreciate the advice I have received and have considered my options.  I know that other committee members will likewise be considering their options.  In light of that, I move –

That debate on this bill stand adjourned.

I seek the agreement of the Chamber to adjourn debate on the bill and I will speak to that now to explain why I seek that course of action and the support of the Chamber for it.

As all here will be well aware, the finfish inquiry has been in progress for some time.  The time it is taking has been a matter of interest and, no doubt, frustration for many people who are very interested in the conclusion of the inquiry and the report it will make to this place.  As chair of the inquiry I take full responsibility for its conduct.  The lengthy duration of the inquiry is perhaps not ideal.  Those who have been in this place for a while will appreciate that some inquiries can be very lengthy, especially if they are broad in scope or complex in their topic matter.  This inquiry is both of those. 

The evidence received by the inquiry included over 220 submissions and at least 10 days of hearings.  That material is in the public domain and is available on the parliamentary website.  That is a great deal of evidence to be carefully considered. 

Further, the inquiry covers topics that all of us would recognise are a matter of conversation and, at times, contention in the community.  Because of that, the committee has regarded it as particularly important to undertake the work with care and attention.

 In addition, we have faced practical challenges not of our making which have caused delays, namely the shutdown for some months early in the pandemic in 2020 then the prorogation of parliament for the purpose of an early election in 2021, during which time the committee was formerly disbanded in March then reformed at the beginning of July.

I note these factors not in order to make excuses for the duration of the inquiry because I do not believe excuses are required.  I note them as explanation of the context in which we find ourselves now.  While it may not be readily visible publicly, the committee members have been diligently working on this inquiry particularly across the summer parliamentary sitting break.  I thank the members of the committee for this work, and the time and care that they are devoting to it.  We are very close to concluding this inquiry and reporting to this chamber.  We expect to table our report in this place next month.  On that basis, I seek an adjournment of debate on this bill until after the inquiry has reported.  |I will briefly explain why I see that as an appropriate course of action.

Some aspects of this bill cross over with matters covered by the inquiry, including aspects of the Tasmanian regulatory system for finfish farming and various areas of particular public concern.  If this debate proceeds before the inquiry has reported, I am concerned it will be difficult for committee members to fully engage with the bill in this place

One risk is that in engaging with this bill in second reading speeches, questions on clauses and voting, the contributions of committee members could be seen to indicate a view of the committee, thereby undermining the yet to be tabled report.

Another issue is that committee work is negotiated between all members, and decisions ‑ including findings and recommendations – are a result of that shared process.  Prior to tabling a report committee member are especially careful to avoid engaging in individual commentary or public statements that may reflect on, or be at odds with, the view of the committee that is developing during the committee process.

My concern is that if committee members are to engage with this bill, we will risk having to discuss or allude to matters in our individual capacity which may be at odds with the shared view of the committee on similar matters that may emerge through the report.  If that happened it would risk undermining that solidarity of that committee work and the ultimate report of the committee to this place and publicly. 

Where does that leave us as members of the finfish committee if the vote on the bill continues today?  Each member will make up their own minds, taking into consideration all options and matters before them and each will decide on an appropriate course of action for themselves.  As chair of the finfish committee, I will be constrained in my second reading contribution if debate continues on the bill today.  My contribution would likely be less comprehensive than I would otherwise make after tabling of the committee’s report, because I would frame my contribution so that it did not provide my personal view or an indication of how I would vote on this bill as an individual member. 

Members will recognise that this is not a usual way of framing a second reading contribution.  Usually, members would share their deliberations on the bill at hand and often provide an indication of their support or otherwise; or at least detail the factors that may still be in question to determine their position on the bill.  I consider it would not be appropriate for me to vote on this bill today.  I would absent myself from the Chamber for any vote taken.  These are my choices to make and I take full responsibility for them.  I am sharing my thoughts on these matters to explain as fully as possible why I am seeking to adjourn debate on the bill until after the report of the inquiry has been tabled in this place and those sorts of constrictions I and perhaps other members of the committee may feel, will not be present.  I hope members will recognise the difficulty presented and see it as a minimal accommodation to support a short delay on this debate to fully avoid those difficulties and provide members of the inquiry with an unencumbered opportunity to engage with this bill as well we should in this place.

I would seek members support for an adjournment of the debate.

Second Reading Speech

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President. as I previously stated, this is not the contribution that I would have preferred to make on the bill.  I will tread very carefully and I will be absent for any elements of this debate that require votes. 

I understand this bill relates to the future research opportunities in Commonwealth waters and the arrangements that are to be put in place for providing permits and oversight.  I will ask some questions, without commentary, and I trust the Leader will be able to answer in her summing up.  Some questions arise from the material we have all seen, and are not necessarily reflective of my own views and certainly not committee views on the matters they cover.

I note calls for clarity on the consultation process for identifying suitable areas of Commonwealth waters for research activities to be covered by this bill.  This particularly relates to the scope of the consultation undertaken at that initial step which, I understand, is done by the Australian Government.  I seek more detail from the Government about their understanding of the consultation process and the decision-making framework that the Commonwealth will apply to initially identify these areas. 

I recognise that initial identification is not a state government responsibility, but I imagine the state government would have an understanding about the Commonwealth’s approach and I am particularly interested in more clarity there.  I am interested in how that intersects with the MOU that is being signed.  Has the Tasmanian Government, in signing the MOU, already agreed to a documented consultation process and decision-making framework that will be used by the Commonwealth in their initial steps identifying those areas?

I note that the permit approval process in the bill is at the minister’s discretion.  It does require that the minister consult with the director of the Environment Protection Authority and is required to incorporate any conditions specifically for finfish farming that the director considers necessary.  There was discussion at this morning’s briefing about that ministerial discretion and where the power resides if, for example, the director of the EPA did not believe the permit should be granted.  Perhaps the Leader could include an explanation clarifying that power in this kind of instance in her summing-up.

Regarding matters raised in the materials received by members, does the state Government have a documented policy on managing competing interests of existing and potential new users to apply to decisions made in granting research permits,  so that people can see what that looks like?  If there is no documented policy, perhaps the Leader can explain why not and also what the basis will be for considering competing interests.

The participation of the director of the EPA in the process of permit approval, as described under this bill, is not the same process as, say, the director of the EPA granting an environmental licence for an activity.  In my understanding, it is the director of the EPA being consulted on potential conditions that might be applied to a permit.  Will the director of the EPA have a documented set of principles or guidelines for the consideration of permit applications and the setting of possible conditions?

If conditions are placed on a permit, as it is approved by the minister, as a result of the director of the EPA requesting them or directing that they are, who will monitor, report on and enforce the conditions placed on the research permit?  Where will that activity be undertaken and responsibility be held for that?  And will there be public transparency on those activities of monitoring, reporting and enforcement in relation to permit conditions?

Section 152 of the act specifies penalties.  Are those the penalties that will be applied for noncompliance with permit conditions in relation to activities intended to be facilitated under this legislation?  If so, have those penalties been reviewed and assessed as appropriate for the circumstances relevant to this bill?

Regarding opportunities for public participation or consultation in the processes described in the bill, I note that the requirement to conduct stakeholder consultation may not be in the legislation itself.  It may be elsewhere.  Where will the opportunities lie for the public to have input?  We also see matters described as ‘appropriate stakeholder consultation’.  Could the Government speak in more detail about what it regards to be appropriate stakeholder consultation?

In a similar vein, to what extent will there be public visibility around permit applications to ensure transparency?  That is nodded to but could the Government describe that in more detail and explain why we would not have full visibility of some of that material, commercial-in-confidence matters aside, rather than the way it is described is a summary? 

In our briefings this morning we discussed the make-up of the Blue Economy CRC, its partners and funding.  The Government commented on its understanding about the funding of the research projects and beneficiaries of the projects, both in terms of intellectual property and results and the commercial gain that can, as described in the bill, be gained from the activities, particularly if it exceeds the costs of the research activity.  About where that goes in the mix partnership-wise with Blue CRC and whether the state Government is involved in that as a beneficiary in some sense.

I may have covered the bits I am comfortable covering today.  Perhaps a little more detail in terms of the extent to which commercialisation of the research product, the fish, say, if it is a finfish research project, is determined to be sufficient to offset costs or go beyond that and the revenue generated.  Is there a formal way to determine that an appropriate degree of commercial return is being achieved within the research activity?

I will also seek more clarity about questions about the fees applied to issuing the permit.  Those questions arise from some of the submissions and the correspondence received.

What principles will be applied to the setting of the fees?  Will the principles that are applied to the setting of those fees be publicly documented?  Will fees be set in order to cover the regulatory activity that may be required from Government agencies and the EPA, or in excess of that level of return in order to cover regulatory activity?  Will it be more, and if so what are the principles for determining the level?

Will fees collected on permits issued under the bill be hypothecated to regulatory agencies or functions to cover costs that might be associated with it?  Will fees be set to include a return to the Tasmanian people for use of public water ways?

Those questions are the extent of my contribution.  I am disappointed that I am unable to make a fuller contribution in which I could share more information, and share my view more fully.  I hope that at least putting those questions on the record assists with the public documentation of the passage of the bill.  I will not participate in voting on it.

**Check against Hansard for final text**