PHOTO: The 'blue dragon' nudibranchs float on the surface and have been spotted on beaches and in rockpools in Port Macquarie recently. (Supplied: Michael Spooner) |
Showing posts with label marine life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marine life. Show all posts
Wednesday 13 February 2019
Australian Marine Life: lovely to look at but do not touch
ABC
News. 10
February 2019:
A striking blue dragon
sea slug, that eats bluebottles and can give a powerful sting, has been washing
ashore and capturing the imagination of residents on the north coast of New
South Wales.
The unusual, soft-bodied
nudibranch is sometimes described as resembling a dragon in flight, a Pokemon
or a blue lizard, and goes by the official name of glaucus atlanticus.
Australian Marine
Stinger Advisory Service director, Dr Lisa Gershwin, said it was a fascinating
little creature…..
Similar to bluebottles,
the blue dragon nudibranchs float on the surface of the water and normally
spend most of their time in the open ocean.
Dr Gershwin said regular
onshore winds along the northern NSW and Queensland coastline this summer had
been washing them onto beaches.
"Like bluebottles,
they hang out right at the air/water interface, and are all floating, living as
a community together, so when the wind blows it moves all of them," she
said……
"They are able to
store the stinging cells from their prey, that is, bluebottles, in their little
… fingers and toes and then use them for their own defence. I've been nailed by
them, they hurt."
Labels:
marine life,
NSW North Coast
Wednesday 6 February 2019
NSW Far North Coast – big on diverse marine wildlife with very few sharks
Dolphin pod on the move |
ABC
News, 31
January 2018:
Marine scientists
monitoring the waters along the northern New South Wales coastline say the
threat of sharks is overblown and they have the data to prove it.
The National Marine
Science Centre at Southern Cross University and the NSW Department of Primary
Industries (DPI) collected two years' worth of drone footage as part of the
State Government's Shark Management Strategy.
Professor Brendan
Kelaher and his team tracked marine wildlife at locations known for shark bite
incidents including Lennox Head, Ballina, Byron Bay and Evans Head.
To their delight, they
found a thriving and vibrant marine ecosystem and very few "dangerous
sharks" among the estimated 4,000 large marine animals they counted.
"One of the
outcomes of our data ... we know it's up to 135 times more likely to be a
dolphin, which is really good news," Mr Kelaher said.
"Sharks are a
little few and far between and what we saw was this other diverse wildlife,
which we're excited about."
The drone cameras
captured scenes of whales coming close to shore to feed and schools of
dolphins.
One of the most
breathtaking sights, Mr Kelaher said, were fevers of cownose rays congregating
near surfers in complex geometric patterns.
Less common were sharks,
which typically took hundreds of flights before one was spotted.
Cownose Rays |
Labels:
marine life,
NSW North Coast
Monday 14 January 2019
The Morrison Government has given permission for oil and gas exploration in NSW coastal waters by a company set up as a tax minimisation ploy
Those Liberal-Nationals MPs and senators preparing to return to Canberra late next month appear determined to annoy NSW voters - especially those who live in coastal communities.
Having wrecked the Murray-Darling freshwater river system that runs through four states, they have now turned their eyes towards the coastal commercial and recreational fishing grounds of New South Wales.
This is how it is playing out........
Asset Energy Pty Ltd holds an 85 per cent interest in Petroleum Exploration Permit PEP11, an offshore petroleum exploration lease covering 4,649 square kilometres in Commonwealth waters off the coast of New South Wales.
Having wrecked the Murray-Darling freshwater river system that runs through four states, they have now turned their eyes towards the coastal commercial and recreational fishing grounds of New South Wales.
This is how it is playing out........
Asset Energy Pty Ltd holds an 85 per cent interest in Petroleum Exploration Permit PEP11, an offshore petroleum exploration lease covering 4,649 square kilometres in Commonwealth waters off the coast of New South Wales.
Asset Energy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Melbourne-based (formerly Perth-based) mining company MEC Resources Ltd’s investee company Advent Energy Ltd.
Bounty Oil and Gas NL is the junior joint venture partner
in PEP11 holding a 15 per cent interest,
Newcastle Herald, 9 January 2019 |
In March 2018 the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and
Environment Management Authority (“NOPSEMA”) gave approval for a survey which
acquired high resolution 2D seismic data over the Baleen prospect,
approximately 30km southeast of Newcastle, which evaluated (amongst other things)
shallow geohazard indications including shallow gas accumulations that can
affect future potential gas drilling operations.
NOPSEMA falls within the portfolio of Australian Minister for Resources and Northern Australia & Nationals Senator for Queensland, Matt Canavan.
That particular survey
has been completed and on New Year's Eve 2018 MEC Resources informed the Australian Stock Exchange that it now intends
to do 3D seismic mapping in the vicinity of the potential test drill site at the
earliest opportunity.
Underwater seismic testing involves continuous seismic airgun blasts approximately every 2-3 seconds for 24 hours continuously, for days or weeks at a time. That is, such testing creates compressed air streams or focused sonic waves - in simple language, loud booms - towards the ocean floor in order to gauge the depth, location and structure of the oil or gas resources. The sounds of which can travel many thousands of square kilometres and which are known to have a negative effect on marine ecosystems.
Underwater seismic testing involves continuous seismic airgun blasts approximately every 2-3 seconds for 24 hours continuously, for days or weeks at a time. That is, such testing creates compressed air streams or focused sonic waves - in simple language, loud booms - towards the ocean floor in order to gauge the depth, location and structure of the oil or gas resources. The sounds of which can travel many thousands of square kilometres and which are known to have a negative effect on marine ecosystems.
Previous to this, on 15 May 2018 the NSW
Parliament had called on the federal government to suspend Asset Energy’s permit to
conduct seismic testing off the coast of Newcastle, with the NSW Minister for Resources
and Energy & Liberal Party Member of the Legislative Council Don Harwin expressing a lack of
confidence in Australia’s current offshore mining regulations.
The Morrison
Coalition Government in Canberra appears to be ignoring NSW Government and community concerns. Being more concerned itself with offering tax free investment opportunities to the market. 1
It is worth noting that any
significant Advent Energy/Asset Energy drilling rig (left) mishap has the potential for an uncontrolled release
of untreated oil into coastal waters.
It is reportedly intended that one or more exploration drilling rigs should be in place sometime in 2020.
MEC Resources (formerly MEC Strategic Ltd) is a registered corporation which only been in existence for the last thirteen years and for the last three years there has been a bitter rift between the board and certain shareholders involving repeated calls for removal of the entire board, with the last call for a spill occurring in November 2018. The company was also involved in a dispute with a former managing director, as well litigation involving a $295,000 loan.
One of the shareholder bones of contention appears to be the cost of exploration in PEP11. On 31 October 2018 MEC Resources informed the stock exchange that a cost reduction plan remains in place to ensure all costs are reduced wherever possible.
Questions raised about the rigour of offshore mining regulations covering PEP11 and an oil & gas exploration company determined to cut costs. What could possibly go wrong?
Concerned readers can sign Stop Seismic Testing Newcastle's change.org petition to Minister Canavan and NOPSEMA here.
Footnotes
1. www.mecresources.com.au, Tax Advanatges, retrieved
10 January 2018:
MEC is a registered
Pooled Development Fund (PDF). PDF shareholders pay no capital gains tax on the
sale of their PDF shares. Investors who receive dividends will also be exempt
from income tax on dividends.
This can be particularly
attractive to both traders and investors, since any profits derived from trades
or investments are tax-free or low tax. The Pooled Development Fund Programme
was established by the Federal Government to develop the market for patient
venture capital for growing small and medium enterprises and to provide a
concessional tax regime to encourage such investments. Any capital losses on
the sale of PDF’s are not deductable.
To encourage investors,
the government offers tax benefits to both the PDF and its shareholders as
follows:
capital
gains made by PDF shareholders are not taxable,
shareholders
can elect to treat dividends paid by a PDF as tax free,......
PDF’s tend to invest in
a portfolio of growing companies, thereby potentially reducing investors’ risk
through diversification. Investee companies have the potential to become listed
companies in their own right, which has the possibility of providing investors
with attractive returns.
This is not a complete
list of the taxation issues surrounding Pooled Development Funds. For further
information please contact AusIndustry.
See Pooled Development FundsAct 1992 as amended up to September 2018.
Tuesday 8 January 2019
Why proposed offshore mining in the Great Australian Bight matters to all of Australia
The Advertiser, 18 January 2015 |
BP p.l.c. is a British multinational oil and
gas company headquartered in London, UK.
It operates
in this country as BP Australia and Chevron.
On 11 October
2016 this multinational corporation announced it was not proceeding with its
exploration drilling programme in the Great
Australian Bight (GAB), offshore South Australia, in the foreseeable future.
It still owns
two oil/gas exploration leases in the GAB.
The Norwegian
multinational Equinor formerly Statoil Petroleum also holds two leases
in the same area and intends to drill an exploratory well in one of them by
October this year.
Last year in
October the Morrison Coalition Government
offered a new GAB acreage S18-1
for lease, with bids closing on 21 March 2019.
So it is well
to remember how Big Oil views Australia…….
Coastal towns would
benefit from an oil spill in the pristine Great Australian Bight because the
clean up would boost their economies, energy giant BP has claimed as part of
its controversial bid to drill in the sensitive marine zone.
BP, which has since withdrawn
the drilling plan, also told a federal government agency that a diesel spill
would be considered “socially acceptable”.
BP made the statements
in an environment plan submitted to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and
Environmental Management Authority in March 2016.
The company had been
seeking to drill two wells off the South Australian coast, raising fears of an
environmental disaster akin to BP's 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in
the Gulf of Mexico.
Documents obtained under
Freedom of Information laws, first
published by London-based website Climate Home News, showed the
government authority had identified serious shortcomings with BPs environment
plan.
In a letter to BP, the
authority said a number of statements should be removed or supported by
analysis. They included BP's claim that “in most instances, the increased
activity associated with cleanup operations will be a welcome boost to local
economies”.
BP also claimed it had
not identified any social impacts arising from the event of a diesel spill and
“since there are no unresolved stakeholder concerns ... BP interprets this
event to be socially acceptable”.
In 2016, BP released
modelling showing a spill could hit land as far away as New South
Wales. The letters revealed that BP’s “worst case shoreline oiling scenario
predicts oiling of 650km coastline at 125 days after the spill, increasing to
750km after 300 days”. Nopsema had raised concerns over BP’s ability to
mobilise the people and equipment needed to clean up such a vast expanse of
coast.
BACKGROUND
Greenpeace, Crude Intentions: Exposing the risks of drilling and spilling in the Great Australian Bight [48 page PDF]
ABC
News, 14
November 2018:
If an oil spill happened
in the Great Australian Bight, it could reach as far east as Port Macquarie's
beaches, two thirds of the way up the New South Wales coast, according to a
leaked draft environment plan obtained by the ABC.
Under a "worst
credible case discharge" scenario, more than 10 grams of oil per square
metre could wash up on some of Australia's coasts, according to the document
authored by Norwegian oil company Equinor.
Maps show coastal areas
that could potentially be impacted, from above Sydney to Albany in Western
Australia.
Environmental group
Greenpeace, which obtained the leaked draft Oil Pollution Emergency Plan, said
it was the first time modelling had shown an oil spill could reach so far....
BACKGROUND
Greenpeace, Crude Intentions: Exposing the risks of drilling and spilling in the Great Australian Bight [48 page PDF]
Monday 1 October 2018
It appears the Australian Government's $487.6 million* grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation may end up paying for little more than ‘feel good’ greenwashing exercises
The
Guardian, 26
September 2018:
Great Barrier Reef
scientists were told they would need to make “trade-offs” to the Great Barrier
Reef Foundation, including focusing on projects that would look good
for the government and encourage more corporate donations, emails tabled in the
Senate reveal.
The documents, including
cabinet briefing notes, contain significant new details about the workings of
the foundation and the
government decision to award it a $443m grant, including:
The
executives of mining, gas and chemicals companies – and international financial
houses that actively back fossil-fuel projects – were among the guests at a six-star
retreat hosted by the foundation less than a month after the grant was
announced;
The
media companies Foxtel and Fairfax and the tech giant Google are among a
tightly held list of donors to the foundation;
The
only CSIRO employee contacted about the grant before the announcement in April
was in Patagonia, and did not get the email. Documents have previously revealed
that the government’s peak science agency was
cut out of the decision to award the grant;
In
August, as scrutiny of the grant intensified, public servants pushed to block a
long-planned meeting between the then science minister, Michaelia Cash, and the
head of the foundation, Anna Marsden, because of concern about the “optics”.
Emails sent by staff at
the Australian Institute of Marine Science outline how government expectations,
the ability to leverage private donations and public perceptions “may drive the
[foundation] to prioritise shorter-term research initiatives in order to
demonstrate progress and return on investment”.
“Where it becomes
challenging is that … interventions with the largest future benefit also take
the longest to develop,” the institute’s executive director of strategic
policy, David Mead, wrote in an email to colleagues.
“Among other trade-offs, we will need to
determine to what degree we focus on quick wins or whether we progress
longer-term strategic interventions and accept that we will only partially
progress them during the next five years (perhaps with little outward
visibility of success/progress).”
The emails also reveal
an initial state of uncertainty about how a $100m allocation for reef
restoration and adaptation would be handled.
Three weeks after the
announcement about the money, Mead was trying to get answers about how the
grant would be allocated.
“I followed up with the
granting agreement, did not really get an answer other than they are working on
it over the next month,” Mead wrote on 18 May. “So we will just have to watch
this space.
“Once the thing is
signed by GBRF we are going to need them to make some definitive statements one
way or the other, as everyone is wondering and I don’t want the team to
destruct … ”
Emails between staff at
the industry, innovation and science department reveal discussion about the
“optics” of a long-planned meeting between Cash, Marsden and the chief
executive of institute, Paul Hardisty.
Note
* The total Great Barrier Reef Foundation grant was for $487,633,300.
Tuesday 31 July 2018
A trio of Great Barrier Reef Foundation directors decline to appear before a senate committee inquiry
On 19 June
2018, the Senate referred the 2018-19 Budget measure Great Barrier Reef 2050
Partnership Program to the Environment and Communications
References Committee for inquiry and report on 15 August 2018.
The Great Barrier Reef Foundation made a written submission on 2 July 2018.
Yesterday it sent one of it newest directors (who apparently joined the board in the second half of 2017) and its managing director to give evidence before the inquiry.
However, three directors are seeking to avoid attending this inquiry - John
M Schubert (Chair), Grant
King and Paul
Greenfield.
This unwillingness is likely to be less about scheduling problems and more about close associations with petroleum, gas, mining* and finance industries, the foundation's membership list as well as the identity of donors who gave over $1.4 million to the foundation in 2017.
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
27 July 2018:
Three directors of a
Great Barrier Reef charity entrusted with almost half a billion dollars in
public money have refused to give evidence to a Senate inquiry scrutinising the
controversial deal, raising the prospect they will be forced to appear.
Confidential Senate
committee documents seen by Fairfax Media show that despite being offered five
dates at which to attend the inquiry, the directors of the Great Barrier Reef
Foundation say they are unavailable for questioning, variously citing overseas
travel commitments, medical appointments, board meetings and other unspecified
engagements.
The inquiry was launched
following the Turnbull government’s decision to grant the small,
business-focused charity $443 million to help rescue the reef. The
foundation has previously said it would “fully co-operate” with the probe.
The contentious Great
Barrier Reef Foundation grant is to be spent on projects such as water quality
improvements.
The Senate committee had
specifically requested their attendance. The trio comprises the organisation’s
chair John Schubert and board members Grant King and Paul Greenfield. Mr King
is president of the Business Council of Australia and Dr Greenfield chairs the
foundation’s scientific committee.
The foundation has
advised that managing director Anna Marsden and another director, John Gunn,
will give evidence.
The grant was awarded
without a tender process and the government’s own expert agencies were not
invited to apply.
The foundation plans to
use the grant to leverage additional funds from the private sector.….
Fairfax Media
understands the committee will ask the directors to find suitable dates to give
evidence and advise them that the committee has the power to summon witnesses.
According to the Parliament website, Senate committees rarely need to exercise
such powers as witnesses are “normally very willing to place their views and
the information they possess before the Senate to assist in an understanding of
issues”…..
details of the deal show
the foundation will receive almost $45 million to cover administration costs
incurred by disbursing the funds. Fairfax Media previously
reported the foundation would receive an upfront payment of $22.5
million plus interest. The recently published grant agreement shows the
interest will be capped at $22 million, and any additional interest will be
spent on reef projects.
The agreement also shows
many aspects of the deal will remain confidential, including the strategy used
by the foundation to attract private sector funds.
Greens oceans spokesman
Peter Whish-Wilson criticised the secrecy and questioned the influence
businesses would exert over how the grant was spent.
“How much of it is going
to be used to promote the companies and essentially greenwash some of these
businesses that are key polluters?” he said.
Businesses involved in
the foundation include heavy polluters such as AGL, Peabody Energy, Shell, Rio
Tinto and Qantas.
In a statement, the
department said it accepted that the foundation “does not wish information
about who it might approach or the strategies it might employ in its
fundraising to be made public”.
The administration costs
were “ reasonable given the scale of the grant” and any entity, including a
government agency, would need adequate funds for such purposes, it said.
The department said the
attendance at Senate hearings "is a matter for the foundation".
* The Great Barrier Reef Foundation classes Rio Tinto's RTFM Wakmatha (a Post Panamax bulk carrier on the Weipa to Gladstone run) as the foundation's research vessel in its so-called mission to save the reef.
UPDATE
As of 7.35pm 31 July 2018 the transcript of yesterday's public hearing has not been published.
However, mainstream media is reporting that Ms. Marsden gave evidence that in April 2018 Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg met privately with the Chair of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, John Schubert.
At this meeting an unsolicited and unscrutinised offer of over $45 million as a lump sum grant was made to Schubert as chair of the foundation.
This private meeting goes a long way towards explaining Schubert's reluctance to be questioned during this Senate inquiry.
Three former bankers meeting to carve out a large chunk of taxpayer dollars, probably felt comfortable enough to speak freely on a number of subjects.
UPDATE
As of 7.35pm 31 July 2018 the transcript of yesterday's public hearing has not been published.
However, mainstream media is reporting that Ms. Marsden gave evidence that in April 2018 Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg met privately with the Chair of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, John Schubert.
At this meeting an unsolicited and unscrutinised offer of over $45 million as a lump sum grant was made to Schubert as chair of the foundation.
This private meeting goes a long way towards explaining Schubert's reluctance to be questioned during this Senate inquiry.
Three former bankers meeting to carve out a large chunk of taxpayer dollars, probably felt comfortable enough to speak freely on a number of subjects.
Tuesday 3 July 2018
Australian Biosecurity: here we go again.....
The Minister
for Agriculture and Water Resources from 21.9.15 to 27.10.17
and from 6.12.17 to 20.12.17 was Nationals MP for New England Barnaby
Joyce.
and from 6.12.17 to 20.12.17 was Nationals MP for New England Barnaby
Joyce.
The current Agriculture and Water Resources Minister since 20.12.17 is
Nationals MP for Maranoa David Littleproud, a former banker who has been
in federal parliament for less than two years.
Nationals MP for Maranoa David Littleproud, a former banker who has been
in federal parliament for less than two years.
The Minister for
Immigration and Border Protection from 23.12.14 onwards
and Minister for Home Affairs since 20.12.17 is Liberal MP for Dickson
Peter Dutton.
and Minister for Home Affairs since 20.12.17 is Liberal MP for Dickson
Peter Dutton.
These three men
between them have brought Australian biosecurity to its
knees and kept it there.
Funding cuts, staffing cuts and poorly planned reorganisation made sure a
failing biosecurity system ensued.
The story so far.......
knees and kept it there.
Funding cuts, staffing cuts and poorly planned reorganisation made sure a
failing biosecurity system ensued.
The story so far.......
Quarantine staff feared three years ago staff cuts would threaten the
biosecurity of Australia's multi-million-dollar agricultural industries.
biosecurity of Australia's multi-million-dollar agricultural industries.
The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) surveyed 300 of its
members in 2014 and found two thirds said "Australia's biosecurity
has become worse or significantly worse over the past decade due
to declining standards and increasing risks".
members in 2014 and found two thirds said "Australia's biosecurity
has become worse or significantly worse over the past decade due
to declining standards and increasing risks".
The figures have been reviewed as the Queensland Government
moves to spend about $15 million on south-east prawn farms while
white spot disease is traced and eradicated.
moves to spend about $15 million on south-east prawn farms while
white spot disease is traced and eradicated.
It is unknown what caused the white spot disease outbreak that has
shut down the Logan River prawn farms, where prawns with a combined
value of $25 million have been euthanased, but tests have shown white
spot on imported frozen prawns from Asia.
shut down the Logan River prawn farms, where prawns with a combined
value of $25 million have been euthanased, but tests have shown white
spot on imported frozen prawns from Asia.
This week, the Federal Government issued a recall of all remaining
frozen imported prawns for testing.
frozen imported prawns for testing.
Tight budget puts pressure on capacity
CPSU deputy national secretary Rupert Evans said the clear view of
members was that budget cuts, the adoption of a risk-based approach,
and industry self-regulation would lead to more biosecurity incursions.
members was that budget cuts, the adoption of a risk-based approach,
and industry self-regulation would lead to more biosecurity incursions.
"Our members would be saddened and even gutted that they might be
proven right," he said.
proven right," he said.
The biosecurity approach is based on risk analysis and shared
responsibility between governments and industry under the
Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity.
responsibility between governments and industry under the
Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity.
A review of the IGAB found a tight fiscal environment for governments
had placed significant pressure on biosecurity budgets and their
capacity to meet biosecurity commitments.
had placed significant pressure on biosecurity budgets and their
capacity to meet biosecurity commitments.
Not enough people on job
The union said it worried about the impact of efficiency measures.
"In 2013-14 there was a more than 10 per cent cut to the budget to
Department of Agriculture biosecurity, and it was said at the time, this
was going to lead to not enough people to do the job," Mr Evans said.
Department of Agriculture biosecurity, and it was said at the time, this
was going to lead to not enough people to do the job," Mr Evans said.
"Another part of risk-based intervention is that it needs to be based on
sound and unbiased evidence, not just on simply reducing costs.
sound and unbiased evidence, not just on simply reducing costs.
In
2016–17, the major WSD outbreak in Queensland prawn farms led to a
six-month suspension of uncooked prawn imports into Australia. Very
high levels of WSSV were found in imported uncooked prawns, destined
for retail outlets across the country, which had already passed, Australia’s
border biosecurity controls. This indicated a major failure of Australia’s
biosecurity system, which was not providing an appropriate level of
protection.
six-month suspension of uncooked prawn imports into Australia. Very
high levels of WSSV were found in imported uncooked prawns, destined
for retail outlets across the country, which had already passed, Australia’s
border biosecurity controls. This indicated a major failure of Australia’s
biosecurity system, which was not providing an appropriate level of
protection.
During
this review, I found several deficiencies in the management of the
biosecurity risk of uncooked prawn imports, with broader implications for
Australia’s biosecurity risk management more generally. I found that
specific policy elements and their implementation had sowed the seeds
of failure many years before, while progressive and cumulative acts,
omissions and systemic factors at many levels exacerbated the risks over
time. Many of these failings have been swiftly addressed by the department
and other stakeholders, but more needs to be done to manage the biosecurity
risks of prawn imports in the future. I have made recommendations to improve
this biosecurity risk management framework and its ability to deal with
ongoing and emerging challenges. Long-term adequate resourcing will be a
key success factor in this endeavour.
biosecurity risk of uncooked prawn imports, with broader implications for
Australia’s biosecurity risk management more generally. I found that
specific policy elements and their implementation had sowed the seeds
of failure many years before, while progressive and cumulative acts,
omissions and systemic factors at many levels exacerbated the risks over
time. Many of these failings have been swiftly addressed by the department
and other stakeholders, but more needs to be done to manage the biosecurity
risks of prawn imports in the future. I have made recommendations to improve
this biosecurity risk management framework and its ability to deal with
ongoing and emerging challenges. Long-term adequate resourcing will be a
key success factor in this endeavour.
The
importation of uncooked prawns and other seafood into Australia will
continue to pose significant and changing challenges for the department
and industry. The recent WSD outbreak in Queensland, and the subsequent
findings of massive importation of WSSV-infected prawns, despite previous
import requirements intended to keep this virus out, highlight the need for the department to remain vigilant, proactively review and update import requirements and policies, and maintain excellent communication with both government and industry stakeholders. Above all, detecting and deterring deliberate or inadvertent failures to implement biosecurity risk management policies effectively must be a priority. Governments and aquatic industries must cooperate to resource and implement these efforts. Failure to do so will imperil the future development of a sustainable and profitable aquaculture sector in Australia.
continue to pose significant and changing challenges for the department
and industry. The recent WSD outbreak in Queensland, and the subsequent
findings of massive importation of WSSV-infected prawns, despite previous
import requirements intended to keep this virus out, highlight the need for the department to remain vigilant, proactively review and update import requirements and policies, and maintain excellent communication with both government and industry stakeholders. Above all, detecting and deterring deliberate or inadvertent failures to implement biosecurity risk management policies effectively must be a priority. Governments and aquatic industries must cooperate to resource and implement these efforts. Failure to do so will imperil the future development of a sustainable and profitable aquaculture sector in Australia.
ABC
News, 2 July
2018:
A highly
destructive virus has again been detected in supermarket prawns
despite tightened import restrictions introduced after a disease outbreak
decimated south-east Queensland's prawn farming industry.
despite tightened import restrictions introduced after a disease outbreak
decimated south-east Queensland's prawn farming industry.
The shock results come
as a Four Corners investigation reveals how some
ruthless seafood importers have been deliberately evading Australia's
biosecurity defences in a hunt for profit, exploiting a quarantine regime
identified as "remarkably naive" in a top-level inquiry.
ruthless seafood importers have been deliberately evading Australia's
biosecurity defences in a hunt for profit, exploiting a quarantine regime
identified as "remarkably naive" in a top-level inquiry.
The revelations raise
troubling questions about the nature of Australia's preparedness to combat a
slew of exotic diseases and pests that have
the potential to wreak carnage on the economy.
the potential to wreak carnage on the economy.
Brian Jones, former
adviser to the Inspector-General of Biosecurity,
said the incursion of white spot disease in 2016 "won't be the last".
said the incursion of white spot disease in 2016 "won't be the last".
"The Government is
not fulfilling its duty to protect the border," he said.
In the face of soaring
international trade, scientists, industry executives
and former government officials have told Four Corners that Australia's
biosecurity defences have been simply inadequate…..
and former government officials have told Four Corners that Australia's
biosecurity defences have been simply inadequate…..
In a scathing review Mr
Jones co-authored, the Inspector-General found the devastating outbreak of
white spot was "a major failure of Australia's
biosecurity system".
biosecurity system".
Critical to this failure
was a policy decision that allowed seafood importers
to unpack shipping containers into cold stores unsupervised by any
government officials.
to unpack shipping containers into cold stores unsupervised by any
government officials.
The policy afforded
rogue players days and sometimes weeks to disguise
dodgy consignments from inspectors, including by substituting diseased
prawns for clean ones.
dodgy consignments from inspectors, including by substituting diseased
prawns for clean ones.
The Inspector-General
found the department had placed "too much trust
in importers to do the right thing".
in importers to do the right thing".
"The department
demonstrated a remarkable level of naivety about the
potential for importers to wilfully circumvent import conditions for any
class of prawns that required viral testing."
potential for importers to wilfully circumvent import conditions for any
class of prawns that required viral testing."
The department conceded
to Four Corners there were "significant
shortcomings in its handling of this issue", and insisted it had "taken
substantial action to address them".
shortcomings in its handling of this issue", and insisted it had "taken
substantial action to address them".
Import conditions were
tightened midway through last year after a
six-month trade suspension was lifted.
six-month trade suspension was lifted.
As of July 2017, no
containers could be opened except by biosecurity
officers.
officers.
Yet the virus — which
poses no harm to humans — has reared its head
again.
again.
In April, Queensland officials identified the virus in the wild,
at locations
in the northern reaches of Moreton Bay.
in the northern reaches of Moreton Bay.
Then, in late May, the
Department of Agriculture quietly released a note
that said 12 consignments of prawns — stopped at the wharves under
the new "enhanced" regime — had tested positive for the disease.
that said 12 consignments of prawns — stopped at the wharves under
the new "enhanced" regime — had tested positive for the disease.
Fresh testing reveals
white spot
Now, Four Corners can
reveal the virus is still getting past the
department's frontline.
department's frontline.
Testing conducted for
the program found traces of the virus present in
30 per cent of prawn samples purchased from a range of supermarket
outlets in the south-east Queensland area.
30 per cent of prawn samples purchased from a range of supermarket
outlets in the south-east Queensland area.
The samples were
examined by University of the Sunshine Coast
professor Wayne Knibb, an expert in the genetics of marine animals.
He tested green prawns from 10 major retail outlets.
professor Wayne Knibb, an expert in the genetics of marine animals.
He tested green prawns from 10 major retail outlets.
"We found about a
third of the material that we looked had evidence
of white spot DNA in it," he said.
of white spot DNA in it," he said.
Professor Knibb's
testing has been independently verified by a separate
laboratory.
laboratory.
"Clearly, if we can
find in a very limited sample 30 per cent of samples
that were in the history connected or in contact with the virus, then
clearly we're playing with fire here," he said.
that were in the history connected or in contact with the virus, then
clearly we're playing with fire here," he said.
"We have a route of
a virus that is a particularly dangerous virus and
shown worldwide just how destructive it can be. It's damaged whole
national economies, and it's cost billions of dollars."
shown worldwide just how destructive it can be. It's damaged whole
national economies, and it's cost billions of dollars."
ABC TV “Four Corners”, 2 July 2018:
Four Corners has
confirmed that supermarket-bought prawns are still
being used by recreational fishers on the Logan River upstream from
prawn farms…..
being used by recreational fishers on the Logan River upstream from
prawn farms…..
It has
been put to us that some front-line officers working for the
Department over the past decade have engaged in any or several of
the following: corrupt conduct including the acceptance of financial
benefits from importers, and the extortion of some importers in return
for financial benefits. Is the Department's aware of any cases of this
nature or similar in the past decade?
Department over the past decade have engaged in any or several of
the following: corrupt conduct including the acceptance of financial
benefits from importers, and the extortion of some importers in return
for financial benefits. Is the Department's aware of any cases of this
nature or similar in the past decade?
All allegations of corruption in this
area of our business are referred
to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI).
We cannot comment on current or ongoing investigations for
operational security reasons. ACLEI have investigated a number of
matters involving corrupt conduct of departmental staff and publish
all results on their website.
to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI).
We cannot comment on current or ongoing investigations for
operational security reasons. ACLEI have investigated a number of
matters involving corrupt conduct of departmental staff and publish
all results on their website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)