Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 3:41:40 to 4:00:44
Questioning regarding the $102.5 million joint funding package for algal bloom recovery and the level of federal oversight on expenditure managed by other departments.
Topics: Algal bloom, Government spending, Fisheries
Speakers: Speaker 28, Speaker 17, Speaker 12, Speaker 29, Speaker 3, Speaker 1, Speaker 2, Speaker 21, Speaker 5
what I'd be keen to to understand is what what um research has been actually undertaken by the the federal government in relation to the the um impact on on commercial fisheries and agriculture license holders. Um so very keen if you are able to table um what your um work is has and I'm happy to come back and speak to AFMA or is it AFMA and FRDC or
just AHMA? >> Uh I'm not sure if FRDC is doing any
work but I'll ask colleagues. Um and uh yeah I think we can certainly um refer some FRDC has done some work in this space and so they we can talk about that u later today but probably in terms of additional research in relation to impacts on commercial fisheries. These are fisheries um that are South Australian fisheries and and managed by the South Australian government. So um we understand that there have been some stock assessments done by um by Sardi in South Australia um on on some of those impacted fisheries. We tend to just be will be across um that information um as my colleague Seg um sort of keeping broadly across that information around um monitoring and and modeling and those stock assessments that come through from our South Australian colleagues. But in terms of uh particular assessments that we might do on on top of that, not in relation to fisheries um but as uh uh Mr. Lo said um there are a number of other pieces of work um being done led
by our colleagues over in DQ. >> Yeah. So the federal government um is is a a co-contributor to the $102.5 million that has been provided to the South Australian um uh communities that that have been a affected. I mean basically the fishing industry um which half has been paid for by the federal government. So I'm just keen to understand in terms of the development of the algo bloom plan which is is what that $102.5 million was um directed towards um what involvement have you had in the development of that alg bloom summer plan? Um and well maybe that's the first question.
Yeah, and certainly uh again from an Australian government perspective um our colleagues in DQ have led the Australian government uh input into the uh development uh of the summer plan and work um with uh South Australian government on that front. In terms of um our particular role I guess in the leadup to the um to the development of the summer plan, uh we were undertaking um regular discussions uh with our uh sort of fisheries counterparts in in um the South Australian government to again I think just uh understand what those um impacts were looking like for commercial fishes and aquaculture operators in South Australia. uh noting again as I said before uh that um the these relate to um aquaculture operations and fisheries that are under the management of South Australian government rather
than >> I understand that that um over $50 million of federal taxpayers money has been invested in this plan. Um I'm assuming the federal government didn't just drop a check in the post um that there would have been some expectation around um the delivery of a particular outcomes for in in in that response. So, I'm just keen to understand what line of sight the federal department has had in relation to um the spending of this money and the impact of the expenditure of this money because I mean we we're talking um you know a lot of taxpayers money that I assume you have more to say than you just handed the check to South
Australia. Um certainly um in terms of uh the particular programs that South Australian government has been delivering with those funds um that are are flowing to impacted commercial fishes and agriculture operators. The sorts of things that um that have been designed up in the program. Um so for instance um we we know that there has been uh sort of um some funding flowing to uh for industry resilience uh grants and activities. Um so so certainly some of those things were um canvased with us at the time in the discussions we were having with South Australian government about the particular needs uh and uh challenges that those um fishes and uh aquaculture operators were were facing at the time. But in terms of the broader um agreement and kind of oversight and administration of of that agreement and the funding that is flowing that that certainly um is sits with our our colleagues in DQ.
>> Okay. So, >> so and Senator, we can run through um as we understand it, activities funded as part of that total government investment to date, but as you'd appreciate um working closely with the South Australian government, they're um I guess um more approximate to the issue. So, we do obviously take advice um from South Australian government about where that funding should be targeted. Um but I do have on hand a number of activities that have been funded as part of that plan which I can run through if you like.
>> That would be great. But I mean quite frankly the South Australian government says it basically doesn't exist. So I'm just keen to understand or what what is the acquid process for this particular funding for the federal government.
>> Those questions would be best directed to DQ. Um we can provide you with advice on the programs as they relate to to fisheries. Um but but in terms of a quiddle and monitoring of that I' I'd suggest you direct those to DQ.
>> Okay. >> All right. Well um all the money seems to be going to the fishery sector. So seems very odd that the department doesn't know anything about that. But anyway, has the South Australian government
>> Sorry, Senator. We do know know where the money is going um as it relates to the >> process. Well, as I said, we respect that um DQ is the lead uh in the Commonwealth for this for this program. So, so we're aware of where the money's going, but we're not involved in the
acquitt process. >> Okay. So, in terms of you're aware where the money's going when it relates to fisheries and I quite understand there's environmental issues here that are not your direct and specific concern apart from how they're impacting on on the fishery sector. So I just quite keen to understand what what were your in in terms of the money that's been provided what were your um expectations in terms of what would be achieved by the money that was being paid to the fishery
sector. Um so broadly again I think um the South Australian government and yeah I think you're asking me to um to recall but um effectively it's uh the the nature of of of of the outcome is obviously there's commercial fisheries that are affected um and and it's about giving them support to I guess kind of continue while those fisheries are either closed or impacted. Um so it's ensuring that the fish the that the industry remains and then it's about adding to the information base um and ensuring that um that that um governments and fisheries are better informed going forward around the impacts of of of the ankle bloom um both on stock and on the surrounding
ecology. So I'm just sort of keen to understand so this money was provided in the middle of last year albeit late it was provided by the government. Um and so I'm just keen to then understand this was sort of seven or eight months ago that seven months ago that this money was provided. Um what is your line of sight about the expectation about how long that funding was going to be needed in order to respond? um and keen to understand if there's been any further requests from the South Australian government for additional funding either to you minister or to the
department. >> Um I'm not sure if I'm on hand I've got a time frame around the funding that's been provided but I'll defer to
colleagues. Uh, no, that that would be a question for DQ and I think um certainly at the time um uh it was um some of the programs that were designed up from the South Australian government perspective did address kind of some of those more immediate uh issues that were being faced by commercial fishes who um uh were significantly disrupted as a result of the algal bloom, but then some were also looking at sort of longer term sort of resilience activities as well. Yeah.
So I'm just sort of keen to understand whether there was an expectation that the funding was going to be made available for a period of time by which time the expectation would have been that the balloon would have gone. I mean clearly the premier thinks it's not there anymore anyway. Um but like just as an example I mean like do you as the federal government have any direct contact around um funding or long-term loss of revenue um in South Australia? Just as an example, you know, the the Stansbury harvesting area has now been out of production for over 8 months. I mean, have you had any requests from the shellfish um industry about the ongoing impact of having a fishery closed for 8 months or is that something to talk to DQ about as
well? I think um in relation to to um to those particular questions, I think again because these um fisheries impacted and the um aquaculture operators are um under the management of South Australian government and regulation of South Australian government um that they they will tend to um have more information in relation to and and industry will tend to go to to them with kind of um issues and concerns. Not to say that um that we don't have those uh we don't hear those um uh broader questions from industry as well. But certainly um because these are South Australian regulated operations and and fisheries um those those conversations and input from industry will often go to the South Australian government first. We then also have regular conversations with our counterparts in um South Australian government. Uh and and certainly um uh be because these aren't fisheries that are managed by us from the Australian government perspective, we have sought sort of you know regular input and engagement from the South Australian government on how businesses are tracking what some of their challenges and and issues um are uh and sort of to build our understanding of that but noting that they are um generally speaking u matters for the South
Australian government. >> Yeah. Um I mean this the seafood industry of South Australia um as long ago as as July last year um basically stated that the the the impact of the bloom was of unprecedented scale and that the long-term damage to the state's seafood economy and the viability of marine based industries and communities that they sustain um was under incredible risk. It was acknowledged at the time and I acknowledge that Minister Watt did acknowledge that the slow response that there was a slow response and he apologized for that and I absolutely acknowledge that but I'm keen to understand given that we obviously knew the response was late and um but subsequently the the the the support was put in place. Um, is the department does the department have any information about what have been the ecological or financial impacts as a result of the slow roll out and and do you actually have any information that would be a you could advise us or provide to us that um can quantify the ecological or financial impacts of the bloom?
I don't we don't I think the ecological impacts question might be best directed to DQ uh in terms of the financial impacts probably um would be a question for South Australian government. We can talk in broad terms about the value of the fisheries that are impacted.
>> No no I I really I mean look you obviously have given $50 million to the South Australian fishing industry and you don't actually seem to have any information about that. I'm just really keen to understand um why after giving over $50 million to the South Australian government, we have as a federal agency not sought to have better information about you know the the financial impact that you are providing grant assistance
to it just senator the office have mentioned a number of times this is a that the administration of that occurs from DQ. So whilst we obviously care because we we are um involved in managing Commonwealth fisheries, we don't manage the fisheries and we're not managing this contract. So I don't know um exactly what conversations you've been able to have with the queue, but um with respect, I think sort of saying there's no oversight because we don't do it doesn't mean there's no oversight. It it may be happening in a different part of the system. So I guess um as I said we've as the officers have said we've we've we're aware of the broad activities. We've been engaging the government the South Australian government. We've been engaging DQ but as we're not the manager of that expenditure I think um we're not able to help you much further in terms of the acquid and the oversight. So not trying to be unhelpful but um but I think um we've gone as far as we can in terms of understanding um or or being able to answer your questions.
>> Yeah. What and I think that's my point Miss Anderson is the fact that um you are the department who have responsibility for fisheries. Um this is having an impact on the fishing sector and the fact that you have really not sought to have any um oversight of what's going on sufficient to be able to answer my questions is concerning to me. But I'm more than happy to go and speak to another agency. But um you know I if have you had any involvement um in discussions with your counterparts in other departments or in the state jurisdiction about how we build a framework um that will enable um a response to something you know future algorooms um to give us confidence that there is a framework about how this could or should be responded to in the
future. Have you had any input in that? Um certainly uh certainly I think um in conversations with with DQ um I think we are uh you know ve very mindful um that there might uh be you know more incidents like this in the future and so uh I think certainly um uh you know looking at um ways in which we can you know res respond uh accordingly. Uh there's obviously also the um uh the um Senate inquiry into the um the uh algorum in South Australia as well which has made a number of recommendations of which um we DQ are leaning on but we are providing input into that work as well which goes to some of those broader
questions. >> Yeah. Um I suppose it would just be nice to have some output of that response but you know maybe you haven't done yet. I have to say having been on the algorum inquiry um the flatfootedness of the South Australian government to this was was quite something. Um and you know to to now see the premier saying that it doesn't basically exist is is very concerning and it's concerning that our federal department doesn't seem to have a great deal of line of sight over the fisheries. But I will go and speak to
DQ. Well, I don't think if any of that evidence is actually accurate, whether whether it be the comments from Premier Manowskis or actually the evidence that you've got from the department today.
>> Would you like me to table the press release? I'm more than happy to do so, which quotes the premier if you'd like
me to. >> I might do send you free, but I think I'll take that last statement as as a comment. Uh, it is almost time.
>> I'm happy. >> Yeah, please. Please, Matt.
>> A couple followups. Is that okay? >> Yeah. Look. Okay, got um and I just I did miss some of it, so excuse me if I'm repeating issues. I did want to ask the uh did we cover the Rick loans for the algoloom? >> Okay. Have they any loans been made?
>> Uh the the loan product has been announced um for the marine um marine kind of >> recovering recovery. Um but uh so and that loan product is being we're looking to make that available in the in the in the first half of this
year. >> Okay. So are guidelines are you
developing guidelines >> those guidelines and and and the all the relevant supporting material is under development. Um >> have you provided some draft guidelines to the minister? Uh um all I can say is minister's office
material is under development. You know the question is a very simple one. Have you provided draft guidelines to the minister or the minister's
office? >> I'll defer to colleagues but I don't think we have yet. Senator
>> Senator Melissa Brown first assistant secretary farm resilience division. No we haven't provided uh those guidelines to the minister's office yet. We're working very closely with the regional investment corporation to develop those
guidelines. >> Right. Okay. So, first half of this year, when when did the egg bloom occur? Senator Rustin probably better help me out.
>> When did it actually um but didn't really um retrieve proper attention until 2025, >> like mid last year or
>> Yeah. Um April, May. >> So, it going to be about a year on from the till till we get the product out the
door. >> No. So, that's not actually correct, Senator. So, uh we've been working with the South Australian government. They raised concerns around the algoloom in August last year. Uh then the Commonwealth government has been working closely with South Australia in relation to what would be the most effective means of support that could be implemented. So we've been working with South Australia to develop those uh and as the minister announced on the 11th of December uh that the loan would come into effect in the first half. Uh we did discuss and announce in terms of what that loan would cover. So the loan is up to 250,000 over 10 years. Uh and it's interest only for the first 5 years of the current Rick rate of 5.18%. So this is for refinancing operating costs and capital expenditure for those
>> seems to be taking a while particularly in the context of natural disaster loans which would typically roll out a lot quicker than this is effectively a natural disaster. But uh yeah I I don't understand why it's taking so long.
>> Okay. >> Thanks Senator Caniban. On that note, then we shall suspend till 2:00. And Senator Canavan, before you go, the