Media release. Net Buy Back.

[Lucky_Phill]

Media Statements

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
The Honourable John McVeigh

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

East Coast net fishers invited to sell licences

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry John McVeigh is inviting net fishers along the East Coast to consider an offer to buy back their licences.

Mr McVeigh said starting this week, commercial net fishers would receive invitations for the East Coast Commercial Net Fishing Reduction Scheme.

“The Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority, which is administering the scheme, will provide the terms of the offer and information about the scheme including how to submit an offer,” Mr McVeigh said.

“The first invitation for offers focuses on primary commercial fishing boat licences endorsed with N1 or N2 fishery symbols – these symbols authorise the use of commercial nets in Queensland’s East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery.

“These licences are targeted to meet the Government’s election commitment to reduce the number of commercial net licences. We’ve committed $9 million to remove as many licences as possible.

“Industry has asked for a 50 per cent reduction of net licences - we’ll work towards this target.

“We know what licences are currently trading for, so we’ll be able to ensure offers are assessed based on the current market value to make sure only reasonable offers are accepted.”

Mr McVeigh said the voluntary, competitive tender process would ensure the fairest and best outcome across the fishery, rather than targeting specific areas and individuals.

“The purpose of the buyback is to reduce the total net fishing effort along the Queensland East Coast, not drive fishers into smaller areas or put pressure on effort in other fisheries,” he said.

“To ensure there isn’t any transfer of fishing effort between fisheries, licence holders will be required to offer a Commercial Fishing Boat Licence with their N1 or N2 fishery symbol.
“The buyback will run from 26 November 2012 to 11 January 2013. QRAA will assess the offers and advise whether they have been accepted.

“I encourage all eligible licence holders to seriously consider this opportunity.”

For further information, visit www.qraa.qld.gov.au (http://www.qraa.qld.gov.au/) or call QRAA on Freecall 1800 623 946.

[ENDS] 14 November 2012
Media: Louise Gillis – 0408 709 160

[Gazza]

http://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/some-arent-taking-bait/1624429/

[Horse]

At last something positive coming out of this new government. Hopefully they can handle the process effectively. I think I would have preferred certain locations closed to inshore netting. Say Coolangatta to Cooktown for starters;D

[Shawn 66]

Media Statements

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
The Honourable John McVeigh

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

East Coast net fishers invited to sell licences

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry John McVeigh is inviting net fishers along the East Coast to consider an offer to buy back their licences.

Mr McVeigh said starting this week, commercial net fishers would receive invitations for the East Coast Commercial Net Fishing Reduction Scheme.

“The Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority, which is administering the scheme, will provide the terms of the offer and information about the scheme including how to submit an offer,” Mr McVeigh said.

“The first invitation for offers focuses on primary commercial fishing boat licences endorsed with N1 or N2 fishery symbols – these symbols authorise the use of commercial nets in Queensland’s East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery.

“These licences are targeted to meet the Government’s election commitment to reduce the number of commercial net licences. We’ve committed $9 million to remove as many licences as possible.

“Industry has asked for a 50 per cent reduction of net licences - we’ll work towards this target.

“We know what licences are currently trading for, so we’ll be able to ensure offers are assessed based on the current market value to make sure only reasonable offers are accepted.”

Mr McVeigh said the voluntary, competitive tender process would ensure the fairest and best outcome across the fishery, rather than targeting specific areas and individuals.

“The purpose of the buyback is to reduce the total net fishing effort along the Queensland East Coast, not drive fishers into smaller areas or put pressure on effort in other fisheries,” he said.

“To ensure there isn’t any transfer of fishing effort between fisheries, licence holders will be required to offer a Commercial Fishing Boat Licence with their N1 or N2 fishery symbol.
“The buyback will run from 26 November 2012 to 11 January 2013. QRAA will assess the offers and advise whether they have been accepted.

“I encourage all eligible licence holders to seriously consider this opportunity.”

For further information, visit www.qraa.qld.gov.au (http://www.qraa.qld.gov.au/) or call QRAA on Freecall 1800 623 946.

[ENDS] 14 November 2012
Media: Louise Gillis – 0408 709 160
Thanks Phill,
Just a question concerning the highlighted sentence . Does this mean that the remaining licence holders pick up the slack ( as per tonnage ) ?
Any chance we can keep polititcs / rec v's pro out of this discussion ?
Shawn

[Shawn 66]

Bloody hell , ya gotta be quick.

[Lucky_Phill]

Shawn,

Last time the ALP ( this is non political ) bought back licences was during the MBMP zonings. What happened was they bought a bucket load of licences but only reduced the " effort " by 2%.

The important issue, that the current Govt get, is that they want to reduce " effort ".
\

It gets a bit tricky with many commercial fishers having multiple licences.

IE:

Person A can have 6 licences, and catching their TAC ( Total Allowable Catch ) for 1 or 2 licences...... If the Govt say we'll buy 2 licences off you, they still can have their TAC and pocket some good coin. So, you can have “ XYZ “ TAC...... producing only ¼ of that total 6 licences, sell ½ licences and have NO reduction in effort. That is not how it is supposed to work. We must buy back effort.

I have pushed for " taking back " licences that have not met their quota in the last couple of years. The licence can become a financial assest, despite not using it and it also gets involved in Tax issues as well.

I believe we need a commercial fishery, but also in re-designing or re-allocating areas and licences to produce a best practice and sustainable fishery. Certainly Aqua-culture and Fish Farming will be encouraged and I also believe Australia has great science in these areas.


We have to get a balance... the commercial industry is there to provide foods for the non-fishers, but by comparison, the recreational fishery is by far a larger Socio – Economic industry with far more wide ranging benefits to individuals, community and State.


I hate the fact a large portion of our great seafood heads overseas.... Live Trout industry especially and I know we can be self- sufficient, if the right balance was in place, the right incentives and really good science to assist with it all.


We have problems that are going to be hard to solve.


Example:-


Beach netting, in particular Teewah. The facts are , after a net session, the bread and butter fish are no where to be found for weeks ( months... ) , leaving the recreational anglers angry and with empty creels, but the local non-fishers are happy about the cheap and fresh supply of local caught fish. Bugga !


Estuary netting is another issue that needs a good look at, with nets again, not discriminating.


I also think Bio-Security Australia should clamp down on the rubbish seafood that hits our shores. Plonking great Aussie Seafood beside some bacteria infested, mud-farmed catfish from overseas, is just not right, especially when the O/S junk is ¼ the price.


I think by doing a net buyback and restructuring the commercial industry, we may see much better practices and the flow on from that will be a more efficient , streamlined industry that in turn will produce good food from a sustainable resource and provide the same level of income for the pro's.


It is high time the “ Licence “ issue was dealt with in a professional manner and managed by people that know what they are doing. Buying back a licence for the sake of “ buying back a licence “ is not what this is about.


Just as over the years, the way rec and pro folks fish have changed, it must keep changing to adapt to the circumstances of the fishery, the habitat and environment as well as the expectations of Queenslanders, both fishers and non-fishers.


I am not saying that the commercial industry is the cause of all fishery issues, as we know it is not, but it is a part that can be controlled and managed and from there we can look at the other issues and attempt to find ways to manage those, ie:- pollution, run-off, habitat degradation, population density and other matters.


Even though it has been rammed down the throats of this and previous Govts, I do not believe they understand the importance of our fishery as a whole. As opposed to the finite mineral resources, our fishery can be in-finite if managed well.


cheers

[Horse]

Well said Phill. Unfortunatly this process needs $ devoted to managing it. I'm not sure that Noddy is going to be forthcoming with the required resources to implement the policy. I hope they have consulted with MP Mark R as its all probably out of the comfort zone for farmer McVeigh

[Mike Delisser]

At first glance my concerns are,
That the management fees for the Qld Rural Adjustment Authority to run this scheme could be in excess of $2mil, and that's coming out of the $9mil allocated for the buyback.
Also according to netters I spoke to, it's designed to reduce the number of netters but maintain the same overall quota. Apparently most quota can be transferred and they've been told the bit that can't will be offered to those remaining in the industry.

Rec-anglers will find the answers to these questions on the Qld Rural Adjustment Authority web site "Net Buyback" information page a little disappointing. All quota can be transferred to other licences, and you don't even have to be working your licence to sell it back.

Do I need to surrender quota units that I may hold?
No. Quota units are not able to be surrendered under this scheme.
The scheme only relates to the surrender of Queensland Commercial Fishing Boat Licences and attached fishery symbols.

Is my log book history considered in the selection process?
No. Surrender Offer Applications will be ranked on the offer amount and irrespective of the log book history recorded on the licence.

[finga]

Shawn,

Last time the ALP ( this is non political ) bought back licences was during the MBMP zonings. What happened was they bought a bucket load of licences but only reduced the " effort " by 2%.

The important issue, that the current Govt get, is that they want to reduce " effort ".
\

It gets a bit tricky with many commercial fishers having multiple licences.

IE:

Person A can have 6 licences, and catching their TAC ( Total Allowable Catch ) for 1 or 2 licences...... If the Govt say we'll buy 2 licences off you, they still can have their TAC and pocket some good coin. So, you can have “ XYZ “ TAC...... producing only ¼ of that total 6 licences, sell ½ licences and have NO reduction in effort. That is not how it is supposed to work. We must buy back effort.
Gees I hope this is what happens Phill.
I really hope the money is not spent to simply say....we said we'd buy back some licenses and we did.....and the 'effort' remains basically the same. Was the idea of 'effort' reduction ever mentioned?

I really hope money is spent reducing 'effort' and not licences and I really, really hope the money, or great chunks of the money, is not spent on administration. Why is money spent on administration? Who paid the people's salaries beforehand?
I really hope this is not a matter of simply robbing Peter to pay Paul's salary. ie literal $ passing.

And then I read Mike's post. It seems to indicate I'm going to be really, really disappointed.
Mike's post seems to indicate no reduction in 'effort' what-so-ever.
Did I read Mike's post right?
It seems to me smaller boats can sell their licenses and fishing symbols but quota's can be sold on the open market. Will this lead to larger trawlers? ie one license with larger quota.

[Lucky_Phill]

We are hoping to avoid what Mike has posted.

There are a couple of commercial guys making reccomendations to the Govt regarding how to reduce " effort ". Those are the ones who want to stay in the industry long-term and are prepared to " move with the times ".

There are many Pro's that " want to take the money and run ", and of course there are the " take the money, transfer quota and keep the status quo".

It's not just about the trawllers..... more concerned with River, Estuary and beach netters, I believe.

LP

[Lucky_Phill]

Is my log book history considered in the selection process?
No. Surrender Offer Applications will be ranked on the offer amount and irrespective of the log book history recorded on the licence.

This is the bad part, if you haven't logged a quota for years and are just sitting on ya licence to wait for opportunites like the current buy back scheme, then that licence should be simply " taken Back ". Sorry if that offends or seems harsh, but it is a reality in many other industries, where Govt ( Local, State and Federal ) legislate and people lose licences, permit, contracts and income, without recourse.

LP

[netmaker]

there is no advantage to buying back licences - especially "dormant" ones. we have seen this before. if there is no overall quota effect, what is the point of buying back pieces of paper? i hope they think this through a bit better than last time.

[tunaticer]

If the government really wants to tackle this problem they need a different tact.
Offering buyback schemes are only going to be taken up by half arsed fishers that have the licence as a spare time 2nd job or the genuine guys that are thinking of retiring.
If they got off their arse and instantly closed off all avenues of import and export of seafoods, half of the fleet would close shop. As lucrative as the export industry is, it is far more damaging for the country than the number of nets in the water. The bigger the profit, the bigger the effort for a bigger return. Similarly the import industry is potentially much more damaging with the disease control and the higher wastages of foods that do not get sold before they go off.....where are they processed safely or do they get dumped into waterways via the bait line?
This country does not need to import seafood of any sort and we can better manage our resources if we stopped exports.

[Horse]

I can't see the value in what they have planned if the quota is transferred. Why not look at something along the lines of compulsory aquisition of nominated licences to protect specific areas or species. Pay the holders 3 years of their taxable income as compensation. Thats more than enough time to get trained in another industry. With the competing pressures of recreational fishing and environmental degradation I think areas such as SEQ should have very little inshore net fisheries in play

[Mike Delisser]

The way the scheme is designed I can't think of any reason you would say this $9mil spend will deliver any real benefit to rec-anglers. It's designed by the Gov and the seafood industry to make net fishing more profitable. When you look right into it, at what they are saying to the netters and away from the public press releases, it's all about strengthening the future of pro netting. Rec fishers and their rep bodies were frozen right out in the planning stages.

This is the very 1st point in the buyback guidlines

1. Objective
The objective of the scheme is to make the East Coast commercial net fisheries more sustainable by the voluntary surrender of ‘N1’ and ‘N2’ licences under a competitive tender.


Plenty of info here
http://www.qraa.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=363%3Aqueensland-east-coast-commercial-net-fishing-reduction-scheme&catid=4%3Aour-products&Itemid=1


And here
http://www.qraa.qld.gov.au/images/Application_Forms/commercial%20net%20fishing%20reduction%20scheme%20-%20guidelines.pdf


And here
http://www.qraa.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=362:queensland-east-coast-commercial-net-fishing-reduction-scheme&catid=4:our-products&Itemid=247

[Mark Robinson MP]

This is good policy and the minister should be congratulated. Contrary to mikes comment one aim is to reduce commercial effort. And as I promised, I would release fishing & boating policy during the election - and this net buyback plan was one of the commitments made and is now being implemented. The government has begun fulfilling its commitments to fishers, with more to come.

[Mike Delisser]

Contrary to mikes comment one aim is to reduce commercial effort.


Yet that isn't mentioned at all in the objectives of the scheme, or in any of the information provided to the pro netters.


1. Objective
The objective of the scheme is to make the East Coast commercial net fisheries more sustainable by the voluntary surrender of ‘N1’ and ‘N2’ licences under a competitive tender.

http://www.qraa.qld.gov.au/images/Ap...guidelines.pdf


Mark I totally agree that this is good policy, and should go some way to sucuring a future for the pro netters wishing to remain in the industry, at least in short to medium term. Just a pity the admin costs are so high and coming out of the compensation money.

However from a rec anglers point of view, you couldn't design a $9mill net buy-back scheme that was more ineffective than this one.
1/ It's voluntary
2/ It not area specific
3/ Log Book history irrelevant (unused or hardly used licences can be sold back)
4/ Quota or effort is not being handed back with the licence

If you really wanted help out rec anglers instead of conning them into thinking the net buy-back is for their benefit, your Gov would be selecting several areas/creeks/rivers and creating rec fishing havens. Then use the $9mil to buy out all the net licences and effort in those selected areas.

[finga]

Can I have a clarification of a term that seems to be brandied about lately?
The term 'effort'.
To me an effort is using physical or mental energy to do something. ie TOL or myself will have to put in more of an effort to catch a feed of fish then Webby or Phill would.
It seems to me the word 'effort' is been used here instead of the word quota. Does 'effort' have the same meaning as 'quota'?

To me the meaning of the word 'effort' can give Mark's words two totally different meanings.
Contrary to mikes comment one aim is to reduce commercial effort.
Does that mean commercial guys are going to do less work or are the commercial guys going to have a lower quota?
To me it means there are going to be fewer but bigger boats with more mechanical aids bringing in the same quota.

PS: I hate the word aim in any policy or anything to do with politics or a politician.
To me it's a 'get out of jail free card'.
As an example...I'm going fishing off the Wellington point Jetty and I aim to catch a 30kg Knobby.
I went fishing alright but did I catch a 30kg Snapper?
I did my best but I failed in my quest.
Did I really have any realistic expectations of catching a 30kg Knobby off Wello Pt. Jetty?
Aim means absolutely didly squat to me.

It would scare the crappers out of me if I did but that would be another story. Most definitely another story.

[tunaticer]

The way I interpreted this article was the quota would be divided into fewer commercial licences to make it more profitable for those that remain.
It is a vote buying ticket IMHO that will have minimal effect on the fishery.
The government should be looking at the sales avenues and regulating that to make an effect to the fishery that will be tangible.
We do not need to have a seafood import industry, there is nothing overseas that can not be effectively and safely farmed and harvested here in this country.
The biggest threat to our fishery is not over fishing, it is bio-security, the hardest thing to manage and control.

[finga]

So no takers on the definitive meaning for the term 'effort'?
If not then the whole policy is as meaningless as the term.

[finga]

This is good policy and the minister should be congratulated. Contrary to mikes comment one aim is to reduce commercial effort.
Please explain. What exactly is commercial effort?

[Greg P]

Scott - there are a million and one reports that explain what fishing effort means and most is common in global fisheries so maybe you are banging on about something you already know for a reason?

There is methodology in how they calculate it, and it is a differing depending on what sort of fishery you are specifically referring too.
It basically looks at days fished/quotas/fleet size capacity

Have a read of this from Chapter 8 to explain one specific fishery type

http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/28_11121.htm

[finga]

No I did not know what 'effort' is or was. It seemed to me people were saying 'effort' was the same as quota.
I asked for a definition for a reason. To find out.
So the term 'effort' is the amount of effort taken to catch a certain amount of fish.
So it seems nothing in 'effort' concerns quota
A pretty good explanation to the term was found here
http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/documents/Fisheries_SustainableFishing/StockAssessment-ECTrawl-2004-Part11.pdf
It seems to me this net buy back is going to result in fewer nets to achieve the same quota of fish caught.
That means there are going to be fewer nets alright. Just that the remaining nets are going to be bigger doesn't it?

Hands up all those who were not 100% sure of what 'effort' meant.

[Shawn 66]

No I did not know what 'effort' is or was. It seemed to me people were saying 'effort' was the same as quota.
I asked for a definition for a reason. To find out.
So the term 'effort' is the amount of effort taken to catch a certain amount of fish.
So it seems nothing in 'effort' concerns quota
A pretty good explanation to the term was found here
http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/documents/Fisheries_SustainableFishing/StockAssessment-ECTrawl-2004-Part11.pdf

Hands up all those who were not 100% sure of what 'effort' meant.
Me for one .
Shawn

[finga]

This is good policy and the minister should be congratulated. Contrary to mikes comment one aim is to reduce commercial effort. And as I promised, I would release fishing & boating policy during the election - and this net buyback plan was one of the commitments made and is now being implemented. The government has begun fulfilling its commitments to fishers, with more to come.
I have been thinking a lot about this a fair bit and can I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how reducing commercial effort makes my saltwater fishing or our fisheries better.
Can someone a bit smarter then me explain how reducing effort (and not quota) makes our fisheries better?
All I can see with this net buy back are larger boats and nets to reduce effort but the same number of fish been caught. (well sold is probably a better description as I reckon a lot more fish will be caught and a lot more dead fish thrown back into the sea I reckon, I reckon)

[PinHead]

I agree finga..without changing the catch levels then no point in the buy back except to waste our money once again.

It gives some people a good case of the warm and fuzzies.

I am over politicians of all leanings..they all rely on spin..they will tell you prior to an election how they will make the place the land of milk and honey..after being elected you find the honey bees don't like them and have gone and the milk has curdled.

It is amazing how they can rush through legislation to stop KAP getting party recognition yet anything else takes them so bloody long to implement it is ludicrous.

[Mike Delisser]

I agree finga..without changing the catch levels then no point in the buy back except to waste our money once again.

It gives some people a good case of the warm and fuzzies.

I am over politicians of all leanings..they all rely on spin..they will tell you prior to an election how they will make the place the land of milk and honey..after being elected you find the honey bees don't like them and have gone and the milk has curdled.

It is amazing how they can rush through legislation to stop KAP getting party recognition yet anything else takes them so bloody long to implement it is ludicrous.

So true Greg, this $9m scheme is designed by the pros for the pros and to make their industry more sustainable. We were initially told there'd be rec imput into the scheme but that was removed in the planning stages. Commercial catches will remain roughly the same but spread across fewer commercial netters. In itself that's a good thing and will go a long way in securing the med term future of the Qld commercial fishing industry. Dissapointing to see the the Minister for Misleading Ausfish and other cult members trying to show us another silk purse made out of a sow's ear.

It hasn't been widely reported, but it should be noted that Labor joined the LNP and voted to stop Kater's party getting full party status and funding.

[Shawn 66]

Thanks Phill,
Just a question concerning the highlighted sentence . Does this mean that the remaining licence holders pick up the slack ( as per tonnage ) ?
Any chance we can keep polititcs / rec v's pro out of this discussion ?
Shawn


This is good policy and the minister should be congratulated. Contrary to mikes comment one aim is to reduce commercial effort. And as I promised, I would release fishing & boating policy during the election - and this net buyback plan was one of the commitments made and is now being implemented. The government has begun fulfilling its commitments to fishers, with more to come.
Obviously not , oh well .
Shawn

[PinHead]

So true Greg, this $9m scheme is designed by the pros for the pros and to make their industry more sustainable. We were initially told there'd be rec imput into the scheme but that was removed in the planning stages. Commercial catches will remain roughly the same but spread across fewer commercial netters. In itself that's a good thing and will go a long way in securing the med term future of the Qld commercial fishing industry. Dissapointing to see the the Minister for Misleading Ausfish and other cult members trying to show us another silk purse made out of a sow's ear.

It hasn't been widely reported, but it should be noted that Labor joined the LNP and voted to stop Kater's party getting full party status and funding.

I know..cos Labor would have gotten less funding if KAP got some.

[finga]

Obviously not , oh well .
Shawn
It looks very much like the remaining nets pick up the tonnage slack old mate

[Mike Delisser]

I know..cos Labor would have gotten less funding if KAP got some.

A dumb move for 40k, esp when Labor's vote meant nothing but who knows what backroom deal was done between the LNP and Labor.

Sorry for digressing.

[Apollo]

This process will be a complete waste of time and our money unless it is a part of a more wholistic approach. As it stands, old mate with a N1 licence offers up his licence under this SAP and if accepted (and his has no other licences) he exits the fishery, but there is nothing stopping someone else with N licence from moving in to replace him! What is the net gain? Nothing! We just waste money. If this process was part of a review that involved removing commercial fishing from a certain area and an appropriate level of buyout provided for exiting commercial fishers, then that would make sense, but currently there is a lot of unused or underutilised N licences out there that can be ramped up or activated to replace any licences bought under this scheme. There were reviews done after the MBMP fiasco and you would have thought that lessons would have been learnt.

[Shawn 66]

It looks very much like the remaining nets pick up the tonnage slack old mate
If that is the case , I cannot see any return on the outlay .
Then again , I could be wrong . It would not be the first or last time.
Shawn

[Charlie]

This process will be a complete waste of time and our money unless it is a part of a more wholistic approach. As it stands, old mate with a N1 licence offers up his licence under this SAP and if accepted (and his has no other licences) he exits the fishery, but there is nothing stopping someone else with N licence from moving in to replace him! What is the net gain? Nothing! We just waste money. If this process was part of a review that involved removing commercial fishing from a certain area and an appropriate level of buyout provided for exiting commercial fishers, then that would make sense, but currently there is a lot of unused or underutilised N licences out there that can be ramped up or activated to replace any licences bought under this scheme. There were reviews done after the MBMP fiasco and you would have thought that lessons would have been learnt.

The more cunning guys in NSW sold their productive license for a massive payout and purchased a dormant license to get straight back to work. I hope the government imposes a "do not work in this industry" clause or it will be a total waste of money for very little gain.

[Mike Delisser]

The more cunning guys in NSW sold their productive license for a massive payout and purchased a dormant license to get straight back to work. I hope the government imposes a "do not work in this industry" clause or it will be a total waste of money for very little gain.

No such luck, the following is from the Qld net-buyback information page.

6. Can I continue as a commercial fisher if I surrender my licence?
You cannot continue fishing using the licence being surrendered. To continue fishing you would need to fish under another Queensland Commercial Fishing Boat licence.

[Charlie]

Hand back your current licence for 100 grand, buy and underutilized licence from another pro fisher for 50 grand and your still fishing with money in the bank, what a bargain.

[NAGG]

Why is it that , we can see what this buyback is really about .... " a stunt , a golden parachute & an opportunity to help the pro's"
::)
Yet others hail this initiative as a win for Rec fishing :-?

Chris

[NorthC]

Did you folk not see this?

Media Statements

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Content/Images/CoatOfArms.pnghttp://statements.qld.gov.au/Content/Images/MediaRelease.pngMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
The Honourable John McVeigh

McVeigh seeks best value from fish net buyback
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
The Honourable John McVeigh

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

McVeigh seeks best value from fish net buyback

Fisheries Minister John McVeigh will be looking to ensure maximum benefit for industry and taxpayers from the Newman Government’s East Coast fishery net buyback program.
Mr McVeigh said he was determined to stop speculation surrounding the value of net licences.
“We’re determined to reduce net fishing to make the industry more sustainable, but we certainly won’t be buying licences at inflated prices,” he said.
“We know full well what licences have been trading for and that’s what they’ll be worth during the buyback.”
In line with industry wishes, 50 per cent of net licences will be withdrawn to keep the industry sustainable.
Mr McVeigh said the Government wanted to buy as many N1 and N2 licences as possible. Currently there are 320 licences - 161 N1 and 159 N2 licences - on the books.
Concerned that some licence holders viewed the buyback as ‘easy Government money’, Mr McVeigh said the Government would not be paying any silly prices, adding if he did not achieve what he needed from the first round, he would look seriously at management options.
“I have instructed the Chairman of the buyback steering group, Mr Scott Spencer, to draw up a list of management options to stop any speculation and ensure we achieve our goals,” he said.
“Such management options could include a trebling of licence fees because of the increase in value of remaining licences, along with VMS satellite tracking and reporting, and taking out latent licences with historically low takes.”
Minister McVeigh said he was also close to formalising options from the crab review that is running parallel to the net buyback.
“We’re running the two simultaneously to ensure there’s no shift of effort into crabbing.
“This is about getting the best result for our fishing industries, the best result for the environment and the maximum value for taxpayers’ dollars.”
[ENDS] 7 November 2012

Media: Lachlan Millar – 0407 394 580

[Lucky_Phill]

Here is the stats from the previous attempt :-



The provisions of the new zoning plan have not changed substantially from those existing under the current zoning plan. However, the increase in the extent of zones which are restrictive has increased significantly. Marine national park, or “green zones”, have increased from 0.5 per cent to 16 per cent of Moreton Bay Marine Park, to address the significant deficiencies of the current zoning plan with regard to meeting current standards for marine conservation in marine parks. This increase means around 540km2 of the 3400km2 marine park allows uses that are non-extractive in nature, leaving the remaining 2860km2 or 84 per cent with zoning arrangements that provide for a range of extractive uses


2.4.1 Commercial fishing


Commercial fishing inside Moreton Bay Marine Park has an extensive history, with many operators able to trace their families’ involvement in the industry back several generations. On average, 410 commercial fishing licences were used to access the marine park annually during the three-year period to the end of 2006.


These vessels landed approximately $24.1 million gross value of product (“GVP”, or the wharf price paid to commercial fishers) from within the marine park each year. These vessels also land an additional $22.6 million each year from fishing operations outside of Moreton Bay Marine Park.
Commercial fishing activities undertaken in the marine park include, trawling, netting, spanner, mud and blue-swimmer crab fishing, line fishing and collection fisheries, harvesting species such as bait and aquarium fish. Within the collection fisheries, aquarium fish collection has the highest GVP, generating approximately $800 000 each year in the marine park.


2.4.2 Recreational fishing


Recreational fishing is an important activity in the Moreton Bay Marine Park. Recreational fishing in the marine park includes shore and boat based line fishing, crabbing and bait gathering. Around 60 per cent of Queensland’s recreational anglers live in the Moreton Bay region, with 432 000 anglers or 18.4 per cent of the south-east Queensland population aged over 15 years harvesting approximately 3500 tonnes of fish, crabs and prawns each year. Recreational fishing was reported to have generated $194 million in related expenditure in south-east Queensland annually in 2000-
2001.


Unlike the commercial fishery where the objective is to maximise the catch, recreational anglers have a range of objectives or motives to go fishing; such as escaping routine, experiencing nature, or for rest and relaxation. The diverse motives mean that recreational anglers may be more likely to find substitute locations that fulfil both their catch and non-catch related motives.


There are 34 marine national park (green) zones under the new zoning plan. There is no significant difference between the restrictions that apply to these zones under the existing and new zoning plan. The key change is the increased number and coverage of marine national park (green) zones, which provide greater habitat protection




5.1.5 Recreational fishing – potential costs


The EPA collected and analysed information from a range of sources to ensure that the potential impacts of green zones on the recreational fishing sector were minimised. An analysis of this information showed that the draft zoning plan had a direct impact on approximately five per cent of recreational fishing trips conducted inside the marine park.




5.1.1 Commercial fishing – potential costs


Commercial fishing occurs across all 16 broad-scale habitat types in Moreton Bay Marine Park. As a result, it is the industry most affected by the new zoning plan. Commercial logbook data has been used to calculate the potential impacts of the draft zoning plan on commercial fisheries. This modeling indicates a total potential impact of 17 per cent, or $4 million of the $24.1 million annual average GVP generated within the marine park.




So, in my words now.


Charter Operators are not even mentioned in this report. Seriously, you guys need to get representative people into the right place........ TOURISM..... which is worth about $500mill a year in SEQ.


Now, for the simple maths:-


Commercial fishers get a $4mill package representing a 17% loss in their $24 mill business


Recreational Fishers get a $1mill arti ( ended up with 2 mill ) despite a $9.7mill reduction in benefit ( 5% ) in a $194,000,000 related expenditure environment.


I repeat, Recreational Fishers get rogered again.


LP.

[Horse]

The way I see it the State is getting the 10% GST on the $194,000,000. Combine this with revenue from specific regestrations and licences then rec fishing is a pretty good earner. Its time for Fisheries to be brought out from under the wing of Primary Industries and tied in with Tourism or Sport and Recreation. I think specific restrictions on where commercial fishing can take place is mandatory to any buy back unless the scheme is soley dedicated to the improvement of the viability of the commercial sector (read as primary industries view of the fishery)

[finga]

Did you folk not see this?

Media Statements

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Content/Images/CoatOfArms.pnghttp://statements.qld.gov.au/Content/Images/MediaRelease.pngMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
The Honourable John McVeigh

McVeigh seeks best value from fish net buyback
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
The Honourable John McVeigh

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

McVeigh seeks best value from fish net buyback

Fisheries Minister John McVeigh will be looking to ensure maximum benefit for industry and taxpayers from the Newman Government’s East Coast fishery net buyback program.
Mr McVeigh said he was determined to stop speculation surrounding the value of net licences.
“We’re determined to reduce net fishing to make the industry more sustainable, but we certainly won’t be buying licences at inflated prices,” he said........
“This is about getting the best result for our fishing industries, the best result for the environment and the maximum value for taxpayers’ dollars.”
[ENDS] 7 November 2012

Media: Lachlan Millar – 0407 394 580

I have a question if I may.
How can net fishing be reduced if the quota's are the same?

[Qlder1]

Is there any media releases for rest of the state... the silent 40% seems to be getting a much bigger shafting than SE corner.

[bg1000]

hey guys,

There are no quota's for net caught fish!!!! besides a few exceptions.
Only Tailor, grey mackerel and shark have total allowable catches. No one owns it as such, it is a limit imposed on the commercial sector.

Species such as mullet, bream, whiting, flathed, barra, salmon etc etc etc have no quotas.

I don't understand what all this talk is about people tranferring quota is.

Any license brought back whether being used or not, is a good thing for rec's and pro's because it simply takes away any chance of another net fishing operation to begin.

At present anyone can take an unused N1 or N2 and go as hard as they like. All they need is the license. They do not have to buy or lease any quota. In this way they are simply putting more pressure on the sustainability of fish stocks. So buying up these unused licenses is a must.

I have seen it time and time again. A professional fisherman has a good operation, everyone cottons on, grabs a cheap license because there is to many and simply starts up beside them. In the end everyone loses.

I think this net buyback could be good for both groups, just as long as they can buy back enough licenses.

[finga]

Do I need to surrender quota units that I may hold?
No. Quota units are not able to be surrendered under this scheme.
The scheme only relates to the surrender of Queensland Commercial Fishing Boat Licences and attached fishery symbols.



hey guys,

There are no quota's for net caught fish!!!! besides a few exceptions.
Only Tailor, grey mackerel and shark have total allowable catches. No one owns it as such, it is a limit imposed on the commercial sector.

Species such as mullet, bream, whiting, flathed, barra, salmon etc etc etc have no quotas..
Now I'm confused.
Why isn't there any quota's for the good old 'bread and butter' fishes?

Still...what stops the remaining licenses from buying bigger nets and bigger boats so the overall net tonnage of caught fish remains the same.....or increases.

[NAGG]

All that happens is those that are efficient & keep their licence can get a bigger chunck of the pie ....... The fishing effort will not diminish
Those that want out ....... get a golden parachute

Chris

[finga]

Gees it would be nice if Fisheries Queensland could clear up or explain some of our concerns.

[bg1000]

Those that want out ....... get a golden parachute.

I doubt that there is simply not enough cash to go round for the number of licenses that is being aimed for. That is why there are three rounds of buybacks, So the government can guage the result at the end of each round and adjust the tender process to in order to get the best value for money. Whether it will happen time will tell.

Some of the letters from the minister suggest that he is well aware of getting value for money.

Some people on here are so negative towards the government trying to do something to help all stakeholders in inshore fishing. It wasnt that long ago when there were over 1500 net fishing endorsements in QLD. Yet the government is always accused of doing nothing.

Why isn't there any quota's for the good old 'bread and butter' fishes?

Fisheries Qld monitors the yearly catch rates, to see what trend they are taking. You can refer to the Inshore Fin Fish Report which is produced each year by QF to look at tonnage, catch rates for both rec and pro sides.
Not sure why these species dont have quota's. Other than to say that they are being managed using other methods such as gear restrictions, closed area, closed seasons etc, etc. Also such quota's can be expensive and difficult to manage effectively. Especially where multi-specie fisheries exist, such as tunnal netting. At present the government looks to be trying to get the numbers right.

Still...what stops the remaining licenses from buying bigger nets and bigger boats so the overall net tonnage of caught fish remains the same.....or increases.
Net size is restricted by fisheries legislation, so by buying out licenses will not mean fishers can use larger nets to catch more fish.

In terms of bigger boats, well most net boats are built for a purpose to the where they are fishing. for instance flat bottom punts for working shallow water. Also, is has to be economical to run a bigger boat. Bigger boat = bigger costs.

The fishing effort will not diminish
I think you may be missing the point. For every license that is brought out it completey wipes out any chance of any extra effort being put into the N1 and N2 fisheries forever. How can this be a bad thing. Whether the fishers who choose to stay in the industry catch more fish or not, with the limtations on fishers such as weather, tides, gear restrictions, down time etc. 1 net license simply cannot put as much effort into an area than 2.

[Mark Robinson MP]

The LNP Government and minister McVeigh are implementing the fisheries plan that we announced when the election was called. We are making good on our net licence buyback plan, just as we said we would.

[cormorant]

Why not increase the net fees so stale lic get handed in. Why waste money buying back something that is simply unecconomic and is only being held as they knew one day there wuld be a buy out. Use it , pay for it or lose it. So as not to make fish expensive rebate the additional net costs against value of fish that get caught fish for the difference so no fisherman using his nest is disadvantaged and his fish will go through the market.


I find the political answer lame. Not like a politcian has never changed a policy or directon when a better solution is avaliable.

Guess it is just the publics money so doesn't matter and a politician can tick a box and say he did what he said he would rather than he did more and got a better result.

[finga]

[COLOR=red]Still...what stops the remaining licenses from buying bigger nets and bigger boats so the overall net tonnage of caught fish remains the same.....or increases.
Net size is restricted by fisheries legislation, so by buying out licenses will not mean fishers can use larger nets to catch more fish.
What guidelines are there for restricting net size?
A link to the legislation would be nice.
Is the net size restriction dependent upon the size of the boat or is the size of the net dependent on other factors? What are these other factors?
Thank you.

[MudRiverDan]

Example:-

Beach netting, in particular Teewah. The facts are , after a net session, the bread and butter fish are no where to be found for weeks ( months... ) , leaving the recreational anglers angry and with empty creels, but the local non-fishers are happy about the cheap and fresh supply of local caught fish. Bugga !



Is this fact?
Is the fish sold locally at a cheap price?

Sure it isn't iced up and sent south, sold at normal prices?

I mean all is well it is just I am a bit over the nostalgic speil of "fresh fish for locals aussies", when in 99.9% of cases it just isn't true.

Dan

[bg1000]

Finga just google '2008 fisheries regulation'. Its quite a book. But its all in there. Different rules for different license symbols.

Boat size is irrelavent in terms of net size that may be legally used. A fisher may only use what is described in the regulations. Each symbol has different rules whether that be in a trawl, net, line or harvest fishery. The legislation decribes what apparatus may be legally used.

[Lovey80]

THE ONLY way this buy back is going to have an ounce of relevance to it's own stated outcomes, is if the currently unused licences are cancelled before any sort of tender process is moved forward. Simply state that any licences that have not been used in the last two years then they are now null and void.

Then and only then, can any buy back of licences actually reduce effort. That is of course, if those that do sell their licences (the working ones) don't split the cash with another licence holder and simply go into partnership with a current licence holder.... ie Netter1 makes a deal with Netter2 to split the cash of the sale of Netter2's licence and co-own Netter1's licence. They then simply double up on the one licence working in shifts so that double the effort is seen under Netter1's licence than before the buyback. So instead of having two licences each taking say 100t a year each there is one licence taking 200t.

The big one is to cancel any unused licences first though.

[finga]

Finga just google '2008 fisheries regulation'. Its quite a book. But its all in there. Different rules for different license symbols.

Boat size is irrelavent in terms of net size that may be legally used. A fisher may only use what is described in the regulations. Each symbol has different rules whether that be in a trawl, net, line or harvest fishery. The legislation decribes what apparatus may be legally used.
I had a look through the legislation but I have to admit I was a bit lost as the net sizes allowed seemed big but what would I know. I cannot even use a cast net.
So my question. What is the size of a net usually used by every day run of the mill dad and son sized trawlers...say....off the Gold Coast.

And a big thanks to the member who sent me the link to the information. It's very much appreciated :)

[Mike Delisser]

THE ONLY way this buy back is going to have an ounce of relevance to it's own stated outcomes, is if the currently unused licences are cancelled before any sort of tender process is moved forward. Simply state that any licences that have not been used in the last two years then they are now null and void.

Then and only then, can any buy back of licences actually reduce effort. That is of course, if those that do sell their licences (the working ones) don't split the cash with another licence holder and simply go into partnership with a current licence holder.... ie Netter1 makes a deal with Netter2 to split the cash of the sale of Netter2's licence and co-own Netter1's licence. They then simply double up on the one licence working in shifts so that double the effort is seen under Netter1's licence than before the buyback. So instead of having two licences each taking say 100t a year each there is one licence taking 200t.

The big one is to cancel any unused licences first though.

Too true, but working against that in this plan is the fact that the Government's buy-back is done in the order of the lowest asked price (tender offer from the pro) for a licence until the money runs out, and also that catch history will play no part in the buy-back process.

The buy-back plan is almost ideal if the Government wants to sure up the struggling pro fishing industry, which BTW needs to be done if there's to be a future for the netters and there families.
The only thing this buy-back has to do with rec-angling is the con job some are trying to put over anglers to make us feel warm and fuzzy, and keep us thinking this buy-back is for our benefit via a $9 million gift from Can Do "BCF kinda guy" Newman, the farm & commercial fishing friendly Fisheries Minister, and better not leave out the Minister for Misleading Ausfish.

[cormorant]

So the system was working how it was then. No need to waste taxpayers money.

Commercial fishers are giving up Net lic that aren't ecconomic to use . They are not being fished due to skill level, labour cost, fuel cost or state of fishery don't make it ecconomic. They are harmless and worthless.

Some smart commercial guys accumulated them when people were going broke , liquidated retiring etc on the fear that no new ones would be issued and to stop someone else getting it.

Now the Govt in all it's wisdom is paying to buy these worthless net lic?? Yep they aren't worth fishing so what are they worth??

Now smart mr commercial fisherman decides his net lic on his books he paid thousands for and gets a nice tax loss. He then fishes his 2nd bargain priced net Lic. yep he gets cash from the govt and a freeby tax loss to boot.
His business and fishing effort doesn't change.

What does the taxpayer get -no more fish, no less fish ,no new jobs , , no income tax paid, no new boats , no new infustructure to make the fishery more effecient, no more fishery research, no fish stocking -- a big round nothing apart from taxes to pay for the buyout and line the collective pockets of commercial fishers who are smart enough to lodge a net in the buyback and lobby really well.

What fishing effort is reduced - nadda nadda none. You can dream that diesel and labor are going to get cheaper and wet fish prices go up and the fishery get so much more productive that it is worth using another net lic but that may happen in very few fisheries if ever

Who seriously thinks this crap up and what business have they ever run as I have a big shiny bridge down here for them to buy the rights to use - going cheap ? Oh sorry the bridge is a bad example as it is actually useful and generates a toll income.

[Lovey80]

Too true, but working against that in this plan is the fact that the Government's buy-back is done in the order of the lowest asked price (tender offer from the pro) for a licence until the money runs out, and also that catch history will play no part in the buy-back process.

The buy-back plan is almost ideal if the Government wants to sure up the struggling pro fishing industry, which BTW needs to be done if there's to be a future for the netters and there families.
The only thing this buy-back has to do with rec-angling is the con job some are trying to put over anglers to make us feel warm and fuzzy, and keep us thinking this buy-back is for our benefit via a $9 million gift from Can Do "BCF kinda guy" Newman, the farm & commercial fishing friendly Fisheries Minister, and better not leave out the Minister for Misleading Ausfish.

I have no problem with the buy back as far as "lowest asked price" is concerned.... but only IF they are active licences. Once all the inactive ones are cancelled (without a cent paid in compo) then I am all happy for licence buybacks to occur. However, there then also needs to be something done to ensure that the effort in the remaining licences doesn't increase due to the same number of fisho's fishing less licences... It's like government mandated inflation but for fishing.

[PinHead]

I don't agree with cancelling inactive licenses..people paid good money for them..whether they use them or not is immaterial. Based on that principle, if you have a drivers license and do not use it then it should be cancelled? There should be a "market" price for the licenses and inactive ones paid that amount.

[Mike Delisser]

I don't agree with cancelling inactive licenses..people paid good money for them..whether they use them or not is immaterial. Based on that principle, if you have a drivers license and do not use it then it should be cancelled? There should be a "market" price for the licenses and inactive ones paid that amount.

Interesting point Greg.

[Horse]

Just put a market price value on a licence then put in place a sunset clause on the 50%-70% with the least catch history. Make it that these licences cannot be leased or sold on. The owner can work them as much as they like and has the option of handing it back whenever they like and be paid a fair price. The hardest worked licences can be transferred and continue to work. The others will be retired within one generation

[Mike Delisser]

All good ideas but unfortunately the buy-back conditions have been set and its already commenced.

All those ideas were put forward by rec angling reps in the planning stages, then all imput from the rec angling reps were frozen out of the process and the Gov went ahead with the commercial sector and came up with this buy back plan.

[cormorant]

I though of a new buy back scheme I want implemented.

Recreational buy back.

Here is how it works.

Govt has 9 million to waste
They will buy back any excess rods and reel and tackle you have around the place
You just have to put up in the tender any old crap rod or handline and they will pay you for it in belief that it will be doing the rec fishing industy and fish stocks a good thing .

They imagine that giving you money for your unused fishing gear that has no productive purpose since santa has bought you new fashionable stuff will somehow reduce your fishing effort. Goes for old sounders as well boys as when you hand in the old unused sounder you will obviously be reducing your fishing effort - ha ha.

Now to encourage a wider range of participants in the sport no pink rods and barbie reels will be accepted in the tender. This is to encourage girls and minorities to still be able to participate in fishing and have access to the pink rods they obviously require so they can be identified as the "pink fisherpersons"

If you voted green in any election you will recieve double the money of any other tender participant as we appreciate you will get a far warmer and fuzzier feeling than a member of the general public. We like warm and fuzzy so that is your reward. Spend it on as many josh sticks as you like ( organic of course and with as few a carbon miles a spossible) This will help pump prime the green industry ecconomy which is the only ecconomy , industry we intend to alow to exist in Australias future

Yes I'm being serious - it is as good as the proposed policy we are seeing being implemented now.

Old torn dunlop volleys with corroded rock cleats are included in the tender but thongs are not unless you can show that they have only ever being used ( via stat dec) for the purpose of fishing.

Now this new Recreational fishng buyback shouldn't start until after santa has come so we can get all our old stuff organised and listed for tender and if we have been good santa will deliver new shiny pink barbie outfits.


I wonder right about now if it is sinking in to politicians just what a ill concieved and contrived idea this is.

Now guys don't give up all the good logical ideas on how to solve the problem in the real world with real money as we need to set up "Ausfish fisheries consulting" and we can earn mega consultants fee of millions dollars to educate these nongs on how to ensure money spent actually produces a better fishery , industry and recreation for alll and also keep doing fisheries research to maintain the fishery. Hell then we can resell the exact same consulting package to dept of Ag and get their grants system to actually do good and improve the farming land based environment that affect so much of the water quality issues. We are on a winner boys , fisherpersons and pink rod holders.


Edit

Bugger -I have just been relaibly informed that pink barbie outfits catch all the fish - my whole policy is falling apart - oh the pain.

[finga]

Now to encourage a wider range of participants in the sport no pink rods and barbie reels will be accepted in the tender. This is to encourage girls and minorities to still be able to participate in fishing and have access to the pink rods they obviously require so they can be identified as the "pink fisherpersons"
Well that sucks big time.
One of my favourite rods is a 2 piece pink Barbie rod. I don't use the Barbie reel as it's drag is just so so but the rod is a little ball tearer.
I even put new guides on it and used fluoro orange thread.

[Horse]

I have an old fishing shirt with a huge catch history and apart from a few holes and one sleeve falling off it would be perfect for a government byback. I will just transfer my effort to the new one hanging beside it

[Fallen angel]

i was going to wade into this one but, i give up.....

[Camhawk88]

i was going to wade into this one but, i give up.....

You should get a reasonable amount for your dis-used waders then.

[Fallen angel]

Nah still use them, just not willing to get my arm pits wet with ill informed comments about the industry and how it is run.....

Not saying that the current way is the best, but you have to start somewhere.

[finga]

Nah still use them, just not willing to get my arm pits wet with ill informed comments about the industry and how it is run.....

Not saying that the current way is the best, but you have to start somewhere.
You can always educate us to the truth.
Personally I'd really like to know what is happening in reality.

[Noelm]

In NSW it is somewhat different even though I think QLD leaves us for dead when it comes to fisheries management!! however, here you cannot just "have a license" it has to be used, and have a reasonable amount of history attached to it, there is some fancy wording about the greater amount of your income . . . . when a 'round" of buyouts was introduced years ago (not from rec license revenue) it was based on catch history, so all the unscrupulous pros that did their fair share of 'black marketing" could get bugger all for their license, as it had little catch history! so most continued to pro fish in a rather sad fashion (black market a big % of their catch) the fair dinkum ones could get good money for theirs, and indeed some did. Now for the bad part, even though licenses where taken, the TAC remained the same, so in effect, no less fish were marketed (sort of) Like all things, we like to see something done, what is done, and how effective it is remains to be seen long term, we have a few places here that have never been commercially fished for 4 decades or more, and the fishing is no better in those places, then in the heavily fished places (like Lake Illawarra) why??? thats anyones guess. The way I see it, any method to weed out the cowboys is a good thing, how to sift these cowboys from the legitimate ones is the hard bit (in my opinion) we have a lot of 'good" pros in my local area, they have nothing to hide, they fish well within the law, are prepared to change with the times and they make a good living, thats what we need in the commercial sector, pheeww, that was long!