Prev
Next

How a 9500 tonne behemoth snuck up on the government

Malcolm Farr

by Malcolm Farr

11 Sep 02:20pm

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Abel Tasman, Environment, Fishing, Joe Ludwig, Margiris, Mega Trawler, Trade

91 comments

Apparently unlike everyone else, Fisheries Minister Joe Ludwig was caught by surprise when the 142m Abel Tasman snuck up on him.

No, nothing to see here… Picture: AFP

He looked around a day or so ago and, Bloody Hell, there’s a 9500 tonne fishing boat in Australian waters. And it wants to catch sea life. Who would have thought?

So instead of a considered official response, the owners of the Abel Tasman have been given a rushed, two-year rebuff because the Government was spooked by political agitation.

After weeks and arguable months of scuffling around the issue, the Government has harmed the good faith any company might expect in doing business with it. The moratoriums on the Abel Tasman’s operation until a review looks at “the entire fisheries management regime”.

Now there’s an open-ended inquiry.

Formerly called the Margiris, the monster trawler arrived here after years of forward billing by its owners. It was here to fish, and to fish in a way Australia had never witnessed before.

Greenpeace made sure everyone know it was here. The owners alerted all who might be interested. People who don’t even eat fish knew it was around waiting for official approval to start catching mackerel.

That approval seemed likely after the Australian Fisheries Management Authority gave a relatively benign assessment of the craft. But Fisheries Minister Ludwig seemed oblivious until today when he suddenly decided it would be handy to have a review of the Abel Tasman’s ability to do what its owners had been making no secret about - catching lots of fish.

Minister Ludwig had noted the building political and public apprehension over the boat’s huge proportions and potential catch and stomped into the issue. It was a clumsy and unconvincing intervention.

There might be solid reasons for the Abel Tasman to be sent back to the northern hemisphere without even a sardine in its nets. But that surely should have been worked out months ago.

To abruptly veto the boat - even if temporarily - is a declaration of administrative and political failure.

And coming from the minister who over-reached in response to the live cattle trade controversy with Indonesia, it seems to be at least the start of a pattern.

Comments on this post will close at 8pm AEST.

Most commented

91 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Matt says:

      02:33pm | 11/09/12

      It’s more of a case of the conservation groups building a hysteria that has just kept growing, ignoring any science that dare contradict it..  The government buckled.. Science is great when it backs the conservationists, but is paid for and shouldn’t be trusted if it goes against the agenda.

      Reply

    • Borderer says:

      02:48pm | 11/09/12

      Matt,
      Ask the people of Hull in the United Kingdom how foriegn Supertrawlers help the local fishing industry. If you’re lucky they might be young and may never have known the city was once the second largest white fishing port in the world.
      Talk about science… try looking at history.

    • dovif says:

      03:22pm | 11/09/12

      Another case of this incompetent government having no idea what they are doing, Malcolm are you really surprised after.

      BER, budget stuff up, not listening to RBA advice re GFC, Carbon tax, Insulation (not listening), Green Loan, Grocery Choice, Fuel Choice, Border protection, Malaysian solution, Indonesian Solution, East Timor Solution, Cattle, MRRT etc

      If you are still surprise at this government’s ability to stuff everything up, you are about as incompetent as this government

    • Jane says:

      03:54pm | 11/09/12

      Having been a professional fishing AND conservation minded, conservative voting family of the 70’s I can tell you that Labors record in terms of conservation and looking after Australian business is so abysmal as to have made us vehemently anti ALP.  First create the problem; then find the smallest voices to blame and then fly (too late) to the rescue.

      Labor/the Unions - the enemies of the producers of the stuff of life. Just ask the families who begged for a commonsense, conservative approach in the now all but defunct Fishing Industry, Timber Industry, Manufacturing Industry, Live Cattle Export Industry et al.

      This beleated, knee jerk response from Ludwig is no more or less than we would expect from this utterly detructive brand of government.

      Vive Australia.

    • Borderer says:

      03:57pm | 11/09/12

      dovif
      I agree, it should have been glaringly obvious from the begining what to do. But Ludwig of the ABC report kneejerk ban either finds his responsibility annoying or he’s too stupid to grasp the obvious.

      If the catch limit was acceptable, let Aussie trawlers catch the fish. They pay taxes, they vote and you (the government) can regulate and if necessary prosecute them should they do wrong.
      If the catch limit is unacceptable, then don’t have a supertrawler make things worse for the locals, Joe, are you dense or something?
      Now the whole thing is out for review, something that obviously will take so long that it will be an LNP problem given how well Joe’s mob are doing in the polls.

    • andye says:

      04:16pm | 11/09/12

      @Matt - ...and your response is a perfect example of the blind knee-jerk reaction to any environmental concern from a certain segment of the right.

      You can disagree on whether climate change will do what it most likely did in the Permian Triassic Extinction, which wiped out 96% of marine species. People are finding all sorts of convoluted reasons to pretend this can’t possibly happen, though.

      What is hard to disagree with is that fish stocks have already been collapsing worldwide. Using a baseline of 10% production compared to its maximum, the UN says that 30% of species have already collapsed. Mostly the ones we like to catch. Very few of the remaining stocks are at “healthy” levels.

      My family fished the same spot for generations. It isn’t told as some fisherman’s tale when they illuminate the stark difference between then and now. My Dad just says “well they’re just gone. they aren’t there any more.” Those waters were rich with life sometime before I was born and since are a shadow of what they used to provide.

      According to various estimates we could run out of stocks by 2050. That’s before any possible ocean acidification or effects of climate change, which in themselves could wipe out fish stocks… that is, if climate change wasn’t an evil socialist greedy scientist plot against Gina Rhinehart or whatever.

      Anyway, fish stocks are already collapsing. It matters.

    • Jeremy says:

      05:23pm | 11/09/12

      Perhaps Borderer you could have a look at the advances that have been made around the world when it comes to controlling fish takes and populations, and the fact that Australia has very tight controls on our fish take. The super trawelers are doing quite okay in many areas under new regulations.

    • Bertrand says:

      06:44pm | 11/09/12

      @ andye - you are right, but judging by the caliber of the comments on this thread your comment will likely be ignored.

      A number of commenters on here are mounting the argument that those who care about the environment are economic vandals because they want to destroy industry and have us all living in grass huts. Interestingly these comments demonstrate an implicit realisation that our economy relies upon the environment’s ability to provide the resources we need for a functioning economy.

      What they ignore, however, is the basic scientific fact that we are currently using the Earth’s resources at an unsustainable rate; essentially we are using the resources at a rate above replacement rate. Fish stocks are only one example, but a particularly good one because they should be easy for people to understand; if you take fish out of the ocean at a rate faster than the fish will replace themselves It is mathematically certain that one day the stocks will collapse. This is what we are doing, and unless drastic changes are made now most of the world’s fish stocks will be gone by 2050.

      This truth is the same when it comes to many resources, as well as other economic services the earth provides (such as the ability to absorb waste). The science is very clear that for many of these economic services provided by the planet we are using them at rates that simply cannot be sustained, yet we want to use them at an even greater rate every year. Mathematically, it is certain that will hit a wall when it comes to many of the resources our economy fundamentally relies upon. Once that happens, economic collapse is almost certain.

      Those of us who have environmental concerns understand that using the environment’s economic services at an unsustainable rate is the real economic vandalism. Once global fish stocks collapse, the entire industry goes belly up. Once peak oil occurs, the cost of this non-renewable resource skyrockets and the flow-on effects will be felt in every sector of the economy. Industrial farming relies upon the use of non-renewable fertislisers and this industry will also reach its limits of production. The massive disruptions to the nitrogen cycle are also having huge impacts on a whole plethora of industries that rely upon healthy soil, water and air. Once you mix in climate change, causing prolonged droughts in the world’s major food baskets you realise that the environmental health our economy relies upon simply will not last and, ultimately, the economy itself faces a dramatic collapse sometime this century.

      Those of us who can see the plain reality of this are sitting here in absolute disbelief at the collective insanity of a society that has based its entire economic system on the concept of infinite exponential growth when it relies upon a finite environmental system to power this growth.

      The people who want us living in huts are those who insist on the ever-increasing consumption of resources at unsustainable rates, when these actions will lead to almost certain environmental and economic collapse.

    • fish finga says:

      02:34pm | 11/09/12

      this boat should be melted down and taken out of the oceans forever! Think about all the whales dolphins, sharks and octupuseses it will suck up as well as all the poor fish.

      Reply

    • Hirgami says:

      03:12pm | 11/09/12

      “Think about all the whales dolphins, sharks and octupuseses”

      Delicious! Noms!

    • dovif says:

      04:17pm | 11/09/12

      I am thinking about the Whales, Dolphin, Sharks and Octupuseses

      Since the less fishes are in the ocean, the less marine organism will breath out Carbon, which is the source of Climate Change.

      You would have through all the Greenies would be manning these Super trawlers

    • Alfie says:

      06:14pm | 11/09/12

      They are Octopi you’s lot.

    • Inky says:

      06:57pm | 11/09/12

      @Alfie

      I believe you’ll find they are in fact, Octipodi

    • AdamC says:

      02:38pm | 11/09/12

      From the ABC’s report on this subject:

      “The Abel Tasman was seeking approval from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) to operate in Australia.

      AFMA chief executive James Findlay has previously defended the Abel Tasman’s presence in Australia, arguing there was no reason to single out the ship.

      “With catch limits in place, there is no evidence that larger boats pose a higher risk to either the fish stock or the broader marine ecosystem,” Mr Findlay wrote last week.

      “The net on this boat is similar in size to nets currently operating in the Australian fishing fleet - the only reason the boat is so much larger than other fishing boats is that it has the factory and freezer storage on board.”’

      So this would seem to be a case of slacktivists being whipped into a frenzy based on scaremongering rather than actual evidence. Meanwhile, the government, caving into its nervous, poorly-informed backbench, has made yet another knee-jerk decision that undermines Australia’s claim to be a low risk economy in which investors are treated fairly.

      What a complete disaster, on so many levels.

      Reply

    • Borderer says:

      03:08pm | 11/09/12

      Adam
      “The net on this boat is similar in size to nets currently operating in the Australian fishing fleet - the only reason the boat is so much larger than other fishing boats is that it has the factory and freezer storage on board.”’

      The above is indeed the problem, smaller trawlers have to return to port, this behemoth just keeps putting the net out, catching more and more fish till it’s hold is full or there are no more fish in the area.

      Also it is international, what does it do if we overfish Australian waters? Bugger off elsewhere, what is wrong with Aussie trawlers catching the fish?

    • Miles says:

      03:27pm | 11/09/12

      Well in that case, maybe the Australian fishing fleet needs a review in regards to acceptable net sizes etc.  The simple fact is we are pillaging the seas of fish stocks.  This is UNSUSTAINABLE - what part of this concept do people not get?

    • Matt says:

      03:39pm | 11/09/12

      Borderer.. The Margiris is being used because it can freeze fish on board.  The mackerel spoil quickly if not frozen, which is why smaller trawlers can’t be used to catch them, when they’re meant for human consumption.. If the smaller trawlers catch them, they become cat food or fishmeal..

    • AdamC says:

      03:44pm | 11/09/12

      @Borderer, there is a quota in place that limites the amount of fish the trawler can catch. Its ability to stay out at sea longer than other trawlers does not magically increase the amount of fish it can catch.

      @Miles, that may or may not be the case. However, you create sustainable fisheries by limiting the catch (as they are doing in the case of the Abel Tasman) and by creating marine parks around fish breeding grounds. Implementing a system of rule by mob hysteria does not accomplish anything.

    • Rocky says:

      03:49pm | 11/09/12

      Catch limits were approved by a part owner of the Margiris who is also on the AFMA. Look it up. No conflict of interest here, is there? Ample reason to “single out the ship”. The whole thing stinks.

    • Peopleneedfood says:

      04:15pm | 11/09/12

      They have negotiated with the Govt for seven years only to be spooked by the Greens and Get Up! right at the last. If it was an obvious threat to fish stocks, then we would no by now. Sad, weak fool is Burke.

      Now watch the activists masquerading as scientists skew “the science” for political ends.

    • Miles says:

      04:21pm | 11/09/12

      AdamC, I hear you in regards to avoiding mob hysteria reaction.  However, the greater picture needs to be looked at here - this is but one small part of it.  The system of catch limits and marine parks is obviously not working as it is - I don’t see any reports indicating that fish stocks are steady or increasing.  We are overfishing our sea as it is now (not to mention the by catch) - no amount of touchy feely policy will overcome this.

    • Thank God for Greenies says:

      04:25pm | 11/09/12

      AdamC - One day you will wake up and realise that you cannot eat money!

      Conservative (redneck) environmental agenda:-

      1) Destroy our forests.
      2) Destroy our fisheries.
      3) Destroy our farming land.
      4) Remove all natural resources through whatever means possible.

      One day people will thank conservationists for caring about our environment, our lifeblood for us and future generations, instead of allowing greedy capitalists to rape and pillage whatever they can for short term gain.

    • AdamC says:

      04:50pm | 11/09/12

      @Peopleneedfood, I agree. This incident is another manifestation of this government’s unfair and contemptuous attitude to business.

      @Miles, well, I hear conflicting views on fisheries. However, concern about sustainable fisheries is not a reasonable basis to single out a particular operator solely on the basis of a fear campaign.

      @Thank God for ‘Colin’ ... Oops, I mean thank God for Trolls ... Oops.

      Nice try, no cigar!

    • Thank god for destruction says:

      04:55pm | 11/09/12

      I actually want to thank my ancestor for earning enough money and killing enough widebeast that I am alived today.

      Without the massive industrialisation, deforestation, and killing off our predators, half the world’s population would probably not be alive today

      I for one is quite pleased that there is a lot of human, all contributing to global warming.

      If you want to conserve forest, fishery, farmland etc, maybe you could tell us which group of people should not be around today, perhaps you would event volunteer?

    • iansand says:

      02:39pm | 11/09/12

      Is there a live export trade for fish?  This all sounds sadly familiar.

      Reply

    • year of the dragon says:

      06:02pm | 11/09/12

      My first thought as well.

    • Gratuitous Adviser says:

      10:00am | 12/09/12

      This sounds like a Ludwig cock-up to me.  Without understanding much about the science or anything else other that I take my fish with salt, I am against this ship because it is too big and seems have been tossed out of every other ocean in the world and it is heavily government subsidised (EU).
       
      With the above in mind, why was this not sorted months or even years ago?  I am sure the charterers/owners put a proposal to the government many years ago and I will bet my left nut that the ship did not leave its last port without the owners having contracts or a charter in place for it to work down here.  If they did not, then more fool them, and they should get out of shipwnership.

      If we, the taxpayer, have to pay one dollar in compensation to the owners/charterers of this vessel, then Ludwig should resign immediately and the government being condemned for incompetence.

    • Tex Ranger says:

      02:41pm | 11/09/12

      You would have thought after the abattoir debacle that Joe would have known better than to take such kneejerk reactive action.

      Reply

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      03:40pm | 11/09/12

      I was thinking the exact same thing, another knee jerk reaction that hurts australias economy.

    • Rocky says:

      03:57pm | 11/09/12

      And depleting Australia’s fish stocks helps our economy? How?

    • AndrewS says:

      04:25pm | 11/09/12

      Oh no not the economy!
      You do realise that without healthy ecosystems, we have no economy.

    • Alfie says:

      01:35pm | 12/09/12

      Joe has two feet to shoot at.

    • AndrewS says:

      02:44pm | 11/09/12

      The one time it is okay to say to foreigners coming here by boat “go back to where you came from”

      Reply

    • David of Adelagado says:

      02:46pm | 11/09/12

      A poor decision. They were given a quota, so let them catch it. The only unknown is how much ‘by-catch’ it takes. The best way to find out is let the on-board observers ‘observe’. Then reappraise the situation after a season of actual fishing, not a season of ‘enquiries’.

      Reply

    • AndrewS says:

      03:26pm | 11/09/12

      How many days in a season? Apparently they are allowed to catch/kill 10 seals a day in by-catch. Let me know so I can calculate how many seals will die for the sake of some canned fish sales. Thanks.

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      03:41pm | 11/09/12

      so australian trawlers dont have by catch Andrew?  Do you eat sea food?

    • AndrewS says:

      04:11pm | 11/09/12

      I wouldn’t think to the extent that this vessel is capable of in one swoop. And yes, I could eat oysters all day, thanks for asking.

    • Esteban says:

      05:59pm | 11/09/12

      Andrews. It is not about the by catch of one swoop.

      It is about the by catch of one big vessel in filling a quota compared to the by catch multiple smaller boats catching the same quota.

      I would have thought that underwater cameras and inspectors on the larger vessel would have better enviromental outcomes than the smaller vessels without any inspection.

      Of course what no one is talking about is the consumer. If the big boat can land the same quota cheaper the consumer might get some of the benefit.

      The biggest competitive adsvantage is one boat would consume less fuel than the combined smaller boats. Less CO2 emmissions which was important to the greenies. You know driving lower emissions with innovation. Where have I heard that?

    • year of the dragon says:

      06:05pm | 11/09/12

      AndrewS says: 04:11pm | 11/09/12

      “I wouldn’t think to the extent that this vessel is capable of in one swoop.”

      So as long as you’re ok everyone else can go hang! Gotcha.

    • David of Adelagado says:

      02:46pm | 11/09/12

      A poor decision. They were given a quota, so let them catch it. The only unknown is how much ‘by-catch’ it takes. The best way to find out is let the on-board observers ‘observe’. Then reappraise the situation after a season of actual fishing, not a season of ‘enquiries’.

      Reply

    • pa_kelvin says:

      03:09pm | 11/09/12

      @David…....Observer….singular,not plural…..Only one observer will be on board..Cant see that person observing all “by-catch”

    • Billy says:

      03:22pm | 11/09/12

      They were given a quota under VERY worrying circumstances (A Director for SeaFish Tasmania was in the government meeting ‘helping’ them to set his own quota !!! - how does that work ).
      Other areas of the world have had this ship fish it’s waters - let’s learn from them. Why have so many nations banned it from EVER coming back to their waters ???

    • Mick In The Hills says:

      02:52pm | 11/09/12

      This government reeks incompetence from every nook & cranny.

      Why? Basically because leading into both the 2007 and 2010 elections, they were the epitome of the dog chasing the car.  Bark - run - bark - run - bark -run.

      No idea what they would do if/when they caught it.  And they did, so all they have left now is more bark - run - bark - run - bark -run.

      Except now it’s more yapping than barking - “abbott-abbott-abbott-abbott-abbott-abbott”

      Reply

    • Oliver says:

      02:59pm | 11/09/12

      Couldn’t agree more Malcolm. Why would any business commit to an enterprise when the permission they have earned from the government can be so flippantly overturned?

      I assume a well deserved law suit against the government is in the offing?

      Reply

    • aj says:

      02:59pm | 11/09/12

      Not sure where you are going with that Matt but if you have ever had a few favorite lucky fishing spots and then a tiny trawler (in comparison to this one) goes through your spot you might as well wipe it off the GPS because the fish don’t come back for many years. 

      I don’t need science or research to tell me that I know this first hand - feel free to ask any recreational open water fisherperson they will tell you the same.

      Reply

    • Denny says:

      03:15pm | 11/09/12

      Why would you be suprised that the fool Ludwick did not know or understand what was happening? Thhis is the clown that destroyed the live cattlte trade, which given the labor supporter you are Mal, you approved.

      Ludwick is only there because his daddy is the most powerful union man in the country.  He is way too stupid to be there on his own merit but again Mal I bet you approve of the way labor does business and think it OK that a clown like Joe Ludwick holds such a powerful position.

      This is sytamatic of labor and the way they do business. Gillard is bound to old Bill, Joe’s daddy, and will do anything to keep him happy. He knows enough about her role with Wilson to destroy her but still Mal stands on the soap box and cheers her.

      Some morons talk about the Liberal’s being ‘born to rule’, I bet even Mal thinks that from time to time but like a good leftie cheer squad member, he completely overlooks the grubs like Ludwick and Shorten whose daddy’s set them up in the union and politics. Shorten went to an elite boys only school in east Melbourne so he is obviously part of the working class (remember he has trouble getting by on his $300K a year salary and he ditched his first wife to trade up to a more powerfully connected woman) where did Joe, Billy’s boy, go to school? Brisbane Grammar? maybe BBC? who knows but he is what Kim Beazley senior called the dregs of the middle class.

      But I can still hear Mal cheering for these idiots at the top of his voice. Well done Mal. Too bad you can not be held accountable for the damage they are doing and you are cheering for.

      Reply

    • Anti-Greenpeace Pro-Science says:

      03:16pm | 11/09/12

      Doesn’t surprise me that those Greenpeace thugs have once again created controversy & Govt has caved in. We really don’t need AFMA anymore either, lets just ask Greenpeace what they want and save on all those expert salaries. We could do the same thing with the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry and probably a lot of the Environment Dept staff too.

      If u r going to let Greenpeace run the country, u might as well just admit it and save a few billion in bureaucracy.

      Reply

    • PsychoHyena says:

      06:09pm | 11/09/12

      @Anti-Greenpeace Pro-Science, interesting fact, the majority of people in Tasmania (the Abel Tasman’s new proposed home) against the trawler were in fact people that normally blame the Greens for destroying investment and growth. It’s probably the only time that the majority of people have actually come together on an issue, personally I think if everything was above board then it should be allowed to proceed. At least they didn’t hold the Government hostage like Gunns.

    • Colin says:

      03:21pm | 11/09/12

      Hopeless, incompetence all come to mind. How can business work these idiots.

      Reply

    • dovif says:

      03:26pm | 11/09/12

      If there is a quota for political stuff ups, this government much have used up its nine lives already

      Reply

    • jgm says:

      03:33pm | 11/09/12

      Joe Ludwig. Who voted for this idiot.

      I mean seriously, he has absolutely no idea, or no interest in anything under his portfolio, except maybe the perks that go with it.

      At every turn, his decisions, or lack of decisions have reeked of incompetency.

      Reply

    • Reuben Truscott says:

      03:34pm | 11/09/12

      Ethics and Business mixing?  Who would have thought?  You can’t compare apples with oranges but the misconception that the economy is as important as the environment may well be a fatal one for the Aussie fishing industry.  You can’t take that many tonnes of fish out of the water without ecological repercussion as nothing is wasted in nature.  People are right to be outraged- the oceans belong to us all.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      03:40pm | 11/09/12

      Sovereign Risk demonstrated.

      Reply

    • Michael in Melbourne says:

      03:40pm | 11/09/12

      Common sense prevailed and this boat was turned around so that we could look at the problem. Nothing knee jerk about that although the gtovernment should have seen it coming.

      Reply

    • Jason says:

      04:00pm | 11/09/12

      It’s called sovereign risk Michael.  They’ve had heaps of time to put a stop to this.  But instead they waited until the investors had dumped a bunch of money in to the project and then at the last minute they (a) changed the rules and then (b) effectively killed the project altogether. 

      What sort of message does this send to investors in this country when this government continues to display this type of sovereign risk?  Don’t invest here.

    • pa_kelvin says:

      04:42pm | 11/09/12

      Cant help wondering if we’ll see a lawsuit coming our way???

    • Senator Joe Ludwig, Fisheries Minister says:

      03:43pm | 11/09/12

      It appears there is some confusion between action taken by Tony Burke as Environment Minister, and steps taken by myself as Fisheries Minister.
      As Fisheries Minister, my responsibility lies in making sure our fisheries remain some of the most sustainable and best managed in the world.
      Today I announced a review of the fisheries system to strengthen it into the future.
      Mr Burke announced changes to environmental legislation which stand to impact on the operation of the FV Abel Tasman.
      These are different actions that apply to different Acts.
      Minister Burke is acting on environmental concerns – not to correct the fisheries system.
      I’m taking action to ensure the system, under the Fisheries Act, continues to meet the expectations of the industry and the community.

      Reply

    • Jason says:

      04:08pm | 11/09/12

      Appreciate you coming here to clarify the situation Senator.  It still doesn’t change the fact that Mr Burke should have made these changes some time ago rather than waiting till now to spring this on the investors of the FV Abel Tasman.

      It’s actions like these that give Australia a poor name for foreign investors when looking at Sovereign risk.  With Australia’s economic outlook wavering in the face of lowering commodity prices, we need to encourage foreign investors as much as possible that Australia is a safe place to invest.  This particular issue is very worrying for myself and many other voters.

    • Rocky says:

      04:07pm | 11/09/12

      I’d like some explanation of how someone on the AFMA could determine the catch limits of this vessel when he is also a part owner of the ship? It screams “conflict of interest”.

    • dovif says:

      04:10pm | 11/09/12

      Hi Joe

      So what you are really saying is that no one in this government have any idea on what each other is doing, and so we end up in the farce that happened today ... ummm, not a good look, or competent look

    • Mick In The Hills says:

      04:12pm | 11/09/12

      Thanks for clearing that up Joe. (/sarc)

    • Dan says:

      04:14pm | 11/09/12

      Well, that’s OK then Joe. For a moment there I thought your knees were jerking.

    • Miles says:

      04:24pm | 11/09/12

      Jason, are you a voter or an investor?

    • Dann Da Mann says:

      04:00pm | 11/09/12

      Ludwig is such a loser as a MP, and is a most pathetic MP, with apparently, not many clues on what his position holds-the sooner the public sack him with most of the other socalled Labor MP’s the better.

      Reply

    • Alfie says:

      06:02pm | 11/09/12

      Ludwig couldn’t find his own arse with a map.

    • Justin of Earlwood says:

      04:00pm | 11/09/12

      Clearly our oceans can’t accommodate both this giant net & Alan Jones’ giant chaff bag.

      Reply

    • John says:

      04:05pm | 11/09/12

      Maybe you should both “act” together and maybe you both should have got your “acts” together before now. Just a thought…...............

      Reply

    • andrew says:

      04:07pm | 11/09/12

      why don’t we just make a law that says there is no by catch - everything non venemous that a trawler pulls in must be sold at market. Any species that are not commercially desirable can be put through a mincer and canned, lets face it no one will know if a bit of dolphin or seal ends up in there too. This would be the environmentally sensible thing to do, also it would encourage trawler operators to better adjust methods to target the more valuable species - as they will not want to fill the boat with less valuable species.

      Reply

    • pa_kelvin says:

      04:49pm | 11/09/12

      New Whiskas flavours Seal with Real Dolphin treat your cat for a limited time only…..............

    • Steve says:

      04:08pm | 11/09/12

      Seriously misguided protests. A larger boat fishes more efficiently and takes less by-catch than a smaller boat. This means comparatively less danger to the eco-system. Sure it’s capable of catching a lot more fish but if they’re given a quota then over-fishing is no more a danger than it is with multiple smaller boats.

      Reply

    • andye says:

      04:20pm | 11/09/12

      @Steve - This is very counter-intuitive. Can you source this claim?

    • Peter says:

      04:20pm | 11/09/12

      Steve, don’t even try. Brain dead eco warriors have no logic to lean on.At the same time the Govt live in fear of them.

    • Miles says:

      04:27pm | 11/09/12

      Please explain how this larger boat takes less by-catch?

    • Tinnie Fisherman says:

      04:33pm | 11/09/12

      “A larger boat fishes more efficiently and takes less by-catch than a smaller boat”

      Delusional…much?

    • Government Risk says:

      04:16pm | 11/09/12

      “the Government has harmed the good faith any company might expect in doing business with it.”

      You’re right when you say this is the status quo with this lot Malcolm. They treated the Indonesians the same way and almost killed the live export trade overnight because of their knee-jerk reaction. And five years ago the mining industry were being praised for carrying Australia through the GFC, but now Wayne Swan can’t help himself but attack them at every turn and wants to “share their wealth around” - because he’s spent all the money he had.

      Oh, but we’ll give cash hand-outs to the dying car industry because that’s where their mates are all employed. Gotta keep those union jobs, after all, who else is going to pay for the hookers?

      Reply

    • Vic says:

      04:49pm | 11/09/12

      AFMA (the most expensive and restrictive fisheries managers in the world costing over $100,000 per vessel to run) seems to have lost the plot. Why are they promoting this behemoth when (under the guise of protection, precaution and sustainability) they are currently squeezing fisheries they already manage out of existence?  We close down our fisheries, lock away most of the prime marine food resource areas in marine parks– fisheries management by proxy-(costing taxpayers millions, harming regional communities, families and businesses while preventing us from accessing our own sustainable, top quality health food) causing the importation of over 72% of seafood consumed (contributing to our chronic trade debt and supporting unsustainable fishing practices overseas) and they now propose to bring in large foreign vessels (if this one gets approval it will only be the first, more will surely come) to catch seafood to sell overseas to other countries. Bizarre isn’t it? Sounds like some sort of political deal to me, but who are the beneficiaries? Will some of these fish be used in the Tuna farms? Was there really seven years of negotiations as said in another report?

      Reply

    • rory macneil says:

      05:00pm | 11/09/12

      All prospective members of Parliament should have to have an IQ test before being nominated; and the results should be made public.
      Do we really want morons running this country?

      Reply

    • Liz says:

      05:33pm | 11/09/12

      Rory I agree with you. How about we ask them to sit the naplan tests for year 7. Then they have to publish the results on their ballot slips.

    • Liz says:

      05:34pm | 11/09/12

      Rory I agree with you. How about we ask them to sit the naplan tests for year 7. Then they have to publish the results on their ballot slips.

    • John says:

      05:21pm | 11/09/12

      So, Thank God for Destruction is happy to be alive because of the destruction that has already taken place. He should take another look at what is happening. His children might not have another place to go if the changing weather patterns continue the way they are. Someone has to bite the bullet and do something about growing populations and the continuing poisoning of the environment. This trawler is not the only one looking at Australian waters for fish. Most of our northern neigbours are also eyeing the seas around our shores. Not counting the illegal fishing that goes on from Indonesia already. Wake up we are going under and the decision makers are sitting in the deck chairs!!!

      Reply

    • John says:

      05:22pm | 11/09/12

      So, Thank God for Destruction is happy to be alive because of the destruction that has already taken place. He should take another look at what is happening. His children might not have another place to go if the changing weather patterns continue the way they are. Someone has to bite the bullet and do something about growing populations and the continuing poisoning of the environment. This trawler is not the only one looking at Australian waters for fish. Most of our northern neigbours are also eyeing the seas around our shores. Not counting the illegal fishing that goes on from Indonesia already. Wake up we are going under and the decision makers are sitting in the deck chairs!!!

      Reply

    • pa_kelvin says:

      05:27pm | 11/09/12

      Force them to make the gaps in the nets bigger, give the Dolphins and seals a chance to get out….. smile

      Reply

    • Dave says:

      05:28pm | 11/09/12

      There is something strangely weird about Burke and Ludwig. Their incompetence and stupidity remind me of Robert Tickner.

      Reply

    • Big Reader says:

      05:44pm | 11/09/12

      I thought we just simply added to out impressive list of “Biggest”. The Big Banana, the Big Pineapple, the Big Sheep now the Big Trawler…closely followed by the Big Knee Jerk Reaction. Big Joe Ludwig obviously only reads the headlines and the polls, and then makes his Big Decision.

      Reply

    • bill berk says:

      07:17pm | 11/09/12

      reading all these posts make one thing sadly evident, they are mostly placed by people who have an opinion on something they have absoluely no idea of. The Australian Fishing industry and its government coordinator spend an extra ordinary amount of time and money to do the best possible thing for the resource, for the minister to ignore the expertise and scietific evidence and all of a suddent revese an approval which is going to cost an awfull lot in its legal implications is stupid stupid, stupid (which makes him no more acquainted with the facts than the ill informed posters that agreed with his “decision”

      Reply

    • Reality Check says:

      07:28pm | 11/09/12

      Too many people here are blaming environmentalists, the majority of opposition to this trawler was coming from recreational fishermen.

      Reply

    • year of the dragon says:

      07:42pm | 11/09/12

      Really?

      What’s your basis for making this assertion?

    • P Head says:

      07:39pm | 11/09/12

      I was against it but now Labor stopped it I’m for it.

      Reply

    • bazza says:

      07:55pm | 11/09/12

      dont worry the owners will recieve enought compensation they will be able to park it up for 5 years.

      Reply

    • Warwick says:

      09:53am | 12/09/12

      The environmentalists show their true character over this matter. In the matter of global warming they claim that they are on the side of science and all who oppose them are oil company shills. In this matter the science is totally and pubicly opposed to them, so they ditch the science and make an unashamed appeal to fear, hysteria and xenophobia. They never did have any regard for science, they use it when it suits them. They are essentially a quasi-religious grouping which can be understood by observing that their beliefs and actions are founded on facile superstitions.

      Reply

    • Cynicised says:

      12:34pm | 12/09/12

      Glad the monster was “delayed”, stopped, told to bugger off and go pillage someone else’s waters! Trawling with gigantic nets is an incredibly wasteful and destructive method of fishing and no-one will convince me otherwise. Love the euphemisms people come up with to describe the wasteful killing ie “by-catch” which in fact means the death or near-death of species which are “surplus to requirements,” and this on a grand scale with such an enormous vessel. 

      The destruction and unsustainable mismanagement of fish stocks is a serious matter, not just for now, but for the future. The government may have not handled this incident in the most satisfactory manner for our business rep, but as far as our environmental needs are concerned, good on them for recognising the danger and bowing to pressure before it was too late.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

tory_maguire

_Tors 22 May 13 04:44PM

RT @_sarahwilson_: "We have reached peak bullshit...And those who push back against the noise + nonsense will be rewarded" @TheAtlantic htt…

Malcolm Farr

farrm51 22 May 13 04:30PM

RT @Dean_Moss: @farrm51 @ToryShepherd @KRuddMP's opponent Dr Bill Glasson tells Gary Hardgrave on @NewsTalk4BC that he supports marriage e…

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 22 May 13 04:28PM

@sarahmichael24 @christoforpaine what an excellent story topic item

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 22 May 13 04:08PM

RT @dogboner: every known thing had been sufficiently mocked and ironically retweeted. we placed our phones in the dirt and walked into the…

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter