Vessel tracking working group

This working group provides operational advice and recommendations to support the review of the management, implementation and administration of vessel tracking across Queensland’s commercial fisheries.

• 23 July 2021

  The Vessel Tracking Working Group (VTWG) met for the first time from 10am-2pm on Friday, 23 July 2021.

  The background and purpose of the Working Group was discussed by members. Fisheries Queensland acknowledged the significant concerns that have been raised by industry in the introduction of vessel tracking. Senior Queensland Fisheries staff stated their commitment to working together with industry to improve vessel tracking and address problems identified, with the VTWG an important means to do this. Industry members were welcoming of a collaborative approach.

  The VTWG reviewed, discussed and updated the Terms of Reference. In discussing the background, purpose and objectives of the VTWG it noted that the WG would not only consider matters that related to ‘fixing’ identified concerns with vessel tracking but would also consider how improvements could be implemented into the future.

  The VTWG discussed meeting operations and protocols including requirements for declarations of interests and dealing with sensitive information. The VTWG agreed to hold monthly meetings confirming that these may comprise attendance through either in person or videoconference links.

  The VTWG was briefed on and discussed the commencement of the Post Implementation Review (PIR) and was advised that independent consultant PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) was being engaged to undertake this work. PwC representatives joined the meeting to meet the VTWG members and participate in a briefing by Fisheries Queensland and in early VTWG discussions about the PIR process.

  The VTWG discussed how consultation for the PIR is planned to occur, the role of the Minister and Government, public consultation requirements, and how PwC will ensure a fair, proportionate, and balanced consideration of industry and different stakeholder interests are considered. The importance of using good methods to get industry input was noted. There was a request for robust survey methods to be used and PwC stated it would consult with the VTWG in the development of the survey and survey administration methods (e.g., online and alternatives).

  PwC and Fisheries Queensland indicated that the VTWG will be a key forum to consult with the industry throughout the PIR.

  Fisheries Queensland provided briefing on the progress of other key actions identified through the Ombudsman’s report and this was discussed by the VTWG. The Vessel Tracking Review Engagement Portal was demonstrated including where to find information on the current status of actions being progressed from the Ombudsman’s report and related project plan information.

  The VTWG identified a series of future agenda items relevant to industry concerns as follows:

  • Data management and security – who accesses it, limitations, and opportunities of the data, use of data by different Government agencies (e.g. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority) and sharing agreements, data privacy, oversight of data integrity, access and management, intellectual property rights and management associated with data
  • Use of vessel tracking data including for analysis, fisheries management, planning, compliance purposes
  • Fit for purpose of vessel tracking units currently in use and future – functionality, costs, resilience (including to weather), interchangeability, lifespan before replacement
  • Benefits of vessel tracking for fishers – i.e., sharing of data for safety purposes
  • Inviting Fisheries Queensland ideas on how to improve vessel tracking – for discussion with VTWG
  • Post Implementation Review (VTWG to be used as key consultation and discussion forum)
  • Supplier issues – how these are intended to work, now and into the future
  • Consider as a priority how to keep fishers at sea when vessel tracking units / equipment break down.

  Feedback from VTWG members about the meeting was that it had provided a valuable and constructive start for open dialogue between industry and Fisheries Queensland about vessel tracking related implementation matters.

  Industry members appreciated open input from Fisheries Queensland and senior staff acknowledgement of long-standing concerns and their commitment to working together with industry to improve and address problems associated with vessel tracking. Fisheries Queensland staff appreciated the opportunity for constructive discussion to better appreciate and respond to industry issues. VTWG members valued having an independent chair conduct the meeting. Members said they are looking forward to future meetings to seek to move things forward and address long standing concerns.

• 26 August 2021

  The Vessel Tracking Working Group (VTWG) met for the second time from 10am-2.20pm on Thursday, 26 August 2021.

  PWC consultants engaged to undertake the Post Implementation Review (PIR) of vessel tracking implementation presented a draft consultation plan for VTWG feedback.  The purpose of the plan is to engage with industry representatives to get input and feedback into their experiences with the implementation of vessel tracking. This engagement will commence over the coming month.

  Key issues in this discussion were:

  • The VTWG noted that the plan includes detailed one on one interviews with industry members of the VTWG, along with other opportunities to be provided for broader industry and stakeholder input.  It was noted that individual inputs would be treated confidentially so that individuals can candidly and openly contribute to the review.  The reporting of feedback will be done by PWC thematically, rather than by identifying individuals’ inputs.
  • Industry members strongly advocated for port visits to be included within the consultation process to engage with industry beyond VTWG members.  It was put that this will promote openness, transparency and trust in broadening engagement with more industry participants within the Review.  PWC and Fisheries Queensland agreed to consider this request.
  • Industry members highlighted the critical need to differentiate between stakeholder cohorts when reporting on feedback obtained through the consultation process.  This recognises that different stakeholders have different sets of interests (e.g. general public v. industry, and different segments of the industry, such as trawl, line, net, crab).  This feedback was acknowledged and PWC confirmed their process would differentiate at the stakeholder cohort level.
  • PWC highlighted the need for it to scrutinise inputs to the review from all parties with a focus on seeking evidence to support positions that are put forward by any individual stakeholder or stakeholder cohort.
  • PWC will continue to engage with the VTWG throughout the PIR process, getting input along the way.

  Fisheries Queensland and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) provided presentations to the VTWG about the use, disclosure, management and security of vessel tracking data.

  This was to follow up on the first VTWG meeting, at which industry members requested information to be provided about data management and security (who accesses it, limitations and opportunities of the data, use of the data by different Government agencies, and sharing agreements, data privacy, oversight of data integrity, access and management, intellectual property, rights and management associated with the data).  Further information was also requested regarding use of VMS data for analysis, fisheries management, planning and compliance purposes.

  In response to the above, presentations covering these issues were provided which led to substantial discussions.

  Key issues discussed were:

  • Data security, privacy and ownership of data/information are critical issues for industry and that many of the measures outlined in presentations were not generally well understood by industry.  This included the legislation that governs Government agencies and officers regarding data including their powers, privacy and other legislation at Federal and State levels, codes of conduct applying to staff, limitations and controls regarding who accesses and uses information and the purposes for which they are able to do this.  The VTWG requested that Fisheries Queensland develop a fact sheet that would assist.  Having more information available to industry may improve confidence and allay concerns.
  • The VTWG noted that there are various complaints avenues for fishers and members of the public to pursue regarding data management and security when there are tangible concerns.  Fisheries Queensland agreed to collate information on the different mechanisms for lodging such complaints relating to the conduct of Government agencies/ officers.
  • Both Fisheries Queensland and GBRMPA stressed that proper management, use and securing of data is taken extremely seriously and that any complaints regarding misuse of data would be fully and properly investigated.
  • Industry members also expressed interest in a presentation that was provided by Fisheries Queensland, about how vessel tracking data is currently used and possible future uses of data in scientific/fisheries management activities, including optimising fishing footprints and catches.  Industry members requested that Fisheries Queensland make more information available (e.g. through a fact sheet) to fishers about this work.  It was noted that the Fisheries Queensland is seeking to develop closer engagements with fishers to improve the data and its accuracy using their information and knowledge added to vessel tracking data.
  • Fisheries Queensland highlighted the importance of improving data quality and integrity as it is critical to decision making about fishing catches.  At the most senior level these can be difficult decisions to make and having high quality and accurate information is critical to good decision making.

  The VTWG will hold its next meeting at the end of September.  Key priority items for discussion at that meeting will be:

  • Further discussion regarding information ownership rights (fishers, providers, Government agencies), building on the discussions at this meeting, and
  • Malfunction of units at sea and fishers’ ability to continue fishing, and supplier/contract arrangements.

  Other future agenda items identified relevant to industry concerns which were raised at Meeting 1 and will be considered by the VTWG are:

  • Fit for purpose of VMS units currently in use and future – functionality, costs, resilience (including to weather), interchangeability, lifespan before replacement
  • Benefits of VMS for fishers – including useful features that VMS may be able to provide such as for safety
  • Inviting FQ ideas on how to improve vessel tracking – for discussion with VTWG
  • Post Implementation Review (VTWG to be used as key consultation and discussion forum)
  • Supplier issues – how these are intended to work and actually work, now and into the future

  Feedback from VTWG members about the meeting was: there was useful information presented (with a lot to get through); it is important to stay on track with the agenda and stay on task (easy to digress given the number of issues and topics of interest); the benefits of disseminating information more widely e.g. through fact sheets; the value of better understanding data ownership issues – which requires further discussion by the VTWG; the value of better understanding catch data and how it is used for scientific/fisheries management purposes; the need for VTWG to move beyond problems and focus on problem solving and improvements for the industry.  Due to the amount of discussion and depth of issues the meeting overran the time available and it was suggested that a longer meeting may be needed for September.

• 23 September 2021

  The Vessel Tracking Working Group (VTWG) met for the third time from 1pm-5.15pm on Thursday, 23 September 2021.

  It was noted that there have been three resignations from the VTWG from commercial fishers involved in rocky reef fishery, trawl fishery, reef line fishery. Fisheries Queensland is conducting an Expression of Interest for vacancies with an objective of maintaining a broad range of industry representation on the VTWG.

  In relation to the Post Implementation Review being conducted by Price Waterhouse Coopers, it was noted that industry consultation is underway with one-on-one interviews with industry members on the VTWG commenced.

  On request of industry members in VTWG discussions Fisheries Queensland is preparing information on complaints processes associated with data management and security concerns to be published to commercial fishers in the near future.

  The majority of the September meeting focused on discussion of supplier contracts/arrangements and malfunction of units which were priority items for industry members arising from the August meeting.  The items discussed sought to clarify and consider concerns raised regarding the criteria for vessel tracking suppliers to meet, concerns with supplier arrangements, Fisheries Queensland’s role, compliance, information dissemination to stakeholders, fit for purpose of units, incorrect polling locations, battery life, units not interchangeable, loss of business income from malfunctioning units, and no 24/7 service from provider.

  Key issues discussed were:

  • The reasons for vessel tracking in Queensland and other jurisdictions and the legislative requirements.
  • Export approvals and interaction with conservation and threatened species requirements, Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) legislation, State requirements.
  • The importance of Fisheries Queensland and commercial fishers advocating for the industry in Commonwealth government policy forums/discussions.  While commercial fishers can be time poor, Fisheries Queensland encouraged direct submissions and representations to the Commonwealth in addition to Fisheries Queensland where possible.
  • Concerns about potential for escalating costs associated with potential future developments and requirements (such as possible use of cameras in the future).
  • The units selected for vessel tracking in Queensland offer more options than units selected in other states, however offering more choice, may be creating more concerns.
  • Industry members outlined various significant concerns relating to fit for purpose, reliability, costs of various units and that some units do not seem well designed for use on smaller boats/by smaller operators.
  • Further industry members report there is a lack of agents for servicing, repairs and maintenance creating poor service and slow turnarounds for some.
  • These factors are in various ways contributing to higher costs and loss of productivity for fishers, even where some fishers have back up arrangements in place which can help but are not fail safe.
  • Industry members sought to explore the potential for a commercial fishing app to resolve some of the concerns – information will be sought from NSW regarding how this app may work to achieve the objective of vessel tracking and Fisheries Queensland will consider and provide feedback on progress regarding a commercial fishing app for Queensland.
  • The current and potential future role of Fisheries Queensland in the selection and approval of vessel tracking units and providers:
    • It was noted that Fisheries Queensland does not have and has never held contracts with any supplier to supply units or provide services to fishers.
    • All contracts are held with the provider and fishers direct.
    • Fisheries Queensland has approved suppliers based on a set of criteria and trials undertaken at the start of implementing vessel tracking.
    • Fisheries Queensland’s criteria for selecting units currently in use was discussed.  Industry members stated that in practice many units did not meet all criteria, there are ongoing concerns with reliability, power and battery concerns, weather resistance.
    • The opportunity to renegotiate better terms as contracts expire starting later this year was raised.
    • Industry members sought consideration by Fisheries Queensland of greater involvement of Government through it managing and conducting tendering / expression of interest processes with or on behalf of fishers.
    • Fisheries Queensland indicated that it may not be feasible to undertake this role due to conflicts with Government procurement policies relating to contestability and commerciality in the supply of goods and services to Government.  Also, for Fisheries Queensland to operate this way may be seen to reduce market forces and undermine competition.  It may not be an appropriate role.
    • Fisheries Queensland offered a suggestion that it could step back from involvement in identifying suppliers/specific equipment for industry and instead state requirements/criteria that equipment needs to meet (such as polling rate, effective interface with Trackwell etc).
    • This would enable industry to select equipment/providers. Industry members present were not supportive of this seeking ongoing Fisheries Queensland involvement.
    • Alternative costing arrangements were raised by industry members – where Fisheries Queensland may provide services, either equipment and/or polling and industry pay Fisheries Queensland for costs.  This raised concerns by Fisheries Queensland relating to its appropriate role in this circumstance.
    • Fisheries Queensland members undertook to further consider possible future role and improvements considering concerns raised.

  In relation to malfunctions of units, industry members are seeking further consideration by Fisheries Queensland regarding relaxations that may assist fishers to continue to work when malfunctions occur while out at sea.  A number of matters were canvassed without resolution.  Fisheries Queensland and industry members will further consider potential changes to procedures and requirements around continuing to fish at sea with units that are not operating effectively, noting there are compliance objectives (both Commonwealth and state fisheries management).

  The VTWG will hold its next meeting at the end of October.  Key priority items for discussion at that meeting will be:

  • Information ownership rights (fishers, providers, Government agencies), building on the discussions at the August meeting and informed by legal input which Fisheries Queensland is currently seeking in response to VTWG request for information and discussions at the August meeting.
  • Continuing discussions regarding managing malfunction of units at sea, and supplier/contract arrangements, including feedback on NSW commercial app, potential to scan the market for vessel tracking units that may be available, future role of Fisheries Queensland, potential to vary procedures for managing malfunctions of units when fishers are out at sea to reduce lost productivity.

  Additional future agenda items are:

  • Post Implementation Review progress and inputs.
  • Installation Safety Audit.
  • Other actions in response to the Ombudsman’s Observations and Actions.

  Feedback from VTWG members about the meeting was: continuing frustrations about the problems being experienced with equipment malfunctions and the need to find options to move forward and improve the situation for commercial fishers; the need to address problems being experienced with the status quo; the need to stick to the agenda and be disciplined with time and inputs (a lot of issues to discuss by the group); may need to agree to disagree on some matters; the need for VTWG to work on problem solving and improvements for the industry; some considered the meeting spent more time seeking solutions compared with previous meetings (although not resolved); a lot is being covered and there may be scope to focus on seeking small improvements which may help.   There was also frustration about the time needed to work through difficult issues, however recognition that it is important to keep talking to seek solutions, taking into account differences.

  Industry members reinforced the importance of these meetings being held regularly to canvass issues, progress problem solving and seek out possible improvements.

• 28 October 2021

  The Vessel Tracking Working Group (VTWG) met for the fourth time from 10am-3.20pm on Thursday, 28 October 2021.

  The Chair acknowledged correspondence from VTWG members out of session and welcomed that industry members had submitted a consolidated set of concerns/issues ahead of the meeting which industry is seeking be discussed.

  The Chair noted that key priority items such as data privacy/ownership, suppliers and units, malfunctioning impacts and procedures, and the PIR process has occupied most discussion at meetings and were being further addressed at the October meeting.  The Chair will reference the consolidated items from industry during meetings to ensure priority items are being worked through.

  Industry members clarified they are seeking more action, quicker progress and clearer answers to the issues being raised.

  Fisheries Queensland acknowledged the call for action and quicker progress sought by industry, including committing to move forward on an interim solution regarding keeping fishers fishing during equipment malfunctions.  A proposal has been prepared as a major agenda item. It was also noted that Fisheries Queensland has attempted to be clearer in its positions for the VTWG agenda discussions more generally.

  In response to industry questions raised before the meeting about the use of data for purposes beyond compliance, Fisheries Queensland provided input about how modelling uses vessel tracking data, choice of polling frequency feeding into fisheries management considerations, decision making and how the data is used to inform Total Allowable Catch.

  Another item raised by Industry members was a request for trial data used to draft the trial summary report.  Fisheries Queensland sought clarification on what industry was asking for and raised concerns about observing data privacy requirements. Industry members clarified that they are seeking de-identified information used to formulate the trial summary report. Industry members expressed concerns that the information in the report is not accurate. Fisheries Queensland confirmed that it sought feedback from trial participants through a survey. Some industry members questioned the results and validity of the trial and also suggested that any future trials should not be done by Fisheries Queensland because it may not be able to undertake a sufficient trial.

  In response to industry requests at the October meeting, Fisheries Queensland provided information on the NSW Commercial Fishing App and the upcoming Queensland Commercial Fishing App, key points were:

  • The NSW App has no vessel tracking functionality.
  • The upcoming Queensland App does not provide the functions to replace Vessel Tracking equipment however will assist manual reporting.  The App will link to Trackwell to check the status of units.  However, the App can only send positions when in mobile network coverage.  Vessel tracking units operate on a satellite network and provide positions instantaneously.  Therefore the App will not be an adequate replacement for vessel tracking purposes.
  • The Queensland App is planned for release from January 2022, initial take up will be voluntary.
  • Fishers are being invited to participate in user testing which is currently taking place.

  The VTWG noted an update on the Post Implementation Review being undertaken by Price Waterhouse Coopers which is due to be completed in June 2022.  Price Waterhouse Coopers has interviewed VTWG members and is continuing to collect information.  Some industry members noted that Fisheries Queensland’s position for future models of managing vessel tracking were to be cost neutral. Some industry members raised concerns that this position may not honour potential recommendations of the PIR.  Industry queried if the Status Quo for managing vessel tracking was a pre-determined outcome. Fisheries Queensland, in response, said it was committed to following the PIR process.

  Industry members requested that port visits be included in the consultation process and has sought a commitment in writing from Fisheries Queensland. Industry members have requested that VMS suppliers be encouraged to attend these meetings. Fisheries Queensland advised it is considering port visits within its industry consultation and engagement processes in general and will advise the VTWG when a decision has been made.  It noted the request regarding port visits in relation to the Post Implementation Review.  It was also noted that Fisheries Queensland has been considering this request since the previous meeting and on being asked for a second time.  Industry is awaiting a response.

  There was good progress made on a proposal by Fisheries Queensland regarding an interim solution to keep fishers fishing during equipment malfunctions.  The following are summary key points:

  • Industry members welcomed the commitment of Fisheries Queensland to work with industry to develop a solution to this major concern.
  • The intent of an interim solution is to manage until the Post Implementation Review is undertaken leading to a long-term outcome.  The interim solution is expected to be until June 2022, however Fisheries Queensland committed to extend this timing if necessary, and if the Post Implementation Review had not been completed.
  • It was noted there is no current centrally collected data on the number and types of units which have malfunctioned since vessel tracking began in 2019.   The main way to collect information is via fishers/industry members and providers.   Fisheries Queensland requested that industry members share information they have on the nature, scope and scale of unit malfunctions.
  • It was noted that faults may arise due to provider/network failures and also due to units malfunctioning – information collected should distinguish between these causes.
  • Fisheries Queensland proposed interim procedure was discussed in detail including how to manage various practical issues such as waiting times for receiving replacement/repaired equipment, manual reporting arrangements, recognition of individual circumstances, the need to maintain compliance actions, practices in other jurisdictions.
  • Two key principles were suggested by GBRMPA and Fisheries Queensland:  fishers who are doing the wrong thing should not be supported as a general rule (bad for the whole industry), and there is a need for case-by-case considerations by Fisheries Queensland given different circumstances and variables. While these were acknowledged, not all industry members universally agreed with these Principles.
  • A risk-based approach was generally supported – taking into account case by case considerations against a set of standard procedures.
  • The discussion was highly constructive, and Fisheries Queensland will further develop the proposed interim procedure with the inputs that were received.  It will seek to progress this with VTWG members out of session, with a target to finalise the procedure at the November meeting.

  The VTWG discussed data ownership, an agenda item which arose from discussions at VTWG meeting 2.  Fisheries Queensland provided information to help to clarify data ownership issues. The main points arising from the discussion were:

  • Fisheries Queensland accesses commercial fishing data legally under its legislation for compliance and fisheries management purposes.
  • Fishers are required to provide vessel tracking data.  Authorisation to share the data appears to be provided by fishers when they complete order forms and/or at time of engaging with a provider.
  • Fisheries Queensland is able to share information with relevant other agencies for purposes which are consistent with the legislation applying to Fisheries Queensland and the other agencies (for example the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority or the Australian Maritime Safety Authority).
  • Fisheries Queensland can provide individual fishers with their individual data in response to specific requests.
  • Fisheries Queensland has operational protocols with Police and search and rescue authorities to provide data for safety reasons.

  The VTWG considered alternative options for vessel tracking unit and provider arrangements. This built on discussion at the previous VTWG meeting.  Fisheries Queensland provided potential options for industry members feedback and invited industry members to provide alternative options for consideration. Key discussion points were:

  • Three options were presented which provided varying levels of involvement by Fisheries Queensland in selecting units and providers with no preferred option identified.  Option A was status quo with a review of existing approved unit and provider list; Option B was for Fisheries Queensland to specify minimum requirements for units and providers with fishers able to purchase any unit/engage any provider to meet the requirements; Option C, called an AFMA style model, entailed Fisheries Queensland taking on a larger role in contracting with unit and airtime providers for the industry with costs passed back to industry.
  • In the meeting, industry members indicated a general preference for Fisheries Queensland to take a major future role in unit and provider arrangements because this was seen to provide a more robust approach for fishers, be more supportive and protective of fishers.  The latter was particularly related to industry member perceptions of possible power imbalances in dealings between providers and individual fishers.  Industry members felt that having Fisheries Queensland actively engaged in considering legal arrangements etc. was positive and would potentially offset price gouging concerns by fishers.
  • There was significant discussion regarding costs:  Fishers sought input from Fisheries Queensland about the potential costs of different options (currently not costed out).
  • Fisheries Queensland stated a clear position that it is seeking to consider alternatives within the parameter of having no additional cost to Government associated with the future state operation of any new model.  Industry members shared the concern that without future investment, the program could potentially fall short in terms of safety and reliability, i.e. That if there was a need to use a better quality, more reliable unit than Yb3i or Spot Trace, that might increase the costs to users and that industry did not support there being higher costs for industry.
  • Fisheries Queensland put the position that the ongoing costs associated with vessel tracking should be borne by industry, given the benefits the commercial fishing industry accrue from access to fisheries resources.
  • Industry members expressed significant concerns about this cost position.  The strongest opposition was expressed on the basis that the problems with the current model should be addressed by Fisheries Queensland including the costs involved in rectifying the current problems.  Opposition was expressed on the basis that industry members felt that the problems with the current model were caused by Fisheries Queensland and that industry should not have to pay to rectify the problems with the current model.  Industry members expressed that they felt they had not been listened to when they had raised concerns about the current model.
  • While a range of considerations were canvassed, no conclusions were reached at the meeting.
  • Fisheries Queensland is open to other options, and Industry members undertook to further consider and to work on a potential alternative option, either building from Fisheries Queensland’s options or a new one for further discussion at the November VTWG meeting.
  • Industry members were opposed to manual reporting methods that relied on phone service, or methods that required regular phone reporting (ie. 1 or 4 hourly) as many fishers operate out of phone reception.  One member commented that 4 hourly reporting for inshore fisheries like crab or inshore net would result in so little data that it made it almost pointless, and any more frequent would become inconvenient during operations.

  The VTWG noted that an agenda paper and draft survey regarding the vessel tracking installation safety update had been provided.  This item was an action arising from the Ombudsman’s observations. The item was noted to be progressed out of session.  Industry members were invited to provide comments and feedback to Fisheries Queensland before the November meeting.

  The VTWG will hold its next meeting at the end of November.  Key priority items will be:

  • An interim solution to keep fishers fishing during equipment malfunctions building on Fisheries Queensland proposal and extensive VTWG discussion and feedback.
  • Further consideration of vessel tracking unit and provider arrangements, including consideration of any alternatives put by industry members.  One industry member requested that future framework options be costed as part of the PIR so that industry would have more information on which to base their submissions during the PIR.

  Additional future agenda items are:

  • Post Implementation Review progress.
  • Vessel Tracking Installation Safety Audit.
  • Other actions in response to the Ombudsman’s Observations and Actions.
  • Cross referencing consolidated items identified by industry members.

  Feedback from VTWG members about the meeting was: that the nature and style of the discussion was generally constructive, more progress seemed to be made compared with previous meetings, there is continuing industry member frustration at the practical difficulties being experienced and business impacts, however, there seems to be a possibility of finding a solution including addressing fishers concerns about loss of productivity through equipment malfunctions and supplier issues. There was disagreement acknowledged on some matters, such as who should pay for vessel tracking. There was appreciation on the ability to focus more on problem solving, and recognition of work done by industry members since the last meeting to consolidate issues of concern. The clearly articulated and shared industry view assisted in ensuring issues discussed better aligned with fishers’ concerns.

• 2 December 2021

  The Vessel Tracking Working Group (VTWG) met for the fifth time from 10am-3.20pm on Thursday, 2 December 2021.

  The Chair acknowledged two new members of the VTWG.  Dallas D’silva has been permanently appointed as Executive Director, Fisheries, and Gregory Bowness, Manager, Strategic Compliance with Queensland Boating and Fishery Patrol has joined (replacing Warren Egling from QBFP).

  The three main agenda items for this meeting were a briefing by Price Waterhouse Coopers in relation to the Post Implementation Review of Vessel Tracking that it is conducting with Fisheries Queensland.  The second main agenda item was discussion of interim procedures for managing requirements to enable fishers to continue to fish when vessel tracking equipment malfunctions occur.  The third main item related to an action arising from the Ombudman’s work to conduct a Safety Installation Audit.  These items are reported on below.

  Post Implementation Review (PIR):

  The steps involved in undertaking a PIR is set out by the Office for Better Practice Regulation (OBPR).   Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) briefed the VTWG stating that it has completed targeted stakeholder consultations and is preparing a PIR consultation paper.  This paper will be considered by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and must be approved by the Minister before it can be released for public consultation.  The expected timeframe for this to occur is by the end of January 2022.

  In relation to targeted stakeholder consultations PWC has attended as an observer all VTWG meetings to understand key issues and inputs through that forum, it has individually met with VTWG members (industry members, Fisheries Queensland members, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority member).  Wider stakeholder consultation will occur when the PIR consultation paper is published.

  The purpose of the presentation was to update VTWG members, to provide a summary of the key points arising from work done to date and to provide an opportunity for VTWG members to provide additional input.

  Key points that were noted in the presentation by PWC were:

  • The main reasons for implementing vessel tracking were firstly for fisheries monitoring and research purposes, and secondly for compliance purposes.
  • PWC has sought to identify both benefits and costs associated with vessel tracking.
  • Benefits reported to PWC by stakeholders in addition to monitoring, research and compliance benefits were identified as: EPBC approvals; data being used by fishers (especially for fishing fleets); and the provision of information by Fisheries Queensland to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority for search and rescue purposes.
  • Costs identified were:  direct and indirect costs to fishers (including equipment costs, polling costs, loss of productivity when units or services fail); management and administration costs to State and Federal Governments; reliability of technology; data privacy concerns; emotional load for fishers; and concerns with competitive concerns (between commercial fishing businesses of different sizes and between service providers).

  As noted above, wider consultation will occur once the PIR consultation paper has been published. Industry members of the working group have requested that port visits be included as part of this consultation process. Fisheries Queensland has advised that port visits will be conducted in locations where there are sufficient numbers of fishers interested to participate.  It will work with industry to make these arrangements in the New Year.

  Feedback from industry members at the meeting included advice about the need to focus port consultations on the operational and day to day impacts of vessel tracking on fishers and their operations.

  Industry members accepted the compliance benefits of vessel tracking arrangements which were discussed at the meeting, however they were not convinced about the value of vessel tracking for scientific (monitoring and research) purposes, for export license purposes, or for safety purposes.

  Black market fishing was raised in relation to compliance matters.  The definition of black market fishing was clarified by Fisheries Queensland as being of concern in recreational and commercial fishing sectors. Fisheries Queensland stated that black marketing is a broad term to describe a range of unlawful activities including underreporting quota species and selling of recreationally caught fish. Fisheries Queensland highlighted that vessel tracking is a tool that can be used by compliance officers to assist in the identification and investigation of black marketing in the commercial sector.

  Vessel Tracking Equipment Malfunctions:

  The VTWG is seeking to develop a vessel tracking unit malfunction interim procedure.

  Industry has requested to be able to continue to fish when equipment malfunctions occur.  This responds to the many concerns which have been discussed within the VTWG, and which have been acknowledged by Fisheries Queensland, regarding the reliability of equipment and services provided by suppliers.

  The interim procedure is expected to be established until June 2022, however Fisheries Queensland committed to extend this timing if necessary and if the post implementation review has not been completed by then.

  Following a constructive discussion at the October VTWG meeting both industry members and Fisheries Queensland prepared proposed interim procedures.  However, the VTWG was not able to settle on an outcome as had been hoped for by all parties coming into the meeting.  Discussion in part became heated and dysfunctional demonstrating industry frustrations and differences in emphasis and interests between industry and Fisheries Queensland.

  Industry members expressed significant concerns with the interim procedure proposed by Fisheries Queensland, considering it to be too burdensome.  Fisheries Queensland had some concerns with the industry proposal, seeking sufficient compliance safeguards be in place.

  While there were a number of matters canvassed in the discussion on this item, the main sticking point appeared to be the frequency, arrangements and conditions under which manual reporting may be able to be carried out in the absence of the automated reporting using functioning vessel tracking equipment.

  In relation to manual reporting, Fisheries Queensland stated that the malfunction procedure and associated reporting requirements should provide information which is as close as possible to that provided by usual vessel tracking requirements.

  Fisheries Queensland indicated it agreed with several elements of the industry proposal and on that basis committed to further consider the input from the December meeting and work out of session to finalise the procedure.

  It was noted by all VTWG members that having this procedure in place as early as possible would assist the industry through the Christmas/January period which is traditionally very busy.  Fisheries Queensland committed to progressing this to finalise a procedure as quickly as possible.

  Vessel Tracking Installation Safety Audit:

  Fisheries Queensland has prepared a methodology for undertaking a vessel tracking installation safety audit which was provided for discussion by the VTWG.  This item was an action arising from the Ombudsman’s observations.

  The objective of the audit is to understand the installation standards of vessel tracking units, identify any safety risks and opportunities to improve installation safety.

  Fisheries Queensland will undertake this work in the New Year.  It will seek to involve fishers who have already raised installation safety issues and it will call for volunteers to take part in the audit. Industry members on the VTWG have been invited to nominate fishers who may also wish to be involved in the audit.

  The audit will seek to get a cross section sample (different fisheries, different types of units) to identify what are the problems and what are causing the problems. A standardised approach will be used to gather information and the audit will be conducted by qualified electricians working in the industry at various locations to conduct the required audits and inspections.  The scope of the audit will consider equipment used as well as new or additional power supplies installed (to enable vessel tracking).

  Participants will receive a copy of their own audit findings and the consolidated information from the audit will form a vessel tracking installation safety audit report. This report will be published and available to industry once completed.

  Next Meeting

  The VTWG will hold a special purpose meeting in December.  This meeting will seek to progress deliberations about vessel tracking unit and provider arrangements which have been the subject of previous working group discussions.  This item has been a high priority for both industry members and Fisheries Queensland.

  Feedback from VTWG members about the 2 December meeting was: the need for Fisheries Queensland to listen to industry concerns and respond to the issues; frustration from industry that it is taking a long time to get action; industry needs to feel concerns are being taken on board; the critical importance of getting a procedure to apply when units are malfunctioning – a high priority for fishers; the need for all VTWG members to keep persisting in the face of working through some very difficult discussions to make progress; a lot of passion and frustration; the intent of Fisheries Queensland to get input and understand issues so it can develop options and proposals which recognise the needs of fishers;  Fisheries Queensland is working hard to develop workable solutions and requires constructive input to support this; new members brought some new perspectives including some new industry views; the new Executive Director, Fisheries welcomed the opportunity to listen to concerns and reinforced a desire to work constructively with industry; QBFP is seeking to work with fishers to help them through education and support as part of compliance processes; clarity about port meetings being included in PIR consultation was welcomed by industry members.

• 15 December 2021

  The Vessel Tracking Working Group (VTWG) met for the sixth time from 11am-1pm on Wednesday, 15 December 2021. This meeting was a special purpose meeting to discuss a single agenda item – alternative vessel tracking unit and provider arrangements.

  The item was carried forward from the previous VTWG meeting (due to a shortage of time) as it was identified as a priority input to the Post Implementation Review work being undertaken by Price Waterhouse Coopers and Fisheries Queensland.

  In considering this item the Chair noted:

  • Vessel tracking costs and supplier arrangements relating to units and polling requirements has been consistently identified by industry members as a priority issue and the subject of various discussions at VTWG meetings.
  • That VTWG discussion and feedback on possible alternatives to current arrangements will be considered in the Post Implementation Review being conducted by Price Waterhouse Coopers with Fisheries Queensland. Noting that a consultation report is currently being developed (VTWG members were briefed on key findings of the PIR and the process involved at the last VTWG meeting).

  Four options which Fisheries Queensland sought to explore as possibilities to replace current arrangements were discussed:

  Option A – Status quo with a review of existing approved unit and provider list

  • Fisheries Queensland to determine list of approved units and associated airtime provider
    (status quo).
  • Fishers to choose a unit and provider from the approved list and establish a contract with the airtime provider (status quo).
  • Fishers pay for their own polling (status quo).
  • Fisheries Queensland review current list of approved units and provider with stakeholder input and update the list (new).

  Option B – Standards based approach

  • Fisheries Queensland to provide a set of minimum requirements for vessel tracking units and provider that would include – polling frequency of 5 or 15 minutes depending on fisheries and ability for polling data to be integrated to Fisheries Queensland platform (Trackwell).
  • Fishers can purchase any units available. Under this option Fisheries Queensland would not maintain a list of approved units and airtime providers.

  Option C – AFMA-style model

  • Fisheries Queensland to establish a contract with an airtime provider.
  • Fisheries Queensland to determine a list of approved units that can be hosted by the airtime provider.
  • The cost of establishing and administering the contract will be recouped from fishers.
  • Fisheries Queensland will pay for airtime and recover cost from fishers via licence fees.

  Option D –Contract between Fisheries Queensland and providers

  • Fisheries Queensland to determine list of approved units and associated airtime providers through a tender process.
  • Fisheries Queensland to establish a contract (service level agreement) with providers to ensure an appropriate level of service is provided to program participants and that the fees for services are approved by Fisheries Queensland.
  • Fishers to choose a unit and provider from the approved list and establish a contract with the airtime provider.
  • Fishers pay for their own polling directly with providers.

  In addition to the four options provided, Fisheries Queensland repeated the offer for industry members to propose other alternatives, which it is open to considering with industry.

  Key points in the VTWG discussion and feedback on options are summarised below.

  Costs to commercial fishers:

  • Industry members expressed dissatisfaction with being asked to comment on options which were not fully costed – Fisheries Queensland provided desktop costings and discussed some costing assumptions.
  • Fisheries Queensland suggested that it would make these assumptions about the costs of the different options as follows: Option A would have similar costs to the current situation; Option B similar costs or dependent on market price of particular units; Option C, provided costs based on an AFMA style model, it can be assumed the cost will be in that ballpark or higher; Option D will be subject to a procurement process to determine costs based on the market.
  • Costs to change arrangements were discussed. Industry members asked what Fisheries Queensland and the GBRMPA are willing to fund in putting in place new/changed arrangements. Fisheries Queensland indicated that its position of ‘no additional cost to Government’ related to the future state if there are changes made to the current arrangements. Any changes should not result in higher ongoing administration/management costs for Government.
  • Industry members stated there should be no increased cost to industry arising from changes in the approach used. It was stated that the benefits of vessel tracking other than for compliance do not largely flow directly to commercial fishers but to other stakeholders.
  • Industry members acknowledged that both Fisheries Queensland and GBRMPA had provided costs to Government for administering and managing vessel tracking. However, they clearly stated that the cost to Government is not of interest to the industry.
  • It was suggested that Fisheries Queensland consider cost sharing whereby fishers pay for the units and Government pay for the polling costs.

  Vessel Tracking Benefits to commercial fishers:

  • Industry members expressed, as they had at the previous meeting, that while they accept Vessel Tracking is a compliance requirement, they do not consider unit and polling data provides any other benefits to commercial fishers.
  • Claims that have been made by other stakeholders of social license and research benefits were not accepted by industry members.

  Industry member feedback on the options:

  • Industry members indicated that they saw Option A as effectively the status quo, which is not meeting their needs and is not working, therefore is unacceptable.
  • In relation to Option B, which proposes that Fisheries Queensland define minimum standards and fishers select equipment and providers which meet these, there was discussion about minimum standards and Fisheries Queensland stated the standards will be for polling at 5 or 15 minutes depending on the fishery, and data that integrates with the Trackwell system. Under Option B Fisheries Queensland will not seek to determine technical specifications or equipment.
  • In relation to Option C, modelled around the AFMA approach, industry members submitted that the costs seem to be borne by commercial fishers while the benefits are achieved for other stakeholders. This option was described by industry members as cost shifting which was not of benefit to commercial fishers.
  • Option D proposes Fisheries Queensland takes a greater role than it currently does by being directly involved in contractual arrangements, which it currently is not, with suppliers and providers. Industry member comments on Option D was a lack of confidence that Fisheries Queensland or industry members have the technical knowledge to select appropriate equipment.
  • Fisheries Queensland clarified that the industry would not be expected to determine units and providers under Option D. This would occur through a tender process with a service level agreement between providers and the Department to provide additional support to industry. Option D was put forward in response to industry concerns at meetings about the relative resources and bargaining power of individual fishers versus a Government agency in contract arrangements, and in mitigating price gouging risks.
  • Industry members noted that any procurement process needs to be transparent to industry and with industry involved in some manner.
  • There was further discussion in response to questions about how a service level agreement may operate under Option D and how it may assist industry.
  • Fisheries Queensland stated that it would be established within a Government procurement process, it would seek to provide service standards including how pricing will operate and how price adjustments will be managed over time. It will also provide a basis for Fisheries Queensland to be involved in monitoring and resolving concerns about service levels for fishers (eg. responsiveness). This is a new role that Fisheries Queensland is not currently involved in.

  Industry members did not express preferences regarding any of the four options proposed.

  Industry members did not express preferences regarding the role that Fisheries Queensland may undertake in the future if there are changes to current arrangements, noting that Options A-D suggest a greater or lesser role for Fisheries Queensland in unit selection and provider arrangements in the future.

  Industry members asked Fisheries Queensland if they had a preferred option and Fisheries Queensland indicated it did not, rather it was open to exploring alternatives seeking to address the concerns that have been raised by fishers and through the VTWG.

  Industry members clearly stated they were not comfortable indicating preferences as they considered they had insufficient information (particularly regarding the costs of alternative arrangements) to make an informed judgement.

  Industry members requested that alternative arrangements be canvassed with industry more widely through the consultation on changes to be carried out by Price Waterhouse Coopers and Fisheries Queensland through the Post Implementation Review in the New Year.

  The next meeting of the VTWG is to be set for the New Year.

• 1 March 2022

  Following the December 2022 Vessel Tracking Working Group meeting, Michelle Jensen (industry member) requested information on various vessel tracking issues relevant to the VTWG’s discussions to ensure transparency and address information gaps for industry members.  The request for information was contributed to and supported by several other industry members of the working group.

  Fisheries Queensland, in liaison with Anne Barclay, the VTWG Chair, has provided a response based on available information – see attached letter from Dallas D’Silva, Executive Director, Fisheries Queensland and accompanying Attachments.  This correspondence is being published on the Fisheries Queensland Vessel Tracking portal for easy access / transparency in information sharing.

  Please note that detailed survey feedback from the vessel tracking trials has not been included in the attached response, although it was requested, for reasons of privacy for participants in the trial.  However, a summary of this is available and referred to in the attached.

  Fisheries Queensland is currently gathering information for the Post Implementation Review consultation paper.  This can be released publicly only after Ministerial consideration and approval to do so.  This will provide further available information for industry and other stakeholders to consider and comment on.

  The VTWG has not yet met in 2022.  The next meeting will be convened as soon as the Post Implementation Review consultation paper has been released so this can be discussed in that forum.  A date for this is not yet available.

  Attachments:

  • Letter to Michelle Jensen, cc VTWG members, from Dallas D’Silva, Executive Director, Fisheries Queensland, dated 28 February 2022
  • Attachment 1 – response to requests
  • Attachment 2 – template of vessel tracking participant survey (2018)

  Communique prepared by VTWG Chair, 1 March 2022.

• 12 December 2022

  Post Implementation Review (PIR) Consultation Report:

  Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) prepared a PIR consultation report, approved by the Minister for public review and comment closing on 14 December 2022. The report is available through the Vessel Tracking Engagement Portal.

  The consultation period is for any individual or group to provide submissions and input for consideration before a decision PIR (incorporating feedback from submissions received) is developed and a decision ultimately is made by Cabinet.

  PWC gave a presentation covering the consultation report including:

  • The purpose of the PIR is to assess the impacts, effectiveness, and continued relevance of the regulations in relation to vessel tracking in Queensland.
  • The PIR is being conducted by PWC in accordance with the Office of Better Practice Regulation within Queensland Government requirements using a prescribed process.
  • PWC held targeted stakeholder consultations, including with VTWG members, to gather feedback on the impacts of the legislation.
  • PWC has attended all VTWG meetings and considered input from this, as well as interviews with stakeholders and other inputs received.
  • The presentation gave overview of the PIR consultation report: the PIR process, problems addressed by vessel tracking regulation, assessment of vessel tracking legislation, impacts of vessel tracking – costs, benefits and unintended consequences, recommendations – options considered, options analysis and recommendations with action items, and preliminary analysis of survey respondents.

  VTWG members then discussed and provided feedback on the PIR consultation report. The following key issues were discussed:

  • PWC was asked to consider key information and/or learnings from other jurisdictions including the extent to which other jurisdictions have experienced similar concerns to those experienced by commercial fishers in Queensland (and reported in the PIR consultation report) and how these have been addressed.
  • Industry members suggested that other jurisdictions do not use vessel tracking on small open boats like in Queensland, so there are material differences in experience. Also, that other jurisdictions have a different make up of fleets and range of vessels to Queensland and this should be noted and considered. This includes that smaller businesses (of which it was submitted there are many in Queensland) are more impacted by vessel tracking costs than larger ones. Therefore, PWC should consider these differences in comparing Queensland with other jurisdictions and the implications of this for operating vessel tracking.
  • The cost of vessel tracking was raised extensively during the meeting. It was noted that it was one of the top two concerns of commercial fishers in the consultation report. However, the actions recommended by PWC in the consultation report do not seem to address cost concerns for fishers in a material way.
  • PWC acknowledged the report suggested some minor savings may be made by fishers through possible reduced polling.
  • PWC was asked if options such as vessel tracking being Government funded had been considered. Industry members noted that feedback had been given that fishers did not want to bear the costs for vessel tracking, but no options of increased government funding were raised in the consultation paper. Fisheries Queensland noted that there are costs to government currently (through managing vessel tracking and rebate) which are not cost recovered from the industry.
  • PWC submitted that vessel tracking costs which are not met directly by fishers would be met through the community and by taxpayers generally. Alternatively, it was noted that other jurisdictions recover some vessel tracking costs through fishing licenses/other fees.
  • Industry members put forward a view that it is not unreasonable for the wider taxpayer group to pay for vessel tracking costs through the Department / Government as the public (and not only commercial fishers) receive benefits from a sustainable fishing industry.
  • The costs of vessel tracking being borne across the Queensland commercial fishing fleet was discussed. It was noted that the composition of the Queensland fleet runs from small businesses with small boats through to larger businesses with a fleet of boats. This cost impost may be greater on a small business compared with a larger one. PWC was asked to consider this.
  • It was noted by industry members that there have been considerable material cost increases to businesses such as quota impacts and increasing fuel costs, and that vessel tracking adds pressure to particularly small operators seeking to earn a living in a tough economic environment. PWC was asked to consider different cost impacts of vessel tracking on different sized operators.
  • Industry members submitted that a ‘one size fits all’ pricing and costing model may not be fair recognising the diversity of Queensland commercial fishers and that there are many ‘cottage businesses’ in the sector. PWC was asked to consider this.
  • It was put by industry members that Government could be more supportive of the commercial fishing sector especially smaller operators and that all costs including vessel tracking are material for particularly smaller operators who are also facing increased fuel and other costs.
  • Industry members challenged the claim in the consultation report that vessel tracking provides a benefit to commercial fishers as it enables access to fish in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP).
  • There is not a regulatory or legislative requirement for commercial fishers to have a vessel tracking unit to operate in the GBRMP.
  • GBRMPA has a stated preference for this, but this is not currently underpinned by a formal regulatory requirement.
  • Therefore, industry members submitted the benefits of this stated in the consultation report are misleading.
  • PWC was asked to consider the number or proportion of operators who access the GBRMP for commercial fishing and suggested that any possible benefit from accessing the GBRMP is not shared across all operators.
  • Industry members suggested that at best access to the GBRMP is a potential future benefit, not an actual realised and current benefit and PWC was asked to consider this.
  • As fisheries manager, Fisheries Queensland has mandated vessel tracking for operators including within the GBRMP, it therefore contends that State rather than Commonwealth regulation is relied upon.
  • Industry members challenged the cost benefit identified in the PIR consultation report associated with obtaining EPBC Act approvals on the basis that this benefit accrues to a subset of commercial fishers and not all commercial fishers.
  • Industry members submitted that the majority of commercial fishers do not seek or utilise fishing export status. PWC was asked to identify the number of commercial fishers who utilise this benefit and to reconsider how benefits are stated to reflect that this does not apply to all (and potentially not the majority) of commercial fishers.
  • Industry members queried the basis of cost savings to fishers from vessel tracking suggested in the consultation report.
  • Industry members noted that the consultation report identified commercial fishing profits as benefits from vessel tracking and queried the validity of this. Industry members stated that those profits existed before and apart from vessel tracking. Industry members submitted that vessel tracking, and profits are independent variables and not linked as suggested in the consultation report.
  • Industry members expressed the strong view that vessel tracking should be applied to both charter and recreational sectors. PWC noted that this is out of scope of the PIR.
  • Industry members asked PWC to consider the value of the intellectual property created by the database being developed by Fisheries Queensland from the individual and combined data of fishers. Industry members asserted that Government and the public rather than individual fishers are the beneficiary of this database.
  • Industry members raised ongoing concerns with protocols to help fishers to continue to work when units are malfunctioning. Industry members asserted that vessel tracking needs to work better for fishers, so they don’t lose time fishing because they have to come back to port.
  • Fisheries Queensland pointed to the manual exemption process and commercial fisher app as measures that have been put in place to assist this problem. It was acknowledged that there is continuing opportunity for improving the commercial app and that Fisheries Queensland wanted to continue improve this over time with input from fishers.
  • Concerns were expressed that Fisheries Queensland has been slow to act to help fishers. Fisheries Queensland feedback was that the malfunction procedure developed through the VTWG had been put in place relatively quickly.
  • It was noted that Action 1 identified in the consultation report recommends actions to be undertaken to ensure that a process continues to be available (similar to the protocol worked on by the VTWG and adopted by Fisheries Queensland) to enable fishers to fish when units are malfunctioning. It also identified the need to continually review and update this process.
  • Industry members said they did not support the proposition that the malfunctioning procedure would be subject to sunsetting – the view was put that there will be a long-term need for a work around procedure.
  • Other items discussed in less detail in the feedback to PWC included: questions around use of modelling data from vessel tracking, unit supply concerns, safety (PWC noted this is outside the scope of the PIR), and the complexity involved to understand vessel tracking requirements – it was requested that these be more easily accessed and described in layman’s terms.

  Actions for after the meeting

  The consultation period for the PIR remains open until 14 December. The Chair noted that submissions and feedback continue to be open through the Engagement Portal until that date. The inputs will then be considered before a final Decision PIR is prepared which will be put forward within Government for a Cabinet decision. Fisheries Queensland intend to communicate the results including through the VTWG when available.

  The VTWG ran out of time to consider the second agenda item which was an update from Fisheries Queensland on the Ombudsman actions. The Chair noted that a status paper had been circulated to VTWG members before the meeting. Fisheries Queensland will make arrangements to update and get comment from VTWG members on this item.

  Next Meeting

  The next VTWG meeting will be a date to be determined in the New Year.

  Some industry members expressed concern that the meeting time was insufficient to deal with the full agenda and have sought an extended period for future meetings.