AFMA hosted a resource assessment group (RAG) workshop in Canberra on 21 and 22 May 2015. The following is the summaries of the key outcomes:
Managing conflicts of interest – application of Fisheries Administration Paper 12 – Resource Assessment Groups
RAG members were reminded of their obligations to declare, and manage, conflicts of interest at the start and throughout RAG meetings. Members must declare any conflicts of interest (whether declared at earlier meetings or not) either at the start of the meeting or this can be done and recorded out of session with members later confirming that the declaration or updating the declaration at the start of any meeting. If during any meeting discussion a member becomes aware that the topic being discussed may now include issues which pose a conflict of interest for them, they must declare those conflicts of interest.
At all times when a conflict has been declared against an agenda item, the RAG Chair must send the person who declared the conflict out of the room or have them hang up from the telephone conference and then discuss with all remaining members whether that person should stay outside the meeting or return for that agenda item. If the person is to participate in that agenda item a decision on what terms the person can participate must take place, i.e. simply to listen, be asked questions and then remain silent, make a statement but remain silent during subsequent discussions or return to full participation. The Chair will make the final decision of whether the member should return to the meeting for that item (and on what terms) or be excluded. This applies for all meeting types, including face-to-face and teleconference. All of the decisions made around managing each conflict of interest must be recorded in the meeting minutes.
Development of an on-line user access portal
There was a good discussion about AFMA’s planned user access portal for MAC and RAG members. The portal will allow members of AFMA committees to access past and future meeting papers online, claim sitting fees and allowances, provide comment and discuss relevant fishery issues online and download meeting packs. Members will be able to upload background papers and reports to the portal and this will be particularly useful just before and during meetings if reports are updated or further advice becomes available.
Some concerns were raised that access to the portal may be difficult while at sea and that the system would be dependent on good WiFi access during meetings to ensure adequate download speeds in order to access papers online. AFMA will take these concerns into account when developing the system and its use at meetings, although it is understood that anywhere there is good mobile phone coverage the system will be accessible.
The portal will also include a recruitment and member administration function for use when refreshing committee memberships. Committee members could use the portal for such things as reviewing and updating their recorded declarations of interests online before meetings. This functionality will save members time and reduce administration by AFMA management staff and committee Executive Officers. The portal is expected to be developed in the 2nd half of this year.
Overarching fisheries policies
The Department of Agriculture continues to develop an overarching fisheries policy and revise the Commonwealth Policy of Fisheries Bycatch and the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy and Guidelines. AFMA and the Department of the Environment have been included in discussions on the development of the draft policies.
It is expected that drafts of the policies will be provided shortly to the Hon Richard Colbeck, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, for consideration and will later be released for public comment. AFMA will notify stakeholders via the AFMA website when the policies have been released and are available for public comment.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Commonwealth fisheries management plans and arrangement are subject to assessment under three sections of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Under Part 10 – Strategic Assessments, Part 13 – Protected species provisions and Part 13 A – Export provisions. These assessments ensure that the management arrangements in Commonwealth managed fisheries do not pose a threat to the marine environment or protected species.
By law, all interactions with protected species must be reported but if the interaction occurred within a fishery whose management arrangements have been accredited under the EPBC Act, it is not a breach.
Participants supported the possible re-introduction of Department of the Environment officers to the RAG process.
Research input and annual timeframe
Participants were reminded of the annual funding cycles for both AFMA and FRDC funded research proposals. This cycle includes the RAG’s annual review of fishery specific research priorities, identification of research gaps and development of research scopes.
Discussion included: access to tactical research funds, application of the catch-cost-risk framework in decision making, timing of research outcomes and whether TAC decisions require updated science ever year, accessing leveraged industry funding to support research, funding for essential science vs tactical research and AFMA’s overall prioritisation of research scopes.
Public Information Disclosure Act
The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office provided a useful presentation on the application of the Public Information Disclosure Act 2013 (PID Act) in the context of RAG meetings and their members. The PID Act was implemented to promote public sector integrity and accountability by encouraging the disclosure of suspected wrongdoing and then ensuring that any disclosures made are investigated. It is Commonwealth legislation, although there is similar legislation in other states and territories.
RAG members are public officials for the purposes of the PID Act and RAG Chairs can receive disclosures which they must pass on for investigation. One of the examples of misconduct that could trigger a PID Act disclosure discussed at the workshop, was the forging, biased interpretation or improper use of scientific results.