Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee : 26/09/2014 : Australia’s future activities and responsibilities in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic waters (2024)

DAVIES, Air Vice Marshal Gavin, Deputy Chief of Air Force, Department of Defence

GROVES Mr Brad, Acting Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Australian Maritime Safety Authority

MacMILLIAN, Ms Christine Lynn, Manager, Planning and Business Support, Emergency Response Division, Australian Maritime Safety Authority

QUAEDVLIEG, Mr Roman Alexander, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Border Enforcement, Australian Customs and Border Protection Service

TIMMISS, Mr Trent, Senior Manager, Tuna and International Fisheries, Australian Fisheries Management Authority

VAN BALEN, Rear Admiral Michael, Deputy Chief of Navy, Department of Defence

VENSLOVAS, Mr Peter, General Manager, Fisheries Operations, Australian Fisheries Management Authority

WOODFORD-SMITH, Mr Kingsley, Acting Commander, Border Protection Command, Australian Customs and Border Protection Service

CHAIR: Welcome. Did the respective agencies wish to make brief opening statements before we proceed to questions?

Mr Quaedvlieg : No, thank you, Chair.

Senator FAWCETT: I will go to AMSA first, but other agencies can feel free to kick in. Going back to the issue of our SAR response and how to do it most cost-effectively. You say in your submission that our current SAR system coordination arrangements have proven effective for incidents in Antarctica to date. But you also put in the submission some of the work that has been occurring in terms of your increased coordination of the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs and the Polar Code for ships going down there. As we see a ramp-up of activity by nation states, an increase in activity by fishing vessels and an increase in activity from civilian cruise vessels going down into those waters, has any work been done to look at a multiparty approach to funding a private provider to essentially provide a vessel and crew that a number of nations and corporations jointly fund, such that we are not diverting National Antarctic Program vessels and resources. You indicate here that that is very disruptive and not particularly cost-effective. Has any work been done down that path?

Mr Groves : I am unaware of any work that has been undertaken in terms of utilisation of private resources for search and rescue in the Antarctic region.

Senator FAWCETT: In principle, do you think there is merit in having a look at whether that is viable?

Mr Groves : You have to understand the vastness of the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic. The current arrangements that we have in place through memoranda of understanding with our neighbouring countries, such as New Zealand and South Africa, the memorandum of understanding with the Antarctic Division, the National Search and Rescue arrangements and the intergovernmental agreement we have with the states and territories, are the platform that we currently use. Because of the vastness of the region we are really reliant on the vessels of opportunity in that region. To actually have some sort of private arrangements where you might have one or two vessels or monitoring aircraft would not provide the responsiveness we would need. We really are targeting vessels as near as we can to where an incident is taking place—as I said, vessels of opportunity. We are reliant on the various conventions for masters of ships to step up to assist where necessary. I think the system works well at the moment, purely because of the vastness of the areas involved.

Senator FAWCETT: Your submission also says that vessels of opportunity are few and far between, because of the remoteness of the region.

Mr Groves : Correct.

Senator FAWCETT: I guess I just put it out there that, as we look at the calls from other witnesses for us to develop a fleet of vehicles to do law enforcement and search and rescue, I am trying to look at what are the cost-effective ways for surveillance and law enforcement, perhaps using Air Force assets, which I will ask about in a minute, and what other opportunities there are to get a more cost-effective solution—perhaps a combination of re-supply and search and rescue that multiple partners could draw on?

Air Vice Marshal Davies, on the UAV side, there have been some suggestions that we should be looking at getting a fleet of vessels with helicopter capabilities so that we can board illegal fishing vessels. With developments in sensor technologies, so that we can actually get information, the Triton is something that has been discussed as a possible option. Can you comment as to whether Defence has made any plans in your submission to government to date on the number of assets and the array of effort for an Antarctic mission?

Air Vice Marshal Davies : There has been no specific mention of a dedicated Antarctic mission for P-8 or Triton. But there has been acknowledgement of the range and the endurance of the Triton vehicle. That range and endurance does include the practical application of the pure physics of getting to Antarctica.

Senator FAWCETT: If it were to be factored in as a key element of Australia whole-of-government approach to policing the Southern Ocean, what impact would that have on Defence's current planning for that asset?

Air Vice Marshal Davies : Current planning for the employment of Triton includes the number of assets matched with P8, and navy assets, and indeed all the Australian surveillance assets, for the range that Triton is able to physically do. Therefore, there has not been a change in the number of vehicles or the rate of effort or the approach. It would be within the range and the endurance as we are tasked with the role, then that is the number we have based it on—if that answers your question.

Senator FAWCETT: Not entirely, because I am assuming in your planning to date you are looking at a range of options probably more north of Australia in terms of your normal mission. If you were given a dedicated mission in which you had to have a certain amount of hours with eyes over that area, would that change the number of airframes you need and would it impact on your ability to actually do that northern task?

Air Vice Marshal Davies : Yes, it would, if it was dedicated. If the inference there is that the vehicle would be available to do those missions at any hour on any day, that would have an impact on the numbers and the rate of effort we would fly.

CHAIR: Could I ask for clarification there. Is the equipment that Senator Fawcett is referring to is compatible with operations in the Antarctic area? It will operate there and will not be constrained by not being suitable for it?

Air Vice Marshal Davies : That is correct. They are able to operate. The Triton aircraft operates at high altitude and therefore it is not subject to as much of a weather factor that a P8 or a P3 currently would be. But there would still be shorter windows where the weather would preclude operations, both from a flying—

CHAIR: But in general terms they are able to service—

Air Vice Marshal Davies : In general service they are able to go to Antarctica.

Senator FAWCETT: My last question is, I guess, for Customs, about boarding vessels. Obviously, we had the famous 2003 incident with Senator Macdonald and the Patagonian toothfish, and I think it was the South Africans who ended up apprehending the vessel, after a long pursuit. How often do we actually have to board a vessel to provide deterrence? Or, with improving sensors, can we get enough evidence that we can take legal action down the track and provide the same deterrence? How critical is to be able to put people on the vessel?

Mr Quaedvlieg : Let me take that question a little bit more generically. Do we have the capability to board vessels if we are present with a surface vessel in the Southern Ocean? The answer is yes, we have that capability; it is a mature capability, it is well rehearsed. Our operations in the northern waters over the last couple of years have only galvanised that capability and that expertise. We have conducted numerous boardings of vessels over the last couple of years in the maritime people-smuggling domain.

CHAIR: Not so many in the last 12 months, though.

Mr Quaedvlieg : Not in the Southern Ocean, no.

CHAIR: That was facetious!

Mr Quaedvlieg : No, that comment is actually factual and correct. The issue, though, of where we have the jurisdiction to board is probably more of a salient question, in that we have quite precise and defined powers that are enlivened by our exclusive economic zones around particular areas in the Southern Ocean. As you heard from evidence earlier today, there are areas beyond that where we have some powers by agreement—by multilateral conventions and treaties and agreements—but there is also some dispute and contention about the extent of that jurisdiction of the powers to board. So the answer to your question is we have the capability if we are present; whether we have the legal jurisdiction is a second question.

Senator FAWCETT: My actual question, though, was: do we need to board the vessel? The proposal has been put to us that we should be getting government to fund a whole fleet of vessels with helicopters and the ability to board. My question is: how often has it been done the Southern Ocean; and do we actually need to do so or can we achieve the same deterrent effect by using other assets to get suitable evidence for taking legal action against the vessel's owners so that it is just not economically viable for them to operate in those waters?

Mr Quaedvlieg : I will defer to my AFMA colleague in a moment. The need to board a vessel will depend on the strategy or the tactic that we are taking and it will also depend on the type of offence that we are looking at. Boarding a vessel to obtain evidence of an illegal catch on board is one possible tactic that we can undertake, but we would have to consider a range of circ*mstances before we decided to board, and they are: is there value in doing that—is there going to be an evidentiary value—are there safety issues at play, are there legal issues at play in terms that prevent us from boarding? So there are a number of questions that we would need to consider prior to making the decision to board. My AFMA colleague may have a comment on that.

Mr Venslovas : I will answer the question in two parts. There are two scenarios here. There is one where a vessel may be sited inside Australia's jurisdiction, for example, in the EEZ around Heard Island and McDonald Islands; clearly, the provisions of the Fisheries Management Act apply there. There are two specific offences under that act, and they both relate to a person doing certain things. The first relates to a person undertaking fishing activities without authorisation, and the second relates to a person being in charge of vessel equipped for fishing being in a place inside Australia's jurisdiction. In order to get the evidence necessary to undertake prosecution, you first of all have to identify who that person is, and to do that from an aircraft is very, very challenging, almost impossible, because you cannot identify the person through a radio interrogation, for example. You cannot be sure that they are who they say they are. So, essentially, you need to physically apprehend the person on the boat to identify who they are and also to be able to take action in court based on the proofs of evidence that we have to utilise—to prove those or apply to prove those proofs of the offence. Also, the vessel is subject to a separate legislative forfeiture regime under the Fisheries Management Act which entails automatic forfeiture following seizure if certain actions are not taken by the owners within a 30-day period. Again, that requires physical apprehension of the vessel and taking that vessel back to the Australian mainland, along with the crew on board, for investigation and prosecution.

The second scenario relates to events on the high seas. It was mentioned in the earlier session that there are certain provisions that apply to boarding arrangements on the high seas, in particular the vessel needs to be part of a regional agreement that accedes to the boarding and inspection regime that may apply in that area on the high seas. Secondly, if the vessel is deemed to be or considered to be flagless under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, authorities can board to ascertain flag status—but nothing beyond that. The third case would be if the flag state itself has given permission to board the vessel, but then again there would be the question of whether that vessel was operating in contravention of any arrangement that it is not party to—or the flag that it is flying or the state that it is registered under is party to the convention and signed on to those agreements. From that perspective, it is challenging in terms of the high seas issues.

Where aerial surveillance does become very useful is where identity of the vessel itself, in terms of the vessel name and the flag it might be flying, can be used to approach our partners in South-East Asia. That would enable them to close their ports and would give them warning that this vessel was on its way to port. That measure has been quite successful in the past two years. Since February 2012, 35 representations have been made from Australia to the members of the regional plan of action in the South-East Asian region to give them warning that certain vessels were on their way to their ports. That led to six different vessels either being denied port access, denied access to port services or denied opportunities to unload—or being detained and, in some instances, prosecuted.

Senator BACK: I want to go to the increasing interest in the Antarctic from a tourism point of view. Can you either tell us or take on notice what the pattern of numbers of vessels—hopefully with numbers of people on them? The committee would be interested to know what change, if any, there has been in the pattern of visits to the Antarctic—not just the area over which we have control but the Antarctic generally. Can you start with that?

Mr Groves : I do not have figures at hand, but I can certainly take that on notice.

Senator BACK: It would also be of interest to know from what countries these have come. My second question is probably more to the Maritime Safety Authority people. Is there any international rule governing, or oversight of, the quality of tourism vessels that are entering into Antarctic waters?

Mr Groves : I can answer that question. The tourist vessels are passenger ships. They are built to the standards required under international conventions, particularly the Safety of Life at Sea Convention and the Marine Pollution Convention.

Senator BACK: Who enforces that?

Mr Groves : The flag state the vessel is registered with enforces it.

Senator BACK: And if they are under some shonky flag, who looks after that?

Mr Groves : There is a port state control regime that operates around the world. Australia, I would like to think, is one of the leading countries when it comes to that regime.

Senator BACK: It certainly is.

Mr Groves : When a vessel is in port and is departing for a voyage to the Antarctic, from an Australian perspective—under our port state control regime—we would be inspecting that vessel to ensure that it met the various maritime conventions before its departure.

Senator BACK: There was an event last year involving a Russian-owned, New Zealand-chartered vessel that got itself into mischief down in the Antarctic. Can you advise the committee of what involvement, if any, did Australia have? And what was the sequence for the passengers being removed off the vessel and the vessel itself getting out of Antarctic waters? And what time of year was it?

Mr Groves : I might defer to my colleague from our Emergency Response Division.

Ms MacMillian : The Akademik Shokalskiy, which is the vessel you are referring to, proceeded from New Zealand to the Antarctic area. On 24 December, they indicated that they were beset by ice and subsequently declared distress. It was, as you indicated, from a Russian flagged vessel. It had a total of 74 persons on board. The master indicated that he was in distress and activated his global maritime distress and safe system equipment indicating to that. Because he was within the Australian search and rescue region, we assumed responsibility for coordinating the response. This set in motion the normal notification to the area of any shipping that could be available to provide assistance. In addition to that, we of course contacted the Australian Antarctic Division as a cooperative partner for prosecuting or responding to any type of search and rescue incident in and around the Antarctic.

Senator BACK: Before you go on: was the nature of the distress the fact that the vessel was caught in the ice?

Ms MacMillian : The actual distress indicated by the master was, yes, he was entrapped in ice but he also believed that he was under what they call ice pack pressure, that he was within approximately 700 metres of a large iceberg and that he did believe that he may have to abandon ship.

Senator BACK: The vessel was not otherwise equipped as an icebreaker to be in that circ*mstance?

Ms MacMillian : I would have to check his actual ice classification, but I believe that he was not considered an icebreaker per se.

Senator BACK: Sorry to have interrupted you. So AAD was activated by you?

Ms MacMillian : Normally, as we would, we put out a broadcast for shipping, requesting anybody in the available area to provide assistance. Also, of course, we went through our normal contact within the Antarctic Division for any other additional information they had on available aviation or assets that could possibly respond. This would be normal for us to do in the Antarctic or in any place else in a remote region, relying on shipping to provide assistance. To that, we had several replies to our request for assistance and they included the Aurora Australis, the Xue Long, who is a Chinese flagged craft, as well the L'Astrolabe, which is a French vessel. The response was conducted with the Xue Long getting within approximately two miles but, due to ice, could get no closer. The Aurora Australis stayed off at six miles. L'Astrolabe was released because she could add no value. Eventually it was determined when we had the weather and the ability to remove passengers that we would do so at the request of the master. That would give the vessel a longer term ability to sustain the situation and hopefully also be able to move the vessel from the ice, if possible, if the weather conditions changed?

Senator BACK: What happened?

Ms MacMillian : Fortunately, the 52 passengers removed themselves from the Akademik Shokalskiy to the ice, to a safe landing area, where the helicopter from Xue Long transferred them to the Xue Long and then out to the Aurora Australis. The remaining 22 crew stayed aboard. They had significant provisions, which of course would now last longer because they were going to have to sustain 22 and not 74. Several days later they had a shift in the wind direction and the Akademik Shokalskiy was eventually able to become free from the beset ice and proceed back to New Zealand.

Senator BACK: Before I go to my next question, can you give me some idea of the average or even the largest number of passengers who have gone down on cruise vessels to the Antarctic. You mentioned 52 passengers. Is that typical? Are there larger vessels?

Ms MacMillian : I do not have those specific numbers. I would have to take that on notice.

Senator BACK: Sure. Just in general terms, do we know whether any vessels have hundreds of passengers on them, for example?

Ms MacMillian : I can tell you that generally in the Australian Antarctic area—for which we are responsible—we do not get as many large ships, but there are areas within the Antarctic that do get larger ships with multiple—

Senator BACK: Can I now broaden the question—

CHAIR: Sorry, Senator Back. Just on the ship that was beset by ice, who does the analysis as to that? Does anybody pin the tail on the donkey here? Was it an accident, a freak of nature, or bad planning?

Ms MacMillian : You are referring to the cause for him being in that situation?

CHAIR: I presume masters of ships do not like pressing the button saying they are in distress?

Ms MacMillian : I believe that every master takes his responsibility seriously. I do believe that circ*mstances and any incidents occur—and I cannot comment specifically on the cause that led up to this event as—

CHAIR: So who does?

Mr Groves : That is a role for the flag state of the vessel.

CHAIR: Russia.

Mr Groves : Russia. Correct.

Senator BACK: Just before I go on to ask the group more widely, the Aurora Australis, which I understand was on its way to resupply at one or more of our bases, was diverted. So potentially a scenario could have existed in which that base may have actually found itself significantly short of fuel or whatever, which leads me to the question: was there some form of Australia-wide overview? Was that event workshopped to work through the scenario, for example, of more passengers, longer time caught or something that did materialise, from just being in the presence of an ice pack pressure to significant damage to a vessel? For example, Admiral, if—as part of the chain of command or the control—the Navy had have been tasked to send a vessel down to those waters to assist, typically how long would that take? Would the vessel go from Stirling? Would it have to come out of northern waters? Would it come from Sydney? Are we talking weeks? Let us take an unfortunate scenario. A vessel is in all sorts of strife, life at sea is at risk, the hull is crushing, and diesel or bunkers are leaking or have the potential to leak. Let us just workshop it through to find out how capable we are, given what I believe to be an increase now in the number of passenger vessels. Can you just help the committee to our understanding.

Rear Adm. Van Balen : Within our current inventory, HMAS Choules is the only vessel we have which has an ice rating, and she is capable of operating in first year sea ice up to 0.3 of a metre in thickness. Our statement of operating intent for our vessels is that they cannot undertake sustained operations in the sub-Antarctic, which is between 46 and 60 degrees south. So we would be very cautious in sending them into that area for any protracted period of time. In any event it would be Choules that would probably have to be used to make its way down there. Given the limitations on the vessel's availability, and where it may be being employed, it could take a period of time before it was in a position to respond. In any event, I am not quite sure where this particular vessel was, but it may be that it is too far south for us to get to given the capabilities of our ships.

Senator BACK: Can I go back, then, to Ms Macmillian. In your planning during this phase, you must have been undertaking the exercises that I am seeking information on now. Where did you see there being alternative resources in the event that, if you like, conditions deteriorated for the safety of these people and the safety of the vessel? What else did you have up your sleeve?

Ms MacMillian : As the incident began, as we call it, on Christmas, as we said, we put out the broadcast and we got the response. Of course, those vessels that did respond were the closest in the proximity. In general, of those three, as far as capability is concerned, Aurora Australis was the most capable of the three.

The plan, in consultation with the Antarctic Division, with the Antarctic Division talking to other national Antarctic programs, was to ensure we had the best, most appropriate response we could based on the available assets. The weather, from an aviation perspective, prohibited any type of land based response, so any type of response from one of the national Antarctic programs. So a helicopter response initially was ruled out because of weather.

The idea of having a helicopter is to get in close proximity. If you had a weather opportunity, then you may be able to conduct a rescue if it went from being an on-board situation on the vessel to an evacuation, because then you have exposure and the length of time you are able to survive until rescue is effected is much shorter.

So the first plan was to try and get things in the area as soon as possible so that we had the opportunity to conduct a rescue—from the ice, if necessary. The other part of it was ensuring that we had secondary vessels there, like L'Astrolabe. Initially she was tasked to be there in case it was an immediate evacuation to the ice. So we were looking at a possibility of 72 persons needing medical assistance. The fact was we were trying to get the assets there to respond to the worst-case situation.

The last part of the equation was the US vessel that was in either Hobart or Sydney—I would have to check. But she was heading to the Antarctic for a resupply and she was requested through the US Coast Guard to provide assistance if required, if the Akademik Shokalskiy could not become free of ice. That was the last part of the plan at that point. As I said, in this particular case the incident was resolved both by an evacuation by helicopter and then by a significant change in the weather conditions.

Senator BACK: Can I ask what if any changes have been undertaken to our planning as a result of that incident, bearing in mind that the best summary would be to say we all got out of jail there? What further contingencies, what further investments or what further allocation of assets and resources may be necessary to be in reserve, given the fact, as the admiral has said, the Navy cannot assist? The L'Astrolabe is a very small vessel. It has no ice-breaking capacity. The Aurora may not have been available. It could have been sitting back in Hobart having engines changed or something. What else have we got? Do you agree with me that it is likely to be an ongoing and even increasing risk as Antarctica becomes more attractive as a destination for tourists, as the last wilderness?

Mr Groves : I think it is fair to say it will always be a challenge for us in terms of search and rescue. There are a number of things we can do from a maritime safety point of view. When these sorts of events happen, there is a debrief conducted with lessons learnt. As was mentioned earlier, there is some work being done at the International Maritime Organization at the moment around a polar code for vessels operating in that region. From the authority's point of view, we work on a premise of making sure the event does not happen in the first place. The more effort we can focus in that area, hopefully the less effort we will need in a response. That polar code is still currently being worked on, but it is about making sure that ships have greater stability, greater subdivision, heightened operational practices and better environmental credentials when operating in that area. Certainly passenger ships are part and parcel of that.

We also review our collaborative arrangements. When these events happen we will talk to our neighbours and review our capabilities and cooperation with them. As mentioned earlier, I believe there is quite a bit of discussion among the council of managers of the National Antarctic Program at the moment around collaboration.

CHAIR: We saw with the MH370 that Australia has a legal responsibility. I think that is the case—isn't it?

Mr Groves : We have a responsibility under the various conventions—that is correct.

CHAIR: Is that the same responsibility we would face in this area here?

Mr Groves : Correct. That vessel was in our search-and-rescue region.

CHAIR: That relates to Senator Back's point about our ability to exercise our international responsibilities. Perhaps you could answer this on notice. Are you satisfied we have the capability to honour our international responsibilities?

Mr Groves : I think I can say from a maritime safety point of view that it is demonstrated that we have that capability.

CHAIR: We will bring the assets together from wherever?

Mr Groves : Correct. Again, I would say that our search and rescue region is one-tenth of the earth's surface, which is considerable. It is 8½ million square kilometres below 60 degrees south. So we are always going to have to work under a collaborative arrangement.

Senator BACK: Getting back to the long-suffering taxpayer, was there any capacity for us to actually be able to retrieve any of the costs associated with that or was that just simply taken as safety at sea?

Mr Groves : Under those conventions, no. Basically we contribute. Could I also say, though, if the Aurora Australis was on the other side of this equation, under those conventions we would be expecting other countries to assist us.

Senator BACK: I understand that. Just very quickly, Admiral, how far south were Bullimore and Autissier when we went and rescued them?

Rear Adm. Van Balen : I do not have the exact latitudes, but they were nowhere near those sorts of latitudes.

Senator BACK: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: I am not being flippant with his question, Admiral, but is it possible for submarines to go down there if there needs to be a mass evacuation? I have seen Ice Station Zebra and that was in the 1960s. Is it possible to send submarines down under the ice pack, if necessary?

Rear Adm. Van Balen : Submarines transit under the ice pack in the Arctic region, because of the nature of it. But given that the Antarctic is a land mass, you would not be sending a submarine in that direction.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Okay, thank you. I was interested in that. Just in relation to what was discussed earlier around our responsibilities with the illegal fishing in EEZ, Mr Quaedvlieg, you said that we have the capability at the moment to board a vessel or intercept a vessel. If a scenario came along and we had to do it next week, what vessel would we use in that area? What is our capability at the moment in terms of assets?

Mr Quaedvlieg : That time frame that you just expressed is too short for us to deploy our single ice-rated vessel from its current location to the areas of interest that we would be able to take action in.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: The committee has heard that we have got to ice-rated vessels: The Ocean Shield and the Ocean Protector. Which one are you referring to?

Mr Quaedvlieg : The Ocean Protector is now decommissioned. It was our single ice-rated vessel. It has been decommissioned, as I say, and we are commissioning the Ocean Shield currently, which will be our single ice-rated vessel when it comes on.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Sorry, I do not understand the difference—the commissioning?

Mr Quaedvlieg : The Ocean Shield is essentially replacing the Ocean Protector.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: As a vessel for the Southern Ocean?

Mr Quaedvlieg : Not exclusively, no. The Ocean Shield will be a vessel that we will use as a utility vessel. It is our flagship—the vessel of our fleet. But certainly it is the only vessel that we will have in our fleet that is capable of operating in the Southern Ocean, due to range, endurance, sea conditions and icebreaking capacity.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: So we brought that around for the MH370 search from the east coast. When I asked at estimates last year, they said the Ocean Shield was necessary for relief around natural disasters and other issues in our northern, north-eastern areas.

Mr Quaedvlieg : Sure.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Has that changed now?

Mr Quaedvlieg : No, that has not changed. The agreement that we have with Defence is that, as we take possession of the Ocean Shield and use it within our broad remit of responsibilities, we will coordinate our tasking of the Ocean Shield in such a way that, during the disaster season, if you will, it will be on a short tether and be available for humanitarian disaster relief taskings.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: And the disaster season is the Australian summer?

Mr Quaedvlieg : That is correct.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: So if you are decommissioning the Ocean Protector, would you then be sending the Ocean Shield to be part of Operation Sovereign Borders? How are you going to replace Ocean Protector?

Mr Quaedvlieg : Thank you for that question, because it is important. I was listening to the evidence earlier and I want to contextualise the Southern Ocean in our broad remit of responsibilities. We have a number of civilian maritime threats that we deal with. I do not want to rattle them off—I am happy to give them out of session. But they are obviously maritime people smuggling, our Southern Ocean patrols, maritime piracy, the security of our offshore and gas installations, the theft of natural resources. So in our coordination of our resources against all of those threats, we use all of our vessels—both marine and air. The Ocean Protector and now the Ocean Shield is obviously, as I mentioned, the flagship, and we will prioritise the use of that particular asset depending on what particular threats are facing us at any given point in time. So we just had a conversation in relation to the Ocean Shield and its utility for humanitarian and disaster relief operations. It has equal and if not more utility for our maritime people-smuggling operations under Operation Sovereign Borders. It is also, as I mentioned, the only vessel that we have that is capable of operating in any meaningful way in the Southern Ocean. So just on those three threats alone you will see that the Ocean Shield needs to be spread across all of our threats, and we will make those determinations at the time, depending on the particular priority of the threats that we are facing.

Senator BACK: Was that Cape St Georgethat one the other day?

Mr Quaedvlieg : Yes, we have a rollout program of Cape class vessels, which are replacing our existing and ageing Bay class fleet. We have Cape St George in operation. We have Cape Byron now commissioned. The third Cape class is due to roll out very shortly, and we have five others thereafter rolling out on an assembly line between now and the end of next year. They are very versatile, capable vessels, but they are incapable of operating in the Southern Ocean.

Senator BACK: But they could free up Ocean Shield for some time in the Southern Ocean.

Mr Quaedvlieg : Correct.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: So the use of the asset, Ocean Shield, obviously would depend on any particular contingency—and you would not be able to tell us how long it would take for it to be deployed, because it would depend where it was and what else it was being used for?

Mr Quaedvlieg : Yes, in general terms, if we have the luxury of being able to plan. For example, we are currently planning in this financial year—and acknowledging we are three months into that—two 40-day patrols for the Ocean Shield in the Southern Ocean. That planning is underway. I do not want to pre-empt when and where that is likely to be, because obviously operational security is important.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Can I just pull you up there—would that include continuing the search for MH370?

Mr Quaedvlieg : No. That planning will be undertaken with all diligence and good faith and will incorporate the interests of all our partner agencies. However, I cannot guarantee that at the point when that patrol is about to take place that there may not be a disaster situation that we would need to respond to, or there is suddenly an increase in maritime people-smuggling threats that we then need to divert that vessel to. But at this point in time we are planning two 40-day patrols in the Southern Ocean.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Two 40-day patrols?

Mr Quaedvlieg : Yes.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: That would be the first time since 2012 that we have actually conducted patrols?

Mr Quaedvlieg : That is correct—since early 2012.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Thank you.

This is a question for AFMA on illegal fishing outside of the EEZ. Given, obviously, all the work you do on fish stocks—and the committee did go and meet with the Antarctic Division and we met with their fisheries experts—are you concerned about negative spillover effects from illegal fishing around the Australian EEZ or is it inconsequential to the commercial fisheries that are operating there?

Mr Timmiss : The impacts of illegal fishing are taken into account in the stock assessments. Since 2006 there has been no illegal catch within the zone or close enough to the zone to be taken into account for the stocks that we fish.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Listening to Austral the other day in Hobart, they have to go down there for a certain time of the year because of the sustainability of the fishery. How would you monitor the fishery for the rest of the year? We have heard satellite is one thing. Who does that work? Is it looked at on a weekly basis or a daily basis? Obviously it is a big piece of ocean, we all understand that.

Mr Venslovas : If I can answer part of the question as a starting point. You are correct: there is coverage of the Heard Island and McDonald Islands EEZ through the coverage of the commercially available satellite technology. There are also Australian fishing vessels down there that act as surveillance platforms in their own right when they are fishing.

We also monitor the movement of vessels as they transit to and from the South-East Asian ports in key strategic areas to determine what they are doing and where they are going. Of interest is that in the last five months we have not seen any vessels heading south; they have all been heading north, which is quite a positive outcome, we feel. The monitoring does occur from those sources. Also, there are other licensed fishing vessels operating in the area from Spain, Japan and other fishing nations that also do report IUU vessels when they do come across them.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Is it a collaborative approach to the sharing of satellite data and observations from vessels? And who feeds that to you?

Mr Quaedvlieg : I might take that question in part, and if I cannot answer it fully I am happy to take it on notice. We have an arrangement with the French in terms of the satellite coverage. The contractual arrangements give us nine million nautical square miles of coverage per year. The surveillance data that we obtain through that coverage is almost live time. I think there is about an hour delay. It is transmitted back to French locations in the Southern Ocean. The collaboration between the French and us in terms of identification of potential fishing threats and agreements and discussions around responses has been very good.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: We have heard and we certainly discussed it with the last witnesses that there has been pressure on that arrangement with the French. I know it is probably more a question for DFAT—

Mr Quaedvlieg : I am happy to take that question. I did listen to the evidence a little bit earlier. I thought it unfairly characterised the temperature of the relationship. I think it was characterised as something like the French are wanting us to pull our weight. The point I wanted to make there was that it is a long-term relationship that we have with the French; it is 10 years or more. Also, the relationship has multi elements. It is satellite coverage. I guess its crown jewel is surface assets and cross-secondments of our officers onto our respective vessels. There is other work that we share in the intelligence space. There is other cooperative work that we do in terms of our own aerial surveillance flights. Let me come back to the issue that has been touched upon a couple of times around cooperative patrols. Yes, we have not had a large vessel in the Southern Ocean since January-February 2012. Prior to that, the French and us both had assets in the Southern Ocean at various times and there were cross-secondments of officers on those vessels. In the last couple of years, we have had officers embarked on French vessels. We have not been able to conduct our own patrols to embark French officers onto; however—and I need to emphasise this point—we have had very intimate and regular discussions with the French over the last couple of years in relation to this issue. They fully appreciate and are sympathetic to the priorities that we have in terms of our north-western corridors and dealing with our maritime people-smuggling threats. They have shown much grace and tolerance in allowing us to focus our assets towards that particular threat. They are now heartened by the fact that Operation Sovereign Borders has reduced that to almost zero trickle, and they are very much looking forward to the two 40 day patrols that we have planned upon which they will embark officers. It is a very mature, very longstanding and very collaborative relationship with the French.

CHAIR: On the issue of collaboration, there was some evidence given to us in Hobart—and I will probably address this to AFMA—that when Australian ships are on the high seas we have to carry a full-time observer, whereas other countries do not apply the same rule. It costs us approximately $1,400 each day to have a person on board our boats. Can you tell us whether that is correct and AFMA's thinking behind it.

Mr Venslovas : The arrangements under which Australian vessels operate require certain measures to be put in place to monitor what happens on those vessels, and that includes 24-hour observer coverage to validate catches and to help ensure that quota restrictions are not breached.

It is one of the monitoring measures that we have in place. Observers are also there to collect scientific data to aid us in our research and to enable us to make informed management decisions. There are various other provisions that apply to these vessels as well, in terms of restrictions on when they can discharge offal, and other measures.

CHAIR: So let me get this right. We have Australian fishing boats that come back to port in Australia, to the Australian legal jurisdiction; we have a full-time observer on board there to make sure they are doing the right thing; and we monitor the rest of the ocean by trying to intercept them at Malaysian markets or Malaysian ports or whatever. It seems to me that there is a little bit of over-regulation there.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Do we have monitors on foreign boats in the tuna fishery? I thought we did—that we put Australian monitors on—

Mr Venslovas : When there were foreign tuna boats operating in the Australian jurisdiction there were observers on board. Definitely.

Senator BACK: At whose expense?

Mr Venslovas : The operator's. The distinction there is—

CHAIR: It clearly says in this transcript here that that does not apply to other countries in this area. Clearly the comment was that other countries do not apply the same rule. We are the only ones applying this rule in this area.

Mr Venslovas : Could I just make the comment that under the CCAMLR regime all member countries have signed on to certain provisions to monitor the operations of their own boats. One of those provisions is that to operate legally in CCAMLR waters—

CHAIR: We you aware of this evidence, Mr Venslovas? Were you aware of Mr Exel's submission?

Mr Venslovas : I am aware of Mr Exel's submission, but I am not aware of the context in which the comment was made.

CHAIR: You may want to take that on notice and perhaps respond to us, but he definitely says here:

To fish on the high seas as Australia we have to carry a full-time observer, whereas other countries do not apply the same rule. That costs us approximately $1,400 each day that person is on board our boat. That is before we catch a fish. We do not have a problem carrying a scientific student or somebody else. Maybe you could carry one observer every second trip. That is the sort of thing I am talking about.

We know these fishermen. Presumably we know where they start and finish. We can catch them on the satellite. If they are doing the wrong thing, you can bang them up at law. But we make them pay for a full-time observer. They say that that is not really making their position more tenable; it is making it less tenable; and there are people out there doing the wrong thing. They are pointing at the ship on the horizon, so to speak.

Mr Venslovas : Could I perhaps clarify, that under the CCAMLR convention, which Australia is a party to, and the commission rules, we sign on to certain conservation and management measures. One of those requires observers to be placed on vessels that are legally fishing in CCAMLR waters. That applies to all member nations. They are required to deploy observers on board their vessels as well. Certainly, the problem arises when you have IUU vessels which are not party to the convention. They are not subject to any of the rules. That is an issue, and that is why IUU fishing is a problem when it does occur in the southern oceans.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: I would like to ask you a couple of questions, probably to AMSA and Defence. I raised it in estimates recently. Has there been any more information provided about the response to the vessel that sank recently south-west of Fremantle? I think it was back in March this year. It put out a distress—I do not even know what the name of it is, unfortunately. It was definitely illegally fishing. It was reported to be a mother ship. It sank with all hands on deck, if that is the right term—all life on board.

Mr Woodford-Smith : Maybe just to add to that, I am aware of an incident that occurred with an IUU vessel in the Southern Ocean around 30 March 2014. That was an incident led by our colleagues from AMSA. I understand that a P3 was requested and undertook a search down in that area and located debris but was not able to locate the vessel. What we subsequently found through our international engagement is that another vessel called the Chang Bai—when it was actually boarded in Malaysia, they identified people off the Tiantai, which was that vessel that was believed to have sunk in the Southern Ocean. I think the belief was that those people were rescued by one of its company fishing vessels.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: So there was another illegal boat in the area that picked them up?

Mr Woodford-Smith : Yes, that is correct.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: I thought it would just be an interesting example to the committee of the type of incident that may occur in this jurisdiction that we are looking at and how we might respond to that. How did that information get to you guys? Is a distress signal picked up by AMSA and then passed on to Air Force or Customs?

Mr Woodford-Smith : I would have to defer to my colleagues from AMSA, who are managing search and rescue.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: I would be interested in Terry Bullimore, which Senator Back mentioned. Do you have to put in a plan if you are a yachtsman or yachtswoman in this area? What sort of ongoing dialogue and planning do you have with yacht races as well?

Mr Groves : In relation to the vessel, that was certainly through the activation of an emergency locator beacon. It was picked up by our rescue coordination centre here in Canberra. As a result of that, we sought assets to go and investigate. At that time, the information that we had at hand around the vessel was not complete. We were not sure of the flag of the vessel or even at that stage what type of vessel it was. But nevertheless, because it was a distress arrangement, we requested assets and—as Defence has mentioned—Orion was sent out. It took something like 5.5 hours for the Orion to get on site. It spent around an hour surveying the area and found what appeared to be debris from a vessel in the water, but there was no sign of life rafts or people in the water.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Do we have any idea at all, through sources, how many people may have been on the boat? I think it was reported as the single biggest loss of life in that area at the time.

Mr Groves : I cannot recall. I think the figure quoted was perhaps around 13, but that is only in that we think that is typical of that type of vessel. The Orion was on task for about an hour and then had to head back. It did observe another fishing vessel in the air. It was unable to be contacted and certainly our efforts to contact the vessel did not come to fruition as well. We have expert advice at the time that—given the length of time from the distress signal, temperature of the water and environmental conditions—the success of survivors would have been pretty low at that stage. We completed our search and rescue activities.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: With the yacht races and individual yachts—

Mr Groves : I may have to defer to my colleague on that, although AMSA certainly work very closely with the organisations of those sorts of events. Perhaps Ms MacMillian might have something to add.

Ms MacMillian : In the last five or six years, as your are aware, there are many races—such as the Volvo and the Vendee Globe—that come through the Southern Ocean as part of the around-the-world yacht race organisations and activities. They have been quite active as we have engaged with them to ensure that they understand the limitations of the ability to respond effectively to any type of incident in the southern part of the ocean or in the Southern Ocean. We communicate then that they need to consider that in their planning. We have no necessary legal authority, but we do indicate that we have limited resources.

If they go any further than 800 to 1,000 miles south of the Australian mainland's major aerodromes—meaning Perth, Melbourne and Sydney—then their ability to survive is solely their responsibility for a minimum of most likely five days. We work with them very closely to make sure that they understand the limitations and that they have inherent responsibilities to make sure that they plan accordingly not to go too far south and that, if they do so, they do so at the risk that they may not be able to be rescued, because they may not be able to be alive when rescue is affected.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: In relation to the Japanese whaling fleet and their clashes with the Sea Shepherd, did AMSA provided any response or have a chance to do any study into the incident with the Ady Gil, which is the Sea Shepherd boat that was sunk in the Southern Ocean? I understand that it was not in Australian waters. It was in a whaling sanctuary.

Mr Groves : That happened on the high seas. Both vessels were flagged elsewhere before Australia. We did some initial investigation around the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, but it was inconclusive.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: This is probably to AFMA. With the vessel Thunder, which was intercepted in the Malaysian port, did they ever find toothfish? We were told in Hobart last week by Austral that it was a successful operation, but they were not sure what happened to the fish.

Mr Venslovas : The simple answer is no. We do not know what happened to the fish. In terms of the Thunder itself, the operator on the vessel was fined. Is this the most recent issue that you are referring to?

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Yes.

Mr Venslovas : The simple answer is no: we do not know what happened to the fish.

CHAIR: Thank you very much for appearing here today. Could you remain behind for a few moments in case the secretariat needs to clarify any matters with you. The committee requests that answers to questions taken on notice by witnesses today be provided to the secretariat by 10 October. On behalf of the committee, I thank all witnesses who have appeared here today. The committee will now adjourn.

Committee adjourned at 12 : 36