Prior to this appointment, John was Manager of the Bribie Island Aquaculture Research Centre, after having played a pivotal role in the development of new aquaculture methods, which contributed to the success of a variety of new aquaculture ventures in South East Qld. John is a long term DPI stalwart having served in various roles in the Department over the last 30 years.

His aquatic pursuits over those years have led to a range of publications in Australian and international journals covering a diverse range of subjects from fish and wildlife diseases through to water quality control and aquaculture breeding techniques.

But in spite of his academic pursuits, John has maintained a close working relationship with the aquaculture community. He is never happier than when he is swapping fish breeding yarns with ‘the faithful’, preferably over a cold beer or three and up to his waist in water. He is also renowned as a public presenter who will go to any length to hold his audiences’ attention. He has been known to resort to some eyebrow raising antics, which have passed into the stuff of legend. You would be well advised not to drop off in any of his sessions. He is known to his close associates as the ‘Ol Grey Fox’, for some obscure reason.

Queensland’s commercial fisheries are the third largest in value in Australia and the eight most valuable primary producer for Queensland (Williams, 2002). It is the most spatially diverse primary industry in the state and a vital contributor to the commercial survival of a number of our coastal towns.  There are two main sectors in the commercial fisheries of Queensland – the harvest sector and the aquaculture sector with a combined annual Gross Value of Production (GVP) of approx $350M. 

 The significant characteristics of the total seafood industry in this state are:

• a large export component
• an extensive coastline
• an important and rapidly developing aquaculture sector
• very little complex processing
• no centralised marketing system
• a high value live fish export market
• an extensive recreational sector
• significant imports form overseas and interstate 

 A fairly complex picture you would agree – and an important part of that canvas is that

1.               We are all part of the food industry;

2.               The customer’s decision is final

3.               One bad experience can have ramifications across all sectors

This is a simple message that sometimes gets caught up and overlooked in the minutiae of earning a living

At the AAQ Conference I intend to give you an overview of how Safe Food sees itself interacting with the freshwater aquaculture industry sector and the philosophy underpinning that intention.  I’ll also give you a thumbnail sketch of where we’re currently at and attempt to paint a BIG PICTURE of where we want to be.  I emphasise “we”, because the delivery of true food safety to the consumer will either be a collaborative affair or it will be doomed to failure. 

As Regulators, Safe Food is dependent on the integrity of this industry and its adherence to the principles of Good Management Practice, on the other hand, you as industry look to us to ensure that you are sensibly advised and not unnecessarily regulated.  After all, you know best how to run your individual business.  While Safe Food Queensland has a legislative responsibility for food safety in all seafood within this state, I see our role primarily as one of helping you to not only achieve consistent food safety standards but to also produce evidence of that fact.

Certainly, I know I’ll get no argument from you that the twin attributes of safety and quality begin at the moment the live product is removed from its aquatic environment and that mistreatment following capture cannot be remedied through downstream processing. 

And while the freshwater aquaculture sector is still small, its great potential is the reason why we’re all here on the Gold Coast today.  And one thing the industry doesn’t need is “bad press”.

Now, some might say “What’s the problem”?

Is it just possible that seafood is not a risk to the community?  OR – have we been just dead lucky?  My observation is - a bit of both.  Can we afford to depend on Lady Luck?  You all know the answer to that.

 We can all see how mishaps can, and do occur, anywhere along the food supply chain and in this age of litigation, the possibility of expensive lawsuits is a real possibility.   So lets admit that there is an element of self-protection in all of this that bears thinking about.

 So how does the industry protect itself from this possibility?  And how do we facilitate the process? 

 To shorten the odds and at the same time ensure compliance with the Food Production (Safety) Act, Safe Food Queensland is actively engaging with a range of stakeholders, on the introduction of a food safety scheme that we hope will assure the ongoing food safety status of seafood in Queensland.   What this will mean for you will depend on the risk level of your particular activity.

In Queensland, Safe Food has assessed raw ready to eat (RTE) seafood as potentially high risk and the major group in this category is oysters, the bulk of which are imported from interstate and overseas.  At the other end of the scale is aquaculture.

 A final assignation of particular risk category will be determined for the individual business activity and is predicated on appropriate verification of handling and protection of product  (Wells 2002).

 However, when Food Borne Incidence  statistics are examined, seafood in Australia is an “also ran” compared to its mammalian cousins and that fact needs to be kept in perspective.  Does this simply reflect consumption levels?  I think not. 

 It is plainly obvious that something is working in the marketplace that we surmise to be a combination of the following:

• short shelf life of product,

• diffusion of food safety principles from other food industries, and

• market imperatives. 

 It is also fair to say that the seafood industry has shown great initiative in pushing for national risk assessments, a National Seafood Standard and generally encouraging what A.D. Mortimer espoused in his 2000 Award of Merit speech – a “Food Safety Culture”.  In the same vein, your organisation has shown great foresight in the development of its Code of Practice and that initiative is held in high regard.  These same imperatives have engendered a mindset that is conducive to food safety objectives but with a couple of large caveats.  Fisherfolk, being the last of our frontiers people, hate paperwork with a vengeance and are up to here with duplication.  Can’t say I blame them there, but it’s enough to send an old bureaucrat round the twist –unless he takes up the challenge of doing things differently.

 On thing is for sure- I know where I don’t want to go.  I don’t want to get in the industry’s face unnecessarily and I don’t want to play Big Brother either.  In fact I don’t fancy concrete boots at all.

 I suggest our challenge lies in encouraging the culture of change where it is required and also recognizing where it’s best to leave well enough alone.  At Safe Food we believe in small government.  We are not about duplication or rules for the sake of rules.

 Our approach will be to expect industry to ‘do the right thing’  - but we will require industry to back that trust with record keeping appropriate to the activity.  Traceability is going to be the essence of our systems and I can predict that it could be a hair shirt for those who look for shortcuts.  I have a long history with the seafood industry and I’ve heard most of the stories both tall and true.  Let me assure you that any who abuse that community trust – and that’s what we’re really on about here - will find The Big Stick lies in store by virtue of the penalty provisions of our Act.  By the same token, good operators have nothing to fear from us – we should be just about invisible. 

 Our current train of thought is to concentrate on the basics of hygienic handling and proper protection of product, and to back those activities with vendor agreements with their suppliers of inputs such as feed, fertilizers, etc.  More sophisticated programs can be developed as the situation dictates.

 However, this doesn’t let the industry off the hook as far as normal hygiene and product protection standards go.  It is still quite possible to contaminate a perfectly harmless piece of seafood into a Food Safety Incident just waiting to happen.  An important document that puts these facts into perspective is the National Risk Validation Project Report (2002) in which the old favourites of temperature abuse and inadequate handling (including gross contamination) appear as the most frequently encountered hazards. No surprises there, but certainly a reality check when we look at the risk rankings.

 So here is your window of opportunity.  We believe that Good Manufacturing Practice and Standard Operating Procedures will address food safety requirements in the majority of field-based operations

In essence we are recognizing that risk management is not about eliminating risk – it’s about weighing alternatives and having the courage to share some of the risk with industry.  It is also about managing public perception through effective communication that will help to align the perception of risk closer to reality.  And what is driving this push into the unknown?  We need look no further than Taylor and Hoffman’s (2001) discussion paper on redesigning food safety where they suggest that attention to the real risk should lead to a more effective allocation of inspection and enforcement resources and to more effective risk reduction strategies.  The sub text is all about resources.  Surely our ultimate objective is consumer protection through intelligent application of finite resources? 

And that does not necessarily mean the same old way of doing things.  Safe Food is challenging where is the most effective point of insertion in the supply chain and what is the most effective method?    Can the industry step up to the plate and self regulate? Mortimer’s “Food Safety Culture” beckons us all.