HARBORS AND NAVIGATION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council’s amendment.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment be agreed to.

It is a very minor technical amendment because the bill originally referred to the Harbors and Navigation Regulations 1994 which were still in operation. However, since the passage of the bill, the 1994 regulations have expired and have been replaced by the Harbors and Navigation Regulations 2009, so there is a need to change that reference.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The opposition supports this amendment. It is a very important technical change, because South Australia has 31 harbours under this act from American River in the As through to Whyalla in the Ws, and everything in between is extremely important—including Point Turton, of which I have fond memories.

It is important that we get the regulations right and make sure that we have the facilities provided for the thousands of South Australians who enjoy recreational boating and also commercial boating. I remind the committee that the Facilities Fund being set up under this new act and to which these regulations will apply replaces the Recreational Boating Facilities Fund. I remember in my second reading speech referring to the fact that the then minister for transport (Diana Laidlaw) was keen to set up one fund which covered both recreational and commercial boaties.

There is always some concern that one sector or the other will miss out, but I think the regulations to be brought in, particularly with this amendment to the 2009 regulations, will ensure a fair distribution of both the facilities and the use of this fund. The importance of this act and these regulations is that the fund can be invested on behalf of South Australian boaties, and those who use the ports and harbours of South Australia, to maximise the use of this fund and the return on the fund so that these facilities can be improved.

The regulations under the 1994 act cover a wide range of responsibilities, and we need to make sure that this minor change enabling the regulations to be updated is right because it is important that we support all our boaties. That is all I have to say on this. I hope that the operation of the act and the regulations being implemented will do what they are intended to do for South Australians. The boating industry in South Australia is huge—and I know that the minister for transport is a keen boatie and fisherman—so we look forward to seeing this measure in force in the near future.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I want to make a brief contribution in support of the professional and recreational fishers who visit the Goyder electorate and refer to the needs involving the facilities in those regions. As a previous local government CEO who was involved in applications for the accessing of the fund, I can only talk in glowing terms about the provision of these dollars and the difference they have made to infrastructure in the Yorke Peninsula and Adelaide Plains area. Thousands of people visit my electorate on a regular basis because of the opportunity for rec fishing, and part of my argument for the need to upgrade the facilities has been that the best form of insurance a boat owner can have is a good recreational and professional fishing facility in place for the launch and retrieval of boats.

It is fair to say that not all boat owners have been comfortable with the levy that has been in place, but the absolute majority of people are because they recognise that the funds are put to an appropriate cause.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: No; never. It is important that we support this. I know that it has caused some debate. The amendments are appropriate, and it is good that the debate has occurred in the Legislative Council and has come back to this chamber for amendments to be moved. No doubt, many projects in future years will apply for the funds because hundreds of thousands of dollars still need to be invested. However, through the availability of this fund, all communities that have a recreational and professional fisher need will benefit. I support the bill.

Mr VENNING: We support this legislation. The minister said a minute ago that we need to support issues like these. This legislation proposes to increase the maximum penalty and expiation fees applying to the registration of prescribed vessels, and this will affect a lot of us. My family owns a couple of recreational boats. Recreational and commercial—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: And a few cars to tow them.

Mr VENNING: I have a few cars to tow them with—you are right, minister. The minister sees very well, as the minister for transport. Thank goodness for the historical vehicle registrations. Recreational and commercial fishing funds are to be replaced by the single Facilities Fund in order to pay for the establishing, maintaining and improving of the harbours and other facilities.

Having a previous interest in the boat ramps of the River Murray, I want to make sure that this money is quarantined for purposes such as this. We do not want to see these moneys go into the general revenue. I am sure that none of these boat owners has any problem paying an increased registration fee for these vessels. Remember that a lot of the people launching boats are on average 60 or older and, when the facilities are less than perfect, it can be quite daunting for them to launch their boat. We have some magnificent boat ramps around, but there are a lot that are not, particularly following the recent weather and the storms that we had yesterday where a few have copped a fair pounding from the sea. I just want to make sure that these ramps are upgraded.

At West Beach, a lot of sand carting has been going on. I do not know whether that comes under this category—funded from this area—but I note that the Charles Sturt council is upgrading all the walkways. It has taken an inordinate amount of time to upgrade some of these walkways, particularly the main one by the West Beach Surf Life Saving Club, which has been under repair since the big storm two years ago. I presume that this Facilities Fund would cover some of these areas. If not, I suggest that councils ought to be able to apply to the Facilities Fund to get some money to assess upgrades, because lately we seem to have had some heavy storms and these facilities are certainly taking a pounding.

The opposition supports this amendment. Currently, the regulations dictate that the payment of levies imposed on the registration of certain recreational vessels and the corresponding levy on commercial fishing vessels is made into either the recreational or commercial fund as prescribed by this regulation, and the funds are expended on the relative facilities. The fund has an annual income of about $2 million, so it is a reasonable amount of money. Without any further ado, the Liberal Party supports the shadow minister. We support this amendment and we support the bill.

The CHAIR: I draw members' attention to the subject matter. We are not talking about the act; we are talking about the amendment to the bill.

Mr PEDERICK: I would like to mention my support for the amendment and the bill. I note that under this legislation the Facilities Fund and the Recreational Boating Facilities Fund go together. I hope that the moneys are expended wisely to the benefit of the whole boating fraternity, whether they be commercial or recreational, especially in light of the approximately 400,000 recreational fishers.

I note that not all of them use vessels; a lot of them fish from shore-based facilities. It is hard to discern whether commercial operators or recreational fishers are using facilities, so I commend the bringing of the two funds together into the Facilities Fund. I hope that people will enjoy recreational fishing—and also the commercial operators—in the time to come. We will keep a watching brief on how the facilities are kept up around this state so that everyone gets the most benefit.

Mr PENGILLY: I also support the amendment. Just by way of a very brief contribution, I point out to the minister the necessity for spending some money fairly urgently at the Emu Bay boat ramp. The situation at Emu Bay was exacerbated on Sunday. I attended the opening of the new coastguard vessel for Kangaroo Island—the Pedro Warman—which was previously a police vessel and has now been given to the Kangaroo Island Coast Guard to secure the waters around Kangaroo Island.

I know that the minister is an avid user of the Emu Bay facility, and that he goes out there to catch freckle-faced tail smackers; however, I urge him fairly urgently to look at upgrading the Emu Bay boat ramp in the best interests of the emergency services, the recreational and professional fishermen and charter boat operators who operate out there. I support the amendment.

Mr WILLIAMS: I was not going to speak on this matter but, as so many of my colleagues have had so much to say, I feel obliged to put my opinion on the record because it is somewhat different to that of my colleagues. Significant commercial fleets operate out of the coastal ports in my electorate, principally, Kingston, Cape Jaffa, Robe, Beachport and Southend, and then a number further down along the coast at Nene Valley, Blackfellows Caves, Carpenter Rocks and Port MacDonnell.

Over the years, I have received many representations from people from the various ports and fishing associations concerning the poor condition of the commercial jetties and the commercial infrastructure in those ports. On the other hand, considerable money has been spent on the recreational sector over recent years—probably over the past 15 years; and I am not sure exactly when the recreational boating fund was established. Certainly in my electorate, and I know at Southend, the recreational boaties want a breakwater/ramp put in; they believe that the existing one is inadequate and dangerous. A lot of the other places—certainly at Kingston, Robe, Beachport and, I believe, at Port MacDonnell—have very substantial recreational facilities, and I understand that the recreational fund is accumulating money.

I have some concerns about the impact of amalgamating the two funds. I know there is a shortage of money for the commercial sector, and there seems to be an abundance of money in the recreational fund. I question the motive behind putting the two funds together. I want to put that on the record, along with the fact that the commercial sector—I think in my electorate at least—could enjoy much better facilities than it does. It is an important industry along the coast of the South-East of this state, and it probably does need more attention from government and more money spent. I think that I am happy with the amendment.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am not surprised that no government member wants to speak to this strictly technical amendment; I am just a little surprised that every member on the other side wanted to.

Motion carried.