House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Parliamentary Committees Legislative Review Committee: Aquaculture Variation Regulations LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE: AQUACULTURE VARIATION REGULATIONS Mrs GERAGHTY House of Assembly Torrens Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (16:44): I move: That the report of the committee on an inquiry into the Aquaculture Variation Regulations 2008 and Aquaculture Variation Regulations 2009 of the committee be noted. In March of this year the Legislative Review Committee resolved to inquire into the Aquaculture Variation Regulations of 2008 and the effect that the regulations had on the oyster industry. In response to concerns raised by the oyster industry, the inquiry was held into the new fees scheme imposed by PIRSA and the apparent lack of consultation and information provided about the scheme. The fees for the oyster industry increased from previous years as a result of PIRSA's decision to move to a full cost recovery model. Prior to the formulation of the 2008 regulations, PIRSA undertook consultation with aquaculture industry representatives and developed a business plan. The business plan included all the activities that PIRSA undertook to maintain aquaculture leases and licences and the cost of providing the services. PIRSA then developed a cost recovery model to distribute these costs across all industries monitored by PIRSA. The model moved away from allocating costs on a per hectare basis to allocating costs on a per site basis. PIRSA argued that this resulted in a better alignment of fees to the services it provided, as smaller leaseholders were not contributing enough to cover the true cost of supporting that lease, and some sectors of the industry bore a disproportionate cost burden as a result. The change in the model of cost recovery was also in response to the principles outlined in the Productivity Commission's 2001 Report into Cost Recovery by Government Agencies. The oyster industry, represented by the South Australian Oyster Growers Association, questioned the costs associated with the new cost recovery model. It argued that it would result in a substantial increase in fees for some growers. The oyster industry stated that it was not fully or adequately consulted about the new model, and it also expressed some other concerns about how the fund was to be recovered. According to the industry, it expressed a view that it did not have an opportunity to consider PIRSA's costings. In May 2009 a new set of regulations, the Aquaculture Variation Regulations 2009, were gazetted as an interim measure to reduce the fee contribution for oyster growers for the 2008-09 financial year until further negotiations on the cost recovery model could take place. The committee publicly advertised its inquiry in local and regional newspapers on 21 March 2009, inviting submissions. A total of 10 written submissions were received, including submissions from several concerned oyster growers—the South Australian Oyster Growers Association and the Department of Primary Industries and Resources SA. The committee also heard evidence from Ms Heather Montgomerie, the Acting Executive Director of PIRSA, and Mr Bruce Zippel, President of the SA Oyster Growers Association. Ms Montgomerie, on behalf of PIRSA, listed a range of activities that it undertook to maintain leases and licenses, including environmental monitoring, zoning, processing applications and monitoring licensing conditions. Ms Montgomerie also indicated that there was, quite clearly, consultation on the new cost recovery model and that the model itself was reasonable. In his evidence, Mr Zippel, on behalf of the Oyster Growers Association, expressed his very strong opposition to the cost recovery model used by PIRSA, which in his view was implemented without full consultation. He also expressed a concern that PIRSA was taking its total cost and dividing it among all aquaculture industries. The committee found that the consultation undertaken by PIRSA perhaps could have been done in a better way and that a breakdown of costs to the oyster growers and other industry representatives led to some dissatisfaction within the oyster industry. The committee also noted, however, that PIRSA was critical of the oyster industry's failure to clearly put its position during negotiations before the regulations came into effect, and that was a fact acknowledged by the oyster growers in their evidence. The committee was told that the negotiations between the minister, the oyster growers and PIRSA are ongoing, and it recommended that these negotiations should be allowed to proceed in light of issues raised in the committee's report. In conclusion, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the members of the committee: in this chamber, the now Leader of the Opposition, Mrs Isobel Redmond, who has obviously since resigned and been replaced by the Hon. Iain Evans, and Mr Tom Kenyon; and, in the other place, the presiding member of the committee, the Hon. John Gazzola and the Hons Robert Lawson and John Darley. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the committee secretary, Ms Leslie Guy, and our research officer, Carren Walker. I commend the report to the house. Motion carried.