AQUACULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 May 2012.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:58): I am lead speaker on the aquaculture bill today, and I indicate that the Liberal Party will be supporting it. We do have some other speakers and we will be seeking some clarification during the committee process on some points. This bill comes after just over a decade of leadership that was shown by the then Liberal government back in 2000 and 2001 in the instigation of the first act. I think it is still the only act in the world to manage aquaculture as it does. I will always say that I think our fisheries are very well managed under the Fisheries Management Act and the Aquaculture Act. Those acts, especially the Fisheries Management Act, also deal with the management of sea growth such as seaweed on the sea floor.

That is what disturbs me about the whole debate about marine parks, where we see the Department of Environment and Natural Resources taking over, or attempting to take over, from the excellent management that Primary Industries and Regions, formerly Primary Industries and Resources, has done through various governments in managing fish and fish stocks. These are very well managed with, if need be, quota restrictions and time restrictions on fishermen in regard to the taking of fish, especially in the commercial sector. I think it is very well managed—extremely well managed.

We see today, at the federal level, the announcement by minister Burke about marine parks, when once again Australia steps out into the great green unknown and we see Labor governments bending over to their green taskmasters and not seeing the folly of their ways. At least I suppose at the federal level the Prime Minister and minister Burke are saying that there will probably be $100 million of compensation in place, but in the bigger picture it will mean that more fish will need to be imported to feed the ever-growing population of this country.

It will mean that there will be less fish that will be able to be exported from Australia, and there will be a forever growing cost burden on the commercial fishers, especially those left in the industry, and these are costs that will be born by industry. There is also the heavy cost wherever we land with this marine park process, whether it is at a federal or state level, that will be borne by local communities and the flow-on effects to the corner stores, to the local grocery store, to the fishing tackle shop, or to the caravan park. There will be a whole range of impacts that I am sure that governments at the state and federal level have not fully analysed, but I digress.

I want to talk about some of the excellent work that was done around the time the aquaculture act was introduced by the Liberal government back in 2001. I believe Rob Kerin was the lead at the time of its introduction and, as I said, it is world-class legislation. In January 2001, Aquafin, a major new national research centre in South Australia with a focus on aquaculture, was announced.

In February 2001, following a successful captive breeding program at the South Australian Research and Development Institute, the government proposed to introduce mulloway into the South Australian aquaculture sector. We saw in March 2001, the government proposal to develop a marine plan for Spencer Gulf, namely the Spencer Gulf Pilot Marine Plan. In May 2001, the government committed $2 million to the farm seafood industry in the 2001-02 state budget.

In August 2001, the government introduced a $3 million program to improve compliance services to fisheries around South Australia; essentially, more fisheries compliance officers were to be employed. In December 2001, the government proposed to set up an aquaculture park on Eyre Peninsula to store, process and package oysters. This project was funded by a partnership between the District Council of Ceduna and the state government through a regional development infrastructure grant.

There was so much more done by the Liberal government of the day to promote aquaculture in our state. As to that last issue about the aquaculture park, I am sure the member for Flinders will be well aware of the progress of aquaculture in the last decade in his area of the state. It was pleasing that around the end of January, early February, I went over to Eyre Peninsula, along with the member for Flinders and the Hon. John Dawkins from the other place, and for some of the meetings over there Rowan Ramsey, the federal member for Grey, was on board. We met and consulted with many people on the impacts of the change in the legislation and some of those people included Samara Miller from the abalone association, people from Kinkawooka mussels, Trent Gregory from the Northern Zone Rock Lobster Association and Simon Clark from the Prawn Association.

We were talking to people who were not just involved in aquaculture but, obviously, wild catch as well. David Ellis is involved with the tuna industry. Paul Watson is in charge of pilchards or sardines. We also went out to the pristine oyster farm at Coffin Bay and Brendan Guidera is a leading light in the production of oysters. We also talked to Bruce Zippel at the aquaculture park at Streaky Bay. Bruce has an excellent operation there as well. We met with mayor Allan Suter from the Ceduna council and also ran some open forums at Streaky Bay and Ceduna. It was a very worthwhile trip. I always find it invigorating to get over to the wide open spaces of Eyre Peninsula. There are some very good people who are involved in not just the aquaculture industry but agriculture as well.

In relation to the Aquaculture (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, I just want to reiterate that we have a world-class reputation for our aquaculture in this state. Of the total seafood production in South Australia, 30 per cent originated from aquaculture in 2009-10, which represented 49 per cent of the total seafood value of production. This generated direct employment for approximately 1,800 people, with 1,700 jobs flowing on, which is a total of 3,500 jobs in this state. Of these jobs, 71 per cent are in the regional areas.

As I indicated earlier, the 2001 act is a unique piece of legislation and the first of its kind in Australia. This Aquaculture (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill builds upon the excellent work that was done over a decade ago and aims to actually improve and streamline processes and reduce red tape. As I indicated earlier, this legislation will bring the ever maturing industry up to date and coincide with the rapid development of industry practice and aquaculture management practice. I think an excellent part of the bill is the introduction of third-party registrations on leases, which is similar to mortgage arrangements on a property, so third parties can be part owners in the operation.

The objects of the act remain unchanged and the bill will assist with this, especially when it is enacted. It will ensure ecologically sustainable development of marine and land-based aquaculture and maximise benefits to the community. It will also give, as it has done over the past decade, efficient and effective regulation of the aquaculture industry under the regulation-making powers of the act, and it will regulate infrastructure, including site markers, anchors and feed barges used on licensed sites. Holding sites and the maintenance of infrastructure will be managed and in this bill there will also be the capacity to license the towing of live aquaculture stock, which obviously happens all the time with regard to the tuna ranching operations, mainly on Eyre Peninsula.

The bill appears to give greater clarity and transparency in the determination of a suitable person who may be granted an aquaculture licence, which will involve clarifying the person's financial capacity to comply and whether the person has committed any offences or has had any statutory authorisation relating to aquaculture, fishing or environmental protection cancelled or suspended.

It is indicated that there will be no confusion as to the application of standard conditions of aquaculture policies. A 28-day time frame will be set for the consideration of aquaculture policies by the Environment Resources and Development Committee, which will not be eroded by the Christmas holiday period or in periods near general elections. As I have indicated, those periods will be disregarded in the 28-day time frame.

The concurrence of the minister responsible for the administration of the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993 to the grant of an aquaculture lease has been clarified in the bill, with the effect that concurrence is not required where a lease is subdivided or two leases are amalgamated. This section also establishes that concurrence is not required for an emergency lease unless it is to be granted within the boundary of a port of harbor. Another good part of this bill is where we see the ability for leases to be amalgamated, especially with the ever-rising costs of compliance.

The bill removes a mandatory requirement for the lease to specify a class of aquaculture. The bill also provides that the lease may specify performance criteria to be met by the lessee. This is with regard to the fact that in the past some leases have been left undeveloped by speculators, so the government wants—and I agree with this practice—aquaculture leases to actually be used for a purpose, which will maximise benefits for industry. The bill will give the minister of the day the power to cancel an aquaculture lease where no aquaculture is being conducted and where performance criteria have not been met. This can happen when fees have not been paid. As indicated in the bill, the minister needs to follow procedural fairness steps.

Through this bill it is indicated that there will be the removal of development leases, which will reduce red tape. Development leases can be managed in the same way through a production lease, and there are obviously transitional provisions as part of the bill. All development leases will automatically become production leases, with the same terms and conditions as those that applied to the existing development lease. The minister would have to give consent to the transfer of production leases in the same way consent was required for the transfer of development leases.

Provision for the allocation of pilot leases in prospective zones has been removed, together with the provision for prospective zones altogether. The maximum aggregate term of a pilot lease has been increased to not more than five years, and this is an increase from three years. The lease may be converted after three years if the minister is satisfied with the performance of the activity on the site. This will enhance the new scheme for the grant of leases within aquaculture zones that are more flexible and more transparent.

There are two methods—which we will investigate more during the committee stage—that have been identified in the bill by which to release tenure or access rights to areas of state waters. There is a system of public call, and the second and new form of tenure release is an on application regime where no public call will be required. Applications received will be assessed by the Aquaculture Tenure Allocation Board. It is the aim of the bill to encourage investment whenever possible. All applications will be assessed by the Aquaculture Tenure Allocation Board against set criteria.

It is indicated in the bill that there will be a greater level of transparency to the assessment process for the applicant. The draft bill proposes that the ministerial guidelines be gazetted and available on the internet. A research lease has been included in the bill to enable certain waters to be dedicated to research activities, and the term of research leases will be five years or less. Research leases will be renewable, but are not to extend beyond the term of the appropriate research project.

There has been a new regime on the granting of emergency leases introduced in this bill. If the minister considers that an emergency circumstance exists that warrants such action, an emergency lease can be granted. The concurrence of the minister responsible for administering the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993 will be required only if it is necessary to grant an emergency lease within a port or harbour.

The current power for the minister to require or carry out work on a licence has been extended to require or carry out work on a lease. The minister may now direct the lessee or former lessee to take action or remove equipment in certain circumstances. As indicated in the bill, failure to comply with the minister's direction may result in a penalty, and the minister will be able to organise the work to be done and recover the associated costs from the lessee or former lessee. As part of the bill, abandoned sites must be secured and clearly marked until any existing infrastructure is removed.

I note that the bill modifies and expands the provisions dealing with licence conditions and variation of licence conditions. It also introduces an offence of contravening a condition of licence, with the maximum penalty being $10,000 or an expiation fee of $1,000. It is hoped that through this enhancement of the act there will be greater business certainty and obviously, with third-party investment, attractiveness of investment, as indicated, with the ability to register the interest of a third party (for example, a mortgagee) on an aquaculture lease or licence. Once registered the third party is required to consent to the transfer and variation of a lease or licence.

With regard to third parties, the minister must also give a registered third party written notice of any proceedings for an offence of any notice proposing to cancel or not renew a lease. Having a registered third party has been supported by the Australian Bankers Association. In addition, the bill clarifies the fee structure for lessees and licensees and elevates provisions dealing with annual fees for licensees to the level of the act.

I note that the membership of the Aquaculture Advisory Committee will be expanded from 10 to 11 members, with the additional member being a person engaged in the administration of the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993. The Aquaculture Resource Management Fund will be known as the Aquaculture Fund, and that fund will be applied to two additional purposes: research and development relating to the aquaculture industry, and the removal and recovery of aquaculture equipment, stock or lease markers should that action be required to be taken under the act. We will also see a further enhancement of environmental management of aquaculture activities in South Australia.

The bill deems the minister to be an administering agency for the purposes of the Environment Protection Act 1993. It will also enable the minister to appoint fisheries officers as authorised officers under the Environment Protection Act 1993. The bill clarifies succession arrangements, providing certain persons with powers to carry on aquaculture should a lessee or licensee die, become bankrupt or insolvent or, in the case of a body corporate, be wound up or put under administration, receivership or official management.

A constituent came to me who had a licence leased out that caused a world of pain because, sadly, the lessee died. Hopefully this part of the bill will clean up such circumstances so that people can sort out their business arrangements quickly regarding who has to pay the bill, basically. Hopefully we can get that sorted out to everyone's benefit. There is a confidentiality provision included which makes it an offence for persons engaged in the administration of the act to divulge trade processes or financial information gathered in the course of official duties unless it falls within the limited exceptions of the provision.

Enhancement will assist in ensuring the continued sustainability of the aquaculture industry in South Australia into the future. I certainly believe that aquaculture does have a bright future. As time goes on, the percentage of fish that are farmed and the wealth will slowly enhance the productivity of all our fisheries income and become a major part of our fisheries income for decades to come.

I just want to briefly reflect upon a question asked by the Hon. John Dawkins in the other place to do with the increases that have been charged to leaseholders in regard to fees. The Hon. John Dawkins made the following comments:

They include one whose fees went up from $5,000 to $74,000 and another example where one [fisherman's fees] went from $2,700 to $30,900 over a 12-month period.

The Hon. John Dawkins asked:

If the minister could bring back some explanation of the rationale and way in which those fees were determined...

There is a fund within some of the aquaculture sector, certainly within the oyster industry, that has been established to enable those disused and abandoned aquaculture sites to be dismantled by people who know what they are doing.

I have also been advised that in recent times PIRSA Fisheries has been establishing its own fund to do this. It charges fees to the participants to facilitate this fund. My query to the minister (and I would be grateful if she brings this back at the commencement of the committee stage or in her second reading summary) is why, when there is a fund established by the industry and at their own volition—and there is a track record of those participants doing the work, going out and cleaning up a site that has been disused—there would be a duplicate established by the department when that is already working very well.

That is something else that we will be investigating during the discussion at the committee stage of the bill because there are some sectors that do have their own fund for cleaning up disused sites. I will read in the minister's response to the Hon. John Dawkins in the other place. I found it quite interesting because, in a lot of words, it really did not say a lot at all:

Dear Mr John Dawkins,

In further response to your questions raised in the committee stage of the reading of the Aquaculture (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2012 on 15 March 2012 and recorded in Hansard on pages 982 to 988, I provide the following answer to your question on aquaculture fees.

Aquaculture Fees

A system for determining cost recovery for PIRSA Aquaculture and Fisheries, Aquaculture division management activities has been in place since the Act was introduced in 2002. Aquaculture leases and licences are currently the primary means of regulating the activities of aquaculture operations in South Australia. The Act provides for the charging of fees in relation to the administration of leases and licences.

PIRSA Aquaculture reviewed its cost recovery methodology in 2010 and has adopted an activity based approach where the e ort is quantified for every activity, including overheads and non-cash items for identified programs. A process has been developed to provide a basis for determining resources required to deliver [a] particular activity—

I do not think this printed very well, but anyway—

PIRSA Aquaculture is now able to provide a more accurate reflection of real cost. This approach is in line with the PIRSA Cost Recovery Policy 2010 which has been developed using the commonwealth Department of Finance and Administration's 'Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines' report (2005), in addition to the Productivity Commission's 'Cost recovery government agencies: inquiry report' (2001), to ensure consistency with National Guidelines.

A time recording process has also been implemented by PIRSA Aquaculture staff to accurately report effort against each activity program and aquaculture industry sector to inform the cost recovery process for the 2011-12 financial year and beyond.

Due to this new activity based approach to setting fees and a reduction in appropriated funds for services provided to the aquaculture industry, there have been increases in licence fees across all sectors of the industry. The increases are directly attributable to the level of resourcing required to conduct each of these services for the aquaculture industry sectors and a significant reduction of government subsidisation through state funding. All industry sectors are consulted on their fees and PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture undertake a thorough process before setting any new fees.

Yours sincerely, Hon. Gail Gago MLC.

That was quite a long explanation which, really, did not say much at all. It did not explain exactly how the fees were arrived at. I was horrified several years ago, in one sector, trying to work out the fees, where the minister of the time (Hon. Rory McEwen) said, 'We will only double the fees but they are effectively quadrupled,' and that, obviously, caused a lot of angst, especially on Eyre Peninsula.

I think, certainly from the industry's point of view, they have not been happy with the way a lot of the fees have been set in the past and I just hope that things are being sorted out into the future so that people do not feel like they are essentially being ripped off. Aquaculture is a vital industry for our state and it is a real cash-hungry industry, and we do not want to see these people who put their money where their mouth is taxed out of existence. The input costs of aquaculture are massive. These people put millions and millions of dollars into this state through setting up and managing their aquaculture farms and employing people. They put many millions of dollars into the economy of the state.

As I indicated earlier, we will be asking for some clarification during the committee stage of the bill and, from my perspective, I commend the bill. We will certainly be looking for some more information as we go through the bill. I note there are a couple of other speakers.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:27): This is a bill to amend the Aquaculture Act 2001. That act was passed by the previous Brown-Olsen Liberal government and, essentially, was established to regulate both marine and inland aquaculture. I think it is important that, 10 years after that act was passed, there be a review (and there has been) as to the effectiveness of this regulatory structure and the legislative program.

That has occurred and, on the briefings we have received from members in the department, I think that has been comprehensively undertaken. There are significant areas of reform that have been outlined by our lead speaker and I would like to commend both the process of review and consultation and the excellent briefing to members of the parliament by the department and the professional scientists from SARDI. If each of the legislative review processes that were undertaken in this place had followed this program and ensured that they attained the standards of consultation with stakeholders, I would be very pleased. It is a threshold to which others should aspire.

I want to point out that the significance of the Aquaculture Act is that it works on the system that aquaculture (as we all know) is a process that provides for the farming of aquatic organisms for the purpose of trade or business or research and is developed on applications for development leases. What is important in the principal act, which has been retained notwithstanding these amendments, is that, essentially, to have approval the aquaculture project must be ecologically sustainable. Under the principal act, the development is ecologically sustainable:

...if it is managed to ensure that communities provide for their economic, social and physical well-being while—

(a) natural and physical resources are maintained to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) biological diversity and ecological processes and systems are protected; and

(c) adverse effects on the environment are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Section 4 of the act sets out the requirements that need to be considered when decisions are made on the development consistent with the ecologically sustainable obligation. To me that is very important, and government needs to be reminded that, when it is considering these applications (within the framework that we have for the development of this very important industry to South Australia), the opportunity for us to develop this industry responsibly is probably greater than any other in the fishing industry generally.

Let me just say that we received a presentation yesterday from the Friends of SA Parliament Research Library. I am a member of the Friends of SA Parliament Research Library, and I am proud to say that we hosted a sustainable aquaculture and seafood security event here, and Madam Speaker was the official host in her dining room. Professor Rob Lewis and Dr Steve Clarke, supported by Dr Mehdi Doroudi, provided presentations to give us an update. I thank them for that, and I hope that members were not only appreciative but also understood the benefit of what we were being provided.

What was, I thought, a very good updated and encouraging statistic was that South Australian fisheries production value now for 2010-11 is $196 million in value and that the aquaculture production value in 2009-10 was $194 million. They are two different areas but it indicated to us that seafood production is now about equal between wild fishery stock and aquaculture production.

As the government has decided to progress an exclusion zone program within marine national parks in South Australia, and as we have heard that federally the Australian government is introducing a regime of national marine parks, within which there will be certain activity that is prohibited, including commercial fishing, it is not difficult to appreciate that gross wild seafood consumption from the wild stock has been, according to the information provided yesterday, somewhat static. That is, it raises this question of being able to ensure that we remain within the caps to protect various species that it can reduce. As the local, national and international demand increases, there will be an ever-widening gap between what is caught from wild stock, what is produced from the aquaculture programs currently underway, and what the world requires.

Obviously, unless there was inappropriate destruction of the wild fishery, the only way to fill this gap is to develop the aquaculture industry further; so I applaud it. I hope that the speakers were right in presuming that there was significant bipartisan support of the major parties for the development of aquaculture. Not only is this an industry that was born under a Liberal regime but our lead speaker has spoken many times to indicate his support. However, I hope he is right and I hope the speakers were right yesterday in presuming that there would be similar confidence in the Labor Party when they are in government.

The reason I say that is because it does seem that, as we go through this rather ugly period of having to negotiate the commercial fishers' compensation packages as a result of marine parks, we are going to have a reduced available catch that can be marketed and we are going to increase the demand on aquaculture. We will need a sympathetic and supportive state government to progress that. Whether that means more land development leases to be granted or whether it means an assurance that they will not be overly restrictive in allowing marine developments, we need to have a commitment from the state government that they are going to do it; otherwise, we will continue to have an ever-widening gap and we will not be able to provide for ourselves.

I am told (and I can only accept this as accurate) that we currently consume a lot of fish in South Australia but that 75 per cent of what we consume is from overseas—we import it. I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing. Obviously, we can be proud of the high quality of what we export in value and in the standard of the product on the international market. It may be that our best crayfish gets eaten by foreigners.

We have an appetite for seafood. It is obviously a healthy product, and fishing, whether professional or recreational, is a healthy activity and something we need to support, and we need to have an assurance from the government that they will do so. Today we are really approving the legislative review of some reforms which, hopefully, will provide greater opportunities.

However, be under no illusion: this structure, even in its improved form, will be of no further benefit to the aquaculture industry unless the state government gets behind it and understands the seriousness of what we are facing, given their decision on the wild catch restrictions. We are going to have some very positive support and movement to embrace and develop this industry if we are not going to starve.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:38): I rise to speak on the Aquaculture (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. It will not surprise my colleagues in this house that I am far more familiar with pastoral leases than aquaculture leases; however, this is a very important aspect of our South Australian economy. The member for Hammond, the shadow minister for fisheries, tells me that this world-class industry contributes roughly 30 per cent of seafood production at the moment and nearly 50 per cent of the value of seafood production. I think that speaks volumes for the aquaculture industry.

Very importantly, 70 per cent of jobs in aquaculture in South Australia are in regional areas. I think this is one of the many areas in which we could support the growth of jobs in regional South Australia, and I hope the government will join with the opposition in doing everything they can to make that happen. I would like to just briefly pay tribute to the Hon. Rob Kerin, who was the initiator of the Aquaculture Act in South Australia. Thank you to him for that.

This really is about streamlining the aquaculture industry, giving some additional powers to the minister and trying to make things more accessible and more sensible and, very importantly, to remove speculation, to try to get people to get on, get involved in this industry and to use the rights they have sensibly to grow and create seafood and grow this industry. I think that is a very important thing that we have here.

I welcome the introduction of the opportunity for third-party interests of leases too, because I think that will also allow the industry to grow and to flourish. I am mindful of the concerns that I have and have raised with the house about the exorbitant increase in pastoral lease rents that are taking place at the moment. I hope that is not copied in the aquaculture industry in years to come. I certainly support the fact that this is a very important industry. The truth is that for decades now people have actually been highlighting how important aquaculture will be throughout the world with regard to feeding people and providing food, and I am glad that we can consider ourselves to be very actively involved and potentially world leaders in this area in South Australia.

I would also like to just touch on the very important interaction between aquaculture leases and leases, or potentially licences, to adjoining or nearby land. I understand very well some of the issues associated with access and occupation of crown land, but I would like to raise an issue that came to me a few months ago from one of my constituents in Port Augusta who has an aquaculture oyster lease on the western side of the Upper Spencer Gulf. He is a good person, responsible person, who puts a lot of good hard work into what he is trying to develop, but of course, if you do not have pretty practical, immediate access to where you are trying to work, it can make life pretty tough for you.

What Mr Colin Struck has asked of the government is whether he could take a licence, or a lease, whatever the government preferred, over some crown land very near to his oyster lease. He is more than happy for the land lease agreement or licence to be integrally locked into his oyster lease. He is not trying to access some land so he can put a shack on it or hold on to that land after his involvement with the oyster operation. He has been knocked back, and I have had productive talks with local government officials who deal with these things in Port Augusta and I understand their concerns with regard to the fact that there is a native title claim over that land and so it is exceptionally difficult for the government to provide any other right of occupation over that land while there is a native claim that has not been settled.

I would like to use that example to highlight the fact that I am sure that in many places in South Australia it would be important for people to have access to some land near where they have an aquaculture lease, so that they can more productively do their aquaculture work. This amendment bill is about removing red tape, it is about streamlining the industry, and it is about trying to create efficiency, and I think every member here would understand how hard it would be to do this work if you did not have a land base nearby.

As I mentioned before, one of the aspects of this bill is trying to stop speculation, trying to make sure that people who do have the right to work in aquaculture operations actually get on and do it. I think trying to find a way to give them access to some public crown land, if they do not already have it, will go a long way to making these operations more efficient. With those few comments, I will wind up.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:44): I rise also, along with my colleagues, to support the bill. As we have already heard, this will be a significant revision of the legislation in an attempt to streamline the function of the legislation and how it applies to what is a growing industry around the state. With reference to my own seat, my own electorate of Flinders, of course we have an extensive coastline around Eyre Peninsula, and we have aquaculture situated virtually the whole way round that coastline, from up near Whyalla right down the Spencer Gulf coast, around the bottom, up the West Coast, particularly with the oysters up the West Coast, all the way west of Ceduna.

Tuna is the one that everybody knows and talks about. The tuna ranching industry as it is known—rather than farming, the preference is for it to be known as ranching—is based in Port Lincoln. Kingfish is the other important finfish that is farmed in Spencer Gulf, and everybody is aware of the oyster industry on Eyre Peninsula. People are very parochial about their oysters so I dare not name any one particular bay, and I know many of the growers have leases in a number of bays from Cowell right around through Coffin Bay, Streaky Bay, Denial Bay, Smoky Bay—all the way around.

Interestingly, the oyster industry began in Coffin Bay way back in the late 19^th century when the local native oyster, the angasi, was dredged from the bottom of the estuaries and bays in and around Coffins, and it was not long—well, a few short decades, I guess—before that industry was completely fished out. Back in the seventies, I think the first attempts were made to farm the Pacific oyster on racks within Coffin Bay. It was successful but limited demand and limited interest, I guess, meant that it was probably another 20 years before it really began to take off in Coffin Bay and those other bays around the place.

Mussels are now being grown using various means in the waters near Port Lincoln. Even abalone, which is a wild catch fishery traditionally, is getting to a point now where spat is being produced and it is farmed, once again, around the West Coast. Marron and yabbies in other areas of the state, not so much on Eyre Peninsula, are also a part of the aquaculture effort across this state.

Generally, the seafood industry is worth about $200 million to this state so it is a significant industry. I understand 70 per cent of that contribution comes from the Eyre Peninsula. I attended the same briefing from the department that the member for Bragg discussed earlier in her contribution and, of that $200 million in value as an industry, about half is made up of wild catch fishing and about half is made up of aquaculture. They are interesting figures to me. I had not realised that aquaculture was so significant and such a proportion of the total value but it is around 50 per cent, and around $100 million. I think there is probably opportunity to grow both the wild catch sector and the aquaculture sector, and it could almost be suggested that it is imperative that we do. It is an opportunity for the state, and there is no doubt that there will be an increased demand for seafood, not just here in this state, right across Australia and around the world.

The increase in demand is coming for a couple of reasons. Obviously there is an increase in population, all demanding some seafood in their diet, but seafood as a percentage of the modern western diet is increasing. So, the increase in demand is twofold, one from the increase in population and one as a result of the increased percentage of that seafood in the modern diet.

I think this amendment bill gives us the opportunity to cement our place as the leader. I understand that we were the first state in Australia to implement an aquaculture bill, probably one of the first places in the world to have a bill that regulated, controlled and allowed management of an aquaculture industry. It is a great provider of jobs. I understand about 3,500 jobs across the state are provided by the aquaculture industry and, of course, there is a multiplier effect and each and every one of those jobs—most of them are regional—gives the opportunity for a family to live, work and play within the regions of South Australia. So, it is a really important employer of the regional workforce. As this industry grows, there will be challenges, I suspect, to continue to source enough of a workforce. Obviously, we are expecting mining to compete with aquaculture, fishing and agriculture, indeed, for workers.

There is probably the opportunity for automation, particularly with regard to feeding tuna and kingfish. Although automation is expensive, the technology is there to allow it and, as wages become more costly and the task of filling those positions becomes more difficult, then I suspect that automation will take the place of some of those jobs.

The other challenge, particularly for the tuna industry and also the kingfish industry, is to be able to provide enough of a food source in the ranching situation. For those who are not aware, the tuna are caught out in the bight in the west and towed back to the rings or the cages that are in the waters adjacent to Port Lincoln, and they are provided with pilchards—mostly locally caught pilchards but some imported pilchards—as the fish are fattened. That, in itself, can be a limiting factor because there is a finite supply of even the pilchard resource. I know it is another fishery that is being fished sustainably but, ultimately, if aquaculture is to grow, other food sources need to be found.

There may well be an opportunity for a land-based protein source to be provided. I know there has been a lot of work done, both by SARDI and locally on Eyre Peninsula, in an effort to provide some of the protein requirement in the fish farming enterprises from a land-based product. In our part of the world particularly, if we can meld both land and sea into one agriculture/aquaculture region, it would go a long way towards becoming very competitive for a long time to come.

This bill will also encourage continued investment, which is imperative for any industry to continue to grow. Investment is required into research so that the latest technologies are available. New products can be researched and established, and in the future there may well be fish species that are not yet farmed but have the possibility of being farmed, once again, into foodstuffs.

Research is vital, and that innovation into research also drives the innovation and development of the fishery itself. Should that investment into research continue, that encourages the investment into a successful industry from entrepreneurs and businesses which are either already in the industry or outside and looking to get into it. It is about confidence. This bill provides the foundation for confident investment into this industry.

Last night, I had the pleasure of attending a dinner in Port Lincoln to launch the Australia's Seafood Frontier brand into the tourism sector on Eyre Peninsula. The Australia's Seafood Frontier brand was developed by the Eyre Regional Development Board after much consultation and input from locals and local industry. They have come up with a branding that they feel will work and will advertise and promote our part of the world for what it is—the seafood frontier. They are concentrating on the pristine environment, the clean and green product and actually extending that now into not just the food marketing sector but also the tourism sector.

It was a great dinner and well attended by people from all over Eyre Peninsula. There were a number of guest speakers; one in particular I enjoyed was a chef by the name of Simon Bryant. Simon Bryant will be known to some of you as the co-host with Maggie Beer on one of the cooking shows on television. He was there last night giving his opinion on how we on the Eyre Peninsula can best use our natural attributes and the seafood that we produce. So, it is about building on a region's reputation and the clean, green and pristine environment and production is critical to that, and it was talked about a lot last night.

As has been mentioned by the member for Hammond, there was extensive consultation on the part of the opposition in preparation for this debate. In January, the member for Hammond, myself and the Hon. John Dawkins from the other place toured up and down the Eyre Peninsula. I appreciated their spending time in my part of the world. A lot of time was spent consulting and speaking with the locals, both those involved in aquaculture (all sectors of the aquaculture industry) and recreational fishers, because some of this regulation and administration does impact a little on the recreational fisher.

What we found was that people were generally supportive of the amendments being proposed. We certainly got that sense. There were some suggestions and there were also some concerns from the recreational fishers. Their main concern was about the impact that aquaculture may have on the environment. Obviously, when you have intensive aquaculture, or agriculture, of any kind, the environmental impact has to be managed very carefully, and the recreational fishers wanted to be sure that appropriate regulations and policy were in place to manage any of that impact. Recreational fishers were also talking about the access they have enjoyed to their favourite fishing spots. They wanted to be assured that that access would not be removed or compromised in any way.

From the aquaculture industry itself, and also the wild catch industry, the issue of compliance was raised with us: first and foremost, the cost of compliance, the ever-increasing cost of compliance. People are paying extraordinary rates for their leases now. Some of the wild catch fisheries, such as abalone, have also seen significant increases in their fees and charges. The question has to be asked: what do they actually get for their compliance costs? It is beholden on PIRSA to ensure that regulations are upheld. PIRSA needs to provide a presence within the aquaculture industry, so the aquaculture industry is comfortable that the legislation is being regulated and carried out as it should be. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. P. Caica]