Recreational Fishing

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:46): On behalf of the member for Chaffey, I move:

That this house–

(a) notes the economic and social benefits of recreational fishing to South Australia;

(b) condemns the state government for not undertaking a regional economic impact assessment statement prior to introducing changes to recreational fishing bag, size and boat limits in South Australia; and

(c) acknowledges the impact on communities, particularly along the South Australian coast, affected by the changes to fishing 26 species and spatial closures.

This is a motion brought to this house by the member for Chaffey, but I will get the debate started. This is a very important issue for all of us in South Australia, not just MPs whose electorates have coastline as part of their boundary. Everybody in South Australia should be aware of the very important economic and social benefits of recreational fishing in South Australia.

I should also say that it is not only saltwater fishing; there is important recreational fishing in other parts of the state as well, but the regulations that this motion addresses are particularly about coastal and saltwater fishing, and the economic benefits are massive. People think immediately just about tackle shops and boat sales potentially, but this flows through to fuel, accommodation and clothing, and it is not only the coastal communities.

The coastal communities benefit the most, but every single service station in Adelaide would have customers who fill up their car, and potentially put fuel in a boat as well, so that they can then drive to a coastal community to go fishing. Every single part of South Australia benefits from recreational fishing on our coastline and not just from people who particularly actively fish. There are many families who go on holiday to caravan parks or stay in a motel somewhere where maybe half the family are active fishers and the other half might pursue other activities while they are in the region.

There is absolutely no doubt about the economic benefits of recreational fishing. The social benefits are very important. They are much harder to quantify but, without a doubt, anybody who has ever wet a line can attest to the very important social benefits. I do not think it would be too great a stretch to say that there are also personal mental health benefits associated with going fishing. Just the fact that people interact with others from other communities is very important socially as well.

Paragraph (b) calls for the house to condemn the state government for not undertaking a regional impact assessment statement prior to introducing the changes. The opposition is perpetually frustrated and angry with the government about this. The government wants to make changes that affect regional communities. The government has said for many years that it will undertake regional impact assessment statements but regularly does not. In my submission to the Minister for Fisheries, one of the points I made was, 'Please do a regional impact assessment study. Please share the results of that if, in fact, you have done it.'

It was very disappointing to find out that that has not been done because that must contribute to the thinking of the government when they make these types of decisions. It is straightforward that, if the government want to make changes that will affect regional communities, they must assess the impact of those changes before implementing them. They must assess the impact of those changes when actually determining what changes they really want to make. It is just common sense that you cannot, should not, must not make changes that affect regional communities without assessing the impact of those changes. It is a very straightforward point made by the member for Chaffey.

Paragraph (c) calls for the house to acknowledge the impact on communities, particularly along the South Australian coastline. Every MP who is involved in this issue is very aware of the impact because they engage with their communities all the time and that applies not only to regional MPs. Colton, for example, has a significant amount of coastline, Morphett has a significant amount of coastline, and several metropolitan electorates have coastline as well, but, of course, this is a much bigger issue in regional areas. It is a very big issue in my electorate of Stuart, where we have a very particular marine environment. I know every MP believes that their electorate is special, unique and different, and in most cases that is true.

Let me share this with you. The very top of Upper Spencer Gulf is what is called a hypersaline inverse estuary, and what is unique about that is that there is a marine environment at the top of Spencer Gulf where the water is more salty than in the southern part of Spencer Gulf, where it is warmer than in the southern part of Spencer Gulf and where there are marine animals and plants that do not exist anywhere else on the Australian coast until you start to get up around the mid-Western Australian coast or the mid-New South Wales coast. It is a very unique environment. It is the only one of its kind in South Australia. In fact, there are not too many of them around the world.

The reason I mention that is the impact of the government's change to King George whiting regulations in Upper Spencer Gulf. I want to put on the record that I acknowledge that when I made a grievance speech on this topic last sitting week—it was a very short notice opportunity—I actually made a mistake. I said that the government's regulations had increased the minimum size from 30 centimetres to 31 centimetres. It is actually worse than that: it was an increase from 31 centimetres to 32 centimetres. I needed to correct that error that I made.

What is so important about that change is that Upper Spencer Gulf is considered a 'gauntlet fishery'. It is a breeding ground for King George whiting. As they mature and grow, they head south and they breed. The fish in the Upper Spencer Gulf are relatively small fish. We do not get the larger King George whiting that are found in the bottom end of Yorke Peninsula, the bottom end of Eyre Peninsula and on other parts of the coast. They just do not exist in our part of the world because, when they get bigger, they vacate. They head south to get on with their lives on other parts of the coast.

To impose a 32-centimetre minimum size in Upper Spencer Gulf is essentially imposing incredibly unproductive fishing in Upper Spencer Gulf because people will catch fish under that size all day long and very rarely catch fish over that size. Please do not take my word for it. While I enjoy a bit of fishing, I am far from an expert in this area, but I do talk to genuine experts in my area. Some of them, like Mr Robin Sharp from Port Augusta, who has presented to committees in parliament on a range of different topics over a couple of decades, have shared a lot of information with me.

He is probably a bit frustrated that I have not learned it quite as well or as quickly as he would have liked me to, but the information I get from him and from many other people in Port Augusta and around Upper Spencer Gulf with regard to fishing is very valuable and informs the contribution I make in this parliament. To bring together my comments about size limit and the unique features of Upper Spencer Gulf, the government has the state divided with a north-south vertical line on the map into two fishing areas. It is very reasonable that Upper Spencer Gulf should have a zone of its own and it would also be quite reasonable that the Upper Spencer Gulf regulations could be comparable with the regulations in the western part of South Australia.

Only Tuesday this week, a petition was tabled in this parliament, on behalf of several hundred people in my electorate, recommending exactly that. That is a very straightforward and very sensible thing for this government to consider. The very top of Spencer Gulf is, by any definition, a unique piece of water. To impose fishing regulations that mean that people just will not catch fish above the size limit is crazy. What is very important, too, is that this is not about saying, 'It's hard to catch big fish, so just let them catch little fish, and bugger the environment.' It has nothing to do with that at all.

The reality is that the people of Upper Spencer Gulf are incredibly concerned about their environment. There is a really strong community of people in Port Augusta particularly, and certainly in the surrounding area as well, that is very concerned about the environment. What has happened is that this minimum size has been increased regularly over time in an effort to help larger fish to be in Upper Spencer Gulf. It is just not working. There is a low minimum size limit and you are only catching fish up to 31 centimetres, so they increase the minimum size limit, and you are still only catching fish up to 31 centimetres. They increase it again, and you are still only catching fish up to 31 centimetres.

This mechanism is not working to try to get larger King George whiting in Upper Spencer Gulf. The reason it is not working is that those fish just do not stay in that part of the world. Those fish move out of that part of the world. There is no shortage of those smaller fish in Upper Spencer Gulf. People should be allowed to catch them. History has proven that perpetually increasing the minimum size limit is not doing anything to get larger King George whiting in Upper Spencer Gulf, because those fish just do not stay there. I support the people of my electorate very strongly on this issue.

I would also like to say that I am particularly concerned that the Minister for Fisheries says that he has been advised by his staff and his department that people who attended the public meetings to discuss this topic are comfortable, in the majority, with these regulation changes. I have to tell you that, in my experience, that is not true, so I am very concerned about whether the minister was given all the information he needed to be given before he made this decision to change the regulations. I appreciate the fact that the Minister for Fisheries met with me and Mr Robin Sharp, and his wife, Christine, to discuss this issue. It was really good of him.

I have found him to be open and willing to engage in topics I have taken to him. He did say that he had been told that people are comfortable with this change. I went to the meeting in Port Augusta and I can tell you, absolutely without any shadow of a doubt, that people there are not comfortable with this. They are not comfortable with it now. They were not comfortable with it at the meeting. Overwhelmingly, they opposed this change.

I also went to a meeting in Glenelg because it happened to be a sitting week and there was a public meeting on this topic being held there. I thought that I would try to learn a bit more about it, go to a different community that I am not particularly connected with and see what they thought. I can tell you that at that meeting they were not comfortable either, so I am concerned about the information that has gone to the minister. Where do we go from here? The regulations have been imposed.

The Legislative Review Committee has said that it is not going to seek to have them changed. I find it particularly unusual that the Legislative Review Committee has said (and I am paraphrasing here) that it is not going to seek to change the regulations because these are the regulations the government wants to put in place. The purpose of the Legislative Review Committee is to second-guess the government's decisions, to consider whether what the government wants to do is appropriate. For them to say that they are not going to do it because they do not want to cross the government seems to me to be the Legislative Review Committee dodging its responsibilities to a certain extent.

This is an important issue. We all know that we need responsible regulations in place that protect fish and other marine species throughout the South Australian coast, but I can tell you that the benefits and the costs associated with this on South Australian communities have not been fully considered. I can tell you that the government did not take seriously any request for them to undertake a regional economic impact assessment study. I can tell you that the impact on regional communities is much greater than they realise, and it is very great in the Upper Spencer Gulf, which is the part of coastal South Australia I represent. I ask the government to reconsider these regulations.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (12:02): I move to amend the motion, as follows:

(b) Delete 'condemns' and substitute 'recognises'.

Delete 'for not undertaking' and substitute 'undertook'.

(c) Delete paragraph (c).

We know that South Australians love to fish. Nearly 300,000 people enjoy getting out and catching some fish, whether it be from the shore, in their boats or off the jetty. I speak to many of them in my electorate at Henley Beach Jetty and Grange Jetty, popular spots for throwing in a line or dropping a net and taking some of the iconic blue swimmer crabs. We have had a sensational year for crabs this year.

Self-praise is no recommendation, and I am not a bragger, as you know, but in 1969 I was the Henley Beach fishing champion.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That actually looks like a prosthetic. Is that a prosthetic or a trophy?

The Hon. P. CAICA: It is a trophy.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It looked like an extension of your hand.

The Hon. P. CAICA: It has seen some action over the years. Thank you for mentioning that I was also a dual world champion at the World Police and Fire Games—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is 60 seconds of your allotted speaking time.

The Hon. P. CAICA: —in the art of fishing. Getting back to—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I didn't interrupt you. As we know, recreational fishing is a vital economic driver for the many coastal towns and communities in South Australia. It used to cost me hundreds of dollars to go to Browns Beach to catch salmon that you can buy at the shop for 99¢ per kilo. It would cost me a lot of money and I would always spend that money in regional areas as I went through. As a government, we are committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of our fish stocks while also providing more recreational fishing opportunities to benefit fishing communities, particularly in the regions, and I will focus on that a little bit later.

With respect to the review, there was a comprehensive statewide recreational fishing review, reaching communities across the state, engaging with more than 800 people at public meetings to hear the viewpoint of the people that the changes would impact. It is always safe to say that when you do this you are not going to please everyone all the time, but I would also note that probably about 90 per cent of recreational fish is taken by, at most, 10 per cent of recreational fishers and they, of course, would be the ones who are most upset with some of the changes.

Throughout this consultation process, information was received from the community on potential regional and local impacts of the management proposals and options. As part of this process, to further understand the potential impacts of the changes to recreational fishing a regional impact assessment statement was prepared, which is available on the PIRSA website. I acknowledge that when the member for Chaffey put in this motion he was not aware at that stage that there was and had been a regional impact assessment undertaken.

The response from these communities was, I am told, fantastic and their responses, along with the regional impact assessment statement, were all considered prior to implementing any changes to recreational fishing size, bag and boat limits, and spatial closures for key species in South Australia. These measures will keep our fish stocks in good health so that the future of recreational fishing will be sustainable for our future generations and the coastal communities who benefit from recreational fishing. Without raining on the parade, sometimes I question whether they go far enough and, of course, time will tell whether or not that is the case, but it is a positive step in ensuring that our fish stocks remain sustainable.

Since 2014, the government has also invested in a range of initiatives to boost recreational fishing and tourism opportunities. As you would be aware, Deputy Speaker, the state government has committed $3.25 million to boost recreational fishing experiences in South Australia, and part of this funding is $2.25 million for the Recreational Fishing Grants Program over three years. People in my electorate have been lucky enough to receive some of those grants—for example, the Star of the Sea Marine Discovery Centre.

These grants will support South Australian fishing clubs, community groups and councils to undertake projects that will clearly benefit recreational fishing for the state, particularly regional areas. Funding is going towards projects such as fish cleaning stations, habitat enhancement, fish stocking programs, shelter infrastructure and Come and Try Fun Days. One recipient that will benefit from the grant is the volunteer group, Edmund Rice Camps, which provides holiday experiences for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

I note that on 22April the Edmund Rice Camp will be conducted down at West Lakes and I will be attending to toss a line with some of those young people who will be in attendance there. With the funds, Edmund Rice Camps will be able to run fishing events for disadvantaged youth and their families to be able to enjoy the recreational fishing experience. It is a fantastic way to connect with the marine environment and relax.

Another exciting initiative—and I know this will excite you, Deputy Speaker—which is an exciting initiative for further improved recreational fishing opportunities in our regional communities is South Australia's first artificial oyster reef on Yorke Peninsula. The state government is investing $600,000 towards this initiative. This native shellfish reef will attract marine life, increase fish production and increase recreational fishing opportunities in the region. Like you, I am terribly excited by this initiative. Well-designed and ecologically sustainable artificial reefs will create new places for fishing, increase tourism and generate social, economic and employment benefits in regional communities.

We have also seen the investment of $400,000 to build infrastructure associated with opening up offline reservoirs to recreational fishing and provide additional fishing opportunities for locals. In early February 2016, PIRSA released 100,000 Murray cod fingerlings in the South Australian section of the River Murray and Murraylands as part of a trial to boost the local population. A successful stock enhancement program may generate fishing and tourism opportunities for our river communities. I know that the member for Chaffey welcomes this initiative.

Further to these projects, the state government, recognising the social and economic importance of jetties and marine infrastructure to local communities, particularly for fishing and tourism businesses, committed $3.5 million towards the repair of damaged infrastructure following the storms of 2016. I look forward to some money being invested in the Henley jetty to have that match the quality that is now the Grange Jetty or the Semaphore and Largs jetties, and I am sure that will occur.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would be excited about that.

The Hon. P. CAICA: The minister has left, but I am sure the minister is listening intently to this. Our coastal and inland waters are home to exceptional fishing experiences and the state government is committed to protecting and enhancing these opportunities for all South Australians.

I must admit and again fess up that I have been fishing all my life. I should not really tell people this but, with respect to this outstanding trophy that I received in 1969 for being the Henley Beach fishing champ, it is true that I caught more 'shitties' than anyone else. That is not an unparliamentary word because they are trumpeters and that is what they are called because they are not too good to eat. I was able to catch more trumpeters than anyone else. Also, there was no truth in the rumour that was started at that stage by premier Rann when I won my gold medals that those fish had actually not even thawed out by the time I pulled them out of the water. That was a terrible thing to say at that particular time.

However, I know that once you are bitten by the fishing bug, it will be something that you continue to do all your life. It is critically important that we as a government, and as governments of all persuasions, do what we can to ensure that fish stocks are maintained at proper levels of health and numbers and, if not, put in whatever measures are necessary to make sure that they can make a comeback.

For example, garfish is a fish that I am very concerned about. Believe it or not, I have been out in the gulf on a couple of occasions and it is very rare that you come home having caught one or two garfish, so there are certain things that need to be done in that particular sector. I acknowledge a difference between Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent when it comes to that particular species of fish. Garfish is an iconic South Australian fish and one that can be caught by most anglers when they are out and about.

With those few words, I commend the motion to the house in its amended form. I congratulate the government on its role in making sure that it is doing what it believes is necessary to maintain our fishing stocks here in South Australia. This is a commitment that this government and this house have to make to ensure that in the future we have fish available for people to go and catch and enjoy the environment in which they are fishing. I commend the amended motion to the house.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:11): I would like to speak to my motion:

That this house—

(a) notes the economic and social benefits of recreational fishing to South Australia;

(b) condemns the state government for not undertaking a regional economic impact assessment statement prior to introducing changes to recreational fishing bag, size and boat limits in South Australia; and

(c) acknowledges the impact on communities, particularly along the South Australian coast, affected by the changes to fishing 26 species and spatial closures.

As an avid recreational fisher, I am aware just how important recreational fishers are to the South Australian economy. I put forward this motion in my previous role as shadow minister for recreation, and I now speak on the motion as a passionate fisher.

The day I announced in this house that I would be speaking on this motion today, there was no regional economic impact assessment statement available publicly to the proposed changes for bag, size and boat limits for the 26 fish species and spatial closures under the recreational fishing review despite a decision already being made. A day or so before the implementation of the changes, an assessment was uploaded to the PIRSA website, and it was just seven pages in length. There were more than 900 submissions and 12 community meetings, but the state government could only find seven pages telling how these changes would impact the regions. It was just a routine exercise—I called it a box-ticking exercise, if I have ever seen one—just to say that it had occurred.

I would like to take step back and provide some background on the recreational fishing community here in South Australia. I believe the importance of recreational fishing to the economy and to the communities of South Australia is often underestimated. The fact is that there is no up-to-date data that provides a dollar figure on the contribution that recreational fishers make to the state's economy. This is a big hole in the state's approach to recreational fishing.

Just talk to anyone with a small business in coastal towns. I know that the member for Stuart comprehensively outlined the impact it has had on his regional coastline communities, as it will on every coastline community, and as it will on every facility that sells petrol, bait or ice or that provides accommodation or commercial charter boats. In all or most cases, these people's lives and businesses revolve around it.

I talked to people in many tackle shops across metropolitan and regional South Australia during the consultation process, and they were very cynical. They said that this is just a typical government decision that had already been made and that this was now just ticking off the boxes so that they could make this announcement. The state government estimates that there are around 277,000 recreational fishers in South Australia. This figure is based on data collected in 2013 and does not include any visitors who like to throw in a line. We know that many interstate visitors come to South Australia to catch prized King George whiting and to experience the beautiful coastal communities and what they give to visitors.

When South Australia drew up the contract for the 2013-14 recreational fishing survey with the Victorian government, it outlined that it did not want to capture details on visiting fishers. Why would that be? They put it into the too hard basket, of course. So they have targeted South Australian recreational fishers as a collective group to make up for the number of people who come in from interstate and overseas. The accountancy and the amount of data collected by the Victorian government, under a $440,000 contract with the South Australian government, has come under scrutiny during public meetings. I attended seven public meetings to get a different concept of what it meant to different communities and different economies, and it was wide and varied.

The review is predominantly shaped around phone and fisher surveys, which date back to 2013-14, that were collected under an honesty system through surveying households at random. I know that the member for Colton is probably as much of a culprit as I am when we talk about who caught the biggest fish. Well, of course it was me, or it was the member for Colton. When you ask him how big it was, he can only get out one hand and say, 'It was this big.' We all know that, when we give that data, sometimes it is a little bit one sided.

The fishers along the way raised concerns with me, as they did to the panel that made these presentations. There were 50 per cent fewer survey participants in the 2013-14 surveys than in the 2007-08 surveys. In the 2007-08 screening survey, 5,541 households responded and 1,261 fully responded to the survey. In contrast, 2,782 responded to the screening survey in 2013-14 and 610 undertook the full review.

At some of these community consultations and community meetings, many people were asked to put up their hand to show who had had their boats and bags checked and who had been part of the survey. In many instances, one or two people put up their hand, in all of these meetings, so out of the 800 people who attended these public meetings, very few had been part of the survey.

The recreational fishing survey conducted in 2007-08 cost the government $412,000. It allocated $73,000 for employee expenses and $40,600 for operating expenses, with the remaining $298,000 allocated to the contractor. That contractor was the Victorian government. Haven't we got the expertise here in South Australia to conduct a survey? It just beggars belief. The 2013-14 contract has the full $480,000 that went out of South Australia into Victoria to the Victorian government as a contractor.

Under the PIRSA allocation policy, a recreational fishing survey is not meant to be more than five years old. The previous one before 2013-14 in South Australia was undertaken in 2007-08. Furthermore, participants who took part in the logbook survey were based in areas where Fishcare volunteers operate. At the time, a number of regional areas with prime recreational fishing areas had a very low number of Fishcare volunteers, with Port Pirie having none in 2015-16. These are surveys that our state government bases decisions on for recreational fishing stocks. These are surveys that impact on businesses and communities. These are surveys that are based on very grey areas of data.

In 2015-16, PIRSA announced and undertook a review of recreational fishing in South Australia, proposing changes to size, bag and boat limits for 26 species and spatial closures. In early 2016, the state government released three documents for public consultation as part of the recreational fishing review process. More than 800 people attended 12 public meetings held across the state in February and April and there were 900 submissions, mostly the government surveys. PIRSA claimed that all the feedback was carefully considered and played an important role in shaping the final outcomes of the review, which were announced on 31 October 2016 and came into effect on 1 December last year.

Of all the changes the most controversial was, of course, regarding King George whiting. As the PIRSA website states, new arrangements to improve the stock status of one of the state's most iconic fish species, the King George whiting, include a reduction in the statewide daily bag limit of 10 and boat limit to 30 (previously 12 per person and 36 per boat) and an increase in the legal minimum size to 32 centimetres (previously 31) in all waters east of Cape Catastrophe on the tip of Eyre Peninsula, including all gulf waters.

They also include the introduction of spawning spatial closures for King George whiting from 1 to 31 May in an area of southern Spencer Gulf, southern Gulf St Vincent and Investigator Strait to protect these key spawning areas during the critical reproductive period. During this time the take, targeting and possession of King George whiting by all fishing sectors, including professional and recreational as well as people visiting the state under the tourism banner, is prohibited in the closure area. The first King George whiting spawning spatial closure will commence on 1 May 2017.

One of the things that did trouble me, that really got my goat, was that there was no impact on treated water run-off. There was no impact on urban water run-off into these spatial area breeding ground closures. There was none. So was there a significant survey, a significant impact assessment done on what outside forces are doing rather than just targeting recreational fishers? No, there was not.

Most interestingly the state government, through Tasting Australia (and this is a good one, Deputy Speaker, you have to hear this), is encouraging people to go catch a King George whiting on the Yorke Peninsula during the event, which goes from 30 April to 7 May. The King George whiting spatial closure begins on 1 May and runs through to 31 May. That just shows that the minister is not talking to the minister, yet it is the same minister, tourism and fishing. So he is not talking, his department is not talking—

Mr Pengilly: He needs to write to himself.

Mr WHETSTONE: He needs to give himself a brief. The website reads:

Catch your own King George Whiting for dinner in the Yorke Peninsula.

By the way, Yorke Peninsula is a great place to visit, a great place to fish. It continues:

The stunning beaches and national parks plus friendly coastal towns are the reason this is a favourite holiday spot with South Australians. 'Yorkes' is famous for its fishing, so this is the perfect place to snag your own fresh fish dinner.

I have also been advised by recreational fishers that the spatial closure areas for King George whiting are actually different from what was proposed during the consultation. It has been recognised on social media, and in response to the questions put forward by the community fishing group South Australian Fishing Alliance. RecFish board member Danny Simpson, who is currently acting in the role of executive director, said, on social media, that they were consulted on the two areas left, as everyone else was, and suggested that if they are so important for the breeding of King George whiting then perhaps the closure is warranted, but not during the Easter period, and maybe it should be moved to May. I will continue my remarks.

Time expired.