SNAPPER WORKING GROUP

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (15:04): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries a question about the PIRSA Snapper Working Group.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: On 8 August 2012, the executive director of the fisheries and agriculture division of PIRSA wrote to the president of the Surveyed Charter Boat Association to advise that the membership of its representative on the PIRSA Snapper Working Group had been terminated. The reason behind this decision was essentially that the association representative discussed the proposals of the draft snapper management arrangements with licensed members of the association in order to ascertain what response he should give. The Snapper Working Group was established by PIRSA in 2011 to advise the department of options for the management of snapper in South Australia.

The membership of the working group was determined by nomination from stakeholders, and those nominees were intended to represent the views of their particular group or association. The changes to the snapper management arrangements have had a significant economic impact on charter boat operators, with booking cancellations due to the decrease in bag limits. On 14 November in this council the minister herself stated that the industry 'has a very important tourism value to this state'. My questions are:

1. Will the minister explain how it was expected that the representative of the Surveyed Charter Boat Association could form opinions and represent the members of his association if he was unable to discuss the proposals of the PIRSA Snapper Working Group with them?

2. Will the minister concede that the value of an industry working group can only be enhanced if the nominated representatives can provide sufficient information to their sector that allows for well-informed feedback to be provided?

3. What assurances can the minister give the owners and operators of charter boats who are facing significant economic impacts?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (15:06): I have spoken on this issue a number of times in this place. I don't want to waste this chamber's—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Just calm down! Let me finish; just calm down! A very excitable lot, Mr President. Towards the end of the year they are all very excited.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Dawkins, you have asked the question.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: If you would just be quiet and listen. I have spoken on the issue of changes to snapper arrangements a number of times in this chamber before, so therefore I won't need to go through all that detail again, but I premise my answer on those responses that I have given previously without having to go into them again. The snapper review which was conducted and which the honourable member refers to included an extensive consultation process.

It did involve, as the honourable member mentioned, the snapper working party, which assisted in the development of management options and comprised expertise from PIRSA Fisheries managers, SARDI Fisheries scientists and also commercial, recreational and charter sector peak bodies. The honourable member will be interested to know that I am, in fact, meeting with Mr Snedden today. He and some other charter boat operators have asked to see me and I will be doing that today.

The review also involved broad public consultation which was undertaken on the management options paper and background paper for a period of 10 weeks and which closed in January, and there were over 250 submissions. Of course, PIRSA also conducted additional targeted consultation with a number of different bodies, particularly peak bodies, again representing commercial, recreational and charter fishers, as well as tourism authorities and regional organisations such as local councils. So the consultation was extensive.

There are a number of different stakeholder interest groups and they have a wide range of different views, not only within each of those different interest groups—they are not homogeneous bodies—so there is a range of different points of view within each of those areas and across those areas of interest. There are also areas of direct conflict of interest.

What PIRSA has tried to do and what I have tried to do is weigh up and balance all of those interests. I have gone through the issue of the problem with the sustainability of the snapper species, how important snapper is as a species both commercially, also in terms of our recreational fishers and also charter operators in terms of tourism and the importance of snapper to them.

But we have had to weigh up all those interests and try to design a path of best long-term interest for all of those bodies. All I can say to the honourable member and those other interested parties is: if we wipe out the snapper species altogether, or deplete it to the extent that it is no longer sustainable or viable as a commercial fishery, then everyone loses out.

The charter boat operators won't just be worried about a 15-day restriction that this current extension has offered them, where we have halved their boat limit for an extended period of 15 days as a compromise for this holiday season. If we don't put these measures in place, we are likely to wipe out this species, or significantly damage it to the extend that it is no longer viable at all. The businesses of these operators will be non-viable in the long term as well.

So, it is in everyone's interests. I know that these measures are having an impact, but we tried to share that impact across all of the different interest groups and share the burden, so to speak, share the responsibility so that we can share in the benefits of a long-term sustainable snapper fishery.

The PRESIDENT: Supplementary question: the Hon. Mr Dawkins.