Question Time

Marine Scalefish Fishery

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (14:19): I seek leave to provide a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Primary Industries on the topic of marine scalefish fishing licence fees.

Leave granted.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Reforms to the South Australian marine scalefish fishery in 2018 enjoyed multipartisan support. The inception of fishing zones, setting quotas for priority species and other measures to manage the fishery were aimed at maintaining sustainable fish stocks into the future, but, importantly, the aim of the reforms was to ensure predictability for decision-making and the economic sustainability of the families and businesses in the commercial fishing industry.

Recently, the opposition has been approached by a large number of fishers who are absolutely beside themselves due to the licence fees that have been issued in July of this year. One fisher reported to me that his average licence fee increase was 270 per cent, with one licence increasing in price by 512 per cent. In some cases, they claim that they are being charged management fees for species that are off limits in their fishing zone. They also complain about an increase in red tape when they were promised the opposite by the government.

Confidence is so low in the industry that the asset value has tanked such that many fishers, even if they wanted to, are unable to sell their quota because it has now become a liability rather than the asset that so many of these fishers built up over their lives. The situation is dire and there are real concerns about the mental health aspects of this, with many fishers dealing with severe anxiety and uncertainty about their future. The minister, in her own correspondence, has said that she will 'support the sustainability of both our marine resources and the businesses that make their living from them'. My questions to the minister are:

1. Has the minister formally met with the MSF Licence Fee Structure Working Group to discuss the issue of licence fees? If so, when? If not, why not?

2. What steps will she be taking in her role as minister to ensure the economic sustainability of these businesses, given industry confidence has hit rock bottom?

3. When did the MSF Licence Fee Structure Working Group last meet?

4. Has she provided the MSF Licence Fee Structure Working Group with a timeline and resolution?

5. Will the minister put a hold on current licence fee increases whilst this situation is sorted out and a fair and equitable alternative is found?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (14:22): I thank the honourable member for her question. I thank her also for the correspondence that she has sent to me in relation to the marine scalefish industry. I note that I did receive the exact same letter, word for word, from the member for Flinders. What the Leader of the Opposition's correspondence asks—or maybe it's the member for Flinders' correspondence, I am not quite sure who wrote it. They obviously couldn’t be bothered to write specific letters of their own; they just had to cut and paste from each other, but that's up to them.

What it highlighted was a lack of understanding of the issue at hand and how the MSF is now in the position that it is requiring significant government support. The Leader of the Opposition might think it's not important in terms of how the MSF got here. It is extremely unfortunate that she seemingly has not taken the time to understand her former government's reform and how the decisions that were taken at that time have heavily impacted how the end of the reform is now playing out. If she did understand it, she would know that the end of the reform process and the expiry of the former government's subsidies in 2023-24 was going to lead to a new fee structure being required in 2024-25 to account for the new management arrangements and the fewer number of licences remaining in the fishery.

It is a simple fact that the reform started under those opposite. It was authored and designed by those opposite. There are aspects of that reform that, as they have played out, are very difficult to understand how the former government and minister came to the decisions they did, such as the former minister's decision to exclude the West Coast fishery from individual transferable quota (ITQ), instead imposing an Olympic quota many times above that ever caught in the zone. This, of course, now leads to a situation where West Coast fishers do not have ITQ and do not have to pay the same licence fees as fishers in other zones who do hold ITQ.

People have asked me if the former minister might have done this with a view to politics in the seat of Flinders, rather than anything to do with fisheries management. That is a question that only the former minister could answer. Indeed, the vast majority of decisions that led to where the fishery now finds itself are a direct result of how the former government structured the reform. It is appropriate to point that out, especially when the Leader of the Opposition tries to erase her former government's actions from industry—she is trying to erase her former government's actions from history.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: While I can see why she might like to do that, the reality is that it is important in how we move forward in recognising how we got here. The Leader of the Opposition made reference in her letter to me to the stated goals of the MSF reform and quotes the PIRSA website where it states, 'The reform is designed to strengthen the long-term financial and ecological sustainability of the industry.' She further goes on to make comment about the long-term viability of the sector, as she has today, in the letter: 'due to decisions made by your government and department', she said. That was the quote.

Unfortunately, Ms Centofanti is seeking to play shameless politics with this issue, given that the statement on the PIRSA website to which Ms Centofanti referred was a statement made by the former government, which authored and introduced this reform.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So what we see now from the Leader of the Opposition is really more of the same as when her former government introduced the reform. Politics is all that those opposite are interested in and, as we have seen in the past few weeks, they even struggle to get that right. I note the Leader of the Opposition's social media post that was brought to my attention that she made last week where she infers that no action is being taken to address the issues—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Listen to the answer. How would I know whether she is answering the question or not?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Where she infers that no action is being taken to address the issues that have been raised by the industry in relation to the fee structure. Unsurprisingly, she either doesn't understand or was being deliberately misleading. In my response to the Leader of the Opposition's letter, I very clearly stated that I had asked PIRSA to reconvene the MSF licence fee working group made up of all sectors with access to the MSF species to further discuss these issues.

The working group has since met, with options now being discussed about a way forward. Indeed, the conversation with industry since the fee structure was initially discussed and the 30:70 split was introduced has been continuous. We had ongoing discussions with the sector where I made it clear that I have been open to resolving issues that have been raised. That is one of the reasons why back in December I announced a further $1.55 million in fee subsidies for the MSF fishery.

Despite the differences in opinion that have occurred between the sectors with MSF access in how fees should be structured, I am confident that they will be able to continue to discuss possible alternatives to address the issues that have been raised. Discussions remain ongoing with industry about how fees are best structured, and I remain open to solutions that all impacted sectors can move forward with, and I will very gladly update the chamber when these discussions have concluded.