HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-07-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

HARBORS AND NAVIGATION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 June 2009. Page 3194)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:30): I indicate that I am the lead speaker on this bill for the opposition. We will not be opposing the bill, but I can tell the house that some further discussions are to be undertaken, and some amendments may be introduced in the other place. This bill was introduced with the purpose of creating a single facilities fund to pay for establishing, maintaining and improving harbours and other such facilities. As well, the Minister for Infrastructure is proposing to increase maximum penalties and expiation fees applying to the registration of prescribed vessels.

The history of the Recreational Boating Facility Fund and the Commercial Fishing Vessels Fund was originally structured in 1995 by the then minister for transport, the Hon. Diana Laidlaw, and I will read it into Hansard in a few moments. The background for this piece of legislation is that regulations dictate the levies imposed on the registration of certain recreational vessels and a corresponding levy on commercial fishing vessels. Payment of these funds is made into either the recreational or commercial fund as prescribed by regulation, and the funds are expended on the related facilities.

The bill removes these regulations, and one facilities fund is created under the act. While this appears to be a positive measure in terms of the equitability and transparency of the fund, recreational fishers and the Boating Industry Association are nervous about some of the aspects of the establishment of the fund. The South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council (SARFAC) has questioned the wording highlighted with regard to decisions made by the Treasurer on the use of this fund. I should say that those highlighted words appear in the briefing paper I have been given.

The facilities fund is to be established. The fund must be kept as directed by the Treasurer, and I understand that the Boating Industry Association and the recreational fishers have some questions about the way in which that fund will be directed by the Treasurer. The fund is to consist of facilities levies payable under the regulations on, first, the registration, inspection or survey of vessels; and, secondly, income from investment of money belonging to the fund. The facilities fund will be established by the certificate of registration, inspection or survey of vessels and the levies payable upon that registration and inspection.

Another matter about which the recreational fishers are very concerned is that the minister may, with the approval of the Treasurer, invest any of the money belonging to the fund that is not immediately required for the purposes of the fund in such manner as is approved by the Treasurer. The recreational fishers are concerned that the funds should be used as expeditiously as possible.

The other concern that the fishers had is that the payment of expenses of administering the fund is going to be excessive. Both the boating industry and the recreational fishers, as I understand, are concerned that the administration of the fund should be limited, say, to less than a maximum of 10 per cent of the total of that fund. The concerns of the recreational fishing industry about this bill are spurred by ongoing issues about an apparent conflict between the commercial and recreational fishing industries.

The Recreational Fishing Advisory Council purports that anglers are losing ground against commercial and government interests and that funding, projects or interest in developing the $350 million per year industry is negligible in comparison to the development being made in aquaculture. The recreational industry asserts that much more can be done (as in other states) to develop the industry. Some examples are upgrades of boat ramps and jetties and artificial reefs to attract fish.

In his second reading speech, the minister said that the recreational and commercial funds are being rolled into one because it is often not possible to distinguish between vessel facilities that benefit recreational as opposed to commercial users. Understandably, the recreational fishing industry is nervous about a pooling of funds where the expenditure is no longer limited to the commercial or recreational industries respectively.

Other notable changes to the act would be an increase in the maximum penalty and expiation fees applying to the registration of vessels. For the information of those reading Hansard and members of the house, it includes, if a vessel to which this division applies is operated in a jurisdiction contrary to this section, the owner of the vessel, and the master or operator of the vessel, are each guilty of an offence (but it is a defence to a charge of such an offence brought against the owner for the owner to prove that the vessel was operated without the owner's consent). The penalty has gone from $750 to $2,500.

The expiation fee, if the vessel is registered but not marked in accordance with the regulations, has gone from $55 to $210. If the vessel is neither registered nor marked in accordance with the regulations, the fee has gone from $80 to $315. One of the other concerns is that the CEO may, subject to conditions as the CEO thinks fit, grant exemptions from requirements of this section. The need to provide good facilities for recreational and commercial fishers in South Australia, without any doubt, is supported by the opposition.

I refer to a letter written to a constituent of the member for Davenport (I think he was the member in 1995). This letter was from the Hon. Diana Laidlaw, the then minister for transport. The letter states:

As reported in the newspaper article to which you refer there are to be two different levies to be applied, viz:

a) for recreational boats.

b) for commercial fishing vessels.

While the article does not expand on the differences, you will appreciate that the range of facilities provided for the two groups differ significantly.

Also recreation boats cover a very broad range of vessel types, from trailer transported boats to quite large blue water sailing craft. Hence there is a broad spectrum of 'needs' even within the recreational boating category.

Keeping these points in mind, I will address the specific points you raise as follows:

Separation of Levies:

Funds collected from the recreational boats levy will only be used on establishing, maintaining and improving facilities for recreational boating. In the area of recreational boating the funds will be used predominantly on boat ramps.

Funds collected from the commercial fishing vessel levy will be used only on commercial fishing facilities. In the area of commercial fishing, funds will need to be used on jetties, slipways, navigation aids and facilities used by the commercial fishing fleet.

There are some areas of shared resources, but in the main, the facilities can be separately identified.

Jetties:

There are 19 jetties/wharves throughout the state which are designated as fishing industry facilities. The remaining 54 jetties are classified as recreational jetties. The maintenance and upgrade of these recreational jetties will not be funded from either the recreational boating levy or the commercial fishing levy, but separate allocation within the Department of Transport's budget.

Navigation Aids:

A large proportion of the 1,034 navigation aids owned and maintained by the government in South Australia are day marks. According to research with boating user groups these navigation aids are widely used by recreational boating, as well as the fishing industry. Therefore some of the funds from both the recreational boating levy and the fishing industry levy may be required for maintenance of those navigation facilities, according to the location and purpose.

Where navigation aids are provided for commercial shipping the costs associated with these will be met exclusively by the commercial shipping, even if the same navigation aid is regularly used by both recreational boats and commercial fishing vessels.

Marinas:—

and this is a sign of the times in 1995—

There are 4 major boat havens built and maintained by the government. They are the Port MacDonnell, Robe, North Arm (Port Adelaide) and Port Pirie. The marina at Lincoln Cove in Port Lincoln was initially built with funds provided by the government, but this marina is now operated by a private sector business.

Permanent users of government facilities pay fees which contribute to the maintenance of these facilities. Levy amounts will be structured to impose greater costs on those who derive permanent benefit from such facilities.

Committee:

The South Australian Boating Facility Advisory Committee will be advising me on boating facilities throughout South Australia. The administration for the committee is being funded by the Department of Transport, and the committee members have been selected for their expertise and experience. Appointments have been made after consultation with industry representative groups, including the Boating Industry Association and the South Australian Fishing Industry Council. The committee members are not paid for their services.

Work Programs:

The committee met for the first time in March this year and will be considering specific works programs over the ensuing months.

Jetty Fees:

The maintenance of the recreational jetties will not be funded by either boating levy unless it can be demonstrated that the jetty is frequently used by boat owners.

Diana Laidlaw finishes the letter by saying:

I hope this explanation gives you a better insight into the purpose of the boating levy and the intention of the government.

That was in 1995, and the intent of this government is to change that. In a letter from the minister to a constituent of the member for Stuart (Hon. Graham Gunn) dated 28 February 2009 (a copy of which was provided by the minister), I am heartened to note that the minister says:

As you are aware, a new structure for recreational boating registration and facilities levy was introduced from 1 July 2008.

By way of explanation, this letter was in response to a complaint about the increase in boat registration. The letter goes on to say:

This government is committed to marine safety and every dollar from the revenue related to these fees will be directed to the provision of marine facilities and safety for the benefit of all boat users as is required under the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993.

The minister goes on to point out:

Nearly $11 million over the next five years will be directly invested to improve safety for South Australia's recreational and commercial mariners through vital upgrades of infrastructure and services.

The government is to be congratulated on this initiative. The changes to the structure of the levy are to be watched—and watched carefully—and we await further information from stakeholders on this issue.

I want to talk about some of the concerns that the Boating Industry Association expressed in correspondence to the member for Unley back in December last year relating to the Recreational Boating Levy Fund. It states:

When the last Liberal government introduced the recreational boating levy in the 1990s it was accepted by the South Australian recreational boating public only on the basis that the government would annually also deliver significant financial support to the program.

The fellow who sent this submission to the member for Unley also enclosed copies of brochures that were issued on the day. The letter continues:

During the course of that Liberal government's existence, such contributions were delivered and Minister Laidlaw was also able to make access to a discretionary fund to assist 'borderline' projects that may not have been able to meet all the everyday protocols of the hypothecated fund and/or to provide prompt emergency assistance in the case of storm damage being sustained to marine assets for emergency dredging.

The government's contribution by way of (both) providing a 'match' for these boaties' levy 'investments' and 'special case' funding through the Discretionary Fund have now been syphoned off by the 'State Treasury'. This situation is of grave concern to the 55,000 recreational craft.

Recreational Boating Levy Fund—Commercial Craft: On the introduction of the Recreational Boating Levy in the 1990s, it was the intention of the government(s) to introduce a similar levy 'on' the operators of commercial craft (generally commercial fishers) who, generally, make substantial use of facilities which are 'funded' by the recreational boaties and these users are often, through the frequency of use and the structure and power of the engines installed on their craft, responsible for extreme wear and tear on the facilities. It seems extremely unreasonable that these operators make no contribution at all. This situation is of grave concern to the owners of (55,000) recreational craft [owners].

Recreational Boating Levy Fund—SA Boating Facilities Advisory Committee: Further to the previous paragraph, even though the commercial operators, operating commercially registered craft, are not asked to contribute to the Levy Fund, 'their' representatives, for some unfathomable reason, occupy positions within the Minister for Transport SA Boating Facility Advisory Committee...whose only real reason for existence is to make recommendations to the Minister on the distribution/investment of Boating Levy Funds, altogether collected from the Recreational Sector. This situation is of grave concern to the...55,000 recreational craft [owners].

The last point I want to make relates to the Recreational Boating Levy Fund—Navigation Aids, where it is stated:

It has, it appears, traditionally, been the responsibility of the Minister for Transport to construct and maintain navigation aids in South Australian waters. Generally for commercial craft. This is now changing.

This is from a letter in December, if I remember correctly:

During the last month or two it has become abundantly clear that the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure will seek to recoup the costs of installing and maintaining navigation aids from the hypothecated fund. Annual revenue delivered to the fund from recreational boaties is in the order of $1.5 million. Annual forecast budget requirement for the navigation aids program is around $800,000...again [this] seems...unreasonable.

With those comments, I look forward to seeing what the government does in answer to the concerns of the stakeholders. The opposition is not opposing this legislation and at this stage will not be amending it, but there will be some more consultation undertaken between the houses. I cannot guarantee the minister that there will not be amendments introduced in the upper house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Goyder, and my congratulations to the new Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:45): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sincerely appreciate those kind words. I thought I would make a brief contribution to this bill today to reflect some of the personal experiences that I have had, coming from a local government background in a community which I am told has approximately 20 per cent of the state's recreational boating facilities, and the importance that the fund has played in accessing dollars to upgrade those facilities.

When I read the briefing paper prepared on this bill I had some concerns about the suggestion for a consolidation of the two accounts: the recreational and the professionals. My concerns are in support of recreational fishers (there is a significant number of them in the Goyder electorate) and the important role they play in the provision of food supplies to our state.

It is a bit of a worry that the shadow minister has identified that there are some 55,000 recreational craft in South Australia. In addition, my understanding is that there are approximately 300,000 recreational fishers within the state. Admittedly, not all of them will actually use boating facilities, as many would use jetties which have been funded and repaired by a combination of local government and, predominantly, state government funds—that is recognised.

It is important that we get the process right to ensure that resources are going to be available for the continued need to upgrade boating facilities. In the five and a half years that I spent with the District Council of Yorke Peninsula, I think I can recall probably four applications for significant dollars that came through for 50 per cent of the capital costs of upgraded recreational facilities. It would have been impossible for those facilities to be upgraded without the recreational fund being in place. I know that a lot of boat owners were rather upset about the introduction of the levy. I am a partial boat owner myself, with some friends.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am not sure which end either; I am not sure about that. I have heard people saying on radio how they were upset about the $25 levy that was in place; then the GST component went onto that, and now the structure of the levy costs has been changed again, I think, as part of the registration fee review that has occurred.

All I have said to people is, 'The fact that you pay the levy ensures that you have the greatest opportunity to use a modern boat ramp facility which, in effect, is the best form of insurance that you can ever get for your own boat,' because if you have a good boat ramp that offers you floating pontoons, it gives you protection from the prevailing winds and it gives you the greatest chance to not only get out but, importantly, to actually get back in when the weather turns and things get a bit rough and scary for a lot of people.

So, there is no debate from our side or, indeed, from the government, about the need for the fund to exist. As I see it, the issue is based solely around whether there should be a consolidation of the funds for the recreational and professional fishers, because it then produces some concerns about where, indeed, those funds will be allocated.

There is no doubt that pro fishers need to have better facilities too. I know that the pro fishers contribute enormously to the economy of the state, so they need support. There is a vast number of rec fishers, and in some cases there is a crossover of the use of facilities, especially for smaller professional fishing operations. There is a real desire out there, especially from my own electorate, which has a very strong component of its economy based around tourism and the recreational fishers who form that tourism market, to ensure not only that the fund is preserved but that the fund is identified so as to allow a large component of it that is derived from rec fishers to remain as accessible for facilities predominantly for rec fishers. So, that is where I have some personal concerns.

The shadow minister has indicated that, between the houses, the opposition will be considering the possibility of moving amendments. I know that our shadow ministry will be consulting over the next few days with interested people. I want to ensure that local government is part of those discussions, because it is recognised as the body that is able to access the Recreational Boating Facility Fund, because it needs it.

I have had debates within my community about the need to upgrade boating facilities and, as part of that, some people objected to the introduction of ticket machines. They did not like to see that occur. They listened to the argument that it provides them with a good facility, but they were very upset about the requirement to pay, on top of the levy which is part of their registration, a fee in the range of $5 to $7 in some facilities. Ticket machines have been dragged around car parks, vandalised and gummed up as people have tried to stop them being used as much as they can, but it is an important part of upgrading facilities in the vast areas of infrastructure for our state that needs to be done.

I just wanted to put those few brief comments on the record. I understand the need for funds to exist for the upgrade for recreational and pro fishers, and no-one would debate that. However, it is important that we get the process right to ensure that both the recreational and professional components of the fishing industry have access to dollars to upgrade the very important facilities that provide not only the pros with an opportunity to get their catch off and to have safe wharfing facilities and maintenance areas but also the rec fishers the ability to launch and, importantly, return to their boat ramp in safe weather.

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (12:51): On the surface, this bill appears innocuous. However, the operation of the facilities fund raises danger signals. The fund is to replace the Recreational Boating Facilities Fund and will establish, maintain and improve facilities for use in connection with vessels, both recreational and commercial, and also to pay the expenses of administering the fund.

This government is not noted for sound financial administration and, therefore, the likelihood that a large proportion of the fund that should be used to build infrastructure will be dissipated in management costs is all too real. The $6 million administration cost of the emergency services levy is an example where a significant portion of the levy is not spent on what it is collected for.

In response to an article in The Advertiser criticising the government for the cost of collecting the emergency services levy, Labor—despite criticising the former Liberal government for setting up the beneficial levy—has not come up with any new ideas on setting up an efficient and economical collection system. It was under the guidance of the retired Liberal and former minister for transport Diana Laidlaw that the SA Boating Facilities Advisory Committee (SABFAC) was founded to make recommendations to government for investing the funds collected from the Recreational Boating Facilities Levy into the development of boating facilities.

The South Australian Boating Facilities Advisory Committee consists of seven members appointed by the minister from a number of organisations including the Boating Industry Association of South Australia, South Australian Recreational Boating Council, South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council, two members from Wildcatch Fisheries SA, the Local Government Association of South Australia and a special ministerial appointee. The minister vested the South Australian Boating Facilities Advisory Committee with the responsibility of assessing applications for funding assistance for recreational boating projects from the Recreational Boating Facilities Fund. Each project is assessed on its merits. This has worked well for years.

Then there are two alarming subsections relating to the facilities fund under new section 90A:

(2) The Fund must be kept as directed by the Treasurer.

and

(5) The Minister may, with the approval of the Treasurer, invest any of the money belonging to the Fund that is not immediately required for the purposes of the Fund in such manner as is approved by the Treasurer.

I question these provisions. Recreational and commercial boat owners must be given an assurance that the levy will be put back directly into boating facilities and not into general revenue. In 2003, Boating Industry Association General Manager, Glen Jones, said:

The 52,500 recreational boat owners that continue to pay into the fund through the levy incorporated within their annual boat registration were satisfied that Ms Laidlaw had ensured that these funds were put back directly into boating facilities and not, as was first feared by many, put into general revenue.

The minister and the Treasurer should not have the authority to invest any of the money belonging to the fund other than for the purposes for which the fund is collected. Facilities in this state are not of such a standard that there would be money to spare if the fund were being administered for its designated purposes.

The purpose of the fund is to establish, expand or improve recreational boating facilities. These might include boat ramps, temporary mooring facilities or wharves, channel improvements or aids to navigation. Any local council or established community organisation may apply for up to 50 per cent of funding assistance.

Currently, local government or community organisations are required to contribute to the cost of facilities on a dollar for dollar basis and accept ongoing ownership, management and maintenance of the facility. This prevents smaller councils or organisations with a lower revenue base from accessing the fund so that it can be used for the purpose for which it is collected. It seems common sense that, if the levies are collected for building of infrastructure and facilities, that is what it should be used for. If there is spare cash in the fund it would be better spent on providing more funding to local government or community projects, perhaps on a two for one rather than a one for one basis.

The levy has enabled the development of new boating facilities and navigational aids which, in turn, have added to the regional economy of the state by encouraging more tourism and visitation to urban and regional areas for various boating activities. The improved facilities encourage more people to invest in housing for retirement or holidays in many coastal towns. The network of marinas along our coastline, lakes and the river can be attributed to the injection of these funds.

The average revenue collected over the past seven years is about $1.35 million per annum, which is a small amount when compared with the cost of most of the projects. The expenditure committed towards projects for the same period is about $9.2 million. For example, the new boat ramp at Coffin Bay was a $500,000 project. Without the assistance of the Recreational Boating Facilities Fund, the District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula would not have been able to undertake this much needed and appreciated project.

Coffin Bay is a popular fishing spot and was restored to its former success following the Liberal government's introduction of fishing net bans and the consequent return of fish to the area. It attracts recreational fishers from across the state and interstate. Yet it is the locals who, through their taxes, provide the facilities for visitors to use. It should be a shared responsibility. The Advisory Council on Recreational Fishing contends that anglers are losing ground against commercial and government interests and that funding projects or interests in developing the $350 million per annum industry are negligible.

The recreational industry asserts that much more can be done, as in other states, to develop the industry. Some examples are upgrades of boat ramps and jetties plus artificial reefs to attract fish. The minister stated that the fund can be used to provide facilities for the 'installation, maintenance and improvement of navigation aids and emergency marine radio'. Emergency marine radio is a safety necessity for all shipping. However, setting it up and operating it involves a huge cost. It should be a responsibility for the federal and state governments on a national basis in association with border patrols and national security, but the federal government, like the state government, is continually shedding its responsibilities and passing the buck.

Some of this safety work is now being done by volunteers operating their own radio systems. Mr Mick Dinon at Louth Bay was instrumental in a number of sea rescues when he passed on the emergency messages he picked up. Mick, a World War II veteran, has now retired from this voluntary community service. The Volunteer Marine Rescue Communications has been taken up by a Tumby Bay resident, Mr Gary Smith, who spends many hours a day manning his radio, and another Port Lincoln resident. This service not only serves South Australia's recreational and commercial fishing and boating interests but also has assisted international shipping in the relay of emergency messages.

There is a government marine radio service. However, due to climatic conditions it is not always able to receive emergency messages, thus compromising the safety of mariners. Its range on the West Coast of South Australia is also limited. One wonders whether the Labor government considers the more than two-thirds of South Australia west of Port Augusta as part of the state. Emergency services are responsible for the cost of the marine rescue radio. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT