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 (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 3515.)

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (15:51): Emergency services are responsible for the cost of the marine rescue radio, therefore to cost-shift the expense to recreational and commercial fishers in South Australia is abandoning responsibility and duty of care by this government. I recall a boatie from Yorke Peninsula who struck trouble, but who, fortunately, was washed up on Thistle Island.

The next land after Thistle Island is Antarctica. The fisherman's whereabouts was not known for some days. Our commercial fishers spend most of their time at sea beyond the Continental Shelf. Modern communications have made their lives much safer, but have not completely removed the inherent risks of deep sea fishing.

I sincerely hope that there will be a Liberal government after the 2010 election and we will set up an independent commission against crime and corruption so that disaffected boaties, whether recreational or professional, will have somewhere to go for their complaints to be adequately addressed.

We must not let the good work initiated by the Liberal government under minister Laidlaw be undermined. It is important that the boating levy is retained for what it was originally intended, and not eaten up by the current government's shifting of costs and responsibilities to cover incompetent financial management.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:52): I rise to make a contribution to the Harbors and Navigation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2009. This came about by a proposal of the Minister for Infrastructure to increase maximum penalty and expiation fees applying to the registration of prescribed vessels. Also as part of this proposal, recreational and commercial facilities funds are to be replaced by a single 'facilities fund' to pay for establishing, maintaining and improving harbours and other such facilities.

The background to this is that, currently, 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 relative facilities.

The bill removes those 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 are nervous about some aspects of the establishment of the fund. The South Australian Recreational Fishers Advisory Council has questioned the wording in the bill with regards to decisions made by the Treasurer on the use of the fund.

Section 90A(5) provides the Treasurer with the authority to permit the minister to use the fund in any way, as long as the funds are not 'immediately required' for boating facilities. There are no accompanying provisions for repayment of that money into the fund, nor limits on where the Treasurer can apply such funds to be spent.

New section 90A(6) provides that the minister can apply the fund to the payment of the expenses of administering the fund. We on this side of the house are considering whether such expenditure should perhaps be capped to a certain percentage of the fund's balance. I will just go through new section 90A—Facilities Fund:

(1) The Facilities Fund is established.

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

(3) The Fund is to consist of—

(a) facilities levies payable under the regulations on the registration, inspection or survey of vessels; and

(b) income from investment of money belonging to the Fund.

(4) A certificate of registration, inspection or survey will not be issued for a vessel until any levy payable on the registration, inspection or survey is paid.

This is the bit that SARFAC is concerned about:

(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.

(6) The Fund may be applied by the Minister towards—

(a) establishing, maintaining and improving facilities for use in connection with vessels; and

(b) the payment of expenses of administering the Fund.

Concerns of the recreational fishing industry about this bill are spurred on by a conflict occasionally between the commercial and recreational fishing industries. The Recreational Fishing Advisory Council purports that anglers are losing ground against other interests and that funding projects for interest in developing the $350 million per year industry is negligible in comparison to developments being made in other sectors.

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. We must remember that the recreational fishing industry is very important to the people of the state. There are 300,000-plus people involved in recreational fishing.

In his second reading explanation, the minister stated that the recreational and commercial funds are being rolled into one because it is often not possible to distinguish between vessel facilities that benefit both recreational and commercial users. 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 see an increase in the maximum penalty and expiation fees applying to the registration of vessels. It appears that the exponential increases in fees are aligned with the massive increases in registration fees back in July 2008. Schedule 14 of the regulations basically had a flat rate for registration of vessels prior to that date and, when it was changed to a tiered system going by vessel length, there was no consultation with SARFAC.

Understandably, penalties must be changed in line with registration fees in order that a boater is actually compelled to register their vessel. However, these increases were hefty, they were not consulted on and they were clearly the precursor to the changes in penalties encapsulated in the bill. In relation to the cost of registration, section 55 provides:

(1) A vessel to which this Division applies must not be operated in the jurisdiction unless it is registered and marked in accordance with the regulations.

(2) If a vessel to which this Division applies is operated in the 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 previous maximum penalty for a breach here was $750, and that rises to a maximum of $2,500.

An expiation fee applies if the vessel is registered but not marked in accordance with the regulations, and that goes up from $55 to $210; and, if the vessel is neither registered nor marked in accordance with the regulations, it goes from $80 to $315. Also, it is noted that the CEO may, subject to such conditions as the CEO thinks fit, grant exemptions from the requirements of this section.

Concerns have been expressed by both representatives of the South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council and also BIASA about the Treasurer's authority over the fund and a capping of the amount expendable on administrative costs. It would be nice to have some guarantee that both commercial and recreational fishing will get the facilities that they deserve.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:01): I will not speak for very long on this issue. In my time in this place I have enjoyed cooperation with the boating industry, particularly BIASA (Boating Industry Association of South Australia) and its executive officer Mr Glen Jones. I note we are having a breakfast this Friday morning, and I presume the minister will be there.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: No, I won't.

Mr VENNING: Well, that is a shame. I will have two eggs.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: I am quite happy not to be there.

Mr VENNING: He is happy not to be there. That is unusual. I am quite shocked, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I rise to speak about this bill, which seeks to increase penalties and expiation fees applied to the registration of prescribed vessels. It also contains measures to replace the current recreational facilities fund and commercial facilities fund with a single facilities fund, to pay for establishing, maintaining and improving harbours and other such infrastructure.

Currently, regulations set the levies imposed on registration of recreational vessels and a corresponding levy on commercial fishing vessels, with payment of these levies going into the respective funds. This bill will remove these regulations, and I have no real problem about that. I note that the single facilities fund, though, will be kept as directed by the Treasurer; and 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 a manner that is approved by the Treasurer.

I am concerned about this, because it means that if there is not a pressing need for expenditure to maintain, say, Outer Harbor, the money will be allowed to be expended, say, on cleaning up the rail yards hospital site. I do not think it is clear where else the money from the fund may be invested. It ought to be earmarked, in my book. If it is the case that it can be spent anywhere, I do not think it is right. Fishermen (commercial or recreational) are paying these levies, so the money should be put back into facilities for them. I think that is basic.

I understand that 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 compared to developments 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. I have had ongoing dialogue with some constituents about why SA Water reservoirs cannot be opened for recreational fishing and angling, as is done elsewhere. I think it would be a great attraction for South Australia. However, despite lobbying for this to happen over many years (even under the previous government), the current Rann Labor government has ruled it out.

Understandably, the recreational fishing industry is nervous about a pooling of funds into a single facilities fund where the expenditure is no longer limited to the commercial or recreational industries respectively. I also have concerns about this because there seems to be no mechanism in place to ensure the equitable expenditure of funds.

I note this bill would also change the act by increasing the maximum penalty and expiation fees applying to the registration of vessels. I do not have a problem with this aspect of the bill. However, for the reasons I have outlined, I do not necessarily support the bill as it is because, with my colleagues, I will wait to see what developments happen. Also, I will speak to some industry members on Friday; and I hope to assist with amendments before the other house if we need them after that consultation.

Again, I pay tribute to the Boating Industry Association of South Australia, particularly its CEO Glen Jones, its chairman and members (Mr Hayes included). I have certainly enjoyed their camaraderie, and I think some of the most enjoyable times I have had in this place were spent with them touring the river and looking at its problems. I do not think the member for Hammond has been on that—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I do not believe that is the case at all. I do not know. I know the invitation to take that trip was extended to all MPs, and we had a cross-section. To see the river from the water (especially when you start from the river mouth, and we went right through to Morgan) is really a great experience, and I certainly enjoyed that. They were instrumental in getting government assistance to upgrade the Bow Hill wharf, which was important for the local people. It is a historic wharf and was in a state of disrepair: that is now upgraded, and credit goes to the government. Go to Bow Hill. It is beautiful with the new wharf and new recreational area. It is just wonderful. It was a very dilapidated and unpleasant area, but it is now pristine, and I give the government credit for that. For the moment, we will wait and see what happens to this bill between the houses.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (16:06): I will answer some of the points made. It is frustrating when members—and I refer, in particular, to the member for Flinders—come in here and completely misrepresent what has happened in the past and what will happen in the future. The member for Flinders has suggested that we are using this bill to shift the cost of funding of marine radio from emergency services (that does not fund it at present) to this fund (that does fund it at present). One should try to get the basic facts straight. It is pure invention and it should not be used to create fears about this bill.

I will just raise the point that SARFAC thinks it is getting dudded on this matter. This bill for the first time requires the commercial sector to pay its contribution towards facilities which have been created from the fund but for which it has not been paying in the past; that is, it uses facilities that have been created by what would be the recreational fund and it does that without making a contribution.

The requirement for the commercial sector to make a contribution has been sought by the members of SABFAC since about 2005 or 2006—and we have agreed to that. I have a letter from the chair of SABFAC indicating that it unanimously supports this change.

I also indicate that the relevant officers of the department have met with SABFAC, and SABFAC, including the recreational fishing people, supports the provisions of the bill to create one fund. The bottom line is that, rather than what is being painted by the opposition, the fund will now have a contribution from the commercial sector that was getting benefits for free in the past. It will not be spending any differently—maybe in proportion—from things on which it spent in the past, despite desperate attempts to find something with which to scare people.

In regard to the provisions that are said to be a terrible danger, section 90A(5) provides that the minister may invest any money not being used. What do they want us to do with it? Do they want us to keep it under the bed or in a box? If you are not using the fund, don't you want to earn revenue from it?

It is an investment. It does not say that you can spend it on anything you want; it says that you can invest it. Unless you are a punter, the ordinary meaning of investment is somewhere to put money in order to get more than that money back over time—which is why section 95A(3)(a) provides that the fund is to consist of the facilities levies payable and (b) income from investment of money belonging to the fund.

It may be the position of the opposition that the best thing to do is to put away the money that they are not using and watch it decrease in real value while it is sitting there, but we do not think that is wise—and that is possibly one of the reasons that we are the government and you are a terrible opposition. To criticise the capacity to invest the fund beggars belief. However, if the opposition wishes to amend it and demonstrate how feeble minded they are, yet again, so that we are not allowed to invest the fund and anything we do not spend actually decreases in real value, they can seek to move that amendment. I am sure they may get supporters in the Legislative Council—because some members up there would support anything—but I do not think it is a good idea.

I am trying to recall the other criticisms that were made. I will not thank the opposition for support because it does not mean anything. They support a bill down here and then oppose it upstairs; that is what they do. That is why we cannot deal with them and that is why they remain the rabble they are. We will get their vote down here, but who knows what will happen? They say it is because things happen but, really, it is because they cannot control their members in the Legislative Council. They have never been able to do that. There is not one Liberal Party but, rather, several. They do not commit their upper house members because they can't. We know that from many things in the past; many poor leaders of the opposition begging their friends upstairs to do what they said they would do.

For the benefit of those members who say it is a hypothecated fund, I do not believe it is any different in structure from most other hypothecated funds; that is, if you have moneys you are not going to use, you invest them. It does not mean that you can spend it on something that is not for the purposes of the fund. It means you can invest it, and the Treasurer is involved to ensure that we invest it in something which is likely to give us a return but which is prudent. I think that just makes sense.

Apparently, we are not prudent with money. We are the only ones ever to balance a budget, to regain a AAA credit rating and maintain it in a global financial crisis, but we are not prudent so we should not be allowed to administer this fund. Can I say when we are running the state I think we can manage the fund.

The other provision which is apparently criticised is that the fund may be applied towards payment of expenses of administering the fund. Well, I am at a loss to understand why that is not perfectly reasonable. I guess we find ourselves in the hands of an opposition in the Legislative Council that may think what is reasonable is not reasonable, but I would think that, if you are running a business and running revenues, your actual revenue is what you take in less expenses. I would think that is unremarkable, but I assume that we will find out when the other Liberal Party upstairs decides what it wants to do.

The other provision, of course, is the increased fines. As the opposition would know, we moved to a new regime for registration and levies which meant that the vast majority of boat owners paid less in real terms in relation to the increase and the owners of larger vessels, more likely to use, for example, navigational aids and radio communication (for those who go further out to sea) pay more. As a result, it is necessary to have a maximum penalty that is sufficient to dissuade people from taking the benefit of not paying the registration. Again, it seems reasonable to me, but we will find out what the other Liberal Party upstairs thinks.

In short, the bill introduces something that SABFAC (including the recreational fishers) has asked for for a long time. That aspect had unanimous support. We went back and talked about the nature of this legislation. It is my understanding—and I will check with the officers—that that was reported by SABFAC, including the recreational fishers, that is, the creation of one fund. I do not know why they are saying something apparently different from the opposition, as their representative says on there; it is simply a better way of administering the fund.

It is actually a benefit for the recreational people because it obliges the commercial people to pay for facilities that, in the past, they were getting for free. It has a sensible provision that the funds may be invested so that they do not sit idle and do not decrease in real value, and it makes the maximum fines commensurate with the benefit that can be gained with avoiding the provisions of the act. I have to say that I am a little taken aback that this has been the object of so much criticism. Obviously, some of that is completely erroneous.

I repeat: the member for Flinders' criticisms were simply based on not understanding. I have to say that she has so much undying antipathy towards anything the Labor Party does that it seems to cloud her judgment. We thought that it was an unremarkable and good bill supported by the South Australian Boating Facilities Advisory Committee. It will allow them to continue the good work they do. The money will continue to be spent on the advice of that group of people. We believe that is the best way to do it. What has usually constrained the fund in the past in terms of recreational fishers has not been the availability of the fund, it has been the participation, in terms of those boat ramps (which is the most common investment from the fund), by a council paying half.

If the local members are concerned about that, I urge them to encourage their councils to find the resources and make applications against the fund because we are always happy to see it spent. There is no benefit in the moneys raised to consolidated revenue. It is a hypothecated fund and remains a hypothecated fund. We are quite happy to see it spent. In fact, we really do not like to see these funds built up and then spent all in a particular year, because you like to see it going out evenly, for budgeting reasons.

If they are really worried about recreational fishers not getting their share of resources, I point out that the facility that recreational fishers are most likely to use and enjoy will be a boat-launching facility. I encourage them to talk to the council in their area and ask them to set aside their contribution and make an application to the fund, because, in my experience, most sensible applications are funded.

I think this is a step forward. Certainly, it was intended to benefit fishers. We were pleased that the other interests on SABFAC were prepared to support that on the basis of equity, but it is intended to benefit recreational contributors as opposed to the existing schemes. I struggle to understand what all the scaremongering is about.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.

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