HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-11-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:21): I move:

That the regulation under the Fisheries Management Act 2007, entitled General Variation, made on 27 September 2012 and laid on the table of this house on 16 October, be disallowed.

I will just go through what this variation of Fisheries Management (General) Regulations 2007 means. It means that we have regulation 8A inserted, which provides:

Possession of prescribed quantity of aquatic resource in prescribed circumstances.

(1) For the purposes of section 73(1) of the Act—

(a) a quantity specified in Schedule 7A is fixed in relation to the class of fish or other aquatic resource specified alongside that quantity; and

(b) The following circumstances, or any combination of the following circumstances, are prescribed:

(i) where the fish or other aquatic resource is—

(A) frozen; or

(B) stored in a freezer;

(ii) where the fish or other aquatic resource—

(A) has been pickled, salted, smoked, cooked or otherwise processed; or

(B) is otherwise stored,

in a manner designed to preserve the fish or other aquatic resource.

Then it talks about the offences under the act. Under schedule 7A—Prescribed quantities, the government has introduced a regulation of King George whiting:

(a) if the person has in his or her possession both fish and fillets of the fish: 36 fish or 3.5 kilograms of fillets of the fish

(b) in any other cases: 72 fish or 7 kilograms of fillets of the fish.

With regard to pipi, or Goolwa cockles, 1,200 pipi, and for razor fish, 100 fish. Why I am moving to have these regulations disallowed is that I believe we should just go to the weight limit amount because it is pretty hard to count fillets if they are in a frozen situation. I will stick to the seven kilograms of fin fish that the government has prescribed in the regulations.

On our side of the house we believe in possession limits but we believe they should be more generous. We believe that there should be a limit of 20 kilograms, which is similar to the Western Australian arrangements. I say that not only as the shadow minister for fisheries but as a regional member representing many people in my electorate who only get the opportunity to have an annual fishing holiday, as many people do right across the state, whether they are urban dwellers or whether they reside in the country.

For instance, I look at what is happening now in the country areas, and it is the culmination of the agricultural year with harvest under full swing. Some of the early farmers and croppers have already finished and they are obviously looking at going away on a few weeks' break in the near future. What usually happens is that people travel fair distances—and it does not have to be farmers, I am just using that as an example. They may want to travel to the West Coast or they may want to go to Ceduna—the whiting is pretty good catching up there. There is also—

Mr Pengilly: There's none over our way, don't come there! Caica is going to stuff it up completely.

Mr PEDERICK: The member for Finniss just reminded me of the fabulous fishing around Kangaroo Island.

Mr Pengilly: And the Fleurieu.

Mr PEDERICK: And the Fleurieu, which we both represent. With regard to Kangaroo Island, people get across on the Island Seaway. I was there the other day and encountered the stark reality of the distance—I guess you could almost say the isolation or the remoteness—when we had those lightning strikes, and I had a fire happening on my farm and I was trying to control it from Kingscote.

Mr Pengilly: They managed to get it out without you.

Mr PEDERICK: They did manage to get it out. The neighbours and everyone did very well and I appreciate that. They did a fantastic job and I must say my eight-year-old son was doing very well taking the calls. Be that as it may, for people who wish to go to Kangaroo Island, it is expensive, especially if you take a vehicle and then a boat or a camper trailer. That is just the way it is—you have to get over there by either the Island Seaway or you can fly.

Mr Pengilly: What? On SeaLink, I would have thought.

Mr PEDERICK: SeaLink, sorry. The member for Finniss has just—

Mr Pengilly: The Seaway went out in 1995!

Mr PEDERICK: That shows how long since I have been on a boat to Kangaroo Island. Thank you, member for Finniss. I have also been on the Troubridge, Michael, and that is going back many years. What I am saying is that it is not cheap to get to the Far West Coast, Yorke Peninsula (where there is some very good recreational fishing around there as well) or, for instance, Kangaroo Island. People mainly have the opportunity to go away on one decent trip a year and, certainly, I do not think the government regulations that bring the limits down to seven kilos of whiting is acceptable.

The amount is just too low. These limits came about because we were the only state in Australia not to have possession limits. There were possession limits across the other states and so it enticed people to come to South Australia, and there has been a whole lot of discussion about people fishing and catching thousands of fillets and them taking them away, whether it is to the Eastern States or elsewhere. A lot of that is anecdotal evidence, of course, but it certainly upsets commercial fishermen. That is why we have said that perhaps we need to even up the way possession limits are managed in this country and we agreed that we do need a possession limit but we believe that 20 kilos of fish—which could be something like 160 whiting—could be quite sustainable.

We are not talking about people having the opportunity to take thousands of whiting because that is obviously a commercial rate of fish, and we want to see that controlled. Obviously there are going to be issues with policing this. I understand that the method of policing is similar to Western Australia where, if there is enough suspicion involved, a warrant is sought to inspect the person's premises, and they obviously need to be very suspicious that someone has a freezer with many fillets in it.

It certainly raised a lot of discussion during the months of debate that has been going on about recreational fishing possession limits. We have to understand that there are hundreds of thousands of people in South Australia that love the opportunity to go for a fish. As I indicated, there are many people who only have the opportunity to go fishing once a year and we want to see those people have the opportunity to catch a decent feed of fish that they can store for a few months and enjoy the fruits of their recreational fishing.

I am afraid that such a low limit of seven kilograms makes it completely unworkable. That does not allow people to fully utilise their holiday. If they have to stick rigidly by the rules, we could see people taking tourism dollars out of regional communities, which is a disaster. They will be shortening their trips. They might only go for a week or 10 days instead of maybe three or four weeks and that is going to be a disaster for the incomes of regional communities.

We have already seen the debate going on around marine parks and the chaos and uncertainty that has already caused in regional communities, and we do not any more. We do not need the marine parks fiasco, quite frankly, but it is going to be imposed on us. I think the people of South Australia will make their fair judgement in March 2014 regarding that debate. What we need to do in this state is foster all our communities and, especially in this case, our regional communities. People want to go away. They want to spend a few weeks away with their mates or their family and just catch a decent amount of fish. It is pretty obvious.

It is not just the people travelling over there that are impacted by this, it is also the accommodation at the motels and caravan parks. The local businesses will also be impacted, such as the local Foodlands or the local small shops, whether they be at Ardrossan, Ceduna, Port Lincoln, Port Broughton or anywhere in this state. People also like travelling down to the South-East to Beachport.

Mr Pengilly: Where's that?

Mr PEDERICK: Do you have to go on the Island Seaway? I think the many hundreds of thousands of people in this state that enjoy recreational fishing have a right to book a decent holiday, travel on this holiday and take their boat or their camper, or take both if they have a couple of vehicles and can get away. Some people can put the boat on top of the vehicle or the camper trailer. They should at least have the opportunity to fully enjoy and utilise their time off, which for a lot of people is the only opportunity that they have for a break.

That is why I am moving to disallow the regulations that were placed on the table by the government. It is not the simple fact that this is just about fishing as it is. As I have explained, it is about supporting regional areas and regional communities, and it is about giving everyone a fair go.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:33): I rise to support the motion put up by the member for Hammond. I am a little bit concerned after his faux pas on the Island Seaway that he may have lost the plot but, anyway, we will give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. The issue of the regulations, as have been discussed, were probably advanced fairly vocally by the Mayor of Ceduna, Mr Allan Suter, who took this matter under his wing and made loud representations, quite clearly because interstaters—particularly Victorians, as I understand it—were going over to the coast, staying for months, doing regular trips back and flogging off the fish.

Mr Suter quite rightly raised that issue and, in respect to the regulations, I think a good deal of thought has gone into it. However, there are a few things that are amiss with it, as the member for Hammond raised a few minutes ago. This is only going to be exacerbated by the debacle that is going to be unleashed on South Australian rural communities when this hideous government unloads on the marine park sanctuary zones.

Port Wakefield people are in despair. They met with the chief of staff of the Premier's office only last week or so and they received absolutely no joy whatsoever. I know that the fishermen, both recreational and professional, in my electorate down on the western Fleurieu are extremely concerned and are at the point of taking very strong action, particularly those from Kangaroo Island, as, indeed, are those across the rest of the state.

If this government wants to go along and wipe out regional communities, they ought to put it fairly and squarely on the plate. I am given to understand that the government is currently spending a huge amount of money on a media campaign to promote their sanctuary zones—here we go again. They cannot find money for hospitals, they cannot find money for schools, but they can find money for spin. I can assure minister Caica and Premier Weatherill that, in due course, they will get their just desserts big time.

In the meantime, we have to deal with this regulation that the member for Hammond wants to be disallowed. He quite correctly has brought this into the parliament and I am sure that there are other members for rural areas who will want to speak on it and support it. I would hardly be surprised if it did not get up; however, it may well be discussed in another place as well. It is important that this matter is debated and it is important that we, as representatives of rural and regional areas in South Australia, bring these matters to the parliament, put them permanently on the record in the Hansard and try to fix up a wrong that has been made.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:36): I rise to strongly support the member for Hammond in his motion to disallow these regulations. I point out that, as well as being an important regional issue, this is actually an important city and metropolitan issue as well. There are people from the city and people from the country who all enjoy going on their fishing trips. Our entire state benefits from our commercial fishing industry, as well as the recreational, and our entire state benefits from important environmental protections as well. This is an issue which is important to our entire state because our entire state has the opportunity to participate and our entire state is affected by these regulations.

The areas in question where the fishing occurs are really the Upper Spencer Gulf, Yorke Peninsula, Eyre Peninsula, Far West Coast, South-East, Kangaroo Island, Fleurieu Peninsula—those sorts of areas. It is very important that we have possession limits in place but, of course, where you set those limits is always going to be open for discussion.

There will be people with different views. We need to respect the commercial fishing sector's views and we need to have limits in place to protect their industry. We need limits in place to protect the environment. I do not think that commercial fishermen are going to wreck our entire coastline but, certainly, pockets of it could be very detrimentally affected.

Balancing that, of course, is the fact that we need our recreational fishermen, women, boys and girls to have the opportunity to go fishing and enjoy the fact that, these days, many people are limited to one or maybe two weeks' holiday at a time in a recreational area. They should not be penalised by the fact that they need to do all of their fishing perhaps just once a year.

We also do not want to penalise other related businesses. This is a very important tourism issue. The boating industry, caravan parks, campgrounds, hotels, general stores and many other businesses, particularly retail businesses, rely on the commercial fishing industry, so it is very important that people still have the ability to go and enjoy these holidays and make the most of things.

The member for Hammond, as the shadow spokesman for fisheries, has outlined our position with regard to where we think possession limits should be set. This is not so much about pushing a motion for those specific limits as it is for disallowing the regulations at this point in time, but, if we had the opportunity, we would not be shy about putting forward exactly what we think is right.

We see the WA model as being a good one to follow, not that we would do exactly that, but something along those lines, I think, is very important. I highlight also that in Tasmania, where recreational fishing is perhaps more important than any other state because they rely on trout fishing to support of gigantic part of their wealth creation, they give their fisheries inspectors very strong powers, very strong authority, and local Tasmanians do not object to that. They appreciate that and they respect that because they recognise how important trout fishing is to their state's economy, so there is no reason to be scared of rules and regulations.

I would also like to point out that, along with whatever possession limits may be set, there are some other important issues that need to be considered, and they include identification of fish. Obviously, if a group of people go fishing together, while they are away they might share a chest freezer or something like that, the possession limit is back at home (it would quite rightly apply to whole families), fish would need to be wrapped and clearly identified in terms of the date they were caught and who they belong to. It would be quite reasonable for a mother and father and son or daughter to have all of their personal fish stored in one place. We would need to identify whether exactly the same possession limits apply to adults as to children, and as with most things like this there is usually a cut off age of about 16, and that becomes very relevant.

We would need to make sure also that the fish being stored in a particular location, the fish being possessed in a location, and tagged with the owner's or the fisherperson's name are relevant to that household. It would be fruitless to set possession limits and then say that a person could have 20 other people's fish all stored in a freezer in a home and call them all their own just because they wrote Bill, Bob, Sally, Fred, and whoever else, on the fish. They are the sorts of things that need to be considered.

Let me say again that this is a very important issue for regional South Australia with regard to the contribution to the economy, but it is also an important issue with regard to metropolitan Adelaide with regard to who these possession limits impact upon.

I will wind up by saying that I am absolutely positive that if this was a conscience vote this motion from the member for Hammond would be roundly supported. I suspect very strongly that members in government, if they were looking at just what was best for their electorates, for the people who like to participate in recreational fishing in their electorates, they would support the member for Hammond on this issue.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:42): There are a couple of issues at hand here. I will certainly point out first up that I fully support the motion brought to the house by the member for Hammond. One of the issues—and this has been debated at length over the years—is that under the Subordinate Legislation Act the parliament does not have the opportunity to move an amendment to a regulation, and that I think is a failure of the parliament, to address that particular piece of legislation.

Here is a classic case where the opposition and the government both agree on the principle. We agree that there should be a possession limit, but what we disagree on is what the limit should be. If we had the opportunity, under the Subordinate Legislation Act, to move an amendment to the regulation, that is what the member of Hammond would have done this morning; but, as it is, he only has the opportunity to oppose the regulation. That is one issue that I think the parliament should look at.

It has been a regular wont of mine to debate the issue of regulation making. I think that far too much of the law of the state is made via regulation, which to my mind bypasses this parliament and does not call upon members of the parliament to exercise their mind on the issues at hand. We have passed on to the bureaucracy many of our powers to make law. It is my firm belief that a number of ministers are simply rubber stamps for their bureaucrats. I suspect that this may well be a case in point.

The principle of possession limits is not in question: it is where we set that limit, and we have not had a debate, certainly not in the parliament. I think there has been plenty of debate in the community, and that is the problem. I think that is the point that the member for Stuart just made, that is, if this was going to be a conscience vote, he believes that this motion of the member for Hammond would certainly be supported, because that would truly reflect the debate that is happening in the community.

Again, I think the first thing we should ask ourselves when we are considering regulations being made is: what is the wrong we are trying to correct by the regulation? It seems to me that there have been allegations that a small number of people—sometimes individually but quite often in groups—go down to our coast as recreational fishers, catch as much of a particularly valuable species, like King George whiting, as they can, trot off home and then sell them. So, they turn what should be a recreational pursuit into a commercial operation. It is my understanding that that is the wrong we are trying to address. I am definitely not convinced that a seven kilogram possession limit on King George whiting addresses that issue.

The other thing that we need to consider is: are there any unintended consequences of this particular regulation? That is where I think we really do need to take on board what the member for Hammond has been putting to us. Seven kilograms of fish is not a lot of fish, particularly for those people who only go to the coast from time to time, as the member for Hammond said, on their annual holidays. They might be there for a couple of weeks.

It is a very common habit in my electorate in the South-East for people, particularly in the farming communities and living away from the coast, to use a portion of their summer holiday or the summer holiday period to go to the coast to camp or take up a residence in a rented accommodation. A lot of people actually own beach shacks in the various coastal towns: Kingston Road, Beachport, Southend, and then further on down into the member for Mount Gambier's electorate. It is a very common practice for people living distant from the coast to spend a couple of weeks on the coast.

A lot of those people would like to be able to catch and take home more than seven kilograms of fish, and I do not think that is an unfair thing. There are a lot of people who live very close to the coast who spend the whole summer fishing on a very regular basis, and I am sure they would catch and consume a much greater amount of fish than what is possible for the people who I am referring to who go to the coast for a couple of weeks and then want to take some of that fish home and consume it throughout the year.

I think there definitely is potential for an unintended consequence, and that is that we will be forcing a lot of otherwise law-abiding citizens to break the law. They will be forced to break this regulation or they will inadvertently break this regulation just by continuing to do what they have been doing for many years and, in some cases, for generations. I do not think that seven kilograms is the amount which addresses the problem we are trying to address; that is, allowing a very few recreational fishers to turn that enterprise into a commercial enterprise.

I suspect that if they are pursuing fishing as a way of making a few dollars, seven kilograms would be very much below the threshold which they would find worthwhile. I think the member for Hammond's suggestion that we adopt a limit of 20 kilograms for total possession of finfish does a number of things. My personal feeling is that even that is quite low, but notwithstanding that, it means that you do not have to DNA test the samples of fish in the freezer, because you do not have to know exactly what species it is.

So that not only simplifies the policing of the regulation considerably but it also gets closer to the point of addressing what is the real problem, and that is—and I repeat—trying to stop people turning a recreational pursuit into a commercial operation in contravention of our other fishery management laws.

Having put that on the table, I still think that the Subordinate Legislation Act needs review to allow us to more adequately debate these sorts of issues in this place; but, notwithstanding that, we are stuck with what we have and, as a consequence, I can only support the member for Hammond's motion to disallow this regulation.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:50): I also wish to rise in support of the motion for disallowance. I do so based on the fact that the area I have the great opportunity to represent in parliament has something like 20 per cent of the state's boat ramps so, therefore, recreational fishing has been, is, and always will be, one of the most important pursuits undertaken in the Goyder electorate. While I respect the fact that there have to be personal catch limits, boat limits and possession limits in place and that has to be supported by science, there also has to be a rational approach taken to it. The member for Hammond, in bringing forward this position and that he feels the seven kilogram possession limit is far too low, is one that I support.

Over the time I have lived on Yorke Peninsula (which is the majority of my life), I am lucky enough to have fished from most of the ramp areas—not very well—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Not very many.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: That was the lucky one: that was the good catch. So, the fish are out there: indeed, it is just that there are poor fishermen who go out a lot more times and don't get them as often as others. On Yorke Peninsula in the busy times—say you are there at Easter or in January—if you look at the boat ramps and see the number of vehicles and trailers that are parked there, it makes you fully appreciate the true importance that recreational fishers play in the economy of the region, because they are there in vast numbers. I think Port Hughes is the busiest recreational fishing ramp in South Australia and Port Victoria is not very far behind that. There are literally 130 vehicles and trailers parked there on the busy days trying to find a spot to go out, and then trying to be successful in catching a fish. It is these people who we want to support by this motion of disallowance.

Recreational fishers often will come over just for the holiday opportunity. They will fish off a jetty first, then they will get a boat, then they will rent a shack or stay at a caravan park, then they will think about investing in a property and then move there full time. So, the recreational fishing possession limit is linked to the willingness of people to live in a community, and that is what has driven our economy for a long time. We have to be very careful before we implement anything that will impact on the success of that economy in the future.

I do have great concerns about what has been put in place by the Minister for Fisheries here. I am concerned about where she might have got the advice from. I know that the shadow minister has spoken to other states about what the rules are that they have in place, and the position that we have taken is strongly supported by what is in place in Western Australia. However, we need to get it right.

There will be a variety of people who want to put this motion forward. I do hope some support exists within the chamber, because it is important for regional South Australians. There are about 300,000 recreational fishers and these people want a variety of opportunities to go out and catch fish. They want to be able to store the fish and use it themselves or give it to friends and relatives and, if you are going to have a seven kilogram possession limit in place, that is far too low. There needs to be a greater tolerance here. That is why I support the motion

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:53): I rise today to support the motion of the member for Hammond, who has quite articulately put his concerns about the regulations as they are proposed. I speak as the member of parliament who probably has the longest length of coastline of any electorate in the state, stretching from an area north of Cowell at Lucky Bay, right around Port Lincoln, all the way out to the West Coast and beyond to the Western Australian border.

In fact, it was one of our mayors (mayor Allan Suter) who highlighted the real concerns he had about particularly people coming from interstate, Understandably, this evidence was only ever anecdotal, but there was a really strong suspicion and concern that people were coming to areas like the Far West Coast and around the coastline of Eyre Peninsula and taking large quantities of fish and effectively exporting them out of the state and primarily to the eastern coast.

I must say that the parliament and all the regional members in particular took this concern very seriously. I have to say that the residents of Eyre Peninsula and also Yorke Peninsula, and other regional areas—Kangaroo Island, in particular, Upper Spencer Gulf, the South-East—wherever you go throughout South Australia, the locals take their fishing very seriously. It is more than recreational fishing: it is a very sophisticated and dedicated hobby and pastime for a lot of people.

Many of the farmers across the regional areas of South Australia take their summer holidays at their local shack and my belief is that the shacks evolved from the perspective that farmers tended to go to their closest beach for their summer holidays. Once harvest was finished, they went down and often built very simple shacks, very simple accommodation, where they spent the summer holidays. After Christmas, school was out and they took their children, who learned to swim.

Of course, they were within striking distance of the farm which they needed to visit every two or three days to check the sheep. They would go out fishing early in the morning and catch their feed for the day, then go home and check the sheep. It has really become a tradition across South Australia and it has been fished very effectively and conscientiously by the locals.

As I said, the concerns were around the amount of fish that were being taken, certainly not illegally at the time, but let us suggest immorally, from the very productive waters that we have on the West Coast. Whiting was the species that was really sought after. The South Australian King George whiting is renowned throughout the state, throughout Australia, throughout the world—

Mr Bignell: Hear, hear!

Mr TRELOAR: —as the primary fish for human consumption, although I have to say that I am a little bit partial to a fresh trevally, member for Mawson.

Mr Bignell: I like a bit of raw kingfish.

Mr TRELOAR: Raw kingfish!

Members interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: There are contributions coming from everywhere on the preferred fish and, at the risk of—

Mr Griffiths: I like leatherjacket.

Mr TRELOAR: Leatherjacket, okay—any bids for flake? Member for Little Para, how about a bit of flake? Primarily, the whiting was the most sought-after species and of course there were limits—boat limits and daily bag limits—on that species, as well as a couple of others.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: The member for Kavel reminded me where I started this conversation about fish with fresh tommies and, of course, as children having our summer holidays at Coffin Bay—which really is still the highlight of my life—catching fresh tommies out of a dinghy or off the jetty was a real thrill. To clean them and cook them ourselves and have them for tea, supplemented by a bit of tomato sauce, cucumber and whatever else was along, was a highlight.

Getting back to the motion at hand, we do support the member for Hammond in this motion and his concerns around the regulations as they would be proposed. I think we all recognise that there is a problem. There is an issue that has been highlighted by any number of our constituents and I think it is right for the parliament to take action against what would appear to be a threat to our native species, but we have to get the possession limit right.

There are models in other states of Australia that would be worth considering. Certainly, the Western Australian model has been mentioned a number of times, and it is all to do with the kilogram limit or the number of fillets that people are actually allowed to have in their deep freeze. What has occurred in the past is that fishers have come from far away, fished at places like Ceduna, Smoky Bay, Streaky Bay, even right around to Cowell, and taken more than their fair share. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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