HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-10-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Motions

Limestone Coast Marine Rescue

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (11:06): I rise to move this motion in an amended form as follows:

That this house—

(a) recognises the important assistance professional and recreational fishers play in emergency marine safety situations in Limestone Coast waters; and

(b) calls on the state government to provide funding for a marine rescue squadron/association/SES marine unit, incorporating a rescue vessel, to be based at Port MacDonnell.

Upon entering the Port MacDonnell and District Maritime Museum, you will find the walls adorned with stories of more than 30 ill-fated ships that came to grief along the rugged local coastline during the late 1800s and early 1900s. This stretch of coastline was once known as 'the graveyard of ships', bearing witness to one of Australia's most devastating maritime disasters, in 1859. The passenger ship SS Admella tragically shipwrecked on a submerged reef off Carpenter Rocks, resulting in the loss of 89 lives. At the time, rescue vessels were dispatched from Adelaide and Portland. Over 160 years later, the region still relies on vessels from further afield for rescue operations.

In 2011, Port MacDonnell fishermen Gary Causon and Mark Moody were involved in a lifesaving mission, rescuing two men whose vessel had capsized 15 kilometres off Port MacDonell's coast due to a freak wave. After searching the treacherous seas for nearly four hours, Causon and Moody spotted the stranded men clinging to an esky in frigid waters. The two survivors, both standing six foot tall, were hauled aboard with great effort by the local fishermen and hurried back to shore.

Limestone Coast Superintendent Trevor Twilley credited Causon and Moody for saving the survivors. I quote:

Had it not been for the vessel Remarkable having gone out there to assist us in our coordination of the search then it's quite likely they may not have survived.

Gary Causon was hopeful that the incident would highlight the need for a full-time coastguard. He was quoted as saying:

I think it's well overdue. It's one of our busiest ports in South Australia and we have nobody. They've been relying on local people for 30-40 years to save people and it's time we had something done.

A series of public meetings followed, and a proposal for a marine rescue service was prepared by the District Council of Grant and presented to the state government at the time.

The proposal highlighted the significant recreational fishing fraternity, the large commercial fishing sector in the area and a predicted rising aquatic risk profile. This marked the beginning of what is now an 11-year campaign to establish an official marine rescue service in the Lower South-East of South Australia.

Since that event in 2011, there have been numerous instances where the community has depended on the goodwill of local fishers to assist in rescue operations, some of which ended tragically. In 2014, a luxury catamaran started taking on water off Port MacDonnell with two men aboard. A rescue call was put out and the two men were rescued from their life raft by a nearby commercial fishing boat.

Later that year, local fishermen were the first on the scene and assisted in the search for a missing snorkeller off the coast of Carpenter Rocks. Police later joined the search, but the man's body was sadly found washed up on the shore. In 2016, two recreational fishermen were rescued by another volunteer fisher when he spotted them treading water two kilometres off the coast of Port MacDonnell after their boat sank due to an anchor rope entangling the propeller.

In 2021, local fishers again were involved in the search for a 32 year old who went missing while snorkelling. He was unable to be saved. Just days later, Dale Brant and Rick Hill were checking their lobster pots when they were called upon to rescue five men who were hanging on the bottom of their overturned boat. All five men were treated for mild hypothermia.

The year 2022 saw another two incidents involving volunteer rescues. In April, two Carpenter Rocks fishermen aided in the rescue of two tourists whose dinghy had capsized. Then, in August, the call again went out to locals to assist an amateur vessel that had reported engine trouble. Charter fishing operators Jason Fulham and Tyson Kain answered the call. The rescue operation took almost five hours, with complications occurring on the tow back in. The damaged vessel began taking on water and had to be abandoned. During this process, the rescuers' own vessel suffered approximately $5,000 in damage.

These incidents are just a selection from the past decade in which professional and recreational fishermen have played a crucial role in rescue operations, with many others not reported publicly. There has been a longstanding agreement between local police and the community of Port MacDonnell to conduct these rescues, and the professional fishing fleet has always selflessly come forward to offer their time when they have been called to do so.

However, we cannot rely on the goodwill of people forever, plus expect them to shoulder the associated costs. Along with lost time and fuel, fishers are also shouldering a heavy liability burden. Rescue operations are outside the normal duties of both recreational and professional fishermen. Should something unforeseen happen during a rescue, can we guarantee that the insurance companies will step up to the plate? If professional vessels are damaged, who will compensate the fisher for lost earnings while the boat is on land being repaired?

This stretch of coastline has proven to be treacherous, yet the closest rescue vehicle is located in Kingston, a two-hour boat ride away. Not only are we relying on commercial and recreational vessels that are not designed for this purpose but we are also relying on local fishermen who have not been trained to perform rescues safely and who may not have the necessary equipment. It is important to emphasise that many of the local fishers are happy to volunteer their time, but they want to do it safely and not at personal cost and/or possible liability.

It is time to address this issue and establish a marine rescue unit at Port MacDonnell, equipped with a built-for-purpose vessel and trained volunteers. The District Council of Grant is a great supporter of this project, and has been actively involved over the past 11 years in garnering support for such a facility. They have provided in principle support with the provision of land, along with a commitment to assist with engaging community members.

In 2021, a meeting was held with the South Australian State Emergency Service and other key stakeholders to discuss the potential establishment of a marine volunteer rescue service. It is currently stated on the South Australian SES website:

VMR [volunteer marine rescue] have identified a lack of resources in the south-east…and are actively pursuing opportunities to remedy this situation.

It is evident that there is consensus on the need for a rescue service in the Lower South-East, yet we still have no dedicated marine rescue unit.

Just last week, Tumby Bay, a lovely town in the Spencer Gulf, took possession of its new rescue vessel, the Yaragada. This was a replacement for its existing 20-year-old vessel, and the updated design equipment will allow the volunteers to operate safely for longer periods in a wider range of weather and sea conditions. Whilst I applaud and congratulate this addition for the Tumby Bay district, and have no doubt that it is a vital addition for the safety of their community, I note that there is also an SES marine unit with a marine rescue vessel located at Port Lincoln, approximately 30 minutes away.

As I highlighted earlier, since the initial proposal was put to the government 11 years ago, there have been regular marine incidents that have involved fishers carrying out rescue operations. Both sides of government have had the opportunity to act on this proposal, but it appears budgetary constraints have halted the project from moving any further. With the rock lobster fishing season now underway and summertime approaching, let us hope that action is taken before a tragedy forces the issue.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (11:17): I also wish to stand and support the motion from the member for Mount Gambier and his amended version, and rise today to speak in support of the motion from the member for Mount Gambier to recognise the important assistance professional and recreational fishers play in emergency marine situations and the need for funding for a marine rescue squadron to be based at Port MacDonnell in the South-East of South Australia.

My electorate of MacKillop has hundreds of kilometres of rugged coastline and I am, along with the members for Frome, Flinders and Narungga, fortunate to have such a vast and beautiful region characterised by stunning ocean vistas. Many thousands of people are able to enjoy that coastline, whether it be through swimming, boating, fishing or the like.

Many people also rely on the coastline for their livelihoods, with hundreds of professional fishers operating businesses thanks to our abundance of seafood, including crayfish, tuna and shark. These businesses contribute millions to our economy through sales locally, nationally and internationally.

As we know, the ocean, while beautiful, can be extremely dangerous. Over the years, there have been dozens of examples of sea rescues. This is particularly prevalent in the South-East region due to the number of people who reside on or visit the coast and the unforgiving nature of our coastline, thanks to our proximity to the Southern Ocean.

Local councils have been calling for a dedicated marine rescue service to be based in the South-East for many years and, to date, nothing has happened. In the South-East, it is difficult to get exact figures on the number of marine rescues there have been; however, media reports highlight recreational fishing boat rescues that occur. This may be because of a mechanical breakdown, fuel issues or a swell flooding a boat.

There have also been many examples of divers getting separated from their boats, particularly between Kingston and Nora Creina, situations which often require search-and-rescue capabilities. There are examples of boats capsizing and occupants needing to be rescued, often by fishermen who are untrained, and possibly uninsured, for such rescues.

Currently in the South-East, the only official rescue boat is an SES vessel based at Kingston, so in the first instance the marine sector often has to rely on the goodwill and availability of commercial boats to voluntarily rescue those in need. This includes the South-East commercial lobster fleet, as long as they happen to be close enough and available with sufficient fuel.

These boats generally require 60 to 80 litres of diesel per hour, with more being used when towing another vessel in adverse conditions. These fuel costs are not covered by state government and are strictly voluntary. This means that fishers who go out to help can be out of pocket many hundreds of dollars—even thousands—with no compensation currently available.

When I think back to the very tragic disappearance of the Vandepeer family, I acknowledge and commend the local community's willingness to help in this desperate situation. For those of you in the house who do not know, Len and Annette Vandepeer and their son Doug vanished after launching their boat from the Cape Jaffa boat ramp in December 2016.

Their disappearance sparked an enormous sea and air search that went for several days. Involved in that search were a number of local cray boats and recreational fishers, who continued to search until it was obvious there was nothing more that could be done. I thank everyone who took the time to assist in that tragic search and use that as just one of the dozens of examples of how important a dedicated marine rescue service is.

As we know, regional communities rely on volunteers, and with such an enormous ocean their contribution in search and rescue is vital. Even minor calls for assistance can be costly. Breakdowns may require a tow. The closest vessel may be a fishing vessel, which has to interrupt its fishing schedule to go and rescue the vessel and its crew. If the rescuing boat is damaged during the rescue, then who pays? These are questions that need to be taken into consideration.

The dedicated Sea Rescue Squadron is based at West Beach. The squadron has flotillas in Adelaide, Wirrina, Edithburgh and the Copper Coast, all a world away from the South-East. In the event of an incident, the patrol boat is dispatched to the distressed vessel, where appropriate action is taken to ensure the safety of the vessel and the people on board. During the week, there are skippers and crews on stand-by, should an incident occur. When an incident occurs, the skipper and crew are activated, depending on the number of vessels required, and a rescue boat or boats are launched.

Again, I reiterate, this is fine when rescues are required in the metropolitan area, Wirrina, Edithburgh or the Copper Coast, but not helpful if a rescue is required in my region in the South-East Limestone Coast. As I said earlier, the South-East does have one marine rescue vessel available at Kingston, but given the SES also assists with road crash, storm damage and general rescues there is a risk that this vessel would not be available because it will not have the crew available to launch it. The SES vessel also cannot be launched from Kingston, as there is no boat ramp, further reducing its effectiveness, as it would have to be driven to Cape Jaffa to be launched. This again takes more valuable time, especially if a rescue is required in Carpenter Rocks or Port MacDonnell.

I urge the state government to fund a marine rescue squadron to be based in the South-East. It will not prevent the need for other volunteers to assist with their own vessels, but it will take the pressure off, with specially designed boats that are fully equipped to deal with sea rescues. Suitable locations could include Port MacDonnell, where there is already a commercial fishing fleet, all-weather launching ability and the highest likelihood of a rescue required due to the number of commercial fishers who reside there.

This would enable servicing an area including Beachport to the west all the way to the South Australian-Victorian border. Another option would be Robe, where there is also a commercial lobster fishing fleet and an all-weather launching ability and a marina. This would enable coverage from Kingston and Coorong all the way to Beachport.

We are heading into a very busy summer season. We have cray boats out catching their quotas and we have more fishers launching from our beautiful Limestone Coast waters and therefore more opportunities for people to get into trouble. In the event of a rescue, we need to have a dedicated service with a dedicated vessel or vessels ready to assist as quickly as possible. I commend the motion to the house and thank the member for Mount Gambier for raising such an important issue for our region.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (11:24): I understand there are more speakers, but I want to make a very brief contribution to this debate. I want to thank the member for bringing this motion. I know it is an issue he has raised with the minister and with the government, certainly in the house and I assume privately as well. I know there are particular issues. It is not just a general issue for you: there are some particular issues you are trying to address. I do have an amendment, though, and I would like to move this amendment now:

Delete (b) and substitute:

(b) recognises calls for a Marine Rescue Fund to ensure fishers are compensated for their services and time in situations assisting emergency services.

The amendment replaces (b), that is, the original (b); I think this debate is going to get a little complicated as we go on. If we consider the original (b) before I go on, and then we consider the amended (b) as put forward by the member for Mount Gambier, the government's response to that is that we do understand. My understanding from the minister and from reading what the minister said in Hansard, of course, is that we do understand the problem.

The amendment I have proposed simply does away with the intention to implement something immediately. That stands for both a fund but also now a kind of dramatic escalation from a fund to a dedicated squadron. I am sure the member can understand that there are all sorts of implications to that. There are budget implications and so on, insurance.

While we are on insurance, I also understand that the member has both publicly and privately—I assume privately, but certainly publicly—had conversations about the obligations of insurance companies in situations like this. When people, whether they are in a marine environment or any other environment, are involved in some sort of good deed—and these people do do good deeds—and they sustain damage to either a vehicle or their person, there are insurance implications for that. There are insurance claims that can be made, and I understand that has been the case in at least some of the circumstances to which the member referred.

I also listened carefully to the member for MacKillop's contribution. Again, I do understand that there are specific things you want to address in the South-East. I hope that conversations will be ongoing with government about ways that can be done, but I will not support a motion today that commits the government to either a new fund or a new squadron, whatever form that would take.

Responses to marine search and rescue incidents are conducted, as you will understand, Mr Speaker, under the coordination of South Australia Police. This is in accordance with the national search and rescue plan. Dedicated marine rescue is obviously under STAR Group, and it is based at Semaphore. Given the timeliness of mounting an effective response to marine emergencies is crucial to a successful outcome, there is a heavy reliance on the capability provided by the volunteer marine rescue associations, as the member for Mount Gambier has alluded to, and marine units of the SES, the State Emergency Service.

As a community-based volunteer organisation established by the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005, the SES provides an emergency response service across the state. The SES also provides support for six independently incorporated VMR associations and their 14 flotilla and approximately 500 operational VMR volunteers. The VMR and SES marine rescue capabilities are distributed strategically throughout the state's coastal and inland waters.

I do take on board any problems and gaps—I know that the minister's office will be listening, and I am sure they are well aware of them—that may exist in those responses. I am sure they are working very hard towards whatever might be done to address those. Other key stakeholders and marine resources that can contribute to search and rescue activities include the Department for Environment and Water, Primary Industries and Regions SA (fisheries and aquaculture division), the surf lifesaving clubs, of course, and the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol.

From a governance perspective, the South Australian Water Safety Committee is chaired by the Chief Executive of the South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission (SAFECOM) and comprises representatives from both government and non-government agencies across the water safety spectrum, including SAPOL, SES and VMR. The role of the committee, as members would be aware, is to:

provide a forum for sharing information on specific issues related to water safety and, where appropriate, formulate a process whereby cross-agency water safety matters may be addressed and resolved;

identify opportunities for enhancing water safety outcomes; and

work closely with local government, industry and the community on informing, educating and promoting water safety.

The urgent nature of most emergency scenarios, including those requiring a rescue component, means assistance may be provided by what we might call volunteers or good Samaritans. On such occasions, and from a marine perspective, assistance may on occasion be provided by professional and recreational fishers—and that is always appreciated.

While South Australia's dedicated marine rescue units are highly trained and should be the first point of call for on-water emergencies, any lifesaving or rescue effort that supports the safety of South Australians or those visiting South Australia is to be commended and, indeed, is a hallmark of a considerate community.

The government specifically recognises the assistance that professional and recreational fishers play in emergency marine safety situations, and also the detriment caused by insurance companies where they refuse or fail to reimburse such good Samaritans for vessel damage incurred during the course of such actions. The government does recognise the member for Mount Gambier's advocacy on this issue, as I said, and for his community, and will continue to work across agencies and across sectors to ensure the South-East has the best emergency response and community safety.

As I said, and I say to you, member for Mount Gambier, while I and the government do appreciate where this motion is coming from—I appreciate that there is a perceived need for extra assistance in certain areas and certainly support for those people who do give of their time and act as good Samaritans, whether it be in a marine environment or any other environment—the government cannot at this time promise or commit to a fund, as the original motion stated, or a dedicated volunteer squadron.

There are legal constraints that I do not pretend to understand to this matter as well, but I think the basic principle is that the government has heard this—I know that you have had discussions in the house and, I assume, privately—but cannot at this time commit to either a fund or a squadron.

I commend the amendment to the motion to the house. It does not change the original motion substantially, and I will be interested to see what the other side of the house has in terms of amendments to this motion as well. I commend the motion to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:32): I seek to support the motion but move another amendment from this side of the house. I do support, well and truly, the intent of the member for Mount Gambier in this motion, but I move to amend the amended motion as follows:

(a) recognises the important assistance professional and recreational fishers play in emergency marine safety situations in Limestone Coast waters; and

(b) calls on the state government to investigate a State Emergency Service marine rescue presence in Port MacDonnell and ensure there is adequate support for marine rescue services along the state's coast and inland waters.

The new amendment means that we are looking at not just the obvious need for rescue services in the Limestone Coast at Port MacDonnell but also for at least one replacement vessel in the seat of Narungga, as I am aware there is a need.

Mr Ellis: Try more.

Mr PEDERICK: More? We can have more if we want, he says. We must be certain that the people of the Lakes and River Murray are adequately resourced for rescue as well. I have spoken in the house here before about the rescue vessel that the Milang rescue group have put into action for the Lower Lakes, funded by the Freemasons. That vessel was worth over $300,000 and run by volunteers, but they have to find the fuel and the operating costs and the cost of running their facility. I wrote to the minister about this and he has given me several different ways to perhaps get assistance by having some cohesion with local SES groups, but I do not think that has been worked through yet.

In regard to the issue at Port MacDonnell, I have met with the emergency services people there, including the CFS and local government people in the Grant district council. This is a vital service for that area of coastline for the industries that work out there—the fishing industry, the rock lobster fisheries and the many people who use recreational vessels in the Limestone Coast.

In regard to current marine rescue arrangements in South Australia, there is a whole range of people who have a role in marine rescue. We have the Volunteer Marine Rescue network, which was established under the State Emergency Service, which currently involves the following organisations: the Australian Volunteer Coastguard, the Cowell Sea Rescue Squadron, the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, the South Australian Sea Rescue Squadron, the Victor Harbor Goolwa Sea Rescue Squadron, and the Whyalla Sea Rescue Squadron.

There are also the South Australian SES marine units across the state, including at Kingston in the South-East. We also have recreational fishers who get involved in rescues, and professional fishers, and we also have access to Surf Life Saving South Australia's helicopter, jet boat and jet ski crews. There is also the SAPOL Water Operations Unit.

Total annual marine rescue statistics are not easily accessible; however, the SES Annual Report states that in 2020-21 there were 329 marine rescue responses from VMR organisations. It is also not known exactly how many marine rescues are conducted by recreational and professional fishers.

In regard to the assistance of fishers in emergency marine safety situations in the Limestone Coast—and these occasions come up because the closest vessel is at Kingston, which is about 200 kilometres away—there are no readily available statistics. Obviously, as the member for Mount Gambier has outlined, we are well aware of issues that have happened, but there are no readily available statistics on the number of marine rescues carried out by fishers in the Limestone Coast.

However, there have been obvious issues that have come up in the media about rescues in the South-East in that area. In August 2022, the South-East fishers called for a government-funded marine rescue service and compensation after a spate of emergencies in recent years, and again this past fortnight, including a rescue off the coast of Port MacDonnell.

In January 2017, a Port MacDonnell boat sank, prompting renewed calls for a marine rescue base in the region. An article also referred to a six-year campaign to see a marine rescue service based at Port MacDonnell since an incident in mid-2011 that saw two fishermen rescued by locals.

In August 2022, with a call for assistance for fishers, a news article suggested that local fishers are calling for a dedicated marine rescue service for the southern-most part of the South Australian coastline as well as compensation for rescues, including any damage sustained to property, and compensation for lost time. That article also included the following commentary from the member for Mount Gambier:

[Fishers] are putting themselves at risk and it comes at great expense to themselves.

Still quoting the member for Mount Gambier:

There should be some reimbursement, whether it's just fuel costs and equipment that is damaged, [that] should be covered—a bit of a thank you for providing the service.

The article also stated the member for Mount Gambier's intention to keep pushing for a dedicated marine rescue service. We are clear that we want to see more of an SES-focused marine rescue service going in to support a dedicated marine rescue vessel stationed at Port MacDonnell.

There would be some issues around supporting fishers and fishermen, even recreational people getting involved in rescues, because where would you start and stop with compensating volunteers, whether they are within marine rescue and other aspects of volunteering who are not similarly compensated? It would be difficult to manage, and there is talk about the funding costs from the government in regard to this.

However, I think that this fund—which obviously the government have not committed to, saying they will investigate the need for a fund—may lead to increases in taxes, noting that money is already collected from the public via the emergency services levy for marine rescue. It is my firm belief that that fund should be used to supply these rescue facilities, and it may not support a more appropriate outcome in the longer term.

In the longer term, we need to look at a State Emergency Service marine rescue presence in Port MacDonnell and ensure that there is adequate support for marine rescue services along the state's coast and the inland waters. That is absolutely vital, now that we have come out of COVID in recent years, with the number of people, especially with recreational boating—whether it be offshore or inland—who are able to get out and about again. The weather is warming up and things will heat up as we head through the summer.

We are already deep into October and right through to March/April, to the end of the traditional ski season, we certainly need to make sure that we have the appropriate facilities in place along our state's coastline and in our river system to protect our community, our hardworking, taxpaying community. They are the ones who pay the emergency services levy that should be funding this marine rescue effort, whether it is at Port MacDonnell or other areas along the coastline, such as Yorke Peninsula, or whether it is on the River Murray or around the Lakes supporting the group at Milang. I support the amended motion.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (11:42): In a bit of a unique twist, I do not actually have an amendment to move; I was just intending to speak to the motion. Having said that, I am not entirely sure what iteration of the motion I am speaking to, so I will speak in generalities about the basic premise of the motion. In so doing, I support the member for Mount Gambier's intention not only to recognise the assistance that professional and recreational fishers give but also, more specifically, to highlight a gap in the sea rescue puzzle that we have.

He has highlighted the Port MacDonnell and South-East gap and made an argument as to why that is the most needy place. Whilst I do support the essence of the motion, I would argue that perhaps he has missed the most needy of all destinations on our coastline, that being Point Turton. I have made a number of representations to both the previous and current governments about how we might fix that gap. Members may or may not be aware that quite some years ago the Point Turton Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol went out and, of their own volition, managed to secure a vessel that they intended to use to help make rescues in the waters off Point Turton.

They got off their backsides and went out and made sure they had access to a vessel and, in so doing, filled a significant gap. There is no other sea rescue opportunity between Port Victoria all the way around to Edithburgh, which is a significant coastline and quite some more distance by boat and a very popular fishing and tourism destination at the bottom of the peninsula.

They got off their backside and did that, but in doing so they ran into the wrath of the bureaucracy, who condemned their vessel for being too old—I think because it had a diesel engine, but I stand to be corrected on that—and limited it to one nautical mile offshore. Not being a boater myself, I am led to believe that is not where most of the rescues occur. They occur a bit further out, and if you are one nautical mile offshore you might well find it a bit easier to get yourself back to shore.

I would argue that is the most needy destination on our coastline. Perhaps I should amend the motion to include that as the most needy, but I hope that in considering the motion as put forward to the house the government also considers other destinations, like Point Turton, which have been the subject of numerous submissions from me. I know that most retiring vessels are sold to subsidise the cost of the incoming vessel, but the Wallaroo vessel, which is admittedly in a different squadron—Sea Rescue as opposed to the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol—I know is due for its periodic changeover, and it is due for an upgrade this financial year, I think.

Perhaps when that vessel is retired it might find its way to Point Turton, where it could be used by those volunteers to help achieve what they want to do. They have a healthy membership, they have a willingness to help and all they need is permission from the bureaucracy or a new boat to be able to do that. So here's hoping that with this motion passing it can trigger that action and we can get that gap filled.

The other point I wanted to make today is to highlight another part of the motion that perhaps has not been the subject of such a vigorous debate thus far; that is, in essence, this house is asked to recognise the importance of professional and recreational fishers. That is no more apparent than in my seat, which has a gulf on each side where numerous people make their living out of fishing. The marine scalefish fishery has been an industry that has been the subject of some hardship over the past five years.

Prior to the 2018 election, both parties committed to reforming the fishery and implementing a quota system. It was done and it was a painful process for some as the adjustment occurred and a number of fishermen chose to exit the industry—they were not awarded enough quota or they decided that it might be an opportune time for retirement or for whatever reason. It was quite a painful experience for a number of people, but there are a number of valuable community contributors who remain in the fishery who are doing a wonderful job and who have just been informed by this government that their licence fees will be hiked.

So, in addition to having gone through that extremely painful process of quota implementation, they have received notice recently that their licence fees will be hiked. I would like to give a couple of examples of real-world businesses and how it will affect them. I was contacted by one gentleman who fishes near the bottom of the peninsula. His current licence fees are about $5,940. He projects that his licence fees for the next financial year will be $31,903, so that is a 400 per cent increase on top of what he is paying already.

Another business called me (and I do not have such specific numbers for this one), and he estimates that his current licence fees are around $7,000 and that they will climb to about $30,000 in the next financial year. That second business reports a $50,000 taxable income so, when your licence fees make up approximately $30,000 of a fixed 50,000 taxable income, you can see how that might threaten the viability of that business.

After five years of hardship and being kicked repeatedly in the lower abdomen, we somehow come back to kicking the same industry again and again. The reason for that, in my view, is that South Australia is the only state that imposes the cost-recovery model on their professional fishermen. The marine scalefish fishers in South Australia—unlike every other state in this country—are funding the entire cost of the industry and the bureaucracy. That is not sustainable, and it was barely sustainable when we had heaps more fishermen in the industry prior to the buyouts and quota implementation. Now that there are significantly fewer, it is even more of a burden on those who have remained to fund the entire industry.

This is my call: in recognising the importance that professional fishermen play in our state in emergency marine situations and all other parts of community life, now is the time to change and move away from a cost-recovery model. We do not have the critical mass of fishermen there to fund it. They are doing their best to make ends meet as it is. Imposing significant licence fee hikes, such as the two examples I read out previously, is just not a sustainable model and I would urge the government to move away from that as soon as possible.

There are other ways to do it, and one that I consider to be attractive—and I am not putting this forward as the only option, but one that I consider to be attractive—is that fishermen could be charged a percentage of their gross value product. They could be charged a percentage of their GVP as is done in WA. Now this would mean that they pay for what they use, essentially. They are funding the product that they catch, and it would be a more equitable way of ensuring that those businesses that are, as I said, struggling to make ends meet remain viable, and can continue to contribute to our communities, and that they can also continue to supply our restaurants and our pubs and our fish markets with fresh fish, which I know the vast majority of this house thoroughly enjoys.

Here is my call to the parliament in recognising the importance of professional fishermen, to make change, to move away from the cost-recovery model, and to start helping this fishery rather than kicking it, because it has been a long five years for them, and now is the time that we can change and move away from that cost-recovery model.

In so doing, I have had cause to talk to quite a number of fishermen over the past couple of weeks about this and, just by way of warning to both sides of the house, one argument that really wears thin with people on the ground is when parties blame previous governments for mistakes. I am sure it happens after every election—it is not an indictment on anyone—it is just a fact of life that once you are in government people want to see the problem solved, not apportion blame to a particular party.

Here we have a problem that needs solving; hopefully, the government is up to it. I know there has been a report prepared, which is in the minister's possession, about options moving away from cost recovery. Hopefully, we see that report soon and we are presented with options that might be better suited for our fishery, but something needs to change, and sooner rather than later would be better.

There is my plea, focusing on a different part of the motion and acknowledging the importance that professional fishermen play, but also making sure that we have another call-out for a boat or rescue vessel at Point Turton. It is well past time and those wonderful volunteers are getting quite desperate to ensure they have the proper equipment provided to them.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:51): I will just add a few words to this as well, even though the coastal area that I have has been somewhat reduced by the last state boundary change. I have lost out on a fair amount of coast from between Whyalla and Cowell. Cowell is a fantastic fishing spot. If you have never had an opportunity to go to Cowell to go fishing, either within the close, sheltered waters or out in the gulf, I would suggest you do that. You will have a very successful outing.

Obviously I still have Whyalla, the northern coastline and some of the southern coastline in the electorate, and recreational fishing is a very important pursuit. Indeed, when the planets align, when I have some time off, the weather is right, and one of my sons is on the right shift—because I am going to bludge on his boat—we will go out and catch a few fish. I think it is important that we fund adequately those people who make that effort to be there as volunteers to carry out rescues when needed, and the funding does go into the facilities.

I guess I cannot complain about what we have in Whyalla with the air-sea rescue there. They have good facilities, and they have an excellent boat that is relatively new, and indeed it was used on the weekend as part of the mine rescue exercise competition that happened in Whyalla, some of which happened at the marina and the jetty, so there was an involvement on the part of a range of organisations, including a whole bunch of people from mining companies from around the state and interstate.

There have been examples in Whyalla where that voluntary effort has been incredibly important, especially when we had the tragic crash of the Whyalla Airlines plane where all those lives were lost. Within a very short period of time, a number of people and boats were mobilised—from recreational fishers, professional fishers and, of course, marine rescue, police, and a whole variety of other people out there—just trying to locate the plane. It represented a massive effort. Unfortunately, nobody on that occasion was saved. It is a very rare occurrence, but we do have those occasional occurrences when there are mishaps in the gulf and people need to be rescued.

One point made by the member for Mount Gambier was I think in reference to the rescue of a catamaran and the damage then done to the professional boat that brought them back in. It is entirely reasonable that there should be some compensation for that. The motion has changed somewhat, it became far more specific, so there is this issue with equipment. We need to fund good, up-to-date equipment and turn over equipment when it needs to be turned over.

There is a huge volunteer base in this state and other states across a whole range of services and emergency services, whether it is the Country Fire Service, the SES or the people who do marine rescue. There are issues when we talk about monetising volunteer effort. On another motion it was a bit different. It is one of those things where people are doing it because it is something that they want to do, they want to assist, and we need to ensure that there are mechanisms in place. But people are doing it not because they are seeking reward; they are doing it because of the intrinsic value of that contribution to community.

In saying that, and this is a little bit off track, some challenges have been faced in recent years by services like the Country Fire Service, by the volunteers in this state and the volunteers who go interstate. As weather events intensify, we need to seriously look at how we support volunteers who in some instances are now away from home for very extended periods of time, and all the consequences that flow from that.

As our weather systems intensify—and there might still be one or two deniers on the other side—we are in the midst of profound climatic change, and it is not going to get better. It is going to get worse as time goes on. I have a lot of sympathy for what happened in the unprecedented fires in Canada, both the extent and the length of time over which they happened. It is not a wake-up call, because we have already had multiple wake-up calls, but there are still some people asleep. We do not want to monetise volunteer effort, but we need to make sure that real support mechanisms are in place.

If the call on volunteers is going to be very extended to the point where they are close to breaking point, that is an area that needs some serious consideration. Indeed, I asked the question of the emergency services when they appeared before the Economic and Finance Committee about what were the trendlines, and they said, 'No, the trend is intensifying.' That is something that we need to be very mindful of.

I pay credit to the volunteers in my region who are there day in, day out, week in, week out, looking after the safety of others on the waters. Of course, very few professionals now operate out of Whyalla, but we do have a lot of recreational boats. There used to be significantly more visitors prior to the snapper ban. That was a ban that I would argue—as I am sure the previous minister would argue—was needed. We need to take a conservative approach when it comes to managing our fisheries, but I am told by my son that there seems to be a lot of snapper out there at the moment. When the ban is over, there is going to be a flood of people back to Whyalla looking for snapper.

The capacity to ensure that people can go out on the water and be safe is important. There is no doubt that there are gaps around the state that need to be funded and other elements that need to be made available. We should look at how best to plug those gaps.

I am happy to be contradicted—maybe there are more netballer or soccer players, I do not know—but the figures still indicate that people engage in recreational fishing, not necessarily often but on a reasonable basis and not all on the water, and it is still one of the biggest recreational pursuits in this state and around the country. It is something that makes a significant economic contribution to regional communities. I know that once upon a time I used to be a very frequent traveller to the West Coast to go camping and fishing. It is important that we ensure that equipment is up to date and we have support mechanisms in place that show our appreciation of the voluntary effort that is performed by many people in this state.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:01): I would like to rise to make a brief contribution and support the initiative of this motion. I rise in support of the member for Hammond's amended motion because I think it covers a much broader range of the issues on water, not just marine waters but also inland waters, and how vulnerable boat users can be when they get themselves in distress or into a sticky situation that might need either a rescue or support.

It is important that all marine areas have satisfactory safety standards and satisfactory support. As a very keen, avid recreational fisher and as a former minister for fisheries, I have seen only too well some of the situations and strife that the commercial sector right along the coastline in South Australia but also visitors and tourists as recreational fishers get themselves into not only in the marine situation but in inland waters. A lot of it is ignorance. A lot of it is that they are ill-prepared or not aware of what situations can arise and how some of those emergency situations can turn into a catastrophe, a loss of life and also a very costly exercise not only for the commercial sector but for the recreational sector.

As the member from Mount Gambier has said, he is looking for more consideration to be given at Port MacDonnell. The member for Narungga is looking after his patch down at Marion Bay and Point Turton. I am sure that many members in this place who have coastline in their electorate are looking for better support in emergency situations.

I, too, have been out in a recreational situation where recreational fishers have looked after their neighbour—fishing neighbour, you might call it—when they need a tow in because of a breakdown or malfunction. Normally it is kosher to swap a carton of beer for a tow, and it is happy days. But when you get yourself into an open sea situation, like potentially what will happen at Port MacDonnell, Marion Bay, Ceduna or any of our open coastline, it becomes a financial compromise, whether it is a commercial fisher or a recreational fisher. In some cases it is not just about boat malfunction or breakdown, but it can be crew who have become very ill. That is when we sometimes see air rescue or sea rescue play a role.

What we must also understand is that on inland waters there are a number of situations that have arisen over time. I guess the most recent flood would highlight the situations on the Murray, where we have seen emergency service vessels being put out there either to rescue or to help with something that has arisen, through no fault of a boat operator, in an inland situation.

We all need to understand that governments have a role to play. I notice that the government have taken away the words 'state government' in terms of assistance. Well, I think that is really shirking a responsibility. State governments have a role to play. I see that, over time, state governments have diversified some of the funding that has gone into marine funding, whether it is the South Australian Boating Facilities Fund, whether it is the emergency services levy, or whether it is cost recovery.

I would like to reinforce what the member for Narungga has said, which is that we have a model that is broken. The cost-recovery model, particularly in commercial fishing, is definitely a broken model. It is just that: cost recovery. What we are seeing is government departments that are realising what the cost of operating a commercial sector is, and then they just share it up within the licences. We have seen, over a much-needed reform into the commercial scalefish sector, that there are many fewer fishing licences now, by over some 100 licences. That cost recovery is now being shared by a very few commercial operators.

As we have seen, a 400 per cent, 500 per cent or 600 per cent increase in that cost recovery is now going to put further pressure on the viability of a wild catch commercial sector and what it will mean for the availability of those very businesses that are out on the water and that are being called for in an emergency situation. If we are going to have fewer boats on the water, there will be less opportunity for those very same vessels to respond to an emergency situation. That is nowhere more evident than in the South-East, where it is open coastline, open water.

We see a number of situations that arise every season, where boats have to be towed in or have to call for assistance under duress. I think it is the role of government, whether it be federal or state, to come to some form of an understanding of what their responsibility is, instead of hiding under a desk, which they are currently doing.

In the short time that I have left, I must say that it is an opportune time to acknowledge some of the volunteers who are out there in our SES inland marine units and some of those paid marine and fisheries officers who are out on our waters, making sure that people are compliant and making sure that vessels are safe and are being managed in a safe and proper way.

I guess it would be improper to claim that the commercial sector would be operating in an improper way, but I cannot say that for the recreational sector. There are many who are inexperienced. A lot of those vessels that sit in a shed in for most of the year all of a sudden get brought out for holiday time, with a lack of maintenance and with a lack of preparation. We will then see those very boats putting human lives at risk, whether it is being stranded at sea or being unfamiliar with the weather conditions. It happens, and it potentially happens on a daily basis.

So it is about the volunteer rescue network. For many of us who go out and use marine radios, when we are going out we like to check in with some of the volunteer marine radio operators. I know Garry at Tumby, Carol at American River, John at Ardrossan and Peter at Ceduna. They are a few of the volunteer radio operators I have conversed with, and I thank them for their tireless effort in making sure that people radio in when they are heading out and radio in when they are coming back to the jetty or the ramp or the marina of whatever description to help keep our waters a safer place to operate.

It is also important that we make sure our tourists, recreational marine users and boat users in both the marine and inland environments all have licences. Something I have watched over a long period of time is that we are not seeing fisheries officers or marine safety officers going out into a regional setting and doing licence tests. I know that there are a number of young boat operators, particularly in the Riverland, who do not have the opportunity to come down to Adelaide to sit for a licence test, so they are operating a boat without a licence. That is the responsibility of the government. The presence of marine fisheries officers is not only in marine waters; it has to be in inland waters too.

I must say that, with the South Australian Boating Facilities Fund, we must do more with the support for our marine and inland water operators. We have seen money that should be used for boating facilities now being used for channel markers and lighting for channels, so I think it is important that we put a perspective right across the board. I do support this motion, but I think it needs to be extended and I think the government needs to take more responsibility.

Time expired.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (12:11): I would like to thank the speakers from MacKillop, Elizabeth, Hammond, Narungga, Giles and Chaffey. If my understanding is correct, we will be voting on the Liberal amendment to the amendment and then we will go to Labor's amendment and then maybe eventually to the original amendment. I think I am correct.

The SPEAKER: The question has arisen as to the correct method for resolving amendments to amendments. I turn to Blackmore, which states:

As a proposal to amend an Amendment introduces a fresh subject for consideration, the new Question thus created must be disposed of by itself.

Blackmore goes on:

The original Question is, for the time, laid aside until this new Question is settled. All confusion is thus avoided, the ultimate adoption of the first Amendment not being proposed until it has assumed that form in which the House is prepared to accept it as an Amendment to the original Question.

It follows that the amendment moved last in time is to be resolved now, that is, the amendment moved by the member for Hammond. The question before the chair is that the amendment to the amendment moved by the member for Hammond be agreed to.

The house divided on the member for Hammond's amendment:

Ayes 14

Noes 24

Majority 10

AYES

Basham, D.K.B. (teller) Batty, J.A. Bell, T.S.
Cowdrey, M.J. Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W.
Marshall, S.S. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S.
Pisoni, D.G. Pratt, P.K. Teague, J.B.
Telfer, S.J. Whetstone, T.J.

NOES

Andrews, S.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Brown, M.E. Champion, N.D.
Clancy, N.P. Close, S.E. Fulbrook, J.P.
Hildyard, K.A. Hood, L.P. Hughes, E.J.
Hutchesson, C.L. Koutsantonis, A. Michaels, A.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. (teller) Pearce, R.K.
Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J. Savvas, O.M.
Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K. Thompson, E.L.

PAIRS

Speirs, D.J. Wortley, D.J. Hurn, A.M.
Cook, N.F. Tarzia, V.A. Malinauskas, P.B.

The member for Hammond's amendment thus negatived.

The house divided on the member for Elizabeth's amendment:

Ayes 24

Noes 14

Majority 10

AYES

Andrews, S.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Brown, M.E. Champion, N.D.
Clancy, N.P. Close, S.E. Fulbrook, J.P.
Hildyard, K.A. Hood, L.P. Hughes, E.J.
Hutchesson, C.L. Koutsantonis, A. Michaels, A.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. (teller) Pearce, R.K.
Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J. Savvas, O.M.
Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K. Thompson, E.L.

NOES

Basham, D.K.B. (teller) Batty, J.A. Bell, T.S.
Cowdrey, M.J. Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W.
Marshall, S.S. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S.
Pisoni, D.G. Pratt, P.K. Teague, J.B.
Telfer, S.J. Whetstone, T.J.

PAIRS

Wortley, D.J. Speirs, D.J. Cook, N.F.
Hurn, A.M. Malinauskas, P.B. Tarzia, V.A.

The member for Elizabeth's amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried.

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