House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-10-28 Daily Xml

Contents

Fishing Restrictions

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA (Hartley—Leader of the Opposition) (14:14): My question is to the Premier. What criteria or scientific thresholds will need to be met for fishing restrictions to be lifted earlier or extended further?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier, Minister for Defence and Space Industries) (14:14): I repeat in this place, particularly given this is the first time the parliament has met since the announcement of the curtailment of both commercial and some recreational fishing, the point that I made in a press conference—and I will invite the opposition to make note of this—that we are very determined to remain flexible, because if evidence presents itself or advice to the government and the cabinet were to evolve on the back of fish stock assessment data changing, the algal bloom circumstances changing or if new reports on how the fisheries were performing commercially were to change, then the government should change its position as quickly as we can.

We have no desire to limit the amount of recreational fishing in the Spencer Gulf or anywhere else unnecessarily. We are only making decisions in accordance with the advice we are receiving.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS: The member for Flinders interjects with a point regarding Coffin Bay. We can make adjustments as time goes on for a range of things: species-specific adjustments or regional adjustments in terms of boundaries. We have received advocacy regarding parts of the lower western side of Eyre Peninsula, such as Coffin Bay, for reasons that are well understood. As it stands, the zones that have been in place for the various districts across our marine waters—South-East zone, Gulf St Vincent, Spencer Gulf and then the West Coast zone or the western zone—have been in place for some time.

We have, up until this point, used those boundaries because they are well understood. Every time the government puts in place rules or boundaries, what those rules and boundaries are and how well they are understood should inform decision-making, but if we can adjust it without compromising a particular species or any other consequence then we should be open minded to that, and we have made that clear. We understand the issue on the western side of EP and it is worthy of further work. In fact, I have already spoken to senior government bureaucrats regarding that issue, likewise others.

But we will remain flexible, and where we can make adjustments or reduce the level of restrictions that are in place we will do it, because there is no point doing it unnecessarily. It is only when it is consistent with the preservation of the sustainability of the fishery that we want those restrictions in place. I come back to the top-line point: no-one caused this harmful algal bloom in South Australia. This is a global phenomena that is the subject of climate change being a major contributor, amongst other things.

There is no-one anywhere who individually should be blamed for the harmful algal bloom. It wasn't someone releasing ballast water and it wasn't someone turning on a desal plant, it is a natural phenomena that we have seen in other parts of the world. The consequences are real and significant on a range of people and on the environment itself, and of course that is true for our fishing sector.

What we are seeking to do is to make sure that every judgement we make, particularly around fishing, commercial or recreational, has front of mind the sustainability of the fishery. That is the obligation we have to future generations and that is the obligation we have to the environment. We will continue to make decisions accordingly, even if they are politically unpopular, because the test of time will demonstrate that governments who make decisions in accordance with science are the ones that are genuinely committed to doing the right thing in the long term.