HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

HARBORS AND NAVIGATION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 July 2009. Page 2951.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (18:00): I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate that we will be supporting this bill. The purpose of the bill is to increase the maximum penalty for expiation fees applying to the registration of prescribed vessels. The recreational and commercial facilities funds are to be replaced with a single facilities fund to pay for establishing, maintaining and improving harbours and other such facilities.

I note that you, Mr President, are a keen fisherman, as are other members in this place. I am a keen fisherman but, sadly, I do not get the opportunity anywhere near as often as you to go fishing. Having said that, I enjoy the good facilities that the facilities funds provide. A number of questions have been raised by some industry stakeholders in relation to some concerns they have had, in particular, the two funds being rolled in together. I think it is worth noting that, currently, the fund generates about $2 million a year from the recreational sector, and it is proposed that probably only about $100,000 extra will come into the fund by bringing in the commercial vessels.

There were some concerns about equity in the fund. The opposition has listened to the stakeholders. The only facility I know that is absolutely commercial is the facility at Smoky Bay, which is part of the industrial estate, where oyster farmers can access a boat ramp, which I think is predominantly for them. I think that is the only one that is strictly commercial. I think that all the other facilities around the state are for mixed use; with some there would be a focus on commercial and others would have a focus on recreational facilities.

The recreational fishing groups raised some concerns that more money would be spent on developing onshore facilities—boat ramps and the like—rather than extra navigational aids and things such as artificial reefs. Their view, of course, is that the recreational industry brings in a significant amount of money via tourism and activities in regional and rural South Australia. The view was that it would be important if we could have more investment, particularly in relation to artificial reefs.

One of the concerns raised with the opposition relates in particular to the new fund to be established. At one point, it says that the fund must be kept as directed by the Treasurer. At point 5 in the amendment, it states:

The minister may, with the approval of the Treasurer, invest any money belonging to the fund that is not immediately required for the purpose of the fund in such a manner as approved by the Treasurer.

That raised some concerns, and I would like the minister responsible to put on the record that I did question the department in a briefing that I was fortunate enough to receive. The department gave me the assurance that this money would be invested purely in an interest-bearing account and that the interest, of course, would be attributed back to the fund.

It reads as though the minister could direct, with the approval of the Treasurer, to invest the money anywhere—into some other government project—but department officials have given me an assurance. I would like the minister to put on the record this particular direction that, with the approval of the Treasurer, the minister may invest any money belonging to the fund not immediately required for the purpose of the fund in such a manner as approved by the Treasurer. I would like the minister to address what would be approved by the Treasurer because, certainly, the opposition supports the investment of this fund in an interest-bearing account. That makes a lot of sense. We certainly would not support this fund being used to invest in other projects.

The industry also raised some concerns in relation to the costs of administering this new fund with respect to commercial vessels. When the minister sums up, or when we reach the committee stage of the bill, I would like the minister to explain how it will be levied. At the moment, this is levied on all recreational vessels as part of their annual registration fee; it is just a levy on each particular vessel, whereas my understanding is that commercial vessels will be levied at the point of survey. I just want to know how that will be achieved.

There is a concern from the recreational sector that there will be an extraordinarily large administrative burden placed on the fund to collect the $100,000 that is likely to come in from the industry sector. So, I would also like the minister to outline how money will be collected from the commercial boats and, in particular, the impact in relation to the administration of the fund.

The only other point that I would make is that this bill also allows for some significant and almost exponential increases in penalties. That very much relates to the very large increases in the registration fees gazetted back in July 2008. I asked the government advisers to outline what consultation was undertaken with the industry and, by and large, the recreational boating industry in relation to those registration fees gazetted last May. Clearly, there has been a level of angst within that sector of our community that there was virtually no consultation on these registration increases, which is a trademark of this government. We see time and again the government's very arrogant approach, where it just imposes an increase in fees or makes decisions without any consultation.

When the minister's officials briefed me, I asked that the minister responding to this bill outline what consultation was undertaken to increase those registration fees. Clearly, if we have those much larger registration fees, we then actually need much larger penalties; otherwise, if the penalties are lower, people will not bother to register their vessels.

We support the increase in the penalties, but we would like an explanation about how the department arrived at the increase in registration fees last July and what consultation the department undertook. With those few comments and questions, I indicate that the opposition supports the bill and, pending satisfactory answers to those questions, we look forward to supporting the bill through the parliament.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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