HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES AND RESOURCES SA

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. A. M. Bressington:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be appointed to inquire into and report upon the conduct of PIRSA in relation to issues that are affecting the livelihoods of those involved in the fishing industry and, in particular—

(a) (i) the licence fee structure;

(ii) cost recovery process; and

(iii) access to right of appeal process.

(b) The scientific data provided to PIRSA to determine allocations to ensure resource sustainability for the 2008-09 pipi quota for the Lower Lakes and Coorong cockle harvesters;

(c) The validity and accuracy of catch and effort data and the impact that has on scientific stock assessment to guarantee resource allocation; and

(d) The rationale of determining allocation for season quota 2008-09 and the impact that has had on individual licence holders and multiple licence holders.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being reported to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

(Continued from 12 November 2008. Page 652.)

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (21:40): I support this motion. I supported the motion of the Hon. Caroline Schaefer in the previous session in regard to the pipi quotas for the cocklers at Goolwa. At that time I think the chamber heard a lot of examples of what one might class as dubious rationale for having reached the conclusions that resulted in those regulations. Some of it seemed to be extremely arbitrary.

Since that time, we have had the issue raised of the mud cockles at Coffin Bay. Similarly, it seems to me that rules are being made on the run and information that people are seeking is not being made available to them. In some ways it reminds me a little of the problems that the Natural Resources Committee has been having with DWLBC. Maybe I should not be surprised, because I know a lot of people in DWLBC have come from PIRSA and maybe that is where they learnt their tricks.

I think a select committee of this nature would get to the bottom of these processes so that, hopefully, we can stop whatever it is that is happening. I am not sure whether it is stupidity, conspiracy or just plain good old-fashioned obfuscation, but it is very difficult to get to the bottom of what has been happening in relation to both sets of regulations. I think this particular select committee would serve an extremely useful purpose because we are going to see more of this as we find that our marine resources dwindle. In almost every area you look you will find that various fish, crustaceans and so on are reducing because we have over-exploited them. The problem we have seen with two sets of cockles I think is only the beginning of the problems that are going to be dealt with in the future, and we have to ensure that the processes that lead to these regulations are clear, open, transparent and accountable. That is the reason I support the motion to set up the select committee.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (21:43): I indicate that I seek to amend this motion as follows. I move:

Leave out all words after 'I. That' and insert—

the Legislative Review Committee inquire into and report upon the conduct of PIRSA in relation to issues that are affecting the livelihoods of those involved in the fishing of mud cockles in the marine scalefish fishery and the Lakes and Coorong pipi fishery and, in particular—

(a) (i) the licence fee structure;

(ii) cost recovery process for fishers; and

(iii) access to right of appeal process.

(b) The scientific data provided to PIRSA to determine allocations to ensure resource sustainability for the 2008-09 quotas for mud cockles in the marine scalefish fishery and the Lakes and Coorong pipi fishery;

(c) The validity and accuracy of catch and effort data and the impact that that has on scientific stock assessment to guarantee resource allocation;

(d) The rationale of determining allocation for season quota 2008-09 and the impact that has had on individual licence holders and multiple licence holders; and

(e) Any other relevant matter.

I will speak briefly to my amendment. I am seeking to amend the Hon. Ann Bressington's motion in two ways. The first is to have the Legislative Review Committee conduct the inquiry rather than to establish a select committee. I think it appropriate for the Legislative Review Committee to hold this inquiry, as it is familiar with the regulations that have come before it regarding the Coorong pipi quota and the mud cockle quota. Rather than establish another select committee, which would have to start from scratch, I think it makes more sense to refer it to a standing committee which already has some understanding of the issues involved.

The second part of the amendment seeks to limit the ambit of the inquiry specifically to the fishing of mud cockles in the Marine Scalefish Fishery and those involved in the Lakes and Coorong Pipi Fishery. I understand the Hon. Ann Bressington's original motion was targeted at concerns raised by those involved in the Coorong Pipi Fishery. I am of the view that any inquiry into PIRSA's processes and procedures should include the mud cockle fishery on the West Coast and Coffin Bay, as well as the Coorong.

My office has been contacted by several mud cocklers from Port Lincoln, and they have raised similar concerns to those raised by their Coorong counterparts about the allocation of quota and the matters taken into account when determining this allocation, as well as the whole consultation process. It seems that the same issues of concern have been raised by both groups, and any inquiry should address and be limited to both of these groups. I urge honourable members to support my amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (21:47): When the issue of the pipi quota came before us as a regulation that we were asked to disallow, I spent some time talking to the officers of Primary Industries. I received a lot of correspondence from different cockle fishers on both sides of the debate, and I came to the conclusion that when moving to a quota-based fishery there were going to be winners and losers; it was a question of swings and roundabouts. As far as I could see, the process was probably about as fair as it could be, given that the size of the pie that had to be shared around was smaller. That was the conclusion I came to in relation to disallowing the regulations, and I voted to not disallow the regulations.

In terms of the motion before us, we have the original motion and we have a proposed amendment. In terms of the original motion, I was not inclined to support a select committee but, now that we have the amendment before us to send it to the Legislative Review Committee, I have a more open mind. However, we still have not heard from either the government or the opposition as to their views on which of those two methods they are going to support.

As I have said, my view was that the allocation process looked fair, but clearly there are a number of people who do not think it is fair, and I guess that view has manifested itself in this motion, which is saying that we need someone else to have a look at it. I do not think a select committee is the way to go. I am open to the idea of the Legislative Review Committee, but I am keen to hear the rest of the debate.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (21:49): My information to do with this amendment has been somewhat confused. I certainly support an inquiry into the methods used for the allocation of both cockle fisheries within South Australia. As I have said on several occasions, the argument is not whether or not we have a sustainable fishery, but it is about what is fair and how the methods of allocating licences for this fishery have been arrived at.

I am assured that this matter has been considered by my joint party. I was not there at the time, so I am left somewhat red-faced with this. However, it appears that my party has agreed to this inquiry. The only anomaly appears to be some confusion as to whether it has been agreed that this inquiry goes to the Legislative Review Committee or whether it goes to a select committee. My understanding is that my party has agreed for it to go to the Legislative Review Committee which, I have to say, is a revelation to me. Therefore, I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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