HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-11-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Question Time

NORTHERN ZONE ROCK LOBSTER FISHERY

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:25): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries a question about rock lobsters.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: On Tuesday, 26 November I asked the minister a question on the northern zone rock lobster fishery regarding the 2007 management plan which recommended the use of spatial management. Her answers were insufficient and only served to offend the rock lobster industry.

To answer one of my own earlier questions to the minister I can confirm that, due to the considerable uncertainty as a result of the declaration of the minister's marine park sanctuary zones, the Rock Lobster Fishery Management Advisory Committee suspended further development of the Northern Zone Rock Lobster Commercial Fishery Management Plan. Not only that, despite the minister's attempt to mislead us—that is, the South Australian Rock Lobster—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Point of order, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: There is a point of order. Leave out the opinion and the debate.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: It is an absolute outrage that the Leader of the Opposition would stand in this place and allege that the Leader of the Government has misled the house. It is outrageous and I ask that he withdraw it.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ridgway to withdraw.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will withdraw it if it pleases the minister.

The PRESIDENT: You will withdraw?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will withdraw.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ridgway, perhaps it would be safer if you just got to your question.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I only have a little bit more of an explanation, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Well, Hendrik is up there waiting. The Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The South Australian Rock Lobster Advisory Committee was able to present very detailed information on the recalculation of the displaced effort. This includes information from expert fisheries scientists Associate Professor Caleb Gardner and Dr Ian Knuckey. This information was also reviewed by fisheries management expert Steven McCormack, who agreed that SARLAC's approach was perfectly legitimate but a more conservative approach was preferred.

The rock lobster industry members met with the minister, Mr Mehdi Doroudi, and minister Hunter's chief of staff on 24 July where these findings were presented. This means the minister is well aware of this scientific information. My questions are:

1. Why does the minister continue to accuse the South Australian Rock Lobster Advisory Committee of not providing its own scientific information, when it clearly has?

2. Why was the scientific information from the experts ignored by the government?

3. If marine park and sanctuary zones are meant to maintain our marine biodiversity is it not hypocritical to ignore the advice that suggests that the current model will possibly result in overfishing?

4. In the absence of an approved management plan due to the marine park process, is the 2007 management plan the current management plan for the northern zone rock lobster fishery?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (14:27): I thank the honourable member for his questions. It is just outrageous: it is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition failed to listen to my response clearly yesterday. I indicated quite clearly that extensive consultation had occurred. In fact, the reason that the northern rock lobster plan was delayed—because this other one has gone through—was that the industry itself, fishers from the northern zone, requested that it be delayed further. I assented to their request and have delayed the completion of that zone plan until those fishers are in a position to be able to proceed. Part of the reason they requested that was because of the introduction of marine parks.

Now, the southern rock lobster zone did not see that as any issue to slow down their process. However, the northern zone fishers did, and I listened to the industry and its view was that it wanted to wait and see until the marine park zoning had been completed so that they could be confident about any impacts that it might have on their fishery before finalising the plan.

However, having said that, a great deal of work has gone into that plan; it is near completion. We have consulted extensively with the industry, and I have agreed to the industry request to delay it further until after the implementation of the marine parks. I am happy to do that, so it is absolutely misleading of the honourable member to come into this place and indicate that I in fact have not considered their input. I have already outlined in detail the issue around the scientific data. We have agreed to disagree on the scientific data. We have, as I have indicated in this place, listened to the industry, looked at all the information they have provided to us and considered that extremely carefully. However, we disagree with the conclusion they have come to.

We have applied a fair way of calculating displaced effort across the fisheries. The northern rock lobster zone believe they should have a special formula applied to them. They have not been able to provide us with any evidence that would indicate that we need to reconsider the way we have calculated that displaced effort. We have considered their data in great detail, and our scientists simply disagree with their calculations. They are not able to challenge the work we have done. In fact, they have indicated that the work we have done is of high integrity; it is just that their view is that it should be done in a different way, that they should have a special formula applied to them.

As I have indicated in this place, the issue for us is that we get the balance right. It is a matter of making sure we displace the effort the marine parks impact on, but they are fishing licences we are removing, they are people's business, they are families, most of which are located and living in regions. If we remove too many, we will potentially face removing too many licences and unnecessarily taking licences off businesses and families when it is their livelihood. So, it is important that we get the balance right between accurately displacing effort and not unnecessarily removing too many businesses from our fisheries; those businesses are very important to South Australia and to our regions.

We believe we have that balance right. Almost all the other fisheries have moved on and accepted that this is a fair and reasonable way to go. The only people who believe that they warrant special consideration is this northern rock lobster fishery, and, as I said, we simply do not agree with the calculations they have brought to us.

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