Fisheries Management Amendment Bill

Debate resumed from an earlier hour.

Mr SMITH (Bega) [3.29 p.m.]: Honourable members would be aware that fishing is an important industry in my electorate, which has ports in basically every one of its coastal towns. They include Bermagui, which also has a co-operative; Narooma, which has fishing boats; and Batemans Bay. Ulladulla is obviously a large port. This bill will affect many of those fisheries. The objects of the bill are to conserve threatened species, populations and ecological communities of fish and marine vegetation; to make further provision with respect to commercial fisheries management, including to extend fisheries management planning to certain restricted fisheries that are not share management fisheries; to provide for the payment of a fishing fee by recreational freshwater fishers; to establish special fisheries trust funds with respect to fishing fees and other fees and charges collected by New South Wales fisheries; to regulate charter boat fishing; and to make other miscellaneous changes to the Fisheries Management Act.

The bill covers a broad range of matters, but my main concern is about the industry. The Minister is trying to change the name of restricted fisheries to commercial managed fisheries. Even with the name change, it will still be a restricted fishery. When the Fisheries Management Bill was introduced by the former coalition Government there was extensive consultation and the bill was basically accepted not only by fishermen but by everyone in the community. It also received vast support from the conservation movement. The fishing industry, which is always fairly divided, was in favour of it. The Act is now to be amended with share managed fisheries being changed to restricted fisheries, although having another name. The fishermen in my electorate are extremely angry that they will have a restricted fishery but will not be able to negotiate any changes with the Minister. They were happy with the previous legislation. People in the industry are angry that under the provisions of the bill if they leave the industry or the Minister makes changes that would result in their having to leave the industry they will not be compensated. If the Minister believes in the legislation he should try to sell it, because it has not been accepted in my electorate.

The part of the bill which deals with threatened species management was originally included as a result of heads-of-government agreements. The bill provides for the preservation of certain threatened species of fish. It is not specific in regard to the time people can be prosecuted for taking or harming fish. Catching a fish on a line must cause harm to it, but until it is brought to the surface the fisher does not know whether it is a threatened species or not. The Minister will have the final say as to which fish will be included in the schedule of threatened species. Surely that decision should be made by a scientific body rather than by the Minister.

The reintroduction of fees for freshwater fishing will not be well received. The previous Government abolished licence fees in relation to fishing in freshwater streams because it was not an
Page 1867
efficient way to restock streams and dams. The scheme cost about $900,000 to administer, and fisheries inspectors were employed to enforce it. It cost $600,000 to manage the scheme, which left only $300,000 for stocking and rehabilitation of habitat. A licence fee would be a tax on tourism. Inland fishers as well as coastal fishers should be allowed to enjoy their hobby without having to pay fees.

About 50,000 responses were received to the white paper. Fishers should not have to contribute to the proposed special fisheries trust funds through the payment of licence fees and other charges. After a certain sum has been raised, Treasury may decide that it will starve the Minister. The special fisheries funds would be the final point of collection for fees and charges. It was suggested that taxes be imposed on fishing tackle and in that way money could be collected from coastal areas in the long term.

Another aspect of the bill that relates to my electorate is the regulation of charter boats. Over the last few years charter boats have become popular for fishing, whale watching and other recreational pursuits. The Government is now considering extensive regulation, with a licensing and management system. But it has not consulted with charter boat operators in my electorate. Those operators would be in the enviable position of already being in the industry, while it may take others some time before they can operate charter boats. The Government undoubtedly wants to restrict entry into the charter boat industry, but the effect of the regulation of the industry will not be known until the regulations are formulated.

The Opposition will move amendments to some parts of the bill and will oppose other parts because the bill needs to be tightened. Commercial fishermen, who will still be on a restricted fishery, were vehemently pleased about getting a share fishery that would give them security and the option to change or sell out of a fishery, or seek compensation if the Minister took it away without due cause. Fishermen have a lot of money invested in their commercial fishing operations. They need the security of a share managed fishery so that they can trade and, if necessary, seek compensation. They would be far happier if the provision were in the form originally agreed to, and that would also be far better for the resource.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [3.40 p.m.]: In a somewhat circumspect manner I support the Fisheries Management Amendment Bill because it has the right objectives. It has been a week of mixed fortunes for this Government: a good piece of water legislation but a shocking piece of amending environment legislation. This bill has potential but fails in a number of areas. The bill claims to be about the conservation of fish and marine species, and those aims have my full support. The Minister makes reference in his second reading speech to the objects of the bill, which are to conserve fish stocks, threatened species population, ecological communities and so on. The Minister said the bill is meant to complement and mirror the provisions of the Threatened Species Conservation Act. If that were so, I would not now be addressing the House. However, that is not the case. The Minister has missed the opportunity to learn from the Threatened Species Conservation Act for the past two years.

I am a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Threatened Species Conservation Act, which is chaired by the honourable member for East Hills. That Act is working well and the committee has received many submissions, but some areas have difficulties that would justify the inclusion of some provisions contained in the Fisheries Management Amendment Bill. For instance, the committee has heard that the eight-point test is not particularly clear, and that there should be multiple recovery plans rather than single recovery plans when looking at threatened species. The question of resources has been raised time and again. Although the Threatened Species Conservation Act is good, it is underresourced, the park services are underresourced and we are not getting the outcomes.

With this bill the Minister has attempted to mirror the Threatened Species Conservation Act and appears to have fallen into a number of pits. The proposed listing process is an invitation to politicisation. What is and is not listed is a scientific matter. Either a species is threatened and endangered or it is not. It is not a matter for a Minister to make any decision on that. The bill reduces the independence of the listing process and I can see no justification for that. Non-scientific considerations have been introduced into the process; this gives the committee only recommendatory powers and allows the Minister to veto any recommendation. That is an absolute invitation to politicisation. In fact, at one stage the chair of the committee was of the view that the Threatened Species Conservation Act should be amended accordingly. He did not have the support of a number of committee members and I understand he has now retreated from that position.

I have not yet seen the final draft of the report, which I believe seeks to include some role for the Minister. I will not support that. I see no role for the Minister on the question of listing. The Minister is responsible for ensuring that a scientifically credible
Page 1868
and independent process is established to determine the status of aquatic species and populations and ecological needs in New South Wales but not to politicise the process. It is critical that an independent listing process be put in place if the Minister is to avoid conflicts of interest between his marine biological conservation portfolio and his fisheries and minerals export portfolios. It is crucial that only scientific factors be considered. It is not for me, for this Parliament, for the Minister or for his staff to interfere in that process.

The second area in which the Minister has failed to meet the claims in his second reading speech and the expectations I had is that no lists are attached to the bill. I have discussed this with his staff only over a short period of time. I am not convinced that the opportunity was not provided to pick the list out of the Commonwealth Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 as well as from some State statutes and to include the freshwater and marine species contained in the 1996 International Union for the Conservation of Nature - IUCN - Red List. Other listings exist with the Australian Society for Fish Biology and the 1993 Freshwater Fish Action Plan. Lists could be obtained from a number of sources and there are many advantages in following that process. It gives immediate credibility to the legislation and saves resources. What will happen is that significant financial resources will now be needed to develop the list. Also there is a risk that there will be expeditious activity for projects that could escape assessment and could proceed to harm marine biological diversity because the list is not in place.

It is a shame and I cannot understand why the lists were not included. I trust the Minister will provide comprehensive and detailed reasons in his response. The initial listing should also have included marine threatening processes. It does not take any more research to examine processes such as ballast water release. Why not include it? It will be in the list anyway. Key threatening processes have become apparent in the review of the Threatened Species Conservation Act. If I have a criticism of the Act - clarity often comes with hindsight - it is that 600 species are listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act. That list is absolutely enormous and the task of enabling recovery is quite daunting, but developing greater knowledge of key threatening processes will bring much better benefits.

For that reason it is important in amending the Threatened Species Conservation Act to bring more resources to bear against key threatening processes. Certainly there should be clear direction in the protection of fish habitat, species and stocks. However, proposed section 220F(6) says key threatening processes are only eligible for listing if the preparation and implementation of a threat abatement plan is a feasible, effective and efficient way to manage the process. Unfortunately I see that provision as an escape. The key threatening processes can cover a range of species, so if one gets the key threatening processes right one can make a positive impact on the conservation of a range of species. The criterion that a threat abatement plan must be a feasible, effective and efficient way to manage the processes is nonsense and I reject it.

I support this bill, although I am a little uncomfortable about it. Normally I would support legislation only if I was confident that it could be sufficiently amended that the end result would be acceptable. I support this bill on the basis of my understanding that amendments are to be moved in the upper House, with the Government’s support, to bring about some improvement. My comments in this contribution are not made in an attempt to undermine this bill, because I think it is a move in the right direction. The concern I have expressed is genuine. I have a deep commitment to the conservation of threatened species. It breaks my heart every time I see one of those ghastly television documentaries on the vast harvesting and raping of the southern oceans. It is important to start looking now at conserving these species properly and allowing them to survive rather than become extinct. I commend the Government for its approach, but let us get the legislation right, let us learn from what has happened with total allowable catches. I ask the Minister to consider the points I have made, especially in relation to amendments in the upper House.

Mr MARTIN (Port Stephens - Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for Fisheries) [3.51 p.m.], in reply: Amendments will be debated, and the Government will itself move an amendment. I say with all sincerity that the Government is trying to make improvements in the fisheries. The Government is not committed to any one-track, simple system; it is trying to make the fisheries work. The Government’s policies are good policies. The four amendments for threatened species are relatively simple yet they are very important. Extensive consultation, which has been first class, has taken place over a long period. The fisheries management advisory committees have had so much consultation that they are sick of it. The committees want action and the bill gives the ability to take action. So far as the Government is concerned, the amendments to the bill are minor. So far as the
Page 1869
Opposition is concerned, they try to knock out half the bill. I have given a commitment to the management advisory committees that full information will be provided.

I have also said that the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal matter will be transparent. I have vindicated all of the Government’s objectives. This bill is very important because of the need for a stable future. The matters raised by Opposition members are cosmetic. The Opposition contradicted itself all the way, and only one Opposition member spoke in any detail. The honourable member for Bulli, the honourable member for Rockdale, the honourable member for East Hills, the honourable member for Bankstown, the honourable member for Myall Lakes, the honourable member for Coffs Harbour, the honourable member for Bega, the honourable member for Murray and the honourable member for Oxley all spoke from the heart, but some do not understand the issue. I felt sorry for the honourable member for Myall Lakes as he struggled with logistics, his mathematics and his arguments generally on the recreational freshwater fishing fee.

The Opposition has failed to grasp the big picture on the positives of the inland fishing fee. Worse still, it steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the proven support for that proposal. Seventy-five per cent of respondents favoured the discussion paper. Two previous surveys enjoyed similar levels of support, at 84 per cent and 69 per cent. There is no evidence of community unhappiness with the bill, there has been no strong backlash. As I said when speaking to the exposure draft of the bill in June this year, having flagged the legislation extensively across the State and over the airwaves in every direction, the recreational freshwater fishing fee comes as a result of pressure from the inland fishing fraternity. Fishers want the fees brought back so that the rivers can be stocked and recreational fishing in New South Wales improved. Fishing families will not regard the recreational fishing fee as a tax but as a way of improving recreational fishing. Given the comments made by the honourable member for Myall Lakes, the shadow minister for fisheries, I draw attention to comments made by the honourable member for Monaro on Bega 2BA radio news at 12.30 p.m. on 29 October:

There’s no question that there is a great willingness amongst the recreational fishermen to pay the $25 licence fee in freshwater fishing.

What a contradiction! I should be happy to table the transcript from radio station Bega 2BA should honourable members require that. The Government is doing a great deal to improve tourism in and the wellbeing of the Monaro area. The world fly-fishing championships are being staged in that area and my department has been of great assistance to the fly-fishing organisation, an independent body. Some Opposition members have spoken against the recreational freshwater fishing fee, while others have spoken in support of it. There is a bit of a game going on, but underneath it is realised that the fee is a good move. The upper House review, which came down only this week, contains a recommendation for an inland fishing fee.

Mr J. H. Turner: What does it say about share managed fisheries?

Mr MARTIN: I note that members on that committee from all sides of the Parliament - and I have read much of the evidence available, including evidence taken from witnesses - support this issue.

Mr J. H. Turner: On a point of order. It is my understanding that the report has been recommitted in the upper House, and the Minister should not be speaking about it.

Mr MARTIN: On the point of order. That report has been tabled in the upper House, so I can speak about it as much as I like.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister may continue.

Mr MARTIN: I am able to scotch all criticism of inadequate consultation on an inland fishing fee. Fifty thousand discussion papers were sent out; public notices featured prominently in major regional newspapers; radio stations carried lengthy stories; I took part in many radio interviews during the consultation period, as did Opposition members; and reminders were issued to the news media at the approach of the closing date. As much publicity and consultation occurred as was possible given the constraints on resources, and it was extensive. There is no doubt that support for the proposal attracted the figures cited by the Government. The figures show overwhelming support. They show a keenness to rid our waterways of pests, to increase habitat protection, to increase stocks of protected threatened species and to have more research. The public knows that the Government will honour its commitment by placing the fees in a special trust fund.

The money will be used wisely, in consultation with my advisory council on recreational fishing. I give that commitment once again: the fee will be spent on new services for the good of our freshwater fisheries and better fishing opportunities for New South Wales anglers. Let me go back to what the
Page 1870
honourable member for Murray said. He said that when the coalition was in office the Leader of the National Party wiped the inland angling fee. Treasury was bereft - because it was going into consolidated revenue and not into a trust account as the Government is proposing. The honourable member for Murray said that $700,000 was placed in a special trust account, straight from Treasury, to replace the licence fee. He let the cat out of the bag. That did not happen because the previous Government was on a swindle. That is something we have to live with and that is why the community wants a fair go for recreational fishing. There is a need to improve our recreational fishing and the fee will be a step in the right direction. The Government will prove it, because the fee will be shown to be fair. I note that the honourable member for Myall Lakes raised the issue of the saltwater fishing licence. While it might be seen as his demon, it is not ours. Such a licence is recommended by the recent report of the standing committee that is made up of members of the conservative benches.

Mr J. H. Turner: The report went so far that they would not allow a dissenting report to be included.

Mr MARTIN: You had an opportunity to submit a dissenting report and you did not do it. Do not whinge; all you can do is whinge. Let me make it very clear that so far as the saltwater licence is concerned one should introduce legislation when one can enhance marine fisheries. We now have breeding techniques by which we can enhance inland fisheries of this State and that is why the Government is doing it. Let us not get too funny about it. With regard to the charter boat industry I table two letters that I received following lengthy meetings between the shadow spokesperson and myself.

Mr J. H. Turner: On a point of order. I would like to know who the letters are from and the date they bear.

Mr MARTIN: I will place them on the table for perusal. One letter is from Bert Elswick and one is from Jim Booth. They state very clearly that there is division in the charter boat industry about whether it should or should not be licensed. I am keen to protect the fish. If, in order to score a cheap political point, irresponsible members on either side of the House think laissez faire is the order of the day, so be it, but the people of New South Wales will see through that. There has been lengthy consultation. It started well before May, but in May this year a letter was sent to every charter boat owner. Meetings were held at various places along the coast of New South Wales. Subsequent letters were sent in October and, if honourable members wish me to do so, I will table those letters at any time. In addition, there has been extensive communication.

The main problem is the division in the charter boat industry about whether or not the industry should be licensed. The alternative would be that I will have to employ regulatory techniques to protect fish stocks. This is a much better way of doing it, and I am sure that the fishing fraternity will realise that. There has been no cohesion in the Opposition, particularly in regard to threatened species legislation. The shadow minister for the environment said one thing, the honourable member for Bega was diametrically opposed to that, and the honourable member for Coffs Harbour supported my view.

Mr J. H. Turner: I think the honourable member for Bega was confused at the time.

Mr MARTIN: I am sure he was confused at the time. I am sure he is confused most of the time, and I am glad the honourable member interjected to tell me. I could make a number of comments about this legislation, but it is important to consider who contributed to the debate on this major legislation. So far as Booma fishery is concerned, when one starts dealing with threatened species it is like trading in koalas. I make it clear that the reason for the different approach to threatened species is because threatened fisheries species are quite different from other threatened species. Most terrestrial species are highly fecund, that is, they produce thousands or millions of eggs each spawning, as opposed to koalas and kangaroos which produce a single progeny. Terrestrial species generally do not move vast distances whereas fish can move all over the place. Some fish, such as the groper, live for a long time. All these things together mean that fish and fish habitat are fundamentally different to threatened species.

I draw the attention of the House to three species. The north coast cod was down to a few hundred. Now there are thousands or hundreds of thousands as a result of work done in the hatcheries. Millions of trout cod, thought to be getting very close to the brink, are now being bred. It is the same thing in regard to silver perch. Our recovery techniques are different and that is why we cannot use existing legislation. I know honourable members want to debate this issue at length and I look forward to being able to say a lot more at the Committee stage on another day. I think it is important that I conclude my remarks by saying that the contribution to the debate by the honourable member for East Hills has given us great food for
Page 1871
thought. I have taken on board the honourable member’s comments and when the legislation goes to another place those matters can be discussed. Members of the Opposition are attempting to excuse themselves for not understanding these four pieces of fundamental legislation. We will deal with the remainder at the Committee stage. I thank all members who have contributed to the debate and I assure the House that the will on this side of the House is to have a better fishery and more fish, not only for the present generation but for future generations. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and committed.

Progress reported from Committee and leave granted to sit again.