- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 3 March 2005
Mr And Mrs Bui Fishing Infringement Notices
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 31 of 42
| Next Item »
Page: 14573
Ministerial Statement
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries) [2.45 p.m.]: I wish to make a short ministerial statement to respond to claims made in the other place by the honourable member for Liverpool on 1 March 2005. I should say at the outset that I do not generally comment on individual grievances. However, the comments were incorrect on a number of points, so it is important that I set the record straight. The member's comments related to two of his constituents who were issued with an infringement notice on 5 February 2004 by New South Wales Fisheries because they were fishing on the Parramatta River in an area which is closed to recreational angling. I am also advised that they were in possession of a large number of fish taken illegally, and that a number of those fish were of a prohibited size.
This is not a new fishing closure; in fact, it has been in place for 25 years. As with many of our closures, it is a sensible precaution designed to protect human safety, as there are concerns surrounding higher than normal levels of heavy metals in the water. Even with regular monitoring the closure remains in place to ensure that public safety is given the highest priority, which is of paramount importance. I am advised that there was clear and adequate signage in the vicinity of the closure to alert the general public to the fact that fishing is not permitted. This included a sign at the entrance of Homebush Bay on Rodd Point and other signs throughout the park. However, I am also advised that statements given by the Fisheries officers involved claimed that the couple in question accessed the river through a hole in a fence which had been erected around private property.
The honourable member for Liverpool also referred to a third person who accompanied the couple in question. I am advised that the Infringement Processing Bureau referred a written representation from this third person on 23 February 2004 to New South Wales Fisheries, as it then was, which exercised its discretion and withdrew the penalty notice, on the basis that he was a senior citizen. The third person was advised by the Infringement Processing Bureau, by letter dated 3 May 2004, that the matter pertaining to his representations had been withdrawn. The member claimed that the couple approached him after receiving their Fisheries infringement notice, as they are entitled to do. This is a reasonable course of action and I regularly receive representations from local members who have been approached on similar issues.
The member made representations to the Treasurer on 25 February. I am advised that Mr Egan referred the matter to the Infringement Processing Bureau and a response was issued to the member by Mr Graham West, Parliamentary Secretary, advising him that the penalties stand. The member then made further representations to the Treasurer on 10 May. There is no record of any representations being made by the member to me, as the Minister for Primary Industries responsible for fisheries in New South Wales, relating to the couple on either 25 February or 8 June 2004. Instead, it was the Infringement Processing Bureau that took the step of bringing the issue to my attention when it referred the matter to me on 7 October 2004. I immediately instructed my department to investigate the matter and provide advice.
Within five weeks the investigation was completed. On 15 November I wrote to the member advising him of, and enclosing, the findings signed by Ms Renata Brooks, Executive Director Biosecurity, Compliance and Mine Safety, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. It is and has been an established practice for many years for the department to investigate and make decisions on such matters. I am confident that the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries has been professional and thorough at all times in its treatment of this case. The matter was handled entirely appropriately when it was brought to my attention by the Infringement Processing Bureau, for the first time, on 7 October last year.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [2.49 p.m.]: I thank the Minister's staff for letting me know that the Minister was to make a ministerial statement to address a matter raised by a member of Parliament yesterday in the lower House. I had no further information. My research following that advice revealed that the only matter that could be the subject of a ministerial statement was one which the Minister's Labor Party colleague Mr Lynch had raised the previous day. I now know from the Minister's statement that that is so. It would be unfair if the Minister's statement was not put in context, and to address that I will place on record part of what was said in the lower House. Mr Lynch, the Labor member for Liverpool, said:
One is inclined to speculate that some bureaucrat has decided to punish Mr and Mrs Bui for having the temerity to raise the issue with a local MP. Alternatively, someone has decided to placate their animus against me by punishing my constituents—or it may just be bureaucratic stupidity and bloody-mindedness. Needless to say, when I became aware of the position I made some fairly enthusiastic further representations. My letter, which was sent by facsimile, was dated 8 June 2004. I requested a response by return mail. I did not receive a substantive response for five months. The eventual response was from Minister Ian Macdonald, dated 15 November 2004 and received in my office on 17 November. There are a number of interesting features about the response. First and obviously, it was five months late.
Anyone who deals with the Minister would not be surprised. Mr Lynch continued:
Second, the Minister simply attached a letter from the agency, the Department of Primary Industries. There was no separate assessment by the Minister's office of the issue involved. Third, the department's response comprehensively fails to confront the central issue raised in my April representations: why were similar cases treated so differently?
This comes not from a Coalition member, but from a Labor member in the lower House. Mr Lynch went on to say:
Perhaps there is some massive distinction between these cases, but if so, none of the official responses are able to identify it. More likely, it is about bureaucratic arrogance and ministerial indifference.
I remind the House that this comes not from one of ours, but one of theirs. Mr Lynch continued:
The other interesting issue from the Minister's letter was that the Minister asserted that the fines had been paid. In fact, they have not. So apart from all the other issues, there is some real question about who is keeping records and what is being paid and what is not. I would ask someone in the Minister's office, or the Minister, to have a proper look at this. What has happened is an absolute outrage.
[Time expired.]
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:41:51 : Update this page