Fisheries Management Amendment Bill 2006
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I speak on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party in debate on the Fisheries Management Amendment Bill, the object of which is to amend the Fisheries Management Act 1994 to make further provision with respect to the management of fishery resources. The bill makes a gamut of minor changes to the Fisheries Management Act ranging from provisions dealing with endorsements on local fishing licences to other provisions relating to the levying of management charges and contributions. The rationale of the bill is to ensure consistency in administrative arrangements across share management, restricted fisheries and the charter boat fisheries frameworks whenever possible.
Most if not all the provisions of this bill deal with a range of discretionary rather than directive provisions or prescriptions rather than descriptive provisions. This means that provisions in the bill will be used to either extend or limit the scope of current regulation-making powers under the Fisheries Management Act 1994. Most importantly, the majority of the provisions relating to share management, restricted fisheries and recreational charter boat fisheries will not commence until the regulations to which they refer have been drafted, consulted upon and revised wherever necessary. There must be full transparency and consultation on such issues. This consultation is likely to proceed in the next couple of months.
Unfortunately the stage already has been reached at which many people within the industry have come to their own conclusions and are very aggressive in their attitudes towards the Government and the department. The fishers in the abalone industry are extremely angry and the fishers whom I met from Sydney Harbour likewise are angry. Some have been able to obtain compensation, but others cannot shift to fishing grounds outside Sydney Heads. The department does not seem to recognise the difference between fishing inside the harbour and fishing outside the harbour. As a result the support for those who now have to fish outside the harbour is quite inadequate. They require different boats and different gear. Some of them have hundreds and thousands of dollars worth of unusable nets in their backyards because they cannot use outside the heads.
The Parliamentary Secretary’s speech in the other place indicated that the relevant management advisory committees were consulted on aspects of the deal and on any issues that had to be carefully considered during drafting of the legislation. I trust that those consultations were conducted in all the areas that directly impinge upon the work of the communities. The compulsory buyout of Sydney Harbour fishers has been good for some of the older men to whom I spoke. They indicated they wanted to retire from the business anyway. In a sense, they received a golden handshake.
But those who are not at the point of retirement have found that their businesses have been undervalued and they have little scope for the future. I recognise that the Government has faced a great deal of difficulty in the whole aquaculture area: oyster pollution, dioxin in Homebush Bay and Sydney Harbour, and rogues who have pirated abalone. Those issues require really good management, fairly aggressive inspection, and the upholding of the law. Additionally the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Seafood Industry Advisory Council were afforded an opportunity to review the contents of the bill.
The notion of share management fisheries was introduced with the Fisheries Management Act 1994. Under that type of management arrangement, fishing business owners are allocated a ride in the fishery by way of shares. As with any shares, they are tradable. For access to a community resource shareholders must pay a levy that is credited directly to consolidated revenue and is known as a community contribution. That levy is in addition to any management charges that are imposed on the fishery. As fishers own an asset by way of a share they are encouraged to be effective stewards of the resource they have bought into. As the honourable member for Bankstown said in the second reading debate:
Fishing business owners have a major role in ensuring the future of their industry and are integral in developing the fishery management plans.
Under the Fisheries Management Act of 1994, commercial fishing is generally managed under arrangements known as category 1 share management. The bill introduces a number of amendments that facilitate the final stage of share management for key commercial fisheries, being the implementation of share management plans and the issue of final shares in 2006-07. In share management fisheries, fishing activity can take place only in accordance with an endorsement, being the type of statutory authorisation that allows a fisher to participate in a specific fishery. That authorisation may prescribe a number of conditions to be adhered to when fishing in such an area.
The bill amends endorsement arrangements. In particular it provides for things such as the issue and holding of endorsements, the ability to revoke, vary or add conditions attached to an endorsement, and the recording of particulars of endorsement in a share register. One seemingly minor but important amendment to be made by share management plan regulations currently being negotiated relate to the way an endorsement is modified. Currently, any change in an endorsement requires a licence to be updated because the endorsement is actually recorded on the licence. However, modification of an endorsement entails sending the licence to the department for amendment and reissue. As was pointed out in the second reading speech, this is “bureaucratic and cumbersome”. The proposed regulations envisage a more flexible system for changing endorsements. Endorsements will be removed from individual fishing licences and placed on a separate card.
Several amendments relate to conditions of endorsement in share management and restricted fisheries. Endorsements are subject to conditions, as listed on each commercial fishing licences. A similar process exists in changing endorsement conditions as applies to changing endorsement holders. But, endorsement conditions will be reflected in share management plans. Where a change in an endorsement condition is made it will be implemented immediately by notice in writing, pending the necessary regulatory change. A penalty of 100 penalty units, currently equivalent to $11,000, will apply to a contravention of an endorsement condition. The bill makes some changes to the way that management charges and annual contributions are levied. The Parliamentary Secretary said in the second reading speech in the Legislative Assembly that there is to be no increase in revenue from those charges. He said:
The commercial fishing industry, like other primary industries, is under considerable financial pressure as a result of the drought, rising fuel costs—
which is a major issue facing fishers—
and fluctuating market prices as well as longstanding structural problems.
I add that rogue abalone divers are wrecking the abalone fishers who pay their licences but are not protected by aggressive and ever-present inspectors. Nevertheless, because of the commercial nature of the environment, the Government has said, “It is only fair that all business owners pay their share of management costs.” Time has been given to business owners to pay their current dues without penalty. A number of working groups have been formed by the Seafood Industry Advisory Council to help the council focus on key issues faced by the industry, including groups to look at pricing and industry charges for a range of government services.
A couple of salient changes to the regime are that the bill requires that those costs be paid by the fishing business owners, the owners of shares and restricted fisheries endorsements, rather than the licensed commercial fishers, who fish under the endorsement and who, in some cases, are merely employees. A payment of management charges and annual contributions will apply irrespective of whether the fishing business owner actively chooses to fish or to hold their endorsement in abeyance. That is a commonsense change. Builders are required to pay for their licences irrespective of whether there is a slump in the housing market. It seems logical that fishing business owners should be placed in a similar situation. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
… the existing provisions are inequitable because the full-time operators subsidise those who choose not to activate the business but could do so at any time, subsequently benefiting from any new management initiatives.
Further, management charges will be structured in such a way to encourage diversification. Single management charges will be payable for more than one share management fishery and for a single management charge to apply to a single fishing business, subject to the management plan adopting such provisions. An annual contribution will be payable on restricted fisheries. Annual contributions for restricted fisheries and charter boat fisheries will replace existing endorsements and activity-based charges. Accordingly, new contributions payable will replace current contributions; they will not be additional charges. Further, the bill will allocate those annual contributions for the purpose for which they are collected.
Currently commercial fishers and charter boat operators are obliged to submit records on such matters as the quantity and species of fish caught, fishing methods, and whether they are employed in harvesting fish. Records are required to be provided on a monthly basis. Obviously such information is vital in assessing the level of fish stocks and providing data for decision making. The bill provides for amendments relating to the making, keeping and submission of fishing activity records in the commercial and charter boat fisheries. It will be an offence for a commercial fisher or charter fishing master to fail to make and submit a record of his fishing activity to his employer. It is clear that fishing business owners have a legitimate interest in knowing how much catch the business has generated, particularly if they are considering selling their business or refinancing their business.
The bill makes miscellaneous amendments, which I will not go through exhaustively. Item [35] of schedule 1 to the bill amends the savings provisions relating to the Share Appeal Panel. The purpose of that amendment is to ensure, among other things, that appeals are efficiently and fairly dealt with. The bill makes a small change in the description of the ocean trawl fishery, to provide for the use of a Danish seine trawl net. An important amendment relates to the issue of permits for fish auctions for charitable purposes, being any benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic purpose. Advice received indicates that an amendment of the section of the Act dealing with the issue of permits is required to allow for those types of auctions. The issue of specific permits for charitable purposes is provided by item [5].
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the New South Wales Fish Marketing Authority. Honourable members may not know what happens to fish seized by inspectors from fishers who have poached them, or kept undersized catch, or who have been involved in illegal catches, such as abalone. In 1993 I built four larger freezers at the Wesley Mission in Pitt Street, Sydney. The Fish Marketing Authority phones the mission and arranges to deliver tonnes of fresh fish to the mission which, in turn, contacts the major charities in Sydney. As a result the homeless and the hungry eat well. I acknowledge and thank the Fish Marketing Authority for the way it has served the hungry and homeless of Sydney so well for so many years.
In the context of fish auctions, amendments were made in relation to the way fish are kept and how fish must be suitable for human consumption. The Christian Democratic Party commends the bill to the House.